You guys can kiss your civil liberties good-bye.....

[woman-king]

Uh, Woman-King, Romney and Obama are not that interchangeable.  Even though Romney is a resident of the Socialist State of Massachusetts, he's no Obama.  He seems to be a centrist captain of industry turned politician Republican, who scares voters off with being Mormon and his squeaky clean teflon image.  I also doubt that Romney has any union cards in his wallet nor does he get any nice Christmas cards from union members which Obama probably does.  Image as well as intelligence might be the only 2 things that Romney and Obama share. 

The idea that today's Democrats and Republicans are politically closer (interchangeable as you wrote) than their public appearances was the thesis of the book, 'The Right Nation,' written by John Micklethwait & Adrian Wooldridge, two writers for the Economist magazine.   It is an interesting read.

Fair enough, and I'm not someone who actually thinks "the two parties are totally identical and we must vote Green or Ron Paul to make a real difference."  But I find them both to be sort of centrists within their own parties.  Obviously Obama is center-left and Romney is center-right, and maybe you don't find Obama to be very centrist, but I feel like he's much less of a pacifist-type than his supporters wanted to believe and I have several very far-left friends who are just livid with him for the bank-bailouts since that apparently = raving capitalist pig.

In terms of things like intelligence and image they do strike a similar chord and I think there's some significance to that--it will be quite a different election (if Romney gets nominated) than Obama versus McCain.  I am already looking forward to the debates because . . . that is my idea of good television. 

[JahRhythm]

There is a difference between the 2 parties, but they essentially serve the same masters.

[Keuka]

Frozencat, I'm getting close to having to eat one of my canoe paddles.  I can see your concerns for the erosion of privacy.  I'm a longish resident of Korea.  I take the differences in privacy here for granted.  Maybe that isn't a great attitude, but I can't change the laws here.  I don't always like it, but your medical check up results are pretty much public information if you work in a public school, to give you an example.   

Womanking, I agree that Romney and Obama are similar in image and intelligence.  I prefer green technology over the Greens and Ron Paul has some confessing to do about those racist news stories from a couple of decades ago.  I do see Obama as being somewhat centrist and yes, his far left base seems to be really upset with him.  As for the bank bail outs, does anybody really want to go back to the 70's when the NYSE was around 1,000?  I'm not that much of a survivalist, are your far left friends?

For what it's worth, I had this funny thought yesterday that as much as he might deny it, Ron Paul, too, is a product of Washington, D.C.

Waldron and Frozencat, I am an independent voter.  I don't ally myself with any one or even two party as I try to vote for whomever I think is the best or even slightly better candidate. 

For another whatever it's worth, yesterday my wife received a political mailing from our Korean congressman.  It came in an impressive, large, white envelope which she set down on a sofa end table and promptly proceeded to ignore it.  I was curious, so i asked her if she was going to read it.  She gave a noncommital shrug.  I asked her if she was going to vote and she said that she was going to vote.  In some ways, the Korean politicians also seem to be more than a little similar to the politicians in the US except that a Korean conservative is in the Blue House and the Korean progressives seem to be somewhat in control in the National Assembly. 

[Frozencat99]

I know about the medical check up results, which also anger me, but as you said most of us are in no position to change such lenient uses of our information. I would like to research how Korea tracks biometrics, however, but finding that information (in detail) in English... that'll be a challenge  .

I'm generally an independent voter myself. I quoted you, so perhaps you thought the tail end of what I had said was still directed toward you, but it wasn't :3. I had the feeling that you voted independently given your variety of answers in this topic. If the best candidate [the one I feel will help myself, my family, and Canada at large the most] happens to be in a major party back home, I'll still vote for them. However, voting Conservative, Liberal, etc. without looking into local candidate politics is folly. I'm glad we both avoid such things.

[Keuka]

That is why you need to learn Korean well enough to access that information.  That's standard for academics in Asian Studies, for example.

[Cereal]

I can see Canada following this lead at some point in the near future. I am glad I will never live there again. I really can't understand why anybody would want to live in the USA though, it's getting more and more like North Korea every day.

[marsavalanche]

I can see Canada following this lead at some point in the near future. I am glad I will never live there again. I really can't understand why anybody would want to live in the USA though, it's getting more and more like North Korea every day.

USA is a great place to live in if you're rich and know how to use the numerous tax loopholes there.

Just look at how Mitt Romney makes more than most of us will in a year in a day for simply moving his money around.

[sunshinefiasco]

Uh, Woman-King, Romney and Obama are not that interchangeable.  Even though Romney is a resident of the Socialist State of Massachusetts, he's no Obama.  He seems to be a centrist captain of industry turned politician Republican, who scares voters off with being Mormon and his squeaky clean teflon image.  I also doubt that Romney has any union cards in his wallet nor does he get any nice Christmas cards from union members which Obama probably does.  Image as well as intelligence might be the only 2 things that Romney and Obama share. 

LOL. Former resident of MA, the socialist hellhole here. You're right, with our 7% unemployment (national average 8.5%), decriminalized drug laws, mandatory health insurance, 3 times the libraries of the national average, lower student:teacher ratios (13.6:1),  the 90% of people above 25 that have a high school diploma, and our STEM industries and prestigous institutions of higher learning, (as well as our delicious social programs), we are a symbol of everything that's wrong with America today.

(Though apparently, according to this study I found, we are the fourth best educated state, according to this study that "de-emphasizes spending for public schools and instead measures states based on student achievement, positive outcomes and personal attention from teachers")

Also, don't kid yourself about what puts people off of Mitt Romney. If the heathen liberal intelligentsia has no issue with his Mormonism, I doubt redder states will. The reason people reject Mitt Romney is because he is essentially a plastic doll, a Wall Street swindler playing at being middle class, who can change his position on an issue three times in one sentence, and who responds to questions by quoting "America the Beautiful". He's not a captain of industry-- the man never built a steel plant, or even a company from the ground up. He's a paper-pusher who made a lot of money, much of it off of putting people out of work. 

I'd love to say that he's not our (MA's) responsibility, and to let Michigan claim him, but I don't think they want him back after he stabbed them in the back over the auto industry bailout.

[Jrong]

There is a difference between the 2 parties, but they essentially serve the same masters.

I think so as well. Same masters.

Romney's being a Mormon does matter -- a lot. In my huge former network of "Evangelical Christians", only a literal handful of them would vote for Romney and the rest would do anything but, simply because he is a Mormon. Obama became "cool" and "kosher" for many Evangelical Christians last time and will probably stay cool and "acceptable". All he has to do is mention "god" and say things like "we all need forgiveness" (like he did last time) and he can take at least 2/3rds of the evangelical voting bloc which is like %20 of the US adult pop (including people like my very conservative Dad). His "stated" theology is much closer to Evangelicals than Romney's "unstated" theology. The most conservative of the Evies would vote Ron Paul or write-ins. Maybe %5 would vote Romney but that's pushing it.

Not like any of it really makes a difference for the poorest as there is no one to champion their human rights, just a bunch of *politicians talking about "the great middle class" 'cause they know that's where the votes are.

*word is interchangeable with a slew of words that would get you banned from most forums

[ch1can3]

Only stupid people believe the socialist crap, especially about Canadians.  I find Canadians to be far more hostile towards Americans than we are to Canadians from my experiences abroad.  Though, being Canadian somehow gives you the moral high ground I guess?

Your Harper is a massive tool though, I can agree with that.

[Conorfdb]

ah America land of the free.

[Merryone]

One time I read this book....can't remember the name of it, but it was about this country, a lot like the US is today. And there were people like Ron Paul and Sarah Palin who said they wanted to create change. They were trying to get people to rally to help them,  but in the end, everyone was on the same side, and the Ron Paul's of that story, took all the people who wanted change and turned them in. after that, there was no one to stand up for civil liberties.

[sorry, I have to eat my words! My friend read the book and was complaining about the ending].

[Merryone]

I have faith in my country and our leaders. After all WE choose them. We have no kings, no emperors, no appointed czars. We are still the last great beacon of hope for freedom and democracy and justice in this world. That is what makes us who we are. We are every nation. My ancestors hailed from England and Ireland. I am proud to have that blood, but I am even more proud to be an American.

hey, sorry if this is a bit nitpicky but we do have czars in America.
http://www.google.com/#hl=en&output=search&sclient=psy-ab&q=american+czars&oq=american+czars&aq=f&aqi=g1g-v3&aql=&gs_l=hp.3..0j0i15l3.279l4034l0l4591l14l10l0l4l4l1l1032l2847l0j5j2j5-1j0j1l11l0.llsin.&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=a9904eea1d0342e9&biw=1366&bih=653

[Rusty Shackleford]

The fact that they openly call them czars is the part that creeps me out. Sure, undemocratically appoint people to executive positions. You have done much worse. But, to overtly refer to them as a byword for dictator? That really is a slap in the face.

[Merryone]

The fact that they openly call them czars is the part that creeps me out. Sure, undemocratically appoint people to executive positions. You have done much worse. But, to overtly refer to them as a byword for dictator? That really is a slap in the face.

one of the articles on the list I offered above says, "The United States appears to be emulating pre-Bolshevik Russia with.... [ it's czars]."  I find that a kind of scary thought.

[Rusty Shackleford]

Pre-Bolshevik Russia was relatively progressive compared to what followed and even compared to the current day, the Russian people were probably freer, if not immeasurably poorer.

At the turn of the 20th century, the entirety of Europe and the rest of the free world was probably more liberal than it is today. This includes Russia. I would applaud a return to the level of govt involvement in society the Russian czars had. But, it is extremely scary to think people who are unilaterally appointed to administer certain aspects of our lives are being blithely referred to as what amounts to "Caesar". And very few people seem that perturbed by the whole thing.

[Merryone]

Pre-Bolshevik Russia was relatively progressive compared to what followed and even compared to the current day, the Russian people were probably freer, if not immeasurably poorer.

At the turn of the 20th century, the entirety of Europe and the rest of the free world was probably more liberal than it is today. This includes Russia. I would applaud a return to the level of govt involvement in society the Russian czars had. But, it is extremely scary to think people who are unilaterally appointed to administer certain aspects of our lives are being blithely referred to as what amounts to "Caesar". And very few people seem that perturbed by the whole thing.

Rusty, maybe when people hear Caesar, they think of Shakespeare.
I think of the Coliseum. I've heard some serious horror stories about that.

[flasyb]

Pre-Bolshevik Russia was relatively progressive compared to what followed and even compared to the current day, the Russian people were probably freer, if not immeasurably poorer.

At the turn of the 20th century, the entirety of Europe and the rest of the free world was probably more liberal than it is today. This includes Russia. I would applaud a return to the level of govt involvement in society the Russian czars had. But, it is extremely scary to think people who are unilaterally appointed to administer certain aspects of our lives are being blithely referred to as what amounts to "Caesar". And very few people seem that perturbed by the whole thing.

Rusty, maybe when people hear Caesar, they think of Shakespeare.
I think of the Coliseum. I've heard some serious horror stories about that.

When I hear the term "czar," which has recently been mostly on the BBC World Service on cable, I think of "someone appointed to a position of authority." For example, we had the "families tsar" scandal recently in the UK - I know, I thought it was always spelt "czar" too.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2099062/Fury-families-tsar-gets-8-6m-ONE-YEAR-bulk-comes-taxpayer.html

Here's a dictionary definition:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/tsar?s=t

World English Dictionary
tsar or czar  (zɑː, tsɑː, zɑː, tsɑː)
 
— n
1.   (until 1917) the emperor of Russia
2.   a tyrant; autocrat
3.   informal  a public official charged with responsibility for dealing with a certain problem or issue: a drugs tsar
4.   informal  a person in authority; leader
5.   (formerly) any of several S Slavonic rulers, such as any of the princes of Serbia in the 14th century
 
[from Russian tsar , via Gothic kaisar  from Latin Caesar ]
 
czar or czar
 
— n
 
[from Russian tsar , via Gothic kaisar  from Latin Caesar ]
 
'tsardom or czar

3. has become an especially common usage in the UK media.

[Merryone]

well, when I hear Caesar, I think of Rome, which makes me think coliseum.
i never really thought about Czar as a variant of Caesar--basically because I never thought about it much at all.
but when I think of Czar, I think of Russia and I think of tyrants.

anyway, Flasyb, thanks for sharing. Its a much more sensible approach then mine....

[woman-king]

Pre-Bolshevik Russia was relatively progressive compared to what followed and even compared to the current day, the Russian people were probably freer, if not immeasurably poorer.

At the turn of the 20th century, the entirety of Europe and the rest of the free world was probably more liberal than it is today. This includes Russia. I would applaud a return to the level of govt involvement in society the Russian czars had. But, it is extremely scary to think people who are unilaterally appointed to administer certain aspects of our lives are being blithely referred to as what amounts to "Caesar". And very few people seem that perturbed by the whole thing.

Pre-Bolshevik Russia, eh?   

Look, I get that historical comparisons are helpful and useful in hooking people into a story, but they can also be taken too far and confuse people on the contemporary issue.  "History repeats itself" is an interesting maxim, but . . . it doesn't mean that it repeats itself down to the details in my opinion.  I like metaphors but I wish we'd quit with comparing everyone/everything in the political realm that we like or dislike to Hitler or Stalin or fascism or totalitarian communism or some other shocking period in history. . .  it's just gotten a bit much.  Like Jon Stewart once said, "I might disagree with you, but I'm pretty sure you're not Hitler." 

You can find certain things really terrible or horrifying and go ahead and say so, I just think over-emphasizing these references like "Pre-Bolshevik Russia" is sort of cheap and there are people out there who don't seem to understand that these are just illustrations/metaphors/reference points that we're all familiar with, not factual descriptions.

That said, this little Wiki entry is certainly interesting:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._executive_branch_czars

Scroll down a bit and you'll see the chart totalling the number of "czars" appointed by each American president and what they're for.  I mean . . . I don't have a problem with everything here, certain issues do need looking after by someone specific and presidents need a solid cabinet and should be able to hire people  they want, as any other boss in an important position should, that seems reasonable to me.  But, I can understand the concern that--especially recently--some of this has kinda spiraled out of control.  That's a huge jump in numbers from Clinton to Bush and Obama, and I would bet these folks make pretty comfortable salaries.