I'm a libertarian also, but also I believe fervently that institutions which could be morally corrosive in private hands should be under state control, i.e. police, fire, NHS (hospitals), and also pharmaceuticals.ThatNewGuy said:
Poll: Liberal or Conservative?
- Thread starter Ken_J
- Start date
Recommended Videos
A grab-bag of ideals, ranging from Keynesian economics to state-sponsored healthcare and education, to the abolition of unemployment benefits to reformed capital gains tax to the permission of gay marriage, abortion, firearm-carrying and so on...
I also intend to have Ayn Rand's body exhumed and hung, come the revolution.
I also intend to have Ayn Rand's body exhumed and hung, come the revolution.
your problems with conservatives seem to be limited to the Southern religious fanatics who joined the party in the 1950's. Don't judge a whole party by those hate spewing bigots; most conservatives aren't that ridiculous and intolerantAries_Split said:
i'm a mixture, staunchly anti-racism, pro gay marriage and pro-choice and most other things like this, but when it comes to taxes and such i'm more of a conservative, i.e. i think that high taxation on the wealthy is unneccesary (i mean, in some cases it's like 50% or higher which is just ridiculous. and it used to be more). also i have somewhat of an unhealthy contempt for ignorant and/or stupid people. which i guess counts as a kind of prejudice
I'm left-wing on economics, and more liberal than authoritarian.
See image. The area I'm in is roughly the same as the Dalai Lama, Nelson Mandela and Mahatma Gandhi, according to http://www.politicalcompass.org/
See image. The area I'm in is roughly the same as the Dalai Lama, Nelson Mandela and Mahatma Gandhi, according to http://www.politicalcompass.org/
WHY THE HELL DO WE NEED DEMOCRATES OR REPUBLICANS?! this country is not united but divided by two different ideals. we should go back to a roman eque type of parties. where there not Librals or Conservatives just people with hopes for thier country to get by this creul racist, labling world
It didn't take long to find someone who feels as I do.RebelRising said:
I generally think that both parties don't have our best interests at heart and are more concerned with helping whatever industry/company that sponsored them.But if I were to pick a party I dislike more, I would have to say it's the conservatives. Liberals are largely useless but by the same token are less destructive. Conservatives have proven they care only for the civil rights of rich white heterosexual males but trick the others to their side by pretending to be religious. Of course most of the really "pious" end up being exposed as complete hypocrites. Their biggest problem however is that they aren't even conservative any more. They aren't fiscally conservative (while trying to take away food stamps they will support a war that costs the american taxpayers thousands of times as much every year), they certainly aren't conservative with resources (whatever's best for their corporate sponsors), and they aren't even conservative with the environment like Teddy Roosevelt was.
Then when they're in trouble, they rally around Rush Limbaugh: the biggest, fattest, pants on head retarded d-bag they can find.
So while I've never been impressed by Liberals, at least they don't make me angry like conservatives tend to and in the end, I don't vote for either.
I'm neither. I don't call myself a liberal, though that's where most of my political thought ends up at (while some does fall conservative). I don't want to get called a liberal because then I get called out and insulted and whatnot (it's happened a few times, yeah) when I voice a conservative conviction. It doesn't always happen (most people who aren't super-duper-political/partisan don't say anything) but it has and does none the less.
Forced to pick, though, I'd be a liberal. Though I tend to have more liberal thought(s), conservatism does have its values/merits (namely, to temper the speed of change that comes with pure/rampant liberalism).
Forced to pick, though, I'd be a liberal. Though I tend to have more liberal thought(s), conservatism does have its values/merits (namely, to temper the speed of change that comes with pure/rampant liberalism).
I'm well aware that it's higher for people in higher pay brackets, and for some reason second jobs are taxed at a higher rate (why is completely beyond me, it really does seem like robbing the poor who are working the hardest), which I don't necissarily agree with. I don't really think it's worth going into in this thread, as we are now talking about taxes when the thread is about liberal vs conservative and I do more than enough thread derailing already. I (or someone else) might make another thread about tax and how it could/could not be done better.Borrowed Time said:
It's not really so bi-polar. From a European point of view, the two US parties are pretty close together.sneakypenguin said:
Everything I've read about "liberals" elsewhere over the last eight years or so has said that they're terrible news for the economy, despise the constitution, want to restrict individuals' freedoms and trample roughshod over their rights, would take any opportunity to make anti-US terrorist organisations more popular around the world, don't give a damn about The Troops and so on, which leads me to conclude that the "liberals" in question are Dick Cheney, George W Bush, Pat Buchanan, Karl Rove, Rush Limbaugh, Paul Wolfowitz, Sean Hannity and their various rich friends.
I think that site fails to indicate something that may be very important: spread. It'll let you take a poll and then give you little blobs on the graph for your position relative to individuals and parties, but won't smudge them to show how varied your and their economic and/or social positions are. There's also no scale. Is it logarithmic or linear? Where's the centre? Oh, well. It's still amusing to find myself so much nearer to Gandhi than to Dubya.
Other.
I stand left of center, because going to far in either direction is bad for the country, and bad for the people.
I stand left of center, because going to far in either direction is bad for the country, and bad for the people.
That may be true, but your PR isn't bringing that to light. All I see, as far as Repubs go, are bible thumping lunatics. If you guys could get rid of Rush Limbaugh, you would have a much better image, and have so many more people willing to listen to your ideas.Obama Osama Llama Diorama said:
How would that help in our current situation?gof22 said:
Europe is becoming more conservative after many countries tried socializing everything from medicine to government
But see, we can never have an equal society(at least in assets or living standard) the best we can hope for is equality under the law. People aren't equal in drive/work/skill/choices so to try to achieve equality on a 'wealth" level is impossible. Politicians doing that are only seeking power(in my opinion).Dys said:
Lol not to sound argumentative cause I think we are generally on the same page here
Sources or I call BS.Obama Osama Llama Diorama said:
_
Death Or Glory, Sturm Und Drang.
Fondant.
Liberal. While both of Canada's primary parties are guilty of a lifetime's worth of smokescreening, patronage and more, a few Politics classes helps to better identify core values each party has promoted historically.
The Liberal party has most commonly advocated larger governments and flexibility of laws (the combination of these traits of course generates a lot more paperwork). They are the longest-lasting party in Canada and my Professor attributes that to their willingness to change moral stances according to the public or global mood (or to put it more negatively, 'blow with the wind'). This amount of flexibility is looked on more negatively in the U.S. to the point where 'Liberal' is an insult.
To boil down to more specific issues, the party commonly promotes gun control, legalization of medicinal marijuana, and has opposed nearly every war. They can also be seen as a sort of middle ground between the Conservative and NDP parties, which represent the traditional "right wing vs. left wing" dilemma bandied about so often. I could be technically viewed as a 'left wing' but NDP seems to have a bad habit of attempting to pass outrageously expensive short-term environmental ventures we would have to forego everything else in order to pursue, and their leader Jack Layton, besides being disliked by the majority of adults for his past, likes to have hissy fits and throw around furious accusations at the other leaders when things don't go his way. I kind of liked him until I realized this.
The Liberal party has most commonly advocated larger governments and flexibility of laws (the combination of these traits of course generates a lot more paperwork). They are the longest-lasting party in Canada and my Professor attributes that to their willingness to change moral stances according to the public or global mood (or to put it more negatively, 'blow with the wind'). This amount of flexibility is looked on more negatively in the U.S. to the point where 'Liberal' is an insult.
To boil down to more specific issues, the party commonly promotes gun control, legalization of medicinal marijuana, and has opposed nearly every war. They can also be seen as a sort of middle ground between the Conservative and NDP parties, which represent the traditional "right wing vs. left wing" dilemma bandied about so often. I could be technically viewed as a 'left wing' but NDP seems to have a bad habit of attempting to pass outrageously expensive short-term environmental ventures we would have to forego everything else in order to pursue, and their leader Jack Layton, besides being disliked by the majority of adults for his past, likes to have hissy fits and throw around furious accusations at the other leaders when things don't go his way. I kind of liked him until I realized this.