Political Ideology

[MasterAtArms]

Ok, I understand that this question is a personal so please do not answer if you aren't comfortable with it.

Are you Conservative or Liberal and are you Democrat or Republican?
Now I understand that Conservative and Republican are basically the same thing as well as Democrat and Liberal; however, I know someone could be a Liberal Republican or Vica Versa.. Wow that seems like an Oxymoron. lol.

As for me, I am definatly Republican and Conservative.

Thank you

[Musubi Dojo]

There's been several threads on this already.

[David Craik]

I am going to be whatever party produces the best candidate (in terms of the issues) that election year. I'm conservative on some things, liberal on others.

[Ramirez]

I am going to be whatever party produces the best candidate (in terms of the issues) that election year. I'm conservative on some things, liberal on others.

Same here, I don't take a stance on any issue based on a political ideology, I'll consider each issue independently.

If anything I lean towards libertarianism, I don't like to get involved in anyone else's business and I don't like them getting involved in mine.

[Cliff Hargrave]

I think most people are a little conservative, a little liberal, and somewhere in the middle on many issues. The definitions have changed over the years however and the parties used to contain elements of both.

There is quite a bit of wiggle room between Marxism and Robber Barons, and between debauchery and a life in a monastery, and between anarchy and order.

I lean towards the conservative side but on a issue by issue basis I do have some moderate ideas. Labeling yourself at 17 is useless because your life experiences will mold your opinions.

My biggest fear in the next general election is not that a Liberal/Democrat like Hillary will get elected, it's that a fake conservative like McCain or Giuliani will. The current administration has done a lot to erode many conservative ideas.
Continuing the trend will further weaken the movement.

My life hasn't really changed though, no matter who is in charge, because it's based on what I make of it and not what they can do for me.

[Haze]

I'm conservatively liberal and only vere from center to the right or left when I feel the need to do so based on my liberal conservatism.

(from what I wrote, do you think I may have a future in the United States political arena?)

[Abbax8]

I'm a registered independent. I'm conservative/moderate/liberal, it depends on the issue.

Peace

Dennis

[Maro]

I'm agnostic :D:

Seriously, I dislike intensely, pidgeon-holing. Especially when it's used as a term of abuse.

[Dennis Monk]

I am an ACLU card carrying, rainbow flag waiving, street marching against the Bush war machine, liberal.
But, only on the day following March 31st.

[David Craik]

'Liberal' and 'Conservative' are silly labels for those that buy a party line wholesale without thinking on each issue for themselves.

I think the ACLU has moved from a champion of civil rights in it's early days to a ridiculous organization - suing cities which have the Christian cross as part of their coat of arms when such a symbol has historical significance to the founding of the city for example. Indignation at Christian symbols used in a town founded by Christians is absurd in the extreme. As is the balking at nativity scenes and Christian things displayed or spoken ('Merry Christmas' instead of 'Happy Holidays') during this time of year. Seems like we aren't happy unless we're being freakin' offended by something. The display of faith offends only those whose own differing faith (or non-faith) is weak to begin with.

I don't wave rainbow flags but believe that consenting adults have the right to live their lives however they see fit (provided it adversely affects no one else). I recently had an article from my blog based on the gay marriage thread from this very website posted with my permission and by their request on a gay radio website in Canada. I am not gay and the very thought makes my skin crawl...but I realize this is not the case with other people. Francis Scott Key, who wrote the 'Star-Spangled Banner', was flaming, yet even the most harcore right-wingers sing this patiotic song. There are others different than I, but that fact alone does not make them evil in my eyes.

I have been a part of this particular Bush's 'war machine' thrice and think it was a horrible mistake with regard to Iraq - not so with Afghanistan. I believed this from the beginning, back in '03. Not beacause I didn't want to go - it's great training - but because we were getting into a quagmire from which extrication would very difficult under modern PC rules of warfare. But we are not asked our opinions, we make war on whom we are told. Had fun under the elder Bush too, which I think was justified but didn't go far enough.

This is all year long though. I believe different people have valid points on different issues. We can surely all live together without forcing our points on others, however.

It's all a part of why my country is so great though. One is allowed to voice an opinion.

[aplonis]

I didn't know what I was until I stumbled across a highly specific term on Wikipedia. According to their definition the attitudes and opinions I have long thought my own do indeed fit a category. They call it American Individualist Anarchism. Basically it is the idea that the government should leave people completely alone in the exercise of their free will so long, and only so long, as there is no measurable physical harm done to anyone else. None of this business we have nowadays with elected officials pushing their religion and personal morality off on everybody else via laws, ordinances and regulation.

You could still have environment laws and such because spewing poison all about does a measurable amount of physical harm. So its not as extreme as it might sound at first. Just none of the abstract, culture-defining, quasi-moralism we get nowadays. Think of something almost like the Old West and its kind of freedom. You mind your business and I'll mind mine. The government doesn't have to run around fixing everything, just punish the bad guys when the harm they do can be physically measured.

Clearly this kind of attitude doesn't fit into any of our above-named categories.

The conservatives claim to be against big government, but it ain't so. They just want it to be big in different places than the liberals. I'd like to see it skinnied down evenly everywhere. Let them build roads and bridges, defend the borders against invasion and keep their noses out of everything else. If a drug addict wants to remove himself from the gene pool, why stop him?

Gan Uesli Starling
Kalamazoo MI

[David Craik]

I doubt if any sort of 'anarchism' is something I could get behind. In a true anarchic state, I could easily kill most of it's advocates.

[Patrick Hayes]

I doubt if any sort of 'anarchism' is something I could get behind. In a true anarchic state, I could easily kill most of it's advocates.
Admit it, it's tempting some days. . . :ticks:

[David Craik]

Oh yes.....though there would be somebody to come along and kill me as well. Which doesn't bother me particularly, though it would pi$$ my wife off no end.

[Dennis Monk]

I don't wave rainbow flags but believe that consenting adults have the right to live their lives however they see fit (provided it adversely affects no one else).
Being a Grateful Dead fan makes you gay?
:laugh:

[David Craik]

Nope, though it's an indication that one may be an old stoner. :D



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainbow_flag

[Dennis Monk]

Nope, though it's an indication that one may be an old stoner. :D
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainbow_flag
Oh, I'm well acquainted with the rainbow flag thing. I won't mention the names of certain family members an family members-in law. :D

[Jonathan Randall]

Now I understand that Conservative and Republican are basically the same thing

Beg to differ, my friend. There's not a damn thing conservative about the current Republican Party. They've become big government, deficit spending, interventionist folks in a way the Democrats can only imagine - and could never get passed.

[Dennis Monk]

Beg to differ, my friend. There's not a damn thing conservative about the current Republican Party. They've become big government, deficit spending, interventionist folks in a way the Democrats can only imagine - and could never get passed.
I'd really like to argue with you about that, being a very conservative Republican myself. The reason I can't is not because I think you are 100% right, but that you are too much right to argue against. (make sense?)

[Abbax8]

I'd really like to argue with you about that, being a very conservative Republican myself. The reason I can't is not because I think you are 100% right, but that you are too much right to argue against. (make sense?)

Makes perfect sense to me Dennis. Both parties spend tons of our money on things. The only difference is what they spend it on.

Peace

Dennis

[Dennis Monk]

"Tippecanoe And Tyler Too" :D

[Jonathan Randall]

I'd really like to argue with you about that, being a very conservative Republican myself. The reason I can't is not because I think you are 100% right, but that you are too much right to argue against. (make sense?)

Absolutly makes sense. It's a shame, though, because we need SOMEONE somewhere to put a break on the expansion of government spending and power. Our votes certainly don't get it for us. Vote conservative and get liberal, vote liberal and sometimes get a little conservative (Republicans make great conservatives when they're the opposition party - think 1994 - just not when they hold all the cards).

[Patrick Hayes]

Beg to differ, my friend. There's not a damn thing conservative about the current Republican Party. They've become big government, deficit spending, interventionist folks in a way the Democrats can only imagine - and could never get passed.
This is precisely why I tend to vote Democrat. If the Republican party ever actually conformed to its own promises of smaller government, reduced federal spending, and lower taxes I'd register Republican in a heartbeat, even though I hold much more liberal views about social issues. I figure that no matter who I vote for for high office, the result will be the same; government will continue to expand and usurp powers traditionally granted to state and local governments, taxes will increase, and the deficit will continue to expand. Therefore, I may as well vote for the candidates who support my social ideologies as there is no party truly representing my political ideologies, regardless of their claims.

[aplonis]

I doubt if any sort of 'anarchism' is something I could get behind. In a true anarchic state, I could easily kill most of it's advocates.

Not total anarchy. Nothing like that, or even close to it, would ever last. Some robber baron or other would set up shop before even a year was out. Total anarchy has not a prayer of working just as total democracy never really works. In total democracy the 51% set themselvses up as tyrants and rule absolutely over the 49%, who then take up arms and civil war begins.

Don't have to look far for examples of something akin to that, do we? In Bosnia you had a majority of Serbs who thought they could just erradicate all those others they didn't like. Now we have the Suni's in Iraq conetmplating what a democracy composed of majority Shiites would be like and don't care for it much.

The only thing that makes democracy work is a strict limitation on the sorts of things which can be decided by majority vote. It is good to vote on where to build roads and bridges, things everybody needs. But we don't need a majority vote on matters of culture, personal tastes however bizarre...and especially not on religion. Those things are best left unrecognized and not acted upon at all by government. Government having no structure to regulate those areas is an element of anarchy. If there is no smallest element of anarchy anywhere, then what you have is totalitarianism.

No...the thing is, at least in my view, that goverment intervention into private affairs must have limits. There must be some threshold below which government has not even any need to know, much less any right to interfere. That is the threshold of anarchy...meaning, quite literally...lack-of-structure. The bedroom, surely, is one such area where the government has not even any need to know, much less regulate. There are others.

Humorously, quite a lot of ultra-conservative types promote their own brand of anarchy...demanding near-complete lack of governmental structure (aka "anarchy") where business matters and capitalism are concerned. They just don't like to call it what it is, but give it euphemisms like "hands off" or "trickle down", etc. Yet very often it is those same folks who most want to intrude in people's daily affairs, rule their tastes, their appetites, etc. Mr. Buchanan calls it, I believe, a War for Culture, or some such. Hitler and Mussolini felt much the same and quote quite similarly.

As for myself, I'm strongly in favor of government keeping its meddling fingers out of individual's personal lives. Yet whenever those individuals group together to act in concert, they will have created, in effect, a mini-government. When they act to suppress other's freedom of choice, then from my point of view, the national government exists primarily, if not solely, to keep such quasi-governments in check...to prevent them from acquiring too much power. Too often the stated aim of such groups is to acquire enough power to rule individual's personal choices...to rob them of their cherished personal freedoms. Those groups lay claim to owning these United States on some lame basis or other.

Looked upon as an increment, rather than a totality, some measure of personal anarchy is essential for a functional democracy. That is the part which is gradually slipping away. Look how many laws we have nowadays. I really think all this regulation of personal tastes has lowered the threshold of anarchy (my own term) beneath that level which the author of our U.S. Constitution had in mind.

Gan Uesli Starling
Kalamazoo MI

[Oniw17]

Ok, I understand that this question is a personal so please do not answer if you aren't comfortable with it.

Are you Conservative or Liberal and are you Democrat or Republican?
Now I understand that Conservative and Republican are basically the same thing as well as Democrat and Liberal; however, I know someone could be a Liberal Republican or Vica Versa.. Wow that seems like an Oxymoron. lol.

As for me, I am definatly Republican and Conservative.

Thank you
I support the free market, but have many liberal tendencies. I believe the class that I would fall under is liberatarian(part of the right wing). As far as other issues(if anything else is to be considered, but since the title says political ideology), I believe that the obligation of the state is to protect and maintain order among it's people, with the least amount of government possible. I used to be an advocate of anarchy, before I read various things written by Jean-Jaques Rousseau, and later The Republic(Plato), which made sense to me, and explained why a state is needed to sustain society.

[MasterAtArms]

I think most people are a little conservative, a little liberal, and somewhere in the middle on many issues. The definitions have changed over the years however and the parties used to contain elements of both.

There is quite a bit of wiggle room between Marxism and Robber Barons, and between debauchery and a life in a monastery, and between anarchy and order.

I lean towards the conservative side but on a issue by issue basis I do have some moderate ideas. Labeling yourself at 17 is useless because your life experiences will mold your opinions.
My biggest fear in the next general election is not that a Liberal/Democrat like Hillary will get elected, it's that a fake conservative like McCain or Giuliani will. The current administration has done a lot to erode many conservative ideas.
Continuing the trend will further weaken the movement.

My life hasn't really changed though, no matter who is in charge, because it's based on what I make of it and not what they can do for me.
I think I am smart enough to make my own desicions, and I am Conservative.
When is there a better time, I will register at 18 as a Republican so yeah I have made my choice.
I followed and still do follow the issues and the news and based on that I made my desicion.

[Mark Barlow]

I think I am smart enough to make my own desicions, and I am Conservative.
When is there a better time, I will register at 18 as a Republican so yeah I have made my choice.
I followed and still do follow the issues and the news and based on that I made my desicion.

Without life experience, people tend to echo opinions, not form them. That's not a reflection on your maturity or intelligence, just the fact that at 17, you haven't been through enough to make informed judgements. Of course, at 17, you're convinced that every thought you have is original and that I'm an idiot for not accepting that your views on politics, taxes, health care and retirement are just as valid as someone with 30 years of dealing with these issues. Trust me, in 10 years, you'll be amazed that you wasted your breath (or fingers) sharing your insight like this.

[Ramirez]

Without life experience, people tend to echo opinions, not form them. That's not a reflection on your maturity or intelligence, just the fact that at 17, you haven't been through enough to make informed judgements. Of course, at 17, you're convinced that every thought you have is original and that I'm an idiot for not accepting that your views on politics, taxes, health care and retirement are just as valid as someone with 30 years of dealing with these issues. Trust me, in 10 years, you'll be amazed that you wasted your breath (or fingers) sharing your insight like this.

Exactly right on this one, Trace is bright but not experienced, that makes all the difference. I was no different at 17, nor was probably anyone else on this board. Trace is polite though, I was probably a lot more obnoxious.

[TicTac]

Trace - Remember buddy... Your opinion counts equally with anyone else on this board after your 18th birthday. Have opinions, express them and most important of all examine them and be prepared to change them when confronted with evidence that dictates that you do so.

I too am a disinfranchised conservative Republican leaning towards Libertarian. kind of hard to pull-off Libertarian and Peace Officer together, but not impossible.

[Cliff Hargrave]

I too am a disinfranchised conservative Republican leaning towards Libertarian. kind of hard to pull-off Libertarian and Peace Officer together, but not impossible.

I have struggled with the same thing. I was raised a conservative Democrat. My dad is a retired Union member, Southern Baptist, and life NRA member. But as I was growing up I watched the far left take over the Democrats.

Reagan became president when I was in high school and I noticed my views and opinions seemed to be more in line with the Republicans. However I have never fully gone over. I still vote in our Democrat primaries here. I have researched a lot on the libertarians but they just seem to be an odd collection of extremists and seem all over the map on issues. Right now I just feel like no one represents me fully.

[Maro]

It's a strange thing that the USA, UK and Australia only have 2 party systems (There are others but they are tiny in comparison).

You would think that there would be differences allowing for more.

[GeeBee]

Right now I just feel like no one represents me fully.

I feel the same way, Cliff.

I agree that Trace's views will change as he goes down the road of life.
I do think he shows good character, having thought out his views and
courteously expressed them here.

:toast:

[Dennis Monk]

It's a strange thing that the USA, UK and Australia only have 2 party systems (There are others but they are tiny in comparison).

You would think that there would be differences allowing for more.
The US does allow for more than just the two political parties. They are as you said, tiny in comparison. I am not sure of the exact percentage but a party must get something like 10% of the actual vote to qualify for future governmental susidies that the two major parties receive in every national election.
Sounds dumb to me; I think political parties on both sides are money machines that could do well to pay for themselves.

[Musubi Dojo]

Sounds dumb to me; I think political parties on both sides are money machines that could do well to pay for themselves.

Isn't it designed to level the playing field so no one can buy an election with advertising dollars?

[Dennis Monk]

Isn't it designed to level the playing field so no one can buy an election with advertising dollars?
Yeah right!!!:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

[Musubi Dojo]

I think I got funding issuses confused with popular support....I don't understand the Canadian system either....:p

[Oniw17]

It's a strange thing that the USA, UK and Australia only have 2 party systems (There are others but they are tiny in comparison).

You would think that there would be differences allowing for more.
I think the US just got our first socialist in office not too long ago.

[Maro]

The US does allow for more than just the two political parties. They are as you said, tiny in comparison. I am not sure of the exact percentage but a party must get something like 10% of the actual vote to qualify for future governmental susidies that the two major parties receive in every national election.
Sounds dumb to me; I think political parties on both sides are money machines that could do well to pay for themselves.

It's roughly the same here in Australia and also in the UK. The "Democrats" are spent forces, although they are different to your definition.

[MasterAtArms]

Yes I understand I haven't had the experience to deal with every issue; however, my ideas are molded from what I believe at this time. My ideas don't come from my family or friends because out of them I am probably the only political one.

[Mark Barlow]

Yes I understand I haven't had the experience to deal with every issue; however, my ideas are molded from what I believe at this time. My ideas don't come from my family or friends because out of them I am probably the only political one.


That's the kicker. It's what you believe at this time. At this point in your life, you believe what've you've been told or you choose the exact opposite in order to create a separation between yourself and your family. Everything tends to be black or white and you can afford to deal in absolutes. It takes time, experience and maturity to make informed choices. Trust me, it will come, just not in 17 years. No one is knocking you, just pointing out that it's easy to say how the world should be when you're not actually in the world yet.

Hang in there. Before you know it you'll be sweating the mortgage, worrying about taxes and asking your wife if this looks like a mole or a tumor. Then we'll be lining up asking your opinion on the world.:wink2:

[Jared Sutton]

Give me smaller government or give me death. I'll have some "anti-abortion" with my political linguini. No thank you, I can do without the governing safety net. Darn, mom packed political correctness!

J. Sutton