Are You Conservative Or Liberal

[gdizzle]

What would you call me?

←

Confused tree huggin' hippie! :)

[matt1122]

How many times is this thread going to be reincarnated.

←

This is the purest form it shall ever have - and the first time without all the stuff and whining. No issue discussion, not about who you're voting for, simply which are you, one or the other.

Silly question. What definitions are you using?

←

Your own definition, define it however you like, just pick a side.

Or don't pick a side, but then you can't vote. ;)

[InlineTurbo]

Silly question. What definitions are you using?

Liberal:

1.  politics progressive views: a belief in tolerance and gradual reform in moral, religious, or political matters 

2.  politics political theory stressing individualism: a political ideology with its beginnings in western Europe that rejects authoritarian government and defends freedom of speech, association, and religion, and the right to own property 

3.  economics free-market economics: an economic theory in favor of free competition and minimal government regulation

Could also mean broad minded. Could also mean a member of the Democratic party with today altered definition.

Conservative:

1.  reluctance to accept change: unwillingness or slowness to accept change or new ideas 

2.  right-wing political viewpoint: a right-of-center political philosophy based on a tendency to support gradual rather than abrupt change and to preserve the status quo 

3.  desire to preserve current societal structure: an ideology that views the existing form of society as worthy of preservation 

Could also mean unwilling to accept change, or a member of the Republican party.

I believe in definitons 1-3 of liberal, but I'm certainly not a Democrat. I believe in 2-3 of conservative, but I'm not really a Republican either. I usually vote Republican, but I also vote Democrat from time to time.

'Republican' policies I tend to favor:

-Finances

-Military

-Abortion to a degree...don't feel its really my business seeing as I'm a man

-Pro-states, pro-constitution

'Democratic' policies I tend to favor:

-Environment. That's a big one for me.

-General social policies....they're generally more...socially responsible.

-Civil liberties

-Gun-control. Not anti-gun, but I think we need some reform here...

What would you call me?

←

A liberal. You used progressive in describing liberals and reluctance to change in describing conservatives. Neither is accurate at all and are both from the left wing trying to be in the middle playbook. Remember today's democrats are so far left of John F. Kennedy that they have to redefine the terms to make themselves look even remotely in the center. All the things you put under liberal were dead wrong in describing them. Especailly #3 which is a true conservative issue along with #2.

The 'environment' isn't a democrat issue. Environmentalist wackos are. There are plenty of conservative groups that are for responsably managing the environment and our resources. You used "right wing" in describing conservatism, but not left-wing to describe liberalism.

True conservative issues:

1) Limited Government.

2) States rights to govern themselves.

3) Economic independance.

4) Helping people by teaching them to help themselves.

5) Honoring and upholding the constitution.

6) Strong millitary and intelligence community.

Liberal issues:

1) Big government.

2) Social experiments. i.e. Socialism, Communism.

3) Gun control.

4) Pro Abortion. Funny seeing as how they are against the death penalty except for babies who haven't commited any crimes yet.

5) Social programs designed to give assistance without accountability.

6) Weak millitary and intelligence community.

Also if you usually vote republican there is no way that you would consider voting for John Kerry. Most of my friends that are republicans think Bush is too moderate and not a true Republican on lots of things. However they all do not like Kerry. He is way too liberal for a true Republican to even think about voting for even if they don't like Bush.

[Guest DougK]

A liberal.  You used progressive in describing liberals and reluctance to change in describing conservatives.  Neither is accurate at all and are both from the left wing trying to be in the middle playbook.  Remember today's democrats are so far left of John F. Kennedy that they have to redefine the terms to make themselves look even remotely in the center.  All the things you put under liberal were dead wrong in describing them.  Especailly #3 which is a true conservative issue along with #2.

The 'environment' isn't a democrat issue.  Environmentalist wackos are.  There are plenty of conservative groups that are for responsably managing the environment and our resources.  You used "right wing" in describing conservatism, but not left-wing to describe liberalism.

True conservative issues:

1) Limited Government.

2) States rights to govern themselves.

3) Economic independance.

4) Helping people by teaching them to help themselves.

5) Honoring and upholding the constitution.

6) Strong millitary and intelligence community.

Liberal issues:

1) Big government.

2) Social experiments.  i.e. Socialism, Communism.

3) Gun control.

4) Pro Abortion.  Funny seeing as how they are against the death penalty except for babies who haven't commited any crimes yet.

5) Social programs designed to give assistance without accountability.

6) Weak millitary and intelligence community.

Also if you usually vote republican there is no way that you would consider voting for John Kerry.  Most of my friends that are republicans think Bush is too moderate and not a true Republican on lots of things.  However they all do not like Kerry.  He is way too liberal for a true Republican to even think about voting for even if they don't like Bush.

←

Thank you, this is the definition I go by and see as the truth as well.

As far as "none of this middle stuff" is a fallacey. There are plenty of people who are not extremists as your question would suggest.

[jross]

According to InlineTurbo's list, I'm conservative. However, according to how I would vote in this coming election, I'm a liberal.

The big problem is that neither party is actually filling the position they claim they do, and are both instead jousting over some illusory "middle ground". They both sold out, and both suck jerk.

[matt1122]

According to InlineTurbo's list, I'm conservative. However, according to how I would vote in this coming election, I'm a liberal.

The big problem is that neither party is actually filling the position they claim they do, and are both instead jousting over some illusory "middle ground". They both sold out, and both suck jerk.

←

That's a good reason to vote for a third party, while they have no chance of being on the electoral ballot this year if they get enough of a popular vote they could actually enter the race, at least that's the theory.

And Doug, I never said anything about being extreme, I said which way do you lean. The way you vote is not a good indicator, the way you feel on the issues is. Anyone could vote for Kerry this election if they had been paying attention and made up their mind during the right point in his endless flip flopping. At least now he's starting to develop a more solid solidness to his campaign, though I still have my doubts. The next debates tomorrow, right?

[InlineTurbo]

The big problem is that neither party is actually filling the position they claim they do, and are both instead jousting over some illusory "middle ground". They both sold out, and both suck jerk.

←

"The two real political parties in America are the winners and the losers. The people don't acknoledge this. They claim membership in two imaginary parties, the Republicans and the Democrats, instead." --Kurt Vonnegut

I have to agree with you on this issue. Playing for the undecideds is something that is not very cool. That is why we see all the stupid rhetoric and spin. It turns my stomach from both sides. I just see Kerry as doing it a whole lot more. It is at least more obvious to catch Kerry because his shifts are so huge.

I do not trust Kerry at all because of his huge shift in positions depending on what the current popluar trend was. Plus his activities during and after Vietnam make him totally unsuitable in my mind. If he betrays his own countryment to gain political favor what does that say about how he is going to lead?

Bush isn't perfect. He has spent too much, but Kerry isn't going to spend less. What Bush has done is stood up to terrorists and made them fearful again. OBL attacked us because he though we wouldn't attack back. Because under Clinton we didn't. Clinton was offered OBL during his presidency and declined the offer. However when they attacked under Bush he miscalculated. To quote Ronald Reagan:

"Today we did what we had to do. They counted on America being passive. They cunted wrong.”

Bush stood up to terrorists. Now the Taliban and Al Qaeda are in shambles. Qhadaffi has given up his nukes and terroris networks and their supporters are in chaos. Sadam Hussein is out of Power and his country is becoming a democracy. This is a good thing. Making it look bad to try and win an election is not. Is it perfect? NO. Is it easy? NO. Does it require sacrifice? YES. Is it worth it? Ask the Iraqis who are fighting the terrorist in their own country. They fight with us not against us. They want to be free. Bush has made this world a better place and for that he gets my vote on Nov. 2nd. The Kerry's of the world will talk tough, but that is all they will do. If Kerry was tough and could do things better than Bush he would have had more than 5 bills passed through the senate in 20 years.

[matt1122]

The president and vice president aren't the whole picture though, consider where our other representatives stand and I think it becomes a lot easier to pick a side, though some issues are still touchy.

[jross]

No offense, but Inline, I disagree almost completely with your analysis, from just after the Vonnegut quote on. I think that Bush has only inflamed the majority of world opinion against us, and has only made the terrorist threat much, much worse. Al-Qaeda is not dead, and is not in shambles -- we've barely touched them. The Taliban is making a comeback in parts of Afghanistan, where people have decided that rule on the Taliban is better than rule under the warlords. I have friends who are Afghani, and one of them just moved back to take care of his family there. I have family and friends in the armed forces there and in Iraq. (Most of my friends are actually Persian/ Middle-eastern, and alot of them have family there or live there themselves at least part of the year). I think that the American people are being misled as to the actual situation in the rest of the world, because I know for a fact that what I hear from the people who are actually there does not jive with what I hear and see on the newswire.

However, I will say, I don't envy Kerry. Even if he wins, he's got a long, hard road ahead of him still. This country has been mismanaged for well over 2 decades now (thought I honestly think Clinton did a good job in a lot of areas), and I don't really think that's going to change in this election. My vote's going to Kerry, not because I like him, but because I dislike Bush alot more.

[matt1122]

(thought I honestly think Clinton did a good job in a lot of areas)

←

Not terrorism.

The country definitely isn't at more risk now then before, the risk has always been there, you just weren't as aware. I think that's an obvious fact a lot of people ignore.

Ignorance is bliss. George W. Bush took some of your bliss away by making you less ignorant of the terror situation in our country at any given time. Now you're in denial, pretending the threat wasn't there before and that you were never ignorant. This denial means pretending the threat is greater now than it was before (because, you know, they never tried to knock the WTC down BEFORE bush was in office). Because you deny this you feel that George W. Bush is at fault for our countries terror threat level, when in fact its the lifestyle of our entire country that the middle eastern terrorist organizations hate. Quite frankly, if you became president you'd be hated just as much as GW is, and if you make John Kerry our president he is going to be hated just as much and I highly doubt he will put up as strong a fight against that hate and terror as George W. Bush does, and his message will certainly not be as strong.

PS By you I mean everyone else, not necessarily jross. ;)

[Guest DougK]

And Doug, I never said anything about being extreme, I said which way do you lean.  The way you vote is not a good indicator, the way you feel on the issues is.  Anyone could vote for Kerry this election if they had been paying attention and made up their mind during the right point in his endless flip flopping.  At least now he's starting to develop a more solid solidness to his campaign, though I still have my doubts.  The next debates tomorrow, right?

←

"None of this middle stuff" does that ring a bell?

Im sorry. I don't care for either party completely, Im almost split down the center.

Edited October 8, 2004 by dougs242S60

[InlineTurbo]

No offense, but Inline, I disagree almost completely with your analysis, from just after the Vonnegut quote on. I think that Bush has only inflamed the majority of world opinion against us, and has only made the terrorist threat much, much worse.

...because I know for a fact that what I hear from the people who are actually there does not jive with what I hear and see on the newswire.

←

Disagreement is good. Though We agree on one thing. What is on the news isn't what is happening. I have friends in the millitary and have met with pople who did a tour in IRAQ. Almost all of them believe in the mission. Go to any Marine barracks and I bet you will see lots of guys with short haircuts chomping at the bit to kick some terrorist jerk. There are still people who remember losing loved ones in the WTC. Almost nothing good that we do is being reported. Pretty much only the bad. This isn't an easy fight. We however have captured or killed many AQ leaders and have crippled their funding mechanism. Many terrorist plots have been foiled because of our efforts here and abroad. It is hard to wipe out terrorism completely. The best way however is to take away it motivations and breeding grounds. Two of these places were Afghanistan and Iraq. Securing those will get the other places to follow eventually. It is hard to kill an ideal. But you can take away the reasons for the ideal. Give people freedom. Give them a chance for a life and they won't want to blow themselves up in planes. Keep them locked under the thumb of an oppressive dictator and hatred and ignorace combined with ruthless leaders will breed terror. Hence the global war on terror. Our solution to the problem. It is to help these nations to be free and prosper.

He it is plain and simple. You can't piss off a bunch of terrorists who already wanted to kill us. It is just not possible. They have been calling us the great Satan for decades. Remember the first WTC bombing? The attack on the U.S.S. Cole? Khobar Towers? All under Clinton. Remember it was Terrorists who flew planes into the WTC on September 11, 2001. Not George W. Bush. They struck us first. Bad move. They should have let the sleeping Eagle alone. We are the most benevolent country in the world and also the most powerful and prosperous. We defend goodness and order in the world and we will stand up for freedom against terror with our lives. Now they know the only way to defeat America is to weaken our will. Just like Vietnam. People remember that time and the stakes are a lot higher now. The first shot of the war was on our soil, but the last shot won't be. Unless we elect somebody who won't have the balls to stand up and do what is right. Kerry doesn't have those balls. His resolve blows with the political winds and if you think there aren't foreign agents and terrorist groups funding war protesters over here trying to weaken our resolve then you (the global you that is) didn't learn the lesson from Vietnam.

[InlineTurbo]

Im sorry. I don't care for either party completely, Im almost split down the center.

←

I'm with Doug. I like the ideals of the Republican party, but they don't follow them anymore. Can't stand today's Democrats. We need a better choice. I made the mistake of voting 3rd party in '92 and it got us Clinton. What and embarrasment he was. Except for letting terrorism breed and tons of scandals I guess he didn't run the country off the edge of a cliff.

Something like the Spend Money wisely, Get rid of beurocracy, Defend our country well and don't pass stupid laws party. I'd be down with that.

[ChuckV986]

A liberal. You used progressive in describing liberals and reluctance to change in describing conservatives. Neither is accurate at all and are both from the left wing trying to be in the middle playbook. Remember today's democrats are so far left of John F. Kennedy that they have to redefine the terms to make themselves look even remotely in the center. All the things you put under liberal were dead wrong in describing them. Especailly #3 which is a true conservative issue along with #2.

The 'environment' isn't a democrat issue. Environmentalist wackos are. There are plenty of conservative groups that are for responsably managing the environment and our resources. You used "right wing" in describing conservatism, but not left-wing to describe liberalism.

True conservative issues:

1) Limited Government.

2) States rights to govern themselves.

3) Economic independance.

4) Helping people by teaching them to help themselves.

5) Honoring and upholding the constitution.

6) Strong millitary and intelligence community.

Liberal issues:

1) Big government.

2) Social experiments. i.e. Socialism, Communism.

3) Gun control.

4) Pro Abortion. Funny seeing as how they are against the death penalty except for babies who haven't commited any crimes yet.

5) Social programs designed to give assistance without accountability.

6) Weak millitary and intelligence community.

Also if you usually vote republican there is no way that you would consider voting for John Kerry. Most of my friends that are republicans think Bush is too moderate and not a true Republican on lots of things. However they all do not like Kerry. He is way too liberal for a true Republican to even think about voting for even if they don't like Bush.

←

To clarify, I pulled up dictionary definitions for both conservative and liberal, thats what the numbered points are. I added modern day context below that. I said I didn't apply the first dictionary definition of conservative, at least not to myself.

The reason I'm voting for Kerry isn't because of issues. If you look at their policies, there aren't many HUGE differences. I just really have very little faith in Bush's judgement. But you're right, a true Republican I am definitely not. Registered Independant, though given your analysis I guess it's safe to say Independant with slight liberal leanings. I generally vote Republican because I just don't like very many Democrats, and most of them are too far out for my tastes...I find there are far more moderate Republicans than moderate Democrats.

Confused tree huggin' hippie! 

Haha, I like that response.

I'm with Doug. I like the ideals of the Republican party, but they don't follow them anymore. Can't stand today's Democrats. We need a better choice. I made the mistake of voting 3rd party in '92 and it got us Clinton. What and embarrasment he was. Except for letting terrorism breed and tons of scandals I guess he didn't run the country off the edge of a cliff.

Something like the Spend Money wisely, Get rid of beurocracy, Defend our country well and don't pass stupid laws party. I'd be down with that.

I agree with you 100% there... It's a shame that there aren't many politicans like that today. McCain is a prime example of one IMO, I really like him. I was SO angry when he didn't get the 2000 nomination. He would have stomped all over Gore, and I think it's just shameful that he didn't stomp all over Bush and really doesn't speak too well of the Republican party, IMO. I agree, I like the IDEALS of the Republican party better, but they aren't followed. Bush certainly doesn't. The real problem is that I really can't stand the radical members of either party...

Almost all of them believe in the mission.

I've heard the same thing, they all say something needed to be done just from a humanitarian point of view...but many of them aren't 100% about the way we went about doing it.

He it is plain and simple. You can't piss off a bunch of terrorists who already wanted to kill us. It is just not possible. They have been calling us the great Satan for decades. Remember the first WTC bombing? The attack on the U.S.S. Cole? Khobar Towers? All under Clinton. Remember it was Terrorists who flew planes into the WTC on September 11, 2001. Not George W. Bush. They struck us first. Bad move. They should have let the sleeping Eagle alone. We are the most benevolent country in the world and also the most powerful and prosperous. We defend goodness and order in the world and we will stand up for freedom against terror with our lives. Now they know the only way to defeat America is to weaken our will. Just like Vietnam. People remember that time and the stakes are a lot higher now. The first shot of the war was on our soil, but the last shot won't be. Unless we elect somebody who won't have the balls to stand up and do what is right. Kerry doesn't have those balls. His resolve blows with the political winds and if you think there aren't foreign agents and terrorist groups funding war protesters over here trying to weaken our resolve then you (the global you that is) didn't learn the lesson from Vietnam.

That's the only BIG problem I ever had with Clinton. I always thought he was stupid for not wiping them out when he had the chance... Bush is absolutely right for pursuing an aggressive policy, what we did in Iraq wasn't really helpful, in my opinion. Iraq didn't attack us... I'm curious to see how all these allegations of coruption with France and what-not play out though.

I'm not so sure about the criticisms of Kerry's resolve.... But we'll see if he's elected. I don't think any president in this day and age could afford to be soft, and I think he can see that. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree there.

Bottom line, as I've said before is that I want some better canidates out there. I'd really like to see John McCain running Joe Biden in this election. If that was the case, I think I'd have to think hard about who to vote for, but not because both the canidates are so terrible that I'd have to decide who was worse.

The last election where I liked the canidate was Clinton/Bush in '92. I was pretty disapointed when Perot stole that election from Bush. I really wonder how different things would be today if that election had gone the other way... Would 9/11 have happened?

[jross]

Not terrorism.

The country definitely isn't at more risk now then before, the risk has always been there, you just weren't as aware. I think that's an obvious fact a lot of people ignore.

Ignorance is bliss. George W. Bush took some of your bliss away by making you less ignorant of the terror situation in our country at any given time. Now you're in denial, pretending the threat wasn't there before and that you were never ignorant. This denial means pretending the threat is greater now than it was before (because, you know, they never tried to knock the WTC down BEFORE bush was in office). Because you deny this you feel that George W. Bush is at fault for our countries terror threat level, when in fact its the lifestyle of our entire country that the middle eastern terrorist organizations hate. Quite frankly, if you became president you'd be hated just as much as GW is, and if you make John Kerry our president he is going to be hated just as much and I highly doubt he will put up as strong a fight against that hate and terror as George W. Bush does, and his message will certainly not be as strong.

PS By you I mean everyone else, not necessarily jross.

←

You know, you're assuming alot. We've always been at risk, yes. The WTC incident didn't come as a huge surprise -- their methods, yes, but not their intent. I've spent alot of time living outside the US, and I'm not oblivious to how most of the world feels about us. We're not loved, and we havn't been for a long time. Bush really has done alot to further the animosity of alot of the world towards the US, and in doing so, has made terrorism an even greater threat than it was already. Half-jerk and botched incusions into Afghanistan and Iraq will not wipe out terrorism, but only spread it more. You can tell yourself you're safer now, if it helps you sleep at night, but you're really not. Nothing has been done to beef up security in our ports, and believe me when I say a determined terrorist could easily build domestically or import nukes into this country (remember where I work when I say this. It is possible).

Honestly, you wanna know what I want the government to do?

1) Get the monkey out of other countries -- we're just wasting money, and not making any friends

2) Quit with the "Homeland Security" charade. Either get serious about it, or get rid of it.

3) monkey frivolous tax cuts, and frivolous. Certain things are necissary -- tax us to pay for these, and nothing more.

4) Get the monkey out of our lives. I don't need to be told how to live, and what I can and can't do (for the most part).

5) If we still insist on changing the world, provide humanitarian support. No more "military incursion" bullcrap.

There's more, but I'm pressed for time.

Edited October 8, 2004 by jross