What am I? Liberal or Conservative? Republican or Democrat?

reply to post by rival



Agree with everything except this and I'm called a Liberal Democrat

3. I'm anti-social programs, like social medicine, social security, food stamps, and welfare. I realize these programs are needed because sometimes circumstances dictate that some people end up helpless and need a safety net, but I resist against these programs because, unchecked these programs can become corrupt money pits of red tape and over-regulated government excess.

I don't "resist" and instead of anti - social programs I am PRO. Because as you say...

... these programs are needed because sometimes circumstances dictate that some people end up helpless and need a safety net,

Why take food from the mouths of babes and widows and veterans because something has not been checked and has been abused? Who does THAT hurt?

And how can something be both of these?

unchecked

over-regulated

Rather than resist social programs proven vital, why don't we CHECK THEM more often, remove the red tape and strip the excess?

Each of the others, I am right there with you and our position is virtually identical except, I might not go the one step farther on the first.

reply to post by newcovenant


How something can be unchecked and over-regulated...

Over-regulated means when someone needs emergency assistance and the red tape involved
adds months to their wait. In my single experience my family had no money for food and it took
over a month. By the time I was approved I was back working and didn't need assistance.

Unchecked refers to the growing number of government social programs since SSI was instated.
The latest, of course, is the Affordable Care Act. At some point government social programs literally
become a robbing of upper wage earners for the benefit of lower wage earners (and the unemployed).
The number of people receiving government assistance is growing rapidly. The US Department of
Health and Human Services reports that 55 million US citizens receive welfare, food stamps, or
unemployment insurance. This is from a pool of 310 million Americans--one person out of
six. When (or if) that number approaches fifty percent it literally becomes a forced transfer of wealth
from the rich to the poor.

Originally posted by rival
I'm having a hard time deciding where I fit in. I've been lumped in with "libtards"
and "right-wing gun nuts" and I'm just wondering is there anyone else like me who
doesn't "fit" the ready made mold of either party.

1. I'm pro-gun, pro 2nd amendment. I'll take it a step further, any "arms" your local
governments possess (Police, SWAT, FBI, DHS, ATF, etc) I believe the American people
have the right to possess.
......

I have other political views that I may express later, but that's enough for now to
pose my question...

So am I blue or am I red?

edit on 26-1-2013 by rival because: (no reason given)

You're a centrist on social issues. Leaning towards being a liberal

not really sure what the purpose of the thread is, people having mixed views isn't original and certainly doesn't warrant congratulations. The vast majority of people have conflicting views on social issues.

You haven't mentioned economics though. Are you a capitalist or a socialist?

I pity your testicles, because you are sitting right on the fence. Independent, that's what you are. Good to know that we free thinkers have found another ally.

You're a Libertarian! Congratulations! It's a true party of the people where individual freedoms are the main platform. Not corporate cronyism of two flavors: red or blue.

Most people I talk to, who are starting to feel disenfranchised by the party of their parents, are surprised to find that they are staunch Libertarians.

I agree with much of you say but not military cuts (because of constant global hostilities if we get into trouble they would have to draft) and God is rather too important to be swept under the rug,we ARE founded on faith.Gays are fine just don't stick it in my face ,the male sex act creeps me out,marriage is OK.It's their life.
As for abortion....it's killing a conceived life and a failure to abstain.I have seen enough death.Adopt the child out unless the mother is at risk.Rape is no excuse either but they should be handled with a lot more help than they get now.An unplanned faimily is a hairy issue I agree but I wouldn't see the next Einstein aborted.
Green? You know I remember the beginning of the ecology effort before it was hijacked by the left.I feel that planned obsolescence was a major down fall here.Why not make modular cars that last so the components may be disposed of but not neccessarily the whole car?.True it would cut into the parts and mechanic trade but that is progress isn't it?
We aren't recycling at the dump they want it at the door that way.We need to recover ALL materials we can in any way possible to bring recycling to its pinnacle .We need trash recovery systems AT THE DUMP.
I am an independent registered voter.

reply to post by cavtrooper7


You should be good then. Who did you vote for during the last race?

reply to post by AfterInfinity

The looser,I wanted Paul but we all know there was no way TPTB would allow that.

I agree, you're definitely libertarian.

reply to post by cavtrooper7


You voted for Romney? Ugh. Even for a Conservative, that was some low quality. But no harm done.

You're liberal. It's not even a discussion really. probably all the lies about liberals being anti-gun are clouding your view. I responded to the bolded parts.

Originally posted by rival
1. I'm pro-gun, Liberals are not anti-gun. Sure, there's a small segment that is vehemently against it. The majority are not. This issue is mostly just lies spread by Fox News to scare viewers. If there's a conspiracy to disarm Americans, it's being perpetrated by both parties, not just democrats.

2. I'm pro-woman.
Extremely liberal

3. I'm anti-social programs
See this is an often misrepresented issue. I think the difference between liberals and conservative lies not that they WANT social programs, but in that liberals see the necessity in them while conservatives do not. Liberals wish people didn't need these programs, but they do. But instead of talking about how to get people off them and into a better life, the discussion is always about whether we should just get rid of the programs. IMO, getting rid of the programs, before getting the people off the programs is immoral. We would have a bunch of homeless starving people who can't find jobs. This issue is often skewed by republicans calling people on these programs lazy. And while there are some lazy people on them, most are actually hard workers who have hit a rough patch.


4. I'm pro-gay issues.
Extremely liberal

5. I believe in the total separation of church and state.
It's mostly the Republicans who are

6. I believe we should cut military spending.
liberal


7. Go Green.
liberal

edit on 26-1-2013 by rival because: (no reason given)

so it's 5-2 liberal, and I explained why the 2 aren't really liberal points of view.

Now politicians suck in general, so I would say screw both parties. But you fit in with what democrats say, say being the key word. It's all lies.

Answers:

# 1. Pro-gun - This means you have a brain and see the world in "realistic and logical" terms and are not a Statest fascist or fantasy land dreamer. Currently this fits more into the "Non-Neocon" Conservative / Libertarian Camp as the Progressive Liberal Democrats and Neo-Con Republicans are pro-police state / anti liberty.

#2. Pro-woman (let's rename this Abortion) - This is a toss up. Though it is true you have a Conservative minority who is 100% against abortion "no matter what", most believe that incest and rape and life of the mother are exceptions. Abortion is a business in the US and one of the few things I can give the Germans is that you have to go through an orientation which provides you ALL the options at your disposal including adoption, etc before you run through the butcher shop. (Sorry, abortion is just nasty and genocidal in my opinion when done heartlessly on an assembly line for profit. Especially if there are other options when there is no other reason to terminate it. People pay good money for babies, even going overseas so at least provide those options).

If you are the "abortions free, often and no moral objections ever" you fall into the Progressive Liberal Democrat Globalist population control for the betterment of the earth category.

If you fall into the "abortions when needed, rape, incest, life of the mother" camp, you are leaning Conservative Republican.

Those that say none ever are the "Moral Majority" Conservatives.

#3. Workfare - Well, you sure as hell are not a Progressive Democrat on this subject. I assume you have a non-gvernment job! LOL. Like many of us who are conservative, we believe that social programs are needed for those that NEED it. Social Security we paid for. Conservatives believe that "free rides" create dependency which the Progressive Democrats want to keep their voter base depending on them. Kind of like the Master / Serf relationship bordering on real world communism... the Serfs are all Equal (equally miserable) and the Elites of the leadership are the privileged and above the law the Serfs follow.

I call it workfare as any benefit (besides retirement_ should come with a work requirement if the person is able. Even answering the phone, data entry, picking up trash if your able, recycle line, whatever... at least get 20 hours a week of beneficial labor that we are not outsourcing overseas via govt contracts.

#4. Homosexuality - Definitely more in the Democrat camp (Communist goal #26). Most Conservatives do not accept homosexuality as public behavior and the best you are going to get normally is the "Keep it to yourself" attitude. Many Libertarians ask why the "Government" has Anything to do with "marriage / relationships" at all. Get the government out of Legal union contracts all together to include taxes, etc and let the religious institutions and legal union documents fall where they may.

#5. Church and State - This depends on your vision. There is a difference from "Not Promoting" a particular religion and Not enforcing a particular religion AND Being Actively Hostile towards Christianity only.

If you fall into the actively hostile, zero tolerance to Christianity camp, you fall into the Progressive Democrat camp.

If you fall into the non-promotion of any religion by government, probably more normal Republican / Libertarian

If you fall into the "prayer in schools" if it is "Christian" camp, Moral Majority Conservative.

#6. Military / World Police - You generally fit in with anyone except Neo-Cons and Progressive Fascist camps. Normal non-progressive democrats, normal non-neocon conservatives and Libertarians generally believe in a Defensive Military and not a World Police offensive military doing the bidding of the Globalist.

#7. Alternative Energy - Difficult, this is multi-billion / trillions of income. Everyone has a scam (carbon credit scam comes to mind) to make themselves and friends and supporters rich and powerful. The ONLY true way to ever get this in-place without chosen "winners" who overlord us with insane taxes is Patent Law. We must invalidate Patents or have them expire into "open source" otherwise Nothing will ever really be up for grabs when companies can sit on technology forever and sue anyone that has a viable alternative as they have a patent they sit on forever.

Originally posted by WaterBottle
reply to post by Semicollegiate

 

I would say both parties are left wing, because both parties preside over growing government power and neither side has reduced governmental perivew into anything.

You don't understand what the terms left and right wing mean. The extreme left is anarchism, the right wing is statism.

You're extremely politically confused.

edit on 27-1-2013 by WaterBottle because: (no reason given)

The left uses that metric so they can appear less statist. As in, the right wing is statist and we are not right wing--therefore we, the left, are not statists.

Actually left wing and right wing refer to the seating arrangements at the National Assembly. Left and right correspond to modern vs traditional. or theoretical vs know quantity.

Since socialism, communism, and populism came to be, the left has sought to use the government to enforce its ideals. Lenin, Mussolini, Stalin and Hitler were all on the left. As were Woodrow Wilson, Herbert Hoover, and FDR. They were all leftists because they wanted to try something new. And they all used the government to do it.
They were all statists and they were all on the left.

reply to post by CosmicCitizen

In essence Liberals love the State while Conservatives love their Country....there is a difference.

Originally posted by Semicollegiate

Originally posted by WaterBottle
reply to post by Semicollegiate

 

I would say both parties are left wing, because both parties preside over growing government power and neither side has reduced governmental perivew into anything.

You don't understand what the terms left and right wing mean. The extreme left is anarchism, the right wing is statism.

You're extremely politically confused.

edit on 27-1-2013 by WaterBottle because: (no reason given)

The left uses that metric so they can appear less statist. As in, the right wing is statist and we are not right wing--therefore we, the left, are not statists.

Actually left wing and right wing refer to the seating arrangements at the National Assembly. Left and right correspond to modern vs traditional. or theoretical vs know quantity.

Since socialism, communism, and populism came to be, the left has sought to use the government to enforce its ideals. Lenin, Mussolini, Stalin and Hitler were all on the left. As were Woodrow Wilson, Herbert Hoover, and FDR. They were all leftists because they wanted to try something new. And they all used the government to do it.
They were all statists and they were all on the left.

www.mbc.edu...

The graphic illustration below shows a range of democratic and non-democratic political systems. Its essential points are (1) that dictatorships vary in degree of severity, but that (2) dictatorships of the left (communism) and of the right (fascism) ultimately resemble one another, and that (3) both pure forms of dictatorship are virtually polar opposites of pure democracy. The chart also illustrates that (4) a range exists among democratic political systems. While these distinctions are applicable at any time, the examples given in the chart reflect the world's governments circa 1980. The source for this graphic is William Ebenstein, et. al., American Democracy in World Perspective fifth edition (NY: Harper and Row, 1980): 620. Below the chart, Prof. Bowen has provided contemporary examples of most points on the "clock of freedom."

reply to post by Ghost375


My gun philosophy is this, if you have one, I can have one--it is only fair. I take full personal
responsibility for my own safety. I draw the line at "guns" as per what I believe the framers intended
when they used the term "arms" (firearms; pistols shotguns, rifles)

Okay lets call it abortion. At some point the the fetus becomes viable as a human being and the
fetus's right to life outweighs the mother's rights...I don't know when that is, and it is a HUGELY
touchy subject, but it is somewhere between zygote and birth. If I were forced to be King and had
to decide at what point a fetus has rights I would say it is somewhere about mid-term...save the
usual extenuating circumstances such as rape, incest etc.

I never would have voted for, or approved of, SSI. I don't vehemently oppose social programs
but I am a voice for the conservative side. It is a battle I don't mind losing to the majority.

Marriage? It is like you say...government has no business regulating any personal union, be it gay,
or polygamous. And now that we're stuck with Affordable Care, insurance should be an even deal
across the board with no benefit or subsidy for groups, or families, or pools.

Church and State? Don't make anyone feel uncomfortable by offering prayers in a government
venue.We don't all believe in the same God, and there is no democratic process that can solve
that problem short of allowing everyone a turn at the podium for their own personal prayer.

Military? Facts are the US spends HALF the entire world's budget on the technology to kill.
What a waste. Only three hundred million of us and we spend almost as much as 6.7 billion
others on weapons. I'm being generous when I say cut that amount in HALF...very
generous.

Anyway, thx for the thoughtful reply and replies.

The point is we all don't fit in a nice tidy political box, but yet we allow ourselves to be duped
into believing this generality--red or blue--democrat or republican--liberal or conservative.

When you go to the store you can make an inconsequential decision between a hundred
different varieties of gum....but when you go to the polls to make the most important decision
of who is going to lead and command this strongest and most expensive military force in the
world.....you are either a democrat or a republican....or a loser

reply to post by rival


Libertarian. You need to pick what's most important to choose which party you back.

reply to post by rival


Don't worry about it...and don't try to put yourself in one group...and don't fall into that trap...more people should be so balanced

Originally posted by rival
I'm having a hard time deciding where I fit in. I've been lumped in with "libtards"
and "right-wing gun nuts" and I'm just wondering is there anyone else like me who
doesn't "fit" the ready made mold of either party.

1. I'm pro-gun, pro 2nd amendment. I'll take it a step further, any "arms" your local
governments possess (Police, SWAT, FBI, DHS, ATF, etc) I believe the American people
have the right to possess.

2. I'm pro-woman. I think Roe vs Wade is just about right. The tough distinction to
make is the one between a mother's right to her body and when that right is superseded by
the fetus's right to life. IMO the existing law is just about as good as it gets.

3. I'm anti-social programs, like social medicine, social security, food stamps, and welfare.
I realize these programs are needed because sometimes circumstances dictate that some people
end up helpless and need a safety net, but I resist against these programs because, unchecked
these programs can become corrupt money pits of red tape and over-regulated government excess.

4. I'm pro-gay issues. Let them marry and have the benefit of validation AND the benefit of
the tax and insurance breaks hetero couples enjoy.

5. I believe in the total separation of church and state. Keep your god, your philosophy, and
your religion personal. No one should impose their religious views in a government
controlled venue. To each his own, in his own time.

6. I believe we should cut military spending. Drastically reduce the amount we spend on
defense, by at least half. It has become abundantly clear that we are no longer deploying
our military for defense. Over the last fifty years our military has been deployed in aggressive
action that has less to do with national defense and more to do with political and government
interest.

7. Go Green. I believe we, as a nation, should embrace solar and wind technology on a
large scale, complete with subsidy and tax incentive for new construction and retrofitted
existing structures, such as homes, schools, and businesses. Though I am against big
government and government subsidy of private sector this issue is too beneficial to
humanity for us to ignore. America should be writing the blueprint and leading the way.

I have other political views that I may express later, but that's enough for now to
pose my question...

So am I blue or am I red?

.

edit on 26-1-2013 by rival because: (no reason given)

You're conservative. If you think government is the answer to everything, you're a democrat. If you think the states should be fairly free to decide for themselves, and less government is good, your a republican, however, either way, you're fairly conservative, bordering between conservative and moderate.

I have similar views, no limits on the second amendment (everybody should have the right to open carry).

I believe green energy is the future, but I dislike giant government projects even more than argument over the second amendment. States and free-markets do just fine, and they have for a very, very long time. If the states were responsible, they have surpluses, not deficits, and would have money to encourage trade, and support and expand infrastructure as a primary reason to lure business there.

Goals like doubling the efficiency of cars are great, and will only help us get there before everybody else (eventually, oil prices would have made these types of technologies necessary), hence, it will allow us to continue to lead the world with the same respect currently commanded by our economy.

I dislike welfare more than anything else in the world, other than terrorists, and socialists.

I think that the free but less-regulated market solves most things (obviously derivatives and other high-risk behavior resemble gambling far too much to be considered banking, or trading, and doing it with other peoples money should be illegal...leave that crap up to the hedge funds and investment banks.)

I think that existing laws on abortion are fine, but improvements could be made--i.e. requiring the fathers signature as well, to proceed with termination except in the case where the relationship is abusive....I don't think anyone really questions a woman's choice to choose to keep, or abort in the case of rape/abuse....
But it's also a #ing joke that abortion is a big issue in the first place, if you wrap your tool (as a woman, just say no), or use reasonable math and science, there's no reason you should get pregnant. Too often it's a case of people using plan-b, or abortion as a contraceptive. As a civilized society, I'm positive that outlaw in abortion except in the case of rape would lead to a lot of bogus rape charges, but ultimately, it would force people onto the pill, or it would force them to use condoms.

I disagree when it comes to foreign policy. If we have the means to stop a genocide, or to destroy a group with targets our citizens, or stop the madmen of the world from slaughtering their citizens, we should.

If you kill hundreds, if not thousands Americans for decades, and kidnap hundreds more like Iran has, then create a secret nuclear program, reveal it, then call it peaceful, create more fuel than you could possibly use, enrich it more than you need to, assemble the rockets you don't need, do the explosives testing you don't need, build your "peaceful" nuclear program under a mountain (people have no reason to attack a peaceful program), then refuse an international agreement that would allow you to keep your technology, get fuel for free by swapping out unenriched uranium for enriched uranium, saving you millions of dollars, then you should expect an attack.

I can't say that I agreed with the invasion of Iraq, but I did agree with removing Saddam....we weren't going to lose pilots and hundreds of millions of dollars getting our planes shot down for forever, nor were we going to let Saddam gas his own people again. Reminder: it was US law that the official policy of the United States was to remove Saddam by any means for two decades.

I think that lesbians/gays should be able to receive equal benefits under the law/tax codes, but to protect tradition, and to avoid the religious debate, the law should be revised to support "marriage or civil union". A different but exalted term could be used. It would be appropriate for churches to marry gays and lesbians if that's what they believe in, but marriage is a religious term with a definition. If you don't call it marriage on paper, at the court house, this is a non issue.

Everyone should be equal under the law, and that includes women. They should be paid equal to their abilities--but not their capabilities.. I.e. a person better qualified for a job should be paid the same as the next person doing the job, whether they're not as qualified, or they're a woman shouldn't matter. Ability and performance don't recognize gender, or preference.

I'm conservative...on the left to right pendulum. I'm fairly progressive when it comes to domestic policy, so I suppose you could call me a Progressive Conservative Libertarian Constitutionalist. :-)

reply to post by rival


You, like most Americans [used to be?], are a centrist. The way you vote will depend on which of those issues takes priority, and that priority will, no doubt, shift as the circumstances change.

The end result, when done en mass, discourages extremism and endorses moderation. That's the way it's supposed to work anyway.