NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm curious how our political ideologies are affected by our experience.

Well, when I was younger, I was one of those kids who wouldn't even consider giving anything to the needy. As I got older, I realised just how bad that was.

Since then, I've become much more socially libertarian, no doubt my current situation's helped that along a good deal (I'm on welfare, and if I didn't have that, I might be dead).

Well, when I was younger, I was one of those kids who wouldn't even consider giving anything to the needy. As I got older, I realised just how bad that was.

Since then, I've become much more socially libertarian, no doubt my current situation's helped that along a good deal (I'm on welfare, and if I didn't have that, I might be dead).


Ouch and in Texas no less. How does the system there treat you? And good luck with everything I'm not far off right now. :)

Ouch and in Texas no less. How does the system there treat you? And good luck with everything I'm not far off right now. :)

Well, let's say this: The system here puts you in a place that you can't escape, unless your situation helps itself.

*Bumping* 'cuz this is about the numbers, not so much the talkin'. ;)

I've gotten more conservative over the years, mainly because the liberalism that I see is detestable.

I'm pretty far from the center as far as my politics go. I'm a socialist borderlining communist, and I'm also an extreme libertarian socially.

When I was younger, I was one of those kids who supported every Democratic thing there was due to Democratic teachers brainwashing all of my class to be Liberal thinkers. As I got older, I realised how Republican politics made a lot more sense, and work better in my opinion. Now, I'm the second farthest NS poster on the top-right diagonal of the politcal compass. But I'm still under 21. And under 18. ;)

19 and sane....I mean conservative.

Well, when I was younger, I was one of those kids who wouldn't even consider giving anything to the needy. As I got older, I realised just how bad that was.

Since then, I've become much more socially libertarian, no doubt my current situation's helped that along a good deal (I'm on welfare, and if I didn't have that, I might be dead).
Wait a second... you're on welfare and you're using that money for web access? And I have messed up priorities?

33 and an anarchist.

15, social democrat, don't see myself changing politics in the future.(I might have pressed wrong option on poll not sure?)

Under 21, and proudly a moderate conservative :D

I used to be even more liberal than even Potaria. Yeah. Then I got a job. Kinda eerie how that works out, huh?

33 and if I were any more liberal, it would be illegal.

Why? 3 reasons:

1] I actually care about people.
2] I dress myself.
3] I can think and talk at the same time.

American liberal, or European liberal?

Anyway, I went with social liberal in this case, which goes with "liberal" in the US, but not economically by European standards.

Wait a second... you're on welfare and you're using that money for web access? And I have messed up priorities?
I've already asked, don't expect an answer. It's a legitimate question (considering the amount of time he spends arguing for the welfare state), and is in no way rude to ask.
I have many friends with full-time jobs who can't even afford a computer, let alone internet access (and most likely broadband). I'm wondering if there's also cable tv and more than one bedroom in his house/apartment.

I like Potaria, even if we don't agree, but this is as interesting as it gets around here on NS. It raises as many questions as Neo Rogolia comin' out as a lesbo. :p

I started out as a good little commie (by the age of 6, no less), became a Die Hard Republican by 9 (I don't remember how exactly that happened), and then was a skin head (from 12-15), and then I finally became a Libertarian. So, yeah, I changed sides alot.
The worst problem with this is that I'll run out of political parties soon enough, and then I'll have to join the United Separatist Penguin Liberationist Party of Sweden.

i'm economically liberal and socially conservative... that's old-school liberalism right there. it has died.

edit: and i'm 21

I'm pretty far from the center as far as my politics go. I'm a socialist borderlining communist, and I'm also an extreme libertarian socially.

Socialism and libertarianism - aren't they mutually exclusive? Socialism/communism involves the compulsory reallocation of wealth by the government. Libertarians see this us unjustified government interference in their lives.

While I'm on it, whats with people who claim to be Anarchists AND communists?

Sorry to sound stupid, but what are the differences between liberal and libertarian?

19 and sane....I mean conservative.
Same story here.

"Liberal" is usually taken to mean accepting of other peoples values. "Libertarianism" espouses individual freedoms, and usually includes social (i.e. the minimum number of laws consistent with a functioning state) and economic factors (i.e. no taxes other than those necessary to pay for collective goods like defense). "Economic liberals" are usually libertarian.

THat's my take on it

i'm economically liberal and socially conservative... that's old-school liberalism right there. it has died.
No sir, that's so not classical liberalism. Read up a bit on it, please. (http://www.mises.org/etexts/classical.asp)
Classical liberalism espouses both maximum economic and social liberty, not one over the other. Today it would be called libertarianism. You don't sound like either.

While I'm on it, whats with people who claim to be Anarchists AND communists?

Anarchism is a political outlook, while communism is an economic one. There is no real contradiction.

Anarchism is a political outlook, while communism is an economic one. There is no real contradiction.

Yes, anarchism's political outlook is to have no state authority, i.e. for no individual to be subordinate to the state. But the economic reality of communism is that a central authority is necessary to redistribute resources. I see this as inconsistent

Yes, anarchism's political outlook is to have no state authority, i.e. for no individual to be subordinate to the state. But the economic reality of communism is that a central authority is necessary to redistribute resources. I see this as inconsistent

That is a very authoritarian view of communism, however there exist other models. To couch it in Marxist terms for a moment, the basic principle of from each according to their ability, to each according to their need, does not neccessitate the existence of heirarchical social structures.

19 and sane....I mean conservative.
You aged four years in 3 months?! You claimed to be 15 when you first joined.

You aged four years in 3 months?! You claimed to be 15 when you first joined.

Hmmm....I'm quite sure she's 19....

You aged four years in 3 months?! You claimed to be 15 when you first joined.
DAAAMMMMMMMMMMNNNN!!!

If that's true Neo, Cthulu now pWNs all of your forum credibility. Sadly, that's not saying much. :rolleyes:

That is a very authoritarian view of communism, however there exist other models. To couch it in Marxist terms for a moment, the basic principle of from each according to their ability, to each according to their need, does not neccessitate the existence of heirarchical social structures.

Hmm yes that's true, there may be no logical contradiction between anarchy and communism, as you point out.

In practice though I think they would be impossible to impliment simultaneously. There are very few examples of "voluntary" communism consistent with a state of anarchy (communes in the Spanish civil war is the only one that seems to get referred to).

I can't see communism working on a large scale - what if I'm endowed with enormous abililty, and don't like giving "to those according to their need"? Any forced redistribution of my earnings would violate anarchism

DAAAMMMMMMMMMMNNNN!!!

If that's true Neo, Cthulu now pWNs all of your forum credibility. Sadly, that's not saying much. :rolleyes:

Heh. Claiming to be sane and dogmatically religious is amusing too.

DAAAMMMMMMMMMMNNNN!!!

If that's true Neo, Cthulu now pWNs all of your forum credibility. Sadly, that's not saying much. :rolleyes:


Well, my brother and I did start a nation called Rogolia (hence why I have the Neo now) like a year or two at the most ago...it was discontinued due to inactivity. But, 15? Umm, no. Show me where it says that, because it really needs updating.


Edit: I just checked my profile...I never even put in my age...-.- *chases Cthulu down*

I'm intrigued... What does Etrusca consider himself?

A moderate? (Maybe an authoritarian?)

Maybe he forgot that the Democrats and Republicans switched ideologies since he was a kid.

Heh. Claiming to be sane and dogmatically religious is amusing too.



Not as amusing as claiming to be sane and militantly anti-religious, methinks ;)

Heh. Claiming to be sane and dogmatically religious is amusing too.
It comes off a bit like saying "I just drank a fifth in five minutes, but I'm sober".

Although it may be true, you'd be wise to doubt the source.

I'm intrigued... What does Etrusca consider himself?

A moderate? (Maybe an authoritarian?)

Maybe he forgot that the Democrats and Republicans switched ideologies since he was a kid.

IMO, Eutrusca is vehemently moderate :p

Not as amusing as claiming to be sane and militantly anti-religious, methinks ;)

I never claimed sanity. Nor am I that militant, though I suppose my cutting wit and intellect only makes it seem that way.

And don't you know icons are sacrilegious? Or do you just pick and choose your dogma like every other Christian hypocrite? Living proof that the South needs better education... [not anti-religious, just anti-idiot]

Well over 21, and growing more conservative as time goes, the liberalism of my youth, I now see for the self centred folly it really was all along.
Conservative means you really care. Wheras liberal people say they care, but its more about their own egos than anything.

IMO, Eutrusca is vehemently moderate :p

Moderate by U.S. standards, perhaps. But certainly not by global, or at least, 1st world country standards.

Well over 21, and growing more conservative as time goes, the liberalism of my youth, I now see for the self centred folly it really was all along.
Conservative means you really care. Wheras liberal people say they care, but its more about their own egos than anything.
:confused:
What is your definition of being "conservative"?

I never claimed sanity.

And don't you know icons or sacrilegious? Or do you just pick and choose your dogma like every other Christian hypocrite? Living proof that the South needs better education... [militant enough?]



Perhaps I'm not Catholic and do not embrace their dogma? Or do you just assume things in order to fallaciously discredit your opponent like every other secular hypocrite? Living proof that California needs better education.... [dogmatic enough?]

Moderate by U.S. standards, perhaps. But certainly not by global, or at least, 1st world country standards.

I beg to differ.

Find Eutrusca.

He's not where you think he is. (http://www.iol.ie/~roto/nspolc2.jpg)

I'm intrigued... What does Etrusca consider himself?

A moderate? (Maybe an authoritarian?)

Maybe he forgot that the Democrats and Republicans switched ideologies since he was a kid.
Do not try to figure out the enigma that is Eutrusca. Eutrusca is political Zen.

He is not this or that, he just is. ;)

Moderate by U.S. standards, perhaps. But certainly not by global, or at least, 1st world country standards.



Moderate by our standards = moderate by 1st world standards. You're getting really acerbic tonight, watch yourself lest you say something too rash.

CONSERVATIVE and under 21. Proud to be it too.

Moderate by our standards = moderate by 1st world standards. You're getting really acerbic tonight, watch yourself lest you say something too rash.

1st world = countries that provide for the well being of their citizens, i.e. education, health care, environment, civil rights, civil liberties, etc.
Doesn't sound like America to me.

Unless of course you define 1st world as those with nuclear weapons, in which case we have to factor in Arab countries et al that make Etrusca's "moderate" views sound liberal... But hey, you want to live in a theocracy, so I guess you'd still be conservative by their standards as well.

My apologies for being terse; I'm reading The Handmaid's Tale. I can't help thinking how you'd contribute to the setting.

:confused:
What is your definition of being "conservative"?

Being not pc in any of my view and thoughts.

1st world = countries that provide for the well being of their citizens, i.e. education, health care, environment, civil rights, civil liberties, etc.
Doesn't sound like America to me.

Unless of course you define 1st world as those with nuclear weapons, in which case we have to factor in Arab countries et al that make Etrusca's "moderate" views sound liberal... But hey, you want to live in a theocracy, so I guess you'd still be conservative by their standards as well.

My apologies for being terse; I'm reading The Handmaid's Tale. I can't help thinking how you'd contribute to the situation.

Uhh....I never said he was liberal. He's moderate. Besides, the only issue he everreally debates about is the war.

It's not that we don't care about our citizens....We want them to be able to provide for their own well being instead of being lazy and living off the damn government. As for civil liberties, I'd have to say that we have quite a few. And I, being a minor, have the least amount of them, and don't feel oppressed at all. Land of the free indeed.

1st world = countries that provide for the well being of their citizens, i.e. education, health care, environment, civil rights, civil liberties, etc.
Doesn't sound like America to me.

Unless of course you define 1st world as those with nuclear weapons, in which case we have to factor in Arab countries et al that make Etrusca's "moderate" views sound liberal... But hey, you want to live in a theocracy, so I guess you'd still be conservative by their standards as well.

My apologies for being terse; I'm reading The Handmaid's Tale. I can't help thinking how you'd contribute to the setting.



I suppose if you keep feeding yourself leftist propaganda "literature", you can't help but hate me based on your phobias, no?

I beg to differ.

Find Eutrusca.

He's not where you think he is. (http://www.iol.ie/~roto/nspolc2.jpg)

Wow. That's weird.
This is why I argue for a 3-D chart.

Still, I'd add trace lines. politicalcompass results change from day to day, with most people, and I've certainly seen him act as far right as MKULTRA was left.

Being not pc in any of my view and thoughts.
You've described me there, yet I'm far from conservative. :confused:

29, libertarian anarchist. Which I mean, Anarcho-capitalist because Anarcho-communism just won't work.
I say that whatever the government does can be done better by competing companies.

This thread reminds me of a Winston Churchill quote (which I'll probably get wrong) "Any man under 30 who is not a Liberal has no heart. Any man over 30 who is not a Conservative has no brain."

Nice to be able to reduce the world to simple black and white statements like that, eh?

Over 21, Libertarian


World's Smallest Political Quiz:
PERSONAL issues Score is 90%.
ECONOMIC issues Score is 90%.

Political Compass:
Economic Left/Right: 1.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.54

Moral Politics:
Moral Order: 0
Moral Rules: -8
Ideologies: Ultra Capitalism/Ultra Liberalism ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minarchism )

I suppose if you keep feeding yourself leftist propaganda "literature", you can't help but hate me based on your phobias, no?

That's right... Orwell and Atwood are leftist propaganda.
They're just as evil as that Gandhi and Darwin were!

Phobias:
1. archniphobia
2. acrophobia
3. agoraphobia
4. Stupid religious people taking over the world.

Damn! You're right!

I am proud to say that I've been a libertarian for at least six years and I'm only 20 years old. I called myself a Republican when I was a child, but I didn't really know what it was and only endorsed their politicans because my mother did. As soon as I was smart and interested enough to form my own political opinions, I latched on to libertarianism instantly and I've never looked back. I came pretty close to becoming a socialist in middle school though; I think just about everyone goes through a phase like that. My brother used to be a diehard Marxist, and he ended up being the person who turned me on to Rand and Objectivism.

Interestingly, I've never seen anyone abandon libertarianism for socialism. Perhaps someone here can furnish me with an example? I'm sure someone will be more than happy to ;)

That's right... Orwell and Atwood are leftist propaganda.
They're just as evil as that Gandhi and Darwin were!

Phobias:
1. archniphobia
2. acrophobia
3. agoraphobia
4. Stupid religious people taking over the world.

Damn! You're right!



I believe this warrants a :rolleyes:

That's right... Orwell and Atwood are leftist propaganda.
They're just as evil as that Gandhi and Darwin were!

Phobias:
1. archniphobia
2. acrophobia
3. agoraphobia
4. Stupid religious people taking over the world.

Damn! You're right!
Orwell was a leftist? Read Animal Farm or 1984 again. Animal Farm was an outright cautionary tale concerning communism and its seductive appeal. 1984 wasn't really either "right" or "left", just anti-Big Government, which could be misconstrued as "rightist".

Over 21 and wandering. :D

17 years old and centre-left is where I stand politically.

under 21 and libertarian. I think I accidently clicked Liberal though.

Read The Giver, by Lois Lowry. Perfect example of why communism in its ultimate form will not work.

Uhh....I never said he was liberal. He's moderate. Besides, the only issue he everreally debates about is the war.

It's not that we don't care about our citizens....We want them to be able to provide for their own well being instead of being lazy and living off the damn government. As for civil liberties, I'd have to say that we have quite a few. And I, being a minor, have the least amount of them, and don't feel oppressed at all. Land of the free indeed.

You have access to a computer. I'll assume you were born in such a position.

While I usually consider myself a Social Darwinist, I recognize the fact that people aren't born into equal circumstances, and therefore such idealistic-realist views of "keeping the stupid man down" won't work. They only hurt those who are already at a disadvantage, whether they truly are worthless or not.

Thence, while you might have freedoms, and consider those who are on welfare (gasp! suddenly government assistance to the poor has become taboo) to be useless saps, you are in no position to judge how 1st world this country is. Why not ask the people living on the street who get written up for loitering?

I'm well aware we live in a great country. But lately, compared to other 1st world nations, the U.S. has been found to be severely lacking.

under 21 and libertarian. I think I accidently clicked Liberal though.



I guess that makes you liberaltarian :D

Ok, no more early-morning jokes for me :(

under 21 and libertarian. I think I accidently clicked Liberal though.
According to your political compass score, your mistake was more accurate than you intended.

You have access to a computer. I'll assume you were born in such a position.

While I usually consider myself a Social Darwinist, I recognize the fact that people aren't born into equal circumstances, and therefore such idealistic-realist views of "keeping the stupid man down" won't work. They only hurt those who are already at a disadvantage, whether they truly are worthless or not.

Thence, while you might have freedoms, and consider those who are on welfare (gasp! suddenly government assistance to the poor has become taboo) to be useless saps, you are in no position to judge how 1st world this country is. Why not ask the people living on the street who get written up for loitering?

I'm well aware we live in a great country. But lately, compared to other 1st world nations, the U.S. has been found to be severely lacking.


Generally, those who get off their lazy butts and work don't necessarily need to leech off the taxpayers...and before you pull that "what if they're unemployed and unable to get a job" junk on me, remember at least they WANT to work.

You have access to a computer. I'll assume you were born in such a position.

While I usually consider myself a Social Darwinist, I recognize the fact that people aren't born into equal circumstances, and therefore such idealistic-realist views of "keeping the stupid man down" won't work. They only hurt those who are already at a disadvantage, whether they truly are worthless or not.

Thence, while you might have freedoms, and consider those who are on welfare (gasp! suddenly government assistance to the poor has become taboo) to be useless saps, you are in no position to judge how 1st world this country is. Why not ask the people living on the street who get written up for loitering?

I'm well aware we live in a great country. But lately, compared to other 1st world nations, the U.S. has been found to be severely lacking.

I was born into it, indeed, but I wouldn't have been if it wasn't for the fact that my father worked his ass off before and during college (3 jobs), payed off students grants and loans (he sure as hell didn't have any help), and got a decent paying job. It's not that difficult. Get good grades in high school, attend college, and work your ass off to get where you want to be, instead of expecting everything to be handed to you. It won't be.

Believe me, I've lived on both sides of the economic spectrum (I lived with my mother for a while, who was dirt poor at the time), and now I know why you can't expect everything to be handed to you.

I am 21 and I am a Libertarian. I used to be a Democrat but alot of what the Democratic party stands for conflicted with my Catholic belief. So then I turned Republican, but its the same thing as the democrat. So I actually did some reasearch on all of the political parties in the USA, and I am now a Conserative Libertarian. I believe in a very small government, just the bare flat taxes. People who actually make money should not be punished.

I consider libertarian to be "leftist", though I suppose that's an unfair claim.

Perhaps that's why I'm being given examples of books decrying communist ("left") authoritarian (arguably "right") governments by Orwell or Lowry.

The bottom line is, whether they were warning against authoritarian left or authoritarian right governments, they certainly weren't knocking libertarianism or liberalism. And that was the point I sardonically was trying to make to a foolish little girl who wants to live in a theocracy, and who believes anything beyond her indoctrination is liberal propaganda.

Contrary to the Winston Churchill quote that some conservatives like to pull out when they're feeling mildly condescending, this poll doesn't seem to be indicating much of a correlation between age and political views. Mostly it seems to be indicating that there's a lot of young 'uns on NS. :)

Oh, and I'm over 21 (though not by very many years) and liberal.

I consider libertarian to be "leftist", though I suppose that's an unfair claim.

Perhaps that's why I'm being given examples of books decrying communist ("left") authoritarian (arguably "right") governments by Orwell or Lowry.

The bottom line is, whether they were warning against authoritarian left or authoritarian right governments, they certainly weren't knocking libertarianism or liberalism. And that was the point I sardonically was trying to make to a foolish little girl who wants to live in a theocracy, and who believes anything beyond her indoctrination is liberal propaganda.



Just the obviously exaggerated stuff, like a certain book a certain someone mentioned. We've seen Christian theocracies, yet have we seen government-regulated child relegation? If I recall correctly, generally the children stayed with their proper parents :rolleyes:

Orwell was a leftist? Read Animal Farm or 1984 again. Animal Farm was an outright cautionary tale concerning communism and its seductive appeal. 1984 wasn't really either "right" or "left", just anti-Big Government, which could be misconstrued as "rightist".
Ummm... Orwell was a Socialist. 1984 and Animal Farm, while they're cautionary tales against hardline collectivism and Communism respectively, they are not necessarily endictments of Lefist values.

Just the obviously exaggerated stuff, like a certain book a certain someone mentioned. We've seen Christian theocracies, yet have we seen government-regulated child relegation? If I recall correctly, generally the children stayed with their proper parents :rolleyes:

Oh, come now. Insulting a piece of fiction because it hasn't really happened yet is a little silly. I don't think Atwood ever claimed that any and all theocracies would be exactly like Gilead - it's merely meant as an example of the evil that a theocracy could become.

(And, IMHO, it's quite a good book, regardless of your political affiliation.)

Believe me, I've lived on both sides of the economic spectrum (I lived with my mother for a while, who was dirt poor at the time), and now I know why you can't expect everything to be handed to you.

Well... I've had everything handed to me. So I'm sorry, I guess I'm more sympathetic out of lack of experience... perhaps if I had earned it through hard work (not likely) or intelligence (damn likely), I'd consider keeping my Social Darwinist views.

Still, the other points stand: education, civil rights, civil liberties, and the environment aren't being taken care of like they are in other 1st world countries.

And that was the point I sardonically was trying to make to a foolish little girl who wants to live in a theocracy, and who believes anything beyond her indoctrination is liberal propaganda.
You're cracking me up! :D I haven't heard someone so disgusted by bible-thumping trash since Penn & Teller took on Christianity in an episode of Bullshit! (http://www.sho.com/site/ptbs/topics.do?topic=bible)

This thread reminds me of a Winston Churchill quote (which I'll probably get wrong) "Any man under 30 who is not a Liberal has no heart. Any man over 30 who is not a Conservative has no brain."

Nice to be able to reduce the world to simple black and white statements like that, eh?

There is, however, much truth to that statement. Certainly there are exceptions, but the fact remains that time permits the opportunity for one's circumstances and political perspective to change. It does tend to move toward the more conservative, at least politically.

Very few people adopt a philosophy or ideology and stick to it until death parts them from an unenlightened life. Anyone who does is generally a fool.

A majority of people on NS are under 30, and a large number are still in school and/or being cared for at someone's expense. There's a significant political awakening when one joins the community of self-reliant people who pay the taxes, raise families, participate in the works of life, etc.

For Americans - ever wonder what happened to the millions of hippies? They just helped elect George Bush. There were a great many idealists, all of a leftward persuasion, people who passionately wanted a new world. They didn't get stupid (you may think that, but you're wrong), nor did they dishonorably abandon the cause - they adapted to the way the world works for them.

Most people become more conservative with time, and most of the posters here will too. You may even become an old moderate, just like your favorite target here on NS. Scary thoughts, eh?

I came pretty close to becoming a socialist in middle school though; I think just about everyone goes through a phase like that.

Socialism was my first independent political choice during high school, after seeing what massive poverty looks like during trips to Mexico with my church. I ultimately rejected it, however, because no matter how hard I tried, I couldn't justify socialism with strong individualism and my disgust with those in positions of authority (the only good thing public high school did for me). On subsequent trips, I observed how the average citizen was miserably poor while the average government official (police, military personnel at the numerous drug/border checkpoints, etc) was well taken care of, and the individualist/disgusted-by-power side took over and eventually won.

Ummm... Orwell was a Socialist. 1984 and Animal Farm, while they're cautionary tales against hardline collectivism and Communism respectively, they are not necessarily endictments of Lefist values.



Pfft, Comrade Napoleon is always right!

Well... I've had everything handed to me. So I'm sorry, I guess I'm more sympathetic out of lack of experience... perhaps if I had earned it through hard work (not likely) or intelligence (damn likely), I'd consider keeping my Social Darwinist views.

Still, the other points stand: education, civil rights, civil liberties, and the environment aren't being taken care of like they are in other 1st world countries.

I'll give you the environment, and to some extent eduacation; but the rest are well taken care of.

Oh, and you forgot border control. ;)

Ummm... Orwell was a Socialist. 1984 and Animal Farm, while they're cautionary tales against hardline collectivism and Communism respectively, they are not necessarily endictments of Lefist values.
I was hardly arguing that Orwell was Murray Rothbard in disguise.
You've stated what I did, he offered cautionary tales about authoritarian collectivist states. I also pointed out that these were not necessarily endictments of the left, nor the right.

You're cracking me up! :D I haven't heard someone so disgusted by bible-thumping trash since Penn & Teller took on Christianity in an episode of Bullshit! (http://www.sho.com/site/ptbs/topics.do?topic=bible)
Heh, I have that episode. It's great--I love that show so much. Their PETA and Recycling programs are equally awesome.

Just the obviously exaggerated stuff, like a certain book a certain someone mentioned. We've seen Christian theocracies, yet have we seen government-regulated child relegation? If I recall correctly, generally the children stayed with their proper parents :rolleyes:

1984 is obviously exaggerated. The Giver is obviously exaggerated. The Bible is obviously exaggerated.

We've seen Christian theocracies: the Dark Ages, the Inquisition, the Puritans, etc.
Those were also times of limited literacy. They also burned books. They also killed and tortured non believers. They also had children and spouses who reported loved ones. They also treated women like subordinates. They also restricted civil liberties and civil rights. They also were fanatical and violent.

Yes, Atwood's book is "exaggerated", though it would seem that it has far more basis in the history of humanity than either 1984 or The Giver. It's not A Brave New World, it's an uncivilized old one.

I am a strong supporter of liberal ideas and social programs. I would rather help those in need than leave them to die in the streets...
MAKE POVERTY HISTORY (http://www.makepovertyhistory.org/)

Heh, I have that episode. It's great--I love that show so much. Their PETA and Recycling programs are equally awesome.
And I thought I was the only one. ;)
These two men are doing more for the American people than all of the bullshit media sources combined. Besides Michael Shermer, they seem to be the only two public figures actively speaking for reason and skepticism in our so-called enlightened information-age.
Anyone who hasn't seen the show needs to watch it. Don't worry whether you're right or left, you'll be equally offended. :D

I am a strong supporter of liberal ideas and social programs. I would rather help those in need than leave them to die in the streets...[/URL]

I'd rather the useless ones, rich and poor alike, died in the streets. But we can't make distinctions given the current government regime, so I'm with you.

And I thought I was the only one. ;)
These two men are doing more for the American people than all of the bullshit media sources combined. Besides Michael Shermer, they seem to be the only two public figures actively speaking for reason and skepticism in our so-called enlightened information-age.
Anyone who hasn't seen the show needs to watch it. Don't worry whether you're right or left, you'll be equally offended. :D
Ehhhh, I don't like Michale Shermer much. He's good in the Bible episode but I don't care much for the Skeptic philosphy. In a nutshell, it amounts to the idea that knowledge is impossible. Skeptics use reason when it suits them [i.e. in their endless arguments with religious folks] and then discard it ultimately as purposeless.

I'll give you the environment, and to some extent eduacation; but the rest are well taken care of.

Oh, and you forgot border control. ;)

Oh please, like a country has anyone besides immigrants lining up to do the dirty work?

As for civil matters, I admit that America has more freedom of speech/freedom of the press than most 1st world countries. On the other hand, we don't recognize gay marriage, and this decade certainly isn't friendly toward euthanasia or abortion. Also, since Columbine and 9/11 we haven't been all that lenient or forgiving with people who seem to be acting what those in power deem "suspicious."

There is, however, much truth to that statement. Certainly there are exceptions, but the fact remains that time permits the opportunity for one's circumstances and political perspective to change. It does tend to move toward the more conservative, at least politically.

I think the problem I have with that quotation is that it's always used by one camp to mean, essentially, "You dumb liberal kids, we sage elders know so much better than you." While it's certainly true that age tends to breed conservativism, I haven't seen any particular correlation between conservativism and wisdom (or liberalism and wisdom, either - I may have my biases, but I'm not dumb enough not to know that there are plenty of morons on both sides). A more likely explanation comes from the essential meaning of "conservativism" - that is, a position which tends to endorse maintaining the status quo. People who are 20 are much less likely to care deeply about the status quo than people who are 50, for fairly obvious reasons. Likewise, there's also the factor that most people are fundamentally selfish, and so wealthier people tend to be more fiscally conservative, older people tend to care more about social security than they do about preserving the environment, and so forth. Those of us who are still starving relative youngsters don't particularly care whether the government screws over CEOs - and CEOs don't particularly care whether the government screws over unemployed 20-somethings with liberal arts degrees trying to get a job that pays better than waiting tables. :p

A more accurate summing-up would probably be "Anyone under thirty who's not wealthy or mainstream-religious is likely to be liberal, because liberalism is good to them and their friends. Anyone over thirty who's not poor or in the Sierra Club is likely to be conservative, for exactly the same reasons." :)

I'd rather the useless ones, rich and poor alike, died in the streets.

Useless to whom?

1984 is obviously exaggerated. The Giver is obviously exaggerated. The Bible is obviously exaggerated.

We've seen Christian theocracies: the Dark Ages, the Inquisition, the Puritans, etc.
Those were also times of limited literacy. They also burned books. They also killed and tortured non believers. They also had children and spouses who reported loved ones. They also treated women like subordinates. They also restricted civil liberties and civil rights. They also were fanatical and violent.

Yes, Atwood's book is "exaggerated", though it would seem that it has far more basis in the history of humanity than either 1984 or The Giver. It's not A Brave New World, it's an uncivilized old one.



Yes, we've seen Christian theocracies: Literature, art, charity, peace, and hope. The good outweighs any bad you could ever posit.

Oh please, like a country has anyone besides immigrants lining up to do the dirty work?

As for civil matters, I admit that America has more freedom of speech/freedom of the press than most 1st world countries. On the other hand, we don't recognize gay marriage, and this decade certainly isn't friendly toward euthanasia or abortion. Also, since Columbine and 9/11 we haven't been all that lenient or forgiving with people who seem to be acting what those in power deem "suspicious."

'Scuse me, but why should we forgive those that killed thousands of Americans? That makes absolutely no sense.

And, since when is it your right to decide when to end your life? That's not a right to be given out...Same with Abortion. I don't think anyone has the right to kill an unborn child unless raped, or where the mother may die. I'm sorry, but babies just don't belong in trash cans.

Ehhhh, I don't like Michale Shermer much. He's good in the Bible episode but I don't care much for the Skeptic philosphy. In a nutshell, it amounts to the idea that knowledge is impossible. Skeptics use reason when it suits them [i.e. in their endless arguments with religious folks] and then discard it ultimately as purposeless.
I have to disagree. The skeptic's philosophy (that's probably an oxymoron) is to demand evidence before you believe. I think the world could be a much better place if we were inclined toward skepticism more naturally.

I also don't subscribe to the notion that skepticism is pessimism. Reason shouldn't waver during an argument, although people may. That doesn't make you a good skeptic, quite the opposite.

I don't think anyone has the right to kill an unborn child unless raped, or where the mother may die. I'm sorry, but babies just don't belong in trash cans.

Why make an exception for rape cases? In your parlance do they 'belong in trash cans'?

Useless to whom?

The rest of society. They're either self reliant and don't contribute, or are reliant and do something useful. And I'm not talking about things that could be easily done by machines, either.

'Scuse me, but why should we forgive those that killed thousands of Americans? That makes absolutely no sense.

And, since when is it your right to decide when to end your life? That's not a right to be given out...Same with Abortion. I don't think anyone has the right to kill an unborn child unless raped, or where the mother may die. I'm sorry, but babies just don't belong in trash cans.

Gah...I don't want to hijack the thread, but it is certainly one's right to end their own life, just as it is one's right to destroy their own property. Your life is yours to do with what you will. Seems obvious enough...

'Scuse me, but why should we forgive those that killed thousands of Americans? That makes absolutely no sense.

And, since when is it your right to decide when to end your life? That's not a right to be given out...Same with Abortion. I don't think anyone has the right to kill an unborn child unless raped, or where the mother may die. I'm sorry, but babies just don't belong in trash cans.



Oh, but didn't you know? If we were to ban abortion, the number of dead heroines resisting wicked fundamentalist oppression in back-alleys who died while trying to scrape their fetus out with a coat hanger would be innumerable in comparison to the babies who have been aborted in the past 30-odd years ;)

I have to disagree. The skeptic's philosophy (that's probably an oxymoron) is to demand evidence before you believe.

Nope: that's just everyday skepticism, rather than philosophical skepticism which holds the position that knowledge is pretty much impossible.

You've described me there, yet I'm far from conservative. :confused:

If your not conservative then your pc.

The rest of society. They're either self reliant and don't contribute, or are reliant and do something useful.

I'd rather the useless ones, rich and poor alike, died in the streets.

So, let me put this together here... you would rather that self-reliant people died in the streets?

Gah...I don't want to hijack the thread, but it is certainly one's right to end their own life, just as it is one's right to destroy their own property. Your life is yours to do with what you will. Seems obvious enough...



I think the right to death is held by the creator, not the created, wouldn't you say? Or would you rather that a father with a wife and three kids who is under stress blow his own brains out and subsequently force his family onto the streets to face untold horrors?

Nope: that's just everyday skepticism, rather than philosophical skepticism which holds the position that knowledge is pretty much impossible.
Okay, that is pessimistic. I believe knowledge is very attainable, and a healthy dose of skepticism can help you to achieve it.
What you're talking about just sounds like defeatism, which turns me off right away. Sounds like a bad excuse for being stupid.

If your not conservative then your pc.



Hey! No accurate generalizations allowed!!! :D

If your not conservative then your pc.

That's a silly statement. "Political correctness" is an (often excessive) policy of non-offensiveness. Since when is liberalism about being inoffensive? It certainly seems to offend lots of conservatives... :p

What you're talking about just sounds like defeatism, which turns me off right away. Sounds like a bad excuse for being stupid.

Hardly defeatism if it is in fact the case that we cannot know philosophical truths - realism, in fact.

If your not conservative then your pc.
Thanks for informing me! I had no idea. :rolleyes:

And, since when is it your right to decide when to end your life?

...and our conversation is over. :p

But seriously. Abortion, I can understand trepidations over; euthanasia, not so much. My argument for abortions would be that it's a necessary evil, but then again, I don't believe in "good" or "evil", so I'd just be lying.

As for 9/11 and Columbine, I wasn't talking about the perpetrators, I was talking about the people who have to get searched, strip searched, or shipped off to undisclosed locations simply because they "seem" to be guilty. I'm talking about being upset that I can't buy a katana in Japan and bring it into the U.S. anymore. I'm talking about how I can't bring a toy gun to a Con simply because some people are stupid enough to think that terrorists want to kill scifi/comic/anime nerds. I'm talking about how listening to "loud" or "bad" music or wearing "dark" or "scary" clothes might get you into trouble at school because teachers now seem to think everyone's a liability.

I have no problem with carpet bombing foreign countries or torturing people who the government thinks might have secret information, per se... though they really need to make sure they get the right people.

The rest of society. They're either self reliant and don't contribute, or are reliant and do something useful. And I'm not talking about things that could be easily done by machines, either.



If our worth is measured by our contributions to society, then I suppose all children are worthless :rolleyes:

I think the right to death is held by the creator, not the created, wouldn't you say? Or would you rather that a father with a wife and three kids who is under stress blow his own brains out and subsequently force his family onto the streets to face untold horrors?

If someone gives you a present, doesn't it then belong to you?

Supporting a person's right to die is in no way saying, "Everyone who's unhappy should go kill themselves" - especially not in the context of medical euthanasia. Why should someone who's terminally ill and ready to die suffer longer for the sake of something they don't believe in?

I think the right to death is held by the creator, not the created, wouldn't you say?

So, parents then have the right to kill their children?

So, parents then have the right to kill their children?



Did they control the entire process of development? Or did they just provide a means for it to occur?

So, let me put this together here... you would rather that self-reliant people died in the streets?

That would have been a very nice way to completely pwn me, had you not posted them in a different order. The former was a clarification of the latter. And once again, the weren't to be taken seriously, merely as nihilistic ramblings thrown into the public eye for scrutiny.

Self reliant people wouldn't die in the streets anyways, now would they?

If someone gives you a present, doesn't it then belong to you?

Supporting a person's right to die is in no way saying, "Everyone who's unhappy should go kill themselves" - especially not in the context of medical euthanasia. Why should someone who's terminally ill and ready to die suffer longer for the sake of something they don't believe in?



Would anyone willingly want to hasten from temporary physical pain to eternal spiritual anguish for living a life of evil? It is folly.


Edit: I just remembered that euthenasia has little to do with the correlation of age and politcal affiliation. Let's all try to end this hijacking session.

If our worth is measured by our contributions to society, then I suppose all children are worthless :rolleyes:

Children have potential. But yes, until they become cognizant, they are arguably worthless, which is why I'm for abortion, and could feasibly argue for infanticide as well. But that would be just barbaic and uncivilized, now wouldn't it?

Did they control the entire process of development?

More than any other living thing.

So, your implication being that a Prime Mover holds the right to death, yes? I take it you are a died in the wool pacifist then.

Self reliant people wouldn't die in the streets anyways, now would they?

They have to die somewhere (unless immortality is an attribute of self-reliance), and statistically it is likely that some do indeed die in the streets.

More than any other living thing.

So, your implication being that a Prime Mover holds the right to death, yes? I take it you are a died in the wool pacifist then.



Unless said Prime Mover authorizes or commands us to carry out His will, then yes.

Oh, but didn't you know? If we were to ban abortion, the number of dead heroines resisting wicked fundamentalist oppression in back-alleys who died while trying to scrape their fetus out with a coat hanger would be innumerable in comparison to the babies who have been aborted in the past 30-odd years ;)

Oh, but didn't you know? Abortion has been proven to be the main cause for the decline in crime? There'd be less crack whores in the first place because there would be less unwanted babies who grew up to abuse drugs and women in the first place.

They have to die somewhere (unless immortality is an attribute of self-reliance), and statistically it is likely that some do indeed die in the streets.



Self-reliant people would then be bad for public sanitation :D

Would anyone willingly want to hasten from temporary physical pain to eternal spiritual anguish for living a life of evil? It is folly.

Probably not. However, not many people consider suicide or assisted suicide a sin anymore. I certainly don't. Many people willingly commit suicide; you can't possibly deny that. Isn't that their problem and God's, not anyone else's?

Unless said Prime Mover authorizes or commands us to carry out His will, then yes.

What if said Prime Mover authorizes or commands us (by means unknown) to carry out His will through euthenasia or suicide or martyrdom?

Oh, but didn't you know? Abortion has been proven to be the main cause for the decline in crime? There'd be less crack whores in the first place because there would be less unwanted babies who grew up to abuse drugs and women in the first place.


Yes, I did know that all aborted children would grow up to be wife-beaters and drug-users ;)

What if said Prime Mover authorizes or commands us (by means unknown) to carry out His will through euthenasia or suicide or martyrdom?


Suicide and euthenasia are not the case though. Let's keep this out of hypothteticals and deal with what's reality.

Suicide and euthenasia are not the case though. Let's keep this out of hypothteticals and deal with what's reality.

Okay: you are saying that 'God told me to do it' is a valid justification for killing people, yes?

They have to die somewhere (unless immortality is an attribute of self-reliance), and statistically it is likely that some do indeed die in the streets.

Alright alright. I concede. I don't like it when people die in the streets. I don't like it when people can't seem to help themselves...

On the other hand, limited resources, limited space. Death is part of nature. People need to die. And whether it's their fault or not, it should be the useless ones that can't add anything to the world in the first place (who die).

You know what I'm arguing, so try and attack my point rather than contort my words.

Suicide and euthenasia are not the case though. Let's keep this out of hypothteticals and deal with what's reality.

How do you know that God has never told anyone to kill themselves? It's not like they'd be around to tell you he'd done so...

Yes, I did know that all aborted children would grow up to be wife-beaters and drug-users ;)

I never said that. I said that abortions have been found to be one of the main reasons there is a decline in crime.

deal with what's reality.

Alrighty then Joan of Arc: maybe you should keep your reasoning secular, then.

Probably not. However, not many people consider suicide or assisted suicide a sin anymore. I certainly don't. Many people willingly commit suicide; you can't possibly deny that. Isn't that their problem and God's, not anyone else's?



1 Corinthians 3:16-23 followed by 1 Thessolonians 5:19-22 tends to refute their claims.

Alrighty then Joan of Arc: maybe you should keep your reasoning secular, then.



Dealing with reality and keeping my reasoning entirely secular are mutually exclusive ;)

I think the problem I have with that quotation is that it's always used by one camp to mean, essentially, "You dumb liberal kids, we sage elders know so much better than you." While it's certainly true that age tends to breed conservativism, I haven't seen any particular correlation between conservativism and wisdom (or liberalism and wisdom, either - I may have my biases, but I'm not dumb enough not to know that there are plenty of morons on both sides). A more likely explanation comes from the essential meaning of "conservativism" - that is, a position which tends to endorse maintaining the status quo. People who are 20 are much less likely to care deeply about the status quo than people who are 50, for fairly obvious reasons. Likewise, there's also the factor that most people are fundamentally selfish, and so wealthier people tend to be more fiscally conservative, older people tend to care more about social security than they do about preserving the environment, and so forth. Those of us who are still starving relative youngsters don't particularly care whether the government screws over CEOs - and CEOs don't particularly care whether the government screws over unemployed 20-somethings with liberal arts degrees trying to get a job that pays better than waiting tables. :p

A more accurate summing-up would probably be "Anyone under thirty who's not wealthy or mainstream-religious is likely to be liberal, because liberalism is good to them and their friends. Anyone over thirty who's not poor or in the Sierra Club is likely to be conservative, for exactly the same reasons." :)

Good observation, and I agree that there's no surplus of wisdom on either side. The whole thing is about perspectives, what tint your sunglasses are at a given point in time.

From my lofty perch, I would offer the thought that time offers more than changing circumstances (financial, status, etc.) that modify voting behavior. Time brings experience, more opportunity for reflection on how your world works. The opportunity to gain wisdom.

Age tends to diminish passion and increase understanding, but how idealism is affected is dependent on the individual - hang on to it at all costs. Political labels, the self-identification of the individual with ideology, become less important with time. That's a good thing. Pragmatism generally increases, and largely that's positive.

Just a thought: don't become to attached to your current perspective for it will surely change over time - as it should.

I never said that. I said that abortions have been found to be one of the main reasons there is a decline in crime.



Sounds an awful lot like eugenics to me.

Yes, we've seen Christian theocracies: Literature, art, charity, peace, and hope. The good outweighs any bad you could ever posit.

For the sake of sleep, I'll let that assumption and generalization slide. But I take it you rescind your liberal propaganda comment?

Being not pc in any of my view and thoughts.
Awesome!
Being Conservative is to be offensive in everything you think and do.
Finally, someone was being honest.

Folks, I do not believe this was meant to be a theological discussion, of which there are many on this board.

Please stop hijacking the thread. Every time you hijack a thread, God kills a baby koala.

Okay: you are saying that 'God told me to do it' is a valid justification for killing people, yes?



I'm saying that issue does not arise, so why discuss it other than for the sole purpose of vilifying me? You are not a wicked Philistine who sacrifices his children to Molech, and I am not Israel, so this isn't relevant except to smudge my name.


Edit: Let's just end this before we all get in trouble for hijacking...

Quick recap:

I take it you are a died in the wool pacifist then.Unless said Prime Mover authorizes or commands us to carry out His will, then yes.

Okay: you are saying that 'God told me to do it' is a valid justification for killing people, yes?

I'm saying that issue does not arise, so why discuss it other than for the sole purpose of vilifying me?

Hang on, first you said that the possibility for God commanding us to kill could occur, and now you are saying that 'the issue does not arise'. Which is it?

EDIT: okay, nevermind seeing a hijack warnings are looming.

Please stop hijacking the thread. Every time you hijack a thread, God kills a baby koala.

Okay.

Damn: it seems like I only end up getting into interesting discussion as a result of accidental hijacks these days.

Okay.

Damn: it seems like I only end up getting into interesting discussion as a result of accidental hijacks these days.

It's the thread starter's fault for not maintaing better control of the thread.

Awesome!
Being Conservative is to be offensive in everything you think and do.


Isn't that a little harsh? I haven't heard that insulting a generalization in some time. All liberals are... all Jews are? You can't be serious.

Isn't that a little harsh? I haven't heard that insulting a generalization in some time. All liberals are... all Jews are? You can't be serious.


I think it was sarcasm :D


Edit: My postcount has attained for me the epitome of geeky male titles. I will now go and cause wars in galaxies :D

Isn't that a little harsh? I haven't heard that insulting a generalization in some time. All liberals are... all Jews are? You can't be serious.
Check out the previous quotes.
Gessler said that being conservative means "you really care".
So I was confused and asked how he defines being conservative.

And he answered that being conservative is to never be pc (he means politically correct) in anything he thinks or does.

Good observation, and I agree that there's no surplus of wisdom on either side. The whole thing is about perspectives, what tint your sunglasses are at a given point in time.

From my lofty perch, I would offer the thought that time offers more than changing circumstances (financial, status, etc.) that modify voting behavior. Time brings experience, more opportunity for reflection on how your world works. The opportunity to gain wisdom.

Age tends to diminish passion and increase understanding, but how idealism is affected is dependent on the individual - hang on to it at all costs. Political labels, the self-identification of the individual with ideology, become less important with time. That's a good thing. Pragmatism generally increases, and largely that's positive.

Just a thought: don't become to attached to your current perspective for it will surely change over time - as it should.

Oh, I agree that age brings experience, and experience wisdom. I'm certainly a great deal smarter about many things now than I was ten years ago (when I was still young enough to be fairly certain that I knew everything), and I'm sure in many ways I'll continue to get wiser as life progresses. The problem is that age can also bring crustiness and resistance to change - it seems the trick to aging gracefully is to maximize the gains in wisdom while minimizing those in what one might call "mental arthritis."

As for myself, I'm so un-labelly that I don't really like calling myself liberal (and almost never claim to be "a Democrat") despite being solidly entrenched in the left side of almost every issue, and I can't stand people who argue the same position no matter how much the circumstances change. I look forward to my views continuing to change - although I doubt I'll ever stop being a bit of a latter-day hippie when it comes to some things. :)

Check out the previous quotes.
Gessler said that being conservative means "you really care".
So I was confused and asked how he defines being conservative.

And he answered that being conservative is to never be pc (he means politically correct) in anything he thinks or does.



Isn't political correctness defined as excessive avoidance of offending an individual or group? If so, then to be politically incorrect is not necessarily to be offensive; rather, it is to deny the superfluous methods of inoffensiveness.

Hmm.. a narrow poll I think..

I'm 20.. and am libertarian capitalist (the only common sense and sane view out there I think).

Check out the previous quotes.
Gessler said that being conservative means "you really care".
So I was confused and asked how he defines being conservative.

And he answered that being conservative is to never be pc (he means politically correct) in anything he thinks or does.

OK, got it. Can be hard to spot the sarcasm sometimes.

Isn't political correctness defined as excessive avoidance of offending an individual or group? If so, then to be politically incorrect is not necessarily to be offensive; rather, it is to deny the superfluous methods of inoffensiveness.
Depends. Political Correctness as such is a derogatory term to mock the idea of not offending others.
I reckon the term has become mainstream enough to use it for what it suggests - just taking care to respect others. I don't call black people "Niggers", I don't call gay people "fags" etc.
That's what I take to mean political correctness.

OK, got it. Can be hard to spot the sarcasm sometimes.
There is little I take seriously, and when an opportunity like that comes up, then I'll seize it. :p

I'm twenty-two, and would say I'm liberal. Primarily since on social issues, I say do what you want so long as you don't produce direct harm upon another citizen or guest of your society or harm to your society that is scientifically verifiable. Economically, I tend to think it reflects poorly upon a society if there is any sort of underclass, while there is also a major gap between the upper elite and the rest of society. Suggests that societal obligations are failing on all ends.

-Just some thoughts. . .

Under 21 UK Conservative

I think 21 is a bad benchmark for a poll like this, since middle and upper class people [who, let's face it, are generally the people with computers and the time to waste with online polls like this] of this age are still in college: real world experience doesn't come from age, it comes from experience with the real world. I would have broken it up by 18 and under, 18-20, 20-22, 23-28 and 28 and above. That way we'd get a better breakdown of just what the real trends are.

For example, I'm only 20 but I've lived on my own for about a year and I've got about 2 years experience in the workforce, which is something a lot of middle class American kids my age don't have until they're at least 24, assuming they do go to school. If we're talking about age pure and simple then I guess any standard is fine, but I'm more interested in how one develops with their views in regard to circumstance and life experience.

Oh, and I don't count summer jobs because summer jobs are wussy jobs. Unless it was hard manual labor or somesuch.

30 and proudly libertarian since i was 16 (that makes almost half my live). Some things may change, but the basics (we are equal and free) don't

I am 16, and I am a Machiavellian Malthusian Darwinist. So needless to say i am a conservative. However I am simply not a conservative, but a reactionary. I also could be the second symbol of the republican party, a big fat white guy whose afraid of change. :) I have views so extreme that I make Metternich look like a revolutionary. I make Nixon look like a New Dealer. My views arise from my belief in survival of the fittest, especially whne used by Spencer to explain capitalism. But if i may ramble for a moment, political parties are a shame. Never should they have been developed they only hinder a nation. From the very beginning when TJ and Alexander Hamilton debated over the national bank, political parties only served to divide the nation. Our leaders should not run under the umbrella term republican or democrat, but as Anericans(or whatever nation). But with the money that flows through those parties this of course is now impossible, and anyone who is foolish enough to run without the backing of a party has no chance, especially in a campaing of TV adds worth 40 billion. *sigh*

I'm 22, and while I tend to lean a little liberal, I definetly consider myself more of a moderate, especially on economic issues.

I'm a 16 year old facist (not nazi for all you idiots i am so dam sick of that) meritist when you grow up with teenagers i meet you realise they need disaplicne

I´m 16 and I´m not used to speaking of this in english :P, but I´ll do my best. I´m a social democrat, i.e. leftist.

I´m 16 and I´m not used to speaking of this in english :P, but I´ll do my best. I´m a social democrat, i.e. leftist.
Actually, you do a much better job at writing in english than most of the members here. ;)

No sir, that's so not classical liberalism. Read up a bit on it, please. (http://www.mises.org/etexts/classical.asp)
Classical liberalism espouses both maximum economic and social liberty, not one over the other. Today it would be called libertarianism. You don't sound like either.

i did not say that my views were classical liberalism. classical liberalism is, from what i can see, another word for near anarchy (hobbes, anyone?). i refered to my views as old-school liberalism, by which i meant the liberalism that was more concerned with making sure that everyone was fed and clothed and less concerned with abusing the right to orgies and drugs. this was the liberalism of the first half of the 20th century, of the roosevelts. the current conservative backlash that we are dealing with now is partly a result of all of the socalled liberals of the sixties.

i am economically liberal... i would like higher taxes and more progressive taxes. through taxes i want better roads, police, hospitals, and especially schools.

i am socially conservative... i like to sit here with my moral superiority complex and judge the actions of those i deem too drugcrazed, too sexed up, and too irresponsible. that said, i dont want any government of mine messing around in my business or the business of anyone else. socially conservative does not mean politically socially conservative. that would be somewhat at odds with my otherwise extremely liberal views. just because i judge someone's actions to be stupid or morally ambiguous, doesnt mean that the government has any right to mess with them.