You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our community, at no cost, you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is free, fast and simple, so please join our community today!
I'm new to this whole political thing, I know a few things but really I'm in the dark. I want to hear from everyone on this board, I want the republicans to describe what a republican is, what they beleive in and what their stance on things are. I want them to describe what a democrat or a libertarians stance are on the same issues. And I want the democrats and libertarians etc to do the same. I've asked a lot of people and always got a different response. I want to know the definitive explanation of what a republican/democrat, etc. are without any of the vagueties. I haven't really decided for myself what I am, the only thing I know is that I'm liberal and sure as hell not republican. But who knows, maybe I'm wrong...please you guys, enlighten me.
__________________ You can't go around building a better world for people. Only people can build a better world for people. Otherwise it's just a cage.
Americans believe in certain principles or ideals.
Liberty, Equality, Economy (efficiency), Religion, and Patriotism are five key ones. Most Americans believe in and promote all of these principles as virtuous.
Republicans believe that Patriotism or Religion (they are an alliance of sorts) are more important than Economy, which is more important than Liberty, which is more important than equality. In other words, Republicans love equality as long as it doesn't infringe on liberty, and think civil liberties are great as long as it doesn't mess up their patriotism. Liberty is great, but not if it is "anti-American" or, for some "against the will of God." This is a neo-fascist model, although the word 'fascism' has taken on a dirty connotation, and in no way are Republicans to be associated with Hitler.
Liberals, by contrast, consider equality the most important thing, followed by liberty, then economy, and tend to rank patriotism and god near the bottom, almost the reverse of the Republican model. The think patriotism is great, so long as it doesn't interfere with civil freedoms. They generally are willing to screw up the economy in a quest for equality and/or civil liberties. This is a socialist model.
Libertarians rank liberty, or freedom first, followed by equality and economy. Like liberals, libertarians would be willing to stunt the economy for the sake of liberty, but unlike them libertarians tend to believe in efficient free markets because they value freedom more than equality, and are willing to allow for free-market inequities that liberals can't stand. Libertarians don't care much for patriotism or religion, except to allow people the freedom to pursue them. Libertarians often vote either republican or democrat, depending on how much they understand economics.
Utilitarians (America's political middle) tend to rank Economy as the most important thing. They want freedom and equality and patriotism and religion, but if there is a way to get better jobs, careers, or benefits, they are mostly willing to sacrifice on any and all of these political beliefs. These are the people who 'vote their wallets' and vote according to how much better of we are than 4 years ago. They have no party loyalty.
Pete (admits that there are other factions but those are the majors)
__________________
"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine." --Thomas Jefferson
Last edited by plezercruz; 06-22-2004 at 01:34 PM.
Wow, I've never seen a self-describing contradiction before.
__________________ You can't go around building a better world for people. Only people can build a better world for people. Otherwise it's just a cage.
Originally posted by Woodyear Too vague, not broad enough.
That statement is stupid, but not smart enough.
It's too ironic to let slide......a self-described Bush-hater with a sub-par command of English vocabulary.
Lastly, I'd like to announce the grand opening of the Derek Zoolander Center For Kids Who Can't Read Good And Who Wanna Learn To Do Other Stuff Good Too.
You can learn all about it by visting the following website: http://www.openadictionaryforonce.ed...Ihavenofriends
__________________
One should always have a healthy distrust for anyone who wields the power of the gun and says, "I know what's best, and I'm here to help." - JonnyC
Originally posted by Woodyear Too vague, not broad enough.
I understood him perfectly.
It's unclear and confusing while at the same time being too narrowly focused in scope. Vague does not mean broad...they have slightly different meanings that can be juxtaposed.
Pete (thinks you should address the substance of the post, not the rhetoric)
__________________
"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine." --Thomas Jefferson
Originally posted by plezercruz I understood him perfectly.
It's unclear and confusing while at the same time being too narrowly focused in scope. Vague does not mean broad...they have slightly different meanings that can be juxtaposed.
Pete (thinks you should address the substance of the post, not the rhetoric)
I guess we could have assumed by "broad," he meant to employ the fifth most common definition of the word. (12 total definitions)
Matt (would suggest the use of the word "specific" rather than "broad" to more accurately convey Woodyear's point, but Matt ain't no grammer teacher and thanks Pete for pointing out we were a little quick to pounce on what we saw to be a mistake.)
__________________
One should always have a healthy distrust for anyone who wields the power of the gun and says, "I know what's best, and I'm here to help." - JonnyC
Theres really no need to nitpick, it was obvious what I meant. Plezecruz is correct. I meant the definitions were very short and unspecific, and didn't cover a large enough range of issues, etc. I'll elaborate on that before you jump down my throat again. What I'm looking for in this post isn't something which explains most of the specifics, on the entire broad range of issues. Does that make it more clear for you?
The idea that just because a person owns a Z qualifies them to make such grand pronouncements on war, peace, and politics is very amusing. Just because you have the constitutional right to express your opinion doesn't gaurantee that your opinion isn't full of s....
I went for the joke because Pete had already answered the question. I just don't think you guys appreciate recursive humor enough, which (as a programmer) is my favorite kind in the whole world.
__________________ You can't go around building a better world for people. Only people can build a better world for people. Otherwise it's just a cage.
Originally posted by nbdyfcnsqnc I went for the joke because Pete had already answered the question. I just don't think you guys appreciate recursive humor enough, which (as a programmer) is my favorite kind in the whole world.
Ah...a perfectly good flame war quashed by common sense.
Pete (takes off his little pale blue helmet)
__________________
"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine." --Thomas Jefferson
Hey I thought of another thing... er, a first thing... to contribute that I think is both true and interesting.
It seems to me that most conservatives are positive people while democrats are negative.
__________________ You can't go around building a better world for people. Only people can build a better world for people. Otherwise it's just a cage.
Don't take my word for it. Just make a list of everyone you know (or know of). In one column, write whether they're liberal or conservative. In the other column, write whether they have a positive or negative outlook on life.
__________________ You can't go around building a better world for people. Only people can build a better world for people. Otherwise it's just a cage.
It's true.
Liberals want you to have that negative attitude so you'll look to big brother government for help.
Whereas consevatives (I'm paraphrasing something nbdy said I think) are more about personal responsibility and can-do-it-tiveness.
But I do know a few positive self-proclaimed lefties.
But Michael Moore is certainly a good example of a negative socialist, I mean liberal.
__________________
One should always have a healthy distrust for anyone who wields the power of the gun and says, "I know what's best, and I'm here to help." - JonnyC
I don't think it's so much that liberals become negative. I think it's that negative people become liberals. If there's something wrong in their lives, instead of fixing it, they blame it on someone else. The political philosophy that goes along with that is liberalism.
I'm not saying this always holds true, but it's a trend I've noticed over the years. I'd even say that the more negative someone is, the more liberal they tend to be, and the more positive, the more conservative.
It doesn't really apply to libertarians. I've seen positive and negative people gravitate towards that. It's not based on emotion or disposition, but on reason.
__________________ You can't go around building a better world for people. Only people can build a better world for people. Otherwise it's just a cage.
Originally posted by nbdyfcnsqnc Don't take my word for it. Just make a list of everyone you know (or know of). In one column, write whether they're liberal or conservative. In the other column, write whether they have a positive or negative outlook on life.
Or, just look at what the Kerry campaign (or the Gore campaign) tries to do to win. They talk down any good news about the economy, the war, etc. Everything is the worst in 50 years, people need government to help them, I've got a program for you to fix what the last administration did, etc.
On the other hand, look at the Reagan example where he mentioned what was wrong, but then offered a grand vision of the positives of the US and his vision of how the country itself could make itself better. "Morning in America" commercials still make me feel good about my country when I see them, and they are 25 years old now.
Fascists vs. Socialists
