NationStates Jolt Archive

This is a really stupid question but can someone explain to me what kind of person is a left-wing and what kind of person is a right-wing.

A right wing person follows the morals and beliefs of yesterday, the left wing person says what should be the morals and beliefs of tomorrow.

Bush, Hitler, Mussolini, Franco right-wing.
Stalin, Mao, Micheal Moore, Kerry left-wing.

You guys aren't helpful.

If we use the political compass as an example (a differentiation between right/left wing and authitorian and libertarian needs to be made), right wing and left wing refer generally to economic policy. The closer you are to the right wing, the more you're in favor of free market, laissez faire, and capitalist policies. The closer you are to the left wing, the closer you are to protectionist, socialist, and even pinko commie policies.

Bush, Hitler, Mussolini, Franco right-wing.
Stalin, Mao, Micheal Moore, Kerry left-wing.

Kerry left wing? Hah! i say, Hah!

The closer you are to the right wing, the more you're in favor of free market, laissez faire, and capitalist policies. The closer you are to the right wing, the closer you are to protectionist, socialist, and even pinko commie policies.
Who isn't helpful?

Kerry left wing? Hah! i say, Hah!
Thats what they say around here. He's a die hard left wing communist.

Thats what they say around here. He's a die hard left wing communist.
Someone one tried to tell us in school that Bernie Sanders(umm, i think that's his name) was a Communist and wanted to take our land. I believe it was a guest speaker that they had come in for history class. It was rather amusing...

Whatever you want it to mean, apparently.

You guys aren't helpful.

If we use the political compass as an example (a differentiation between right/left wing and authitorian and libertarian needs to be made), right wing and left wing refer generally to economic policy. The closer you are to the right wing, the more you're in favor of free market, laissez faire, and capitalist policies. The closer you are to the right wing, the closer you are to protectionist, socialist, and even pinko commie policies.
This "evil" person is correct.

A right wing person follows the morals and beliefs of yesterday, the left wing person says what should be the morals and beliefs of tomorrow.
If you replace right-wing with "conservative" and left-wing with "libertarian" you would be correct. But that's not the thread topic.

Who isn't helpful?
The people who inaccurately think that right = conservative and left = liberal. It's America-centric to say the least. What about all the people who are strongly on the right wing, in favour of deregulated capitalism, but also in favour of freedom and deregulated social laws?

And then there are the nutjobs that want to restrict both economic and personal freedoms.

Thats what they say around here. He's a die hard left wing communist.
Die hard communists left wing? Ha!

The most basic outline of beliefs I can think of.

Left-Wing=Liberal;Change tends to be for the better, try to keep moving higher;People tend to make good decisions;Corporations are destructive forces

Right-Wing=Conservative;Change tends to be for the worse, try to keep things as static as possible;People tend to make stupid decisions;Corporations are a very necessary evil (and only evil by virtue of the stupid choices of the men in power)

I might get plenty of responses to this, but again, just because you consider yourself in one group and don't agree with everything I said, that doesn't mean I am wrong. These are supposed to be general, policy-based outlines.

And technically, Von Witzleben's description is accurate. Fascists (Mussolini, Franco, Hitler) are considered a far-right ideology, just as Communists (Stalin, Mao) are considered far-left ideology. Like a bird. They meet in the middle (the beak) and at the tips of the wings (RW-Nazis, LW-Stalinists).

Left wing and right wing are out of date

www.politicalcompass.org

Die hard communists left wing? Ha!
What? He is!!! I read it here on NS!!!

The people who inaccurately think that right = conservative and left = liberal. It's America-centric to say the least. What about all the people who are strongly on the right wing, in favour of deregulated capitalism, but also in favour of freedom and deregulated social laws?
No, no, read what I quoted again. You don't need to tell me what a libertarian is. I am one. And according to the America-centric grid, we're north.

A right wing person... </snip>
Yay for propaganda! :rolleyes:

The way my mother explained it to me is:

On the left are the people who think the government should look after the people. Their idea of government is large, made up of many people who care about all the people. They are people like liberals and communists, who think everyone should share equally in resources, services and money, and who look to change things that are not working for everyone.

On the right are the people who think the people should look after the people. Their idea of government is small, made up of a select few people who recognize the people as individuals and groups. They are people like conservatives and libertarians, who think that people should have and hold what is theirs, and who look to tried and true ways to maintain the status quo.

A right wing person is someone that believes in a master race, and ethnic purity. They also believe in war, and the killing of thousands of people for no apparent gain. Usually, they have little to no formal education.

A few prominent right wingers are: Bush I, Bush II, Jefferson Davis (First and only president of the CSA), Hitler, Mussilini (Sp?), and other people that enjoy genocide.

Left wingers believe in equil rights and equil opprutunites for all. Essensially, they are the polar oppisate of right wingers.

A few prominant left wingers are: Ghandi, Sinclair (author of The Jungle ), and some of the greatest pholosiphers and minds in the world.

Here, we have an example of a rabid left-winger. He claims superiority of his group, by ignoring facts like, the single greatest killer of all time, Stalin, was left-wing. Furthermore, he goes on to discuss how right-wingers are ignorant war-mongers, despite the fact that most major wars the United States entered were entered by left-wing Presidents. The one saving grace in his statement, which was stumbled into ignorantly, is that the majority of upper-level educators are themselves rabid left-wingers. Also worth noting, like any rabid winger (right or left), he has no idea what he actually thinks. For example, "They also believe in war". Maybe I'm just simple, but I didn't realize right vs. left entailed a debate over the existance of war. He also spouts names, ignorant as to their meanings. For example, he cites Upton Sinclair as a powerful voice of the left-wing, unaware (or ignoring) that Sinclair's outrage at the system was only translated into change through the intervention of prominent right-winger, Theodore Roosevelt. He cites Jefferson Davis as an example of the evils of the right, ignoring the fact that the man who stood opposed to Davis (Lincoln) was also from the right. And in answer to the issue of right=conservative, left=liberal being America-centric, I wasn't aware this discussion had anything to do with non-American political spectrums. And had it, that should have been made clear from the outset, or else the whole post grows too confusing.

A right wing person is someone that believes in a master race, and ethnic purity. They also believe in war, and the killing of thousands of people for no apparent gain. Usually, they have little to no formal education.
How could a person 'believe' in war? Somebody could use war as a method of getting messages across to other people over excessively, which I think is what you meant.

How could a person 'believe' in war?
Well, the Samurai did. So did the Vikings, Spartans, Romans, Mongols etc.........

Right wing = conservatives
Left wing = liberals

Right wing = Fox, Christian news, etc.
Left wing = CNN, Nytimes, newsweek, etc.

Right wing = Worships Jesus
Left wing = Somehow knows more plotholes in the bible than the right wing.

Right wing = Reds
Left wing = Blues

Right wing = likes guns
Left wing = likes money

Right wing = Rich people who voted bush for tax cuts.
Left wing= Rich people who left for reds in order to attain tax cuts.

Right wing = Pro Iraq
Left wing = Wtf Iraq? Saddam and Osama hated each other.

Right wing = illogical
Left wing = Sadistically logical.

Right wing = :sniper:
Left wing = :headbang:

Right wing = FCC
Left wing = Moving to canada.

Here, we have an example of a rabid left-winger. He claims superiority of his group, by ignoring facts like, the single greatest killer of all time, Stalin, was left-wing. Furthermore, he goes on to discuss how right-wingers are ignorant war-mongers, despite the fact that most major wars the United States entered were entered by left-wing Presidents. The one saving grace in his statement, which was stumbled into ignorantly, is that the majority of upper-level educators are themselves rabid left-wingers. Also worth noting, like any rabid winger (right or left), he has no idea what he actually thinks. For example, "They also believe in war". Maybe I'm just simple, but I didn't realize right vs. left entailed a debate over the existance of war. He also spouts names, ignorant as to their meanings. For example, he cites Upton Sinclair as a powerful voice of the left-wing, unaware (or ignoring) that Sinclair's outrage at the system was only translated into change through the intervention of prominent right-winger, Theodore Roosevelt. He cites Jefferson Davis as an example of the evils of the right, ignoring the fact that the man who stood opposed to Davis (Lincoln) was also from the right.
And when he said: "Usually, they have little to no formal education." it sounded sorta like he was implying that right-winged people are dumb, whose only motive is greed.

...the single greatest killer of all time, Stalin,
Accually, Ghengis Khan, the first ruler of the united mongolian tribes, is considered by many to be the greatest killer of all time. By his own count, his army slaughtered 80-88 million people. Some historians say he sliced the population of china in half during his campaigns.

Yet another example of a right winger.

Accually, Ghengis Khan, the first ruler of the united mongolian tribes, is considered by many to be the greatest killer of all time. By his own count, his army slaughtered 80-88 million people. Some historians say he sliced the population of china in half during his campaigns.

Yet another example of a right winger.
I wouldn't call Ghengis Khan a right-winger. I doubt he had any economic beliefs at all.

Let us try and get to the basics of this.

There are two fundamentally opposed views of the role of government and authority in society (Leaving the Libertarians out of this for now, before the rest of you lot start jumping up and down about it).

One group believes that the government should be responsible for the welfare, in a very general sense, of the people. That the government should provide all the basic needs of western civilization: Housing, Minimum foodstuffs, Education, Healtcare, Pensions, etc. To do this, they argue that the control of basic utilities, (Electricity, telephone, gas, water, transport, etc) should be under government control. However to pay for all this service, the people in the country will have to pay a fairly high level of taxation. This is not a problem as the basic needs are provided, so they need less disposable income anyway.

The other group argues that the role of government is to defend the social values of the country. The actual individual does not matter that much, it is the values of the society that matter. They see the role of the government as supporting the institutions that make up society, these being the church, industry, the military, the class system, financial institutions and our traditions in general. As they do not place an interest in the direct support of the individual, the level of taxation is generally lower, but healthcare, pensions etc. are organised through the financial institutions rather than directly through government.

Supporters of group one are left wing, supporters of group two are right wing.

Having such a nomadic lifestyle probably makes economic socialism or communism nearly impossible.

On a lighter note, has anyone tried yak's milk?

Well, the Samurai did. So did the Vikings, Spartans, Romans, Mongols etc.........(The person who 'believes' in war shall be called Bob for the purposes of this post) If Bob used war over-excessively it could be said that he 'believes' in war, i.e. believing in using military action against a country to let them know he doesn't like them, or for whatever other reason anybody can think up.

On a lighter note, has anyone tried yak's milk?I don't want to change the topic, but I've never tried yak's milk.

Having such a nomadic lifestyle probably makes economic socialism or communism nearly impossible.
On the other hand, it also makes a division of labor nearly impossible. Each group had nearly everything it needed to survive. They just had to follow their food around.

And in answer to the issue of right=conservative, left=liberal being America-centric, I wasn't aware this discussion had anything to do with non-American political spectrums.
All the thread starter asked was:
This is a really stupid question but can someone explain to me what kind of person is a left-wing and what kind of person is a right-wing.
Do you see anything about America in there? Or do you honestly (ignorantly, I'm sorry) think that the terms "right-wing" and "left-wing" were invented in America?

So yeah, please refrain from making this discussion America-centric.

PS. Adipokine, you're a partisan maniac. Lots of wars and genocides were started by left-wing leaders.

I wouldn't call Ghengis Khan a right-winger. I doubt he had any economic beliefs at all.
If he did, I would imagine that they were very authoritarian just like his social beliefs. So he could be an old-skool Stalinist of sorts.

But I don't know. He lived in a time and place long before and far away from Adam Smith and Karl Marx.

I know that the Mongolian invasion of China claimed about 30 million lives, which puts Genghis Khan up there in terms of killers. But remember that the expansion of the Mongol Empire took place over several generations. Ghenghis Khan probably cannot be blamed for all the deaths that took place in military operations after he was dead.

On the other hand, it also makes a division of labor nearly impossible. Each group had nearly everything it needed to survive. They just had to follow their food around.


Technical point, they were hearders. They more followed the grass around with their Yaks and suchin. If anything, they had no economic system, rather than the conventional systems.

Accually, Ghengis Khan, the first ruler of the united mongolian tribes, is considered by many to be the greatest killer of all time. By his own count, his army slaughtered 80-88 million people. Some historians say he sliced the population of china in half during his campaigns.

Yet another example of a right winger.

Don't pull garbage like that. There is no reliable evidence to prove even an accurate rough number on Genghis Khan's kills. The problem with estimating his kills is that when he killed something, he killed it hard. When a town or city ceased to exist then, there were seldom survivors educated enough to leave records. Broadly referencing 'some historians' also proves nothing. For example. Some historians say Genghis Khan died on campaign in China. Some historians say he died in his bed. Some historians say he died on his way to a Chinese campaign. Some historians say he barely touched China. Some historians say he killed 60% of Asia. Some historians admit that all they really know is that he killed a lot of people. Some historians realize that we'll never know how many he really killed, because the records don't exist. Some historians say that Lenin was a true communist that settled for a median state. Some historians say that Lenin believed in communism as far as he could throw it, but made a pretence of it to justify his role. Stalin's kills, on the other hand, despite his efforts to stamp it out, were systematically recorded. So, out of verifiable kills, Stalin is the worst.

Besides, calling Khan a right-winger is like calling Renauld de Chatillon a left-winger. All we really know about their political beliefs is that they should be in charge of the government.

I know that the Mongolian invasion of China claimed about 30 million lives, which puts Genghis Khan up there in terms of killers. But remember that the expansion of the Mongol Empire took place over several generations. Ghenghis Khan probably cannot be blamed for all the deaths that took place in military operations after he was dead.

Deaths from mongolian conquests (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongols#Timeline_of_conquest)

I cross referanced the time of death of Ghengis with when the deaths happened, and I came out with a figure of around 60 million. Still alot, if you ask me.

Let us try and get to the basics of this.

There are two fundamentally opposed views of the role of government and authority in society (Leaving the Libertarians out of this for now, before the rest of you lot start jumping up and down about it).

One group believes that the government should be responsible for the welfare, in a very general sense, of the people.-snip-

The other group argues that the role of government is to defend the social values of the country. -snip-

Supporters of group one are left wing, supporters of group two are right wing.
OK, you seem to be another person who is just defining socialists vs. conservatives. It is flawed because group one concentrates on economic policy while group two concentrates on social policy, and this is not a fair comparison.

Your left-winger definition is pretty much correct.

Politics has always (or for at least a very long time) been about balancing the needs of society with individual freedoms.
The left works for the interests of society, while the right is for the freedoms of the individual.

This is why the right (in theory, at least) is for no taxes and minimal government intervention in people's lives.

In my opinion, capitalist social authoritarianism as practised by Hitler, Mussolini and to a lesser extent the American Republicans of today, is a perversion of right-wing ideology (because it is collectivist) just as Stalinism was a perversion of left-wing ideals.

A right wing person is someone that believes in a master race, and ethnic purity. They also believe in war, and the killing of thousands of people for no apparent gain. Usually, they have little to no formal education.

Sounds more like the Klueless Klutz Klan to me.

Don't pull garbage like that. There is no reliable evidence to prove even an accurate rough number on Genghis Khan's kills. The problem with estimating his kills is that when he killed something, he killed it hard. When a town or city ceased to exist then, there were seldom survivors educated enough to leave records. Broadly referencing 'some historians' also proves nothing. For example. Some historians say Genghis Khan died on campaign in China. Some historians say he died in his bed. Some historians say he died on his way to a Chinese campaign. Some historians say he barely touched China. Some historians say he killed 60% of Asia. Some historians admit that all they really know is that he killed a lot of people. Some historians realize that we'll never know how many he really killed, because the records don't exist. Some historians say that Lenin was a true communist that settled for a median state. Some historians say that Lenin believed in communism as far as he could throw it, but made a pretence of it to justify his role. Stalin's kills, on the other hand, despite his efforts to stamp it out, were systematically recorded. So, out of verifiable kills, Stalin is the worst.

Besides, calling Khan a right-winger is like calling Renauld de Chatillon a left-winger. All we really know about their political beliefs is that they should be in charge of the government.

How do you know that the Mongols themselves did not keep records? Although the Mongols were a hearder people, they had developed a writing system. Furthermore, the Chinese scribes that they captured during the early conquests had been renowned for careful record keeping.

Scribes were very difficult to train. You would have him arbitrarily kill very valuable workers?

Do you see anything about America in there? Or do you honestly (ignorantly, I'm sorry) think that the terms "right-wing" and "left-wing" were invented in America?

So yeah, please refrain from making this discussion America-centric.

You are from Ireland. The majority of the people that actually name a location they are from are American. Hence, assuming that the thread-starter meant American political spectrum seems fairly natural. And lest we forget, he hasn't posted anything about not meaning America, the only reason this issue has come up is because people other than him have brought it up. To nearly quote you, do you see anything about any other country in there? So yeah, please refrain from needlessly expanding the subject. Let him worry about the scope of his question. And don't take a condescending attitude. Why would I, after throwing out history stuff, assume that terms that apply generally to any European-based government system started in the U.S.?

You are from Ireland. The majority of the people that actually name a location they are from are American. Hence, assuming that the thread-starter meant American political spectrum seems fairly natural.
Whether we have an American majority here is irrelevant. The definitions of "right-wing" and "left-wing" are the same all over the world. The definitions of "liberal" and "conservative" on the other hand, change from country to country.

How do you know that the Mongols themselves did not keep records? Although the Mongols were a hearder people, they had developed a writing system. Furthermore, the Chinese scribes that they captured during the early conquests had been renowned for careful record keeping.

Scribes were very difficult to train. You would have him arbitrarily kill very valuable workers?

And you would have him personally doing all the killing? Standard Mongol procedure certainly killed enough skilled Muslim workers (who left the best records of it). Essentially, what I'm telling you is that Mongol employed records of the Khans' kills (over-exaggerating) are about as trustworthy as Soviet employed records are of Stalin's (under-exaggerating). The difference being that Soviet records are not the only complete source. European records of Mongolian kills tend to be numbers like 1/2 or 2/3 of Asia, based on fields full of bones, two to three generations removed. Chinese records are somewhere between, and only concerned with China. Many of the non-Soviet Stalin estimates were made by enemies, allies, puppets, and neutrals. Contemporary Mongol estimates are only by enemies and puppets.

Whether we have an American majority here is irrelevant. The definitions of "right-wing" and "left-wing" are the same all over the world. The definitions of "liberal" and "conservative" on the other hand, change from country to country.

And if we recall, I used both terms in my original post, showing very clearly what my terms meant.

And you would have him personally doing all the killing? Standard Mongol procedure certainly killed enough skilled Muslim workers (who left the best records of it). Essentially, what I'm telling you is that Mongol employed records of the Khans' kills (over-exaggerating) are about as trustworthy as Soviet employed records are of Stalin's (under-exaggerating). The difference being that Soviet records are not the only complete source. European records of Mongolian kills tend to be numbers like 1/2 or 2/3 of Asia, based on fields full of bones, two to three generations removed. Chinese records are somewhere between, and only concerned with China. Many of the non-Soviet Stalin estimates were made by enemies, allies, puppets, and neutrals. Contemporary Mongol estimates are only by enemies and puppets.

I do not understand the first part of your post. Personally doing all the killing? I do not understand. Enlighten me.

How can we be sure that the records from the Mongol scribes are exagerated? We have no other condecending evedence. Contemporary archeological findings are inherently not as accurate as period accounts. Especially period accounts from chinese scribes. Chinese public workers have alwase prided themselves on perfect record keeping. There is no evidence they inflated or deflated the figures.

Also, how could the europeans get a good estimate of the overall casualties? I doubt they had the knowlege to translate one Chinese or Mongolian scroll.

I do not understand the first part of your post. Personally doing all the killing? I do not understand. Enlighten me.

How can we be sure that the records from the Mongol scribes are exagerated? We have no other condecending evedence. Contemporary archeological findings are inherently not as accurate as period accounts. Especially period accounts from chinese scribes. Chinese public workers have alwase prided themselves on perfect record keeping. There is no evidence they inflated or deflated the figures.

Also, how could the europeans get a good estimate of the overall casualties? I doubt they had the knowlege to translate one Chinese or Mongolian scroll.
The point of that first sentence was that the Khans, by not doing all of the killing personally, did not have total control over who was killed. This in reference to your saying, "You would have him arbitrarily kill very valuable workers?" I also think you misunderstood another part. Perhaps 'contemporary' was not the best word to use. I did not mean today, but contemporaries of the Khans (at their time). Regardless, whether there is contradictory evidence or not, records left by highly partisan sources (the Mongolians, the people they butchered) are suspect at best. And you seem to have missed my point on the European thing. My point was that they did not have a good estimate. European estimates (typically 1/2 or 1/3 of Asia) were almost entirely based on reports of fields of bones, generally made by ambassadors from Rome to the Mongol courts (the stories of those men are usually pretty interesting).

As a side note, it's amazing how comparable these threads are to sitcoms. They usually start with something small and innocent, only to slowly grow and twist, until the end product has almost no visible connection to the original.

Example: Difference between left and right --> Accuracy of records of Mongol death counts

Ok. I am left leaning, but I will make this slightly right-leaning... Heck, Ill make both sides look evil!
Now, Left and Right refer to economic policy. That basically means level of Taxes and regulation in industry. Left wing is also associated with Liberal views, and right wing is associated with conservative views, but that is unimportant right now.

Leftists beleive in heavy taxes that pay for social programs. They regulate industry so noone is exploited, but often they hinder industry by that, meaning less money to go around.

Right wingers beleive in minimal taxes, but they want the public to pay for everything directly. This cuts out the middleman, which is good, but it makes it harder for poor people to access some programs, which is bad. They want to de-regulate industry, as to help industry, but that can mean the workers get exploited.

Now as for Liberal and Conservative

Liberals - in favour of some personal privledges (Abortion, the right not to be killed as a punishment, the right/abilty to have equal social and legal status), but often ignoring other ones (2nd amendment)

Conservative - in favour of some personal privledges (Gun, having god common in society), but often ignoring other ones (Abortion, Abortion, the right not to be killed as a punishment, the right/abilty to have equal social and legal status)

However, that is the tainted view. A more idealistic, while left leaning, view has
Liberals - in favour of some personal privledges (Abortion, the right not to be killed as a punishment, the right/abilty to have equal social and legal status, and guns)
While conservatives drop guns from their description. A good site is political compass.org, btw, take their test, and read the analysis, it should explain things.

No no no. You people are just confusing the poor guy.

How to tell if you're left-winged

1. Do you hate right-wingers?

How to tell if you're right-winged

2. Do you hate left-wingers?

That's really all there is to it! It's like football games. How can you tell which side is which? Well, sure, the uniforms maybe, the mascots are another indicator, the different cities or schools of each team, yes - but mostly, because one side is HERE and the other is OPPOSITE. And because OPPOSITE is BAD, and HERE is GOOD. That's all it's about.

All of it.

This is a really stupid question but can someone explain to me what kind of person is a left-wing and what kind of person is a right-wing.
First, you need to clarify whether you're talking about the religious right/left, the political right/left, or the economic right/left, as they are all different.

Religious right/left
Generally, the religious right tends to favor fundamentalism, absolute morality, conservative and relatively unyielding dogmatic interpretations of doctrines, heavy emphasis on tradition, and family value structures that range from authoritative to authoritarian. The religious left tends to see morality as subjective or relative, to treat doctrines as interpretive, and to embrace family value structures that range from authoritative to permissive.

Political right/left
Like the religious right, the political right tends to place a heavy emphasis on tradition, is ponderous to change, embraces nationalistic values, prefers only minimal involvement of the government in social affairs, preferring instead that responsibility for social improvement be primarily the bailiwick of the individual, the family and the church, in essence that responsibility for the community should lay with the community. The political left tends to favor quicker and broader change, embraces globalism, environmentalism (to be fair, a lot of right wingers also favor environmental responsibility, but are less favorable of actual legislation toward those ends), prefers the government take a bigger role in social affairs, believes that all communities are interconnected, thus what affects one affects all. The right believe that more regulation leads to more restricted freedoms and liberties. The left believe that more regulation can lead to more protection of freedoms and liberties.

Economic right/left
The economic right favor lower taxes and unrestricted free enterprise. The left favors higher taxes (linked to their idea of the government having more involvement in the community, and that paying higher taxes is an acceptible means of accomplishing this), and favors legislation to place restrictions on large corporations, to regulate pollution, to protect smaller businesses from being swallowed by corporate giants, and so on.

No no no. You people are just confusing the poor guy.

How to tell if you're left-winged

1. Do you hate right-wingers?

How to tell if you're right-winged

2. Do you hate left-wingers?

That's really all there is to it! It's like football games. How can you tell which side is which? Well, sure, the uniforms maybe, the mascots are another indicator, the different cities or schools of each team, yes - but mostly, because one side is HERE and the other is OPPOSITE. And because OPPOSITE is BAD, and HERE is GOOD. That's all it's about.

All of it.
What if you lean libertarian?

What if you lean libertarian?
centrist

Stupid question
*flames* ARE YOU ASKING ME A STUPID QUESTION< YOU MUST BE....
please dont flame
Oh sorryhttp://img229.exs.cx/img229/6506/embarrassed0154me.gif

What if you lean libertarian?

Then you are opposite to all others and hated by all. Haven't you realised that yet?