This was sent to me on Facebook. Pretty much sums up my political thoughts. Would be interested in comments.
Edit: Don't know why it attached twice, but either link seems good.
(04-08-2010 12:38 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]This was sent to me on Facebook. Pretty much sums up my political thoughts. Would be interested in comments.
Edit: Don't know why it attached twice, but either link seems good.
I'm down, but that "non-interventionist" policy is a very broad topic. If we could have taken out Hitler in the get go, millions of lives and dollars would have been saved. I'm generally a, "hey, not my problem" kinda guy, but if you can foresee it causing you to involve yourself in the near future, it's better to handle it now while they're just a small problem.
It seems to me that only libertarians consistently are non-interventionist. Historically, neither the left nor the right have done that consistently, while both have intermittently been non-interventionist.
Like any discussion/chart/graphic that attempts to distill ideologies, this paints with a pretty broad brush.
I consider myself to be on the right but I'm more of a fiscal conservative. I think many of the positions depicted as right more closely resemble views of those on the far right and/or the neocons. I actually believe and agree with more of the Libertarian positions than those associated with the right in the graphic. I would also point to the "Taxpayer funding of faith-based charities" as a blatant falsehood. I wonder where/what the basis is for that statement. Perhaps I missed something.
My belief that the reason Libertarianism hasn't really taken off is due to their foreign policy stance. Not that I want (or we can afford) to intervene militarily all over the globe as we have been doing for decades but that philosophy/policy stance is unrealistic and unworkable. We can't withdraw and become isolationist. Perhaps we can reach a happy medium some day (and piss of the defense contractors and their employees).
Still, the graphic is a good discussion starter.
I agree with MHB. That chart tries to broadly place large groups of people into concrete ideologies when reality has much more variety then that.
If politics and life were as cut and dried as the attachment suggests, why are libertarians not a legitimate 3rd party?
Hell, 95% of both sides of politically active people would probably fit, with a shoehorn, into that libertarian box.
Maybe the bigger question is, if libertarian politics are so damn attractive, why are libertarians a -3rd party. According to their chart, they should be the only party
Maybe they need their own tea party to get their message out.
How are the tea parties any different from the GOP? It's just a rebranding effort and I want to see the link that said the 51 % of the tea partiers consists of D's and independents. That's a sham. A mockery. A shamockery.
****** I just googled the 51%. 43% of the tea partiers are independent. I believe that. They are so embarassed by the GOP of the past few years they call themselves independent. I get that.
28% isn't a fringe, dufus. That's over one quarter. If it were, then what would you consider the smaller 26% that oppose it? A fringe group would be 9/11 Truthers, lefties who think the U.S. gov't created AIDS and cocaine to destroy black communities, etc. who are in the vast minority.
I like the charter.
And to the poster above wondering about tax money going to faith based organizations.... the 700 Club has used taxpayer money.
(04-08-2010 02:23 PM)MileHighBronco Wrote: [ -> ]I would also point to the "Taxpayer funding of faith-based charities" as a blatant falsehood. I wonder where/what the basis is for that statement. Perhaps I missed something.
Perhaps the 2000 and 2004 presidential campaigns and George W. Bush's "Faith Based Initiative", which Obama expanded to pay off ACORN by altering it to "Faith Based and Community Based Initiative" (part of the reason that "Taxpayer funding of government charities" is on the left side of the graphic.
![[Image: attachment.php?aid=2826]](http://ncaabbs.com/attachment.php?aid=2826)
http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa012901a.htm
Quote:As he promised during the campaign, President Bush launched his "faith-based" initiative on Monday by establishing a White House office to assist and encourage faith-based organizations is seeking federal funds to combat problems like drug addiction and homelessness....
"... We will encourage faith-based and community programs without changing their mission. We will help all in their work to change hearts while keeping a commitment to pluralism."
