| Welcome to Godlimations. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| 666; will obama start it all? | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: 7 Nov 2009, 09:05 PM (2,121 Views) | |
| Deleted User | 2 May 2010, 03:43 PM Post #61 |
|
Deleted User
|
i hope ur joking i was thinking football (as in soccer) -like thats thats the biggest political power in the motherland isnt it? ..............
|
|
|
| conradw | 2 May 2010, 04:51 PM Post #62 |
|
Goliath
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
and in the uk red doesn't mean republican either... As for football, again, the colour red returns in the form of the Red Devils. With a General election days away in the UK, i'm quite interested to hear people's political views. Big government? small government? I'm interested to see how a Høyre supporter might compare to a british tory, a Ozzy Liberal (a name I feel to be a bit supprising), or a republican amongst our cousins across the sea. I'm also interested to see what is different between a labour supporters in the UK, Norway, Australia, as well as democrats in the US. I wouldn't be surprised if we find that even the most liberal of US politics are extremely conservative by european measures, but it might be a fun and enlightening exercise. |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | 2 May 2010, 08:51 PM Post #63 |
|
Deleted User
|
well i vote Liberal in Australia- the other major party being Labour not sure what equivilent that is.... |
|
|
| conradw | 3 May 2010, 04:48 AM Post #64 |
|
Goliath
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I find it interesting that the australian "liberal" party is analogous the "conservatives" here. So can I ask why you vote the way you do? What is it that attracts you to the party of your choice? |
![]() |
|
| Concolor | 3 May 2010, 11:32 AM Post #65 |
|
Barabbas
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Good research conradw ![]() Here's what I weigh the heaviest when I vote: 1. Environment/sustainability. That's why I vote Venstre (vaguely similar to LibDems I would guess) 2. Realism/pragmatism. Keeps me away from the red/blue fringes. I want solutions, not ideologies. (sadly this stops me from voting for the "green"-party) Also I find the difference in amount of parties intriguing. I would feel slightly caged if I only had two parties to vote for. What if they were both really horrible alternatives? In Norway there are eight "large" parties and I still can't find one I really like. |
|
Life is beautiful, love heals, people come through. Reason, compassion and love comes first. Everything else is secondary. Except for Skittles. - And emperor Cheezy!
| |
![]() |
|
| conradw | 4 May 2010, 05:30 AM Post #66 |
|
Goliath
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
In the UK, we have 2 "main" parties, with a third depending on the mood of the people. There are a bunch more, but you're quickly descending into the fringes. If I could make myself out to be a single issue voter it would be mainly about inequality. The Party I see as most likely to address that is the Labour Party - although the LibDems heart might be in the right place, I can't really shake notion of patronising "champagne socialism" I've assigned to them. |
![]() |
|
| dragonshardz | 4 May 2010, 08:29 AM Post #67 |
![]()
Troll
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Yeah, here in the U.S., we have the Democrats and the GOP (Republicans). And neither choice is ever very good. |
|
I lurk a lot on this forum, and am very busy in real life, so don't be surprised if I take a couple days, or even weeks, to reply to your post or PM. GENERATION 11: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any other forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment. | |
![]() |
|
| conradw | 4 May 2010, 04:26 PM Post #68 |
|
Goliath
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
But you do have elections to see which person from a particular party represents you - don't you? Even if its a safe Democratic seat, you're still able to chose which democrat - or have I misunderstood? |
![]() |
|
| Concolor | 5 May 2010, 12:04 PM Post #69 |
|
Barabbas
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I could go on and on about things that are wrong with the US election-system, and we all know that the Norwegian system is far from perfect, but the British system is completely beyond my understanding. Why do Labor automatically win no matter how few people vote for them? (<- extremely exaggerated, but you know what I mean) |
|
Life is beautiful, love heals, people come through. Reason, compassion and love comes first. Everything else is secondary. Except for Skittles. - And emperor Cheezy!
| |
![]() |
|
| conradw | 5 May 2010, 07:05 PM Post #70 |
|
Goliath
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Concolor. The point you raise is an important one, and its to do with the first-past-the-post electoral system. There is a fair bit of misunderstanding, but its not hard to imagine a situation where a party may get fewer votes in total, but the distribution of those votes means they get more seats. You might - quite fairly - argue that this means that Labour doesn't need as many votes to get in, but it also means that the conservatives have more "safe" seats which they are unlikely to ever lose. I don't think they have won with an election while not carrying the largest single share of the vote (the way the republicans won in 2000). There is talk about reforming the electoral system - I'm not sure what that would entail. I would like it to mean an elected upper house (the House of Lords) by proportional representation rather than the system we have in place today which is by appointment. |
![]() |
|
| Concolor | 5 May 2010, 11:20 PM Post #71 |
|
Barabbas
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Yeah, that's another crazy thing. But I still don't understand what's wrong with giving seats according to how many votes the parties get. It sounds rather simple to me. In fact, all of these crazy systems sound eerily like systems you would use if it's too hard to keep track of all the votes so you just find out who wins the smaller battles and throw the votes away afterwards, hoping this will vaguely turn out ok. |
|
Life is beautiful, love heals, people come through. Reason, compassion and love comes first. Everything else is secondary. Except for Skittles. - And emperor Cheezy!
| |
![]() |
|
| conradw | 6 May 2010, 07:04 AM Post #72 |
|
Goliath
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I do think its important to have a representative in the legislature who has an attachment to and is responsible to a particular geographical area , otherwise it could be easy to over look some areas in favour of others where politicians are familiar with. I recognise that "absentee MPs" are a problem, that is MPs that live so far from their constituency and are so disconnected from the 'local' politics that they might as well not be representing that constituency, but these are also often representatives of safe seats - another problem with safe seats. There is also the old argument that hung parliaments weak and ineffective, are full of back-room dealings, whereas a parliament with overall control has a strong mandate and isn't paralysed in the same way (at least that's what the Conservatives have been trying to convince off to stop us voting LibDem and splitting the opposition vote). People also say that coalition governments give a disproportionate amount of power to the smaller and fringe parties that make up the government. It is to say, why should a small party like the Centre Party of Norway be in government when they only got 6.5% of the vote while. |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | 6 May 2010, 08:24 AM Post #73 |
|
Deleted User
|
basically Australia has a lot of dole bluggers our welfare/health system and public schooling are O.k its a very doable lifestyle choice for some ppl. every 4-8 years labor gets into power,increases the National deficet, spends up big and redistributes the Taxes while maintaining the impression of a worker workers union party Then the liberals get voted in to clean up the mess manage the finances,get the economy back in order and tighten up and by the time the next election roles in the labor party uses scare tactics incinuating the Librals may make u get off your butt and work for the dole.... and the cycle goes on... o.k well thats how it seems to work out....even though their policies are always pretty similar Tradionally our families are split each having strongly opposing political ideologies- as for me i started voting Liberal when i started my first business and hired my first employee ! The Lib government subsidised 6months of a 12month Traineeship plus paid workers compensation insurance on the employers behalf through a program to assist long term unemployed with job placement and training...... ha,ha,ha fun times.... how about everyone else ? does your gov pay u big bucks for having babies ????? i think its up to AUS$10,000 a pop now over the first 12 months for each kid (less if you dont imunise)and its not means or asset tested.....so u get the money if ur on welfare or in the higest tax bracket regardless... |
|
|
| Afalstein | 6 May 2010, 12:45 PM Post #74 |
|
Mountain Gnome
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Seriously? They pay you money for kids? That's new. Our country, they don't take away quite as much if you have kids, but they're more than willing to pay to help you get rid of them. |
|
"Evil Triumphs when Good men do nothing." -Edmund Burke | |
![]() |
|
| Concolor | 6 May 2010, 01:59 PM Post #75 |
|
Barabbas
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
That's quite a payment. In Norway you only get 2,100 Australian dollars per year per kid, but then again you get it every year until your kid is 18 years old. If your kid is not in a kindergarten you get 7,200 Australian dollars extra per year for a maximum of two years. Do you count one year of paid leave from work as a payment as well? |
|
Life is beautiful, love heals, people come through. Reason, compassion and love comes first. Everything else is secondary. Except for Skittles. - And emperor Cheezy!
| |
![]() |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Debate · Next Topic » |


i hope ur joking i was thinking football (as in soccer) -like thats thats the biggest political power in the motherland isnt it?
..............




![]](http://z4.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)


and the cycle goes on...
6:46 PM Jul 10