Are you Liberal or Conservative or somewhere in between?

[Dreamstalker]

I consider myself socially liberal, but somewhat fiscally conservative.

I'm also pretty close to Ghandi on the politicalcompass chart.

[guywithashovel]

I have some liberal opinions. I support equality for the LGBT community. I'm pro-choice. I think drugs are stupid, but I think good arguments can be made for making them legal. I also favor some kind of national health insurance or single-payer system.

While we're on this subject, I have noticed a bit of a trend where people will voice one liberal opinion after another, but still try to find ways to say that they're conversative. I'm not sure why this is. Maybe it's because the right wing has managed to get such a strong hold on the concepts of "values" and "morality." Nonetheless---and I've seen it on this very board----people will say things like, "I support universal health care, gay rights, abortion rights, and I oppose the death penalty, but I'm still conservative because of *insert obscure reason*." Um, no. You're a bleeding heart liberal.

[Andara Bledin]

Context is of particular importance in this issue.

Also, the media has done a bang-up job of trying to tie liberal to socialist to communist to "the enemy" and there are people who are ignorant beyond what their news outlet of choice feeds them who will do anything to distance themselves from that progression despite it being nothing more than a whole lot of HWFO.

^-.-^

[Gravekeeper]

Also, the media has done a bang-up job of trying to tie liberal to socialist to communist to "the enemy" and there are people who are ignorant beyond what their news outlet of choice feeds them who will do anything to distance themselves from that progression despite it being nothing more than a whole lot of HWFO.

Pretty much, the US media, and US politics since Bush's big with us or against us crap, have turned words like Liberal or Socialist into dirty words. Amongst others. Then the reverse began to happen in response. Now you're completely divided. You cannot hold a political position in the US without it being associated to one team or another. Its kind of surreal in a way. The political spectrum is more complex than liberal/conservative. But America likes everything neatly classified into teams that they can cheer for or rail against and will force you into one camp or another based on a single political belief you hold.

Hence multinational political dicussions on these forums get a bit tricky at times. As the concept of liberal or conservative is quite a bit different once you leave the US.

[draco664]

I honestly do not understand why people oppose our involvement with the UN. A worldwide organization to bring countries together isn't a bad thing, is it?

Simply, yes. It is.

What is good for one country is not necessarily good for another. And bringing together countries without fixing the shit going on between them just leave things like Israel/Palestine.

Consider this, the UN has bodies that oversea things like 'the rights of women' and appoint (ie, without a vote) to said body countries like Iran, a country where women have fuck all in the way of rights.

It's no wonder that the UN can't get shit done.

[Gravekeeper]

What is good for one country is not necessarily good for another. And bringing together countries without fixing the shit going on between them just leave things like Israel/Palestine.

Sorry, I simply can't see how a collective forum where every nation in the world is free to discuss topics with every other nation as a bad thing. When problems occur in the world, the first course of action is take it to the UN. Where you can address another nation, and more importantly, appeal to other nations for support. I vastly perfer this over the original "Fuck this, bomb them" course of action we had before. The entire point of an organization like the UN, and the LON before it, is to maintain peace and avert WW3. LON was formed after WW1 to try and avert a WW2. It failed. So the UN was formed and thus far has managed to keep our asses out of WW3. This is a good thing.

Consider this, the UN has bodies that oversea things like 'the rights of women' and appoint (ie, without a vote) to said body countries like Iran, a country where women have fuck all in the way of rights.

You do see such occasionally stupidity, yes. But its due to regional politics. They can gurantee an appointment by only putting forth one candidate for the appointment from a given region. Libya ended up on the human right's council at one point too, but got booted off by the other countries. Iran as well got booted from the women's right panel last time by the US and Canada.

Plus, if you haven't noticed, Iran is basically a running joke in the UN. Most people leave or nap through anything Iran has to say. >.>

It's no wonder that the UN can't get shit done.

It gets a lot of shit done but like any political body it is a lumbering, preening beast. Also, we're not in the middle of WW3. So job done right there.

[blas87]

This may come across as really rude, but I don't think it's very fair to call victory uninformed, or that he (she? terribly sorry if I'm wrong!) isn't as informed as "you" all, more liberal types, are.

Everyone is entitled to their opinions on this site. A small few of us conservatives are in this group. And hell, sling your mud away at me, call me a monster for being in favor of the death penalty, call me a drooling idiot who drinks FOX news Koolaid, and that's fine. But when you start on how that person is wrong JUST because they like a particular candidate you don't, and your opinion is the RIGHT one just because your political leanings take the more understanding moral high ground, that's not right. That's when I start to feel the same disappointment and irritation that ya'll feel about us monster conservatives. Your opinion is not the RIGHT one just because you feel it's the "better" way of going about things. Neither is mine. That's just sloppy and makes the debate "I'm right because candidates I support aren't her" instead of going about the real issues at hand.

Just for the record, I am not pro life nor am I anti-gay rights. Quite the opposite. I felt the need to defend victory because I felt that he was being treated like an idiot simply because he favors Bachmann and his research and details have been squashed and laughed aside, because a few more liberal posters just despise her and what she stands for. And apparently, your research is better than his.

[Andara Bledin]

His defense was that her opponent was a liar, which is irrelevant, because she has been proven to also be a liar. So that's not an option.

He opposes Social Security, which would be self-sustaining so long as nobody fucked with it. So that shows a lack of knowledge on that subject.

He thinks that welfare is bankrupting us. It's not. Corruption is bankrupting us. Those with the money and power to circumvent the legal system and have undue and incestuous influence with the government on all levels are what are bankrupting our country.

Ignorance is what is fucking bankrupting this country, and the ones in power are doing their best to continue to support ignorance. Poverty makes acquiring knowledge difficult. Keeping the women pregnant and having kids they can't support and then gutting the very systems that would give them and their progeny a way out is what is bankrupting this country. Keeping the downtrodden "in their place" is what is bankrupting this country.

The fact that anyone who is not among the "us" part of the "us vs them" mentality fostered, supported, and in some ways created by the "us" side would support that side truly leaves me baffled.

^-.-^

[Mytical]

Not to defend Iran, but isn't that a symptom of the issue GK? That places like Iran can be booted out (even if rightfully so), and ignored?? Shouldn't a nation have the right to speak it's mind in a United Nations, even if the rest of the the world pretty much ignores it? Shouldn't it have a say? Now you can say "They have a say, but it is just ignored/outvoted"..but then what is the point for that nation to be in the UN? If every country that had a policy the others didn't like pulled out, the UN would be quite empty.

There I go rambling again, return to your regularly scheduled discussion.

[AdminAssistant]

Iran does have a right to speak its mind. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad makes speeches on a semi-regular basis. If others are walking out because he's saying ridiculous things (like there was no Holocaust) and doesn't even really have power...eh.

[Gravekeeper]

Iran does have a right to speak its mind. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad makes speeches on a semi-regular basis. If others are walking out because he's saying ridiculous things (like there was no Holocaust) and doesn't even really have power...eh.

Yeah, no one prevents him from talking. Its just that he'll go on for 2 hours denying the Holocaust or something. So people start to get up and leave. >.>

[Gravekeeper]

This may come across as really rude, but I don't think it's very fair to call victory uninformed, or that he (she? terribly sorry if I'm wrong!) isn't as informed as "you" all, more liberal types, are.

Why, exactly? He/she claimed they were informed, then proved they were not. I don't see how its unfair to call a spade a spade. Ignorance is the biggest threat to the political process there is.

Everyone is entitled to their opinions on this site. A small few of us conservatives are in this group. And hell, sling your mud away at me, call me a monster for being in favor of the death penalty, call me a drooling idiot who drinks FOX news Koolaid, and that's fine.

I am not mud slinging and we are not talking about opinions. We're talking about easily researched facts. Hence "uninformed". I disagree with you over the death penalty, but I would not call you a monster. Nor have I ever called you a drooling idiot.

But when you start on how that person is wrong JUST because they like a particular candidate you don't, and your opinion is the RIGHT one just because your political leanings take the more understanding moral high ground, that's not right.

It is not a matter of like/dislike and I did not say they were wrong JUST because they like a particular candidate. In fact I elaborated at length over two posts exactly what the problems were and what issues were being misunderstood.

That's when I start to feel the same disappointment and irritation that ya'll feel about us monster conservatives. Your opinion is not the RIGHT one just because you feel it's the "better" way of going about things. Neither is mine. That's just sloppy and makes the debate "I'm right because candidates I support aren't her" instead of going about the real issues at hand.

You're edging dangerously close to a persecution complex. We've been discussing the real issues at hand. I don't know what thread you're reading, blas. This is also not about what I "feel" is "better". Things like taxes, the budget, human rights, etc are all concrete topics with demonstratable causes and effects. Bachmann's record and positions are also demonstratable facts.

She lacks integrity and understanding, and holds positions that are A) demonstratably false, B) Too extreme to fly in a general election and C) Have the potential to cause harm to large groups of people for no other reason than her personal beliefs.

I felt the need to defend victory because I felt that he was being treated like an idiot simply because he favors Bachmann and his research and details have been squashed and laughed aside, because a few more liberal posters just despise her and what she stands for. And apparently, your research is better than his.

All of his "research" can be resoundingly defeated by a 30 second Google search. We're not talking deep, complex issues here. I've already explained the issues with Bachmann, and I would hold the same viewpoint about her if she was a Liberal.

Let me make this as clear as possible: Being Conservative is a political position, being ignorant is not and being ignorant is the biggest political sin you can commit when you possess the right to vote.

It has nothing to do with liberal, conservative or anything inbetween.

Also, yet again, I'd like to point out I'm Canadian, so your definitions of Liberal/Conservative don't really fit me nor do I wish to be forced into the Us vs Them sports team mentality going on down there. I'm not against conservatives ( and I don't even vote Liberal for that matter ), I'm just against ignorance and stupidity. -.-

[Rapscallion]

Everyone is entitled to their opinions on this site. A small few of us conservatives are in this group. And hell, sling your mud away at me, call me a monster for being in favor of the death penalty, call me a drooling idiot who drinks FOX news Koolaid, and that's fine. But when you start on how that person is wrong JUST because they like a particular candidate you don't, and your opinion is the RIGHT one just because your political leanings take the more understanding moral high ground, that's not right. That's when I start to feel the same disappointment and irritation that ya'll feel about us monster conservatives. Your opinion is not the RIGHT one just because you feel it's the "better" way of going about things. Neither is mine. That's just sloppy and makes the debate "I'm right because candidates I support aren't her" instead of going about the real issues at hand.

Difference for me, Blas, is that you're not a monster conservative. I'd identify closest to liberal/democrat over in the US were I there, but I don't have a complete faith in everything done and said by those of that stripe - I agree with the death penalty in certain circumstances instead of an outright ban for example. I think about issues and likely outcomes. I get the feeling that you're similar in your approach.

Truth to tell, the board - and the world - needs more people such as you (conservatives who aren't loonies) speaking up. There are some good aspects of the right wing philosophy, but right now the GOP seems to have been hijacked by the lunatic fringe.

If memory serves, the left wing lunatic fringe ruined the labour party's chances for election on many occasions. That was one of the reasons Thatcher and her team stayed in power for so long - it lead to her lot being very arrogant. I still remember the look on Heseltine's face as he announced at a press conference that they were going to close down yet more coal mines - part of the revenge for the miner's strike. He was astounded that anyone would complain that he'd taken the decision to wreck entire communities yet again. Even the journalists were booing him.

By lunatic fringe on the socialist side, we're talking about the sort who wanted the term 'blackboard' eradicted in case it offended a racial minority, and nobody was ever a victim - they were a survivor. That shade of person.

Unless you speak up, you won't be heard. The lunacy infecting the republican party won't go away without sense being heard. It may take crushing election defeats to knock sense into the party, or it may take a more moderate approach to be debated.

Right now, swing voters are the ones sought after by politicians. There are many in the US who aren't keen on Obama for whatever reason, but the alternative is doing its best to out-bizarre itself on a distressing basis.

Rapscallion

[Gravekeeper]

Truth to tell, the board - and the world - needs more people such as you (conservatives who aren't loonies) speaking up. There are some good aspects of the right wing philosophy, but right now the GOP seems to have been hijacked by the lunatic fringe.

This is why I find these types of discussions so frustrating. When I point out a particular position or politician that is misinformed/wrong/fucking crazy/whatever, it gets defended because hey that person is on their "Team". Facts be damned. It gets reduced to Us vs Them yet again, and I get lumped into Them.

The US desperately needs people on the right wing who aren't crazy/ignorant. But those few people like that don't have a rats ass of getting the nomination now because the right wing's base has been taken over by the monster they helped create. It'd be funny if it wasn't so damn sad.

In order to get the GOP nomination, you have to hold views that will never get you elected in the general election. But if you hold views that would actually get you moderates/swing votes, you'd never get the nomination with the GOP in the state its in these days.

The entire political spectrum in the US has basically been dragged 200 feet to the right by the fringe dragging the scale further and further in that direction. So now you'll get labeled a Liberal or a Socialist for having any position left of Glenn Beck.

I just shake my head whenever the Liberal Elitist tag gets trotted out for Obama. Obama is not a Liberal. He's a centerist through and through. If he was actually liberal as defined by he rest of the world he might have actually accomplished some of what he set out to do in the first place. ;p

But Liberal has become the dirty word for anyone that doesn't agree with the right side of the spectrum in the US.

[Andara Bledin]

This is why I find these types of discussions so frustrating. When I point out a particular position or politician that is misinformed/wrong/fucking crazy/whatever, it gets defended because hey that person is on their "Team". Facts be damned. It gets reduced to Us vs Them yet again, and I get lumped into Them.

Partisan political bullshit. It's part of what's hard at work to destroy things in this country right now and everybody who buys into it is part of the problem.

Everybody's so hard at work to prop up their particular "tribe" that they can't see that the entire thing is sinking fast and it's going to drag everybody down with it if people don't start waking the hell up and thinking for themselves instead of repeating back the latest talking points like a well-trained parrot.

^-.-^