I vaguely remember a while back there was a Liberal/Conservative poll in this very forum. I believe the board turned out to be split evenly (which may have mildly surprised some of the Conservatives iirc). Of late, I do believe that there have been more liberal posts. I speculate that this may be hard times for conservatives, in particular GWB supporters, to stay the course. An aside, I don't find the labels liberal or conservative that meaningful. In some contexts, Democrat or Republican may have more traction.
Woops... voting recod, yes. Lived much of life in USA, yes. Currently live in Toronto, Canada. Thanks for the link.
bama... Came up centrist. Personel self-government is 70%, economic 50%. On the graph I am i block down from the top left corner of the centrist box.
Why is it hard times, No Worries? It could be that the conservatives are tired of seeing so many threads bashing GWB here that it has gotten old and there are other and better things to do. Of all the posts in this thread, TheFreak's is the best one because it has the most truth to it. This place is one that gives the party that is not in power a place to vent. Just like ima said, I'm sure that if the Democrats controlled the House, Senate, and the Presidency, you would see more conservative posts here. There is no need to look into it deeper than that.
Regarding this quiz, I'm not so sure if I agree with their methodology, and certainly not their descriptions. Here's what I got: What? That makes me sound like a dirigiste/marxist sop, in favor of a Stalinist centrally planned economy. The only "leftist" economic thing that I clicked was minimum wage, combined with a few "maybes" on trade and labor issues, solely because, while I recognize the theories behind free trade and the concept of comparative advantage, the practical experience therewith (due in no small part to farm subisidies and other protectionist measures by rich countries) hasn't yielded the promised results. Maybe, according to a Gilded Age robber baron (or a liberatarian zealot, unfamiliar with Econ 101 concepts like externalities and the free rider effect, and still believing that unregulated markets are perfectly efficient despite mountains of evidence to the contrary, from 1929 to Enron), the minimum wage, is a "leftist liberal" idea smacking of central planning. However, that definition became outdated about 90 years ago. I greatly prefer that longer quiz that has been posted on here several times that gives you the x-y axis, far more accurate.
I thought I'd include some of my other political views to demonstrate what I mean when I say I'm all over the board, politically... Clinton should have been booted from office, of this I have no doubt whatsoever. Not because of sex...between he and his wife and Lewinsky, and I couldn't care less...but because he, the head of the legal system committed perjury. In a testimonial based evidenciary system, perjury is the only check we have to try and ensure some semblance of a system in place, and for the senior official to commit perjury ( for his own ends) and maintain power, let alone not be charged is ludicrous and damaging. The mistake the Republicans made was, understandably, assuming that the sexual angle would be the key to bringing Clinton down, pushing that hard ( as sex scandals had always worked in the past to bring politicans down) and sort of letting the legal angle be overlooked. CLinton, a master politician in this respect, was able to more accurately guage the moral climate of the times, and made the issue about whether the American public really cared if he had had sex with Lewinsky...and in general they didn't, and he won. But he shouldn't have. I would seriously consider supporting a bill that called for, say, 2 years service ( military for able bodied men, or woemen capable, other possibilities for other folks) as a pre-requisitite to citizinship/being allowed to vote...as long as it was applied accorss the board, irrespective of class, wealth, etc. I feel that this would serve 2 purposes...people would have a sense of responsibility for being a citizen as something more than a birthright..ie, if you're going to get the benefits of a system, you should also be willing to contribute...and more importantly, issues like whether to go to war would be made by people all familiar with military service, with children in the service, etc., rather than rich non-serving blue bloods whose kids are mostly safe from and danger of service deciding on whether other, poorer people's kids should go and die for what the rich people define as their country. I am against abortion, for the simple reason that the right to live exceeds the right to not be emotionally and physically uncomfortable for 9 months, suffer post partum depression after giving the child up, etc. The argument that it's not really a child at certain points is A) not certain, and B) incredibly semantic. Putting B aside, until we are entirely certain of A...which we're not evcen close to being...we are currently risking the wholesale deaths of countless human beings, largley because of convenience. Studies show that most abortions are performed, not on the 14 year old victim of sexual abuse so often trotted out as the standard, but by women who have had more than one previous abortion. I am against the death penalty, for several reasons...That we have and do excecute innocent people makes us all murderes...inprisonment can, to a degree, be reversed...death cannot. VIolent crime in states which have death penalty go up...probably because when we, as a society, say that killing someone is a reasonable response to their actions if we deem them wrong enough, other individuals are more likely to make the same decision for themselves in moments of crisis...and the fact that juries are less likely to convict..even if it's pretty clear the accused is guilty...if he/she is facing the death penalty, hence more violent criminals are on the street in a death penalty scenario than otherwise. There are many other reasons, having to do with our progress as a species, etc., but this is enough for now. I am all for the legalization of pot ( which I occassionally use) and adult prostitution ( which I would never use) merely because, for consenting adults, the government should have no real role in deciding whether those adults can or cannot prtake of said services/products. Neither is inherently harmfull, compared with legalized drugs and services like alcholol, tobacco, sky diving, etc. And the negative sides to both, from a crime/violence/danger aspect are almost entirely due to their illegalization. Legalize, ensure health checks, and tax them. There are others...this is a cross sampling...
Nah...it's cool. I can understand the confusion, especially in light of my own...and as I said, on many issues I do fall on the left side...just that on many others I fall right, so any designation like that is ill fitting. Even centrist sounds like a cop out for people like me without any reall delineation...
I have never heard conservatives complain about the liberal need to discuss politics. Maybe their need to discuss their feelings. But I hear more conservatives who are outspoken, at least among my friends and such. As far as the nature of conservatism believing truths are self-evident. Yes, that is true. However, that has nothing to do with a willingness to have dialogue. I believe many truths are "self- evident" and will happily discuss many issues. I think your are mixing up to very different ideas.
Don't put the brush away yet, bama! Your Personal Self-Government Score is 100%. Your Economic Self-Government Score is 20%.
1. Disagree... it was a witchhunt from the beginning and you can't dismiss the Jones/Starr collaboration. Whatever damage Clinton did to the country in this case pales in respect to the damage that would have been done to the country if the impeachment had succeeded. That said, Clinton was an idiot. 2. Agree, though without the citizenship/vote angle. 3. Disagree, though it is a tough call... Clinton had it right... "safe, legal, and rare." 4. For it in principle, against it as it is implemented in these United States. 5. Agree, but on the dope stuff (and prostitutes I guess), keep it in the home... don't be driving around or making an ass of yourself in public.
Okay, I'm waiting for all of the liberals to call MacBeth on this one the way that you have called all of the "other" conservatives on this matter, i.e. impeachment was about sex not lying before a Grand Jury.
1. But what you say about a witchhunt...I would use a different charecterization, but agree in general about Republican motivation...doesn't alter the basic fact that the man broke the law, was caught, and unofficially and illegaly pardoned simply because people didn't care about whether he had had sex. How do you then convict anyone of perjury thereafter. It's a simplt lega/moral question, and the sideshow, while I agree being completely partisanly motivated for most pursuing it, doesn't alter that fact. The senior official should be held to the highest legal standard, not recieve the most legal wiggleroom if he can win the superflous political battle which obfuscates the legal issue. 2. To me the voting angle is sort if key. I wouldn;t want to enforce military participation...but to make it the condition under which you recieve the ultimate benefits of a society, the ability to help determine it's course...as a choice would be the point, IMO. 3. Disagree in general, but every study done shows that one you make it "legal", it will never be " rare". 4. Please explain. 5. For dope I would apply the same legal measures as with drinking...age restrictions, not legal when driving, etc. In fact I would be more dilligent in punishing drinking/toking and driving.
But they're not incompatible. The Republicans did..with unseemly joy, but understandable anticipation...make the impeachment about sex. It shouldn;t have been, it should have been beside the point, and IMO even the fact that the Republicans did make that error shouldn't have altered the course of legal justice...but there is little doubt that, in the public's eye, as in the Republicans ( I am generalizing) the impeachment WAS about sex. By the time they realized that Clinton had won that particular battle they ( and for this I even condemn them more than for their initial mistake) chose the course of political prudence, seeing the public was exhausted by the issue, and chose to not pursue the legal aspect, which should have been the focus all along. Had they done so, it would hav been the wrong decision for many Republicans, politically speaking, as the public would have seen them as petty and refusing to accept defeat...bu it would have been the right decision legally and morally. That politicans chose to prioritze the former doesn;t surprise me, but it still dissapoints me.
Iraq War is not a cake walk. The policy of cutting taxes has not been efficacious (2.5 million net job loss for his term in office). There are other things I find fault with GWB and his policies, but these two items I feel will get traction with most Americans.
Huh? Since when is having sex an impeachable offense. What made so much of it about sex is Clinton's refusal to own up to what everyone knew he was guilty of. He knew that evidence would be required, so his lack of cooperation was tantamount to an invitation to examine a checkered past-- both immediate and long.
gotta agree here, the continual democratic refrain of accusing repubicans of saying it was all about sex when they said no such thing (it's the perjury, stupid) is akin to the constant dem complaint that repubicans are questioning their patriotism. methinks they doth protest too much....
One of the real problems in the American version democracy is that is has been allowed to devolve into the lowest common denominator, a two party system. It's probably a misnomer to say that Republicans are conservative and Democrats are liberal since there is no real consensus on the definitions of the term. Partisanship is intellectually lazy, and as a result, few real ideas ever get implemented. We either get legislative gridlock or watered down comprimises. So for this forum we need to avoid those terms. It just amounts to name calling anyway. If you have an opinion just state it and explain it. If you don't agree with something just say why. Because as soon as you spout out your generalizations you've effectivly ended any meaningful discourse.
