Liberals or Conservatives?

Oh my. This is a loaded question. Forgive me for not following all five pages of discussion, but this entire poll is just very poorly put together. What do you mean by "right?" And which ideas? This is WAY too ambiguous. If you want to argue these kinds of questions, you really need to define them better. There is far too much room misinterpretation here.

That is, if this poll was intended to clarify or illuminate anything at all (which I really hope it was).

 

Quite frankly, it would not work with the way people in the west are living now. But then again, nature does not work with that either, and is being destroyed in the name of profit and convenience. We begin to forget that we are natural and biological organisms, as we move into a world of everything at our fingertips and metal and gears. I am suggesting we revamp the way we work, keep what technology benefits the world, and foresake everything else. In essence, I would have a world with the internet and refridgeration, but without mass automobile transportation or fossil fuel based power. We can live with wind and solar energy, but we may have to foresake streetlights and excessive heating/cooling. I would return to a lifestyle where if you are too hot, you go for a swim, or if you are too cold, you light a log on fire and relax.

 

^^^^^^^

I am well in agreeance. The above is something that would definitely need to be ensured by action...experimentation...practical demonstration on an EVERYDAY LIVING level. There needs to be more of that in the balance than trying to change the leadership.

 

I'm economically centrist, socially libertarian (pro-drug legalization, pro-immigration), and ethically conservative (pro-life, anti-same sex marriage).

 

the right idea is to not put ANY idiology ahead of the kind of world we all have to live in. accurately or not and for better or worse, this tends to get labled libralism.

=^^=
.../\...

 

Technically I'm a Fascist, but in Canada I'm a Conservative, one thing that should be noted is that Conservatives in some countries, like teh States, aren't really Conservatives, they eventually give way to liberalism in the end.

 

Liberals, for the most part. I am strongly opposed to war.

 

GO CONSERVATIVES


actually, though im a conservative i do see merrits in liberalism, however, if liberals were to control the country, it would fall apart. there has to be order, or the world is doomed. afterall, america IS the most powerful force in the world...

 

hehe, no...im hard core.

 

:dupe: I personally believe that the modern polotical areana is nothing more than another opportunity for Anerica's 5%ers to stick it to the publc one more time. Not only do you not get to choose the winner of elections, you don't even get a chance to choose who runs.

 

The U.S. is a two party system, are you people happy about that?

The only real democracy exists in Europe, in countries such as Sweden and Germany where once in a while the third or fourth party wins.

 

Ought to have a NO party system. Fuck electoral college. Let the people vote for crissakes! And vote for someone based on their individual merits, not what "party" they represent. Period. Gosh, that would actually make people THINK. Now THAT's liberal.

 

Terms. Words. Does anybody really think about their actual meaning any more? Well, lets.
What does the word liberal mean? Anybody? Isn't it basically something you would use to describe someone who is open minded? Perhaps non judgemental? Maybe someone who is not afraid to try new things. I am visualising someone with a smiling face and a relaxed nature. Someone adventurous and optomistic.

What does the word "conservative" mean? Doesn't it connote someone who worries about things? Must CONSERVE things (save or horde). Someone who must have order and rules and regulations. Someone who is not comfortable with people with open minds. Someone who has alot of fear of change or the unknown? The word conjures up an image of someone who is very tight assed, afraid to fart or belch, someone who is perhaps racist, or power hungry (obsessed with control due to fear).

Damn, when ya look at it THAT way, sounds like conservatism is a mental illness.....

 

Your point? America being the "most powerful force in the world" is a very bad and dangerous thing. Must have order, oh yes, as long as WE get to make all the rules. Must control the masses. Not smart enough to think for themselves. Must have lots of rules and laws and many, many police and soldiers to keep everybody in line. Control!
The world is already doomed due to this. People who have the ability to think outside the box are what will save us. Not more power and more force. That will drive us closer to the gates of hell, and we're already within hollering distance. Perhaps a TRUE liberal does not wish to CONTROL anything... What do you suppose would happen for REAL if "the liberals" were to be the ones making the decisions? Give me your worst case scenario. Of course it will all be speculation, because "the liberals" have never been in charge of much. But there is no speculation about what happens when a bunch of "conservatives" take charge. We see it every day. Thing is, the "conservatives" aren't very conservative. Too bad they aren't. Because what they look more like these days is mindless rabid fanatics. Pretty far cry from conservative, don't you think?

 

As the most powerful nation in the world? Do you mean like ancient Rome?

I know that you can't mean ecconomically. That we lost that role back in the 70's and 80's.
This country is being bought up be foreign powers as fast as they can close escrow.
And, what "WE" do you mean? Unless your one of the nation's 1%'ers then you don't get to make any of the rules.
Stalin said, " He who casts the votes decides nothing. But, he who counts the votes decides every thing."
As far as control is concerned, that line of thinking has never worked in the past. It didn't wwork for the Facist, Nazis, Dictatorships, Napolian, any of them.
Old Roman proverb, "More laws less justice; Fewer laws more justice."
For the most part, we've lost Iraq.
This is due to the inappropriate use of force.

If Liberals were to take over, what would happen? Now much really, they've held power in the past and the world is just as F'd up as it is now.
One thing that you must realize is that they are politicians, and there is no such thing as an honorable politician. They all are hungry for power, and power corrupts.

 

Hey, Napoleon was a great man, leave him out of this.

 

Napolean was an ego maniac.

 

Firist, the dichotomy of "liberal v. conservative" is deceptive, because they have extremely vague definitions that only fit to politics at a specific time period.
For example, Barry Goldwater was the ultra-ultra-ultra conservative guy in the 1960s, but if he lived today possibly he wouldn't even be able to speak in Republican convention as the current "religious right" would deem him as a liberal, as his granddaughter said in an interview with Bill Maher. Goldwater supported gay rights and abortion rights, which is hardly "conservative" in this day.

Also on the issue of drugs, today's conservative is often harsh on drugs. however, the earliest drug laws in the 1920s are written by "progressives" at that time. A "conservative" is more likely to oppose "innovative" policies, yet the "war on drugs" started in the 1970s, not old at all. A real conservative is opposed to war on drugs, since there is no such thing as "war on drugs" in the time when George Washington was around.

 

Have you been to France, they have his remains on display ( not openly ), in Rome people praise the old emperors such as Augustus and they had many killed, but they were still great, whereas in the U.S. a guy like Nixon gets thrown because of cheating? Oooooooooh.

 

Wow, you actually said something I agree with...I'm shocked...

Here, we really don't even have authentic 'liberals' or 'conservatives'. The two parties deliberately try to take such a moderate stance that doesn't differ in any significant way from each other that in most ways they're not distinguishable from one another.

A real 'liberal' would be vehemnetly anti-war and would do whatever necessary to oppose the policies of a fascist war-monger like Bush, and a real 'conservative' would work against a legal system that promotes divorce and the constant breakup of families, instead of spouting meaningless rhetoric about 'family values'. :lol:

As it is, in this one-size-fits-all two party (which might as well be a one-party) system, most voters have virtually no real choice when they go to the polls, which is why I frequently don't even bother to vote, in spite of having a degree in Political Science. If there is a real alternative to the status quo I will vote, which there usually isn't.

Anyway, the terms 'liberal' and 'conservative' have lost their original meanings over the years. 'Libera' in Latin means 'free', and 'conservare' means 'to keep' or 'to conserve', to 'preserve'. They were originally words that could be (and are) used (like in the old Roman Liturgy) in the same sentence and in the same context and considered to be complimentary virtues. Now they're usually seen to be opposites to each other. As far as I'm concerned, aspects of both are good, but I'm a little old-fashioned in a lot of ways...