Conservative or Liberal?

[rweather5 22]

Where do you lie on the political spectrum? Are you a Conservative, Liberal, Independent, or something in between?

Update:

Who will you vote for in the primaries?

Sorry democrats and people who don't live in the US.

  Edited February 26, 2012 by rweather5  

[Terring 6,476]

And that's because a society with tons of (mostly useless) rules is a doomed society. A society however based on mutual, solidarity and logic is not an utopian, but something that could be already possible

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Slightly left of center. I vote on the secret ballot.

[Duke87 1,070]

Middle of the road independent with libertarian leanings.

[The Avatar 1,089]

Well, technically I'm nothing because I'm under the voting age. I'm a liberal, though.

[TekindusT 3,809]

Guess that not voting systematically the two big parties makes you an Independent...

[NMUSpidey 3,956]

I was pretty strongly conservative in college, but I've mellowed way out and now I can't stand either party. I think there are good arguments and poor arguments on both sides, and I do not agree completely with either, but nor do I completely disagree. As a general rule, I try to stay apolitical. I keep more friends that way!

EDIT: As per OcramSeattle's assertion below, "Classical Liberal" would probably have been a better label than "conservative." But language is fluid and thus "conservative" is probably just as good a descriptor these days without meaning I supported Sharia Law or slavery (which I never have).

  Edited February 26, 2012 by NMUSpidey  

[Ocram's Razr 964]

I am a libertarian but EVERYONE who disagrees with Sharia Law or Slavery is a liberal. Republicans are Classic Liberals. I am a Libertarian Independent voter.

Libertarian is synonymous (to a certain extent) with anti-statist and anarchist. It is the antonym of authoritarian, statist, and communitarian.

Thank you, Terring for posting that foto, now I want to live in a Venus Project city.

  Edited February 26, 2012 by OcramSeattle  

[Larks2242 251]

I'm basically a strong fiscal conservative with libertarian leanings, although i do identify with the republicans on the majority of issues, mainly on the economic and foreign policy side, I do however believe in rights of people and freedom of how to live ones life as long as there is no interference with others free will, I don't believe religion has a place in politics and i believe that the government should be limited to keeping the US safe. I don't believe that government has a place in peoples social lives nor do i believe that government should fund social programs, I believe in strong immigration laws and cutting budgets for government bureaucracies, however I believe that a massive military is needed.

[Ocram's Razr 964]

Since Larks42 expressed his ideals more thoroughly I might as well.

1. Economics: conservative. Only spend what is needed. I believe that bureaucracy and taxation should be streamlined (which would lower government spending more than tax revenue because complex tax codes allow for companies to sneak through loopholes, like Verizon had until this year when Comcast complained). I also think that massive bailouts are bad and that special bankruptcy is far better.

2. Social Issues: progressive. Government should interfere as little into personal lives as possible as long as people don't do anything harmful. I also think that civil marriages (getting married at the courthouse or Las Vegas) should be legally called Civil Unions and that Same-Sex Civil Unions should be equally protected as opposite sex ones (though religious people can still get married but that is as legally recognized as Babtism).

3. Privacy and Media: I think that the V-Chip should be activated automatically by default when you buy your TV/signal box (with the code coming printed on the manual) so kids won't be exposed to sexual content (this should lower teenage sex). Abstinence focused education with free contraception allowed for those that ask (and talk to counselors) is also ideal. Late Term abortions should only be allowed for women where the life of either mother or child would be in danger even with C-Section.

[Zelgadis 638]

I identify as libertarian-socialist. Libertarian on social issues, socialist on economic issues.

ISF

[Alejandro24 575]

I've voted Other because I consider myself as an infoanarchist.

As terring said: a society based on mutual, solidarity and logic is not an utopian. I believe that Order and Liberty can work toghether without any problem

But, well, I'm something centralist, because I take the best part of both sides (conservative and liberal) and try to mix and build something new.

Despiste I'm a lector -and somethimes I post- in Stormfront . Fascist thinks in a curious and unique way, but their beliefs are some outdated and it needs an urgent update. And to think I consider myself as a fascist some years ago when I was a Teenager!

  Edited February 26, 2012 by Alejandro24  

[astronelson 339]

Much like most people I consider myself centrist. I'd say more on the liberal side for many issues, a tad conservative for others. I'm certainly more conservative than my mother. Realistically though, I'm more liberal than conservative.

I'm not a big fan of anarchism. There are far too many examples of it failing miserably, and no success stories. I suppose it's a nice theory, but so was the steady-state model of the universe.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

As was said nearly a century ago, the present system is the best one we have tried so far. {paraphrased from WSC}

[Terring 6,476]

The best way to build an anarchic society is by science. By what? That's right, by using the scientific tools and knowledges. Science is about exploring the world as it is, without philosophical-political-economical-religion filters. Thanks to science we know that Earth is not flat and thunders doesn't come by god's wrath. So what we know today? That Earth has enough resources to support all humans, but it's still nothing more that a sensitive piece of stone and metal that floats somewhere in the huge Cosmos. This knowledge is against to the modern believes, that we have unlimited resources so let's waste them in nuclear weapons and huge limousines... and let most of the Earth population in starvation.

By using wisely the scientific tools, we can build a society were pollution, laws, governments and any kind of chauvinism will be things of the past. The reason that anarchism fail miserably so far is because of is great in theoretical level but very tricky in practical one. We need to think wisely, if we want to keep thinking

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 9, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

^ yes. Delicious. I buy cream cheese in large containers and fresh bagels every week.

[un1 41]

I'm around here on the political compass:

http://www.politicalcompass.org/facebook/pcgraphpng.php?ec=-6.38&soc=-2.41

Economic Left/Right: -6.38

Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.41

Which makes me independent.

Economically, I support full state control on the economy. Not sure why, but I've developed a hatred towards businesses. However, I am a supporter of Keynesian economics.

Socially, I support freedoms, and I do not put much focus onto them. I'm more laissez-faire on this side. Although, I am not a huge fan of freedom of religion (I am strongly atheist).

I'm not a huge fan of freedom of media either, they have biases and can be very wrong when that freedom exists. I would rather everything be biased to the state.

Overall, my views are pretty crazy, and that's how I like it!

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

I'm around here on the political compass:

http://www.political...-6.38&soc=-2.41

Economic Left/Right: -6.38

Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.41

Which makes me independent.

Economically, I support full state control on the economy. Not sure why, but I've developed a hatred towards businesses. However, I am a supporter of Keynesian economics.

Socially, I support freedoms, and I do not put much focus onto them. I'm more laissez-faire on this side. Although, I am not a huge fan of freedom of religion (I am strongly atheist).

I'm not a huge fan of freedom of media either, they have biases and can be very wrong when that freedom exists. I would rather everything be biased to the state.

Overall, my views are pretty crazy, and that's how I like it!

Sounds more confused than independent. The Keynesian view that the government is the backstop for failing businesses is utter nonsense. I am much more capitalistic than that. I believe the weak, however large, go to the wall, not the well. Capitalism has mechanisms that allow for a recovery from even a depression, but government interference only postpones the inevitable.

Meanwhile, I believe in total freedom for the media. Especially freedom from interference by the owners of the business side of it. A biased media is a propaganda machine.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 9, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

^ Remember that "religion is the pap of the masses" as someone said. In North America in general religion has lost its bite due to the general apathy of the population. We are too comfortable, so we no longer really have any impossible things to pray for.

[Duke87 1,070]

Opinion-shows, like Beck, Morning Cup o' Joe, Maddow or Cooper (see? I'm being completely non-partisan) are not news.

But audiences like them, so they aren't going anywhere. Consider also that there isn't enough real news to fill 24 hours of TV, so when you have a dedicated news channel, you have to find fluff to take up time.

It's garbage, yes, but the best solution to that is to simply not watch it if you don't like it. There is no good way to regulate it away since you can't legally define opinion versus news without creating loopholes or making it subjective, and doing so is blatantly unconstitutional besides.

  Edited March 1, 2012 by Duke87  

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Opinion-shows, like Beck, Morning Cup o' Joe, Maddow or Cooper (see? I'm being completely non-partisan) are not news.

But audiences like them, so they aren't going anywhere. Consider also that there isn't enough real news to fill 24 hours of TV, so when you have a dedicated news channel, you have to find fluff to take up time.

It's garbage, yes, but the best solution to that is to simply not watch it if you don't like it. There is no good way to regulate it away since you can't legally define opinion versus news without creating loopholes or making it subjective, and doing so is blatantly unconstitutional besides.

Let's face it, news junk can be avoided. If nothing else you can play SC4.

On the other hand, I sometimes find these commentators vastly amusing. They are so often full of obvious propaganda that they must be pretty stupid to read it on air.

[Sovereignty 0]

Anyone on TV or the radio is going to be primarily an entertainer. Entertainers benefit from sensationalizing things and making outrageous statements. People don't tune in to Glenn Beck or Rachel Maddow because they want to hear unbiased news. They tune in to hear someone sticking it to the other side. There are a couple of talk shows I like but I do regard them as entertainment. I think it makes way more sense to read the news, rather than watch it.

...In North America in general religion has lost its bite due to the general apathy of the population...

This phrase really hits the nail on the head. Which is why it is so bizarre to see religion (Christianity) playing a major role in the current U.S. Presidential election. Just goes to show you what happens when you welcome radical elements into your camp. At first you love their enthusiasm, they really seem to bolster your team's strength. But then they start to grow louder and louder, eventually absorbing all the attention. And now the Republican Party looks like a ridiculous circus, and there is no credible leadership for Obama/Democrats to negotiate with. Leaving us with short-term budget deals and stop-gap solutions when what we clearly need is serious, long-term planning.

But to get back on the stated topic, I am an American liberal. I believe that the U.S. is the innovative, productive country that it is in large part because the government has poured massive amounts of cash and organizational strength into research and development, especially in the areas of communication and transportation infrastructure. If the federal government hadn't paid for all the highways (and before that, all the railroads, and before that, all the roads, bridges, and canals...) the U.S. economy could never have taken off in the way it did. Also, many modern technologies had their genesis in the budget of the U.S. Defense Department.

The private sector is great at exploiting available opportunities. It is not as good at making massive, unprofitable investments to develop public infrastructure or completely new technologies.

What I'm basically saying is: if the U.S. government hadn't been unleashing a flood of funding for telecommunications since WWII, it would not matter how innovative Steve Jobs was, he would never have been able to build the iPhone.

[Kevin 101]

Can someone help me move this wall to the left?

(my political compass results)

[The_City_Builder 299]

My link

This is my political compass result:

Economic Left/Right: -6.50

Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.77

[The Avatar 1,089]

Here's my "official" political compass result:

I think I'm at the exact same spot as Gandhi. I thought I'd appear far more to the left than I actually did.

[hym 358]

Opinion-shows, like Beck, Morning Cup o' Joe, Maddow or Cooper (see? I'm being completely non-partisan) are not news.

No, they aren't, but at the same time, they are a necessary part of understanding the news. Quite a bit of news concerns stuff that is vitally important to the general populace but over subjects that the average person has little or no understanding about. Op-ed material can help people make sense of the news.

Opinion-shows, like Beck, Morning Cup o' Joe, Maddow or Cooper (see? I'm being completely non-partisan) are not news.

But audiences like them, so they aren't going anywhere. Consider also that there isn't enough real news to fill 24 hours of TV, so when you have a dedicated news channel, you have to find fluff to take up time.

This isn't totally true, as there is an extensive supply of world-wide news that never gets reported. A friend of mine has a brother working in NORAD, and this guy has access to the intelligence briefs (the unclassified ones at least, I don't know about classified intelligence). You could fill an entire workday with the incident reports that NORAD receives daily. You could almost certainly fill the rest of the day with information from news broadcasts out of the major continents.

But to get back on the stated topic, I am an American liberal. I believe that the U.S. is the innovative, productive country that it is in large part because the government has poured massive amounts of cash and organizational strength into research and development, especially in the areas of communication and transportation infrastructure. If the federal government hadn't paid for all the highways (and before that, all the railroads, and before that, all the roads, bridges, and canals...) the U.S. economy could never have taken off in the way it did. Also, many modern technologies had their genesis in the budget of the U.S. Defense Department.

The private sector is great at exploiting available opportunities. It is not as good at making massive, unprofitable investments to develop public infrastructure or completely new technologies.

What I'm basically saying is: if the U.S. government hadn't been unleashing a flood of funding for telecommunications since WWII, it would not matter how innovative Steve Jobs was, he would never have been able to build the iPhone.

I think that the most accurate way to look at this issue is in the interplay between the public and private sectors. The public sector frequently can only justify massive R&D and infrastructure spending provided that the private sector is able to do something profitable with it. If the private sector can't use it, committing public sector resources is much harder to defend.

This is really a narrower example of a larger phenomenon. The private sector cannot function well without favorable conditions in the public sector, and the public sector cannot function well without favorable conditions in the private sector.

As for the political test, here's mine along with suggested positions for the major candidates.

[Larks2242 251]

Can someone help me move this wall to the left?

(my political compass results)

Wow, how did you get so far over there?

Hmm...Took it a second time and got nearly the same result as the last time.

[Duke87 1,070]

As for the political test, here's mine along with suggested positions for the major candidates.

Where they put Obama is rather telling. Notice how close together all the dots are (Paul, who won't win, notwithstanding). Foolish voter, you thought you actually had a choice!