[Note - because i cannot cover everyone's specific political leanings, consider the "Liberal" side meaning "Left" (and wanting to facilitate change: progressive), and "Conservative" meaning "Right" (and wanting a natural progression of societal change: traditionalist) of the political spectrum in your respective countries or regions]

Conservatives and Liberals irritate me

 

Liberals are right wing everywhere in the world , except in the US, where they are considered the next worst left to communism

 

 

You'd expect them to get right after decades being told.

 

 

 

 

but from that reference point, Conservatives are even more right wing.

 

In the UK the (old) Liberal party was the centre party. Now they are called the Liberal Democrats, and are concidered to be center on economics and left on social issues.

 

That's another misconception, as the world doesn't end in Europe and the US. ... in South America, Conservatives are usually ancient landowners, church-going traditionals. But their vision of the economy is actually not that close to the one of the Republican Party, for example, as they still see some good in the existence of the State (as opposed to the Republicans -speciall reaganites- who would love to see the goverment only taking care of foreign issues). In South America, liberals are misunderstood. There are the so-called "neo-liberals", which sometimes are really the conservatives () which want a stronger market, and the traditional liberals, who want even more government but don't quite agree with an economic system! People in South America, specially in Andean countries, have been lied and told that we live in capitalism, which couldn't be any more far from the truth, as we don't have a lot of the requisites for a true free market and issues like monopoly, oligopoly and other "polies" still exist, along with something called "cacicazgo" (the figure of a powerful, messianic leader which everybody follows...).... There's also POPULISM, which americans hardly know. That's a non-ideological ideology ( believe me, that's a way of saying it) where everything is done to the please the masses while not changing their situation one bit. And, finally, what you call "left wing" in Southamerica is divided into two: those who think more socialist goverments like those in Europe are needed (Social Market Economy, an oxymoron but what can I do), but never quite figuring out HOW to go there, and the dinosaurs, the true LEFT wing, those that didn't sleep properly and still believe in Marx, Engels, Lenin, Trotsky, Mao, Castro and the Prophet for the Ones who Fail and Envy, "Che" Guevara.

 

Oh how we would love to have your bi-partisan societies! Where you have reached a point where you can divide most people's views in 5 or 6 main directions like this poll does....

 

By the way, I'm a weird libertarian. .... I'm all for ABSOLUTE LIBERTY of everything (including doing yourself harm), ZERO CHURCH (even if I believe in some Bigger Thing, whatever it may be, I ABHORR most religion-imposed "morals", as those are the morals of the ANTI-HUMAN)... but at the same time, I want strong enough governments that can DO SOMETHING.

 

Whatever I just said, I hope you'll get it.

 

Nice. I like that

 

I think you and some others are missing the point a little. Liberals and conservatives, etc AREN'T TIED TO ANY PARTY and it's not stupid to use them, because these terms (along with many others) are just means of classifying your views (for the sake of convenience and in order to generalize about PA's members).

I agree, believe what you believe, but that's why i put the "Tool" option, because believe it or not there are people that don't have a personal ideology and think what they are TOLD to think.

 

P.S. Stupider =

 

 

rileydog22 wrote: I hate the entire party system.  The entire basis is flawed; nobody thinks EXACTLY the same as the party on every issue.  I'm liberal on some issues, conservative on others.  If you follow the party on every issue, then YOU are the one who is a tool.  Either get an opinion or stop pretending to have one.

 

A little angry, bud?  Just pick an option closest to what you believe. By the sounds of it, you are moderate. Ta-da.

As i said above, these ideologies aren't parties, and they are meant to REFLECT your opinion, not give one to you.

 

Actually if I remember well, the Democrats were just as conservative as the Republicans in the 50's and until Kenedy got to power , there started to have a slightly lefter stance (or at least less far-right), which got really accelerated once the Vietnam war got really bad dissed in the US, and the Summer Of Love thing helped. Robert Kenedy probably got killed for being too leftist for some of Johnson's backers. But at the times Hippiies were Libertarians not liberals.

 

I remember thisfar-right Evangelist Pat Robertson in campaign being asked how come hisfather was democrat and he replied that his fatherwas in the Democtrat party befoore it got taken over by liberals in 67.

 

 

As for the Canafian Liberals, they stand where most Lib parties of Europe is, even if I heard from some ultra right-wingists saying (in the late 70's) that they had become a left wing party once Trudeau left the NPD for the Libs.

 

 

Which does incline to say that liberals are indeed more left wing, but I wouldn't call them socialists, either. In fact liberals can be seen as Entrepreneurial right and have some definite capitalist visions.

 

 

 

I  was going to say Marylin Manson happened, then realised that was Rose McGowan and I haven't got a clue who Rosie O'Donnell is

 

Well, sorry, but considering that's what I am and I don't know how it works from wherever you are complaining, just go with it.

 

Joined: April 21 2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Online
Posts: 12250

 

 

 

At least I don't find sodomy an enjoyable practice with my "Neo" friends!

Simply, Liberal.

But, I'd say I fall under Democratic Socialism.

Fiscally moderate and socially very liberal

 

 

Indeeeeeeeeed!!!!!!

 

 

And this makes you laugh????

 

 

Well, all we can do is laugh, because whether it comes to the metric system, or political perspectives, or the side of the road we drive on, the US will never be able to integrate with the rest of the world's norms: we are just too used to what already exists. It would be an impossible undertaking to force people to change a concept or way of life (especially something that everyone takes for granted and doesn't have to think about).

Two thirds of the worlds popluation drive on the wrong side of the road (as far as I am concerned )- so on that score at least, the US is with the majority.

 

I think the public smoking issue has clearly demonstrated that it is possible to change a concept on a large scale very easily, not just in the US, but across Europe too.

 

Ouch, my integrity is being defamed by a stranger. (For future reference, don't make a habit out of stereotyping or generalizing about someone you have never met).

Personally, I would never vote based on someone's party and I always look at what the candidates say and where they stand on issues, etc. (People that don't do that would select the "tool" option). 

I would also be open to a change in measurement systems (for instance), yet the issue is it is impossible to force over 300 million people to agree to a change  in a measurement standard for every aspect of their lives.

 

dargdean wrote: Two thirds of the worlds popluation drive on the wrong side of the road (as far as I am concerned )- so on that score at least, the US is with the majority.   I think the public smoking issue has clearly demonstrated that it is possible to change a concept on a large scale very easily, not just in the US, but across Europe too.

 

And on that note, smoking isn't as much a "concept" as a lifestyle choice/habit for some people. The nation doesn't rely on smoking in any aspect of life or functioning as a society. Basically the only people who it directly affects would be those with a nicotene addiction. Because of that fact, we can accept/handle a smaller change like banning smoking in public places (which is a move that's beneficial to our health btw)

 

My, my, aren't you clever?

Maybe you are kind of "Leftist" - You perpetually want change no matter what's happening(?)

 

Gotta love them Britts!!!

 

Only two ways to drive

 

On the right side of the road or on the wrong side of the road.

 

 

Guess who's wrong???

 

Edit: What is your opinion of Ron Paul?

 

it's actually both the same isn't it?

Well if you think about it, far left Marxism is about as far from libertarianism as you can get.

 

 

Agreed Novalis! There is no way there is a redundance between these extremes.

 

No way far left politics tend to force out individualism in order to reinforce the community's equality.

 

Libartarians are openly individualist and close to anarchism by their hate of structures.

 

At least that's my comprehension.

 

 

 

 

 

I completely agree with your first statement (I may be generalizing about social conservatives - in America - but I find it ironic that you included a word with "homo-" in it when talking about right-wing politics ).

In regards to your second statement I'm not so sure. Some things that stand out in my mind are "Liberal" organizations like the A.C.L.U. (=), which seem to "rock the boat" quite a bit (with so many people being "offended" and whatnot). I'm sure there are other examples (like of conservative groups that "rock the boat")... just can't think of any at the moment.

 

And on a different note:

 

thellama73 wrote: I'm a conservative libertarian to whom the writings of Ayn Rand make a lot of sense. Please don't hate me because I'm different than you!

-------------

 

 

Actually I wouldn't go too far as saying that the entire right wing politics is repressing individualism. This might be so a bit in the conservateur scope of right wing politics and a lot in the extreme right realm, but certainly not in the liberal rightwing, where you are encouraged to be different and succeed as much as possible.

 

 

 

I meant that individualism being repressed by the left wing is more like the economic freedom. They will tend to scrape up your exceeding cash flow to give it to the needy (and the leaches profitting from the system).

 

 

Liberal or Entrepreneurial right wing politics is all for people wanting to show that they are better than their neighbours by building a bigger pool and owning a Rolls instead of a Jag.

 

Conservateur will disapprove of one of their comlmunity acting like that , but as long as the money is given to the church to shut the pastor/minister up, he will dismiss this weakness as humanly and avoid drying up the source of providence >>> now there is a shot below the belt!!!!

 

 

 

Very true, there are some extremely ridiculous combos of political "philosophies". Maybe too many non-comformists? Don't want to categorize themselves?

 

So how exactly do conservatives want to restrict our freedoms on a "lower level" than liberals? examples?

 

(not arguing.. just discussing)

 

In that vein of thought I HATE the "PC police". I'm sick and tired of everyone bending over backwards so that they don't "offend" anyone. Sure, we have the basics I believe are neccessary to follow: like don't be racist or don't make insults out of sexual orientation, but the problem lies beyond that. People are getting afraid to speak their minds as to not offend, yet virtually anything one says, does, or makes has the potential of "offending" someone in this world.

 

In all seriousness, political satires like Borat help to fight this by saying what they want and being "offensive" in order to get their points across and expose real problems like ignorance in America (and parts of the rest of the world as well).

 

Political correctness is a phantom invented by a largely conservative media establishment to justify the perpetuation of old bigotries. The PC police don't exist, but maybe people are just a little more sensitive about racism, sexism and homophobia these days. Call me a humourless, freedom hating old git if you like, but I don't see this as a bad thing. In the UK press virtually every story about Political Correctness Gone Mad has proved to be completely fictitious, from London primary schools banning Baa Baa Black Sheep (they didn't) to Winterval replacing Christmas so as not to offend Muslims (It was a business initiative in the mid 90s, nothing to do with PC) to schoolchildren singing Baa Baa Rainbow Sheep so as to be PC (they were learning different colours, including black). Sacha Baron Cohen, the man behind Ali G and Borat, did not intend his creations to be anti PC, but rather to expose the inherent bigotries and hypocrisies that are all too prevalent in contemporary Western societies. Read this quote from the man himself:

Regarding his portrayal as the anti-Semitic Borat, Baron Cohen says the segments are a "dramatic demonstration of how http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism - racism feeds on dumb conformity, as much as rabid http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigotry - bigotry ," rather than a display of racism by Baron Cohen himself. ^{http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacha_Baron_Cohen#_note-15 - [23]} "Borat essentially works as a tool. By himself being anti-Semitic, he lets people lower their guard and expose their own prejudice," Baron Cohen explains. ^{http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacha_Baron_Cohen#_note-Rolling_Stone - [4]} Addressing the same topic in an NPR interview with Robert Siegel, Cohen says "...and I think that's quite an interesting thing with Borat, which is people really let down their guard with him because they're in a room with somebody who seems to have these outrageous opinions. They sometimes feel much more relaxed about letting their own outrageous, politically incorrect, prejudiced opinions come out." ^{http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacha_Baron_Cohen#_note-16 - [24]} Cohen, the grandson of a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust - Holocaust survivor, says he also wishes in particular to expose the role of indifference in that genocide. "When I was in university, there was this major historian of the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Reich - Third Reich , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Kershaw - Ian Kershaw , who said, 'The path to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auschwitz - Auschwitz was paved with indifference.' I know it's not very funny being a comedian talking about the Holocaust, but it's an interesting idea that not everyone in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germany - Germany had to be a raving anti-Semite. They just had to be apathetic." ^{http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacha_Baron_Cohen#_note-Rolling_Stone - [4]} Regarding the enthusiastic response to his song "In My Country There is Problem", he says, "Did it reveal that they were anti-Semitic? Perhaps. But maybe it just revealed that they were indifferent to anti-Semitism." ^{http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacha_Baron_Cohen#_note-Rolling_Stone - [4]}

(Wikipedia, my italics)

 

If you think that Borat is a blow against  PC you have missed the point, and indeed the joke.

 

 

Agreed, but where has this actually happened, or even looked remotely likely to happen?

 

 

I live in America and tend to vote conservative, because they seem to me to be running towards the cliff a little slower than liberals--at least as far as my personal life and income is concerned.  I don't have many options in our stupid 2 party system.  If we had that and each state could decide it's own laws, I would want to move to a more morally conservative one (where things like abortion aren't legal)--but that doesn't really have much to do with the structure of a government.

 

The way that works on this side of the pond is as follows: If a job applicant feels that they have been unfairly turned down on the grounds of race, gender, orientation or age they can take an employer to court, but in practice it's extremely difficult to prove. There are also safeguards in place; small businesses and some specialised businesses are to some extent exempt from this, and there are no legally enforceable quotas in place, contrary to right wing tabloid columnist's beliefs.

 

There is also legislation in place to tackle racism and related -isms in the workplace, and cases of unfair dismissal or constructive dismissal do come to the courts fairly frequently. Again, difficult to prove but it has forced some notoriously racist institutions to clean their act up - the police force being a good example.

 

As far as I'm aware nobody has gone to prison as a result of this, and I'm pretty certain that the same is true in the USA. If you can produce a verifiable example of somebody who has been imprisoned as a result of this, I'd be very surprised.

 

In any case, do you feel that the 'freedom' to employ an exclusively male, white, anglo saxon, heterosexual, protestant workforce is something that businesses actually need, and do you really think that in a country where the Jim Crow laws and lynchings are a living memory that there was no need for any legal action to be taken?

 

In the UK signs outside boarding houses saying 'no Irish, no Blacks, no dogs' are a living memory; I don't feel that the legislation which rendered them extinct was in any way misguided, even if it did curtail a particular kind of free speech. But that's the sinister, repressive left for you I suppose.

 

 

No, I completely get the point of Borat, believe me (sorry - I think that I just worded it incorrectly).

 

In any case, when I refer to PC, or the "PC police" (sometimes considered to be the A.C.L.U.), I am talking about (like you said) a certain sensitivity to certain topics (such as racism, sexism, and homophobia). The problem, is that people are sensitive to the point where they start twisting fairly normal acts into a viewpoint that makes it seem offensive (or racist/sexist/homophobic).

 

One example that sticks out in my mind is the Snickers commercial from the last Superbowl (you can look it up on Youtube). As far as I am aware, it was pulled from the air after representatives of the gay community found it to be homophobic. As a quick recap, in the commercial two men were working in a car garage; one pulled out the candy bar and began to eat it while the other came over and chewed on the other end. They accidentally kiss, then proceed to say "Quick! do something 'Manly'!" Following this they rip out their chest hair with their bare hands. The End.

Now some people may disagree about this, but it's kind of a stretch to consider that homophobic. Because of their dislike of kissing each other, these men were obviously heterosexual, and therefore reacted in a slightly exaggerated way (for humor) one (heterosexual male) might react in that situation. Just because the men didn't enjoy the kiss, DOES NOT make the commercial homophobic! It was meant to be humorous because of their reactions!

 

Another example of when political correctness isn't always correct would be the difference in the terms "black" and "African American" when describing race (the latter being preferred by most PC-people in America). The problem with this is that African American implies that they are all from Africa, or are all living in America! Neither of these things are true, and many of these people have heritage from (or were born in) the Caribbean islands, Central America, S. America, etc. "Black" is a more proper term simply for the fact that it clearly identifies a race in the same way that "white" does. To clarify: these terms in of themselves are not bigotry; they become problems or offensive when people use them in an ignorant context...

 

Finally, we have stretches to not "offend" with movements like removing "Under God" from the U.S. "Pledge of Allegience" (which merely succeeds in drawing more attention in something that can easily be left out if one choses), and forcing employees to say "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas" (or any other "seasons greeting" they wish to give) with a fear of bring fired. Things seem to get hugely blown out of proportion these days, and it's tiring!

 

 

... ok. I'm done.

 

for now

...accept of course for the intolerant ones--they don't tolerate intolerant people.  So I guess that means they souldn't tolerate themselves either?

 

Yes, it definitely is refreshing, compared to talking to people face-to-face that get really angry when you disagree with them (at least that's how quite a few people are in the Mid-Western U.S.!) But I would also venture to say that prog-rock in general can help to "expand your horizons", maybe because listening to it is more of an active process that requires a little more brain power to analyze (generally) compared to passive run-of-the-mill music that dominates society these days. This critical thinking and also the types of ideas expressed in the music itself seem (for most) to promote (NOT cause) more open-mindedness to new ideas.

(Sounds good to me, but maybe I'm just another "prog elitist"! )

 

Haha, do ya think Nader is going to run again?

 

 

Yup, they simply come out that way, not realizing how much they fit so perfectly the stereotype we have of them.