Jump to content
270soft Forum

4 Politicians that Represent your Political Views.


Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, vcczar said:

Of these, I've only heard of Waldheim and Schussel. I don't know anything about them except for their names. 

Ok, I am glad I was able to give a bit of information on this aspect. I believe Schüssel was the best (at least modern-day) politician in Austria.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 102
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

7 minutes ago, Patine said:

Well, Scalia, at least, was personally a known and obvious homophobe in his opinions - especially given in the much earlier Supreme Court case, when he wasn't a Justice, but an attorney representing one of the involved parties, I believe - the criminalization of consenting homosexual activity in private between consensual adults was ruled as Unconstitutional to keep enforcing. So a blatant bigot, who complained about both relevant rulings from a clearly bigoted and uninformed point of view, probably didn't have the most valuable dissent from the ruling. Besides, defending any "legal custom," that denies people equal rights or treatment based on inborn traits or nature is, frankly, barbaric and Medievalist, and deserves no respect and only excoriation in the modern world.

I do not consider myself a homophobe. Personally I don't care about what someone is loving or doing. I just don't like many aspects of the gay movement and the fact that people of Mississippi or Alabama for example had no say in such a decision.

13 minutes ago, Reagan04 said:

They did, and while I respect their opinion, I disagree with it. As long as marriage is an institution recognize by government, government cannot sequester that on the basis of sexuality.

Thanks for respecting therefore my opinion as well. I think it's the best if two people have different views but still respect each other. Sadly most people can't differentiate between politics and normal live. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Conservative Elector 2 said:

I do not consider myself a homophobe. Personally I don't care about what someone is loving or doing. I just don't like many aspects of the gay movement and the fact that people of Mississippi or Alabama for example had no say in such a decision.

Thanks for respecting therefore my opinion as well. I think it's the best if two people have different views but still respect each other. Sadly most people can't differentiate between politics and normal live. 

Wait, wait? Why should people having the equal legal treatment and rights they deserve have to go through a majority consensus, especially for private and personal affairs such as this. That's an appalling concept of using toxic populism as a legal vehicle to oppress minorities. You should be ashamed for supporting it. As a famous politician in my country (though not one I admire that much, except in a few specific cases, like this one), when the criminalized status of homosexual was a big issue here, Pierre Elliott Trudeau famously said, "the Government does not belong in the bedrooms of it's constituents." Well, frankly, neither do the "majority consensus," who are, themselves, engaged in other lifestyles and family structures, and have no valid reason for a say to deny same-sex marriage for no beneficial reason to society - or anyone or anything else, really.

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Conservative Elector 2 said:

Ok, I am glad I was able to give a bit of information on this aspect. I believe Schüssel was the best (at least modern-day) politician in Austria.

What's your opinion of Metternich and Schuschnigg?

Also, who is considered to be the most progressive Austrian Chancellor? Do you have someone that is comparable to an FDR or LBJ in domestic policy?

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, vcczar said:

What's your opinion of Metternich and Schuschnigg?

Also, who is considered to be the most progressive Austrian Chancellor? Do you have someone that is comparable to an FDR or LBJ in domestic policy?

Metternich was eventually out-played thoroughly at his own game by Bismarck.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, vcczar said:

What's your opinion of Metternich and Schuschnigg?

Also, who is considered to be the most progressive Austrian Chancellor? Do you have someone that is comparable to an FDR or LBJ in domestic policy?

I hold the Austria of Schuschnigg and Dollfuß between 1934 and 1938 as well as the monarchy in a way higher regard than most people here do. While the ''Federal State of Austria'' or ''Corporate State'' is often viewed as totalitarian dictatorship I think it was definitely better than the time of the national socialist occupation (which was sadly welcomed by many Austrians). Both chancellors fought for an independent Austria, while Dollfuß was even murdered for that. In my opinion Austria should have remained neutral because if Austria had successfully joined the Allies it had been fought by the Wehrmacht as well. At least we could have fought an honorable fight instead of following Hitler like the lemmings to the sea.

Most people view the monarchy as outdated and bad for the country as well. I think if Austria had remained an empire, national socialism would not have gained any foothold here (same opinion on Germany). Additionally most people today are only romantic about the monarchy when it comes to souvenirs with the portrait of Franz Josef or the Sissi films. Metternich is considered evil by most people here because they argue he was responsible for surveillance tactics and espionage among the people. If I had lived back in the monarchy I had supported it and most likely I had also supported Metternich's efforts to fight republican ideas.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Patine said:

Wait, wait? Why should people having the equal legal treatment and rights they deserve have to go through a majority consensus, especially for private and personal affairs such as this. That's an appalling concept of using toxic populism as a legal vehicle to oppress minorities. You should be ashamed for supporting it.

I learned that it is way more appreciative to be guided by the majority's wishes. South Africa was not a perfect state when it was run by the 10% of white people there (it's still not perfect, but we will also never live in a truly perfect world. This would only be possible with a (never ever achievable) dynamic concept of personal environment to fit all demands, aspects and wishes.). Criticizing an adhering to a majority ruling is difficult without supporting a minority rule and it is pretty much equal to criticizing Rousseau's general will. I understand your point on this, but it also means that following the principle of majority finding will effectively lead to a bad totalitarian democracy and this is even a concept brought forward once by the Israeli historian Jacob Talmon. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, vcczar said:

Also, who is considered to be the most progressive Austrian Chancellor? Do you have someone that is comparable to an FDR or LBJ in domestic policy?

Sorry for not answering this in the first post.

I guess, if you want to see any similarities on this the person I think of first is Chancellor Bruno Kreisky

Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Conservative Elector 2 said:

I learned that it is way more appreciative to be guided by the majority's wishes. South Africa was not a perfect state when it was run by the 10% of white people there (it's still not perfect, but we will also never live in a truly perfect world. This would only be possible with a (never ever achievable) dynamic concept of personal environment to fit all demands, aspects and wishes.). Criticizing an adhering to a majority ruling is difficult without supporting a minority rule and it is pretty much equal to criticizing Rousseau's general will. I understand your point on this, but it also means that following the principle of majority finding will effectively lead to a bad totalitarian democracy and this is even a concept brought forward once by the Israeli historian Jacob Talmon. 

But we're talking about a private matter of personal relationships and family structures. It is NOT the affairs of the majority, nor is it being "forced on them," like disingenuous wolves-in-sheep's clothing preachers claim it is, and the majority should have not have the power to deprive minorities of equal rights or treatment in a matter that is, in truth, none of their business or concern, because it's a private matter. The idea of majority will, like all things in the socio-political field, should only be binding when no one's rights or equal treatment are at stake. I remind you the populist leaders ELECTED, by POPULAR MAJORITY SUPPORT, on platforms of oppressing and legally and institutionally antagonizing minorities, like Adolf Hitler, George Wallace, Narendi Modi, Reciyp Erdogan, Viktor Orban, Robert Kocharyan (in both Nagorno-Karabakh and Armenia, separately), and even late 19th Century Vienna Mayor Karl Lueger, among others. No, the will of the majority must have stern and delineated limits on taking away rights and equal treatment from minorities. That is where Plato's Republic differentiates from Pericles' Democracy (at least in one defining quality) - laws and protections that are NOT up to be revoked and changed by simple majority vote and opinion that underline the foundations of governance, law-and-order, and civil treatment by government of all.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Conservative Elector 2 said:

I hold the Austria of Schuschnigg and Dollfuß between 1934 and 1938 as well as the monarchy in a way higher regard than most people here do. While the ''Federal State of Austria'' or ''Corporate State'' is often viewed as totalitarian dictatorship I think it was definitely better than the time of the national socialist occupation (which was sadly welcomed by many Austrians). Both chancellors fought for an independent Austria, while Dollfuß was even murdered for that. In my opinion Austria should have remained neutral because if Austria had successfully joined the Allies it had been fought by the Wehrmacht as well. At least we could have fought an honorable fight instead of following Hitler like the lemmings to the sea.

Most people view the monarchy as outdated and bad for the country as well. I think if Austria had remained an empire, national socialism would not have gained any foothold here (same opinion on Germany). Additionally most people today are only romantic about the monarchy when it comes to souvenirs with the portrait of Franz Josef or the Sissi films. Metternich is considered evil by most people here because they argue he was responsible for surveillance tactics and espionage among the people. If I had lived back in the monarchy I had supported it and most likely I had also supported Metternich's efforts to fight republican ideas.

Thanks for the information. Yeah, I'm sure you and I would have higher and lower regard for your country's leaders, but as I don't live there and I'm not terribly informed on them, I'll refrain from making a judgment. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Conservative Elector 2 said:

Most people view the monarchy as outdated and bad for the country as well. I think if Austria had remained an empire, national socialism would not have gained any foothold here (same opinion on Germany). Additionally most people today are only romantic about the monarchy when it comes to souvenirs with the portrait of Franz Josef or the Sissi films. Metternich is considered evil by most people here because they argue he was responsible for surveillance tactics and espionage among the people. If I had lived back in the monarchy I had supported it and most likely I had also supported Metternich's efforts to fight republican ideas.

The Dual-Monarchy of Austria-Hungary was doomed as a nation and empire even if WW1 had not happened. The nationalistic forces of so many different ethnicities who did not in the same nation and under the same government - especially a government headed by the Habsburgs and their out-of-touch, anachronistic courtiers - and who collectively formed THE Majority (I remind you of your own cherished opinions there) that it was being torn apart from within, and would have collapsed anyways - just like Slavery would have ended in the U.S. inevitably without the U.S. Civil War - both events just would have been kicked down the road a bit if those two big wars happened. Also, the Hapsburgs were slow to adapt, and even outright refusing out of anachronistic pride and arrogance - to adapt Constitutional Monarchial policies that had remedied problems of governance in many contemporary monarchies, like the UK, the Low Countries, the Scandinavian Countries, Germany, Italy, Portugal, some of the Balkan Nations, and even Japan, and thus their anachronistic forms of governance, and refusal to make more than token reforms - "bones thrown to the unwashed masses," - as well as ruling so many different ethnicities hostile to Habsburg rule, and thus fell into the fate and track, governmentally, of other contemporary monarchies, like the Ottoman Empire, the Russian Empire, Spain, the Qajar Dynasty of Iran, and, of course, the Qing Dynasty of China. At least, they might have remained reigning Archdukes of Austria (ruling, more or less, the modern nation's borders) until either they were eventually forced to step down from that, or forced into the same ceremonial, ritual, symbolic role with no true political power of all the modern European Monarchs.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Conservative Elector 2 said:

I do not consider myself a homophobe. Personally I don't care about what someone is loving or doing. I just don't like many aspects of the gay movement and the fact that people of Mississippi or Alabama for example had no say in such a decision.

Thanks for respecting therefore my opinion as well. I think it's the best if two people have different views but still respect each other. Sadly most people can't differentiate between politics and normal live. 

Mississippi and Alabama did have a say.  They voted in every election in which the Presidents went on to nominate the Supreme Court Justices who then faced confirmation by the Senate, including those from Alabama and Mississippi.  They had the same say as the people of literally any other state.

What parts of “the gay movement” do you not consider to be just requesting to be allowed to be a part of the “normal life” that you value?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, billay said:

Economic - Rand Paul
Social - Bernie Sanders
Military - Ron Paul
Misc - Obama

I don't think an economic Ron Paul and a social Bernie Sanders would even be possible at the same time and place...

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Patine said:

I don't think an economic Ron Paul and a social Bernie Sanders would even be possible at the same time and place...

You could have some sort of compromise. Legalized Drugs, End Wars, more funding to states for medicare...

Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, billay said:

You could have some sort of compromise. Legalized Drugs, End Wars, more funding to states for medicare...

And where would the funding to the states for medicare and other social infrastructure come from with no income tax, rock bottom or no business tax, and no government-owned profitable corporations? Have you ACTUALLY READ Ron Paul's economic beliefs, there?!

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Actinguy said:

Oh, shit, I hadn’t heard!  Thank you for letting me know!

;c)

You know, your black, gallows, disgusting, subhuman attempt at humour when this subject is brought up (which is really only mocking yourself) just makes your moral compass look more and more vile and loathsome, especially as you wouldn't even give a defense of Administration of Atrocities, but just gave arrogant, self-righteous, and insulting non-reasons for why you wouldn't give a defense, and just declared I was automatically wrong about EVERY SINGLE crime I accused them of - just because you said so, because again, you were too self-righteous to make any actual defense. But, since you were deeply offended when I compared your mentality to a Holocaust denier, I want you to know your disgusting way of making light of the whole thing in the most callous and vile way possible I find JUST as offensive.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Patine said:

And where would the funding to the states for medicare and other social infrastructure come from with no income tax, rock bottom or no business tax, and no government-owned profitable corporations? Have you ACTUALLY READ Ron Paul's economic beliefs, there?!

He said RAND Paul for economics not RON Paul for whom he said military.

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Reagan04 said:

He said RAND Paul for economics not RON Paul for whom he said military.

Did he? My mistake. I just read both as the same. Reading too fast. I concede to error there (though I admit being more in the dark of the full details of the economic views the son than the father).

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, vcczar said:

Thanks for the information. Yeah, I'm sure you and I would have higher and lower regard for your country's leaders, but as I don't live there and I'm not terribly informed on them, I'll refrain from making a judgment. 

Did you also saw my 2nd post which answered your question on the most progressive chancellor?

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Actinguy said:

What parts of “the gay movement” do you not consider to be just requesting to be allowed to be a part of the “normal life” that you value?

Imho everyone can request what they believe is right, but the aspects I am referring to here are the constant self-dramatization and grandstanding by some which takes place in Austria and most likely in the US as well. I often have the feeling that people using their gayness beyond the issue itself. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Conservative Elector 2 said:

Imho everyone can request what they believe is right, but the aspects I am referring to here are the constant self-dramatization and grandstanding by some which takes place in Austria and most likely in the US as well. I often have the feeling that people using their gayness beyond the issue itself. 

You mean the same sort the Evangelicals vehemently opposing same-sex marriage were up to as well, in their own form?

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Patine said:

You know, your black, gallows, disgusting, subhuman attempt at humour when this subject is brought up (which is really only mocking yourself) just makes your moral compass look more and more vile and loathsome, especially as you wouldn't even give a defense of Administration of Atrocities, but just gave arrogant, self-righteous, and insulting non-reasons for why you wouldn't give a defense, and just declared I was automatically wrong about EVERY SINGLE crime I accused them of - just because you said so, because again, you were too self-righteous to make any actual defense. But, since you were deeply offended when I compared your mentality to a Holocaust denier, I want you to know your disgusting way of making light of the whole thing in the most callous and vile way possible I find JUST as offensive.

Actually, my recollection is that I admitted from the start that I didn't have the magic words that would persuade you, and that I accepted that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Conservative Elector 2 said:

Imho everyone can request what they believe is right, but the aspects I am referring to here are the constant self-dramatization and grandstanding by some which takes place in Austria and most likely in the US as well. I often have the feeling that people using their gayness beyond the issue itself. 

I'll admit that I know nothing of the issue in Austria specifically -- but at least here in the US, gay people were being denied extremely basic human rights as recently as seven years ago -- and that only changed because they consistently brought it to our attention until it could no longer be ignored or denied.  They were right, and they consistently made their case until they won.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...