NationStates Jolt Archive

Just out of curiosity to see what the political climate is like in the forum.

This message was posted by:

Lord Evif
UN Ambassador for the Liberal Unitary Republic of Goobergunchia
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/images/avatars/du.gif http://www.nationstates.net/images/un_delegate.gif

Neither. I'm Libertarian. But since Libertarianism is derived from the Old Liberalism (late 17th-19th century), I chose Liberal.

Wow. . . how sad. . .
As if you really had to ask, though. I still can't see how "liberal" could ever have a possitive connotation.

Wow. . . how sad. . .
As if you really had to ask, though. I still can't see how "liberal" could ever have a possitive connotation.

Why not? Until really the early 20th century, liberalism meant progress, freedom, capitalism, democracy, reason, etc., while conservatism meant monarchy, religious zealotry, and repression. With the exception of the most diehard Federalists like Hamilton, our Founding Fathers would have been considered a very liberal bunch by the standards of the age.

Wow. . . how sad. . .
As if you really had to ask, though. I still can't see how "liberal" could ever have a possitive connotation.

Well, it really depends. We consider ourselves liberal because we feel people should have absolute freedom of speech, etc. We don't really care if someone's feelings get hurt, as long as what's being said or written is not a blatant lie. We believe women should be able to have an abortion if they want one. We refuse to instigate public surveillance or to allow the government to track which books people borrow from libraries and which sites they read.

We do not think programs and socialism are the answer to everything, even if our tax rates speak differently. For example, we are against universal healthcare.

Wow. . . how sad. . .
As if you really had to ask, though. I still can't see how "liberal" could ever have a possitive connotation.

[OOC: It's this quote, actually, that strikes me as sad. It reminds me of a man interviewed by a newspaper (sorry about how anecdotal this is; I can't find the source, and no warranty is implied) during the Clinton-Dole election. He was planning to support Clinton, and when asked why, he replied that Dole was "a liberal."

Sometime in the late 1980s, due to the evil works of Rush Limbaugh and, arguably, the bumbling of Michael Dukakis, people in America started using the term "liberal" as a term of abuse. It is *not* a term of abuse, but rather a proud tradition (actually, in deference to TGM, two proud traditions--"classical liberalism", the 18th century movement that led to contemporary libertarianism, and "modern liberalism", the intellectual heir to the theories of John Rawls, which is usually identified with the democratic left).

(I'm not goint to touch on the European use of the word "liberalism" here, because I think it's rather different and I don't particularly understand it. I do know that Margaret Thatcher has been called a "neo-liberal," and she's certainly nothing like either a libertarian or a left-liberal.)

For those of uson the left who aren't ashamed of the term (and therefore don't try to hide behind sweetened synonyms like "progressive"), "liberal" has a *very* positive connotation: One of freedom tempered by compassion. We greatly prefer this to the compassionless freedom of libertarianism, and *certainly* to the compassionless tyranny of the right.]

Definently liberal.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mliêstôlkakûmek(Love all as you love yourself)
Racism-the other stupid ideology
Peace, love, and girls with small waists and really big butts!
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
They say, "1 day since the
last starship accident."

The NS UN is majorly liberal.

We were forced to leave.

So in otherwords, Raysia is http://www.bateshome.com/jordan/naunm.jpg

Wow. . . how sad. . .
As if you really had to ask, though. I still can't see how "liberal" could ever have a possitive connotation.

[OOC: It's this quote, actually, that strikes me as sad. It reminds me of a man interviewed by a newspaper (sorry about how anecdotal this is; I can't find the source, and no warranty is implied) during the Clinton-Dole election. He was planning to support Clinton, and when asked why, he replied that Dole was "a liberal."

Sometime in the late 1980s, due to the evil works of Rush Limbaugh and, arguably, the bumbling of Michael Dukakis, people in America started using the term "liberal" as a term of abuse. It is *not* a term of abuse, but rather a proud tradition (actually, in deference to TGM, two proud traditions--"classical liberalism", the 18th century movement that led to contemporary libertarianism, and "modern liberalism", the intellectual heir to the theories of John Rawls, which is usually identified with the democratic left).

(I'm not goint to touch on the European use of the word "liberalism" here, because I think it's rather different and I don't particularly understand it. I do know that Margaret Thatcher has been called a "neo-liberal," and she's certainly nothing like either a libertarian or a left-liberal.)

For those of uson the left who aren't ashamed of the term (and therefore don't try to hide behind sweetened synonyms like "progressive"), "liberal" has a *very* positive connotation: One of freedom tempered by compassion. We greatly prefer this to the compassionless freedom of libertarianism, and *certainly* to the compassionless tyranny of the right.]Thatcher?! Neo-Liberal?! Neo- someone, but surely not liberal.
*scuttles off to Google*

Oh... You mean neo-liberal economics

Neo! The Matrix is cool.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mliêstôlkakûmek(Love all as you love yourself)
Racism-the other stupid ideology
Peace, love, and girls with small waists and really big butts!
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
They say, "1 day since the
last starship accident."

I'm socialist but out of those two I'm definatly Liberal.

Highly dependant on the issue. Sometimes I'm conservative, sometimes I'm liberal, sometimes I don't care.

I'm liberal, but my nation is extremely capitalist, and I vote that way.

i am left wing moderate and i think that both liberals AND conservatives are the same...both tryto tell you what to do, both lie to get you to think the way they do and both live in a magical land of half truths and idiocy..no left wing moderate, i am all for Equality and freedom and Privacy, but i DO not try to enforce it on others ûnless they need it like those terrible countries ruled by despots...yes i am a hawk

Sod the liberals AND the conservatives.

Left-wing Utopia


Take a guess.

Liberal and I voted no against last resolution.

I'm an old skool social democratic who hasn't been bought by the "neo-liberals".

And you know what I mean by old school. I mean Teddy Roosevelt and George Orwell old school.

We scoff at both capitalisim and communisim. And heck, the American Democratic party too.

By the way, my progressive and populist friends resent the comment. We think that the term "liberal" has been shamed here in America. Those terms refer to a new front being led by the Green party here.

We belive (and the folks at http://www.politicalcompass.org/ ) that the majoritiy of the world's social democratic parties are moving, willingly or unwillingly, to a conservative stance and neo-liberal economics.

What happened to Keynes?

I'm an old skool social democratic who hasn't been bought by the "neo-liberals".

And you know what I mean by old school. I mean Teddy Roosevelt and George Orwell old school.

We scoff at both capitalisim and communisim. And heck, the American Democratic party too.

TR was a great man, but a heavy-handed and imperialistic president.

I'm saying I appreciated his social qualities. No one is arguing that he wasn't imperialistic.

This imperialistic behavior may have saved several of america's forests.
Don't forget that.

Besides, those were the days that America was an Empire, from the Phillipenes to Cuba. The stench of irony lays heavy upon this imperialistic era.

Conservative: "People are stupid and need to be 'protected'. Fortunately for about 95% of the world, the top 5% are willing to 'guide' the ignorant masses to the promised land"

Liberal:"As society progresses people need to be more pro-active. A true democracy is an engaged citizenry. People are ruled by self-interest and unfortunately that generally means greed. Better to educated the masses than shelter them"


I'm obviously liberal. Problem is that without a proper environment to develop in, people are vulnerable to the negative aspects that may arise with more rights and freedoms. I took a look at the nations that stated that they were conservative, and to no surprise they have a penchant to have low levels of civil/political freedoms. It true that the American founding fathers new this, and considering the conservative backlash witnessed within the United States are probably turning in their graves.
Its a funny world when everythings a conspirisy, and legitmate dissent (ie:free speech) turns into treason. Realism is not a progression of society, but instead a failure of any self-respecting modern state.

Don't believe my claims relating to the importance of adequate education, just consider what areas are the most conservative. More often than not this correlates to higher levels of poverty and a poor education system.

I suppose that, philosophically, we are classical conservatives in the Burkean sense--which makes us seem fairly "liberal" in the current political climate.

Imagine if Kitsylvania and Marathon had a baby...

Haha, that would be funny wouldn't it? Thats not me though, just thought it would be funny to think about. Anyways, I'm left-liberatarian.

Until really the early 20th century ... conservatism meant monarchy, religious zealotry, and repression.

We disagree. Edmund Burke, who is often considered the father of modern conservatism, lived well before the 20th century. He supported Catholic emancipation, religious tolerance, a reform of the British electoral system, and (last but not least) the rights of the American colonists.

We suppose that the defining characteristic of most conservatives (Burke included) is respect for tradition--what Chesterton called "the democracy of the dead". It encompasses the belief that institutions that have long existed probably serve an important function, and that society should not be radically "redesigned" by fallible people with imperfect knowledge.

"Those who rush to prune a tree oftentimes do not know how close to the taproot they are striking." -- George Santayana.

No wonder the UN is so rediculous. I thought that by definition liberalism entailed taking into consideration what your actions will do to others? I guess not, because recent UN proposals are going to lay waste to huge swaths of the globe. In instances where in the past I would have chosen a moderate path, I have had to make the more economically sound choice and not allow as many freedoms because of the idiotic UN proposals. Good job, way to screw people over, guys. By the time you all are done, I may be forced from being a centrist democracy to being an economic powerhouse tryanny. You decide muthaf***a.

Wow. . . how sad. . .
As if you really had to ask, though. I still can't see how "liberal" could ever have a possitive connotation.

Well, it really depends. We consider ourselves liberal because we feel people should have absolute freedom of speech, etc. We don't really care if someone's feelings get hurt, as long as what's being said or written is not a blatant lie. We believe women should be able to have an abortion if they want one. We refuse to instigate public surveillance or to allow the government to track which books people borrow from libraries and which sites they read.

We do not think programs and socialism are the answer to everything, even if our tax rates speak differently. For example, we are against universal healthcare.

That could not be farther from the truth, especially here in America. Liberals want the government to run everyone's lives because we are too stupid to do it for ourselves. Liberals believe that no one has the right to defend themselves, because we have the government to do it.

Constitution? Bill of Rights? To a liberal, what do they REALLY mean, anyway? No, to a liberal, they are to be read how they feel they should read and not what they actually say. I mean, after all, the second amendment applies to the national guard, which was created over 70 years AFTER the amendment was made, but hey, that's liberalsim.

Sorry, but stay out of my private life, allow me to have my personal freedoms, and keep your whiney assed bitching out of my life.

Liberals were born and raised in the best, most free country in the history of the world!
Fed well, educated, given all of the opportunities the rest of the world envies and desires.

They carry on, stamping their feet like little spoiled children when elections don't go their way. Liberals insult the image of past heroes, rain vulgarities upon those who challenge them. Their nameless anger is directed at those who disagree, usually with curled lips and wild-eyed fury. Liberals glare at truth and thumb their nose at new ideas, as if they were frightened with their simplicity of reason.

Liberals rant obscenities at those trying to make a difference and make fun of the very society that has given them so much and asked so little in return.

They claim they want justice, but cannot name a crime. They uphold the past ideals of those who have tarnished confidence and betrayed leadership as a beacon for others to follow, yet admonish those who try to show that wrong is still wrong no matter the person's privilege or place.

Liberals will go as far as to undermine a country's determination in a fight. So their agenda-of-the-left can go forward regardless of the consequences. When asked about freedom and its meaning, they reply is about self and the self- liberties that freedom allows.
There never is mention of a word that closely follows freedom…Called sacrifice!

They believe the Constitution is a 'changing' document that is archaic, yet somewhat relevant, but only open to the interpretation of whatever standard they feel is convenient today. Instead of supporting a document that sets a standard for all to aspire too.

A new Governor was elected to serve the people's interest in California, yet on the posting boards liberals were whining and name-calling once again.

California is the capitol of liberalism and a Democratic stronghold, yet 61% of the voters cast their votes for Republicans! I believe the tide is turning and voters are seeing what the liberals really are…………….

Liberals will never be happy. Liberals think they know what's good for you, how you should vote, and how you should do it. Unmask their ideology and all Liberals can do is whine and .

Wow. . . how sad. . .
As if you really had to ask, though. I still can't see how "liberal" could ever have a possitive connotation.

Well, it really depends. We consider ourselves liberal because we feel people should have absolute freedom of speech, etc. We don't really care if someone's feelings get hurt, as long as what's being said or written is not a blatant lie. We believe women should be able to have an abortion if they want one. We refuse to instigate public surveillance or to allow the government to track which books people borrow from libraries and which sites they read.

We do not think programs and socialism are the answer to everything, even if our tax rates speak differently. For example, we are against universal healthcare.

That could not be farther from the truth, especially here in America. Liberals want the government to run everyone's lives because we are too stupid to do it for ourselves. Liberals believe that no one has the right to defend themselves, because we have the government to do it.

Why exactly are you quoting us on this one? We didn't say anything about being American liberals or conservatives. We disagree with both American parties. As you so wrathfully pointed out, the Democrats are whiny and focused on creating parties. The Republicans want to install Orwellian surveillance systems, to fill our schools and our courts with religious laws, and to take away our right to our bodies. In the classic sense, we are conservative because we want to uphold the Constitution as is, instituting more personal freedoms, not less. in today's world, however, the tables have turned, and it is the liberal who is willing to sacrifice security for freedom.

Wow. . . how sad. . .
As if you really had to ask, though. I still can't see how "liberal" could ever have a possitive connotation.

Well, it really depends. We consider ourselves liberal because we feel people should have absolute freedom of speech, etc. We don't really care if someone's feelings get hurt, as long as what's being said or written is not a blatant lie. We believe women should be able to have an abortion if they want one. We refuse to instigate public surveillance or to allow the government to track which books people borrow from libraries and which sites they read.

We do not think programs and socialism are the answer to everything, even if our tax rates speak differently. For example, we are against universal healthcare.

That could not be farther from the truth, especially here in America. Liberals want the government to run everyone's lives because we are too stupid to do it for ourselves. Liberals believe that no one has the right to defend themselves, because we have the government to do it.

Constitution? Bill of Rights? To a liberal, what do they REALLY mean, anyway? No, to a liberal, they are to be read how they feel they should read and not what they actually say. I mean, after all, the second amendment applies to the national guard, which was created over 70 years AFTER the amendment was made, but hey, that's liberalsim.

Sorry, but stay out of my private life, allow me to have my personal freedoms, and keep your whiney assed bitching out of my life.

Liberals were born and raised in the best, most free country in the history of the world!
Fed well, educated, given all of the opportunities the rest of the world envies and desires.

They carry on, stamping their feet like little spoiled children when elections don't go their way. Liberals insult the image of past heroes, rain vulgarities upon those who challenge them. Their nameless anger is directed at those who disagree, usually with curled lips and wild-eyed fury. Liberals glare at truth and thumb their nose at new ideas, as if they were frightened with their simplicity of reason.

Liberals rant obscenities at those trying to make a difference and make fun of the very society that has given them so much and asked so little in return.

They claim they want justice, but cannot name a crime. They uphold the past ideals of those who have tarnished confidence and betrayed leadership as a beacon for others to follow, yet admonish those who try to show that wrong is still wrong no matter the person's privilege or place.

Liberals will go as far as to undermine a country's determination in a fight. So their agenda-of-the-left can go forward regardless of the consequences. When asked about freedom and its meaning, they reply is about self and the self- liberties that freedom allows.
There never is mention of a word that closely follows freedom…Called sacrifice!

They believe the Constitution is a 'changing' document that is archaic, yet somewhat relevant, but only open to the interpretation of whatever standard they feel is convenient today. Instead of supporting a document that sets a standard for all to aspire too.

A new Governor was elected to serve the people's interest in California, yet on the posting boards liberals were whining and name-calling once again.

California is the capitol of liberalism and a Democratic stronghold, yet 61% of the voters cast their votes for Republicans! I believe the tide is turning and voters are seeing what the liberals really are…………….

Liberals will never be happy. Liberals think they know what's good for you, how you should vote, and how you should do it. Unmask their ideology and all Liberals can do is whine and .
Amusing, to decide on an entire idealogy based on the4 worst members of that idealogy, those who care little about it and only use it to gain power. I am refering to the polititions, they are the ones who your wrath should be directed at, conservative and liberal alike, not the idealology which they espouse. Also about the constitution, the founding father were highly liberal and would've laughed at the idea of original intent, except Hamilton, and the rest of the federalists. A docuement must be interpreted as it is relevent today, otherwise our nation would not be able to adapt to the changing demands of modern society.

Yes, I am liberal, but rather close to the center, not hardcore liberal.

That could not be farther from the truth, especially here in America. Liberals want the government to run everyone's lives because we are too stupid to do it for ourselves. Liberals believe that no one has the right to defend themselves, because we have the government to do it.

Constitution? Bill of Rights? To a liberal, what do they REALLY mean, anyway? No, to a liberal, they are to be read how they feel they should read and not what they actually say. I mean, after all, the second amendment applies to the national guard, which was created over 70 years AFTER the amendment was made, but hey, that's liberalsim.

Sorry, but stay out of my private life, allow me to have my personal freedoms, and keep your whiney assed bitching out of my life.

Liberals were born and raised in the best, most free country in the history of the world!
Fed well, educated, given all of the opportunities the rest of the world envies and desires.

They carry on, stamping their feet like little spoiled children when elections don't go their way. Liberals insult the image of past heroes, rain vulgarities upon those who challenge them. Their nameless anger is directed at those who disagree, usually with curled lips and wild-eyed fury. Liberals glare at truth and thumb their nose at new ideas, as if they were frightened with their simplicity of reason.

Liberals rant obscenities at those trying to make a difference and make fun of the very society that has given them so much and asked so little in return.

They claim they want justice, but cannot name a crime. They uphold the past ideals of those who have tarnished confidence and betrayed leadership as a beacon for others to follow, yet admonish those who try to show that wrong is still wrong no matter the person's privilege or place.

Liberals will go as far as to undermine a country's determination in a fight. So their agenda-of-the-left can go forward regardless of the consequences. When asked about freedom and its meaning, they reply is about self and the self- liberties that freedom allows.
There never is mention of a word that closely follows freedom…Called sacrifice!

They believe the Constitution is a 'changing' document that is archaic, yet somewhat relevant, but only open to the interpretation of whatever standard they feel is convenient today. Instead of supporting a document that sets a standard for all to aspire too.

A new Governor was elected to serve the people's interest in California, yet on the posting boards liberals were whining and name-calling once again.

California is the capitol of liberalism and a Democratic stronghold, yet 61% of the voters cast their votes for Republicans! I believe the tide is turning and voters are seeing what the liberals really are…………….

Liberals will never be happy. Liberals think they know what's good for you, how you should vote, and how you should do it. Unmask their ideology and all Liberals can do is whine and .

Okay. If you base liberalism on the most hardcore liberals, then I can base conservatism on the most hardcore conservatives.

You guys have no respect for the Constitution either. The fourth and fifth amendments were basically destroyed during McCarthyism and your purge of "terrorists" after September 11th. Free speech is being curtailed in the name of moral decency. Separation of church and state is being destroyed. And the Patriot Act is the biggest mockery of all, killing amendments 1, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, as well as some of the other ones that I can't name off the top of my head.

Note I'm not a liberal or a conservative. I'm libertarian.

That could not be farther from the truth, especially here in America. Liberals want the government to run everyone's lives because we are too stupid to do it for ourselves. Liberals believe that no one has the right to defend themselves, because we have the government to do it.

Constitution? Bill of Rights? To a liberal, what do they REALLY mean, anyway? No, to a liberal, they are to be read how they feel they should read and not what they actually say. I mean, after all, the second amendment applies to the national guard, which was created over 70 years AFTER the amendment was made, but hey, that's liberalsim.

Sorry, but stay out of my private life, allow me to have my personal freedoms, and keep your whiney assed bitching out of my life.

Liberals were born and raised in the best, most free country in the history of the world!
Fed well, educated, given all of the opportunities the rest of the world envies and desires.

They carry on, stamping their feet like little spoiled children when elections don't go their way. Liberals insult the image of past heroes, rain vulgarities upon those who challenge them. Their nameless anger is directed at those who disagree, usually with curled lips and wild-eyed fury. Liberals glare at truth and thumb their nose at new ideas, as if they were frightened with their simplicity of reason.

Liberals rant obscenities at those trying to make a difference and make fun of the very society that has given them so much and asked so little in return.

They claim they want justice, but cannot name a crime. They uphold the past ideals of those who have tarnished confidence and betrayed leadership as a beacon for others to follow, yet admonish those who try to show that wrong is still wrong no matter the person's privilege or place.

Liberals will go as far as to undermine a country's determination in a fight. So their agenda-of-the-left can go forward regardless of the consequences. When asked about freedom and its meaning, they reply is about self and the self- liberties that freedom allows.
There never is mention of a word that closely follows freedom…Called sacrifice!

They believe the Constitution is a 'changing' document that is archaic, yet somewhat relevant, but only open to the interpretation of whatever standard they feel is convenient today. Instead of supporting a document that sets a standard for all to aspire too.

A new Governor was elected to serve the people's interest in California, yet on the posting boards liberals were whining and name-calling once again.

California is the capitol of liberalism and a Democratic stronghold, yet 61% of the voters cast their votes for Republicans! I believe the tide is turning and voters are seeing what the liberals really are…………….

Liberals will never be happy. Liberals think they know what's good for you, how you should vote, and how you should do it. Unmask their ideology and all Liberals can do is whine and .

Okay. If you base liberalism on the most hardcore liberals, then I can base conservatism on the most hardcore conservatives.

You guys have no respect for the Constitution either. The fourth and fifth amendments were basically destroyed during McCarthyism and your purge of "terrorists" after September 11th. Free speech is being curtailed in the name of moral decency. Separation of church and state is being destroyed. And the Patriot Act is the biggest mockery of all, killing amendments 1, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, as well as some of the other ones that I can't name off the top of my head.

Note I'm not a liberal or a conservative. I'm libertarian.

Why does it have to be either/or? I find such labels as those uninformative, bland and unimaginative.

I see the point went right over your heads, especially the one calling me an "overlord". Good job helping me prove what I claimed in my initial post.

The Patriot Act is an abonishment which needs to be destoryed. The FBI has used the loop holes created to establish cases against individuals who aren't supposed to be affected.

I never based it off the most hardcore of cases, I simply based it off of Liberalism itself.

It figures that a liberal would claim that it is okay to read the Constitution as he or she sees fit, as long as it fits an agenda they wish to get across, but when it comes to a more conservative person reading the COnstitution as he or she sees fit, then it is a great evil. :roll:

Do you consider yourself more liberal or conservative?

Write in: no.

"Liberal" and "conservative" are silly, incremental labels that only Americans squabble over. Ill-defined as they are, they signify very little actual politics. I'm a socialist.

In theory, a liberal is merely someone who wants change whereas a conservative is someone who wants to maintain the status quo.

Of course that's not how it works out in real life. In US politics, liberalism tends to denote high personal freedom and low economic freedom, whereas conservatism tends to denote low personal freedom and high economic freedom. It doesn't always work out that way either, but it is more or less closer to that model.

Likewise, I don't really follow it. I'm Libertarian. For me, a liberal is someone who, if alive in the 1790s, would've sat on the left side of the French National Assembly, and a conservative is someone who would've sat on the right. Me, I would've staged a military coup like Napoleon.

The liberal/conservative labels are somewhat useless in the international community, since they mean such different things to different people. IMO, the best way to do this would be for everyone to go to www.politicalcompass.org, take the test, and post their score - I'm -6 on the economic left/right, and -7.33 on the libertarian authoritarian scale. That makes me a socialist who wants lots of personal and political freedom.

The liberal/conservative labels are somewhat useless in the international community, since they mean such different things to different people. IMO, the best way to do this would be for everyone to go to www.politicalcompass.org, take the test, and post their score - I'm -6 on the economic left/right, and -7.33 on the libertarian authoritarian scale. That makes me a socialist who wants lots of personal and political freedom.

That sounds like a good idea. We took the test, and our score is -4.25 on the economic left/right, and -4.15 on the libertarian authoritarian scale. Which makes us moderately left-of-center and reasonably libertarian--just about right.

This poll is hardly fair... Though it is asking which you are more of... I don't try to lean to the left or the right... I just try to stand. :wink:

The political compass rates everyone who isn't a commie or a fascist as a centrist. Read our regional forum, it's been throughouly disproved. Some of its questions like "people are divided more by class than race" are throughouly abusive and the fact that you can't choose 'no opinion' or strong opinion or prioritize your answers or anything helps further discredit it. A much better test is at: http://www.issues2000.org/Quiz.htm, though you shouldn't put much stock into these tests anyways.

The political compass rates everyone who isn't a commie or a fascist as a centrist ... Some of its questions like "people are divided more by class than race" are throughouly abusive ...

When we took the test, we encountered the question you refer to, and didn't consider it especially "abusive". Where we live, people are, in fact, divided by class as well as race. Whether they ought to be or not is a different matter, which the question didn't address.

The political compass rates everyone who isn't a commie or a fascist as a centrist ... Some of its questions like "people are divided more by class than race" are throughouly abusive ...

When we took the test, we encountered the question you refer to, and didn't consider it especially "abusive". Where we live, people are, in fact, divided by class as well as race. Whether they ought to be or not is a different matter, which the question didn't address.

Well... it's your opinion that they are. I think that their equally divided on race and class. But there's no option for that, it's all-or-nothing.

I didn't know. Hard question for a socialist internationalist.

...Where we live, people are, in fact, divided by class as well as race. Whether they ought to be or not is a different matter, which the question didn't address.

Well... it's your opinion that they are ...

I think we're probably using the word "divided" in two different senses. I don't mean that people are divided in the worth of their humanity, and I don't think the author of the test did either. I mean simply that they are, in fact, separated from each other on the basis of race or class. There are predominately white neighbourhoods as well as predominately black neighbourhoods; upper-class neighbourhoods as well as lower-class neighbourhoods. When I was in the Navy, the blacks ate on one side of the chow hall and the whites ate on the other. There was no rule requiring segregation--it just happened that way. That's division.

I'm WAY more conservative

conservative

...Where we live, people are, in fact, divided by class as well as race. Whether they ought to be or not is a different matter, which the question didn't address.

Well... it's your opinion that they are ...

I think we're probably using the word "divided" in two different senses. I don't mean that people are divided in the worth of their humanity, and I don't think the author of the test did either. I mean simply that they are, in fact, separated from each other on the basis of race or class. There are predominately white neighbourhoods as well as predominately black neighbourhoods; upper-class neighbourhoods as well as lower-class neighbourhoods. When I was in the Navy, the blacks ate on one side of the chow hall and the whites ate on the other. There was no rule requiring segregation--it just happened that way. That's division.

That question was clearly framed with the asumption that everyone is either a communist or a nationalist... One option reduces economic freedom and the other one reduces personal freedom, and tehre's no way to abstain.

What happened to Keynes?

He was exposed for the evil moron he was.

This imperialistic behavior may have saved several of america's forests.
Don't forget that.

At the expense of private property rights. NOT a justifiable tradeoff.

left-liberatarian.
Contradiction in terms.

Wow. . . how sad. . .
As if you really had to ask, though. I still can't see how "liberal" could ever have a possitive connotation.

Why not? Until really the early 20th century, liberalism meant progress, freedom, capitalism, democracy, reason, etc., while conservatism meant monarchy, religious zealotry, and repression. With the exception of the most diehard Federalists like Hamilton, our Founding Fathers would have been considered a very liberal bunch by the standards of the age.

hes right

What happened to Keynes?

He was exposed for the evil moron he was.

uhh...
A few notes:

Keynesian Economics got the 'Free World' out of depression
Keynesian Economics formed the basis of Bretton Woods
Bretton Woods heralded the greatest economic growth ever seen

I'd also argue the reason keynesian economics failed was, at least in part, due to very poor government; moreover, the current alternative (Washington Consensus) has been labelled a failed model of development even by those who created it...

I certainly wouldn't call Keynes evil, and I defintately wouldn't call him stupid.

I'm Liberal

That question was clearly framed with the asumption that everyone is either a communist or a nationalist... One option reduces economic freedom and the other one reduces personal freedom, and tehre's no way to abstain.

If I remember correctly, the way the question was actually worded was this: You were given the proposition that "People are divided more by class than by race". The options were: Strongly Agree, Agree, Disagree, and Strongly Disagree. If one had your point of view, I suppose they could answer "Strongly Disagree", just as they would give the same answer if the terms were reversed. To disagree with the statement "A is more important than B" does not imply that one agrees with the statement "B is more important than A". One might reasonably believe that both A and B are totally unimportant.

[quote=Griffindon]Wow. . . how sad. . .
As if you really had to ask, though. I still can't see how "liberal" could ever have a possitive connotation.

That could not be farther from the truth, especially here in America. Liberals want the government to run everyone's lives because we are too stupid to do it for ourselves. Liberals believe that no one has the right to defend themselves, because we have the government to do it. .


Its's a goverments resposablity to protect the people it governs. if tos people want to defend themselves they should become police officers and really make a difference.

I saw you mention Liberal name calling on more than one occasion. You should go to the begining of this thread, and not the first attack was made against liberals. Against the term liberal to be more more specific.

I am a liberal. Socialist are liberals, as I saw someone say he was Socialist, but out of the two liberal.

However I do support the death penalty. I do support a right to own a gun (I do not support concealed carry laws.) I do support a social welfare system based on people working a 35 hour entry level position for the goverment (want some money? Clean that park. Want some money? Clean that street). I do support a national healthcare system, and the breaking up of the health insurance industry in the United States (greedy fat cats are Greedy fat cats). I do support a mandatory 2 year service in the United States Armed Forces for all citizens. Thos two years will be followed by 2 years of college which should be payed for by the United States Goverment. People who wish to stay on in the military another 2 years, will recieve a full college education from uncle sam.

Ummm... I am odd me thinks.

both terms are oversimplifications
often to and beyond the point of absurdity

that being said
i'd rather be mistaken for a liberal then for a conservative
as a mater of personal moral convictions

=^^=
.../\...

Conservative and proud :lol:

...Liberals will never be happy. Liberals think they know what's good for you, how you should vote, and how you should do it. Unmask their ideology and all Liberals can do is whine and .

Somebody better go check the water supply in Rice Beaterz, the valium drip seems to have plugged up.

I wonder how much of this argument could be applied to "Conservatives" in the current American political climate? Hmmm, looks like all of it, with minor modifications.

OOC: To all non-US NS players, please accept my aplogies for the ranting of people like Rice. Not everybody gets their thoughts from Talk Radio hosts. Most of us are quite reasonable. Thats why nobody votes, both sides are repulsive to most people.

I'd like to vote on this one, but I can't.

I'm liberal on social issues
I'm liberal on economics
I'm conservative on socio-economics
I'm conservative on defense/military

To try to put definitions to Liberal, Conservative and Libertarian in US politics today:

Liberal: The term "liberal" today is almost synonymous with "Socialist." Their "core beliefs" are that all men are their "brother's keeper." That no individual has the right to live for his own sake and must put the betterment of others before that of themselves and their loved ones, hoping that others will put theirs ahead of their own. They adhere to the old altruistic maxim: "From each according to his ability, and to each according to his need." This means that "need" becomes a demand on the earnings of those who can, and will earn for themselves for the benefit of those who can't, or won't do so.

Conservative: Conservatives believe in the primacy of the individual. They believe that the government has no responsibility to provide a single person with a living, or even a little bit of help. They're not against charity, but they are against forced charity with someone else's money. At the same time, they believe in individual responsibility, rather than collective responsibility. They determine their success by how many people don't need welfare, and can do for themselves. They promote moral behavior and far from forcing others to do what they demand (for the most part), merely want to maintain the right to simply criticize what others do when they violate the conservatives' moral standards. Today, to criticize a Jew, a "black leader" or the gay lifestyle leaves you open for vituperative criticism from the liberals and, in some cases, a lawsuit.

So to simplify: liberalism is about collectivism and conservatism is about individualism. Collectivism is the philosophy of choice for those who would run other's lives, because it allows them to do so.

Libertarian: Under Libertarianism, you have the right to do anything you wish, so long as by doing so you don't violate another's right to do the same. That's about a simple as it gets. They're growing fast, no matter how much both other major parties want to deny it by playing up reverses in voting totals in the last election. They remain the third largest national political party and have many elected Libertarians in office. One day, they will have a president in office. If they would concentrate more on local elections, when that happens that president will not be alone in Washington. Further, those local and regional officeholders will make it more probable that a Libertarian president will be elected.

Personally, I'm a Reagan Conservative.