[gulex]

Well, i thought it'd be interesting to see this board is mainly rightist, leftist or a mix thereof.


I'll start.

Im Far left, i guess thats a family thing, most of my family would fit no further right in above poll than 'Left'.

Pro Cuba, USSR and all that. Anyway, let the voting begin!

This post has been edited by gulex: 25 July 2009 - 11:30 AM

[Raymond Luxury Yacht]

This could get ugly. Everyone keep it polite, please. It's a thread polling what we are, not a place to argue which ideology is superior.

I am left. If I get around some super hippies they think I'm conservative, if I get around conservatives they think I'm a hippy. In truth, it's left but not way left.

[Aptorian]

I don't really have an idea of where I am on the political spectrum.

I'm conservative of mind but that doesn't mean that I might vote conservative since I don't often agree with the conservative party here in Denmark.

I'm a little bit of everything and as such I don't really like the democratic political system.

I would be more impressed if the political parties were disbanded and new "intrest groups" were instated in the government. A Lazy Student Party, And Old Grumpy Seniors Party, A Rich Assholes with Coke Habit Party, etc. I know, I know, it's a hopeless idea, but I really don't care for parties that tries to cover the whole spectrum and makes promises to everyone and then end up letting most people down. I want small parties, with a cause they believe in and want to work hard for. Not just carreer politicians who've become masters of compromise that worry more about their 3 month summer vacation and what kind of bottled mineral water they're serving at the meetings.

I ended up voting slightly right, because I'm getting grumpier and less empressed with socialisme the older I get.

[gulex]

Ouh yes i forgot. This has the potential to turn really ugly, but i really hope people will keep it clean.


Aptorian: I'm from Denmark too, im guessing you voted for Venstre then?.

Both my mother and my sister voted Enhedslisten at last election, my father voted SF. A really socialist family lol.

You're quite right about the politicians nowadays, most politicians don't care about actual political progress. They view politics as a line of work, and not a calling, and thats basically what messes up our society i think.
One may or many not agree with what people like Fidel Castro, Che and now Hugo Chavez is doing. But one thing is certain, they all view/viewed politics as a calling and not a line of work.

This post has been edited by gulex: 25 July 2009 - 11:46 AM

[Aptorian]

Enhedslisten and SF... good lord! Damn hippies!

I wouldn't vote for Venstre. Before I was still angry with Anders Fogh because he is the only Political leader in the "Coalition against Evil" who refused to admit that we went into the war against Iraq based on unsubstantiated facts. Nobody in their right mind who watched that old TV broadcast where Cheny and co showed all those weapons manufacturer and bio weapon plants, really believed there were WMD in Iraq. Fogh just followed Bush because he wanted to play with the big boys. No doubt he's the best leader Denmark has had in Generations, I respect what he's accomplished, but I think he should have been forced to retire over the way the handled that Iraq mess.

As for Lars Løkke, I like him as a person, but I wouldn't let that guy sell me a used car, let alone run the country. I can't wait for the next election so we can get that incompetent, sneaky bastard out of office. The guy is everything that is wrong with the liberal faction.

The past 7 years I've been voting blank. Participating, but I don't believe in any of the parties and I don't want any of them to have my vote.

This post has been edited by Aptorian: 25 July 2009 - 11:56 AM

[Wickan warlock]

I'm on the far left of current British politics but also a libertarian and pragmatically a social democrat.

Quote

From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs!

The question always is. How many lives is a revolution worth?

I would like John McDonnell MP, chair of the Labour Representation Committee, to be Prime Minister.

...

I recommend people should read Ursula K. Le Guin's "The Dispossessed"

[gulex]

Wickan warlock, on Jul 25 2009, 04:26 PM, said:

I'm on the far left of current British politics but also a libertarian and pragmatically a social democrat.

Quote

From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs!

The question always is. How many lives is a revolution worth?

I would like John McDonnell MP, chair of the Labour Representation Committee, to be Prime Minister.

...

I recommend people should read Ursula K. Le Guin's "The Dispossessed"

Now thats a question i think (although it sounds cold and cynical as ****) can be answered quite mathematically.

For example if one takes the Cuban revolution, when compared to the mass of people living on Cuba. Its revolution was relatively blodless.
On the other hand the Russian revolution was very bloody, and i think it may have gone bad in the Stalin-era. But i really do not know enough about the man to judge him, i think one should keep an open mind. And people tend not to do that with Stalin, for what i know he was a mass murderer, but we have to acknowledge that that interpretation of him is given to us by the western media, a very biased entity.

To come back on track, i think the lives lost during the Red terror was mostly neccessary, and i can understand Lenins goals with it. It was neccesary to purge the country of capitalists who would try to overthrow the new communist government. (that being an oxymoron since communism is in essence stateless)
I on the other hand think Stalin went way out of hand with his mass purges of the Red Army. He also killed most of the bolsheviks who had practicipated in the revolution (one may refer to these as aboriginals of the revolution lol).

Above was in many ways a quite unneccesary rant. But the point i'm trying to get across, is that sometimes its worth it, other times it isn't. A true revolution is always worth the blood, almost no matter the cost. But the meaningless purges of millions of innocent people cannot be justified no matter the goal.

[HoosierDaddy]

I voted "Left." However, that is a global description. In America, I'm FAR Left.

[Shinrei]

"Right".

But I'm a weird amalgation of what constitutes "left" and "right" in the US.

I'm pro-environment, pro-choice and think W. Bush was possibly the worst president in US history.

I'm also anti government intervention in our lives and believe as Thatcher says that the problem with Socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money.

[HoosierDaddy]

What Shin is trying to say is that he's a commie.

[Sixty]

I voted center, because I'm, well, fairly moderate. Slightly socially liberal / fiscally conservative, although there are a plenty of things both sides believe in that I either don't care for or disagree with outright.

[Sindriss]

Voted left. Also, have to concur with Apt. Lars løkke have to go, immediately! We haven't even had the chance to vote him or not, he just became the standin when our previous leader, Anders Fogh took the job as NATO secretary.

[Astra]

Right here.

[Terez]

HoosierDaddy, on Jul 25 2009, 09:50 AM, said:

I voted "Left." However, that is a global description. In America, I'm FAR Left.

Ditto.

[HoosierDaddy]

gulex, on Jul 25 2009, 10:46 AM, said:

Wickan warlock, on Jul 25 2009, 04:26 PM, said:

I'm on the far left of current British politics but also a libertarian and pragmatically a social democrat.

Quote

From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs!

The question always is. How many lives is a revolution worth?

I would like John McDonnell MP, chair of the Labour Representation Committee, to be Prime Minister.

...

I recommend people should read Ursula K. Le Guin's "The Dispossessed"

Now thats a question i think (although it sounds cold and cynical as ****) can be answered quite mathematically.

For example if one takes the Cuban revolution, when compared to the mass of people living on Cuba. Its revolution was relatively blodless.
On the other hand the Russian revolution was very bloody, and i think it may have gone bad in the Stalin-era. But i really do not know enough about the man to judge him, i think one should keep an open mind. And people tend not to do that with Stalin, for what i know he was a mass murderer, but we have to acknowledge that that interpretation of him is given to us by the western media, a very biased entity.

To come back on track, i think the lives lost during the Red terror was mostly neccessary, and i can understand Lenins goals with it. It was neccesary to purge the country of capitalists who would try to overthrow the new communist government. (that being an oxymoron since communism is in essence stateless)
I on the other hand think Stalin went way out of hand with his mass purges of the Red Army. He also killed most of the bolsheviks who had practicipated in the revolution (one may refer to these as aboriginals of the revolution lol).

Above was in many ways a quite unneccesary rant. But the point i'm trying to get across, is that sometimes its worth it, other times it isn't. A true revolution is always worth the blood, almost no matter the cost. But the meaningless purges of millions of innocent people cannot be justified no matter the goal.

Keeping this polite. But, am I the only one who read this and found it... slightly disturbing?

This post has been edited by HoosierDaddy: 26 July 2009 - 03:53 AM

[Obdigore]

HoosierDaddy, on Jul 25 2009, 10:39 PM, said:

gulex, on Jul 25 2009, 10:46 AM, said:

Wickan warlock, on Jul 25 2009, 04:26 PM, said:

I'm on the far left of current British politics but also a libertarian and pragmatically a social democrat.

Quote

From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs!

The question always is. How many lives is a revolution worth?

I would like John McDonnell MP, chair of the Labour Representation Committee, to be Prime Minister.

...

I recommend people should read Ursula K. Le Guin's "The Dispossessed"

Now thats a question i think (although it sounds cold and cynical as ****) can be answered quite mathematically.

For example if one takes the Cuban revolution, when compared to the mass of people living on Cuba. Its revolution was relatively blodless.
On the other hand the Russian revolution was very bloody, and i think it may have gone bad in the Stalin-era. But i really do not know enough about the man to judge him, i think one should keep an open mind. And people tend not to do that with Stalin, for what i know he was a mass murderer, but we have to acknowledge that that interpretation of him is given to us by the western media, a very biased entity.

To come back on track, i think the lives lost during the Red terror was mostly neccessary, and i can understand Lenins goals with it. It was neccesary to purge the country of capitalists who would try to overthrow the new communist government. (that being an oxymoron since communism is in essence stateless)
I on the other hand think Stalin went way out of hand with his mass purges of the Red Army. He also killed most of the bolsheviks who had practicipated in the revolution (one may refer to these as aboriginals of the revolution lol).

Above was in many ways a quite unneccesary rant. But the point i'm trying to get across, is that sometimes its worth it, other times it isn't. A true revolution is always worth the blood, almost no matter the cost. But the meaningless purges of millions of innocent people cannot be justified no matter the goal.

Keeping this polite. But, am I the only one who read this and found it... slightly disturbing?

No no, mass murdering anyone who disagrees with you is just keeping an open mind.

[HoosierDaddy]

Keeping the thread polite is one thing, but... I'm AMAZED no one pointed this out earlier.

[Terez]

HoosierDaddy, on Jul 25 2009, 10:39 PM, said:

Keeping this polite. But, am I the only one who read this

Yes.

[HoosierDaddy]

Terez, on Jul 26 2009, 01:00 AM, said:

HoosierDaddy, on Jul 25 2009, 10:39 PM, said:

Keeping this polite. But, am I the only one who read this

Yes.

That makes me feel better, since no one commented. I didn't read it when I first posted. It took a re-read. At which point my eyebrows just about went into orbit, and my jaw nearly found China.

[Terez]

It was definitely confusing. The last bit seems to contradict the disturbing bits, though. Perhaps it was just badly worded. This person is a Dane, right?