NationStates Jolt Archive

vs Rightists/Conservatives? Just wonderng what y'all thought about this phenomenon. Cause I have absolutely no idea why...

Maybe it's because most non-USians are seen as "liberal" by USians and there thus appears to be so many to you?

Not that I agree with you that are more liberals here. I see a fair share of conservatives/right-wingers. Some nice, some loony, some just simply scary.

we have the time cuz we don't have to attend church! :D

I agree with fass. I think the rest of the world seems liberal to you, when they might be considered conservative in say, germany or France.

Because people on both sides of the spectrum believe the other is wrong and are out to prove it. Both sides have some good things to bring to the table and awful things with that.

I agree with fass. I think the rest of the world seems liberal to you, when they might be considered conservative in say, germany or France.

Exactly. I mean, it's like people who complain about places of higher education being more liberal... they never stop to think that there might be some deeper reason to it other than some vast conspiracy.

[Obvious horrible joke] Because you touch yourself at night.[\Obvious horrible joke]

Because there are?

Perhaps you should think of classifying people a little less monochromatically poster. Left/Right is a false dichotomy foisted upon you by the two major parties and a media intent on selling advertisements.

Exactly. I mean, it's like people who complain about places of higher education being more liberal... they never stop to think that there might be some deeper reason to it other than some vast conspiracy.


Ah, sounds like the old argument coming along that Liberals are some how morfe intellectual than conservatives. I know plenty of people who are both conservative and intellegent, as I know plenty of people who are both liberal and intellegent, and visa versa for both. No conspriracy, academics are generally more liberal but there are always plenty of conservative students as well.

Because most rednecks don't have internet connections! :p

*dives for cover before the flames hit*

It was a joke! Honest!

Because most conservatives are illiterate.

Nice one Taldaan. But honestly, its probably like commonly said on this board. Most Americans (or really just transplaneted Englishmen) consider anyone but Americans Liberals.

vs Rightists/Conservatives? Just wonderng what y'all thought about this phenomenon. Cause I have absolutely no idea why...

Because most of the users here are pre adults and having little real life experience combined with socialized education tends to leave them with little more than ideology to formulate their opinions and beliefs on. Also because it is hosted in the UK which is heavily liberal/socialist.
Also, because most conservatives really don't see much point in trying to convince a dedicated liberal of anything. Especially when they are outnubmered about 8 to 1.

just lucky i guess

Liverbreath']Because most of the users here are pre adults and having little real life experience combined with socialized education tends to leave them with little more than ideology to formulate their opinions and beliefs on. Also because it is hosted in the UK which is heavily liberal/socialist.
Also, because most conservatives really don't see much point in trying to convince a dedicated liberal of anything. Especially when they are outnubmered about 8 to 1.
I have tears streaming down my face. I can't remember the last time I laughed this hard.

Liverbreath']Because most of the users here are pre adults and having little real life experience combined with socialized education tends to leave them with little more than ideology to formulate their opinions and beliefs on. Also because it is hosted in the UK which is heavily liberal/socialist.
Also, because most conservatives really don't see much point in trying to convince a dedicated liberal of anything. Especially when they are outnubmered about 8 to 1.

http://www.bentsynapse.net/insults/images/feed_troll.jpg

Liverbreath']Because most of the users here are pre adults and having little real life experience combined with socialized education tends to leave them with little more than ideology to formulate their opinions and beliefs on. Also because it is hosted in the UK which is heavily liberal/socialist.
Also, because most conservatives really don't see much point in trying to convince a dedicated liberal of anything. Especially when they are outnubmered about 8 to 1.
1) So you confirm the fact the American conservatives see EVERYONE from other countries as liberals despite what side of the political spectrum they are in in their country. Well that explains why there are alot of liberals here: conservatives are crazy wackos apparently

2) And being outnumbered obviously doesn't stop them from liberal bashing and conspiracy theory such as this and from being stubborn as hell.

Liverbreath']Because most of the users here are pre adults and having little real life experience combined with socialized education tends to leave them with little more than ideology to formulate their opinions and beliefs on. Also because it is hosted in the UK which is heavily liberal/socialist.
Also, because most conservatives really don't see much point in trying to convince a dedicated liberal of anything. Especially when they are outnubmered about 8 to 1.

Gee, I'm an American born and bred with my father's family existing in America all the way back to before the Revolutionary War (in fact an ancestor was a Colonel in that war.)

I'm 31 as well, and I identify more with the so called "liberal" posters here.

Nice to see that you depend on smears to come up with your conclusions rather than hard evidence.

Liverbreath']Because most of the users here are pre adults and having little real life experience combined with socialized education tends to leave them with little more than ideology to formulate their opinions and beliefs on. Also because it is hosted in the UK which is heavily liberal/socialist.
Also, because most conservatives really don't see much point in trying to convince a dedicated liberal of anything. Especially when they are outnubmered about 8 to 1.
And yet, you took the time to post in this thread, where you are obviously outnumbered (what that has to do with anything I don't know) and you won't convince any of us to suddenly switch sides.

Go back under the bridge, my friend.

Liverbreath']Because most of the users here are pre adults and having little real life experience combined with socialized education tends to leave them with little more than ideology to formulate their opinions and beliefs on. Also because it is hosted in the UK which is heavily liberal/socialist.
Also, because most conservatives really don't see much point in trying to convince a dedicated liberal of anything. Especially when they are outnubmered about 8 to 1.

so, you're saying that the older you get, the more narrow-minded and conservative you get? i can see the logic in that...

Maybe liberals have so much extra free time because they don't go to work!!! Just kidding....somebody had to say it..

Liverbreath']Because most of the users here are pre adults and having little real life experience combined with socialized education tends to leave them with little more than ideology to formulate their opinions and beliefs on. Also because it is hosted in the UK which is heavily liberal/socialist.
Also, because most conservatives really don't see much point in trying to convince a dedicated liberal of anything. Especially when they are outnubmered about 8 to 1.

Actually, most studies point at political beliefs being a generational thing, and not something that changes drastically as one ages.

Wolf!!! Wolf!!! I'm totally serious this time! (http://paulsjourney.com/albums/BeachyHead/Empty_Field.jpg)

As a person who is staunch to the Right, I've forumlated the following theories that most of them may fall in (some posters may overlap into other categories).

1) Some of them don't work or are college students. This gives them abundant free time to do nothing but sit on their computer (among doing other home-related things).

2) Some are naive teenagers without any knowledge of the real world. They've been convinced (through various sources ranging from Michael Moore to their teachers in the lovely public schools and, most importantly, to their parents) that the Left is the way to go. This also gives them abundant free time to do nothing but surf the web (as well as begging their parents for money; I applaud those kids who have jobs). This group has my pity.

3) They're hardlining Marxists clinging to false hopes and sick dreams of an over-bearing government that tramples the rights of the individual. These people tend to see things only in collective terms. I would hope that they are a minority on these boards, but I hold out my doubts at times. As friendly as I would be to them, this group has none of my respect.

4) They're from overseas. Thusly, they are, on average, farther to the Left than the common American. I can't really blame them for this; it's simply part of who they are.

5) Some are the age-old hippies, doomed to be forever stuck in the foggy 1960's, chanting about the injustices of capitalism and America and continuing to be burned out shells of their former selves (not that their former selves had much to offer in their prime as it was, but that's beside the point).

6) Some are actually honest, intelligent, decent people that, in between managing their private life, take the time to take part in a forum such as this. This group has my respect.

Flame away.

I have tears streaming down my face. I can't remember the last time I laughed this hard.That was pretty impressive. Do you think Liverbreath managed to keep a straight face even while typing that?

As a person who is staunch to the Right, I've forumlated the following theories that most of them may fall in (some posters may overlap into other categories).

1) Some of them don't work or are college students. This gives them abundant free time to do nothing but sit on their computer (among doing other home-related things).

2) Some are naive teenagers without any knowledge of the real world. They've been convinced (through various sources ranging from Michael Moore to their teachers in the lovely public schools and, most importantly, to their parents) that the Left is the way to go. This also gives them abundant free time to do nothing but surf the web (as well as begging their parents for money; I applaud those kids who have jobs). This group has my pity.

3) They're hardlining Marxists clinging to false hopes and sick dreams of an over-bearing government that tramples the rights of the individual. These people tend to see things only in collective terms. I would hope that they are a minority on these boards, but I hold out my doubts at times. As friendly as I would be to them, this group has none of my respect.

4) They're from overseas. Thusly, they are, on average, farther to the Left than the common American. I can't really blame them for this; it's simply part of who they are.

5) Some are the age-old hippies, doomed to be forever stuck in the foggy 1960's, chanting about the injustices of capitalism and America and continuing to be burned out shells of their former selves (not that their former selves had much to offer in their prime as it was, but that's beside the point).

6) Some are actually honest, intelligent, decent people that, in between managing their private life, take the time to take part in a forum such as this. This group has my respect.

Flame away.

I can't help but laugh at this.

1: So, you're saying college students do nothing to further their education? Correct me if I'm wrong, but most of the successful ones I know are quite far to the left.

2: Or, it could be that we're up on current events, think the world in its present state isn't quite what it should be, and that things could be a lot better. There's a lot more to life than money, which seems to be what this is about.

3: No. Very far from it, actually. I think I've seen one Marxist in my time here, though I'm not too sure.

4: Condescending filth, that is.

5: Eh? You really know how to throw things around, don't you? I don't think I've ever seen an "old-age Hippie" on NS... Zooke is somewhat close, but she's centrist.

6: This is the only one that's being close to correct. I just don't get why you guys have to make strawmen to further your ridiculous arguments, when there was no need for that in the first place.

4) They're from overseas. Thusly, they are, on average, farther to the Left than the common American. I can't really blame them for this; it's simply part of who they are.

Which, coinicidentally, aren't subject to American propaganda such as FOX News.

Which, coinicidentally, aren't subject to American propaganda such as FOX News.

*claps*

vs Rightists/Conservatives? Just wonderng what y'all thought about this phenomenon. Cause I have absolutely no idea why...
I think we have a better since of humor, thus we can better handle political jokes, even if they "insult" our side. :p

-snip-

Ah, you're back. How was the stint as -Everyknowledge-?

;)

I don't know. Actually, I found the number of libertarians to be more unusual than the number of liberals on NS.

That being said, I think there are more liberals because it is an international forum, and what is percieved as "liberal" in the US is often quite centrist in Europe or other regions. Also, there are different kinds of liberals, so pinning any particular ideology as dominant is hard to do.

4) They're from overseas. Thusly, they are, on average, farther to the Left than the common American. I can't really blame them for this; it's simply part of who they are.

Thank you for your understanding.
You are most gracious.

:rolleyes:

Which, coinicidentally, aren't subject to American propaganda such as FOX News.

Somehow, I hold my doubts that you'd believe me if I told you that I don't watch FOX.

Somehow, I hold my doubts that you'd believe me if I told you that I don't watch FOX.

That's a surprise.

I have tears streaming down my face. I can't remember the last time I laughed this hard.

agreed, very nice
lets think a little before we start pewing the liberal crap
think about strategy:
Bush, though seemingly dull, has created and implemented the perfect strategy. Iran, which many would agree to be the real problem, is now pinned between Afghanistan and Iraq. Good luck breeding and exporting terrorists now.

That's a surprise.

I'd implore everyone to ask about things, not automatically assume them. I know it's quite frankly human nature to assume before anything else (I'm not immune to it, either), but try to fight that urge and ask about positions, rather than writing someone off as a freedom-hating Stalinist or a toothless, backwoods hick (extreme examples, yes).

Iran, which many would agree to be the real problem, is now pinned between Afghanistan and Iraq. Good luck breeding and exporting terrorists now.
Iran is breeding and exporting terrorists? (other than Hezbollah, which as far as I know hasn't done anything to Americans so far)
I would've thought the number one-award would go to the Saudis.....

I'd implore everyone to ask about things, not automatically assume them. I know it's quite frankly human nature to assume before anything else (I'm not immune to it, either), but try to fight that urge and ask about positions, rather than writing someone off as a freedom-hating Stalinist or a toothless, backwoods hick (extreme examples, yes).

I didn't think you'd actually be reasonable after that first post.

Seemingly, I come off as arrogant at times and if the following sounds as such I apologize in advance. ;)

I didn't think you'd actually be reasonable after that first post.

Tisk, tisk; another assumption. :p

Ah, you're back. How was the stint as -Everyknowledge-?

;)
;)

(Fun! -Everyknowledge- had a much stronger bullshit shield! :p )

I only read the 1st page but, here in canada Liberal has a whole different meaning then what Fox and Bush make gulliable americans believe, (ok, everyone is gulliable, but, whatever)

[Obvious horrible joke] Because you touch yourself at night.[\Obvious horrible joke]

Because there are?
I just got to point out that not many people catch family guy as often as some of us and don’t get that family guy joke :)
And I think fass hit it … there are just “more” liberals in the world then right wingers (Using the US standards of “right” and “left”)

And this is a world wide forum so if there are more of them out there then is it really surprising that there would also be a higher population on here as well?

I have tears streaming down my face. I can't remember the last time I laughed this hard.

Well my experience in the UK was that like the US the big cities were overly lib and the countryside/small villages were the more conservative bunch. Just my observation. Had to do alot with age too in the UK. The older gen were more conservative than the younger gen. As someone said age and experience usually dictates where one falls. I was more liberal when I was young but as I grew older I have become more conservative in values.

I honestly feel that it is because nation states favours the left. If you've ever had a conservative nation, you'd notice that it will be described in a way more applicable to North Korea. And ironically enough, if one actually did create a nation patterned after North Korea, it would probally be more favourably rated by the U.N. My nation is libertarian by nature, and I've noticed that it has a much better decription, in regards to standard of living, than when it first started out as a corporate bordello.

Well since the internet screwed up for this site when I intended to feed the troll to my cat, I will add this. The continuation of of the right on this site repeating that anyone outside the US is a liberal, despite their political persuasion within their country, just proves that the right wing of america are jingoistic crazies for the most part. They are apparently obsessed with the overemphasis of individualism in american and oppose anyone who dare suggest we be any sort of non-individualistic.

I honestly feel that it is because nation states favours the left.
I would think it is the other way around. Merely employing what I thought was progressive economic and social policies got me a "Left Wing Utopia" with a "Developing" Economy.

Perhaps you should think of classifying people a little less monochromatically poster. Left/Right is a false dichotomy foisted upon you by the two major parties and a media intent on selling advertisements.

This reminds me....

OP, you cant forget about the people that use rarely used words in efforts to make themselves sound more intellegent then they really are. :)

Exactly. I mean, it's like people who complain about places of higher education being more liberal... they never stop to think that there might be some deeper reason to it other than some vast conspiracy.



Oh please, the average intelligence of liberals and conservatives is identical. Stating that someone has a superior mind because of their political stance, or vice versa, is lunacy.

Which, coinicidentally, aren't subject to American propaganda such as FOX News.


LOL. That was great hon, please continue. It's not often that comic genius manifests itself like that.

I would think it is the other way around. Merely employing what I thought was progressive economic and social policies got me a "Left Wing Utopia" with a "Developing" Economy.
Not true. Check out my puppet, anonymous people. It’s a civil rights love fest and has a power house economy.

This reminds me....

OP, you cant forget about the people that use rarely used words in efforts to make themselves sound more intellegent then they really are. :)

Likewise you can forget those that attack word-choice rather than ideas. :D

*the words were carefully chosen and intended to be precise rather than self-aggrandizing.

Ihatevacations']Well since the internet screwed up for this site when I intended to feed the troll to my cat, I will add this. The continuation of of the right on this site repeating that anyone outside the US is a liberal, despite their political persuasion within their country, just proves that the right wing of america are jingoistic nutcases. They are apparently obsessed with the overemphasis of individualism in american and oppose anyone who dare suggest we be any sort of non-individualistic.

Can I get this once more, for the 'Ihatevacations-impaired'?

Ihatevacations']Well since the internet screwed up for this site when I intended to feed the troll to my cat, I will add this. The continuation of of the right on this site repeating that anyone outside the US is a liberal, despite their political persuasion within their country, just proves that the right wing of america are jingoistic nutcases. They are apparently obsessed with the overemphasis of individualism in american and oppose anyone who dare suggest we be any sort of non-individualistic.



Sheesh, you could at least be like Fass and flame more subtly so you don't get banned.

Ihatevacations']Well since the internet screwed up for this site when I intended to feed the troll to my cat, I will add this. The continuation of of the right on this site repeating that anyone outside the US is a liberal, despite their political persuasion within their country, just proves that the right wing of america are jingoistic nutcases. They are apparently obsessed with the overemphasis of individualism in american and oppose anyone who dare suggest we be any sort of non-individualistic.
I like being individualistic. In fact, I base my life and my political philosophy on it. It actually causes me to support many ideas considered “liberal” by the average American, including abortion rights and gay-marriage.

flaming mroe subtlely would be actual insulting. You see, it makes sense. The right consider everyoen from all other countries are liberals because they support things like public healthcare and other socialist systems. America is HIGHLY individualistic to the point of overemphasing individualism. The right is for the individualism, while other countries support some public socialism, so the right thus see them as liberals. The right are thus jingoistic (overly patriotic) and obsessed with the overemphasised individualism

Ihatevacations']flaming mroe subtlely would be actual insulting. You see, it makes sense. The right consider everyoen from all other countries are liberals because they support things like public healthcare and other socialist systems. America is HIGHLY individualistic to the point of overemphasing individualism. The right is for the individualism, while other countries support some public socialism, so the right thus see them as liberals. The right are thus jingoistic (overly patriotic) and obsessed with the overemphasised individualism
Everything political is based on perspective. Have you ever stopped to think, that perhaps they consider our moderateright right to be extreme far right, because that is what it is in their country?

Everything political is based on perspective. Have you ever stopped to think, that perhaps they consider our right to be extreme far right, because that is what it is in their country?
america's right is far right in every pertinent country, which is why "liberals outnumber conservatives 8:1"

and in continuation, that would of course make liberals people obsessed with the idea of something other than extremist individualism because they see social policies working in other countries and want to try something they don't have to see if it will work if applied properly, which is crazy because the individualists wont let it happen properly because they are obsessed with not helpnig other people

Ihatevacations']flaming mroe subtlely would be actual insulting. You see, it makes sense. The right consider everyoen from all other countries are liberals because they support things like public healthcare and other socialist systems. America is HIGHLY individualistic to the point of overemphasing individualism. The right is for the individualism, while other countries support some public socialism, so the right thus see them as liberals. The right are thus jingoistic (overly patriotic) and obsessed with the overemphasised individualism



But now you're equating extreme libertarianism with all of American conservatism. Personally, I believe in a Christian form of socialism, yet am I liberal? Certainly not, many would consider me far-right wing. Accusing us of jingoism for respecting the rights of the individual is quite absurd.

Ihatevacations']and in continuation, that would of course make liberals people obsessed with the idea of something other than extremist individualism because they see social policies working in other countries and want to try something they don't have to see if it will work if applied properly, which is crazy because the individualists wont let it happen properly because they are obsessed with not helpnig other people
Actually, one could argue, that with unemployment rates of ten percent and higher, those social policies aren’t working. And libertarians don’t necessarily not want to help people. We just don’t feel you should be forced to.

Actually, one could argue, that with unemployment rates of ten percent and higher, those social policies aren’t working. And libertarians don’t necessarily not want to help people. We just don’t feel you should be forced to.
and? I didn't realize they were handing out jobs. Employment rate is not relavant to any form of social policies

But now you're equating extreme libertarianism with all of American conservatism. Personally, I believe in a Christian form of socialism, yet am I liberal? Certainly not, many would consider me far-right wing. Accusing us of jingoism for respecting the rights of the individual is quite absurd.
I have seen and heard supposedly christian people argue that they shouldn't have to pay road taxes because they don't drive on certain roads, or they don't want to pay more taxes to fund schools, not because the school system is corrup and stupid, but because no one they know is in that school. You are far right wing because you think you have the right to control what people personally do based on the "christian" opinion of the act

Actually, one could argue, that with unemployment rates of ten percent and higher, those social policies aren’t working. And libertarians don’t necessarily not want to help people. We just don’t feel you should be forced to.



It is kind of akward that the social policies aforementioned are having the opposite effect :confused:

Ihatevacations']and? I didn't realize they were handing out jobs. Employment rate is not relavant to any form of social policies


I have seen and heard supposedly christian people argue that they shouldn't have to pay road taxes because they don't drive on certain roads, or they don't want to pay more taxes to fund schools, not because the school system is corrup and stupid, but because no one they know is in that school. You are far right wing because you think you have the right to control what people personally do based on the "christian" opinion of the act


1. Actually employment rates and economic policies go hand-in-hand.

2. I'd rather we go the route of a devout nation than a contemporary Sodom/Gommorah ;)

Ihatevacations']and? I didn't realize they were handing out jobs. Employment rate is not relavant to any form of social policies
Actually, because of the socialist policies of making it extremely hard to fire someone, and forcing companies to give their employees way to much paid vacation time, the companies are not too inclined to hire more hard to get rid of if they screw up non-workers.

2. I'd rather we go the route of a devout nation than a contemporary Sodom/Gommorah ;)
I've said it before, I will say it again: why prove my point when you people do it for me

Ihatevacations']I've said it before, I will say it again: why prove my point when you people do it for me



If genuine concern for the welfare of others and our nation = jingoism, then I suppose I epitomize the blind patriot :rolleyes:

Well I'd say it's because we rule. Really. We are just awesome. People like us. People want to be like us. We drive down the street(specially here in America) and people go "Wow! There goes that Social Democrat!" Marx is much better looking than Smith, period. And George W. Bush is scary. Seriously. The communists among us are able to grow really impressive moustaches, and people like really impressive moustaches. Also slogans from the far left are much more awesome than those from the far right, same with the people. Give me Stalin over Hitler anyday. Plus Red is just a really cool color. But I think it comes down to the fact that regardless of how capitalist you say you are, you so totally want us(yes in that way.)

yea...
...
...

I have no idea.

If genuine concern for the welfare of others and our nation = jingoism, then I suppose I epitomize the blind patriot :rolleyes:
like i said, you are extreme right wing because you believe it is yoru right to tell people what they can do in their personal lives based on your great "christian" morals. The only moral christians are not the ones trying to run other peoples lives, sadly they arn't the vocal ones, the vocal ones are people like you who would liek to outlaw another half dozen things because you believe its agaisnt your religion. Welcome to the theocratic states of america folks, if you don't like it, too bad and you're going to burn in hell and your dog will turn to a pillar of salt

Ihatevacations']like i said, you are extreme right wing because you believe it is yoru right to tell people what they can do in their personal lives based on your great "christian" morals. The only moral christians are not the ones trying to run other peoples lives, sadly they arn't the vocal ones, the vocal ones are people like you who would liek to outlaw another half dozen things because you believe its agaisnt your religion. Welcome to the theocratic states of america folks, if you don't like it, too bad and you're going to burn in hell and your dog will turn to a pillar of salt



The very fact that you are able to mutter this garbage proves we are not a theocracy. No theocracy would tolerate such slander.

The very fact that you are able to mutter this garbage proves we are not a theocracy. No theocracy would tolerate such slander.
which is the point, if people like you had your way, thats how it would be

Ihatevacations']which is the point, if people like you had your way, thats how it would be


You just called us a theocracy. You didn't say that's the way it would be; You said that's the way it is. Why prove my point when you do it for me? :rolleyes:

The very fact that you are able to mutter this garbage proves we are not a theocracy. No theocracy would tolerate such slander.

Uh-huh: derogatory comments against a particualr brand of theocracy prove that a theocracy can't exist... what about if that theocracy happened to be based on Judaic, Hindu, Muslim or other non-Christian basis?

Uh-huh: derogatory comments against a particualr brand of theocracy prove that a theocracy can't exist... what about if that theocracy happened to be based on Judaic, Hindu, Muslim or other non-Christian basis?


I'm sure that, according to Ihatevacations, it is a supposed "Christian theocracy".

I'm sure that, according to Ihatevacations, it is a supposed "Christian theocracy".

So why yourself state...

No theocracy would tolerate such slander.

Are you claiming that other theocracies lack some quality not present in a Christian theocracy which somehow makes them a false theocracy?

So why yourself state...



Are you claiming that other theocracies lack some quality not present in a Christian theocracy which somehow makes them a false theocracy?
Grampus, you are playing a rather annoying game of semantics. Please, stop.

Because most rednecks don't have internet connections! :p

*dives for cover before the flames hit*

It was a joke! Honest!
Ha ha jerk! lol
I don't take offense though. I'm the old bluejeans, pickup truck type of redneck, as opposed to the screw my sister, beat my dog, transmission in the bathtub kind. I actually enjoy the redneck jokes!
keepem comin buddy! yyyeeeeeeeee haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

Grampus, you are playing a rather annoying game of semantics. Please, stop.

Actually no, Grampus is onto something with this, it's not just semantics. I'm rather keen to see where this goes.

Actually no, Grampus is onto something with this, it's not just semantics. I'm rather keen to see where this goes.


No, it is semantics. We were referring to Christianity.

No, it is semantics. We were referring to Christianity.

So 'no theocracy' = 'no christian theocracy'?

Ergo 'non-christian theocracy' = 'not actually a theocracy'?

So 'no theocracy' = 'no christian theocracy'?

Ergo 'non-christian theocracy' = 'not actually a theocracy'?



I have a feeling you're just trying to raise your postcount by posting non-constructive things. Only I have that privilege :p

So 'no theocracy' = 'no christian theocracy'?

Ergo 'non-christian theocracy' = 'not actually a theocracy'?

Grampus swings.... and it's a foul ball along the left field line.

No Theocracy=No Christian Theocracy because a "Christian Theocracy" is a form of Theocracy.

Think in terms of hierarchical definitions:

If it's not a Theocracy, then obviously, it's not a christian theocracy, because Christian Theocracy is a form of Theocracy. ("Theocracy" being a nation governed by its churches, as opposed to a Secular Government.) For America to be a Theocracy of any type, it would have to have a state-recognized dominant form of religion that has the power to over-rule the laws put in place by the Secular government. IN a true theocratic structure, there is no Secular government-the role of governance being taken on by Religious authorities.

Incidentally, the closest you come to a Theocracy is Iran, not the United States-Priests, pastors, etc. don't have the power to either legislate, or enforce, decrees on the general populace as a portion of their rights in office.

As the United States is not a Theocracy, it can't be a christian theocracy.

Liverbreath']Because most of the users here are pre adults and having little real life experience

I assumed this was why there were so many right wingers. I imagine a bunch of 15 year old boys typing away at their computers, "USA RULZ!!!1!!! Kick ass!!!"

Here's an idea -- and it's not mine, but Eric Alterman's.

Perhaps the perceived "Leftness" of NS is a result of the general drift toward the Right of mainstream American culture. Bill Clinton was one of the best Republican presidents ever -- and the modern Right loathes him (so did the so-called "liberal" media, by the way). The "Middle" now is some distance to the right of where it was, say, 20 years ago. That's why the "Right" today seems just a touch more loopy than it did then, and those who were left-leaning moderates get tarred with the liberal epithet.

Think of this analogy: imagine that the average temperature of the average day where you live were, say, 60F about 20 years ago. Now imagine that over those 20 years, the average temperature has gone up to something like 70F. You might imagine that it seems warmer now than it did before, and you'd be right. What was once average might now seem somewhat cooler than it used to, and certainly cooler overall to those with no experience of the earlier average (young people). This analogy oversimplifies, but I hope it helps.

--snip--
Incidentally, the closest you come to a Theocracy is Iran, not the United States-Priests, pastors, etc. don't have the power to either legislate, or enforce, decrees on the general populace as a portion of their rights in office.
--snip--

...at least not directly....

Grampus swings.... and it's a foul ball along the left field line.

Normally I'm accused of swinging both ways, but that is a matter for another day.

No Theocracy=No Christian Theocracy because a "Christian Theocracy" is a form of Theocracy.

Unless NR is operating on the sub-conscious assumption that any supposed non-Christian 'theocracy' is actually a sham, after all it goes against the christian values that (s)he holds as most holy and most truthful.

Think in terms of hierarchical definitions:

If it's not a Theocracy, then obviously, it's not a christian theocracy, because Christian Theocracy is a form of Theocracy. ("Theocracy" being a nation governed by its churches, as opposed to a Secular Government.)

I'm basically probing along the assumed line "a 'theocracy' is actually a real theocracy if and only if it is in fact rule by the instruments of the true religion (ie. Christianity, based on NR's comemnts)".

Why would a non-Christian theocracy condemn negative comments about Christianity which imply Christianity to be sometghing less than the whole turth?

...at least not directly....
Yes, they have a voice in the political process, just as every citizen does.

I assumed this was why there were so many right wingers. I imagine a bunch of 15 year old boys typing away at their computers, "USA RULZ!!!1!!! Kick ass!!!"

Don't be too hard on them: it is a choice of either directly confronting their youthful desires and sateing them through internet pr0n or sublimating them through (alleged) intellectual debate on NS forums.

I Hate Liberals. Screw You All.

I Hate Liberals. Screw You All.
looks like someone didn't bother to read the One-Stop Rules Shop

Because left and right just doesn't cut it.

Yes, they have a voice in the political process, just as every citizen does.

"Every citizen"? Are you mad? Tell me every citizen has a Heritage Foundation or some other "think tank" who regularly send "advisors" directly to the White House. Shit fire and save matches, pal!

I Hate Liberals. Screw You All.

Nope, sorry. You can't. The Liberals are the ones who are supposed to be promiscuous. You guys get all the money...unless the Lib is in entertainment.

Because liberals want to take over the world, and NS is the first part of their training.

J/k.

I may be right-wing, but I'm not that crazy.

Anyways, I don't think there's a definitive answer.

Because liberals want to take over the world, and NS is the first part of their training.
Shit. You know too much.
Would you care to come to Brisbane, Australia so I can...ahem....befriend you?

First of all, I'm not really 100% certain what would classify you as "liberal" in the USA.
In Europe, it generally denfines those parties who advocate unrestricted capitalism, the parties of the rich. Most of those parties are by now so small as to be almost non-existent, the two major parties in most countries are socialist left-wing on the one side and conservative right-wing on the other.

I'm not liberal in that sense, but rather a social democrat, which seems to some extend to coincide with "liberal" in the USA.
However, I have to say that even European conservative parties are more left-wing than central compared to the US, so yes, that may be an explanation why posters from the USA perceive this forum as left-wing.

First of all, I'm not really 100% certain what would classify you as "liberal" in the USA.
In Europe, it generally denfines those parties who advocate unrestricted capitalism, the parties of the rich. Isn't that a good way to classify the mainstream American left then? :p

Ihatevacations']-Snip-. They are apparently obsessed with the overemphasis of individualism in american and oppose anyone who dare suggest we be any sort of non-individualistic.
You just decribed most Conservatives in my opinion. Not caring about anyone else and looking out for number one.

Liverbreath']Because most of the users here are pre adults and having little real life experience combined with socialized education tends to leave them with little more than ideology to formulate their opinions and beliefs on. Also because it is hosted in the UK which is heavily liberal/socialist.
Also, because most conservatives really don't see much point in trying to convince a dedicated liberal of anything. Especially when they are outnubmered about 8 to 1.

Oooooooooooooo BURN!!! :p

I Hate Liberals. Screw You All.

Any reasons why u hate liberals???

Any reasons why u hate liberals???
Reason has nothing to do with that... :p

vs Rightists/Conservatives? Just wonderng what y'all thought about this phenomenon. Cause I have absolutely no idea why...

Why are there so many right-wingers with a persecution complex on NS? Sorry, but that's how it seems to me!

First of all, I'm not really 100% certain what would classify you as "liberal" in the USA.

Just talking for myself I always found it rather amusing that here in Germany the "Republicans" are the far right wing...mostly described as some sort of Nazis TNG (and they're fishing for votes with leftist, anti-america, anti-BigBusiness propaganda nowadays...so you see left/right aren't what they used to be)

But back to topic:

I agree to some of the Arguments already posted: for the average conservative american most centrist or right-wing conservative outside the US are still way to left. And as i heard (and that goes for most countrys, not just USA) people in cities tend to be more liberal thand the "land-community" where you will be mobbed for being late at the church. And i assume that the city people just spend more time on the internet (after all, there are not to many sheeps to date with in the city...sorry, couldn't resist). So...another argument for the "whole Internet" to be more liberal.

And last but not least...I found out about NationStates after reading Jennifer Government. And you could call it a little bit critic of a unregulated-capitalism...which is something the average US republican will not share. Again, our german "liberals" would just have wet dreams reading the book, if the "bad" end wouldn't spoil their dreams...

vs Rightists/Conservatives? Just wonderng what y'all thought about this phenomenon. Cause I have absolutely no idea why...

Probably because positions adopted by the former are based more upon rational thought.

Anarcho-Capitalits/American Libertarians
Anarcho-Communist/Continental Libertarians
Leftists
Socialists
and overal Liberals of both Modern and Classic school of thought:

Make up the bulk of players here.

A good chunk of the Industrialized World is "Liberal". So it should be no surprise that on an international game base, "Liberals" would make up the bulk.

There is an over-representation here of Anarcho-Capitalists (American Libertarians); and Anarcho-Communists(European/Continental Libertarians). Likely because each side is hightly intelligent; and has well formulated beliefs and political ideas. Thus, in an international forum; they would find more acceptance; and inter-operation and debate; than in the real world.

5: Eh? You really know how to throw things around, don't you? I don't think I've ever seen an "old-age Hippie" on NS... Zooke is somewhat close, but she's centrist.

I don't know that I ever qualified as a "hippie" as the term was applied in the era of peace. Most of the hippie movement was centered around the protest of the Vietnam war. At the time, I was in college and carrying 20+ hours in a pre-vet med program, so I really wasn't involved in much other than studying. I guess I did adopt the peace/love credo in that I fiercely believe that all people have a good side, are necessary in the great scheme of things, and are worth the effort to know. I never adopted the free love aspect...went to Woodstock a virgin and came home a virgin. :D I have carried some aspects of the "hippie" in that I still wear Earth Shoes and love long flimsy dresses...except when work requires I wear my little power suit. No, I don't think I was ever a hippie, but over the years I have formed some pretty definite opinions based on my observations and experiences.

vs Rightists/Conservatives? Just wonderng what y'all thought about this phenomenon. Cause I have absolutely no idea why...


Simple. Nationstates is a creative idea that Conservatives detest. It's that simple.

And i assume that the city people just spend more time on the internet (after all, there are not to many sheeps to date with in the city...sorry, couldn't resist). So...another argument for the "whole Internet" to be more liberal.

Oh my god! A German redhead liberal... and it's a girl, too!

I'd just like to bring everyone's attention to my signature, because, for the record, some people who are quite vocal in this thread don't believe in democracy.

vs Rightists/Conservatives? Just wonderng what y'all thought about this phenomenon. Cause I have absolutely no idea why...

Statisticly, we're more likely to be able to read, and less likely to think that computers will suck our soul out and spread it across some sort of pagan new-age mystic spirit world called psyberspace. ;)

First of all, I'm not really 100% certain what would classify you as "liberal" in the USA.

The belief that:
Education is a good thing.
Torture is a bad thing.
Opinions based on fact do not necessarily indicate moral inclinations.
A government that controls the Church is bad.
A Church that controls the government is bad.
The phrase "Activist Judge," is best defined as "Judge who disagrees with you."
Church is not a proper noun and shouldn't be capitalized unless at the begining of a sentence :confused:
History is usually a pretty good indicator of what happened.
Stuff you make up doesn't count as history.
Reagan was not a particularly good president, he was just president when something good happened.
There hasn't been a decent Republican since Eisenhower.
A government that talks about limiting its own power while acting to limit yours is probably up to something.
That just because you forgot to list something, doesn't mean that you've specifically ruled it out later (9th amendment).

In Europe, it generally denfines those parties who advocate unrestricted capitalism, the parties of the rich. Most of those parties are by now so small as to be almost non-existent, the two major parties in most countries are socialist left-wing on the one side and conservative right-wing on the other.

Here that's called libertarianism. Todays liberals are the intellectual heirs of libertarians (then called liberals) of yesteryear, but experience has taught them that large corporations are prone to corruption, and need regulation. Not exactly socialist in the sense of supporting state ownership of business, but certainly favors a lot of government oversight.


I'm not liberal in that sense, but rather a social democrat, which seems to some extend to coincide with "liberal" in the USA.
However, I have to say that even European conservative parties are more left-wing than central compared to the US, so yes, that may be an explanation why posters from the USA perceive this forum as left-wing.

True. I grit my teeth whenever I hear Americans use the term "far left" when describing anything that happens here. We don't have a left wing (barring a few lonely visionaries which barely constitute a few loose feathers, much less a wing). We have a right wing, and a far right wing.

[QUOTE=Intangelon]Here's an idea -- and it's not mine, but Eric Alterman's.

Bill Clinton was one of the best Republican presidents ever ...

If im not mistaken, wasnt Bill Clinton(yes the fat pumpuss jackass) the democrate? Bob Dole was the republican canidate. Someone is lacking some intellegence. Hey Neo, & caddilac, im behind yall 100%

Statisticly, we're more likely to be able to read, and less likely to think that computers will suck our soul out and spread it across some sort of pagan new-age mystic spirit world called psyberspace. ;)
I figure it's 'cause most o' y'all are busy with no-load academic schedules and those that are graduates AND employed are managing Waffle Houses and McDonalds. The conservatives are busy studying science and engineering or practicing some sort of career where the day isn't measured by hours on the clock.

Or it could just be that more of you are teens and twentysomethings, who are, because human nature is what it is, a lot more likely to be liberal and intolerant of those who aren't.

It's true, we do deal with the real world a bit more rather than being off in some lab somewhere.

It's true, we do deal with the real world a bit more rather than being off in some lab somewhere.

One could easily replace the word "lab" with "church" and make a case for the other side. :D

[QUOTE=Intangelon]Here's an idea -- and it's not mine, but Eric Alterman's.

Bill Clinton was one of the best Republican presidents ever ...

If im not mistaken, wasnt Bill Clinton(yes the fat pumpuss jackass) the democrate? Bob Dole was the republican canidate. Someone is lacking some intellegence. Hey Neo, & caddilac, im behind yall 100%

Oy vey.

He called Clinton a Republican because he was in part joking, and in part because Clinton is what we on the real left call a DINO-Democrat In Name Only. On most economic matters of importance to the left: unionization (in favor of), deregulation (opposed to), living wages (in favor of), etc., Clinton instead borrowed straight from the Republican manual and sold us down the river.

You seem to think that "Democrat" is defined as someone elected with a "D" by his name on the ballot. That is not the case; being a Democrat is far more about subscribing to an ideology. Clinton did not subscribe to that ideology, and instead subscribed much more to the ideology of the Republicans. Hence, the quip that he was "The best Republican president we've ever had."

Bill Clinton was one of the best Republican presidents ever ...

If im not mistaken, wasnt Bill Clinton(yes the fat pumpuss jackass) the democrate? Bob Dole was the republican canidate. Someone is lacking some intellegence. Hey Neo, & caddilac, im behind yall 100%

Yes. Someone is lacking some intelligence.

[QUOTE=The Great Dixie]

Oy vey.

He called Clinton a Republican because he was in part joking, and in part because Clinton is what we on the real left call a DINO-Democrat In Name Only. On most economic matters of importance to the left: unionization (in favor of), deregulation (opposed to), living wages (in favor of), etc., Clinton instead borrowed straight from the Republican manual and sold us down the river.

You seem to think that "Democrat" is defined as someone elected with a "D" by his name on the ballot. That is not the case; being a Democrat is far more about subscribing to an ideology. Clinton did not subscribe to that ideology, and instead subscribed much more to the ideology of the Republicans. Hence, the quip that he was "The best Republican president we've ever had."

And he managed to sell more American freedoms down the river with his stern anti-firearm policies, not to mention a little incident called Waco. The Left doesn't want to claim Clinton. Please do; there's no room for him on the Right as he's nothing of what a true Rightist stands for (neither is Gee Dubya Bee or the leadership of the Republican party, for that matter).

Yes. Someone is lacking some intelligence.

Best quote of the night. Kudos.

Im sorry, i did not detect the sarcasam and I was quick to laugh at, agian I am sorry. My view is mostly the same as just about every conservative here. What really chaps my hide is yall(non americans) sayin what america should and should not do. Ive seen a view posts sayin us conservatives want everone to conform to us, lets see, are yall sayin we should conform to yalls ways. what im tryin to say is really stop the bitchen bout us tryin to make the world conform when some of yall want us to conform to yalls views and this is OUR nation, not yalls, i have respect for OUR leader, he has balls, unlike most of YALLS leaders, and canada, what the hell Sadom and Gamora, Adam and Eve, not Steve

Im sorry, i did not detect the sarcasam and I was quick to laugh at, agian I am sorry. My view is mostly the same as just about every conservative here. What really chaps my hide is yall(non americans) sayin what america should and should not do. Ive seen a view posts sayin us conservatives want everone to conform to us, lets see, are yall sayin we should conform to yalls ways. what im tryin to say is really stop the bitchen bout us tryin to make the world conform when some of yall want us to conform to yalls views and this is OUR nation, not yalls, i have respect for OUR leader, he has balls, unlike most of YALLS leaders, and canada, what the hell Sadom and Gamora, Adam and Eve, not Steve

That's what most worries this liberal (overly simplisic label,) American.

[QUOTE=Xenophobialand]

And he managed to sell more American freedoms down the river with his stern anti-firearm policies, not to mention a little incident called Waco. The Left doesn't want to claim Clinton. Please do; there's no room for him on the Right as he's nothing of what a true Rightist stands for (neither is Gee Dubya Bee or the leadership of the Republican party, for that matter).

Well, I can't really say much about the first part other than to say that you are the first person I've ever heard describe his gun-control policies, which largely consisted of saying that there was no good reason for your average citizen to have an AR-15 automatic assault rifle loaded with Rhino "CopKiller" light-armor-piercing rounds, to be "stern", and that he had little to do with Waco other than be in office at the time. And that your post suggests a view about the 2nd Amendment that has only been popular among the right for the last 15 years or so, and has already been ruled as a misinterpretation by the Supreme Court, so it isn't reflective of the stance of "the Right" even of Bush I's era.

But yes, in the things that really matter, like economic policy, Clinton was far closer to Reagan than he ever was to FDR. He accepted the idea that government is in and of itself the problem rather than corruption in government, something that no leftist would ever argue. He accepted the idea that the best way for the economy to work is to adopt lassiez-faire government stances to industry, which is something no leftist would ever argue. He accepted the idea that the best way for industry to succeed was to bust unions, something that no leftist would ever accept. He not only accepted the idea of absolute free trade, he fought for it in NAFTA and a slew of other job-exportation agreements; something that no leftist would ever argue for. In that sense, he was much more of a Republican than he was a Democrat.

[QUOTE=Colerica]

Well, I can't really say much about the first part other than to say that you are the first person I've ever heard describe his gun-control policies, which largely consisted of saying that there was no good reason for your average citizen to have an AR-15 automatic assault rifle loaded with Rhino "CopKiller" light-armor-piercing rounds, to be "stern", and that he had little to do with Waco other than be in office at the time. And that your post suggests a view about the 2nd Amendment that has only been popular among the right for the last 15 years or so, and has already been ruled as a misinterpretation by the Supreme Court, so it isn't reflective of the stance of "the Right" even of Bush I's era.

But yes, in the things that really matter, like economic policy, Clinton was far closer to Reagan than he ever was to FDR. He accepted the idea that government is in and of itself the problem rather than corruption in government, something that no leftist would ever argue. He accepted the idea that the best way for the economy to work is to adopt lassiez-faire government stances to industry, which is something no leftist would ever argue. He accepted the idea that the best way for industry to succeed was to bust unions, something that no leftist would ever accept. He not only accepted the idea of absolute free trade, he fought for it in NAFTA and a slew of other job-exportation agreements; something that no leftist would ever argue for. In that sense, he was much more of a Republican than he was a Democrat.

Right on!

[QUOTE=Colerica]

Well, I can't really say much about the first part other than to say that you are the first person I've ever heard describe his gun-control policies, which largely consisted of saying that there was no good reason for your average citizen to have an AR-15 automatic assault rifle loaded with Rhino "CopKiller" light-armor-piercing rounds, to be "stern", and that he had little to do with Waco other than be in office at the time. And that your post suggests a view about the 2nd Amendment that has only been popular among the right for the last 15 years or so, and has already been ruled as a misinterpretation by the Supreme Court, so it isn't reflective of the stance of "the Right" even of Bush I's era.

But yes, in the things that really matter, like economic policy, Clinton was far closer to Reagan than he ever was to FDR. He accepted the idea that government is in and of itself the problem rather than corruption in government, something that no leftist would ever argue. He accepted the idea that the best way for the economy to work is to adopt lassiez-faire government stances to industry, which is something no leftist would ever argue. He accepted the idea that the best way for industry to succeed was to bust unions, something that no leftist would ever accept. He not only accepted the idea of absolute free trade, he fought for it in NAFTA and a slew of other job-exportation agreements; something that no leftist would ever argue for. In that sense, he was much more of a Republican than he was a Democrat.

Then again, he got a blowjob. So he couldn't possibly be a Republican.

[QUOTE=Xenophobialand]

Then again, he got a blowjob. So he couldn't possibly be a Republican.

So you're saying all porn stars vote Democratic? :eek:

Oh my god! A German redhead liberal... and it's a girl, too!

WOW! They're rare!
*throws poke`ball*

*catches German redheaded liberal, does stupid pose*

Well, I can't really say much about the first part other than to say that you are the first person I've ever heard describe his gun-control policies, which largely consisted of saying that there was no good reason for your average citizen to have an AR-15 automatic assault rifle loaded with Rhino "CopKiller" light-armor-piercing rounds, to be "stern", and that he had little to do with Waco other than be in office at the time.

You refer to the 'Assualt Weapons' Ban and it's sad to see that you appear to know little of what you're speaking of, as evidenced by your use of the phrase "CopKiller" rounds (a myth generated by the anti-gun crowd). You do realize that so-called assualt weapons account for less than one percent of crimes, right? True 'assualt' weapons have, for all intents and purposes, been banned since 1934. Clinton did not outlaw a single machine gun with the AWB and that is a fact that Sarah Brady and her ilk cannot refute. There was no more justification for the AWB than there was Prohibition and it cost the Democrats dearly in the Congressional elections.


And that your post suggests a view about the 2nd Amendment that has only been popular among the right for the last 15 years or so,

My view is that every American citizen has the right to own and bear firearms, as granted to us in the Second Amendment of the United States' Constitution. What part of "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state; the right of the people to keep and bears arms shall not be infringed" do you not seem to understand?


But yes, in the things that really matter, like economic policy, Clinton was far closer to Reagan than he ever was to FDR. He accepted the idea that government is in and of itself the problem rather than corruption in government, something that no leftist would ever argue. He accepted the idea that the best way for the economy to work is to adopt lassiez-faire government stances to industry, which is something no leftist would ever argue. He accepted the idea that the best way for industry to succeed was to bust unions, something that no leftist would ever accept. He not only accepted the idea of absolute free trade, he fought for it in NAFTA and a slew of other job-exportation agreements; something that no leftist would ever argue for. In that sense, he was much more of a Republican than he was a Democrat.

If FDR was the model Leftist, then that would be a a list of positions that only serve to expound why I list FDR as the second worst President the nation has ever known.....

I don't who you are, but to each person 'liberal' or 'conservative' is at least somewhat relative. I myself am considered by most people of my faith to be more liberal whereas I consider myself very conservative.
As I've seen a lot of people state that most Americans would consider the rest of the world to have liberalistic tendancies, but a lot of that has to do with (I think at least) our very Puritan streak. We started out as a religious haven and were heavily influenced from the beginning by every possible religion, most of which were conservative, and some of the loudest being the Puritans.
We continue to be at least some kind of religious refuge today, when we aren't busy persecuting eachother (religious vs. non vs. anti) but the general direction we are moving is towards the rest of the world. Some people find this regrettable while others can hardly wait for the US to be exactly like the rest of the 'modern' world.
A lot of people would argue that this is the direction of progress and have some strong evidence to support their claim. Most 'theocracies' so to speak in our world today haven't advanced past being a third world country because they are so concerned about religious affairs that a lot of secular is put aside.
As we can see, America has progressed a great amount in such a small amount of time. Does that mean we are progressing, and at the same time moving towards liberalism?
Me, in all my ignorance will venture as far to guess that most people on NS are from America and Canada, which are suprisingly similiar in a lot of respects. According to the typical pattern of diffusion of customs and ideas, this would all make sense.
Perhaps this is why?

[QUOTE=Gymoor II The Return]

So you're saying all porn stars vote Democratic? :eek:



Nah, Bush had dinner with a porn star recently. I wonder what Laura had to say :D

-snip- You do realize that so-called assualt weapons account for less than one percent of crimes, right? -snip-

Yeah, it's a good thing Clinton succeeded in suppressing them so that they don't account for a higher percentage. Also, you mention 1% of crimes. Do you mean violent crimes or crimes committed with a gun or what? If you mean all crimes, then I agree. You don't see too much mail fraud and speeding committed with an assault rifle.

It almost seems like that statistic is intentionally misleading...

Statisticly, we're more likely to be able to read, and less likely to think that computers will suck our soul out and spread it across some sort of pagan new-age mystic spirit world called psyberspace. ;)

We are so fortunate to have posters such as yourself. Keep up the good work. We'll take all you can drive away.

As a person who is staunch to the Right, I've forumlated the following theories that most of them may fall in (some posters may overlap into other categories).

1) Some of them don't work or are college students. This gives them abundant free time to do nothing but sit on their computer (among doing other home-related things).

2) Some are naive teenagers without any knowledge of the real world. They've been convinced (through various sources ranging from Michael Moore to their teachers in the lovely public schools and, most importantly, to their parents) that the Left is the way to go. This also gives them abundant free time to do nothing but surf the web (as well as begging their parents for money; I applaud those kids who have jobs). This group has my pity.

3) They're hardlining Marxists clinging to false hopes and sick dreams of an over-bearing government that tramples the rights of the individual. These people tend to see things only in collective terms. I would hope that they are a minority on these boards, but I hold out my doubts at times. As friendly as I would be to them, this group has none of my respect.

4) They're from overseas. Thusly, they are, on average, farther to the Left than the common American. I can't really blame them for this; it's simply part of who they are.

5) Some are the age-old hippies, doomed to be forever stuck in the foggy 1960's, chanting about the injustices of capitalism and America and continuing to be burned out shells of their former selves (not that their former selves had much to offer in their prime as it was, but that's beside the point).

6) Some are actually honest, intelligent, decent people that, in between managing their private life, take the time to take part in a forum such as this. This group has my respect.

Flame away.

Right, that makes sense. Most of the liberals on this board are either unemplyed, in college, are young, are foreign, are old, or are normal people. Wow, you know what? I bet every colour in the wolrd is either red, blue, green, or a combination thereof.

WOW! They're rare!
*throws poke`ball*

*catches German redheaded liberal, does stupid pose*

Sorry to destroy your hopes...I'm a guy. It's just the name of my nation which reflects my affection to girls with red hair ;)

But I see that I should think about adding this to my sig...

I agree with ye, alot of people here have more "liberal" views compared to conservatives in the united states. However, rightists in Germany would probably be considered "liberal" compared to the Republicans, so it's all a matter of stuff.

(yes, I realise that last part makes no senses, but cut me some slack! It's 1 AM...

WOW! They're rare!
*throws poke`ball*

*catches German redheaded liberal, does stupid pose*

*lol

Not in Germany, they aren't

*lol

Not in Germany, they aren't

More proof that I should one day move to Europe. Besides, Eurochicks dig me. :D

There is an over-representation here of Anarcho-Capitalists (American Libertarians); and Anarcho-Communists(European/Continental Libertarians). Likely because each side is hightly intelligent; and has well formulated beliefs and political ideas. Thus, in an international forum; they would find more acceptance; and inter-operation and debate; than in the real world.

interesting hypothesis

thumps right hand on chest and snaps same hand up, clicks heels, death to the left!

Rise conservative America and destroy them!

snaps hand up and clicks heels, death to the left!

Oh yeah, that makes you look informed. Good one.

Oh yeah, that makes you look informed. Good one.

Thanks. :p have a swastika.

Thanks. :p have a swastika.

I find the swastika to be an attractive symbol, except for the nazi variant. Hitler took a lot of good things and fucked with them, like the Roman military salute (a.k.a. his Heil).

I find the swastika to be an attractive symbol, except for the nazi variant. Hitler took a lot of good things and fucked with them, like the Roman military salute (a.k.a. his Heil).

I heard Hitler or one of his subordinates turned it around, the German swastika, faces the other way from the traditional one.
I adore it, its so striking.

I heard Hitler or one of his subordinates turned it around, the German swastika, faces the other way from the traditional one.
I adore it, its so striking.The swastika was used extensively in Hindu tradition, and has significance for Buddhists as well. I believe other faiths and groups also make use of it in its traditional meaning, such as Jainism, Falun Gong and Cao Dai.

If I remember right, it was common amongst the European Celtic peoples as well.

As regards to Hitler's supposed reversal of the swastika, it would almost be better if he had. Hindu and Buddhist tradition holds that a swastika with its arms facing right represents good and that one with its arms facing left represents evil. This is true, for these two faiths (most cultures that used it made no distinction) - but the common belief that Hitler deliberately used an 'evil' version is not. The swastika used on the Nazi flag had its arms facing to the right.

Whatever the reasoning behind Hitler's use of the symbol (it's commonly held that he was completely absorbed with myth, magic and mysticism), it's a crying shame that a symbol of such significance - and often such positive significance - as this has been corrupted in this way. After all, the Nazis - despite the far-reaching repercussions of what they did - were but one group who used it as a symbol of evil and fear. When one looks through the history of world symbolism one finds the swastika almost everywhere, from the ancient Chinese, to the Babylonians, to the Celts, and across the Atlantic to the native American cultures. And largely used in a positive way.

The pentagram - another positive symbol made 'evil' by a single group in a single period of history - is gradually being reclaimed from Christian "Devil-worshippers". Maybe the same will happen for the swastika one day.

Its all location! This is a political humor website founded by humorist Max Barry, a critic of uncontroled capitalism. Conservatives/fundamentalists tend to hang around at such haunts as Rapture Ready.

"You are far right wing because you think you You are far right wing because you think you have the right to control what people personally do based on the "christian" opinion of the act."

That's not true. I think I have the right to control what people personally do based on my Satanic opinion of the act.

By the way, here's a news flash to all idoitic liberals. Not all conservatives and/or republicans are christians, because I'm sure as hell not a christian.

~Satanic Reverend Medivh~

"You are far right wing because you think you You are far right wing because you think you have the right to control what people personally do based on the "christian" opinion of the act."

That's not true. I think I have the right to control what people personally do based on my Satanic opinion of the act.

By the way, here's a news flash to all idoitic liberals. Not all conservatives and/or republicans are christians, because I'm sure as hell not a christian.

~Satanic Reverend Medivh~


You must be vary lonely at the Party get togethers ;) Particularly since so many Republicans are out-right hostile to Neo-Paganism, New Age Beliefs, Harry Potter, and Satanism (particularly Satanism!).

Sorry to destroy your hopes...I'm a guy. It's just the name of my nation which reflects my affection to girls with red hair ;)

But I see that I should think about adding this to my sig...

WOW! A guy who likes me! They're rare too!

*throws poke`ball*

POKE`BALL, GO!

*catches guy, does even stupider pose.*

I find the swastika to be an attractive symbol, except for the nazi variant. Hitler took a lot of good things and fucked with them, like the Roman military salute (a.k.a. his Heil).

Don't forget the German car industry!

Wow Something I thought no one would ever here me state, but I am a liberal

well in comparison to potaria PC score anyway, lol

I would class myself as a markist idealist,
I am thirty mumble mumble, and live in the UK, and to me it seems that I am outnumbered by neo thatcherite and newlabour/conservative right wingers so all things are relative then.

edited...

oops just read his scores again, ok that makes me a nasty authoritarian lefty then lol

I'm tired of this left right bs. I'm creating a new ideological scale. Your either sky of underground. Up or down. Choose for yourselves but I'm underground. I'll tell you what each side stands for later, but for now I'll tell you the skies or "ups" are a bunch of nutjobs who will try to undermine and spread lies about our side! lol

I'm a Facist/Meritist i feel so lonely on NS :(

vs Rightists/Conservatives? Just wonderng what y'all thought about this phenomenon. Cause I have absolutely no idea why...
This brings to mind a quote that I particularly like:

"If you are 20 and not of the left then you have no heart; if you are 40 and not of the right then you have no brain."

Younger people are more inclined towards liberalism and socialism (and even anarchism and communist, although that's rarer) and since most people on NS are no older than their 20s most people here are liberals.

'Cos we wiped out all the conservatives in the great purges of '03..not like any of you young whippersnappers would remember that..we didn't have jolt back then, y'know.
*Matt[Hogsweat] lix his rocking chair

I have a question. Where would I be on the ideological scale if I believed in direct democracy? That isn't a left or right thing is it? I don't like representative democracy at all but wouldn't the two be next to each other on the scale or would they be at different ends of the spectrum?

Centre?

I have a question. Where would I be on the ideological scale if I believed in direct democracy? That isn't a left or right thing is it? I don't like representative democracy at all but wouldn't the two be next to each other on the scale or would they be at different ends of the spectrum?

we'd need to know more before making any sort of real judgement, but there is an argument to be made for putting direct democracy farther left than representative democracy, in so much as it is taken to be a way of putting liberty and equality into political practice.

Yeah, it's a good thing Clinton succeeded in suppressing them so that they don't account for a higher percentage. Also, you mention 1% of crimes. Do you mean violent crimes or crimes committed with a gun or what? If you mean all crimes, then I agree. You don't see too much mail fraud and speeding committed with an assault rifle.

It almost seems like that statistic is intentionally misleading...

Violent crimes. Less than one percent of violent crimes were comitted with an assault rifle prior to and during the AWB. It didn't lower the rate of violent crimes used by assault weapons one bit. Clinton's gun ban needlessly outlawed rightful, legal firearms as a way to save political face. His Presidency was in serious trouble when he came up with the AWB and he found it as a way to score points with the public. It back-fired for the Democrats and cost them the Congress and reprecussions were felt by Al Gore in his loss to George W. Bush as the NRA campaigned heavily against Gore's anti-gun record and it cost him several pro-gun states.

Right, that makes sense. Most of the liberals on this board are either unemplyed, in college, are young, are foreign, are old, or are normal people. Wow, you know what? I bet every colour in the wolrd is either red, blue, green, or a combination thereof.

Oye vé, these people have no sense of humor. Care to buy one? I hear they still sell them on eBay. If you're strapped for cash, I could PayPal you some so you could buy yourself a sense of humor.

Because most conservatives are illiterate.

are we going to do the educational breakdown again?

here goes:

-Uneducated union workers: Generally vote Democrat
-Uneducated inner-city population: Generally vote Democrat
-Uneducated rural population: Split vote (plenty of redneck Dems and Repubs)
-Bachelor's degrees: fairly evenly split (more with BA education voted for Bush in 2004 than voted for Kerry, but it was pretty close)
-Master's degrees: Edge to Dems (MBAs are mostly Republicans... Dems have edge elsewhere)
-PhD: Edge to Dems (see above...)

By income:
-Higher income: Edge to Repub
-Lower income: Edge to Dem

By religion/race:
White Protestants (including LDS): Republicans, solidly
Black Protestants: Democrats, solidly
Roman Catholic: Democrats have edge
Atheists (and OTHER): Dems have edge (going out on a limb here)

Exactly. I mean, it's like people who complain about places of higher education being more liberal... they never stop to think that there might be some deeper reason to it other than some vast conspiracy.

Well maybe because the vast majority of college kids are idealist?

In communication studies on of the definitions of a "liberal" is one who puts faith & trust in the media. whith that in mind the interetnet is a medium of the video. Therefore you will see more left leaning liberal viewpoints in a forum like this bacause they put more faith & trust in the source.

To the liberal this is church.

Why are there so many Leftists/Liberals in NS...vs Rightists/Conservatives?

Because more happened to sign up? and stay? ;)

In communication studies on of the definitions of a "liberal" is one who puts faith & trust in the media.

it is? that seems...odd.

In communication studies on of the definitions of a "liberal" is one who puts faith & trust in the media. whith that in mind the interetnet is a medium of the video. Therefore you will see more left leaning liberal viewpoints in a forum like this bacause they put more faith & trust in the source.

To the liberal this is church.

I've never heard that definition before, and I can't say that I agree with it. I'd be interested in hearing about what context it came up. The thing is, I can't think of a single person who calls themselves a liberal who would agree.

it is? that seems...odd.
I know I though the same thing when I read it.
It was an article called "Mass Media and the Normative Frameworks" by John Durham Peters

He is one of the leading experts on communications theroy.

This is why liberals tend to defend fredom of the press while conservatives tend to desire to supress it.

A basic trust that media like television will keep itself in check & be trustworthy.

I know I though the same thing when I read it.
It was an article called "Mass Media and the Normative Frameworks" by John Durham Peters

He is one of the leading experts on communications theroy.

This is why liberals tend to defend fredom of the press while conservatives tend to desire to supress it.

A basic trust that media like television will keep itself in check & be trustworthy.

The guy sounds like a total hack to me.

We defend freedom of the press (as well as freedom of speech) because it's unconstitutional (and just not right) to suppress it. It's got nothing to do with "faith".

If you read this post, read the entire post, it may surprise you.

1) Our political system in America is weird, yes. Just because your a Democrat does not mean your a pro-choicer for gay rights. Just because your a Republican does not mean your a pro-lifer against gay rights. The American version of liberal applies to anyone of ANY PARTY that pretty much believes that women should have abortions, and that gays should get married. The American version of conservative applies to anyone of ANY PARTY that pretty much believes that abortion should be outlawed, and that gays should have civil unions, not destroy the sacriment of a Christian marriage.

2) From what I have seen, Europeans are generally more aware of the world around them than Americans. Most younger Americans don't care about France, or England, or Germany, or Korea, or Australia, or Brazil, etc. They just know what's going on in the US, and sometimes they don't even care about that (look at our voting percentages :( ). But that does not mean Americans are more ignorant than other cultures. I am an American, and I for one, try to keep up with the laws of Canada, England, Germany, Norway, and Spain, and compare them to our laws here in America.

3) Yes, I AM a conservative Republican. Yes, I DO live in America. Yes, I AM a Texan. HELL YEAH I'M A REDNECK. HELL YEAH I'M A PATRIOT! But that does not mean I am a ignorant fool, who does not know jack crap about the world around him. I was born and raised in a small town in Texas, educated by a Texas 3A Public School, and I know more about the world around me than a Harvard Law Graduate with 3 Masters, because he doesn't give a crap about anything except himself.

I believe that I am through with my ramblings now. (Oh and as this may surprise ya'll, I am a journalist, quite a liberal profession I know :P).

PS:

As for the FOX news deal, it is the only conservative news station I know of. There are more that tend to like liberal ideals more, such as: CNN, NBC, CBS, etc.

I only read the 1st page but, here in canada Liberal has a whole different meaning then what Fox and Bush make gulliable americans believe, (ok, everyone is gulliable, but, whatever)

...Hence why my great grandad lef Canada....

I've never heard that definition before, and I can't say that I agree with it. I'd be interested in hearing about what context it came up. The thing is, I can't think of a single person who calls themselves a liberal who would agree.

Do you believe freedom of the press is an important aspect of being a liberal?
By believing in this you are putting trust in the media to make the rightr decissions.

Do you believe freedom of the press is an important aspect of being a liberal?
By believing in this you are putting trust in the media to make the rightr decissions.

What? That couldn't be any further from the truth.

Just because we think the media should be free, doesn't mean we put our complete trust (if any) in it.

Violent crimes. Less than one percent of violent crimes were comitted with an assault rifle prior to and during the AWB. It didn't lower the rate of violent crimes used by assault weapons one bit. Clinton's gun ban needlessly outlawed rightful, legal firearms as a way to save political face. His Presidency was in serious trouble when he came up with the AWB and he found it as a way to score points with the public. It back-fired for the Democrats and cost them the Congress and reprecussions were felt by Al Gore in his loss to George W. Bush as the NRA campaigned heavily against Gore's anti-gun record and it cost him several pro-gun states.

Ah, violent crimes, not crimes with guns specifically. Now, in that study, did it happen to breakdown the difference in the casualty report between a assault weapon crime and a non-assault weapon crime, or did it conveniently leave that out?

Do you believe freedom of the press is an important aspect of being a liberal?
By believing in this you are putting trust in the media to make the rightr decissions.
I am more libertarian but I believe in the freedom of the press but I have no belief that they will make decisions that are “right” by my standards

But I guess that is the whole point to the freedom … to have them not subjected to an individuals definition of “right”

The guy sounds like a total hack to me.

We defend freedom of the press (as well as freedom of speech) because it's unconstitutional (and just not right) to suppress it. It's got nothing to do with "faith".

Why would you protect it if you didn't have faith in it's greater good.

He also mentions the fact that it is the only instution that is protected under the constitution?

Why would you protect it if you didn't have faith in it's greater good.

I don't think you understand. It's freedom of expression; the freedom to say something without getting thrown in prison.

Even if it may not me for the greater good, it still should be kept free.

Maybe it's because most non-USians are seen as "liberal" by USians and there thus appears to be so many to you?

Not that I agree with you that are more liberals here. I see a fair share of conservatives/right-wingers. Some nice, some loony, some just simply scary.

I agree with Fass. I don't really think that there are a majority of "liberals" - and actually I suspect we would have a very different definition of this word anyway.

In actual fact, compared to say 6-9-12 months ago, I think there are a lot more right-wingers than there used to be - many of whom are quite irrationally intolerant (and have very shut minds) in their views.

I think the shift towards the right is spurred on by the fact that there seem to be many more US Americans regularly contributing these days. United States is very skewed towards the right end of the spectrum in its politics. Both major parties are centre-right and right wing by the standards of most nations I have studied and knowledge about... and effectively they are the only two parties that count.

So, I really must disagree that there are so many "liberals" on NSforums.

What? That couldn't be any further from the truth.

Just because we think the media should be free, doesn't mean we put our complete trust (if any) in it.

I said trust not complete trust. This is big picture trust not looking at weather Dan Rather gices a good news report but does the benefit of trusting media to be free outweigh the bad.

I said trust not complete trust. This is big picture trust not looking at weather Dan Rather gices a good news report but does the benefit of trusting media to be free outweigh the bad.

Whatever, man. I hardly trust the media at all.

I don't think you understand. It's freedom of expression; the freedom to say something without getting thrown in prison.

Even if it may not me for the greater good, it still should be kept free.

No I don't think you understand. If we don't put "faith" (and i'm not talking religous big "God" sort of "faith" I'm talking about a "faith" that is written in the core of our laws & worth fighting to protect.

This brings to mind a quote that I particularly like:

"If you are 20 and not of the left then you have no heart; if you are 40 and not of the right then you have no brain."

Younger people are more inclined towards liberalism and socialism (and even anarchism and communist, although that's rarer) and since most people on NS are no older than their 20s most people here are liberals.

Hmm, that's completely opposite here. See most of us, myself being seventeen, are highly Conservative as are the older population. There are thankfully very few Liberals here and most of the ones that are tend to be the misguided illegal Mexican population that thinks somehow voting Democrat can get them their green card. Poor misguided creatures. Then you have some that vote for the left because of the economy. Take my uncle for example, small business owner (owns a muffler shop) and business wasn't so good for him. Take into consideration he lives in a $200,000 house, spent money on two motorcycles, a pontoon boat, and a camper, then wonders why he's in debt, can't afford payments on his house, and blames Bush and the economy for his problems. Luckily my aunt who'd never voted before did so in the 2004 election to cancel out his vote. Gotta love the system. But yeah, a staggering amount of the youth here in my town of about 13,000 are Conservative and would take a bullet for Bush. During the elections they, myself included a few times, went around pulling up Kerry signs from their places, and when we'd see a vehicles with a Kerry/Edwards bumper sticker on it we'd have a dip of snuff in and spit on the vehicle. Though I can't say I completely agree, some of my friends even keyed the vehicle which is taking it to the extreme. So yeah, instead of rambling on more about my wonderful town, maybe we're highly Conservative because we're Texan? Who knows, that would be somewhat stereotypical but true. I think our parents just raised us right.

3) Yes, I AM a conservative Republican. Yes, I DO live in America. Yes, I AM a Texan. HELL YEAH I'M A REDNECK. HELL YEAH I'M A PATRIOT! But that does not mean I am a ignorant fool, who does not know jack crap about the world around him. I was born and raised in a small town in Texas, educated by a Texas 3A Public School, and I know more about the world around me than a Harvard Law Graduate with 3 Masters, because he doesn't give a crap about anything except himself.

God bless you man, rock on. As Charlie Daniels put it, "What this world need is a few more Rednecks." Like you and me.

God I love Texas, too bad I'm an Ohioan... stupid swing states...

No I don't think you understand. If we don't put "faith" (and i'm not talking religous big "God" sort of "faith" I'm talking about a "faith" that is written in the core of our laws & worth fighting to protect.

Ah, now you're saying it's not worth fighting to protect?

:rolleyes:

-snip-

This is exactly the closed-mindedness that makes me despise Texas, and all the other "Red" states.

Ah, violent crimes, not crimes with guns specifically. Now, in that study, did it happen to breakdown the difference in the casualty report between a assault weapon crime and a non-assault weapon crime, or did it conveniently leave that out?

To my knowledge, it was violent crimes, not just gun crimes, but they may have stemmed it out to include those, as well. It did, indeed, differenciate between assualt weapons and non-assault weapons (if it didn't, what would be the point of the study?).

I'm a little busy as of this moment, but when I find the time, I'll shoot you the link(s) to the report. Naturally, you'll probably have your doubts simply because it was conducted in part by the NRA-ILA. Whether you choose to believe all of this is another thing all-together.

I think our parents just raised us right. No, you misunderstand… there is "right" as in pro-business/individual, and there is "right" meaning correct. They mean different things.

Ah, now you're saying it's not worth fighting to protect?

:rolleyes:

Sorry my train of though got interupted on this one by work issues.

What I mean is our constution is not just a meaninless piece of paper. We defend it with the lives of our people. There fore we put faith in it

To specifically put the press in. Not leaving it up to just speech & expression themselves says volumes.

Since this was fought for by Thomas Jefferson who is considered the father of the Liberal movement in America it is a foundation of the liberal movement in america

So what I am saying is liberals believe it is very important to fight for freedom of the press.

That was quicker than I expected (advice: never work in a shoestore). Here's one link in particular with noted quotes and further readings for you cited.

Up first is a general summary of what an assault weapon is and is not.


Military-style semi-automatic firearms (so-called assault weapons) do not differ materially from non-military style semi-automatic firearms (one bullet is fired for each pull of the trigger) and are no more powerful than other semi-automatic weapons. Further, a bullet fired from a semi-automatic weapon is no more powerful than one of the same caliber fired from a corresponding non-semi-automatic handgun, rifle, or shotgun. In fact most assault weapons are less powerful than hunting rifles. For example, the AR-15 which is a semi-automatic version of the military's rifle (M-16), is a .223 caliber rifle. Rifles of this caliber are often forbidden from being used to hunt deer because this small caliber bullet is more likely to wound the animal (and allow it to escape and suffer a slow death) than the more powerful .24 to .30 caliber bullets normally used in deer hunting rifles. (An example of rifle caliber restrictions are Tennessee deer hunting regulations. Click on "regulations" in the frame area.)

Next up is the break down on how these 'assault weapons' are involved in crime.


Assault weapons are not the weapons of choice among drug dealers, gang members or criminals in general. Assault weapons are used in about one-fifth of one percent (.20%) of all violent crimes and about one percent in gun crimes. It is estimated that from one to seven percent of all homicides are committed with assault weapons (rifles of any type are involved in three to four percent of all homicides). However a higher percentage are used in police homicides, roughly ten percent. (There has been no consistent trend in this rate from 1978 through 1996.) Between 1992 and 1996 less than 4% of mass murders, committed with guns, involved assault weapons. (Our deadliest mass murders have either involved arson or bombs.)

Factoid:


There are close to 4 million assault weapons in the U.S., which amounts to roughly 1.7% of the total gun stock.

General information, granted, in part an opinion of the author:


If assault weapons are so rarely used in crime, why all the hoopla when certain military-style-semi-automatic weapons were banned by the Crime Control Act of 1994? A Washington Post editorial (September 15, 1994) summed it up best:

No one should have any illusions about what was accomplished (by the ban). Assault weapons play a part in only a small percentage of crime. The provision is mainly symbolic; its virtue will be if it turns out to be, as hoped, a stepping stone to broader gun control.


Proper definition of an assualt weapon:

A genuine assault weapon, as opposed to a legal definition, is a hand-held, selective fire weapon, which means it's capable of firing in either an automatic or a semiautomatic mode depending on the position of a selector switch. These kinds of weapons are heavily regulated by the National Firearms Act of 1934 and are further regulated in some states.

The AWB's definiton of an assualt weapon:

However, current "assault weapon" legislation defines certain semi-automatic weapons as "assault weapons." A semi-automatic weapon is one that fires a round with each pull of the trigger, versus an automatic weapon which continues to shoot until the trigger is released or the ammunition supply is exhausted. These kinds of "assault weapons" are sometimes referred to as military-style semi-automatic weapons.

An example of assault weapon legislation is the Federal 1994 Crime Bill. The bill in part outlaws new civilian manufacture of certain semi-automatic assault weapons. It also prohibits new civilian manufacture of "large capacity ammunition feeding devices" declared certain weapons as assault weapons, and states a semi-automatic rifle is an assault weapon if it can accept a detachable magazine and has two or more of the following:

* A folding or telescoping stock
* A pistol grip
* A bayonet mount
* A flash suppressor, or threads to attach one
* A grenade launcher.

Further crime break down:

The following summary of police statistical surveys is excerpted from Kopel, David B, Rational Basis Analysis of "Assault Weapon" Prohibition. (Kopel's paper contains the citations for these surveys and lists a few more studies as well.)

* California. In 1990, "assault weapons" comprised thirty-six of the 963 firearms involved in homicide or aggravated assault and analyzed by police crime laboratories, according to a report prepared by the California Department of Justice, and based on data from police firearms laboratories throughout the state. The report concluded that "assault weapons play a very small role in assault and homicide firearm cases." Of the 1,979 guns seized from California narcotics dealers in 1990, fifty-eight were "assault weapons."

* Chicago. From 1985 through 1989, only one homicide was perpetrated with a military caliber rifle. Of the 17,144 guns seized by the Chicago police in 1989, 175 were "military style weapons."

* Florida. Florida Department of Law Enforcement Uniform Crime Reports for 1989 indicate that rifles of all types accounted for 2.6% of the weapons used in Florida homicides. The Florida Assault Weapons Commission found that "assault weapons" were used in 17 of 7,500 gun crimes for the years 1986-1989.

* Los Angeles. Of the more than 4,000 guns seized by police during one year, only about 3% were "assault weapons."

* Maryland. In 1989-90, there was only one death involving a "semiautomatic assault rifle" in all twenty-four counties of the State of Maryland.

* Massachusetts. Of 161 fatal shootings in Massachusetts in 1988, three involved "semiautomatic assault rifles." From 1985 to 1991, the guns were involved in 0.7% of all shootings.

* Miami. The Miami police seized 18,702 firearms from January 1, 1989 to December 31, 1993. Of these, 3.13% were "assault weapons."

* New Jersey. According to the Deputy Chief Joseph Constance of the Trenton New Jersey Police Department, in 1989, there was not a single murder involving any rifle, much less a "semiautomatic assault rifle," in the State of New Jersey. No person in New Jersey was killed with an "assault weapon" in 1988. Nevertheless, in 1990 the New Jersey legislature enacted an "assault weapon" ban that included low-power .22 rifles, and even BB guns. Based on the legislature's broad definition of "assault weapons," in 1991, such guns were used in five of 410 murders in New Jersey; in forty-seven of 22,728 armed robberies; and in twenty-three of 23,720 aggravated assaults committed in New Jersey.

* New York City. Of 12,138 crime guns seized by New York City police in 1988, eighty were "assault-type" firearms.

* New York State. Semiautomatic "assault rifles" were used in twenty of the 2,394 murders in New York State in 1992.

* San Diego. Of the 3,000 firearms seized by the San Diego police in 1988-90, nine were "assault weapons" under the California definition.

* San Francisco. Only 2.2% of the firearms confiscated in 1988 were military-style semiautomatics.

* Virginia. Of the 1,171 weapons analyzed in state forensics laboratories in 1992, 3.3% were "assault weapons."

* National statistics. Less than four percent of all homicides in the United States involve any type of rifle. No more than .8% of homicides are perpetrated with rifles using military calibers. (And not all rifles using such calibers are usually considered "assault weapons.") Overall, the number of persons killed with rifles of any type in 1990 was lower than the number in any year in the 1980s.

Gary Kleck, in Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control (Walter de Gruyter, Inc., New York 1997), summarizes the findings of forty-seven such studies, indicating that less than 2% of crime guns were assault weapons (the median was about 1.8%). According to Bureau of Justice Statistics, (Criminal Victimization in the United States, 1993, May 1996) offenders were armed with a firearm in 10% of all violent crimes. That would mean less than .20% (one-fifth of one percent or 1 in 500) of violent crime offenders used an assault weapon (1.8% X 10% = .18%).

And some final general information involving assault weapons in mass murders and assault weapons in homes.

In "Appendix A" Roth et. al found, "contrary to our expectations, only 2 -- 3.8 percent - of the 52 mass murders we gleaned from the Nexis search [from Jan. 1992 through May 1996] unambiguously involved assault weapons. This is about the same percentage as for other murders... media accounts lend some tenuous support to the notion that assault weapons are more deadly than other weapons in mass murder events, as measured by victims per incident. However in Footnote 61 Roth states: "If, for instance, the substituted long guns were .22 caliber, rimfire (i.e., low velocity) rifles (and in addition did not accept large-capacity magazines), then a substitution effect [as a result of the assault weapons ban] would be less likely to have demonstrably negative consequences. If, on the other hand, offenders substituted shotguns for assault weapons, there could be negative consequences for gun violence mortality. "

Gary Kleck in Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control (Walter de Gruyter, Inc., New York, 1997) after examining the FBI's Supplementary Homicide Reports for the years 1976 to 1992, reports "the rate of killings with four or more victims was higher in 1976-1982, prior to the popularity of assault weapons, than in 1983-1992. Regardless of the numerical cutoff defining mass shootings, there was no increase in such incidents associated with the increased popularity of assault weapons after 1984".

Dr. Kleck also states that "Oddly enough, mass killings are actually less likely to involve the use of guns of any kind than homicides involving small numbers of victims. For all murders and non negligent manslaughters covered in Supplementary Homicide Reports (about 90% of all U.S. killings) for the period 1976 to 1992, only 48.3% of victims killed in incidents with four or more victims were killed with guns, compared to 62.3% of those killed in incidents with three or fewer victims. This is mainly due to the large share of mass killings committed with arson, which is rarely involved in ordinary homicides."

Incidentally, there are an estimated 4 million assault weapons in the U.S., which amounts to roughly 1.7% of the total gun stock. (Institute for Research on Small Arms in International Security

All of this can be found right here (http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcassaul.html) where they provide scores out of out-going links to various sundry sources for their information. A well-reccomended read.

Ah, violent crimes, not crimes with guns specifically. Now, in that study, did it happen to breakdown the difference in the casualty report between a assault weapon crime and a non-assault weapon crime, or did it conveniently leave that out?

...or the % of violent crime attempts in which the target ended up as a victim, where the victim didn't own a gun... vs. gun-owners who are victims (in the home, at least) of attempted violent crimes. (or burglary, for instance)...?

guns allow people to better defend themselves and their homes/families from criminals

So what I am saying is liberals believe it is very important to fight for freedom of the press.

Yes, because it's a form of speech, which is protected.

If we don't protect the freedom of the press, yet we protect freedom of speech, that would be highly hypocritical.

We believe it's very important, because no form of speech or expression should be censored. It's got nothing to do with "faith".

Yes, because it's a form of speech, which is protected.

If we don't protect the freedom of the press, yet we protect freedom of speech, that would be highly hypocritical.

We believe it's very important, because no form of speech or expression should be censored. It's got nothing to do with "faith".
Though to be fair that is more along the libertarian lines … but for some reason in the US liberals tend to lean libertarian while conservatives lean authoritarian

Yes, because it's a form of speech, which is protected.

If we don't protect the freedom of the press, yet we protect freedom of speech, that would be highly hypocritical.

We believe it's very important, because no form of speech or expression should be censored. It's got nothing to do with "faith".

Then why make it a separate catagory? Why not just lump it in as free speech.

Why is freedom of the press separated out from Speech & expression & why is it the only instution protected?

Then why make it a separate catagory? Why not just lump it in as free speech.

Why is freedom of the press separated out from Speech & expression & why is it the only instution protected?
Sense when is freedom of speech not protected in the US?

(at least in theory)

but for some reason in the US liberals tend to lean libertarian while conservatives lean authoritarian

because it is the historic mission of the right to enshrine and defend elite power and privilege, while the left at least attempts to come down on the side of freedom, equality, and peace, perhaps?

Then why make it a separate catagory? Why not just lump it in as free speech.

Why is freedom of the press separated out from Speech & expression & why is it the only instution protected?

Congress shall make no law:

1. Religious Exercize
1.a. Respecting of Establishment
1.b. Prohibiting exercize of.

2. Exercize of Personal and Political Expression
2.a. In form of speech
2.b. In form of press (printing/media)

3. Complaints against government in form of:
3.a. Assembly
3.b. Petition

They are all interconnected operations: Dealing with personal, individual liberties regardant thereof; of the same basic premise (which is not merely inclusive; as iterated in Amendment IX); that is, protection of the people's personal, and public religious, ideological, and political beliefs and expression.

Sense when is freedom of speech not protected in the US?

(at least in theory)

I think you missed something here.
I didn't say freedom of speech wasn't protected.
I'm saying the two freedoms are separate articlesof law within the constitution.
The Peters writing talks about why this was deliberately demanded to be included as a separate article as opposed to just a few words mention about the press under the articles of freedom of expression & free speech

Yes, because it's a form of speech, which is protected.

If we don't protect the freedom of the press, yet we protect freedom of speech, that would be highly hypocritical.

We believe it's very important, because no form of speech or expression should be censored. It's got nothing to do with "faith".

Belief = "The mental act, condition, or habit of placing trust or confidence in a person, idea or thing."

Faith = "Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing."

It's odd you say "We believe its important..." and then "It's got nothing to do with faith."... The the terms are inter-related.... You effectively said "We place our trust" in the importance of the freedom of the press; and then it has nothing to do with "confident trust".

Either you trust in the principles; or you do not. Make up your mind.

because it is the historic mission of the right to enshrine and defend elite power and privilege, while the left at least attempts to come down on the side of freedom, equality, and peace, perhaps?
That or the right is trying to uphold traditions honor and respectability while the left tries to create unwanted freedoms at the cost of security and honor …

We can throw around rhetoric all day all you will get is a rise out of the right, rather then working towards an accurate description necessarily.

(I am all for calling a chair a chair but you try to give an unfairly virtuous description of one side and an almost derogatory description of the other)

I think you missed something here.
I didn't say freedom of speech wasn't protected.
I'm saying the two freedoms are separate articlesof law within the constitution.
The Peters writing talks about why this was deliberately demanded to be included as a separate article as opposed to just a few words mention about the press under the articles of freedom of expression & free speech
Maybe they just thought it deserving of a separate mention to make sure that people understood that it was included (for example if it was not there they may have an argument that only individuals have the right to freedom of speech not organizations)

That or the right is trying to uphold traditions honor and respectability while the left tries to create unwanted freedoms at the cost of security and honor …

We can throw around rhetoric all day all you will get is a rise out of the right, rather then working towards an accurate description necessarily.

(I am all for calling a chair a chair but you try to give an unfairly virtuous description of one side and an almost derogatory description of the other)

it's only derogatory sounding because the left was so successful after the enlightenment and the various liberal revolutions that the right had to adopt much of the left's rhetoric. enshrining and defending elite power and privilege is the honorable tradition being upheld, whether it is dressed up as 'freedom' and 'equality' or not.

Belief = "The mental act, condition, or habit of placing trust or confidence in a person, idea or thing."

Faith = "Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing."

It's odd you say "We believe its important..." and then "It's got nothing to do with faith."... The the terms are inter-related.... You effectively said "We place our trust" in the importance of the freedom of the press; and then it has nothing to do with "confident trust".

Either you trust in the principles; or you do not. Make up your mind.

Thank you someone gets what I'm trying to say here.

You refer to the 'Assualt Weapons' Ban and it's sad to see that you appear to know little of what you're speaking of, as evidenced by your use of the phrase "CopKiller" rounds (a myth generated by the anti-gun crowd). You do realize that so-called assualt weapons account for less than one percent of crimes, right? True 'assualt' weapons have, for all intents and purposes, been banned since 1934. Clinton did not outlaw a single machine gun with the AWB and that is a fact that Sarah Brady and her ilk cannot refute. There was no more justification for the AWB than there was Prohibition and it cost the Democrats dearly in the Congressional elections.

I will admit that I am not an expert on firearms, but nevertheless I am familiar with recent American history. The AP's weren't labeled "CopKiller's" as a myth by the anti-gun crowd; they were labeled as such by police departments, and with good reason. Light-armor piercing rounds, especially those compatible with weapons like the AR-15, are too small to be used for hunting, as your own post makes clear here:


Military-style semi-automatic firearms (so-called assault weapons) do not differ materially from non-military style semi-automatic firearms (one bullet is fired for each pull of the trigger) and are no more powerful than other semi-automatic weapons. Further, a bullet fired from a semi-automatic weapon is no more powerful than one of the same caliber fired from a corresponding non-semi-automatic handgun, rifle, or shotgun. In fact most assault weapons are less powerful than hunting rifles. For example, the AR-15 which is a semi-automatic version of the military's rifle (M-16), is a .223 caliber rifle. Rifles of this caliber are often forbidden from being used to hunt deer because this small caliber bullet is more likely to wound the animal (and allow it to escape and suffer a slow death) than the more powerful .24 to .30 caliber bullets normally used in deer hunting rifles. (An example of rifle caliber restrictions are Tennessee deer hunting regulations. Click on "regulations" in the frame area.)

Their only purpose is to kill people wearing body armor, and the only people generally wearing body armor is the police. As such, it doesn't really matter how many assault rifles are used in crime, or how many cops have been killed by AP rounds; their very existence endangers police officers far more than it does aid them or deter criminals.

Weapons like the AR-15 are in the same boat. There is no reason for a hunter to have the civilian equivalent of an M-16A2 (nor would a hunter really want one), and there is no reason why any person should have the ability to unload 30 rounds of .223 ammo in the single of pull of a trigger, for defense or otherwise. It is too cumbersome for home defense (and too easily broken to be used in meelee anyway, as any soldier knows), and easily eclipsed in that mission by a pump-action shotgun or a revolver. So the only real reason I can see for having an AR-15 is the same reason why you want to have AP rounds: you want to make sure that you kill a lot of people in very short order. As there is no reason why a law-abiding citizen would want to do that, there is therefore no reason why a law-abiding citizen would need that kind of firepower.


My view is that every American citizen has the right to own and bear firearms, as granted to us in the Second Amendment of the United States' Constitution. What part of "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state; the right of the people to keep and bears arms shall not be infringed" do you not seem to understand?


1) That view is, as I said, a fairly recent innovation in the NRA's pitch. Even 20 years ago, they were focused mainly on ensuring that weaponry would be available so that people could hunt, not that they could lay down suppression fire.

2) That view also happens to be incongruous with actual case law from the Supreme Court:


In spite of extensive recent discussion and much legislative action with respect to regulation of the purchase, possession, and transportation of firearms, as well as proposals to substantially curtail ownership of firearms, there is no definitive resolution by the courts of just what right the Second Amendment protects. The opposing theories, perhaps oversimplified, are an ''individual rights'' thesis whereby individuals are protected in ownership, possession, and transportation, and a ''states' rights'' thesis whereby it is said the purpose of the clause is to protect the States in their authority to maintain formal, organized militia units.1 Whatever the Amendment may mean, it is a bar only to federal action, not extending to state2 or private3 restraints. The Supreme Court has given effect to the dependent clause of the Amendment in the only case in which it has tested a congressional enactment against the constitutional prohibition, seeming to affirm individual protection but only in the context of the maintenance of a militia or other such public force.


In United States v. Miller,4 the Court sustained a statute requiring registration under the National Firearms Act of sawed-off shotguns. After reciting the original provisions of the Constitution dealing with the militia, the Court observed that ''[w]ith obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted with that end in view.''5 The significance of the militia, the Court continued, was that it was composed of ''civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.'' It was upon this force that the States could rely for defense and securing of the laws, on a force that ''comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense,'' who, ''when called for service . . . were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.''6 Therefore, ''[i]n the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than 18 inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well- regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.''7

from this site:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment02/


If FDR was the model Leftist, then that would be a a list of positions that only serve to expound why I list FDR as the second worst President the nation has ever known.....

You must have a hell of a set of ideological blinders to come to that conclusion. Kudos to you. . .I guess.

My view is that every American citizen has the right to own and bear firearms, as granted to us in the Second Amendment of the United States' Constitution. What part of "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state; the right of the people to keep and bears arms shall not be infringed" do you not seem to understand?


I say amen to that Colerica, I would take a step father and say ever resposible citizen, perhaps someone who has not been convicted of crimes. I say if they take our guns away completely then all the crimanals will have them and that will leave us without. Im a proud gun owner and hunter and do both responsibley.

If FDR was the model Leftist, then that would be a a list of positions that only serve to expound why I list FDR as the second worst President the nation has ever known.....

Well I dont see how FDR would be a model to the leftist, he led America into WAR and saved Europe form complete and total destruction.lol

If you read this post, read the entire post, it may surprise you.

1) Our political system in America is weird, yes. Just because your a Democrat does not mean your a pro-choicer for gay rights. Just because your a Republican does not mean your a pro-lifer against gay rights. The American version of liberal applies to anyone of ANY PARTY that pretty much believes that women should have abortions, and that gays should get married. The American version of conservative applies to anyone of ANY PARTY that pretty much believes that abortion should be outlawed, and that gays should have civil unions, not destroy the sacriment of a Christian marriage.

2) From what I have seen, Europeans are generally more aware of the world around them than Americans. Most younger Americans don't care about France, or England, or Germany, or Korea, or Australia, or Brazil, etc. They just know what's going on in the US, and sometimes they don't even care about that (look at our voting percentages :( ). But that does not mean Americans are more ignorant than other cultures. I am an American, and I for one, try to keep up with the laws of Canada, England, Germany, Norway, and Spain, and compare them to our laws here in America.

3) Yes, I AM a conservative Republican. Yes, I DO live in America. Yes, I AM a Texan. HELL YEAH I'M A REDNECK. HELL YEAH I'M A PATRIOT! But that does not mean I am a ignorant fool, who does not know jack crap about the world around him. I was born and raised in a small town in Texas, educated by a Texas 3A Public School, and I know more about the world around me than a Harvard Law Graduate with 3 Masters, because he doesn't give a crap about anything except himself.

I believe that I am through with my ramblings now. (Oh and as this may surprise ya'll, I am a journalist, quite a liberal profession I know :P).

PS:

As for the FOX news deal, it is the only conservative news station I know of. There are more that tend to like liberal ideals more, such as: CNN, NBC, CBS, etc.


Wow! I'd say a true American,Patriot, Texan. You know I agree 100% with you. I'm tto all of the above, except 4a school and journalist lol. I'd have to admit though, I am guilty on the issue of not following closely to world events,I follow the wor closely because i support heart and soul, My unckle is over there defending our country so i stay pretty close to the issue, and honestly I am pissed at At England, me having alot of welsh in my blood, id say im ashamed, I'm pissed at Germany and France,ect... I dont see why they say we have no reason being over there in the middle east, Do yall not see the corrupt government that kills there own people as bad? I certianly do. They are evil, There religion as a whole is centered around bloodshed, I'm not sayin eliminate that religion, that can not be done. But how come yall approve of a corrupt government killing there own ppl for just about anything, yet a large number of yall do not believe in capitol punishment? Please explain why yall will not take a stand agianst corrupt government. who knows, most of yalls countrys were runned by evil dictators in the past, perhaps yall do not have the stomach for war?

And by the way another issue, 90% of Iraq is glad that we are there, hows about we look and talk to the people over there that know what the majority of the ppl like instead of media twisting it to sound like were not wanted.

This is exactly the closed-mindedness that makes me despise Texas, and all the other "Red" states.

If you despise Texas, why are you still here? I don't think the local law enforcement has a gun pointed to your head saying you can't leave. You're the kind we don't want anyway, so adieu to you, just leave man and don't bitch about this great state.

HAHAHAHA! True we actually dont point guns at each other anymore, despite what hollywood leads the world to believe.lol

...vs Rightists/Conservatives? Just wonderng what y'all thought about this phenomenon. Cause I have absolutely no idea why...

Please keep in mind that in terms of intellect most random conservatives are worth any 5 leftists so in any any one-on-one debate between the factions the poor leftist is outnumbered badly unless he has 4 or 5 buddies on his side. You wouldn't want us conservatives to be unsporting would you? :D

If you despise Texas, why are you still here? I don't think the local law enforcement has a gun pointed to your head saying you can't leave. You're the kind we don't want anyway, so adieu to you, just leave man and don't bitch about this great state.

1: I'm 17.

2: I have NO money.

3: I live with my dad, who also has no money.

4: When I get money, I'll head for some place far, far away.

Please keep in mind that in terms of intellect most random conservatives are worth any 5 leftists so in any any one-on-one debate between the factions the poor leftist is outnumbered badly unless he has 4 or 5 buddies on his side. You wouldn't want us conservatives to be unsporting would you? :D

Sorry. I threw up in my mouth a little. :D

(ZIP)
...and honestly I am pissed at At England, me having alot of welsh in my blood, id say im ashamed, I'm pissed at Germany and France,ect... (ZIP)... Do yall not see the corrupt government that kills there own people as bad? I certianly do. They are evil,

I agree with you on this point. But you must see...Germany just doesn't have the army to invade the US and free you of this corrupt government...but you can believe me i wish we could! :mp5:

agreed, very nice
lets think a little before we start pewing the liberal crap
think about strategy:
Bush, though seemingly dull, has created and implemented the perfect strategy. Iran, which many would agree to be the real problem, is now pinned between Afghanistan and Iraq. Good luck breeding and exporting terrorists now.
When has Iran ever been in the business of exporting terrorists?

Ihatevacations']and? I didn't realize they were handing out jobs. Employment rate is not relavant to any form of social policiesAre you out of your mind? :headbang:

Ha ha jerk! lol
I don't take offense though. I'm the old bluejeans, pickup truck type of redneck, as opposed to the screw my sister, beat my dog, transmission in the bathtub kind. I actually enjoy the redneck jokes!
keepem comin buddy! yyyeeeeeeeee haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
What? Having a transmission in the bathtub makes you a redneck now? Where the hell else am I supposed to take it apart. Those things are messy!






;)

I agree with you on this point. But you must see...Germany just doesn't have the army to invade the US and free you of this corrupt government...but you can believe me i wish we could! :mp5:
Let's invade them to liberate them... where have I heard that before?

Well I dont see how FDR would be a model to the leftist, he led America into WAR and saved Europe form complete and total destruction.lolSince when has being a leftist meant being opposed to war?

The reason the American left is opposed to Bush's war is because it's Bush's. It was not a leftist cause to rally against Clinton's little wars.

But that does not mean Americans are more ignorant than other cultures. I am an American, and I for one, try to keep up with the laws of Canada, England, Germany, Norway, and Spain, and compare them to our laws here in America.Is it just the laws of England you're interested in? Most if not all English laws also apply to Wales, although Scotland does have a slightly different legal structure. I believe Northern Ireland has much in common with England and Wales.

There is a country called England, which is a component state of the United Kingdom, or 'Britain'. Although an ongoing process of devolution of power is working to increase the autonomy of the constituent countries of the UK, at the moment they remain a union.

England is to Britain what, say, Nebraska is to the United States - and we rarely hear Nebraska criticised for going to war in Iraq, for example.

and honestly I am pissed at At England, me having alot of welsh in my blood, id say im ashamedReally. I'm fascinated. Well, Mr Texan, would you like to explain exactly what it is that upsets you about the situation? As a British citizen I'm obviously very keen to hear your views and why this is so close to your heart.

('Welsh', by the way, carries a capital letter, as would 'Wales'.)

I think he is angry becuz it is common for british pple to have bad teeth ..so him having a lil brit in him is probably the reason he had to have braces and plus they live so close to the french its disgusting

Liverbreath']Because most of the users here are pre adults and having little real life experience combined with socialized education tends to leave them with little more than ideology to formulate their opinions and beliefs on. Also because it is hosted in the UK which is heavily liberal/socialist.
Also, because most conservatives really don't see much point in trying to convince a dedicated liberal of anything. Especially when they are outnubmered about 8 to 1.
Actually, there's probably more to this than meets the eye. There's a significant correlation between being raised in a single-parent home by the mother and leftist tendencies, particularly among teenagers with little life experience. With the rise in single-parent families over the last 20 years, it stands to reason that more of the people in that demographic would be liberal. Children in single-parent homes generally have more time on their hands, thus more time to devote to things like video games and NS. Ergo ... more liberals on NS General. :)

[ braces himself for the resulting flames ]

[QUOTE=Intangelon]Here's an idea -- and it's not mine, but Eric Alterman's.

Bill Clinton was one of the best Republican presidents ever ...

If im not mistaken, wasnt Bill Clinton(yes the fat pumpuss jackass) the democrate? Bob Dole was the republican canidate. Someone is lacking some intellegence. Hey Neo, & caddilac, im behind yall 100%

First of all, saying "Bill Clinton was one of the best Republican presidents ever" is in support of my idea that "The Center" has been moved toward "The Right" so far over the last two decades, that even a centrist like Clinton had policies that essentially furthered many Republican ambitions. It's a nod to the shift in American politics. I KNOW he was a registered Democrat -- but if you look at his policies and actions as chief executive (as opposed to good ol' Arkansas horndog), he comes off as at least faintly Republican, and certainly NOT Democrat.

Now, as for the issue of "Someone is lacking intellegence [sic]", let's just add your gaffes up, shall we?

1. "im" should be "I'm" -- both times
2. "wasnt" should be "wasn't"
3. "pumpuss" should probably be "pompous" but that's just a guess
4. "democrate" should be "Democrat"
5. "republican" should be "Republican"
6. "canidate" should be "candidate"
7. "intellegence" should be "intelligence"
8. "caddilac" should be "cadillac"
9. "yall" is generally spelled with an apostrophe, as in "y'all", but since it's slang, I can let it go

10. Don't get me started on your grammar and syntax.

And please, PLEASE don't come back with "spelling doesn't matter" or some other lame bullshit. If you're going to flame me by calling me stupid, you'd better be right, and you'd better do it in a way that doesn't make you look like you should have been talking to a mirror.

I think he is angry becuz it is common for british pple to have bad teeth ..so him having a lil brit in him is probably the reason he had to have braces and plus they live so close to the french its disgustingHmm... An interesting, if utterly stupid, explanation.

Personally, I have no problem with the French. And my teeth are fine, thanks.

And please, PLEASE don't come back with "spelling doesn't matter" or some other lame bullshit.For what it's worth, I'm delighted to find that there's at least one other person in the world who thinks clear communication is important. Spelling DOES matter, grammar DOES matter, and although it's a fact that English is, as we're so often told, a "dynamic language", that DOESN'T mean it still works just as well once it's twisted thoroughly out of shape.

I will admit that I am not an expert on firearms, but nevertheless I am familiar with recent American history. The AP's weren't labeled "CopKiller's" as a myth by the anti-gun crowd; they were labeled as such by police departments, and with good reason. Light-armor piercing rounds, especially those compatible with weapons like the AR-15, are too small to be used for hunting, as your own post makes clear here.

The term 'CopKiller bullet' stems from the myth of teflon-coated bullets and their alledged super ability to punch through flak vests. It simply isn't true and was hyped by the anti-gunners as a way to limit more American freedom.


As such, it doesn't really matter how many assault rifles are used in crime, or how many cops have been killed by AP rounds; their very existence endangers police officers far more than it does aid them or deter criminals.

One could slice through a flak vest a lot smoother and easier with a higher powered caliber than a bloody .223. The very existance of a .357 endangers police officers; the very existance of a baseball bat endangers police officers.


Weapons like the AR-15 are in the same boat. There is no reason for a hunter to have the civilian equivalent of an M-16A2 (nor would a hunter really want one),

Varmit shooting. .223 is the prized caliber of all varmit hunting. Moreover, most firearm owners draw great joy out of firing for the sake of firing. It's called shooting sports.

and there is no reason why any person should have the ability to unload 30 rounds of .223 ammo in the single of pull of a trigger, for defense or otherwise.

It is illegal and has been illegal since 1934 to use any weapon that can spit out thirty rounds with a single pull of a trigger. That is called a fully-automatic machine gun. The AWB banned semi-automatic firearms; a world of a difference between the two exists. Semi-automatic's fire at the rate of the shooter's trigger finger. One round per every pull of the trigger. A full-auto firearm fires so long as someone is squeezing the trigger. M-16A2's have select-fire capabilities, allowing the shooter to switch from full-auto to three-round burst to semi-auto.

It is too cumbersome for home defense (and too easily broken to be used in meelee anyway, as any soldier knows), and easily eclipsed in that mission by a pump-action shotgun or a revolver.

Quite true. No one would use a .223 for home defense. If a criminal breaks into your home, your best off to use a twelve-guage pump (more room for error in a handgun).

So the only real reason I can see for having an AR-15 is the same reason why you want to have AP rounds: you want to make sure that you kill a lot of people in very short order.

Already outlined by me. There's plenty of reason to own an AR-15. It's sad to see that so many people despise them as 'evil cop-killing tools' when they're nothing of the sort.

As there is no reason why a law-abiding citizen would want to do that,

I'm a law-abiding citizen and I would love to own an AR-15. Money is the only thing that limits me.

there is therefore no reason why a law-abiding citizen would need that kind of firepower.

Spoken like a true anti-gunner. You have my pity.


1) That view is, as I said, a fairly recent innovation in the NRA's pitch. Even 20 years ago, they were focused mainly on ensuring that weaponry would be available so that people could hunt, not that they could lay down suppression fire.

The NRA has always maintained that the American public, as promised in the Second Amendment, have the right to keep and bear arms for sport, self-defense, and, God forbid it, revolution (though, the last, I admit, hasn't quite been toted by the NRA so much as gun supporters in general).


http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment02/

I'm familiar with that and I acknowledge it as a sad sight to see our Supreme Court in.


You must have a hell of a set of ideological blinders to come to that conclusion. Kudos to you. . .I guess.

Nopers, good sir or ma'dam. I see in the lines of freedom, not idealogy (well, if freedom can be considered an idealogy, than you're right, I guess...). FDR did more to harm the fabric of this nation than nearly any other President. I despise him because of his socialistic New Deal that did nothing to help the Depression, his general "roads to no where" strategy with dealing with the Depression, his illegal, racist detainment of Japanese Americans as well as his court-packing attempt that, had any other President tried, would have resulted in an immediate file for impeachment. I admire him for his leadership in World War II, however, but even there he had his failings (such as a staunch refusal to bomb the raillines to the Nazi death camps, though Churchhill also shares that blame as does the Allied command, in part).

FDR was a miserable socialist, not a great President.

But I do believe we've all hijacked this thread. ;)

I figure it's 'cause most o' y'all are busy with no-load academic schedules and those that are graduates AND employed are managing Waffle Houses and McDonalds. The conservatives are busy studying science and engineering or practicing some sort of career where the day isn't measured by hours on the clock.

Or it could just be that more of you are teens and twentysomethings, who are, because human nature is what it is, a lot more likely to be liberal and intolerant of those who aren't.

No, in general science and engineering students aren't conservatives. They tend to be center to left politically because they are very analytical, but don't actually know anything about politics, so the intuitivly understand the shortcomings of political conservatism, without actually looking into the hard data. However, they are inclined to absorb the local culture, so they are quite prone to lean in the direction of whatever leaning is more popular, just less so than most people. They don't have the historical and political education required to guard against pervasive propaganda.

Those in the arts tend to be liberal because they know that conservatives despise an educated populace and try to cut the funding for such programs.

Students of history and political science tend to be liberals because they see what happens when conservatives are in charge. More so the history people because there's a certain amount of brainwashing in poli-sci that overcomes facts and still convinces people to remain conservative after going to college.

Those in economics and business tend to be conservative because they sympathize with the interests of those who have lots of money. More so the people in business, because those in economics tend to take a larger view of things that makes them realize that just because having more money than the poor means you're richer, it still might be better for you if poorer people have some money that you can earn off of them.

[QUOTE=Gymoor II The Return]

So you're saying all porn stars vote Democratic? :eek:

Doesn't Mary Carey now have an actual position in the Republican party?

Maybe that should be a joke-off in a seperate thread.

[QUOTE=Zexaland]

Doesn't Mary Carey now have an actual position in the Republican party?

Maybe that should be a joke-off in a seperate thread.

You just had to use the word "position" didn't you?

<snipzilla> ...those in economics tend to take a larger view of things that makes them realize that just because having more money than the poor means you're richer, it still might be better for you if poorer people have some money that you can earn off of them.
One wonders why this seems to miss so many so often...

The internet's full of pinko commies. Just get used to it.

Spelling DOES matter, grammar DOES matter, and although it's a fact that English is, as we're so often told, a "dynamic language", that DOESN'T mean it still works just as well once it's twisted thoroughly out of shape.
Yea...im sorry about my grammer i forgot to read the rule where it said i was suppose to give a damn wat a crooked toothed liberal brittish bastard thought

Yea...im sorry about my grammer i forgot to read the rule where it said i was suppose to give a damn wat a crooked toothed liberal brittish bastard thought

I love how conservatives are uniters, not dividers.

I love how conservatives are uniters, not dividers.
It's a bicameral legislature. The government is never united. A leftist is just as much a divider as a rightist.

It's a bicameral legislature. The government is never united. A leftist is just as much a divider as a rightist.

Bicameral refers to the two parts of Congress: The Senate and the House. It has nothing to do with political parties.

I think he is angry becuz it is common for british pple to have bad teeth ..so him having a lil brit in him is probably the reason he had to have braces and plus they live so close to the french its disgusting

The Brits aren't any more prone to bad teeth than Americans, it's just that for much of the 20th century cosmetic dentistry was seen as a rather indulgent luxury relative to it's pervasivness in American mouths. Most of white America is drawn from British stock, and the dregs of it at that, and from what I remember, in the 80's, braces are pretty much universal during American adolesence, among all ethnicities.

For what it's worth, I'm delighted to find that there's at least one other person in the world who thinks clear communication is important. Spelling DOES matter, grammar DOES matter, and although it's a fact that English is, as we're so often told, a "dynamic language", that DOESN'T mean it still works just as well once it's twisted thoroughly out of shape.

Yes, but the deterioration of the English language works well for a constant shift to the right, because if people don't know what words mean, then the discourse becomes meaningless. George Bush can claim that he's a "Compassionate Conservative" despite being neither compassionate nor conservative. Shoor inglish shud be gud n stuff, but its... like, hard.

My favorite joke on this subject.

Dear Thomas,

I want a man who knows what love is all about. You are generous, kind, thoughtful. People who are not like you admit to being useless and inferior. You have ruined me for other men. I yearn for you. I have no feelings whatsoever when we're apart. I can be forever happy--will you let me be yours?

Maria

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

Dear Thomas,

I want a man who knows what love is. All about you are generous, kind, thoughtful people, who are not like you. Admit to being useless and inferior. You have ruined me. For other men, I yearn. For you, I have no feelings whatsoever. When we're apart, I can be forever happy. Will you let me be? Yours,

Maria

I would note a few things:

1. I am a centrist. I take no sides in this debate. Personally, I believe that both sides are both right... and both wrong.

2. I am quite amused at the amount of pure trolling/flaming/ridicule. Keystrokes wasted upon internet arguments... I'm surprised Godwin's Law has not yet struck.

3. My main point. The original poster only wondered "Why are there so many Leftists/Liberals in NS vs Rightists/Conservatives?", not "Why do you think the Left is better than the Right?" or vice versa.

And yet, everyone and their sister jumped at the chance to slander the opposing party... well, technically libel. Slander is vocal, libel is written.

Did I expect anything less? No. But that still doesn't mean I'm not amused when I see it happen. I'm continiously amused that both sides are unable to work together, it just shows how stubborn and close-minded humans can be. That they are so intoxicated with a sense of self-infallibility in so much that they reject outright any other view.

Do I say you are all worthless people? No. Do I say these arguments have no merit? Certainly not. Do I even daresay that you would all be better off if you didn't argue? Perish the thought! Were we all to parrot one another, then governments would become quite narrow indeed.

I merely note that were the hostility inherent in some, no... most of these posts to subside somewhat, and then just a touch of acceptance be even grudgingly given... well... don'tcha think it'd be more productive?

Essentially, I'm trying to advocate two basic principles. To listen to what other people say and see where they're coming from and comprehend it before you strike it down as folly. Also, to pick your fights. For crying out loud, nobody in history ever had a perfect record on everything. Give one, take one. Hell, that's how it ends up working with politicians anyway.

Now, I do note that my thoughts obtain perhaps an unhealthy amount of optimism. I would blame that upon the fact that it's 1:30 AM right now. I would even go in so far as to label my words as idealism. But... is idealism really such a bad thing in small doses?

All I'm saying is that both of ya's are claiming to be the more intellegent side.

Okay... prove it. Do the logical thing. Grow up and work out your differences. I mean, cripes... the kindergardener's have been doing it for awhile now. Your turn.

There's nothing in either of your doctrines that states that both sides are mutually exclusive.

Thank you for your time, this tired soul will now proceed to shut up and abstain from the thread. I figure I've bothered you all quite enough already.

Yea...im sorry about my grammer i forgot to read the rule where it said i was suppose to give a damn wat a crooked toothed liberal brittish bastard thoughtThere's no such rule. You're more than welcome to do as you see fit, regardless of the opinions of others. That's the modern mantra, after all, isn't it? Just 'express yourself'. 'Express your feelings'. Your self-expression is the only thing that matters. And no doubt many people will accept the notion that you're just 'expressing yourself'.

Of course, you'll look downright ignorant to some - but their opinions don't matter to you, so why worry? Why did you even bother replying to my post?

Liverbreath'] Also because it is hosted in the UK which is heavily liberal/socialist.

Thank god for that!

Yes, but the deterioration of the English language works well for a constant shift to the right, because if people don't know what words mean, then the discourse becomes meaningless. George Bush can claim that he's a "Compassionate Conservative" despite being neither compassionate nor conservative. Shoor inglish shud be gud n stuff, but its... like, hard.Agreed. And here we find the crux of the matter - and that of a lot of the other social problems we face today. It's hard to live up to standards. It's hard to accept responsibility and show respect. It's harder to keep your feelings under control and act thoughtfully than it is to go with your emotions and 'express yourself'.

And we shouldn't have to do things that're hard, should we? Why should anything be difficult? Life should be easy. We have the RIGHT to an easy life, don't we?

:rolleyes:

As a person who is staunch to the Right, I've forumlated the following theories that most of them may fall in (some posters may overlap into other categories).

1) Some of them don't work or are college students. This gives them abundant free time to do nothing but sit on their computer (among doing other home-related things).

2) Some are naive teenagers without any knowledge of the real world. They've been convinced (through various sources ranging from Michael Moore to their teachers in the lovely public schools and, most importantly, to their parents) that the Left is the way to go. This also gives them abundant free time to do nothing but surf the web (as well as begging their parents for money; I applaud those kids who have jobs). This group has my pity.

3) They're hardlining Marxists clinging to false hopes and sick dreams of an over-bearing government that tramples the rights of the individual. These people tend to see things only in collective terms. I would hope that they are a minority on these boards, but I hold out my doubts at times. As friendly as I would be to them, this group has none of my respect.

4) They're from overseas. Thusly, they are, on average, farther to the Left than the common American. I can't really blame them for this; it's simply part of who they are.

5) Some are the age-old hippies, doomed to be forever stuck in the foggy 1960's, chanting about the injustices of capitalism and America and continuing to be burned out shells of their former selves (not that their former selves had much to offer in their prime as it was, but that's beside the point).

6) Some are actually honest, intelligent, decent people that, in between managing their private life, take the time to take part in a forum such as this. This group has my respect.

Flame away.
As a person who is staunch to the Left, I am about to flame away, as you suggest!

1) I work full-time.

2) Ever since I left school and started working, and ever since I have been a victim of crime I have only gone more to the left.

3) I'm a collectivist and not ashamed of it. That doesn't mean that I'm against liberty. I'm only against it when it harms society.

4) I am not American. Americans are almost naturally more capitalist for cultural reasons.

5) No.

6) Yes, this is me. :)

I don't like the generalisations people make about either left or right. Political philosophy is not a black and white definition, neither is it a linear gradient. There are too many dimensions in politics and ideology for any simple 1 dimensional or even 2 or 3 dimensional scale to do it justice. There isn't a single individual I know personally who adheres to an absolute extreme in any dimension. It is for this reason that I think politics-as-usual in the United States is flawed. Both parties bicker and argue to no end without any intention to compromise on issues unless they have something to gain for their party in doing so. Career politicians who are supposed to represent the people instead represent the party and whatever ideals the party may have. It's a pity that there are no term limits for congressmen, and the hope of there ever being one is non-existent since the very ones who would be voting on it wouldn't be inclined to limit their own time in politics.

Personally, I describe myself as more of a libertarian, although I don't strictly adhere to all the ideals of the party. As a general rule, I believe that the only role the federal government should take is to protect its citizens from force and fraud, both foreign and domestic. In all other capacities, the state and local governments should decide their own laws, so long as fundamental liberties are not infringed upon (including those not enumerated in the Constitution -- see Amendment IX)

Ihatevacations']You are far right wing because you think you have the right to control what people personally do based on the "christian" opinion of the act
Neo Rogolia is a socialist and thus left wing.

Thank god for that!

Actually I agree with a lot of the liberals in the UK on many issues. It is the one's that claim to be, in the US that make me crazy. Probably because they are not a party here, just a conglomeration of every special interest imaginable.

As a person who is staunch to the Left, I am about to flame away, as you suggest!

Go ahead, though you should realize some of it was in jest.


1) I work full-time.

Yay for you.


2) Ever since I left school and started working, and ever since I have been a victim of crime I have only gone more to the left.

You have my pity. By all means, continue to be the collectivist you are, doomed to forever dream of a totalitarian hellhole that your ilk wishes to achieve.


3) I'm a collectivist and not ashamed of it. That doesn't mean that I'm against liberty. I'm only against it when it harms society.

See above. I'm an advocate of the individual, not the mass. I believe each select person is important, not just society at large.


4) I am not American. Americans are almost naturally more capitalist for cultural reasons.

If by 'cultural' you mean 'because it works best and advocates the most freedom for individuals,' then sure.


5) No.

Rawr! I'm a lion! *throws paper scraps into the air*


6) Yes, this is me. :)

Another yay for the self-importance. If you don't think your special, no one else will. Well, maybe your mom. ;)

If by 'cultural' you mean 'because it works best and advocates the most freedom for individuals,' then sure.
No, it's because it's enshrined in your Constitution.

And we shouldn't have to do things that're hard, should we? Why should anything be difficult? Life should be easy. We have the RIGHT to an easy life, don't we?

The dificulties of life are what makes it worth while. We don't have a right to an easy life, we have to earn it through hard work and dedication. If we just sat around all day and did whatever we wanted, life would deteriorate to the point of non value. It is the constant struggle that creates a sense of fulfilment.

One of the penalties of sucess. The American experiment has proved so successful that it birthed generations of sons and daughters of wealthy men and women who were so advantaged they werer never compelled to learn the way the world worked. Eventually when tey realized life could be hard and unfair they decided to pass a lot of laws and invent a lot of newspeak to try and force the world to be easy and fair. Never having to deal directly witht he real world they actually think that this will eventually work.....

One of the penalties of sucess. The American experiment has proved so successful that it birthed generations of sons and daughters of wealthy men and women who were so advantaged they werer never compelled to learn the way the world worked. Eventually when tey realized life could be hard and unfair they decided to pass a lot of laws and invent a lot of newspeak to try and force the world to be easy and fair. Never having to deal directly witht he real world they actually think that this will eventually work.....

Actually, It seems to me that it is the Republicans/Conservatives who pass laws and make up newspeak to make the world easy...for them and only them.

Hey, don't forget us libertarians!!!

Actually, It seems to me that it is the Republicans/Conservatives who pass laws and make up newspeak to make the world easy...for them and only them.
While that's not entirely false (by any measure), the liberals/Democrats have really screwed the pooch concerning NewSpeak... It's obviously called political correctness these days.

While that's not entirely false (by any measure), the liberals/Democrats have really screwed the pooch concerning NewSpeak... It's obviously called political correctness these days.
Oh crap, we know too much! They'll be coming for us, next thing you know

While that's not entirely false (by any measure), the liberals/Democrats have really screwed the pooch concerning NewSpeak... It's obviously called political correctness these days.

I agree entirely. I've always felt that political correctness, instead of encouraging respect, is actually an insidious form of intolerance.

Harsh or untruthful words have no effect on a properly prepared mind, and that's what liberals should be encouraging, rather than circumspection with regard to word use.

I agree that many modern liberals are easily targeted with the "victim" bullseye.

I do not think I'm that type of liberal. Call me a Pragmatic Liberal.

Why are there so many Leftists/Liberals in NS...vs Rightists/Conservatives?Maybe most right wing-people are too dumb to use a computer. I think it is probably the fact that the rest of the world is leftwing compared to the USA.

Actually, It seems to me that it is the Republicans/Conservatives who pass laws and make up newspeak to make the world easy...for them and only them.

Yeah right because we all know conservatives invented, Modern Language Association, PC speach, 'hate speach', and ebonics. It was that great Conservative thinker Marx that decided to spread his ideology he had to change the dialect. Blah Blah Blah

Does anyone know of a predominantly right wing website like nationstates?

Liverbreath']Because most of the users here are pre adults and having little real life experience combined with socialized education tends to leave them with little more than ideology to formulate their opinions and beliefs on. Also because it is hosted in the UK which is heavily liberal/socialist.
Also, because most conservatives really don't see much point in trying to convince a dedicated liberal of anything. Especially when they are outnubmered about 8 to 1.

"Hello, Day Old News? We'd like to cancel Little India's subscription...

Yeah, he's moving to 'Behind the Times.'"

Liberal yes, but Socialist?

I think many Americans get stuck and stumped when it comes to socialism. They can't seem to get by the USSR concept and Marxism. Modern day Socialism is a loose political ideology, that in many issues can be more conservative than traditional right wing parties. I'm not a big fan of Socialism, but I don't consider it be some sort of evil to be avoided and never mentioned. Communism and Trotskyism are radical and innadequate ideals that should be avoided, however, certainlly Socialism can be integrated in a modern day multiple party system. If Americans and particularly Republicans consider and treat today's Socialism the same way they would Communism, it just goes to show their narrow minded opinion on what Democracy is all about.