NationStates Jolt Archive

I know there are 2 schools of thought on this, although even people from both sides of the spectrum will have examples of the other way. My personal beliefs depends on the person, although from what I've seen, people get a little more Conservative as they get older. I. myself though, have gotten much more Liberal (I used to be a far right wing conservative). I guess it depends on personal experiences, income, upbringing, etc. No flaming please but feel free post your thoughts.

We're about the same then. I was raised a conservative christian--a fire breather. About the time I hit my mid-twenties, I started moderating, and by the time I was thirty, I was center-left. Now I'm a full on liberal.

I used to be a communist at a young age since i knew little of society and a lot more about potential technological advance. After that i accepted the concept of free-market economy when i began to come to terms with the real world and became a libertarian, then became increasingly more moderate from there. I am what many would call a neoconservative right now but find myself a bit more moderate on social issues than most, particularily education. I do however have some faith in state-government and the reduction of federal government size.

We're about the same then. I was raised a conservative christian--a fire breather. About the time I hit my mid-twenties, I started moderating, and by the time I was thirty, I was center-left. Now I'm a full on liberal.
Yep. More or less me too.

Some people die at 25 and aren't buried until 75. - Benjamin Franklin

When I went to college I was a liberal. Then through reading philosophy I became an anarchist. After leaving college I became a fascist. One with strong economic socialist sympathies.

It's a shame that the liberal/conservative dichotomy in the US is all there is now. There's far more to politics than those redundant terms.

When I say Liberal, that includes Socialists and maybe even Communists. When I say Conservative, I mean Conservative. I'm not an American btw but "Liberal"
in this thread means to the left wing. Conservative means to the right, much like the in the real world.

in the real world.

In some nations the Liberals are the right wing and the Conservatives are the left wing.

Might not want to be so quick to make that statement.

We're about the same then. I was raised a conservative christian--a fire breather. About the time I hit my mid-twenties, I started moderating, and by the time I was thirty, I was center-left. Now I'm a full on liberal.

That makes three of us. Was fed conservative religious propoganda growing up (my parents are very right-wing), went to a Catholic middle school...participated in little school rallies against abortion and homosexuality and fornication.

Then, in 9th grade, I saw the light. Never looked back. I'm still open-minded on stuff like economics and foreign policy, but when it comes to social issues like the above, I doubt I could be convinced otherwise.

I voted for "more liberal" as that describes me, however, I believe most people get more conservative...after all, the pot-smoking free-love hippies of the 60s are now the old Republicans advocating harsh drug laws and fighting to keep contraception out of public school sex-ed programs.


Oh, and Class A Cows is right about the terminology.

I tend to vote more liberally lately basically because I do not feel that is ever right for one group to dictate the lifestlyles of another (abortion laws, gay marriages etc.) At the same time though, my own personal views are tending to become more conservative, mostly because I have seen the outcomes of being too liberal and life and it scares me for future generations.

I'm liberal, but then again I'm only 18. But then again, I'm a weird one-I mean, a non-religious straightedge kid (no drugs, smoking, drinking, or sport fucking) in college?! Whodathunkit.

I start liberal and went centrist.

Lately I find my self more liberal after watching and listenting to the Neo-Cons, Christians, Liberterians and conservatives.

I find a great lot of older people start voting more often for parties they've voted for most of the time, not because those parties have got the best program or they agree with them most, but just because they've always voted for them. So more conservative it is.

Pisses me off

I was raised to be and as a youth always considered myself a far-right conservative (social authoritarian, economic centrist, political authoritarian) but since about 16 have drifted over the years to a more libertarian/liberal outlook. Now I sit somewhere near what most would consider center-left (social libertarian (anarchist), economic libertarian/centrist, political centrist).

So far, I have become more liberal as I age, but your mileage may vary.

socialisim can be right wing youn just look after the people right

I was raised to be and as a youth always considered myself a far-right conservative (social authoritarian, economic centrist, political authoritarian) but since about 16 have drifted over the years to a more libertarian/liberal outlook. Now I sit somewhere near what most would consider center-left (social libertarian (anarchist), economic libertarian/centrist, political centrist).

So far, I have become more liberal as I age, but your mileage may vary.
You just like the idea of being a pisshead and who can blame you!

Hows my driving phone 0800drunkatthewheel

I was -

May 2001 to December 2001 - Quite Conservative
I became attracted to a girl from my local area. She had quite conservative views and gave strong justifications for them.

December 2001 to October 2002 - Quite Liberal (slightly socialist)
I became very jealous of Charlotte Church. I saw how rich, famous, and beautiful she was while other people her age were left to feel like nowbodies. I wanted for it to be illegal for stars to be under the age of 18.

October 2002 to March 2003 - Very Conservative
Since Charlotte Church had her downfall, she now longer became an issue. Instead I became very attracted to a system called "Technocracy", whereby there was a herarcial society based on intellegence and aptitude.

March 2003 to November 2003 - Very Liberal
In March 2003, there was a public scandal regarding inequality of opportunity for state school pupils, because private school pupils were being coached up for the exams. I then wanted private schools to be outlawed. Also, there was a school in my area that performed very well but had a more liberal regime than in other schools (eg. no uniform). I then decided that liberal regimes were best in every aspect of life.

November 2003 to August 2004 - Fascist
I became very attracted to the views of a guy on this forum.
(Great Yarmouth - if anybody remembers him)

August 2004 to present - Centrist/Progressive/Slightly Liberal
After seeing how -
1) Charlotte Church is off the rails because of her conservative upbringing as a child.
2) How I enjoy my own personal freedoms in life.
3) How effective many liberal/progressive policies have been in the past (eg. equal opportunities regardless of class background, gender or race)

Most people tend to become more centrist as they gain more experience of the world. They tend to emphasise 'practical solutions' to problems, rather than simply committing themselves to any particular ideology.

You just like the idea of being a pisshead and who can blame you!

Wow, and it only took one post to figure it out. I am letting my assholeness get out much easier in my old age.

It depends on the person. There is no model to judge this by. I would think it's a unique and personal choice.

My problem is... I'm becomming like my nation. i'm starting to see a cold-hearted, iron fist system where you die for any break in the law as a good idea, yet i know it wouldn't work and it is wrong...

Perhaps i spend too much time here.

The whole dual political thing is a media construct. It's to create a two sided argument where there may be more than one side to an argument. Fights get ratings, fights that are simple to explain in a sound bite get the most ratings.

Saying left wing, or right wing is just as bad, all it creates is a two sided approach to looking at the world. (ie. creating a black & white dichotomy.)

Realistically, the older I've gotten the more open minded I've become. I'd say that the liberal/conservative construct just doesn't fit in with the way things work. You either become more open minded or closed minded about certain things as you grow older.

For example, I'm very conservative in my attitude toward changing the Constitution (U.S.) I don't think government should meddle with it unless absolutely necessary. I think government should watch its spending, but I also understand government has to spend money to spur the economy on. I'm rigidly opposed to anyone taking away the freedom of speech, press, right to public assembly, and the freedom to follow one's own personal religious path.

However, I'm more open to hearing new ideas about things, and will even give people whom I disagree with the benefit of the doubt.

Conservatism as a political ideology gets stuck in the past, fighting to maintain the status quo, or an ideal of what the status quo was. Currently, Republicans think the US would be better off if we returned to the laissez-faire economy of the pre 1920's. It wouldn't be prudent to follow this course, since the laissez-faire (government is hands off on the economy) is what brought about the Great Depression.

There is no nation, empire, or kingdom in human history that progressed by becoming conservative. Liberalism hasn't been an ideaology, so much as progressivism, which is merely the struggle for increased freedom.

Bottom line, we all want to be free from every burden, but we need a check and balance system to keep us from harming our fellow human being. Government plays that role best, otherwise we'll just live in a Wild West style anarchy. Humans have more potential than that.
-Cheers

Been a socialist/communist since early teenage years...i'm now 18. I'm staying that way too, i'm determined not to fall into the middle-class robot syndrome.

I see no value in conservatism.

I remain centre-right.
Though I get more wise every year. Wise enough to see that we are not heading into a doomsday scenario as the extreme left and others (greens) are projecting.

Any man who is under 30, and is not a liberal, has not heart; and any man who is over 30, and is not a conservative, has no brains.
~Winston Churchill

Any man who is under 30, and is not a liberal, has not heart; and any man who is over 30, and is not a conservative, has no brains.
~Winston Churchill

That was his opinion, it doesn't actually have any bases in truth.

That was his opinion, it doesn't actually have any bases in truth.
I´ve actually heard a simular statement to which I disagree with: A 20-year old who isn´t a communists has no hard, a 40-year old who still is a communists doesn´t have a brain.
I think that 20-year old can have brain as well.
And therefore they can be anti-communists as well, as history has proven.

I´ve actually heard a simular statement to which I disagree with: A 20-year old who isn´t a communists has no hard, a 40-year old who still is a communists doesn´t have a brain.
I think that 20-year old can have brain as well.
And therefore they can be anti-communists as well, as history has proven.

So you call all communists brainless now?

As for me, I've stayed just about the same. I have, however, gotten a little more activist in my older age.

I do come from a long line of people who get MORE liberal as they age. My grandmother, great aunt, and aunt are all becoming liberal as we speak. They're voting FOR things they voted AGAINST in their youth (Social Security, Health Care, etc). So, I voted more liberal.

None of the above - I become more Libertarian as I get older...

So you call all communists brainless now?
Well, I think they are mistaken, but I said I do not concur with that statement. Because 20-year old people who are not communists aren´t all heartless as well.
But I think that Communism/Stalinism and National Socialism have one thing in common. The supremacy of the group over the indiviual. Your are nothing, your class is everything or the party is always right or you are nothing, your people are everything (Nazi) is showing the simularity of those ideologies. It is therefore no surprise that many people who voted on Sunday in Saxony the NPD party (neonazis) gave their first vote to the communists PDS and the second one the NPD. Both were actually campaigning with the same slogans: social-populism and the idea or a state which takes care of everything. Such attitudes don´t fit into a demoratic society. Democracy and free market economy are twins. They can´t exist without each other in the long-run. I´m sad for the results but I´m convinced that freedom, democracy and free-market economy prevail. There is no alternative to that.

Stephistan
and your point is??

This thread asked for my opinion of a statement. I found a quote by a famous individual that pretty much summed up my position. Who said this was a hard fast rule or even a fact? People have varying opinions, even famous people like Mr. Churchill.

Being new to these boards, but not boards in general, I think that I have found my first board bully in only 5 posts. I feel special already. Welcome to the internet, where reading is necessary, but comprehension is optional.

While Kybernetia can continue with his misguided view of communism I'ld like to jump back to the orginal topic.

I'ld say people generally would become more conservative as they get much older. You know as they drift into middle age and retirment. The term conservative in itself implies a resitance of cahnge and keeping thing traditional. So as the would naturally changes you become more conservative in comparison to the rest of the world.

20-year old people who are not communists aren´t all heartless as well.

That's true enough.

By the way...Stalinism and National Socialism go against everything I stand for...I believe them to be state-capitalist.

I also don't believe in crushing individual thought. I believe in free speech, free artistic expression, free religion and democracy. Most socialists do.

While Kybernetia can continue with his misguided view of communism I'ld like to jump back to the orginal topic.
Sorry. But I don´t see a quality difference between National socialism and Stalinism or Pol Pot. And I don´t see a quality difference between the latter three and the Taliban. They have actually more in common then what seperates them: a deny of individual freedom, the supremacy of the group and its ideology above the individual and the elimination of dissent based on religion, ethnicity, class or something else.

By the way...Stalinism and National Socialism go against everything I stand for...I believe them to be state-capitalist.
I think you are wrong. The same propaganda was spelled by the East German regime about it and about West Germany and against any opposition. It is nonsense. The Nazi regime conducted a very interventionistic policy. Not at all neoliberal.
And socialism - at least its main string based on Marx - advocates the state to take over the economy.
The Nazis even had state economic plans - like the plan of 1936 (in four years the economy needs to be ready for war).

back on the original topic, I find that I began life not knowing anything, and the older the get, the more I realize how little I know, and the more I am compelled to seek out knowledge and understanding.

That said, I find myself having formed reactionary right wing biases early on, as a parrot of my VERY right wing father.

However, any time I made a comment like that, he'd look over at me and say "Why are you saying that? Back it up, explain, elaborate, expound."

My father instilled in me an excellent respect for knowledge and understanding, and so while I have continued to remain conservative (and indeed, continue to grow in that direction as time passes), I find myself able to analyse things, and not just default to the opinion because it's the first I heard.

I'll never be conservative.

Unlike the conservatives, I actually have compassion and care for my fellow man.

I'ld say people generally would become more conservative as they get much older. You know as they drift into middle age and retirment. The term conservative in itself implies a resitance of cahnge and keeping thing traditional. So as the would naturally changes you become more conservative in comparison to the rest of the world.

was waiting for someone to say that, conservatism is to conserve, liberal is to change, I think misnomers like "fiscal conservatism" which is about as realistic in existence as dung beetles conquering the world have somewhat warped a lot of perception. Of course political conservatism is seen from a different approach partly due to the Anglo Liberal conservatism (or as bush calls it, compassionate conservatism) which is somewhat more moderate than what most people consider the traditional conservative viewpoint.

As for Churchill's quote, it's a well propagated myth, he never said such a thing.

I think liberals become more conservative and conservatives become more liberal, generally.

When I was a kid, I was fairly conservative, as a teenager, I became liberal. Now, I find myself leaning towards a mix of liberalism and socialism- or, even communism (in its purest form).

I've gotten more liberal, both economically and socially. Basically I moved from being a moderately socially conservative democratic socialist to being a moderately socially liberal supporter of a mixed economy.

I think you are wrong. The same propaganda was spelled by the East German regime about it and about West Germany and against any opposition. It is nonsense. The Nazi regime conducted a very interventionistic policy. Not at all neoliberal.

I know. Hence state-capitalist. They (the Nazi's) ran the nation, or at least the major industries, as essentially a huge corporation.

So did the USSR. And East Germany.

And socialism - at least its main string based on Marx - advocates the state to take over the economy.

Yes, but in its purest form the idea is to radically decentralise it after the equal distribution of wealth and means of production.

The Nazis even had state economic plans - like the plan of 1936 (in four years the economy needs to be ready for war).

So? They had a state-run economy. That doesn't mean that all forms of socialism are evil.

To quote sinestro:
I'll never be conservative.

Unlike the conservatives, I actually have compassion and care for my fellow man.

Care to offer any proof that I, a conservative (and an avowed one at that), don't have compassion and care for my fellow man?

I work as a tutor and life skills coach in the cook county jail system in chicago IL, district 9, men's facility. I am working to teach people who've never learned to read or perform math beyond two of the basic functions (addition and subtraction). I am helping people understand the concept of a budget. I am teaching them to appreciate the beauty of literature and its value in elevating the intellect and imagination.

Please explain how you can assert that I have no compassion.

To quote sinestro:


Care to offer any proof that I, a conservative (and an avowed one at that), don't have compassion and care for my fellow man?

I work as a tutor and life skills coach in the cook county jail system in chicago IL, district 9, men's facility. I am working to teach people who've never learned to read or perform math beyond two of the basic functions (addition and subtraction). I am helping people understand the concept of a budget. I am teaching them to appreciate the beauty of literature and its value in elevating the intellect and imagination.

Please explain how you can assert that I have no compassion.
you are oversimplifying, what are your political beliefs, well kind of political, do you believe homosexuals should have rights and the ability to amrry, do you believe in outlawing anything that MIGHT be considered abortion, do you propose we teach absitence in all schools instead of sex ed?

I am not oversimplifying, Sinestro is.

He said that he has compassion for his fellow man, unlike conservatives.

By its very nature, this statement makes a sweeping, simplified generalisation that conservatives do not have compassion for their fellow man. I am responding with evidence (granted, word of mouth evidence that I am offering no corroboration for) that his statement is in error.

To quote sinestro:


Care to offer any proof that I, a conservative (and an avowed one at that), don't have compassion and care for my fellow man?

I work as a tutor and life skills coach in the cook county jail system in chicago IL, district 9, men's facility. I am working to teach people who've never learned to read or perform math beyond two of the basic functions (addition and subtraction). I am helping people understand the concept of a budget. I am teaching them to appreciate the beauty of literature and its value in elevating the intellect and imagination.

Please explain how you can assert that I have no compassion.

Hmm. That depends.

How much do you get paid?

:D

Student volunteer work, I get paid nothing, I earn no class credits. :D

Student volunteer work, I get paid nothing, I earn no class credits.

Wait...so you're a conservative student doing volunteer work? Bet you feel out of touch with the status-quo there :)

Wait...are you a Mormon?

I am not oversimplifying, Sinestro is.

He said that he has compassion for his fellow man, unlike conservatives.

By its very nature, this statement makes a sweeping, simplified generalisation that conservatives do not have compassion for their fellow man. I am responding with evidence (granted, word of mouth evidence that I am offering no corroboration for) that his statement is in error.
ok, you are oversimplifying and he is generalizing

Explain how I am oversimplifying, if you could.

Explain how I am oversimplifying, if you could.
you are narrowing it down to nonpartisan activities which you personalyl do, they have nothing to do with your political persuasion, which is what sinestro was talknig about, political beliefs

I just get more and more liberal. I've gone from thinking 'All drugs are a pox on the earth' to 'Hmmm... Maybe I'll try LSD when I can get hold of some'.

I'm not outright deviant yet, though. Just largely non-conformist.

I'm of the opinion that people get more conservative as they age, simply because at some point they get set in their ways and nostalgic, and start disapproving of what the young people are doing. Then they get bitter, and want to ban everything!

Canadians will notice the poll. Liberal option has a red bar, conservative one has a blue bar. Coincidence? :P

I know. Hence state-capitalist. They (the Nazi's) ran the nation, or at least the major industries, as essentially a huge corporation.
So did the USSR. And East Germany..
In different forms. Either taking direct controll (East Germany, USSR, and other socialist countries) or via economic plans and the cooperation of some business leaders (though during the war the government was virtually running things as well).


Yes, but in its purest form the idea is to radically decentralise it after the equal distribution of wealth and means of production.
I respond with Smith: Why should a person work more than another if he doesn´t receive more? Why should a person take a risk, like making an invation, founding its own company if he is not having the prospect of a financial reward? Without competition you don´t get the best ideas coming through. You get stagnation as a result - as it was shown in the Soviet Union at least since the Breshnev era (1964 ff) and in East Germany since the 1970s.
But competition only works if you accept that people are getting rewards for their risk. Accepting social differences is the price of economic efficency. Denying that inevitable means the downfall of an economy, people not caring for it, the decline of the infrastructure and of the companies. You were able to see that in East Germany before 1990 when you visited it. Today most is repaired thanks to West German money. You can still see it in huge parts of East Europe and even more in Russia - especially if you leave Moscow.
Karl Marx did a huge mistake in his theory. He didn´t see the importance of competition. While he correctly assessed the development which was leading up to the end of feudalism (and aristocratic monarchy) to a burgeois liberal democracy (which he just saw as a transition stage - he didn´t gave individual freedom any value) and that he correctly assessed the existence of contradictions between burgeois and industrial worker his solution is completly unworkable as history has proven. Without competition in a free market no economy can prevail.



So? They had a state-run economy. That doesn't mean that all forms of socialism are evil.
No form of socialism has worked and I don´t see any form of socialism that can work. They are forms who are more evil and they are some who are less evil. I can differentiate.
But I see them all as harmfull, since they erradicate competition. We need more free-market economy not less. Social welfare should garantee a minimum standard for people to survive. But who works should have more than who doesn´t. Therefore a country like Germany today is cutting deep into its welfare state: to remain competetive on the global maket and to cope with the demographic development (ageing population). Without that it would loose competitivness and the life standard of all would fall dramatically. Cuts are needed and necessary. They are even done by a left-wing government. And there is no alternative to it.
The Socialists are just spilling demogogic propaganda. They have no viable concept. For a country that depends on the global economy (big export sector, much more exports than imports) any protectionism is outright stupid since it would cause reprisels. It is no wonder that in such a situation some of the protest votes land on the far right, who is using exactly the same demagogic slogans.

If Sinestro was talking about political beliefs and assertions, he should have brought them into his statement. He did not, and merely made a generalised attack that conservatives have no compassion. I answered that charge, and that charge only, because he made no assertions that it was political beliefs which evidence no compassion, but the people themselves.

Your argument that I am oversimplifying is therefore unsupported, and misdirected. Nonpartisan or no, my activities evidence that I do have some compassion for my fellow man, despite that I am a conservative.

I'm liberal, but then again I'm only 18. But then again, I'm a weird one-I mean, a non-religious straightedge kid (no drugs, smoking, drinking, or sport fucking) in college?! Whodathunkit.

Wow, another one! I was beginning to think I was the only one like this. I'm also 18, non-religious, and straightedge. In tests I'm either moderate/somewhat liberal, but it only shows up as that since I'm very liberal about some things and very conservative about others.

Anyway, I've gotten more liberal as I've gotten older. My parents are somewhat to the right, I was raised as a moderate. My parents let me think for myself mostly, it's just that as I gained awareness of my world I've become more liberal.

The more I learn and mature, the more liberal I get. I always just assumed one became more conservative, but I guess not.

I respond with Smith: Why should a person work more than another if he doesn´t receive more? Why should a person take a risk, like making an invation, founding its own company if he is not having the prospect of a financial reward?

Well those are very good questions there. Why should a person work hard to deliver themselves an education, struggling through two jobs at the same time, and then end up in debt for many years afterwards while a person born with inherited worth can get the same end result for far less work? Why should they bother indeed?

And yet, the aspect of risk is irrelevant when many lack the starting capital to form a business. I'm sure that if I had a million dollars, I could form a successful small business if I liked. But I don't. Therefore, I cannot take a risk even if I wanted to anyway.

Without competition you don´t get the best ideas coming through. You get stagnation as a result - as it was shown in the Soviet Union at least since the Breshnev era (1964 ff) and in East Germany since the 1970s.
But competition only works if you accept that people are getting rewards for their risk. Accepting social differences is the price of economic efficency.

I disagree- it was deep rooted laziness among the elite that brought about the USSR's downfall. They were no longer wishing to push the buttons to keep things moving. (Ever play a real time strategy game? Its a good example. Eventually you reach the stage where you get bored and no longer wish to expand because it's too much effort, and you have a deep-rooted belief that you'll end up winning anyway. Things could be kept moving far more smoothly if someone else would just take over some of your tasks...but you kinda like that control that you have.) I recall an anecdote about a Soviet shoe factory that only produced left shoes, as the quotas only counted total shoes produced rather than whether or not they were proper. The factory appeared to be doing very well statistically, producing twice as many total shoes than any other factory due to the ease of only having to configure machinery to make left soles for example.

The power for rapid expansion was certainly there under the state controlled system, but it was little things like this that all built up and caused massive problems.

Well those are very good questions there. Why should a person work hard to deliver themselves an education, struggling through two jobs at the same time, and then end up in debt for many years afterwards while a person born with inherited worth can get the same end result for far less work? Why should they bother indeed?
Because with that education (if it is the right one) he/she can earn much more than without it.
Or in other words: the opportunity costs are worth taking the effort. I´m not an economists. But if you study and manage it you have much more opportunities afterwards. If that is not the case or the risk is in your eyes to high or you are unshure about the prospects it may be better not to do it and to go into a practical training where you can earn money much earlier.


And yet, the aspect of risk is irrelevant when many lack the starting capital to form a business. I'm sure that if I had a million dollars, I could form a successful small business if I liked. But I don't. Therefore, I cannot take a risk even if I wanted to anyway.?
Do you have children? Wouldn´t you want them to have a good life? We can´t ban parents from supporting the children. Differences are natural and belong to any society. There is no society without differences.
BTW many big businesses started with an idea and small capital. Bill Gates or the brothers Albrecht (Aldi (super market chain) - you find that in the Forbes list) didn´t start with much starting capital either.


I disagree- it was deep rooted laziness among the elite that brought about the USSR's downfall. They were no longer wishing to push the buttons to keep things moving. (Ever play a real time strategy game? Its a good example. Eventually you reach the stage where you get bored and no longer wish to expand because it's too much effort, and you have a deep-rooted belief that you'll end up winning anyway. Things could be kept moving far more smoothly if someone else would just take over some of your tasks...but you kinda like that control that you have.) I recall an anecdote about a Soviet shoe factory that only produced left shoes, as the quotas only counted total shoes produced rather than whether or not they were proper. The factory appeared to be doing very well statistically, producing twice as many total shoes than any other factory due to the ease of only having to configure machinery to make left soles for example.
The power for rapid expansion was certainly there under the state controlled system, but it was little things like this that all built up and caused massive problems.
You stress the point actually. A state run economy isn´t able to deliver since it is inefficent. It is a planning office which decides what is going to be produced and not the market (which means the requests of the customer). And it is producing quantity BUT NOT QUALITY.
Efficent use of resources can only be archieved if you have a price mechanism. If energy is cheap people are going to waste it (regardless what you say or whether you say please don´t). If apartements are cheap and the rent is below the cost of even maintaining them more people are requesting them causing shortages and subsidies into that sector.
And if you go additionally in a Cold War with the strongest power on earth - the US - and want to be equal with it without having a viable economy due to your inefficent - because socialist - economic system you are going to need to spent 20% of your GDP for the miliary (compared to around 5% of the US) just to keep balance - aside of the support of proxy wars and allies in the developing world. No country can sustain that in the long-run. The collapse of the USSR was therefore the logical consequence.

If Sinestro was talking about political beliefs and assertions, he should have brought them into his statement. He did not, and merely made a generalised attack that conservatives have no compassion. I answered that charge, and that charge only, because he made no assertions that it was political beliefs which evidence no compassion, but the people themselves.

Your argument that I am oversimplifying is therefore unsupported, and misdirected. Nonpartisan or no, my activities evidence that I do have some compassion for my fellow man, despite that I am a conservative.
"I'll never be conservative.

Unlike the conservatives, I actually have compassion and care for my fellow man. "
conservative, ie republican, ie because of political beliefs

Who was the person that said in some coutries Liberals are the right wing and Conservatives the left? Because in North America and from what I understand of Europle, Australia and Asia, Conservative means toward the right and Liberal towards the left. Care to explain?

"I'll never be conservative.

Unlike the conservatives, I actually have compassion and care for my fellow man. "
conservative, ie republican, ie because of political beliefs


That's a pretty generalized statement to make.

Because with that education (if it is the right one) he/she can earn much more than without it.
Or in other words: the opportunity costs are worth taking the effort. I´m not an economists. But if you study and manage it you have much more opportunities afterwards. If that is not the case or the risk is in your eyes to high or you are unshure about the prospects it may be better not to do it and to go into a practical training where you can earn money much earlier.


Do you have children? Wouldn´t you want them to have a good life? We can´t ban parents from supporting the children. Differences are natural and belong to any society. There is no society without differences.
BTW many big businesses started with an idea and small capital. Bill Gates or the brothers Albrecht (Aldi (super market chain) - you find that in the Forbes list) didn´t start with much starting capital either.


You stress the point actually. A state run economy isn´t able to deliver since it is inefficent. It is a planning office which decides what is going to be produced and not the market (which means the requests of the customer). And it is producing quantity BUT NOT QUALITY.
Efficent use of resources can only be archieved if you have a price mechanism. If energy is cheap people are going to waste it (regardless what you say or whether you say please don´t). If apartements are cheap and the rent is below the cost of even maintaining them more people are requesting them causing shortages and subsidies into that sector.
And if you go additionally in a Cold War with the strongest power on earth - the US - and want to be equal with it without having a viable economy due to your inefficent - because socialist - economic system you are going to need to spent 20% of your GDP for the miliary (compared to around 5% of the US) just to keep balance - aside of the support of proxy wars and allies in the developing world. No country can sustain that in the long-run. The collapse of the USSR was therefore the logical consequence.
the USSR was a corrupt fascist state that did not collapse because of socialism itself, it collapsed because of fascist dictators, poorly and stupidly implemented socialism, corruption, and propaganda from the US

That's a pretty generalized statement to make.
now what are YOU complaining about

Very generalised, particularly the part about "republican".

There are, as I recall, quite a few moderate republicans. But I suppose that some people can't get past their first initial reaction of "conservative bad, argh".

Pity, I had hoped for an intellectual answer to my question.

Very generalised, particularly the part about "republican".

There are, as I recall, quite a few moderate republicans. But I suppose that some people can't get past their first initial reaction of "conservative bad, argh".

Pity, I had hoped for an intellectual answer to my question.
1) i am making the assumption, and quite logical one, he is referring to rpeublicans when saying conservative

2) and what are you babbling about with "cant get past first impression of conservtive bad blah" maybe you havnt noticed, but the right like to use the word "liberal" like it referred to some one infected with the plague

now what are YOU complaining about

The fact you are saying an entire group of people are not compassinate and that Socialists are all wonderful and loving. You get a mix from both groups, so saying something like that makes your argument sound one way or narrow minded.

The fact you are saying an entire group of people are not compassinate and that Socialists are all wonderful and loving. You get a mix from both groups, so saying something like that makes your argument sound one way or narrow minded.
no, i NEVER said that, i was relating to mac here what the other guy said and explaining it to him, he misses the point and you seem to have missed the problem altogether

and socialist at its core is "wonderful and loving", everyone sits around and lives and is taken care of, provided they carry their weight

no, i NEVER said that, i was relating to mac here what the other guy said and explaining it to him, he misses the point and you seem to have missed the problem altogether

and socialist at its core is "wonderful and loving", everyone sits around and lives and is taken care of, provided they carry their weight


I live uner a Socialist Government and while they are nice people, they are not effective at actually running finances and social programs.

I live uner a Socialist Government and while they are nice people, they are not effective at actually running finances and social programs.
which isnt the point is it? i said at its core. if you put idiots in charge of anything it doesnt do so well does it?

1) i am making the assumption, and quite logical one, he is referring to rpeublicans when saying conservative

Facts please? Verify your statement, illustrate, prove.

2) and what are you babbling about with "cant get past first impression of conservtive bad blah" maybe you havnt noticed, but the right like to use the word "liberal" like it referred to some one infected with the plague

True enough, I'll grant you a point in that regard; both sides of the political spectrum house their share of pillars of idiocy and dunderheaded paragons of incompetence. Now let's get back to the original point of my participation in this discussion; the fact that Sinestro and you have failed to illustrate how I, a conservative, have no compassion.

which isnt the point is it? i said at its core. if you put idiots in charge of anything it doesnt do so well does it?


At it's core, alot of things like Communism are meant to be good.

Facts please? Verify your statement, illustrate, prove.
conservative is quite often switched for republican, unless they are not from the US, its an inherent fact i dont need to provide sources for, read the forums


True enough, I'll grant you a point in that regard; both sides of the political spectrum house their share of pillars of idiocy and dunderheaded paragons of incompetence. Now let's get back to the original point of my participation in this discussion; the fact that Sinestro and you have failed to illustrate how I, a conservative, have no compassion.
i asked you a question to illustrate the popint, you started attacking me without answering it

what are your positions on homosexuality, abortion, ability of the government to detain "enemies" indefinately

At it's core, alot of things like Communism are meant to be good.
well we wouldnt know if communism is good would we? NO ONE HAS EVER BEEN COMMUNIST, EVER. every "communist" state is a fascist mockery of it

well we wouldnt know if communism is good would we? NO ONE HAS EVER BEEN COMMUNIST, EVER. every "communist" state is a fascist mockery of it


Even the Paris Commune? I know many Communists who say that is the perfect example of Communism, pure and true to it's heart. And why the cap locks, I'm stating a point.

My political views are irrelevant.

By my actions in the Cook County Jail system, I have demonstrated that I indeed do have compassion for my fellow man in SOME measure.

Sinestro made an implied assertion that conservatives have NO compassion in his statement.

The evidence I have provided refutes his assertion that conservatives have NO compassion whatsoever. He did not include a scale or any mention of degree, merely an assertion as to existance.

It rests with Sinestro (or you) to discredit the evidence I have provided. My political views on abortion have no bearing on my actions at the Cook County Jail, merely on the DEGREE of my compassion, which is a debateable quality and therefore useless as a point of debate.

Even the Paris Commune? I know many Communists who say that is the perfect example of Communism, pure and true to it's heart. And why the cap locks, I'm stating a point.
i dont know anything about france, cept they always have random problems, and speak french

but every place that has put themselves forward as communist are fascist mockeries of such

My political views are irrelevant.
No. they. are. not.

your political views are the POINT, you refuse to answer my question, thus you refuse to help this illustration.

Explain to me how they will affect the decision, then. If they are so important to the decision, you can explain to me what exact bearing they have on the discussion.

I'm a Conservative but I'm still Pro-Choice and I am indifferent towards same-sex marriage. The capturing of enemies has only created controversy and problems. Although, as I said, I border between Conservative and Liberal.

Explain to me how they will affect the decision, then. If they are so important to the decision, you can explain to me what exact bearing they have on the discussion.
answer th question seeing as how its part of the explanation, you are the one impeding the progress of this, not me

I'm a Conservative but I'm still Pro-Choice and I am indifferent towards same-sex marriage. The capturing of enemies has only created controversy and problems. Although, as I said, I border between Conservative and Liberal.
great, but i wasnt talking to you, thanks anyway

Incorrect. You have failed to demonstrate to me how my political stance on these issues has any bearing on whether I posess, in any degree, the quality known as compassion. Therefore, I have no reason whatsoever to answer you, and you have no right to request the information. Demonstrate what bearing these factors will have, and I will provide the information in good faith and relevant detail.

great, but i wasnt talking to you, thanks anyway

Is that sarcasm? I knwo your pissed at me but......

I've heard that people tend to become more conservative, particularly if they have and raise children. Having said that, Barry Goldwater was the poster child of the radical right before Pat Robertson came onto the scene and shortly after Clinton took office, he 1) argued that gays should be allowed to serve openly in the military, 2) said Clinton was doing a good job and should be left alone. There were other views that Goldwater expressed that were surprisingly liberal, but those were the main two that stood out in my mind.

As for me, I was pretty right wing when I was younger and I've since gotten more moderate to liberal on a fair number of issues. There are some in which I'm fairly conservative, but there are others in which I'm quite liberal.

Just as a note, I'm using the American definitions of liberal and conservative since I'm not entirely familiar with how they would work in other countries (namely England).

Incorrect. You have failed to demonstrate to me how my political stance on these issues has any bearing on whether I posess, in any degree, the quality known as compassion. Therefore, I have no reason whatsoever to answer you, and you have no right to request the information. Demonstrate what bearing these factors will have, and I will provide the information in good faith and relevant detail.
since you refuse to answer a simple question i cant explain it to you. i have no further reason to debate with some one who is just being ignorantly stubborn

Ignorantly stubborn, you say?

My friend, if you cannot illustrate to me the value of the question you are asking me, WITHOUT the answer itself, then why should I answer the question? If you could just explain the relevance of the questions, what you intend to gain from my answers (in either direction), then I would be most happy to supply the answers, as I have said.

However, you have not explained the bearing these questions have to the discussion at hand.

Ignorantly stubborn, you say?

My friend, if you cannot illustrate to me the value of the question you are asking me, WITHOUT the answer itself, then why should I answer the question? If you could just explain the relevance of the questions, what you intend to gain from my answers (in either direction), then I would be most happy to supply the answers, as I have said.

However, you have not explained the bearing these questions have to the discussion at hand.
and what problem do you have with answering a simple question?

i explained earlier, what you do yourself at home is irrelevant to what he is talknig about, he is referrign to the political beliefs of the conservatives, ie Republicans, in general, not to what these people do at home on their own time. that may be irrelevant later if we want to call them hypocrites, but it is not relevant here and now

When I was much younger and, therefore, much stupider, I was extremely liberal. I was full of hope, etc etc, but also full of angst. Like all the stupid youngsters are, yeah?

I got older, wiser, and more cynical. And then I became rather rapidly Conservative. Yessiree-bob, it took only a year before I became a Conservative, after being a Liberal for as long as I could remember. All due to a sudden dose of what both sides are like, and realizing that the Conservatives were the only ones who were even remotely honest about it. Besides, I found that a Liberal stance meant everyone would be more focused on what they wanted, which didn't quite ring with me. I'm really more for the "It's about what I want, insect. Now get me a sammich!" angle, to be honest. *chuckle*

When I was much younger and, therefore, much stupider, I was extremely liberal. I was full of hope, etc etc, but also full of angst. Like all the stupid youngsters are, yeah?

I got older, wiser, and more cynical. And then I became rather rapidly Conservative. Yessiree-bob, it took only a year before I became a Conservative, after being a Liberal for as long as I could remember. All due to a sudden dose of what both sides are like, and realizing that the Conservatives were the only ones who were even remotely honest about it. Besides, I found that a Liberal stance meant everyone would be more focused on what they wanted, which didn't quite ring with me. I'm really more for the "It's about what I want, insect. Now get me a sammich!" angle, to be honest. *chuckle*
do you live in the US?

I don't care what he INTENDED to talk about, I'm making a statement on what he SAID, and until such time as HE clarifies, I will continue to vilify his remark and ask for evidence.

When I first started becoming politically aware in high school I was extreme right, white racist, even some neo-Nazi inclinations. (This was back in the 1970's before skinheads etc. but had they been around I would likely have been one.) From college days onward I've moved more to a moderate centrist
and more recently, although I still tend to think of myself as conservative, when I take political spectrum tests I tend to score as a "left-libertarian" and my "me" nation of Micketania goes back and forth between "inoffensive centrist democracy" and "democratic socialists".
A lot of it depends on the issue and the circumstances. I tend to be distrustful of government but there are some things that need to be done in a decent society, which the private sector can't or won't do very well.

At first I was liberal, then I got a grip on reality and became conservative.

Most people get more consertive when they grow up.

I am getting more conservative as I get older, though that hardly means I am going to discard my liberal ideals. Rather, I have tempered reason with practicality.

the old adage is that when a man is young, he thinks with his heart - and is a liberal

when a man is old, he thinks with his head - and becomes a conservative.

the old adage is that when a man is young, he thinks with his heart - and is a liberal

when a man is old, he thinks with his head - and becomes a conservative.
you raped a quote, a quote of which was made hundreds of years before our current liberal conservative system

you raped a quote, a quote of which was made hundreds of years before our current liberal conservative system

i didnt rape it, the very begining of the post states clearly "old adage"

read before you reply.

and it is applicable, since the same basic philosophy applies.

i didnt rape it, the very begining of the post states clearly "old adage"

read before you reply.

and it is applicable, since the same basic philosophy applies.
no not really, liberal and conservative has changed in some 400 years, as have alot of things, i wish you people would at least realise that

Let's see. I grew up in a state where do-nothing Clinton was governor for 12 years. I was conservative pretty early on, and (if anything) have gotten more moderate as the years passed. After watching Clinton pay lip service to education and having been accosted near the polls when I was 21-years-old by "Clinton Truth Squads" (folks out to claim the latest political ad about their boy was a lie), it was hard not to grow up not trusting the Democrats or their ilk.

Let's see. I grew up in a state where do-nothing Clinton was governor for 12 years. I was conservative pretty early on, and (if anything) have gotten more moderate as the years passed. After watching Clinton pay lip service to education and having been accosted near the polls when I was 21-years-old by "Clinton Truth Squads" (folks out to claim the latest political ad about their boy was a lie), it was hard not to grow up not trusting the Democrats or their ilk.
of course seeing republicans everywhere lieing and cheating and pointing fingers at the democrats screaming witch or wolf or liberal or the like doesnt exactly make one like the republicans

of course seeing republicans everywhere lieing and cheating and pointing fingers at the democrats screaming witch or wolf or liberal or the like doesnt exactly make one like the republicans

Did you sleep through the Reagan years? I'll freely admit there are Republicans out there who get a bit carried away with smear campaigns and such against the Dems, but you're living in a fool's paradise if you can't see there are a good number of Dems who behave similarly.

Did you sleep through the Reagan years? I'll freely admit there are Republicans out there who get a bit carried away with smear campaigns and such against the Dems, but you're living in a fool's paradise if you can't see there are a good number of Dems who behave similarly.
i NEVER said anything about the democrats, i wasnt talkngi about the democrats, i was referring to the republicans because you were referring to the democrats. a fools paradise? that must be where you are if you think all republicans are great good people and all democrats are evil. how ignorant and hypocritical of you to chastise me for something you just did

i NEVER said anything about the democrats, i wasnt talkngi about the democrats, i was referring to the republicans because you were referring to the democrats. a fools paradise? that must be where you are if you think all republicans are great good people and all democrats are evil. how ignorant and hypocritical of you to chastise me for something you just did

At what point did I say all Republicans are good people? On the topic of generalizing, go examine your statement again.

Geez. Calm down, junior. It's just politics.

At what point did I say all Republicans are good people? On the topic of generalizing, go examine your statement again.
and when did I say all democrats were good people?

mm hypocrisy

I was -

Quite Conservative

Quite Liberal

Very Conservative

Very Liberal

Fascist

Centrist/Progressive/Slightly Liberal
Wow, are you a flip-flopper or what? ;)

I wouldn't say it's so much a matter of becoming more conservative as a matter of your political ideals becoming more sophisticated. When you're young, everything's so black and white. If it remains that way, you're very likely someone who never grew up.

It reminds me of a saying I heard once, something to the effect of, "Anyone under the age of 30 who is not a communist is uneducated. Anyone who remains a communist after the age of 30 is a fool." In other words, you have all of these high-flung ideas of how the world should work when you're young, and when you get older, you realise that the people around you aren't working as hard as you are, and yet they seem to do just as well, or better. You've worked your ass off for everything you have, and you don't believe that all of these other people should get an equal share without doing equal work.

That makes three of us. Was fed conservative religious propoganda growing up (my parents are very right-wing), went to a Catholic middle school...participated in little school rallies against abortion and homosexuality and fornication.

Then, in 9th grade, I saw the light. Never looked back. I'm still open-minded on stuff like economics and foreign policy, but when it comes to social issues like the above, I doubt I could be convinced otherwise.

I voted for "more liberal" as that describes me, however, I believe most people get more conservative...after all, the pot-smoking free-love hippies of the 60s are now the old Republicans advocating harsh drug laws and fighting to keep contraception out of public school sex-ed programs.


Oh, and Class A Cows is right about the terminology.

I've noticed that...with religous education, either you end up a bible thumper or a firebreathing liberal by the time that you get to college.

I've noticed that...with religous education, either you end up a bible thumper or a firebreathing liberal by the time that you get to college.

I think all of the drug legislation and legislation on sex is a knee-jerk guilt reaction. They remember how they wasted years and made their mistakes, and for some reason it translates into "legislate".

I cannot really say either, about 10 years ago I came to my penultimate formulation of a political theory and althoguh I keep reviewing in hopes of being able to reach the ultimate formulation I have no idea whether it will wind up being more liberal or conservative. I guess you could say (as I often have) that as I formed my political ideology I went further and further to left until I came out on the right. But after winding up on the conservative extreme I went further to the right, rejecting the authority of government even more than the extreme conservatives.

the USSR was a corrupt fascist state that did not collapse because of socialism itself, it collapsed because of fascist dictators, poorly and stupidly implemented socialism, corruption, and propaganda from the US
They did what Marx said: concentration of all power of the state and crushing the "reactonaries" (well, more bloody than many people think) and all that were seen as a threat to Soviet rule.
In that sense I actually agree with the statement of a left-wing politician about the Soviet Communists: "Communists are red-lacked fascists."