Page 8 of 15 [ 233 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 ... 15  Next


Where are you politically?
Liberal 13%  13%  [ 13 ]
Conservative 10%  10%  [ 10 ]
Moderate 7%  7%  [ 7 ]
Socialist 13%  13%  [ 13 ]
Libertarian 15%  15%  [ 15 ]
Authoritarian 1%  1%  [ 1 ]
Anarchist 5%  5%  [ 5 ]
Communist 3%  3%  [ 3 ]
Centrist 6%  6%  [ 6 ]
Mixture of a few 20%  20%  [ 20 ]
Other 9%  9%  [ 9 ]
Total votes : 102

Mummy_of_Peanut
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Feb 2011
Age: 52
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,564
Location: Bonnie Scotland

14 Mar 2012, 9:06 am

LunaticOnTheGrass wrote:
Essentially? I'm a center-left to leftist. I guess I just find general Conservatism to be so... distasteful. Sure, go right ahead and call it the typical "young" perspective; I just can't stand how America's "Left" is Europe's "Center-Right", and yet there's still the accusations of Obama's apparent "Communism" or "Socialism" or "Islamic Background".
I find it strange that people can be 'accused' of being socialist, as if it's immoral, especially when I view right wing politics as distasteful, just as you do. What's wrong with wanting to spread the wealth around a bit more fairly? Less inequality makes for a happier society. http://newparadigmdigest.com/3357/equal ... y-society/


_________________
"We act as though comfort and luxury were the chief requirements of life, when all we need to make us really happy is something to be enthusiatic about." Charles Kingsley


Tequila
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Feb 2006
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 28,897
Location: Lancashire, UK

14 Mar 2012, 9:58 am

AceOfSpades wrote:
Liberal? Me? Come on you know me better than that lol. I'm far from being a liberal.


In Europe we would call social engineering types social liberals, greenies, socialists, social democrats, authoritarian conservatives and other general nasties.

I think classical liberalism and radicalism is a decent approximation of your ideology. Classical liberalism might suit you best? It depends on how much you want the state to be able to interfere in another's life. But yeah, classical liberalism is a decent descriptor. Do you think that the state "should" have an increasing role in people's lives or do you think that people are generally better off without it wherever possible? Would you favour privatisaiton of health care (something that is being looked at in Britain) if it was genuinely free-market and not corporatist and bureaucratic?

Libertarianism clearly doesn't suit you. Social liberalism doesn't suit you either, because social liberals are the very nanny statists (probably like what you think of when you think "liberals") you decry.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,246
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

14 Mar 2012, 10:52 am

Mummy_of_Peanut wrote:
LunaticOnTheGrass wrote:
Essentially? I'm a center-left to leftist. I guess I just find general Conservatism to be so... distasteful. Sure, go right ahead and call it the typical "young" perspective; I just can't stand how America's "Left" is Europe's "Center-Right", and yet there's still the accusations of Obama's apparent "Communism" or "Socialism" or "Islamic Background".
I find it strange that people can be 'accused' of being socialist, as if it's immoral, especially when I view right wing politics as distasteful, just as you do. What's wrong with wanting to spread the wealth around a bit more fairly? Less inequality makes for a happier society. http://newparadigmdigest.com/3357/equal ... y-society/


Oh, but those conservatives would tell you that inequality encourages people to reach for the stars! :?

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



AceOfSpades
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,754
Location: Sean Penn, Cambodia

14 Mar 2012, 10:53 am

Mummy_of_Peanut wrote:
LunaticOnTheGrass wrote:
Essentially? I'm a center-left to leftist. I guess I just find general Conservatism to be so... distasteful. Sure, go right ahead and call it the typical "young" perspective; I just can't stand how America's "Left" is Europe's "Center-Right", and yet there's still the accusations of Obama's apparent "Communism" or "Socialism" or "Islamic Background".
I find it strange that people can be 'accused' of being socialist, as if it's immoral, especially when I view right wing politics as distasteful, just as you do. What's wrong with wanting to spread the wealth around a bit more fairly? Less inequality makes for a happier society. http://newparadigmdigest.com/3357/equal ... y-society/
You can thank McCarthy for the witch hunt mentality. As for why I'm against egalitarianism as the left knows it, egalitarianism is an arbitrary ideological construct and to use the Government to intervene in order to mold society into the image of that is social engineering. And why am I against social engineering?
  • Since it is on a large scale, it requires the Government to be more centralized, making the Government more monolithic and less divided
  • Because it's in the name of some arbitrary ideological construct, there's no specific or measurable way to see where it's at or where it's going.
They can make their cause as vague as they see fit so that they can obscure their means, motives, and opportunities. This way, you can pour as much money into the problem as you like and it'll never be enough because they can shift goal posts as they see fit. This isn't just a Government problem though, any sort of noble cause can easily be run as a business. An individual should be autonomous within society, not subject to the tyranny of the masses.

The reason they like vagueness isn't just to cover their own asses, but because emotional appeal fills the void that vagueness leaves behind.



Last edited by AceOfSpades on 14 Mar 2012, 11:07 am, edited 1 time in total.

Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,246
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

14 Mar 2012, 11:07 am

AceOfSpades wrote:
Mummy_of_Peanut wrote:
LunaticOnTheGrass wrote:
Essentially? I'm a center-left to leftist. I guess I just find general Conservatism to be so... distasteful. Sure, go right ahead and call it the typical "young" perspective; I just can't stand how America's "Left" is Europe's "Center-Right", and yet there's still the accusations of Obama's apparent "Communism" or "Socialism" or "Islamic Background".
I find it strange that people can be 'accused' of being socialist, as if it's immoral, especially when I view right wing politics as distasteful, just as you do. What's wrong with wanting to spread the wealth around a bit more fairly? Less inequality makes for a happier society. http://newparadigmdigest.com/3357/equal ... y-society/
You can thank McCarthy for the witch hunt mentality. As for why I'm against egalitarianism as the left knows it, egalitarianism is an arbitrary ideological construct and to use the Government to intervene in order to mold society into the image of that is social engineering. And why am I against social engineering? Because it's in the name of some arbitrary ideological construct, there's no specific or measurable way to assess it. They can make their cause as vague as they see fit so that they can obscure their means, motives, and opportunities. This way, you can pour as much money into the problem as you like and it'll never be enough because they can shift goal posts as they see fit. This isn't just a Government problem though, any sort of noble cause can easily be run as a business. An individual should be autonomous within society, not subject to the tyranny of the masses insisting that they are coerced into contributing to some vague, unmeasurable cause.

The reason they like vagueness isn't just to cover their own asses, but because emotional appeal fills the void that vagueness leaves behind.


But we're not autonomous within society. We each need the rest of society to survive, and in turn, others are dependent on us. That's not any sort of tyranny of the masses, but simply the way the nature of human society has always worked. The notion of a society consisting entirely of autonomous individuals only existed in make-believe land.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



LunaticOnTheGrass
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 13 Mar 2012
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 136
Location: Under the Sun, in tune.

14 Mar 2012, 11:14 am

Mummy_of_Peanut wrote:
I find it strange that people can be 'accused' of being socialist, as if it's immoral, especially when I view right wing politics as distasteful, just as you do. What's wrong with wanting to spread the wealth around a bit more fairly? Less inequality makes for a happier society.


You're making the typical rookie mistake, thinking that American politicians want a happy society. :wink:

Issues and problems are exploitable, meaning that the more problems there are, the more solutions that can be formulated to provide slow, painful reprieve.

This, of course, will garner a profit. While we're frittering away over problems like "Should women have control over their own bodies and have the same rights as men", our elected representatives are rolling in money that I know I'll never see in my lifetime.

...And yes, Socialism is seriously an accusation 'round here in 'Murica. The word "Liberal" is taboo; sometimes the occasional candidate settles for the tag of "Progressive". Most of the time, though, it's all about out-Americaning the opponent while all attempting to claim that they, not the others, are the one chosen by the world's biggest collective imaginary friend.



YippySkippy
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Feb 2011
Age: 44
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,986

14 Mar 2012, 2:56 pm

I'd like to see an American presidential candidate who confidently strides up to the podium and says, "I'm a liberal socialist, vote for me!"
Wouldn't that knock the wind out of a lot of sails? The sails of those people who like to accuse everyone of being liberals and socialists, I mean. What could they say if someone would just own it and represent it?



Tim_Tex
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Jul 2004
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 46,402
Location: Houston, Texas

14 Mar 2012, 3:12 pm

This poll does not take into account that some of the choices can overlap.

That said, I vote Republican solely because the U.S. is a 2-party state and I agree more with them than I do the Democrats, but I actually tend to be on the border between libertarian/anarchist.


_________________
Who’s better at math than a robot? They’re made of math!


MONKEY
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Jan 2009
Age: 32
Gender: Female
Posts: 9,896
Location: Stoke, England (sometimes :P)

14 Mar 2012, 6:22 pm

Politics can be confusing and pretty much all parties/leanings etc only seem to work on paper if that. Though in general I would say I'm more on the left so I voted liberal. I agree with an earlier poster about things being sorted on a case by case basis, I'm very relativist in that way and each issue should be looked at individually and not have one approach covering all. Like a crime case and things like that.
I'm also for the legalisation of recreational drugs, but regulated so they can only be purchased from chemists and they can keep track of how often a purchaser buys them to avoid dependence and addiction.
And the police are a bit rubbish because they overreact to petty things like arguments in the street and thefts of chewing gums when there's better things they could be doing, and prison should be for people who are dangerous and their crimes have a direct, hurt victim (burlgary, murder, rape, severe assault etc). With other petty stuff house arrests, huge fines and community service will suffice so the prisons aren't over crowded by people that don't need locking away.
I also hate large scale war and the military is a pointlessly dangerous job to go into and if the country isn't in direct threat there doesn't need to be one. I hate when someone joins the army because they are risking an avoidable death and they should be safe.
And I think age of sexual consent laws need to be a bit more relaxed, Canada have got it right in this respect. So teenagers aren't patronised and an 18 year old with a sexually active 15 year old girlfriend/boyfriend isn't demonised as a pedo rapist. It's not that black and white.
Also some amount of benefits and welfare are needed and shouldn't be cut so drastically.

I often get chastised for my leanings and beliefs because it's too left, they often get dismissed as stupid or immature, especially when it comes to the military and the law. My mum says I "don't understand" (that's her way of dismissing my thoughts). Ah well.


_________________
What film do atheists watch on Christmas?
Coincidence on 34th street.


puddingmouse
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Apr 2010
Age: 38
Gender: Female
Posts: 8,777
Location: Cottonopolis

14 Mar 2012, 9:57 pm

^

I don't see what's immature about your views, but then I'm probably not the best judge.


_________________
Zombies, zombies will tear us apart...again.


Tequila
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Feb 2006
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 28,897
Location: Lancashire, UK

14 Mar 2012, 10:02 pm

MONKEY wrote:
So teenagers aren't patronised and an 18 year old with a sexually active 15 year old girlfriend/boyfriend isn't demonised as a pedo rapist. It's not that black and white.


Quite often, although it's illegal, action isn't taken if there are no signs of abuse and no-one complains. If the older partner is 20 or above though at with a partner at 15, it is seen as exploitative and if it's found out about, action tends to be taken.



Last edited by Tequila on 14 Mar 2012, 10:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Tequila
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Feb 2006
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 28,897
Location: Lancashire, UK

14 Mar 2012, 10:03 pm

MONKEY wrote:
I also hate large scale war and the military is a pointlessly dangerous job to go into and if the country isn't in direct threat there doesn't need to be one.


We need to have a military in order to defend all our territory. Otherwise, I generally agree in that we should stay out of foreign conflicts.



abacacus
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Apr 2007
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,380

14 Mar 2012, 10:06 pm

Tequila wrote:
MONKEY wrote:
I also hate large scale war and the military is a pointlessly dangerous job to go into and if the country isn't in direct threat there doesn't need to be one.


We need to have a military in order to defend all our territory. Otherwise, I generally agree in that we should stay out of foreign conflicts.

This.

Having no standing military is a short sighted idea.


_________________
A shot gun blast into the face of deceit
You'll gain your just reward.
We'll not rest until the purge is complete
You will reap what you've sown.


PM
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Oct 2010
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,466
Location: Southeastern United States

14 Mar 2012, 10:07 pm

All over the map. I advocate government that takes care of its citizens and has strong laws. I prefer a society that prizes order, respects the laws of man and respects those in positions of authority (providing those authority figures don't do anything to betray the trust of the people).

In other words, do whatever you want as long as it does not infringe on the rights of others, and don't victimize your fellow man to make money.


_________________
Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men?


Tequila
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Feb 2006
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 28,897
Location: Lancashire, UK

14 Mar 2012, 10:14 pm

abacacus wrote:
Having no standing military is a short sighted idea.


Yup. If we didn't have a military, the Falkland Islands would be Argentine in minutes.



enrico_dandolo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Nov 2011
Age: 35
Gender: Female
Posts: 866

15 Mar 2012, 3:34 am

Tequila wrote:
abacacus wrote:
Having no standing military is a short sighted idea.


Yup. If we didn't have a military, the Falkland Islands would be Argentine in minutes.

... the problem being?

I don't disagree with the need for a military in general, however. It is sadly a necessity because even though one may commit oneself not to attack others, that does not mean others will do the same. In fact, it means they probably will attack.