Another political thread: I've noticed that on this board it seems that people get "classified" as liberals or conservatives, sometimes, and people don't look at what they're saying (not recently, though). So, where do you disagree with your party, or are you a good, loyal soldier? Mine: I support English as an official language, and I'm against quota affirmative action. I generally dislike labor unions in practice, although I think they're necessary. So, there's the conservative side of me. What about everyone else? ------------------ I would believe only in a God who could dance. - Friedrich Nietzsche Boston College - NCAA Hockey National Champions 2001
I'm a conservative.... who has no problem with abortion, doesn't particularly care to vote for most Republicans, is concerned about the environment, and likes hoochies with nipple piercings and tatoos (exept I can only look now 'cuz I'm married) ------------------ stop posting my damn signature
Um, are you saying you get the opportunity to see pierced nipples, but can't touch? ------------------ I always thought "With my talent, it's only a matter of time before I'm discovered". Now I think "With my talent, it's only a matter of time before I'm found out".
I am of no political party, but most people in my position, and who are in similar situations are anti-affirmative action. I am for it (depending on your definition). I also believe that communism would be ideal IF IT WERE POSSIBLE, WHICH IT IS NOT. Final communism would be the perfect, utopian society where the government is no more, and the people are what is important. But it's not possible to get to that state, so communism is a failure, and terrible under its implementations. ------------------ "Up and down, inside out, outside in, some you lose some you win" -- DMB -> "Sweet Up and Down"
I'm a Republican, but I go against the party line on: 1) Capital punishment. I oppose it. 2) Affirmative action: I am against hiring and college admissions quotas, but I am all for inner-city job-training programs, job fairs, job placement agencies, etc etc.
Though very conservative, I differ from my Republican friends in my respect for the 4th Amendment. I listen to them talk time and time again about how those rules are just technicalities that allow crooks to get off. I think they're necessary safeguards against the government. I really see that as a conservative viewpoint...a more hands-off government. Oh, well... Vengeance -- I hate to disagree with you on this thread...but communism never calls for the eventual end of government. The State is to own and control everything. Without the government, there is no communism. It's government to the highest extreme, and that's exactly what Marx intended. ------------------
I'm left-of-center, but I'm anti-affirmative action and tend to favor business in business vs. labor issues (not in pollution issues, though). I also have no problem with a Bush-style tax cut although I wish it were far smaller. I am pro-choice, but probably for the "wrong reasons" according to most liberals (the woman's choice argument doesn't hold much water with me). I'm sure there are a ton of other issues that I'm relatively conservative on, although I can't think of them at the moment. ------------------ http://www.swirve.com ... more fun than a barrel full of monkeys and midgets.
Most liberals I've been associated with are against quotas as well. I am too. Affirmative action says nothing about quotas, it just says you can't discriminate when hiring employees. I'm not too big on animal rights. Now, I don't play for the Baylor baseball team or anything, I'm just not too much against animal testing (I can feel Jeff's respect for me fading as we speak) if it can save a human's life (I'm not talking about makeup). ------------------ www.swirve.com "Pre-born, you're fine, pre-school, you're f*****."-George Carlin
Vengeance, Max is right...Communism was always intended to have a form of governmental control. Marx himself wanted an elite-intellectual ruling class. There are forms of socialism, however, where the government is either trashed entirely or, more feasibly, turned into a direct-democracy system. As for me...I toe no party lines. I am me. I detest the word liberal (and not because of this new "liberal is bad" crap brought forth by conservative tides), but I have been called that on these boards. I consider myself more radical left...whose political philosophy is not represented by our "two party" system. In any case, I never believe in whole-heartedly fllowing any party, philosophy, person, etc...because that just means that you are not thinking for yourself -- it would be impossible for one person to agrre with everything that someone else or a broad group chooses. That is just spoon-feeding. ------------------ You sanctimonious philistines, who scoff at me!
rimbaud -- I disagree with your last statement. I think you can come to your own conclusions and still closely resemble the platform of a party. Essentially, if you hold some key values, you'll find that your feelings on any number of issues falls along how you rate those values. Liberty vs. Safety; Community vs. Individual, etc. ------------------
Max, But that is assuming that social and fiscal ideals will follow the same lines...not neccessarily true. I have known people to be fiscally conservative, yet socially liberal (in other words, "keep my taxes down, but abortion is fine, same sex marriages," etc.). That is on a broad level...but when you go into more minute details of a political platform, I find it hard to believe that a number of people will agree with everything. Compounding that is that ignorance factor. Not everyone knows the issues surrounding every policy stance/ideal. If it ever comes to, "Well, the democrats agree with me on education, therefore, we must be the same on ______," then that is the spoon-feeding to which I was referring. ------------------ "You sanctimonious philistines, who scoff at me!"
Rimbaud: I agree with you one one point and disagree with you on another. Marx did *not* envision an intellectual elite in a purely communist system. He anticipated such an elite driving the revolution, but once the revolution itself was over, he wanted government to be eliminated entirely. If you read his metaphysics (1844 Manuscripts, On the Jewish Question) you realize that he's more of a philosopher than most people think - he believes that the existence of the state prevents individual authenticity and species-being. No time to explain here . I AGREE with you about the two party system - it sucks. I think most Republicans I know are actually Libertarians - basically, they just don't want government screwing with them at all. They want low taxes, but they *hate* the Christian right. The "moral majority" never existed... it's really the "fiscal majority," if anything. These people aren't served by the two party system. Conversely, many Union members (especially Catholics) disagree with the Democrats on social issues, but vote democrat anyway because of Republican support for big business. The two parties do *not* adequately represent all sectors of society, at all. ------------------ I would believe only in a God who could dance. - Friedrich Nietzsche Boston College - NCAA Hockey National Champions 2001
I'm anti-abortion and anti-gun control. That's about as far as it goes for me as far as being 'conservative'. I have an affinity for animals as well as the environment. I'm very sensitive on race. Affirmative action does not bother me, in ANY form (quotas included). As far as modern-day political issues, I'm very against the common anti-tobacco stance. I guess you could call me a moderate, but not for the traditional reasons.
TheFreak: You know, I was very surprised when you came out heavily pro-life in one thread. For some reason you had just always struck me as a liberal, and liberals seem almost uniformly to be pro-choice (as opposed to conservatives on the subject), so I just figured you were conservative in general... I guess I wasn't as mistaken as I thought. ------------------ I would believe only in a God who could dance. - Friedrich Nietzsche Boston College - NCAA Hockey National Champions 2001 [This message has been edited by haven (edited May 16, 2001).]
I think I care far more about the environment and animal rights in general than most democrats, and that is saying a lot. I'm about 2 million miles to the left. I only support democrats because they are the best liberals with real chances to win elections. I'm much more left than most. I don't think there's any issue that puts me in the center or to the right. ------------------ The Protrolls.com message boards! Protrolls.com! Don't visit my site.
I differ from my party on gay marriages. I see nothing wrong with a homosexual couple getting legally married. ------------------
Interesting topic! Do people really fit neatly in two categories, or not? My husband is by-the-book conservative. He believes that there really are two lines of thought, and one is right and one is wrong. And that those who are morally wrong will naturally have "liberal" beliefs coming from that. I can understand believing that some things are absolutely right or wrong (for instance, abortion), but even then other things (how much the government should take care of/ interfere with/ tax you for, gun control issues, foreign policy, the best way to get people out of poverty, education) are up to the individual. With most of those issues, we all want the same results; we just differ in how we think they will be achieved. We may not know until we try it. Although my party line is mostly OK with my beliefs, sometimes I feel guilty that we try to smooth over the environmental issues. It's weird that some people are compassionate with regard to unborn babies, and others are compassionate with regard to animals and nature, but it's never the same people. You would think they would go together... at least some of the time... ------------------ Isabel,clutchcity.net lurker since 1996 All your base are belong to Heypartner.
Isabel: Without wanting to start another (pointless) brawl about abortion, the reason some people (me!) can be "compassionate" about the environment, but not about the abortion issue is because we don't consider fetuses unborn babies, just lumps of tissue. I know that you don't think of it that way. If I believed it was a baby, I would bew pro-life. I think that most conservatives who dislike making environmental considerations just don't believe in the repercussions of environmental degredation. ------------------ I would believe only in a God who could dance. - Friedrich Nietzsche Boston College - NCAA Hockey National Champions 2001
Haven, Not to deraioll this thread...but I have a few points: 1. On the Jewish Question is essentially about using the State to abolish religion (thus ending Christian State persecution). If there is nor religion, there is no persecution. i do not see the relevance. 2. Consider how Marx went into the First International and began his bitter rivalry with Bakunin, resulting in Marx's socalists taking over. The reason for the divide was Bakunin's stateless socialism vs. Marx's state-run socialism. 3. Bakunin was the first to warn (while all others on the left were enamored with it) about where Marx's revolution would lead -- to totalitarian oppression...he was right. Here are some excerpts from Bakunin's often antagonistic writings about Marx (Marx had similar attacks on Bakunin, but I am too lazy to look them up): Let us see now what unites them. It is the out and out cult of the State. I have no need to prove it in the case of Bismarck, the proofs are there. From head to foot he is a State's man and nothing but a State's man. But neither do I believe that I shall have need of too great efforts to prove that it is the same with Marx. He loves government to such a degree that he even wanted to institute one in the International Workingmen's Association; and he worships power so much that he wanted to impose and still means to-day to impose his dictatorship on us. It seems to me that that is sufficient to characterise his personal attitude. But his Socialist and political programme is a very faithful expression of it. The supreme objective of all his efforts, as is proclaimed to us by the fundamental statutes of his party in Germany, is the establishment of the great People's State (Volksstaat). Neither more nor less than a new aristocracy, that of the workers of the factories and towns, to the exclusion of the millions who constitute the proletariat of the countryside and who in the anticipations of the Social Democrats of Germany will, in effect, become subjects of their great so-called People's State. "Class", "Power", "State", are three inseparable terms, of which. each necessary pre-supposes the two others and which all definitely are to be summed up by the words: the political subjection and the economic exploitation of the masses. By the flowrer of the proletariat, I mean above all, that great mass, those millions of non-civilised, disinherited, wretched and illiterates whom Messrs. Engels and Marx mean to subject to the paternal regime of "a very strong government", to employ an expression used by Engels in a letter to our friend Cafiero. The reasoning of Marx leads to absolutely opposite results. Taking into consideration nothing but the one economic question, he says to himself that the most advanced countries and consequently the most capable of making a social revolution are those in which modern Capitalist production has reached its highest degree of development. It is they that, to the exclusion of all others, are the civilised countries, the only ones called on to initiate and direct this revolution. This revolution will consist in the expropriation, whether by peaceful succession or by violence, of the present property-owners and capitalists and in the appropriation of all lands and all capital by the State, which in order to fulfill its great economic as well as political mission must necessarily be very powerful and very strongly centralised. The State will administer and direct the cultivation of the land by means of its salaried officers commanding armies of rural toilers, organised and disciplined for this cultivation. At the same time, on the ruin of all the existing banks it will establish a single bank, financing all labour and all national commerce. One can understand that, at first sight, such a simple plan of organisation--at least in appearance--could seduce the imagination of workers more eager for justice and equality than for liberty and foolishly fancying that these two can exist without liberty--as if to gain and consolidate justice and equality, one could rely on other people, and on ruling groups above all, however much they may claim to be elected and controlled by the people. In reality it would be for the proletariat a barrack regime, where the standardised mass of men and women workers would wake, sleep, work and live to the beat of the drum; for the clever and the learned a privilege of governing; and for the mercenary minded, attracted by the immensity, of the international speculations of the national banks, a vast field of lucrative jobbery. Anyway, point is that this dispute would not have existed if both wanted the same thing. ------------------ "You sanctimonious philistines, who scoff at me!"
