NationStates Jolt Archive

One vote per person, not per nation per person. This is a topic where we should be honest, and spinning the poll accomplishes nothing.

I have noticed that in basically any political or religious topic, everyone has firmly rooted themselves. Some pretty stinging conflicts have risen as a result.

The purpose of this topic is to bring some understanding. If we understand each other's reasoning, we understand their arguements and can help squelch the flames that have been intensifying on NS.

In this topic, I don't want anyone to be criticized. That means that I would prefer not to see much (if any) of thisorthisor thisor this
Just say what you are (liberal/Christian/conservative/Muslim/green/Athiest/libertarian/Jewish/whatever) and why you think that way.

I'll go first.

I, as you all know, am conservative/republican. I think this way because I think conservatism agrees more with my religion (Christianity). I am against abortion because I consider it murder (while some have said we are anti-choice, that is not the motivation for our mindset, though it can be translated that way). I am against AA because it promotes racism against minorities, if only on a psychological level (people get pissed when they find out others get handouts). I am pro-Bush because I feel that he is more honest (he wouldn't have gone into Iraq were it not for the intel that the US and UN had) than Kerry and has done the best job possible, given the circumstances. I believe that I should have the right to do what I want with my money instead of letting the government choose for me. I could go on, but I think you get the point.

What is wrong with quoting someone?

I understand multiple quotes but no single ones.

I said "other" because I am a communitarian. I'm a Christian, and as such, do not believe in abortion, homosexuality, etc. Unlike many evangelical Christians, I believe that the state should be used to make people equal materially. I'm sick of Paris Hilton not knowing what a soup kitchen is when there are people out there who eat out of soup kitchens every day.

My party affiliation is the Canadian NDP because I'm Canadian. I do think, though, that their stance on same-sex marriage will change.

Socialist Agnostic. I have a strong belief in seperation of church and state as well as personal civil freedoms and political rights.

I think he means, we should state our political affiliation, without debating those of others.

I am on average Centrist. I am a conservative on a variety of social issues such as crime, drugs and homosexuality, liberal on foreign policy, something of a paternalistic technocrat on energy policy / infrastructural matters, and am generally difficult to categorise. I voted Independent in this poll.

what if I'm a conservative libertarian?

I am very libertarian. i beleive almost anything can be accepted(except for abortion for social reasons) i i beleive that almost anything can be forgiven, except for the most serious crimes. i also beleive that most criminals should be rehabilitated, rather then deterd

Ahh right, my apologies.

OK then I define myself as a Social Libertarian. I believe that humans are capable of running there own lives without the interferance or existance of the state in any form. The 'Social' part is there because I believe that the only way for humans to continue to advance is through solidarity and working together.

I'd like to take part but don't fully understand the categories stated above :?

Agnostic - I guess I'd be an Independent since I'm a political moderate; too bad our candidate is such a moron

I am a moderate liberal. I associate my Christian beliefs strongly with my political beliefs, but believe strongly in separation of church/state. I am pro-life, meaning I'm against the death penalty and abortion, although I think we could stop abortion via other means than banning it. I believe strongly in universal healthcare. Protecting the environment is important, but protecting people is more important. War is always wrong, although sometimes it can be even more wrong to not go to war, if that makes any sense...

Unlike many evangelical Christians, I believe that the state should be used to make people equal materially....My party affiliation is the Canadian NDP because I'm Canadian. I do think, though, that their stance on same-sex marriage will change.

Interesting - that seems you're one of the old-time religious socialists like NDP founders J.S. Woodsworth and Tommy Douglas. Both these guys were strong socialists *and* strong Evangelical Christians - an almost extinct breed today it seems. Nice to see there's at least 1 of you left! We could do with a lot more, if nothing else than to talk some sense into all the other Evangelicals who've strayed so badly into Conservatism.

Tommy Douglas was probably the smartest, finest political leader Canada ever produced. Were he around today I think his beliefs would have evolved to agree with legal choice for women and also same-sex marital rights. Lots of other Christians (ie United Church etc) have embraced these ideals.

"We who survived/became one"

. Protecting the environment is important, but protecting people is more important.

But - a failure to protect the environment is the very same as failing to protect people. No environment = no people.

I don't see how protecting the environment can ever be viewed as harming people. Yes, it sometimes means some people might have to learn a new livelihood or move elsewhere. But to save the environment and humanity has always meant a few sacrifices & tradeoffs - we can't be completely inflexible and unwilling to change can we?

. Protecting the environment is important, but protecting people is more important.

But - a failure to protect the environment is the very same as failing to protect people. No environment = no people.

I don't see how protecting the environment can ever be viewed as harming people. Yes, it sometimes means some people might have to learn a new livelihood or move elsewhere. But to save the environment and humanity has always meant a few sacrifices & tradeoffs - we can't be completely inflexible and unwilling to change can we?

"We are one with the land. Without it, we die, without it, we cease existance. We own nothing!. The land owns us"

I am what you would call a liberal. And believe it or not, liberals can and do believe in God. I don't have to be a conservative thank God.

As for the War on Iraq, Bush lied to the people about WMD, and Iraqi terrorist links to Al-Queda.

If Bush was truly honest, would he not have attended the 911 Commission on his own, in public, and under oath?

If Bush were truly as "Christian" as he would like others to believe, would he not be more concerned with the rising poverty rates in the US than providing overly generous "tax cuts" to the richest members of society?

I could go on, but I am concerned that this is supposed to be an anti-flame kind of thread.

also as a liberal, I fully support the Kyoto Protocol. I think it is very necessary to win back the environment before the environment "extinguishes" US!!!

Bush is anti-environment.

i am an athiest. i see no reason whatsoever to believe in anyones theories on god/gods

i am a fiscal conservative
i am a social liberal
that means i think that people should be free to live their own lives as they see fit -- even if that means letting them have a sofa on their front porch
but that you cant solve society's problems by throwing money at them

social is more important to me than fiscal so i usually vote democrat, i no longer feel guilty about it since the republicans have shown that their fiscal responsibility was a sham that they could keep because they had no power.

i have come to deeply believe that its best to have a congress of one party and a president of the other party. that way compromise has to be sought and the stupidest programs of either party have no way of becoming law

All political organizations suck. It makes politics seem like a team sport. Most often you have right versus left wingers dueling each other out and rallying for their own side. They spend too much of their focus on each other and not what they should be doing.

I am many things, i dont like to put a box around myself by using a word like 'liberal'.

I am a member of the Green Party and I vote for them but i am not really an environentalist, they just have the best social program. I am not religious but i dont really like the emotional cop out of describing myself as an agnostic. I guess I am vaguely anti-capitalist but only on moral grounds, not because capitalism doesnt produce wealth. I am pro choice and I think the anti abortion lobby needs to stop trying to force their morality onto other people.

All political organizations suck. It makes politics seem like a team sport. Most often you have right versus left wingers dueling each other out and rallying for their own side. They spend too much of their focus on each other and not what they should be doing.

This is somewhat true. Politics does at times break down into a slogan throwing contest.

Real government should be left to the politically educated elite - ie Me.

I never really could decide what I was. It usually depended on what I was feeling like on that day.

I did not know whether to click conservative, libertarian, and finally chose the libertarian box. I belong to both parties in my state. :D

because the current control of the RNC represents few truly conservative issues and seems hellbent to destruction to enforce a police state, encourage corporate facism in the name of capitalism, and lets what used to be of free enterprise languish under socialist malfeasance--i cannot in good conscience call myself conservative while the name is misused by those who give lip service to Reagan, and Goldwater but follow their own course. :(

By the same token, because i am a Christian who follows biblical tenents, recognizes natural law, and observes the trancendental nature of the ten commandments with imminent applicability, i dont fit well with many of the libertarians who are so because they seek to throw off the shackles of divine guidance which they perceive as delusional at best, and preposterously tyrannical at worst. :roll: :P (yes, i'm sticking my tongue out at you kevin.) :)

there is no place for those who fall between jefferson and henry on most political isssues, and witherspoon and jay on judicial issues. those that did used to find themselves well recieved in the american public forum, and considered mainstream but it seems, are now told to shut up by those who think they know better. the best one can do is sit on the conservative/libertarian fence waiting for a better term than the now tarnished constitutionalist.

One vote per person, not per nation per person. This is a topic where we should be honest, and spinning the poll accomplishes nothing.

Big ups to the Mods. I know you guys have lives and stuff, but maybe you can work things out so that only U.N. mamber usernames can vote in polls?

One vote per person, not per nation per person. This is a topic where we should be honest, and spinning the poll accomplishes nothing.

Big ups to the Mods. I know you guys have lives and stuff, but maybe you can work things out so that only U.N. mamber usernames can vote in polls?

*glares*
my son wont let me join the UN, hes afraid if we both are members we'll get deted because we are on the same puter

Well that sucks ... but if it's fair enough for the game it's certainly fair enough for the forum. Anyway if you can get access to another PC and run a UN state from there I would think that the Mods would overlook an occassional post from your son's PC. Or not... sorry but it's still the best solution to prevent poll stuffing.

how about if only certain, more serious polls were restricted?

((bump))

I would say I fall under the category of "Other". I do not follow a particular party but rather make decisions on issues after weighing up the arguments of all sides. Sometimes I agree with conservatives, others with liberals. My NS nation is an Inoffensive Centrist Democracy so that pretty much sums me up I think.

objectivist/libertarian
which implies agnostic...though I'm not sure if we're supposed to include religious beliefs..many people are
seriously though, how can you be "objective" if you believe in god, or the definitive abscence of one?

I am a moderate liberal. I'm not to the extreme that a lot of liberals are but I have strong passion about the environment, health issues, social issues (with the exception of abortion because for some reason I've never really garnered an interest in either side), and the military. I believe in a strong federal government but also believe that each state has their own rights and responsibilities as well.

I am also a devout Catholic. While I disagree with some of Catholicism's teachings, I have found that overall they are the church that most fits with my beliefs. I've never understood the concept that only conservatives can lay claim to religion as their right.

Economic moderate and social liberal. I believe in balanced budgets and social justice and using the power of government to protect those citizens and those assets unable to protect themselves. I believe there are some places where only government is best suited to serve the public and some places the government is the least suited and should butt out.

I would describe myself as a right-leaning centrist. I am very liberal where social issues are concerned and conservative on nearly everything else.

Absolute independent :p

I'm not a pro on ecenomics (I can bearly tread water) so I avoid most fiscal arguments. SOcially I'm a liberal. However, I absolutly despise political parties in their entirety and, as such, refuse to belong to one. Religious wise I am a Diest, so my thoughts and opinions are my own.