[Rhubarb]

Yes it does, lefty IS liberal.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No it fucking isn't. Most true American lefties will only choose Liberal because they're the alternative to Republicans, assuming they decide to vote at all. Liberal party doesn't really hold a great deal of true left-wing values, or even true liberal values in the original sense of the word. It's the dilemma of a two-party system. The party professing to be on your side might be full of twats, but if you don't vote for them, it's "throwing your vote away".

Also, in my country, the Liberal party is the rightwingers. It's Labour who's more left-oriented. And I support the Greens, for what little good they do. Labour can go to hell, they way it's run at the moment.

[Jordan]

Slavery was a small aspect of the Civil War. Why does every one think it was the main cause.

[Hari Seldon]

Slavery was a small aspect of the Civil War.  Why does every one think it was the main cause.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This might be a bit off topic, but since it was mentioned... indulge me.

In the USA there are actually only 2 official parties for you to vote? The Republicans and the Democrats?
Or are there any other smallish parties you don't hear about in the news?
If there are only 2... why is that?

Thanks for the patience.

[Rhubarb]

Umm... there are lots of 'smallish' parties, but it's so obvious to absolutely everyone that either the Repubs or the Demos will win that not many people bother voting for the others in the capacity of official leadership. Hence the two-party system. The other smallish parties can get senate seats though.

[Ham Salad]

the black uzi carrying homey gangstas of LA should drive down to KKK town and gun thos biggot fuckers down instead of each other...

that's the real problem with the US, all the fire power, and no direction.

that law is the most fucked up thing i have ever heard.

it was one thing when the government was pushing us around and forcing us to move, but franchises?!?

I AM NOT TAKING A BULLET FOR McDONALDS, WALMART, K-MART, KFC, OR NEVERLAND OR ANYOTHER RICH ASSHOLE AND NIETHER SHOULD ANYONE ELSE...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think Walmart is being used as an example, and a tired one at that. Actually, most of the cases involve hotels, malls, and re-development (i.e. new and more expensive homes) because poor people shouldn't have prime property.
Also, the homey gangstas should drive down to the "kkk town" and band together to take out these corporate and bureacratic freedom killers. After all, the real battle is the rich vs. the poor, the rich like it better when the poor are battling amongst themselves.
We are being robbed of our rights, and are too busy buying shit to take notice...

Ayn,
WHO THE HELL IS JOHN GAULT????????????

[Ham Salad]

Does anyone actually know what the law is? Like, for example, who is the government evicting? Can they evict, say, a guy who owns a house on that piece of land? Because that sounds crazy. And why did the Supreme Court make the decision it made? Presumably they had some reason or supposed rationale, however dubious.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

In San Diego they evicted (and still are) homes and businesses in a poorer part of the city to build a stadium and hotels. I remember a story from way back where an old man holed up in house and took fire on the evictors, he was eventually killed himself, but he didn't sell-out or give up. He deserves a goddam statue.

[barend]

I think Walmart is being used as an example, and a tired one at that.  Actually, most of the cases involve hotels, malls, and re-development (i.e. new and more expensive homes) because poor people shouldn't have prime property. 
Also, the homey gangstas should drive down to the "kkk town" and band together to take out these corporate and bureacratic freedom killers. After all, the real battle is the rich vs. the poor, the rich like it better when the poor are battling amongst themselves.
We are being robbed of our rights, and are too busy buying shit to take notice...

Ayn,
WHO THE HELL IS JOHN GAULT????????????

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

in fact an office high rise was the first to take out a bunch of homes...

i was just making a point.

franchises are an easy an convienient target. but i think it less a crime that i genralise and use walmarts name in a smear than the crime the large private businesses are commiting of forcing people out of their homes.

--------------------------------

the main reasoning behind the descision is that they are moving people out of the way (crushing underfoot) to improve the economy.

WHO'S FUCKING ECONOMY. the consumers who just became homeless? I'm sorry supreme court, who am i to question your generous and tough choice to provide employment oportunities to an area you just evicted?!?

[Renegade]

No it fucking isn't. Most true American lefties will only choose Liberal because they're the alternative to Republicans, assuming they decide to vote at all. Liberal party doesn't really hold a great deal of true left-wing values, or even true liberal values in the original sense of the word. It's the dilemma of a two-party system. The party professing to be on your side might be full of twats, but if you don't vote for them, it's "throwing your vote away".

Also, in my country, the Liberal party is the rightwingers. It's Labour who's more left-oriented. And I support the Greens, for what little good they do. Labour can go to hell, they way it's run at the moment.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's not the point.. Left by definition is liberal. Like I said, the USA Democrats may not be liberal OR lefty in your opinion but the terms lefty/liberal are interchangable.

[Renegade]

This might be a bit off topic, but since it was mentioned... indulge me.

In the USA there are actually only 2 official parties for you to vote? The Republicans and the Democrats?
Or are there any other smallish parties you don't hear about in the news?
If there are only 2... why is that?

Thanks for the patience.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Basically its always been like this. There is numerous reasons why. First off, we have a all or nothing type election, so for example, if in a state someone gets 49.9% and the other gets 50.1%, the person with 50.1% gets the seat and the other person/party gets nothing. Where as in europe the system is mostly proportional representation, where the % the party gets, is the number of represenatives u get in parliament. So, here its a lot harder for small parties to get into power in the senate/congress because they HAVE to get a majority in a given state. Presidents is hard because generally when a 3rd party (or more) get involved, the other two main parties just leech off the small issues of the 3rd party and incorporate it into there own to remove the threat of extra parties. Also two parties is just more efficient here, for example in congress if you want to have a majority to pass a bill, its just easier for the congress to be divided into two parties so that you can get things passed without gridlock. All in all there are goods and bads for 2 party system.. i think its pretty good for stability but shit for making a big change the other two don't want to do.

[Rhubarb]

That's not the point.. Left by definition is liberal. Like I said, the USA Democrats may not be liberal OR lefty in your opinion but the terms lefty/liberal are interchangable.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I can only assume that you're talking about the dictionary definition of the word 'liberal', and not in fact the political definition, because otherwise your previous post makes absolutely no sense. However, if you did in fact mean the dictionary definition, then your first post on the subject makes absolutely no sense.

[Slade]

It also depends on the era you're in. What's considered liberal today is entirely different from say the 1800s. Liberals by those standards are libertarians today.

I am a lefty and liberal. Never been able to write with my right hand, or stomach all of the blatantly self-serving ideologies of the right-wing.

[Rhubarb]

Slade - This is my point. Just because you hate rightwing values doesn't mean you're automatically a liberal, in the current context in the US. The meaning of the label is being changed all the time. Leftwing people are not liberals by default and vice versa. Kerry is held as liberal, but I'd hardly call him leftwing... he's just more leftwing than Bush is, although that's not exactly difficult since a cabbage is more leftwing than Bush is. My definition of a true leftwinger is someone a hell of a lot more radical than any 'liberal' politician. I think most liberals, as the word commonly stands, would spurn me as too leftwing for their standards.

[Hari Seldon]

(...)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ah. The all-or-nothing thing...
Then it makes sense not to have other parties running for the elections.

Thanks for the enlightment!

This post has been edited by Hari Seldon: 30 June 2005 - 02:06 AM

[Renegade]

Slade - This is my point. Just because you hate rightwing values doesn't mean you're automatically a liberal, in the current context in the US. The meaning of the label is being changed all the time. Leftwing people are not liberals by default and vice versa. Kerry is held as liberal, but I'd hardly call him leftwing... he's just more leftwing than Bush is, although that's not exactly difficult since a cabbage is more leftwing than Bush is. My definition of a true leftwinger is someone a hell of a lot more radical than any 'liberal' politician. I think most liberals, as the word commonly stands, would spurn me as too leftwing for their standards.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This is still irrelevent. You may think that the liberal candidate isn't truly a leftwinger, but thats your belief. The two terms are still one in the same. It's like me saying someone is evil and you saying welllll i don't think he's bad enough. Ya they might not be as far on that side as you like, but the bottom line is the actual term is basically the same.

left wing also Left Wing
n.
The liberal or radical faction of a group

[Rhubarb]

So liberals and radicals are the same thing now? Ooooookay. Bye bye, credibility.