NationStates Jolt Archive

It seems like in America, you're either a war monger who loves nothing more than to kill Iraqi babies while taking a bath in money and oil, or you are an unpatriotic asshole who hates America.

First of all, I surely hope that not all liberals hate all conservatives and not all conservatives hate all liberals, but if that is the case then why?

I'm a conservative, but I don't think liberals hate america or are unpatriotic because they hate Bush, and I'm sure Bush himself doesn't think most of yall are unpatriotic. I also hate it when people label me as just another mindless zombie eating up everything our nazi president is telling me. I consider myself an intelligent person, I make up my own mind when it comes to today's issues, and most of the time (but not all of the time) my decisions are on the right side of the spectrum.

Liberals have their right to protest the presidency, the war in Iraq, and all sorts of policies, but this doesn't make them unpatriotic. If anything, they are more patriotic for using their first amendment rights. I hate it when I see some conservative nutcase accusing liberals to America-hating commies, but likewise I hate to see some liberal screwball accusing conservatives of being neo-nazis.

I guess what I'm asking is is everyone so extreme now that they despise the other side without hesitating, or are there still moderate people at there that love the best of both worlds?

Also, in America the two sides are ripping eachother to shreds, but is it like that in other countries? Where yall live do the liberal people hate the conservative people and vice-versa?

It seems like in America, you're either a war monger who loves nothing more than to kill Iraqi babies while taking a bath in money and oil, or you are an unpatriotic asshole who hates America.

First of all, I surely hope that not all liberals hate all conservatives and not all conservatives hate all liberals, but if that is the case then why?

I'm a conservative, but I don't think liberals hate america or are unpatriotic because they hate Bush, and I'm sure Bush himself doesn't think most of yall are unpatriotic. I also hate it when people label me as just another mindless zombie eating up everything our nazi president is telling me. I consider myself an intelligent person, I make up my own mind when it comes to today's issues, and most of the time (but not all of the time) my decisions are on the right side of the spectrum.

Liberals have their right to protest the presidency, the war in Iraq, and all sorts of policies, but this doesn't make them unpatriotic. If anything, they are more patriotic for using their first amendment rights. I hate it when I see some conservative nutcase accusing liberals to America-hating commies, but likewise I hate to see some liberal screwball accusing conservatives of being neo-nazis.

I guess what I'm asking is is everyone so extreme now that they despise the other side without hesitating, or are there still moderate people at there that love the best of both worlds?

Also, in America the two sides are ripping eachother to shreds, but is it like that in other countries? Where yall live do the liberal people hate the conservative people and vice-versa?

Well, I hate the extreme liberals and find the kneejerk conservatives annoying. I am very conservative myself, but I am by no means kneejerk and do not hate all liberals. I am American, by the way.

The problem is the the most vocal from each group seem to be the most wacked the Michael Moores and Anne Coulters get all the press and the reasonable folk don't get heard.




It seems like in America, you're either a war monger who loves nothing more than to kill Iraqi babies while taking a bath in money and oil, or you are an unpatriotic asshole who hates America.

First of all, I surely hope that not all liberals hate all conservatives and not all conservatives hate all liberals, but if that is the case then why?

I'm a conservative, but I don't think liberals hate america or are unpatriotic because they hate Bush, and I'm sure Bush himself doesn't think most of yall are unpatriotic. I also hate it when people label me as just another mindless zombie eating up everything our nazi president is telling me. I consider myself an intelligent person, I make up my own mind when it comes to today's issues, and most of the time (but not all of the time) my decisions are on the right side of the spectrum.

Liberals have their right to protest the presidency, the war in Iraq, and all sorts of policies, but this doesn't make them unpatriotic. If anything, they are more patriotic for using their first amendment rights. I hate it when I see some conservative nutcase accusing liberals to America-hating commies, but likewise I hate to see some liberal screwball accusing conservatives of being neo-nazis.

I guess what I'm asking is is everyone so extreme now that they despise the other side without hesitating, or are there still moderate people at there that love the best of both worlds?

Also, in America the two sides are ripping eachother to shreds, but is it like that in other countries? Where yall live do the liberal people hate the conservative people and vice-versa?

Well, I hate the extreme liberals and find the kneejerk conservatives annoying. I am very conservative myself, but I am by no means kneejerk and do not hate all liberals. I am American, by the way.
Good to hear. Glad I'm not alone.

The problem is the the most vocal from each group seem to be the most wacked the Michael Moores and Anne Coulters get all the press and the reasonable folk don't get heard.

Actually, I am a big fan of Coulter

It seems like in America, you're either a war monger who loves nothing more than to kill Iraqi babies while taking a bath in money and oil, or you are an unpatriotic asshole who hates America.

First of all, I surely hope that not all liberals hate all conservatives and not all conservatives hate all liberals, but if that is the case then why?

I'm a conservative, but I don't think liberals hate america or are unpatriotic because they hate Bush, and I'm sure Bush himself doesn't think most of yall are unpatriotic. I also hate it when people label me as just another mindless zombie eating up everything our nazi president is telling me. I consider myself an intelligent person, I make up my own mind when it comes to today's issues, and most of the time (but not all of the time) my decisions are on the right side of the spectrum.

Liberals have their right to protest the presidency, the war in Iraq, and all sorts of policies, but this doesn't make them unpatriotic. If anything, they are more patriotic for using their first amendment rights. I hate it when I see some conservative nutcase accusing liberals to America-hating commies, but likewise I hate to see some liberal screwball accusing conservatives of being neo-nazis.

I guess what I'm asking is is everyone so extreme now that they despise the other side without hesitating, or are there still moderate people at there that love the best of both worlds?

Also, in America the two sides are ripping eachother to shreds, but is it like that in other countries? Where yall live do the liberal people hate the conservative people and vice-versa?

It's way different in here.
We have, what we call a "rightwing" majority in the government right now, but Americans would call it "ultrahyper liberal commie pinko evil" as it's way left of anything you've got over there. Also we've got more political parties. Right now we have members of four parties in the government. (Two leftwing parties, a centrist party and the rightwingers). There isn't as great a divide between the parties because it's not a matter of two choices but many and quite diverse choices so there is less painting things in black&white, which results in less sensationalism. And usually around 80-90% of us vote.

It's not a perfect system, and like everyone else we've got assholes in the parlament (especially the centrist idiots who got us into the "coalition of the willing")...But I'd hate to have the American system.

Actually, I am a big fan of Coulter

Good to know where you stand on converting people by force and trying to dishonor the widows of those lost in the 9/11 attacks.

Good to know where you stand on converting people by force and trying to dishonor the widows of those lost in the 9/11 attacks.
hey now, let's play nice in here.

I'm a liberal. I respect everyones opinions, and usually just ignore the more radical opinions (both conservative and liberal), because they usually don't make much sense or too extreme.

I also don't glue myself to all left-leaning news stations and radio stations, I listen to both sides regularly. I think hearing what both sides have to say is essential to understanding the issue better, because if you just hear your side you'll be so firm to that opinion you won't consider why the other side thinks differently.

I also think people need to realize that just because you believe one thing doesn't make the other persons belief wrong. I am absolutely sick of people who bash others for being on one side of the political spectrum like it's a disease. Get over yourself. Everyone has a right to an opinion and you don't have to agree with it, but don't bash the other person just because you don't.

It's funny because I don't have any friends on the left side of the spectrum so when ever I'm out with them I'm the only one who will disagree with someone they all say, and they jump down my throat like I'm some lunatic because I don't agree with 'em, but on the other hand we've also been able to come to a middle ground when we talk about sensitive subjects such as politics, which is great.

Once me and one of my friends were talking about adoption and he immediately says he was against it. I not only said I was for adoption, but that I would love to adopt multi-ethnic children one day, and he thought that was such an awful thing because of the "struggles" they'll have to endure because they're all "different," which I never understood. I'm not the same race as my two siblings, and I, nor they, have struggled through anything.

hey now, let's play nice in here.

I'm telling him what she proudly announces herself to stand for. He's either gonna stop liking her or say he agrees.

I'd say many people are apathethic to either side.

I'm a liberal. I respect everyones opinions, and usually just ignore the more radical opinions (both conservative and liberal), because they usually don't make much sense or too extreme.

I also don't glue myself to all left-leaning news stations and radio stations, I listen to both sides regularly. I think hearing what both sides have to say is essential to understanding the issue better, because if you just hear your side you'll be so firm to that opinion you won't consider why the other side thinks differently.

I also think people need to realize that just because you believe one thing doesn't make the other persons belief wrong. I am absolutely sick of people who bash others for being on one side of the political spectrum like it's a disease. Get over yourself. Everyone has a right to an opinion and you don't have to agree with it, but don't bash the other person just because you don't.

It's funny because I don't have any friends on the left side of the spectrum so when ever I'm out with them I'm the only one who will disagree with someone they all say, and they jump down my throat like I'm some lunatic because I don't agree with 'em, but on the other hand we've also been able to come to a middle ground when we talk about sensitive subjects such as politics, which is great.

Once me and one of my friends were talking about adoption and he immediately says he was against it. I not only said I was for adoption, but that I would love to adopt multi-ethnic children one day, and he thought that was such an awful thing because of the "struggles" they'll have to endure because they're all "different," which I never understood. I'm not the same race as my two siblings, and I, nor they, have struggled through anything.

I think almost anything would be better than being in an orphanage, really.

hey now, let's play nice in here.

I guess you haven't been around NS General very long. Playing nice rarely happens here.

It's way different in here.
We have, what we call a "rightwing" majority in the government right now, but Americans would call it "ultrahyper liberal commie pinko evil" as it's way left of anything you've got over there. Also we've got more political parties. Right now we have members of four parties in the government. (Two leftwing parties, a centrist party and the rightwingers). There isn't as great a divide between the parties because it's not a matter of two choices but many and quite diverse choices so there is less painting things in black&white, which results in less sensationalism. And usually around 80-90% of us vote.

It's not a perfect system, and like everyone else we've got assholes in the parlament (especially the centrist idiots who got us into the "coalition of the willing")...But I'd hate to have the American system.
Actually I don't think the American system is too bad. I like pretty much everything except for the two party system. It really does divide the country too much, and maybe we could benefit from a couple more major parties. Also I think the media is leading us so far away from our fundementals. A larger voter turnout wouldn't hurt either.

I am a lot more liberal than conservative...I think. However I split down the middle on a lot of issues bouncing back and forth like a hyperactive bouncy ball with way too much sugar in his system

I am a lot more liberal than conservative...I think. However I split down the middle on a lot of issues bouncing back and forth like a hyperactive bouncy ball with way too much sugar in his system

Then you're automatically a liberal flip-flopper for life.

I guess you haven't been around NS General very long. Playing nice rarely happens here.
I haven't, but I've been here long enough to notice that unfortunate fact.

I think almost anything would be better than being in an orphanage, really.He also said that it was his moral duty to create children rather than take others.

:eek:

It's not a perfect system, and like everyone else we've got assholes in the parlament (especially the centrist idiots who got us into the "coalition of the willing")...But I'd hate to have the American system.

I've long been interested in the parliamentary system. I think it would be interesting if one or two states were to adopt it and see what happens to the political culture there. I'd never want a parliamentary system on the Federal level due to the, well, Federal nature of the US, but at the state level it could be interesting.

Liberals care about people very deeply.

I'm an American, and I would love to see a moderate party arise. Both ends of the spectrum are far too extreme for my tastes. I just get the feeling that many Americans feel that the political parties are leaning way too far to their respective ends of the spectrum.

He also said that it was his moral duty to create children rather than take others.

:eek:

... I'm trying really hard not to stereotype him as a right-wing christian bastard who's idea of "morals" is part of why the world is so overpopulated and why so many children are parentless...

But I'm kind of failing, aren't I?

I'm an American, and I would love to see a moderate party arise. Both ends of the spectrum are far too extreme for my tastes. I just get the feeling that many Americans feel that the political parties are leaning way too far to their respective ends of the spectrum.

Not really. Most just lean wherever they think the votes will come through to. I can't really think of a politician, left or right, that really speaks their mind and means what they say and aren't just saying it to get votes or to be popular.

Then again if there was a politician like that, he'd probably never get elected.

Good to know where you stand on converting people by force and trying to dishonor the widows of those lost in the 9/11 attacks.

Those are her more extreme views. I disagree with the first one (I wouldn't put in the effort of converting them ;) ). As for the second one, you are giving a broad genralization. I agree that these particular ones were using the deaths of their husbands for political gain, which I find sickening.
If you think that is bad, though, you should hear Michael Savage (someone I like even better) talk about Cindy Shame - er- Sheehan(sp?).

Then again, these are isolated examples on my part. :D

I'm an American, and I would love to see a moderate party arise. Both ends of the spectrum are far too extreme for my tastes. I just get the feeling that many Americans feel that the political parties are leaning way too far to their respective ends of the spectrum.
I couldn't agree with you more.

Not really. Most just lean wherever they think the votes will come through to. I can't really think of a politician, left or right, that really speaks their mind and means what they say and aren't just saying it to get votes or to be popular.

Then again if there was a politician like that, he'd probably never get elected.

I can think of a few. Barbara Boxer, Hilary Clinton (before she got the notion to run for President), Strom Thurmond (when he was still in office) and Trent Lott often spoke to the far end of the spectrum.

Actually I don't think the American system is too bad. I like pretty much everything except for the two party system. It really does divide the country too much, and maybe we could benefit from a couple more major parties. Also I think the media is leading us so far away from our fundementals. A larger voter turnout wouldn't hurt either.

Well, a system that works and reflects the will of the people is the desirable system. Though, actually, I think you're right: If a few major flaws were fixed and some diversity introduced, the American system would work. Maybe it's a matter of time, we have the oldest functioning parlament in the world and it's still not "perfect".

The American party system pisses me off. People act like Liberal and Conservative political philosophies are mutually exclusive.


The modern Liberal and Conservative, however, are a hollow visage of what their former intellectually well-founded existences were like.

So much so that I refuse to identify with either party.


My political views wax towards market liberalism on economics and wax towards a hybrid of liberal and libertarian views on government. In short my political views are far too complicated to be summed up by any single party or even a single platform. I am an independent plain and simple.

NT

... I'm trying really hard not to stereotype him as a right-wing christian bastard who's idea of "morals" is part of why the world is so overpopulated and why so many children are parentless...

But I'm kind of failing, aren't I?

Overpopulation is the opposite problem of the western world, my friend. And I am a right wing christian who believes in "morals," does that make me a "bastard"?

I guess what I'm asking is is everyone so extreme now that they despise the other side without hesitating, or are there still moderate people at there that love the best of both worlds?
I think the "silent majority" still exists, those who don't hate people of any party, but because of their usual lack of aggressive tendencies are least likely to voice their opinions. This becomes a problem in places like the present USA, when so few people vote that the outcome can easily be swayed by exaggerated or sensationalist stories. It's also my belief that the two-party dichotomy currently in place in the USA encourages these types of stories, since discrediting "the other party" has become more common than supporting one's own position with reasonable arguments.

It's way different in here.
Where are you?

I'm sorry :( Actually, I am a big fan of Coulter

Overpopulation is the opposite problem of the western world, my friend. And I am a right wing christian who believes in "morals," does that make me a "bastard"?

Overpopulation is a problem for the whole world, east or west hemisphere.

Right-wing christians who believe in morals have done nothing wrong - I might wanna talk to them and may find them to be self-contradicting, but they've not done anything wrong. It's when the person behind the label feels he's doing the world a favor by adding another person to it, or he feels he's serving a higher power when he's neglecting the rights of his fellow man, or when he's jusifying killing and ignoring the very morals he stands for, does he do harm to the human situation in ways he'll never understand.

Overpopulation is a problem for the whole world, east or west hemisphere.

Right-wing christians who believe in morals have done nothing wrong - I might wanna talk to them and may find them to be self-contradicting, but they've not done anything wrong. It's when the person behind the label feels he's doing the world a favor by adding another person to it, or he feels he's serving a higher power when he's neglecting the rights of his fellow man, or when he's jusifying killing and ignoring the very morals he stands for, does he do harm to the human situation in ways he'll never understand.

Europe and the US have the problem of not reproducing fast enough. This means that either they shrink or they get overwhelmed by people from third world nations, which tears the native culture apart, amoungst other things. I am a big fan of my culture, but I suppose that not everyone feels that way.

As for the discussion, I would enjoy such a thing. Perhaps later.

As for the "or he feels he's serving a higher power when he's neglecting the rights of his fellow man, or when he's justifying killing and ignoring the very morals he stands for, does he do harm to the human situation in ways he'll never understand" I don't understand what you are talking about. Could you be a bit more specific?

I'm an American, and I would love to see a moderate party arise.

Why? We already have two. We have a moderate, corporate dominated party that supports abortion rights and a moderate, corporate dominated party that opposes abortion rights.

That is the choice for most Americans. Everything else is just posturing and screaming by political entertainers and talking heads, devoid of any real substance or even understanding of political philosophy.

Europe and the US have the problem of not reproducing fast enough.

For all of human history there has never been a billion people on the planet until 200 years ago. Today we have six and a half billion, with 10-11 billion expected in our children's and grandchildren's lifetimes.

Yeh, our real problem is not reproducing fast enough.

Actually, I am a big fan of Coulter

Anne Coulter is part of that unique modern American phenomenon of people who are famous for being famous. What exactly is Anne Coulter know for? Being obnoxious and having conservative opinions. Why does anyone care? Because she has great legs, is blond, and looks good in a little black skirt.

That's it.

Famous for being famous.

For all of human history there has never been a billion people on the planet until 200 years ago. Today we have six and a half billion, with 10-11 billion expected in our children's and grandchildren's lifetimes.

Yeh, our real problem is not reproducing fast enough.

Considering their birth rates are negative in some areas, Yeah I'd say there is a reproduction issue in areas of Europe and the US.

Maybe if you actually took the time to consider the argument and read up on the facts before posting it wouldn't make you look like a reactionary dullard.

By the time we have 10 billion people the bulk of this population will NOT be people of European descent.

NT

Originally Posted by Errikland
Europe and the US have the problem of not reproducing fast enough.

For all of human history there has never been a billion people on the planet until 200 years ago. Today we have six and a half billion, with 10-11 billion expected in our children's and grandchildren's lifetimes.

Yeh, our real problem is not reproducing fast enough.

All post-industrialization nations have slower growth rates than those still undergoing industrialization, so yes, you can (and do) have declining populations in certain places, but this does not offset the effects of population growth in other nations. A low growth rate is a growth rate nonetheless. Also, just because an area has a declining population does not mean the entire nation has a declining population, as younger generations are simply emmigrating to different areas.

Considering their birth rates are negative in some areas, Yeah I'd say there is a reproduction issue in areas of Europe and the US.

Maybe if you actually took the time to consider the argument and read up on the facts before posting it wouldn't make you look like a reactionary dullard.

By the time we have 10 billion people the bulk of this population will NOT be people of European descent.

NT

I'm not sure for the reason behind the insult, nor the assumption that I haven't read up on the issue. The United States is the third most populous nation on the planet, behind China and India. No one ever said the majority of people on the planet are, will be, or ever have been people of European descent. The typical "earthling" is Asian.

You are looking at the planet as a series of countries, whereas I see it as an organic whole.

Old sailing ships used to have something called a Plimsoll Line. It was a line on the hull marking the maximum load the ship could carry. The earth, too, has a sort of Plimsoll Line, though we may not know what it is. It can sustain a limited number of people. It doesn't matter where those people are spread out across the planet. We have a finite carrying capacity.

However, if you are looking for a region with the lowest population growth rate, that would be sub-Saharan Africa.

For every 100 deaths in the US, there are 132 births.

I think it's silly to consider overpopulation as an international issue. Different countries have different issues with overpopulation, so I think solutions should be mostly country specific.

Anne Coulter is part of that unique modern American phenomenon of people who are famous for being famous. What exactly is Anne Coulter know for? Being obnoxious and having conservative opinions. Why does anyone care? Because she has great legs, is blond, and looks good in a little black skirt.

That's it.

Famous for being famous.
... she has an adam's apple. :eek:

I think it's silly to consider overpopulation as an international issue. Different countries have different issues with overpopulation, so I think solutions should be mostly country specific.

To some extent, yes, different countries and regions have different problems. However, to fail to tackle this issue internationally is somewhat like individual states or provinces trying to solve the problem of pollution on their own. Air and water know no boundries, so to solve pollution problems takes both local efforts, as well as national leadership.

The same is true for overpopulation. Although the U.S. and Europe may not have the same population growth issues as China and India, both regions have to deal with the fallout of more and more people moving to where the jobs are, creating more pollution, using limited resources, as well as the conflicts, wars, and refugees resulting from overpopulation issues.

And some people take issue with the prospect of having their country "taken over" by people who were born elsewhere. And so while it is great that you see the world as an "organic whole" this is no excuse for ignorance of another's argument or purposefully ignoring the meaning of another's argument which ever it is you are guilty of.

The person specifically said in the United States and Europe. Not Asia.



Perhaps the reason for people's "objections" is that most of the immigrants into the already wealthy nations are not themselves wealthy, and in many cases contribute very little towards the nation's scientific or economic progress. You don't see many investment types emigrating or immigrating, afterall.


But despite the underlying classism at the heart of this sort of view it does have a utilitarian reasoning that it can claim as its basis. If there is more money being spent on welfare individuals than being paid in taxes from gainfully employed individuals, then the government goes bankrupt. So while it is all well and good seeing the world as an "organic whole:" it just doesn't address the realities of modern international politics and economics.

NT

To some extent, yes, different countries and regions have different problems. However, to fail to tackle this issue internationally is somewhat like individual states or provinces trying to solve the problem of pollution on their own. Air and water know no boundries, so to solve pollution problems takes both local efforts, as well as national leadership.

The same is true for overpopulation. Although the U.S. and Europe may not have the same population growth issues as China and India, both regions have to deal with the fallout of more and more people moving to where the jobs are, creating more pollution, using limited resources, as well as the conflicts, wars, and refugees resulting from overpopulation issues.
I didn't mean that other countries shouldn't participate in it as an international effort, I just mean that what works for one country won't necessarily work for another county.

Anne Coulter is part of that unique modern American phenomenon of people who are famous for being famous. What exactly is Anne Coulter know for? Being obnoxious and having conservative opinions. Why does anyone care? Because she has great legs, is blond, and looks good in a little black skirt.

That's it.

Famous for being famous.


Really? I never knew that. I always saw her as the person who wrote some books that I like . . .

I think it's silly to consider overpopulation as an international issue. Different countries have different issues with overpopulation, so I think solutions should be mostly country specific.

To a large degree, yes. Overpopulation has much to do with a nation's cultural beliefs with regard to sexuality, birth, and death. It has to do with the quality and quantity of resources a nation has, and the national policies (one example would be in the area of healthcare) that affect both those resources and the people's sexual activity, birth rates, and deathrates. But it's also the case that international trade can have an impact on overpopulation. If a certain nation needs to supplement its resources by trading with other nation so it can maintain its population, that's partially an international issue. Though to be fair, it could probably be said that it's an international issue related to overpopulation is some cases, rather than that overpopulation is an international issue by itself.

So am I liberal or conservative? :)

And some people take issue with the prospect of having their country "taken over" by people who were born elsewhere. And so while it is great that you see the world as an "organic whole" this is no excuse for ignorance of another's argument or purposefully ignoring the meaning of another's argument which ever it is you are guilty of.

The person specifically said in the United States and Europe. Not Asia.

NT

Look, we can discuss or not. Continue to offer insults and it will be not.

I understand the person implied a problem with slower growth in Europe and the United States. My response was/is that the entire planet is experiencing overpopulation, although at different rates in different regions. Just because U.S. and European populations are growing at a slower rate than Asia does not mean the solution to overpopulation is for Americans and Europeans to have larger families.

To a large degree, yes. Overpopulation has much to do with a nation's cultural beliefs with regard to sexuality, birth, and death. It has to do with the quality and quantity of resources a nation has, and the national policies (one example would be in the area of healthcare) that affect both those resources and the people's sexual activity, birth rates, and deathrates. But it's also the case that international trade can have an impact on overpopulation. If a certain nation needs to supplement its resources by trading with other nation so it can maintain its population, that's partially an international issue. Though to be fair, it could probably be said that it's an international issue related to overpopulation is some cases, rather than that overpopulation is an international issue by itself.

So am I liberal or conservative? :)

Well, I agree with you, so in most circumstances that would mean that you are a conservative. However, this is not that sort of issue.

For me, the defining issue of the differences between "liberal" and "conservative" would be socialism. Does the government owning industries seem good to you?

To a large degree, yes. Overpopulation has much to do with a nation's cultural beliefs with regard to sexuality, birth, and death. It has to do with the quality and quantity of resources a nation has, and the national policies (one example would be in the area of healthcare) that affect both those resources and the people's sexual activity, birth rates, and deathrates. But it's also the case that international trade can have an impact on overpopulation. If a certain nation needs to supplement its resources by trading with other nation so it can maintain its population, that's partially an international issue. Though to be fair, it could probably be said that it's an international issue related to overpopulation is some cases, rather than that overpopulation is an international issue by itself.
See my post above.

So am I liberal or conservative? :)
Neither, you're intelligent.

You forget things like guns taxes the war.. yeah we desperatly need a centerist party. What existing party is pro choice and pro gun?


Why? We already have two. We have a moderate, corporate dominated party that supports abortion rights and a moderate, corporate dominated party that opposes abortion rights.

That is the choice for most Americans. Everything else is just posturing and screaming by political entertainers and talking heads, devoid of any real substance or even understanding of political philosophy.

You're right the problem of overpopulation won't be solved by the US and Europe breeding faster, but that isn't what the person was talking about. The person involved was specifically referencing the problem of the US and Europe not breeding fast enough, and that is an issue separate from that of world over-population.


Either the human race moves out into space or India and China stop breeding so much. Could be solved with a World War, but I don't think anybody wants that.


Of course I'm not so naive as to think that a Malthusian correction is due any time soon, so if you want to talk solutions to over-population, then you have your options above.

NT

You forget things like guns taxes the war.. yeah we desperatly need a centerist party. What existing party is pro choice and pro gun?
The party of ME!

You forget things like guns taxes the war.. yeah we desperatly need a centerist party. What existing party is pro choice and pro gun?

The issue with guns, ie: disarming the people, is putting more power into the hands of the government. Taxes is the same. The war is a little more complicated, but it still fits into the basic framework. I could try and outline it, but that would get me third degree burns covering most of my body from flaming, and I have no desire for that.

You forget things like guns taxes the war.. yeah we desperatly need a centerist party. What existing party is pro choice and pro gun?

Guns, taxes, the war? Democrats have towed the line for Bush on all those issues. What is it the comedian Lewis Black said about Republicans and Democrats? Republicans are the party of bad ideas and Democrats are the party of no ideas.

Guns, taxes, the war? Democrats have towed the line for Bush on all those issues. What is it the comedian Lewis Black said about Republicans and Democrats? Republicans are the party of bad ideas and Democrats are the party of no ideas.

I would actually flip that, but ok

You forget things like guns taxes the war.. yeah we desperatly need a centerist party. What existing party is pro choice and pro gun?


Democrats from Wyoming. Everybody in Wyoming goes for guns, and its hard to be Democrat without being pro-choice.

So now you know.

NT

Democrats from Wyoming. Everybody in Wyoming goes for guns, and its hard to be Democrat without being pro-choice.

So now you know.

NTWyoming exist? It's actually there and not a figment of my imagination? :eek:

Amazing...

I would actually flip that, but ok

Errikland is a great person, who believes in God and loves his family, helps the poor, tutors children, and is an all around good guy?

Were you in the armed forces?

For me, the defining issue of the differences between "liberal" and "conservative" would be socialism. Does the government owning industries seem good to you?

That is only looking at the economic aspect, and not even in its whole. Not all liberals support government owned industry, likewise not all conservatives support a totally lazzie-faire market. That is a split more between socialism-capitalism, while I see the main split in today's political parties as being political - dependent on social issues - while still agreeing on a moderately capitalist economic system. You don’t see many Conservatives who support the abolishment of Welfare or Social Security, or Liberals who believe the government should collectivize the nation’s farmland.

Democrats from Wyoming. Everybody in Wyoming goes for guns, and its hard to be Democrat without being pro-choice.

So now you know.

NT
We love our guns in Texas, too.

Errikland is a great person, who believes in God and loves his family, helps the poor, tutors children, and is an all around good guy?

Were you in the armed forces?

That is a bit random. I am too young be in the armed forces, do that much for the poor, or tutor much. I do believe in God and love my family, and like to think of myself as an all around good person . . .

Why? :rolleyes:

Well, I agree with you, so in most circumstances that would mean that you are a conservative. However, this is not that sort of issue.

Very true. :)

For me, the defining issue of the differences between "liberal" and "conservative" would be socialism.

Interesting. I usually take a very holistic look at a set of political beliefs before determining where it would fall on the spectrum (or in my case, somewhere off the chart ;) ) rather than making the determination based on a person's take on a single issue, even a critical issue like the overall national economic system.

Does the government owning industries seem good to you?

Not in general, no. But there may be cases in which it would be. In looking at a particular nation and deciding my position on its economic system, I ask a lot of questions. What are the current economic circumstances of the nation and it's neighbors? Does the economic system in place function as well as it should, and why? Does the culture support and reinforce the current economic system? Does the current economic system have a record of succeeding in improving the overall quality of life for the nation's people? What changes could be made, and in what sectors, to make the economy more effective? And so on. Depending on the answers to those questions, I may conclude that socialism is the best option for a particular nation.

For me, the defining issue of the differences between "liberal" and "conservative" would be socialism.

I agree. Modern Conservative Republicans believe in socialism for the wealthy and capitalism for the poor and middle class.

See my post above.

Neither, you're intelligent.

Ha! Exactly what I was going for. Thanks. :)

Though, if you do want to see my position on various issues, the NS Player Profiles may be a good place to look. :cool:

That is only looking at the economic aspect, and not even in its whole. Not all liberals support government owned industry, likewise not all conservatives support a totally lazzie-faire market. That is a split more between socialism-capitalism, while I see the main split in today's political parties as being political - dependent on social issues - while still agreeing on a moderately capitalist economic system. You don’t see many Conservatives who support the abolishment of Welfare or Social Security, or Liberals who believe the government should collectivize the nation’s farmland.

That is because they are caught up in the various distraction issues that seem to have little to do with it. Then again, perhaps I am just too pragmatic to understand anything other than the economic aspects as being important.
I would like to see more conservatives who support the abolishment of welfare and social security, and I see liberals as inching us continually more and more socialist, a less extreme version of your collectivization of farmland.

Of course, your argument was based on the idea that all of the major liberals and conservatives are the most extreme examples. Heck, even I don't support completely laissez-faire (I can never spell that) policies, though I am pretty close.

That is a bit random. I am too young be in the armed forces, do that much for the poor, or tutor much. I do believe in God and love my family, and like to think of myself as an all around good person . . .

Why? :rolleyes:

You are a very good person. What do you mean too young. How can a young person like Coulter?

You should do a bit more for the poor, like visit a nursing home, if you can. But don't worry about it for now.

Famous quote: Youth is not a time for pleasure, it is a time for heroism!

You are a very good person. What do you mean too young. How can a young person like Coulter?

You should do a bit more for the poor, like visit a nursing home, if you can. But don't worry about it for now.

Famous quote: Youth is not a time for pleasure, it is a time for heroism!

Thank you for the compliment.
I read Slander when I was 13.

And I really like that quote. Who said it?

You are a very good person. What do you mean too young. How can a young person like Coulter?

You should do a bit more for the poor, like visit a nursing home, if you can. But don't worry about it for now.

Famous quote: Youth is not a time for pleasure, it is a time for heroism!
I like the quote "youth is wasted on the young." I'm young, but I still think it's funny.

haha, sorry, a bit off-topic.

laissez-faire (I can never spell that)
You are not alone. :(

Thank you for the compliment.
I read Slander when I was 13.

And I really like that quote. Who said it?

Paul Claudel

You are not alone. :(

Thank you, that is comforting. Though it bothers me as it is one of my main policies, so not being able to spell it is a problem :s

I finally found the quote by one of my favorite historical figures that applies to the discussion about the American system of government (and how much it sucks) that went on earlier:
"It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried"

I also found the one that pertains to the question:
How can a young person like Coulter?

Here we go:
“Any 20 year-old who isn't a liberal doesn't have a heart, and any 40 year-old who isn't a conservative doesn't have a brain.”

hehe

Of course, your argument was based on the idea that all of the major liberals and conservatives are the most extreme examples. Heck, even I don't support completely laissez-faire (I can never spell that) policies, though I am pretty close.

You should be completely laissez-faire, you are already so smart as it is. But if you are from the South, where cultural issues are more paramount, it is perfectly acceptable. You just have to get yourself Free to Choose by Milton Friedman, it will get you on board.

You should be completely laissez-faire, you are already so smart as it is. But if you are from the South, where cultural issues are more paramount, it is perfectly acceptable. You just have to get yourself Free to Choose by Milton Friedman, it will get you on board.

Thank you yet again, but here is where I break away from completely laissez-faire: monopolies/oligopolies(sp?). They are the achilles heel of capitalism, and are, in my opinion, one of the few reasons that any non-military part of the government needs to exist. Still, we should be cautious that the government does not abuse this power.

Ironically, this is one of the few things that the government actually should be doing, but it isn't. Just look at the oil companies.

I'm not completely laissez-faire, and I'm probably less laissez-faire than Errikland, as I do believe in some government regulation.

Thank you yet again, but here is where I break away from completely laissez-faire: monopolies/oligopolies(sp?). They are the achilles heel of capitalism, and are, in my opinion, one of the few reasons that any non-military part of the government needs to exist. Still, we should be cautious that the government does not abuse this power.

Ironically, this is one of the few things that the government actually should be doing, but it isn't. Just look at the oil companies.
But the oil industry is so expensive to get in to, and the profits so enormous, it's hard for it not to become an oligopoly.

When it comes to the government being involved in industry, I see them as a step worse than a business with a monopoly. If a private business has a monopoly on anything other than food (a very difficult thing to have a monopoly on [believe me, I've tried ;)]), the consumer can always still say, "Screw them, I'll go without it." That's definately a bad situation, but nothing compared to when the government has the industry. Even if you decide not to use the thing in question at all, they still charge you for it at gunpoint.

(Yes, at gunpoint: you don't pay taxes, they come to reposses your stuff or whatever. You resist, they come back and take it from you at gunpoint. Thus, all taxes are taken at gunpoint. :D)

Ironically, this is one of the few things that the government actually should be doing, but it isn't. Just look at the oil companies.
What are you talking about? There is still more than one oil company, and surely they wouldn't be in secret agreement to keep the price of a vital natural resource at inflated levels.

laissez-faire
Is that it? The long sought after correct spelling? Praise the heavens if it is!

But the oil industry is so expensive to get in to, and the profits so enormous, it's hard for it not to become an oligopoly.

I know, that's why it is tricky. Still, they are actively shutting down refineries in a time when they should be opening up as much as they can to sell more of their product. Admittedly, some of the blame can be given to the Eco-nazis, but not all. If there was a truely competitive system, then they would be opening all that they could in order to drive down their costs in producing it, thus advance profits while competeing with prices to the gas stations (or whoever is in between).

What are you talking about? There is still more than one oil company, and surely they wouldn't be in secret agreement to keep the price of a vital natural resource at inflated levels.

Is that it? The long sought after correct spelling? Praise the heavens if it is!

1. That's what an oligopoly(sp?) is.

2. God I hope so. A friend of mine is taking French, and he says that it is a very hard language to spell. That means that we aren't just stupid :D

1. That's what an oligopoly(sp?) is.

2. God I hope so. A friend of mine is taking French, and he says that it is a very hard language to spell. That means that we aren't just stupid :D

No you aren't stupid. But beware of taking any economic advice from this Forum, it is heavily leftist, not just Democrat, but Marxist-Leninist.

Have you been studying your Reagan?

I know, that's why it is tricky. Still, they are actively shutting down refineries in a time when they should be opening up as much as they can to sell more of their product. Admittedly, some of the blame can be given to the Eco-nazis, but not all. If there was a truely competitive system, then they would be opening all that they could in order to drive down their costs in producing it, thus advance profits while competeing with prices to the gas stations (or whoever is in between).
Are they really shutting down more refineries? I sure hope not. I do know that a lot of the oil companies are updating their refineries, a very expensive and long-needed process. I think my mom was saying they haven't been updated in something like 15-20 years? maybe less, I don't remember exactly, but it's long overdue. I've seen problems with refineries (mostly explosions) all over the local news recently.

Are they really shutting down more refineries? I sure hope not. I do know that a lot of the oil companies are updating their refineries, a very expensive and long-needed process. I think my mom was saying they haven't been updated in something like 15-20 years? maybe less, I don't remember exactly, but it's long overdue. I've seen problems with refineries (mostly explosions) all over the local news recently.

How old are you Gulch?

No you aren't stupid. But beware of taking any economic advice from this Forum, it is heavily leftist, not just Democrat, but Marxist-Leninist.

Have you been studying your Reagan?

I am well aware of that, my friend, and am glad to see that there are more like me out there.

Yes, I have been brushing up on Regan. My personal favorite president, though my (non-military) government beliefs are also heavily influenced by Jefferson. I liked Abe Lincoln and Teddy Roosavelt as well, though I do not draw as much on them.

18

18

Are you also a right-wing youth?

I am well aware of that, my friend, and am glad to see that there are more like me out there.

Yes, I have been brushing up on Regan. My personal favorite president, though my (non-military) government beliefs are also heavily influenced by Jefferson. I liked Abe Lincoln and Teddy Roosavelt as well, though I do not draw as much on them.
I like Teddy. His politicking doesn't really stand out with me (aside from the trust-busting), but he seemed like one hell of a guy.

Are you also a right-wing youth?
What, like am I part of Young Republicans or something?

I am a youth and I am right-wing.

1. That's what an oligopoly(sp?) is.
I know, my post was sarcastic in nature.

How old are you Gulch?
Are you also a right-wing youth?
Would you be willing to fill out a free 20 minute survey for the chance to win an i-pod?

Sorry, more jokes and sarcasm...

I like Teddy. His politicking doesn't really stand out with me (aside from the trust-busting), but he seemed like one hell of a guy.

Yeah, he was great, and I admire his foreign policy (speak softly and carry a big stick!). Shame Carter undid some of his greatest work.

Yeah, he was great, and I admire his foreign policy (speak softly and carry a big stick!). Shame Carter undid some of his greatest work.
Yeah, I do like that as well.

What, like am I part of Young Republicans or something?

I am a youth and I am right-wing.

Yes, another heartless youth! XD

Yes, another heartless youth! XD
Hey, anything to serve the neo-nazi cause.

Hey, anything to serve the neo-nazi cause.

I am hoping that that is sarcasm.

I'm beginning to think we may need to start issuing sarcasm detectors to the folks in this thread. :p

I am hoping that that is sarcasm.
Did you read my first post?:p

yes, of course it's sarcasm.

I'm beginning to think we may need to start issuing sarcasm detectors to the folks in this thread. :p

Good thing this is written. If it was my actual voice, such a thing would not work. I was so sarcastic that suttle elements of sarcasm lace my voice almost constantly.

;)

I'm beginning to think we may need to start issuing sarcasm detectors to the folks in this thread.
Are you being serious??? ;)

So what does everyone think of the American government system as a whole?

The two party system?

I'm trying to bring up a new topic without straying too far from the original:p

So what does everyone think of the American government system as a whole?

The two party system?

I'm trying to bring up a new topic without straying too far from the original:p

"It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried"

Are you being serious??? ;)

Very funny. :p

"It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried"

You must like Winston Churchill.

The other you posted is often falsely attributed to Churchill, as well.


“Any 20 year-old who isn't a liberal doesn't have a heart, and any 40 year-old who isn't a conservative doesn't have a brain.”

My favorite by Churchill is, "We make a living by what we get, we make a life by what we give."

.

You must like Winston Churchill.

The other you posted is often falsely attributed to Churchill, as well.

My favorite by Churchill is, "We make a living by what we get, we make a life by what we give."
.

I love Winston Churchill (not like that). I thought that it was Churchill who said that. Do you know who it was?

So what does everyone think of the American government system as a whole?
It's outdated, overly bureaucratic, and fails to represent a large part of the populace.

The two party system?
I already mentioned this in my answer to the original question. It forces people to compromise their values and almost always choose between the lesser of two evils, prevents any sort of common ground to be reached or "Golden Mean" be established through moderate policies, and encourages slanderous media tactics. I would also contend that it is a major source of voter apathy, but that could be contributed to many other things and may not have a single solution.

I'm trying to bring up a new topic without straying too far from the original
Oh gosh, we've already done that pretty badly.

I love Winston Churchill (not like that). I thought that it was Churchill who said that. Do you know who it was?

I'm not sure. There is no record of anyone hearing him say that. That seems likely since Churchill was a conservative when he was 15 and a liberal when he was 35.

Even the one I posted might not have been spoken by Churchill. Famous people get all the good quotes, even if they didn't say them.

I'm not sure. There is no record of anyone hearing him say that. That seems likely since Churchill was a conservative when he was 15 and a liberal when he was 35.

Even the one I posted might not have been spoken by Churchill. Famous people get all the good quotes, even if they didn't say them.

Churchill never was a real liberal, though he did go to the liberal party, this was merely a political statement. He still maintained his views, which were very conservative.

Also, Churchill actually did say a lot of good quotes, not just stealing them all from others.

Also, in America the two sides are ripping eachother to shreds, but is it like that in other countries? Where yall live do the liberal people hate the conservative people and vice-versa?Not at all. The liberals are the conservatives little bitch in Germany, with the social democrats being the opposing force.

Also, Churchill actually did say a lot of good quotes, not just stealing them all from others.

I never said, nor implied, that he stole any quotes. People often posthumously attribute quotes to famous people who never said them in life.

For instance, one of the most famous quotes ever attributed to Abraham Lincoln is,

"You may fool all the people some of the time; you can even fool some of the people all the time; but you can’t fool all of the people all the time."

Yet, there is no contemporary records or accounts that he ever said this.

Karl Marx was supposed to have said, "Religion is the opiate of the masses" but their is no documentation that he did.

And most importantly, no one ever said, "Beam me up, Scotty" during the original Star Trek series (nor does Darth Vader say, "Luke, I am your father").

I never said, nor implied, that he stole any quotes. People often posthumously attribute quotes to famous people who never said them in life.

For instance, one of the most famous quotes ever attributed to Abraham Lincoln is,

"You may fool all the people some of the time; you can even fool some of the people all the time; but you can’t fool all of the people all the time."

Yet, there is no contemporary records or accounts that he ever said this.

Karl Marx was supposed to have said, "Religion is the opiate of the masses" but their is no documentation that he did.

And most importantly, no one ever said, "Beam me up, Scotty" during the original Star Trek series (nor does Darth Vader say, "Luke, I am your father").

I see. Well, I am under the impression that Marx said something that was along those lines, if not that itself. I don't watch Star Trek, but Vader did say "No. I am your father." I suppose "Luke" wasn't in there.

"liberals" vs "conservatives" is a false dichotomy.

Liberals are often against liberty, and conservatives are often proponents of radical changes.

It's just another Us vs Themism bullshit duality designed to keep people railing against meaningless concepts, like "left" or "right." As if a person's entire viewpoint could be summed up with a single word. I know mine can't.

I hate it.

"liberals" vs "conservatives" is a false dichotomy.

Liberals are often against liberty, and conservatives are often proponents of radical changes.

It's just another Us vs Themism bullshit duality designed to keep people railing against meaningless concepts, like "left" or "right." As if a person's entire viewpoint could be summed up with a single word. I know mine can't.

I hate it.
Don't be angry about it. It's still generally useful.

Don't be angry about it. It's still generally useful.

Yeah... in perpetuating a two-party system, in removing the necessity for critical, independent thinking amongst voters, in grouping people into raving clusters of idiocy!

blah blah blah liberals blah blah blah.

Who really wants to read what some self-appointed internet pundit rants about "liberals?" wellllll... anyone who self-appoints themselves enemies of "liberals," that's who. It's just a huge wankfest. Wank may be useful, but doesn't mean I want to see it every day.

"liberals" vs "conservatives" is a false dichotomy.

Liberals are often against liberty, and conservatives are often proponents of radical changes.

It's just another Us vs Themism bullshit duality designed to keep people railing against meaningless concepts, like "left" or "right." As if a person's entire viewpoint could be summed up with a single word. I know mine can't.

I hate it.

I agree that the way we use the words are not in line with their original meaning(s), but it is often a useful thing to sum up a point of view briefly.

This way is a little more thorough: http://www.okcupid.com/politics

Yanno...I don't think it's actually a two-party system. There'smore than two parties, it's just the first-past-the-post thing leading to two major parties...there's something on Wiki...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law

It's outdated, overly bureaucratic, and fails to represent a large part of the populace.
What large part of the populace? Do the fundementals do a good job of at least getting everyone's voice heard? I'm not trying to be argumentative, I'm just curious as to your (and everyone else's) reasoning.

While I've witnessed and participated in many political debates, arguments, and conversations, I don't think most liberals hate most conservatives, or the other way around. At least, not the liberals and conservatives I know.

As for me, where I stand on the political spectrum is ambigous. In my hometown, I'm fairly conservative. In any place that is populated by conservatives I'm pretty damn liberal. The more I learn and think about things, the more my I lean to a liberal bias, but I'm still much more convservative then the people in the cities in which I live.

What large part of the populace?
It is really about the lack of choice, in my opinion. If a certain part of the population desire X, but are only given options W and Y, then that part of the population will either, 1. Not vote or, 2. Settle for a less desirable outcome. Either way, it does not express the will of the people. This goes for elections and policy issues. This is unavoidable in a representative democracy but magnified and worsened by the current two-party situation. Naturally, more parties = more choices. Consider also that voter turnout levels are usually very low.

What if, instead of choosing between two equally flawed candidates at each election, we had a system in place akin to a soviet democracy, in which local communities elect those to form a regional council, who in turn elect a state-wide council, who elect a national council, and in this way your interests are guaranteed from the neighborhood all the way to the national level? Anyone has the ability to advance through the councils on any given month, meaning your next-door neighbor, your best friend, or even you could be elected to uphold the interests of your community on the national level. It is a system that involves the most committed and truly representative individuals there can be.

Or, in a different scenario, imagine what effects a semi-direct democracy would have on our nation. If all people are able to voice their opinions (and their votes) on any issue in our nations senate. What if the will of the people were to outweigh the will of our nation's president? Would he still have the legitimate authority to continue to rule? These are interesting alternatives to the current system and I believe they are at least deserving of discussion if not actual practice.

Do the fundementals do a good job of at least getting everyone's voice heard?
Eh? :confused: