NationStates Jolt Archive

Just a point to Americans, who seem to see things through their spectacles and no one else's.

A) Liberals aren't always left wing. In fact, liberalism's natural home is on the right.

B) Conservatives aren't always right wing. It's about conserving political ideas and traditions...Ever thought a tradition may be left wing?

C) In the rest of the world: Left = Left wing. Liberal=Liberal. Conservative=Conservative. Right= Right wing.

Besides, it's beyond simple left/right politics now anyway.

Just a point to Americans, who seem to see things through their spectacles and no one else's.

A) Liberals aren't always left wing. In fact, liberalism's natural home is on the right.

B) Conservatives aren't always right wing. It's about conserving political ideas and traditions...Ever thought a tradition may be left wing?

C) In the rest of the world: Left = Left wing. Liberal=Liberal. Conservative=Conservative. Right= Right wing.

Besides, it's beyond simple left/right politics now anyway.
Oh good, you used the liberalism in the classical sense. Its a site for sore eyes.

Oh good, you used the liberalism in the classical sense. Its a site for sore eyes.

Everyone outside the US does, it's odd how it isn't how Liberalism is interpretted in the USA.

I suspect it's because 'socialism' would immediately be turned into 'communism' by the opposition party's spin. So the 'left' has always claimed to be Liberal.

Besides, it's beyond simple left/right politics now anyway.
I concur, and thought your post was refreshing. :)

Everyone outside the US does, it's odd how it isn't how Liberalism is interpretted in the USA.

I suspect it's because 'socialism' would immediately be turned into 'communism' by the opposition party's spin. So the 'left' has always claimed to be Liberal.
I agree, we are very polarized in the US with this left-right nonsense. I refer to myself as a liberal because people assume I'm "left-wing", so I have to call myself a libertarian.

Everyone outside the US does, it's odd how it isn't how Liberalism is interpretted in the USA.

I suspect it's because 'socialism' would immediately be turned into 'communism' by the opposition party's spin. So the 'left' has always claimed to be Liberal.

I'm confused by left/right. I call myself liberal because a test we took in History class said I was very liberal. I don't really care what label I should put on my philosophies, long as its not Conservative, because from what I've seen I disagree with them. Socialism rocks. Freedom rocks. I'm part of the "Live and let live" party. Whatever name that is.

I'm confused by left/right. I call myself liberal because a test we took in History class said I was very liberal. I don't really care what label I should put on my philosophies, long as its not Conservative, because from what I've seen I disagree with them. Socialism rocks. Freedom rocks. I'm part of the "Live and let live" party. Whatever name that is.
Could you please elaborate?

I'm confused by left/right. I call myself liberal because a test we took in History class said I was very liberal. I don't really care what label I should put on my philosophies, long as its not Conservative, because from what I've seen I disagree with them. Socialism rocks. Freedom rocks. I'm part of the "Live and let live" party. Whatever name that is.

Left/right was invented around the time of the French revolution, and it doesn't really work anymore because it's simply too narrow a political spectrum. Politics isn't linear.

Left/right was invented around the time of the French revolution, and it doesn't really work anymore because it's simply too narrow a political spectrum. Politics isn't linear.
It is difficult to place anyone on a political grid, but the traditional <--------> is highly flawed. The sad thing is that it is widely accepted, even today.

I'm confused by left/right. I call myself liberal because a test we took in History class said I was very liberal. I don't really care what label I should put on my philosophies, long as its not Conservative, because from what I've seen I disagree with them. Socialism rocks. Freedom rocks. I'm part of the "Live and let live" party. Whatever name that is.

That makes no sence ... you dont lable anything that you are only what you arnt? you are still puting limits on what you can be or what you believe

That makes no sence ... you dont lable anything that you are only what you arnt? you are still puting limits on what you can be or what you believe
Precisely.A perfect example of polarization. You label the opposition, then you can use that newly formed image to your advantage. It is a comman political tactic. Then in turn, the people have a seemingly implanted hatred.

Everyone outside the US does, it's odd how it isn't how Liberalism is interpretted in the USA.

I suspect it's because 'socialism' would immediately be turned into 'communism' by the opposition party's spin. So the 'left' has always claimed to be Liberal.
Yes, but let's remember that all Liberals are not Socialists, right?

You just don't get to "interchange" those two terms, do you?

Regards,
Gaar

Yes, but let's remember that all Liberals are not Socialists, right?

You just don't get to "interchange" those two terms, do you?

Regards,
Gaar
Not if you're using liberal in the proper context.

"Live and let live" party. Whatever name that is.
I believe you just described the Conservative, if I am not mistaken...

Regards,
Gaar

Precisely.A perfect example of polarization. You label the opposition, then you can use that newly formed image to your advantage. It is a comman political tactic. Then in turn, the people have a seemingly implanted hatred.
I understand ... just dident want to sound confretational

Yes, but let's remember that all Liberals are not Socialists, right?

You just don't get to "interchange" those two terms, do you?

Regards,
Gaar

No, but American Democrats did.

I understand ... just dident want to sound confretational
Oh, well sorry for sounding like a dick.

I believe you just described the Conservative, if I am not mistaken...

Regards,
Gaar

I would say that going against gay marriage was not conservative at alll? That's not 'live and let live'. Neither is going against abortion? Surely by live and let live you let people live as they choose. That's purest liberalism, bordering on anarchy.

I would say that going against gay marriage was not conservative at alll? That's not 'live and let live'. Neither is going against abortion? Surely by live and let live you let people live as they choose. That's purest liberalism, bordering on anarchy.
I think the consevatives being spoken about are the so-called "neoconservatives" in the US.

I would say that going against gay marriage was not conservative at alll? That's not 'live and let live'. Neither is going against abortion? Surely by live and let live you let people live as they choose. That's purest liberalism, bordering on anarchy.
Do we think less of Women because we give them a different Public place to use the Bathroom as Men?

So why would it be discriminating against gay's to give them a "Union" which affords them all of the Legal recognition, without calling it Marriage?

Just as Men and Women are different enough that we allow for separating them sometimes publicly, especially with regard to personal matters, then what is wrong with recognizing Gay's are different than Heterosexuals and affording them their "separate but equal" place for doing their "thing"?

Why is it ok for them to tread on the long standing tradition of Marriage as condoned by God?

And then let's discuss the "choice" of the man or the child, in an Abortion decision, shall we?

Regards,
Gaar

Do we think less of Women because we give them a different Public place to use the Bathroom as Men?

So why would it be discriminating against gay's to give them a "Union" which affords them all of the Legal recognition, without calling it Marriage?

Just as Men and Women are different enough that we allow for separating them sometimes publicly, especially with regard to personal matters, then what is wrong with recognizing Gay's are different than Heterosexuals and affording them their "separate but equal" place for doing their "thing"?

Why is it ok for them to tread on the long standing tradition of Marriage as condoned by God?

And then let's discuss the "choice" of the man or the child, in an Abortion decision, shall we?

Regards,
Gaar

Separate but equal? Bloody hell. ANYWAY....Traditional conservatives in the USA are anti-gay marriage and anti-abortion. So are neocons. It's a general conservative US thing, they're pretty biblical.

The choice of the child? It's not alive. Science doesn't count it as a child. The man has a choice, but he's not going to be carrying the baby. To me, logically, the woman's choice is priority.

Separate but equal? Bloody hell. ANYWAY....Traditional conservatives in the USA are anti-gay marriage and anti-abortion. So are neocons. It's a general conservative US thing, they're pretty biblical.

The choice of the child? It's not alive. Science doesn't count it as a child. The man has a choice, but he's not going to be carrying the baby. To me, logically, the woman's choice is priority.
Seperate but equal...last time I checked its not the 50's anymore.

Seperate but equal...last time I checked its not the 50's anymore.

My point exactly.

People want to uphold tradition, but they must realize they change with time. We evolve socially, so to speak.

People want to uphold tradition, but they must realize they change with time. We evolve socially, so to speak.

Which is what Activism is all about. That most activists are liberals? Well, that's because conservatism and activism are pretty much at either end of the 'spectrum'

One trend I have noticed is that here, US conservatives, or neo-cons, attempt to apply or place the social aspects of the past to today, which is not possible. By that time we have "evolved" too far to go back.

I agree, we are very polarized in the US with this left-right nonsense. I refer to myself as a liberal because people assume I'm "left-wing", so I have to call myself a libertarian.

Libertarianism is great in theory :).

Libertarianism is great in theory :).
yep. Remember, every theory seems plausable on paper.

One trend I have noticed is that here, US conservatives, or neo-cons, attempt to apply or place the social aspects of the past to today, which is not possible. By that time we have "evolved" too far to go back.

What if people want to "evolve" to an image of the past, it may seem backwards, but if its what "people" want to be like as a society why try and change it. You sound as if the past is automatically wrong because it isn't "modern" (no shit)!

One trend I have noticed is that here, US conservatives, or neo-cons, attempt to apply or place the social aspects of the past to today, which is not possible. By that time we have "evolved" too far to go back.
Wow, we finally disagree on something (didn't see that happening from your prior posts here):

I think society can devolve rapidly. I think positive change can too easily be reversed. It doesn't please me in the least. :(

The man has a choice, but he's not going to be carrying the baby. To me, logically, the woman's choice is priority.

So the women creates a baby by herself are you saying?

The kid only ever has a mother never a father?

The father never has a say because every child concieved was by rape or exploitation?

Logically, you sound like a c**t!

What if people want to "evolve" to an image of the past, it may seem backwards, but if its what "people" want to be like as a society why try and change it. You sound as if the past is automatically wrong because it isn't "modern" (no shit)!

It isn't wrong in America, because that's what the majority wants and America is a Democracy.

To me, it doesn't make sense to hold back the evolution of society.

So the women creates a baby by herself are you saying?

The kid only ever has a mother never a father?

The father never has a say because every child concieved was by rape or exploitation?

Logically, you sound like a c**t!

No. I don't. When it's a FOETUS, it isn't technically a child for one. Yes, I believe the father has A SAY. BUT HE'S NOT CARRYING THE BABY, SO SURELY IT'S HER BODY SO ULTIMATELY HER CHOICE?

What if people want to "evolve" to an image of the past, it may seem backwards, but if its what "people" want to be like as a society why try and change it. You sound as if the past is automatically wrong because it isn't "modern" (no shit)!
I said it will not work because you will have a large opposition, but of course moving "forward" has its opposition too. So I see it is possible, I retract the latter part of my statement, however, it still does not seem wise to me.

So the women creates a baby by herself are you saying?

The kid only ever has a mother never a father?

The father never has a say because every child concieved was by rape or exploitation?

Logically, you sound like a c**t!
I'm as far from PC as they come, but you could've replaced that hinted word with something more forthright (and less offensive), like asshole.
Or douchebag. That would've been okay. ;)

But don't use the C-word, even by suggestion in a debate. Too much Macho-Flash.

Wow, we finally disagree on something (didn't see that happening from your prior posts here):

I think society can devolve rapidly. I think positive change can too easily be reversed. It doesn't please me in the least. :(
Its alright now, I fixed that part of the theory, so you may agree.

It is difficult to place anyone on a political grid, but the traditional <--------> is highly flawed. The sad thing is that it is widely accepted, even today.


think i got something for you guys:

http://www.digitalronin.f2s.com/politicalcompass/index.php

the political compass. they expanded the traditional left-right thing and added a authoritan-libertanian scale on the other axis. for those interested its definitely worth a look. i also suggest taking the test and doing the questions. the results were very interesting to me.

And just a question: what is your problem with abortion?
i agree, that Michael Moore is talking a lot of bullsh** but this one thing he said i couldn't agrree more with: A foetus is a foetus, a baby is a baby. If a woman wants an abortion let her. Who is a government to tell somebody wether she has to get a child she doesn't want or not?

And concerning gay marriage...maybe i don't understand the problem here...why should it be wrong for a gay couple to become legally married? the only problem i see is if they want to get a church-marriage but then again it's not the business of the state to tell them but the business of the church.

I don't know i just wish american conservatives would arrive in reality any time soon...(not saying that american liberals are much better. too may of them are just conservatives wit ha different suit)

think i got something for you guys:

http://www.digitalronin.f2s.com/politicalcompass/index.php

the political compass. they expanded the traditional left-right thing and added a authoritan-libertanian scale on the other axis. for those interested its definitely worth a look. i also suggest taking the test and doing the questions. the results were very interesting to me.

And just a question: what is your problem with abortion?
i agree, that Michael Moore is talking a lot of bullsh** but this one thing he said i couldn't agrree more with: A foetus is a foetus, a baby is a baby. If a woman wants an abortion let her. Who is a government to tell somebody wether she has to get a child she doesn't want or not?

And concerning gay marriage...maybe i don't understand the problem here...why should it be wrong for a gay couple to become legally married? the only problem i see is if they want to get a church-marriage but then again it's not the business of the state to tell them but the business of the church.

I don't know i just wish american conservatives would arrive in reality any time soon...(not saying that american liberals are much better. too may of them are just conservatives wit ha different suit)
Oh, we've all taken that. It is better, but still simplistic.
I suggest a site called www.orgburo.com

What a brilliant suggestion, I alluded to it, but didn't post the link. Well done :)
It is still too simplistic though :(

B) Conservatives aren't always right wing. It's about conserving political ideas and traditions...Ever thought a tradition may be left wing?



In the UK there is a difference between being a Conservative and being conservative. . .

It isn't wrong in America, because that's what the majority wants and America is a Democracy.

To me, it doesn't make sense to hold back the evolution of society.

So you are saying conservatives don't want a democracy? hahahahaa

So you are saying conservatives don't want a democracy? hahahahaa

Why would a Republic want to be democratic? I'm not saying conservatives dont' want democracy. Where did I say that? You're an idiot.

But don't use the C-word, even by suggestion in a debate. Too much Macho-Flash.

Sorry if I offended, but it's not very taboo in my circle of friends. Maybe just a bad habit.

because that's what the majority wants and America is a Democracy.


That is where you said it.

lmfao. What am I meant to assume, you are knocking anyone who is conservative and saying anyone who doesn't want to "evolve" (in how you want them too. . which is "forward") is against DEMOCRACY (which is the word you used). . . Get real.

That is where you said it.

lmfao. What am I meant to assume, you are knocking anyone who is conservative and saying anyone who doesn't want to "evolve" (in how you want them too. . which is "forward") is against DEMOCRACY (which is the word you used). . . Get real.

No...I really am not saying that. I'm saying I don't agree with them, but I never said Conservatives don't believe in Democracy. Please don't twist my words to suit your pitiful argument. ANd keep to the topic.

No. I don't. When it's a FOETUS, it isn't technically a child for one. Yes, I believe the father has A SAY. BUT HE'S NOT CARRYING THE BABY, SO SURELY IT'S HER BODY SO ULTIMATELY HER CHOICE?

So what if he isn't carrying the baby, it doesn't make the baby any less his than hers does it?

So what if he isn't carrying the baby, it doesn't make the baby any less his than hers does it?

It's not a baby, it's a foetus. It's in her womb.

No...I really am not saying that. I'm saying I don't agree with them, but I never said Conservatives don't believe in Democracy. Please don't twist my words to suit your pitiful argument. ANd keep to the topic.

Lmao, whatever mate.


Quote:
Originally Posted by English Saxons
What if people want to "evolve" to an image of the past, it may seem backwards, but if its what "people" want to be like as a society why try and change it. You sound as if the past is automatically wrong because it isn't "modern" (no shit)!


It isn't wrong in America, because that's what the majority wants and America is a Democracy.

To me, it doesn't make sense to hold back the evolution of society.

In reply to what I said, I'd say that was a very evident statement of your contempt for conservatives. You aren't suggesting that conservatives would want to go back to fuedalism are you? Which was never apparent in the US. . .

Lmao, whatever mate.



In reply to what I said, I'd say that was a very evident statement of your contempt for conservatives. You aren't suggesting that conservatives would want to go back to fuedalism are you? Which was never apparent in the US. . .

No? where did I suggest conservatives go backwards? they simply conserve. Please stop posting useless additions to the thread.

It's not a baby, it's a foetus. It's in her womb.

I think you are missing my point. . . the women doesn't create a baby on her own, it is as much his as hers. . . You are saying because he doesn't carry it he doesn't have a right to say whether she can abort it or not. It's his kid as much as hers. Simple as that.

If I got a women pregnant, and wasn't happy with her aborting it, I'd be very distraught at the fact she had without myself having a say. . . I don't see anything wrong with that either. I think that would be a very fatherly thing to do actually.

No? where did I suggest conservatives go backwards? they simply conserve. Please stop posting useless additions to the thread.

Are you stupid. You said Americans want to be a democracy, in other words implying that anyone who wasn't your political persuasion is automatically against democracy - notice how the Republicans haven't exactly abolished the stupid amount of elections America has.

How can you read that and tell me I'm wrong for assuming the position I took in its context?

AGAIN:

It isn't wrong in America, because that's what the majority wants and America is a Democracy.

Plus what you quoted from me. . . which was

What if people want to "evolve" to an image of the past, it may seem backwards, but if its what "people" want to be like as a society why try and change it. You sound as if the past is automatically wrong because it isn't "modern" (no shit)!

Now tell me that don't look bad. . .

I believe you just described the Conservative, if I am not mistaken...

Regards,
Gaar

Conservative "let you live" only if you fallow theire one standard (religion, morale, economy, politic,...)

Wich is pretty much the opposite of "leting someone live"

Are you stupid. You said Americans want to be a democracy, in other words implying that anyone who wasn't your political persuasion is automatically against democracy - notice how the Republicans haven't exactly abolished the stupid amount of elections America has.

How can you read that and tell me I'm wrong for assuming the position I took in its context?

AGAIN:



Plus what you quoted from me. . . which was



Now tell me that don't look bad. . .

Shush. You're misinterpretting what I said to be contrary and argumentative. Go home now, doggie.

Truth be told, marking yourself or anyone else to be a specific "side" (or point in the spectrum), you're just begging for people to start bickering just because the others are an opposing party.
You can't have two opposing parties that represent two opposite points of view and expect both sides to agree on ANYTHING (even simple matters). I say destroy bipartisan politics, destroy political labeling, you'll see how opposition groups start falling apart. You think Bush gave a shit about that veggie woman? He probably went like "huh? you want me to sign what?" when they told him about her... but hey! keep with the agenda, can't let those good ol' conservative beliefs fall apart can we? Do you think left-wing activists would all get into several huge protests even though they had this other belief, but since this one was left-wing too it was worth fighting for?
Bipartisan politics are retarded, a big sarcastic thumbs-up to all you partisan Americans out there... good job

That is the direct result of labeling people. It causes polarization to arise.

I found this,
Twiddle Dee and Twiddle Dum: Political Parties and Polarization

We're knights of the round table! We dance whenever we're able! Hello everyone, you are about to enter the abyss. Tonight's topic concerns political parties. As you know there are two major parties, what you may not know is there exist a great deal of others such as the Libertarian, Constitution, Socialist, and Green to name only a few. Be that as it may many people group others only into Democrat and Republican. To so many of the voting population only these exist and only these matter, currently the major parties hold all the power and influence. This brings about an aisle of stereotypes, for example all Democrats have mainly liberal views and Republicans mainly conservative ones. In effect this causes the traditional, and highly flawed, left-right scale. To those who recognize it as accurate people are grouped and put into these too few categories. The government as well as the mainstream media accept this. One proof of this is the Red State-Blue State system used during elections. People become so attached to these labels that it contributes to political, and social and economic, polarization. They are overwhelmed by ideologues and in the process become fanatics. ( a few include Rush Limbaugh, Al Franken, Alan Colmes, and Sean Hannity )

Labels are dangerous, you can call peoples views liberal or conservative, libertarian, etc. because that can be accurate, but when you label the person then it becomes difficult to reason with each other. Parties are the same. One should vote for a party, not join one. People identify themselves politically, usually by a certain party. Parties are for politicians, not for the average citizen or pundint. Doing the opposite will only cause a higher, and possibly more harmful, degree of seperation. To my original point, most politicos ignore people who tend to have ideas that sway from the mainstream, and if no one hears about them, then people think these are the only valid and existing views. The media again plays a part in polarization. There are so many sources for news that people can choose. The vast majority of the time it is with media who share similar views. Again this brings about the birth of ideologues. We must see other views or else we will be engulfed by our own and blinded from rationality.

think i got something for you guys:

http://www.digitalronin.f2s.com/politicalcompass/index.php

the political compass. they expanded the traditional left-right thing and added a authoritan-libertanian scale on the other axis. for those interested its definitely worth a look. i also suggest taking the test and doing the questions. the results were very interesting to me.

And just a question: what is your problem with abortion?
i agree, that Michael Moore is talking a lot of bullsh** but this one thing he said i couldn't agrree more with: A foetus is a foetus, a baby is a baby. If a woman wants an abortion let her. Who is a government to tell somebody wether she has to get a child she doesn't want or not?

And concerning gay marriage...maybe i don't understand the problem here...why should it be wrong for a gay couple to become legally married? the only problem i see is if they want to get a church-marriage but then again it's not the business of the state to tell them but the business of the church.

I don't know i just wish american conservatives would arrive in reality any time soon...(not saying that american liberals are much better. too may of them are just conservatives wit ha different suit)
If it makes you feel any better, some of us German-Americans don't get it either. :D

So what if he isn't carrying the baby, it doesn't make the baby any less his than hers does it?
You sir, are confusing me a great deal. Almost all of the "conservatives" I've met here from Europe, Brazil, New Zealand, Australia, etc., seem to fall in line with the American Libertarian Party (http://www.lp.org) more than anything really Republican.

Someone has to ask: Are you a Brit version of an American NeoCon?

If so, what party in Brittain most closely fits your fave political model?