Conservatives, Liberals, or neither?

[BlackRoseQueen]

Which do you believe is the "proper" political belief system, and why? If neither, why?

[Tentacruel]

First of all, **** the idea of either being the "proper" belief system.  That's a far too closed minded outlook.

 

 

I'm more conservative than liberal, but **** both sides. 

[BlackRoseQueen]

Yeah, I get that idea, I just know people who are passionate about their side usually feel it's the right one.

[ListenToLife]

I'm more liberal than conservative, but like Comrade says, there's no 'right' political belief system, and there are different beliefs systems that work better in different situations. A more conservative government is generally better while in a good economic climate, and works in a positive situation. A more left-wing party is more effective when in a recession and such.

 

Liberal is generally a rather good political side for social reasons, being accepting and civil rights for all, but there can be situations where even that can go too far. For example, 3rd wave Feminists and the like (AKA, Feminazis) who do wish for equality for the discriminated against, they wish for superiority.

[BlackRoseQueen]

I tend to be liberal, but the liberal pages on Facebook make me see why the cause isn't taken seriously by a lot of people. The Being Liberal page is pathetic, with ad hominem attacks galore, and I support Conservatives who criticize those types of Liberals. I know extremism exists on both sides, and I try my best to keep my views mellowed out, unless it's something that has a personal place in my life.

[swag swag swag swag swag s]

Look at Sweden and see how well it worked out with Liberals.

But I prefer neither anyways.

[Tourmaline]

I'm more of a Libertarian than anything. A good word is an objectivist. Ayn Rand and all. It might be because I'm nihilistic.

[Gαr]

I don't care for either, but I'm more liberal than anything else.

[Sunshine Jesse]

Not even gonna pretend to be close to the middle!

 

I'm really far left, about a stone's throw away from being an outright socialist.

 

Either side of the spectrum could work given a proper social structure, though. They both have their ups, and their downs can mostly be attributed to the attitudes of the populace or the people that'd be in power at the time.

 

and no, human nature does not hold either of them back. it's all learned beliefs based on our cultural evolution that prevent one or the other from working properly.

[Mehmani]

[Tentacruel]

Huh, I always thought Ayn Rand was a man.

 

Anyway, that image is little more than propaganda, and I really don't like Ayn Rand's political views.

[BlackRoseQueen]

[quote name="Comrade Tentacruel" post="6220391" timestamp="1371053858"]Huh, I always thought Ayn Rand was a man.   Anyway, that image is little more than propaganda, and I really don't like Ayn Rand's political views.[/quote] I agree, which is why I think the Being Liberal page is crap, because these kinds of images are the whole effing thing.

[Mehmani]

Huh, I always thought Ayn Rand was a man.

 

Anyway, that image is little more than propaganda, and I really don't like Ayn Rand's political views.

 

You mean, pro-Orwell propaganda. Oh, there's a spot of irony. How about reading the Road to Wigan Pier and the Fountainhead first before passing judgement. Throw in Homage to Catalonia for good measure and tell me, even if purely on the basis of aptitude for writing, who is better. And besides, I think calling a flippant image macro "propaganda" is like calling the New York Times propaganda. 

[Tentacruel]

You mean, pro-Orwell propaganda. Oh, there's a spot of irony. How about reading the Road to Wigan Pier and the Fountainhead first before passing judgement. Throw in Homage to Catalonia for good measure and tell me, even if purely on the basis of aptitude for writing, who is better. And besides, I think calling a flippant image macro "propaganda" is like calling the New York Times propaganda. 

I suppose you're right.

 

I guess I just meant it's a little biased as the main argument is, "this person is smart, she isn't."  I usually think that the best way to make a statement is to let circumstance do the talking instead of just reiterating your original statement.

 

For instance, I think the quotes are fine but the top statements are a little much, even though I kind of agree with them.  

 

The only thing I really know about Ayn Rand is that her views were the basis for the politics of Andrew Ryan in Bioshock, who I quite enjoyed stabbing with a pipe.  Libertarianism is a sound structure when its purpose isn't to allow the rich to suppress the poor even more and for the needy to be ignored even more. 

[Thar]

Libertarian loitering in no-man's land, basically. As a neutral party, I stand in between cross-fire between the two parties protected by individualism and picking up bullets. Occasionally I would drift to one side, but the ignorance on either side keeps me from sticking to it for long.

[swag swag swag swag swag s]

 

Me.

[Thar]

 

Me.

 

About the same for me, except flipped vertically.

[Tentacruel]

I took that test and got a score a bit into the green.  My only complaint was that I feel some of the questions had nothing to do with politics.  (Or shouldn't, rather)  There was a question to the effect of, "Does one need to be religious to be happy," and a few other questions that were more about your religious beliefs than your politics.

 

 

This is why I'm starting to get the idea to make up a political stance called Professionalism, where one tolerates the viewpoints of the others, even if you find them odd or ridiculous.  (You be professional about it.)  We'd form a party based around this and work together to improve society without going for each-others throats because of ideological differences and keep our emotions under control.

[ListenToLife]

Do it comrade. Revolutionise the world.

 

As for me, on that test I scored about (-5,-3), so firmly in the green for me. I think I was around about a similar point to Gandhi, which makes sense to me, because Gandhi is one of the main figures I look up to.

[Mehmani]

I took that test and got a score a bit into the green.  My only complaint was that I feel some of the questions had nothing to do with politics.  (Or shouldn't, rather)  There was a question to the effect of, "Does one need to be religious to be happy," and a few other questions that were more about your religious beliefs than your politics.

 

 

This is why I'm starting to get the idea to make up a political stance called Professionalism, where one tolerates the viewpoints of the others, even if you find them odd or ridiculous.  (You be professional about it.)  We'd form a party based around this and work together to improve society without going for each-others throats because of ideological differences and keep our emotions under control.

 

To be honest, I think emotions are quite important in politics. We certainly shouldn't repress them totally. I don't believe I should "tolerate" the viewpoints of Stalinists or Islamists, personally, or even Nixonists. If someone believes in shooting your entire family because their distant uncle wrote a disapproving article, or the stoning of women for being raped or in blacklisting anyone who is critical of you and harassing them with surveillance and burglary until they give up, I think I have every right to not respect them and make it clear. A great deal of people do not and will not respond to patience and cooing voices. Violence is an answer in a lot of cases. Think of Kosovo, or East Timor, or Grenada.

[Tentacruel]

To be honest, I think emotions are quite important in politics. We certainly shouldn't repress them totally. I don't believe I should "tolerate" the viewpoints of Stalinists or Islamists, personally, or even Nixonists. If someone believes in shooting your entire family because their distant uncle wrote a disapproving article, or the stoning of women for being raped or in blacklisting anyone who is critical of you and harassing them with surveillance and burglary until they give up, I think I have every right to not respect them and make it clear. A great deal of people do not and will not respond to patience and cooing voices. Violence is an answer in a lot of cases. Think of Kosovo, or East Timor, or Grenada.

 

Fair point.  I don't think we should repress emotions necessarily, just not get carried away.  When I say "tolerance," I'm merely expressing frustration at the whole of American politics being unable to have a simple civilized discussion properly.   

 

People who believe in repressing free speech or expression, or trying to in anyway limit basic human rights, would not be welcome in my pipe dream political party. 

[Mehmani]

http://www.politicalcompass.org/facebook/pcgraphpng.php?ec=-8.88&soc=-7.90

 

 

This shows you just how little variety there is in politics - there is no Left Wing anywhere - everyone is the same. I can't see how the Dalai Lama is there though, given that he believes he is a divinely appointed god-king and supports corporal punishment of dissenting, secular Tibetans.

[Just Crouton]

Conservativism is the one, true political belief, and once the Communist, Nazi, anti-semitic left put aside their love of minorities, gays, medical marijuana, abortion, and other B.S., America will get back on its feet and win the War on Terror.

 

Liberalism is the one, true political belief, and once the racist, homophobic, sexist right put aside their love of money, war, blind patriotism, the Bible, oppressing women and gays, and other B.S., America will get back on its feet to give it's tax dollars to shiftless minorities and drug addicts.

 

Oh man, what a difficult decision.

[ListenToLife]

Conservativism is the one, true political belief, and once the Communist, Nazi, anti-semitic left put aside their love of minorities, gays, medical marijuana, abortion, and other B.S., America will get back on its feet and win the War on Terror.

 

Liberalism is the one, true political belief, and once the racist, homophobic, sexist right put aside their love of money, war, blind patriotism, the Bible, oppressing women and gays, and other B.S., America will get back on its feet to give it's tax dollars to shiftless minorities and drug addicts.

 

Oh man, what a difficult decision.

 

That's a rather closed minded stereo-type for both, y'know.

That, and why does America matter in this Argument? Why does it all come back to america? It's a world-wide debate.

[Tentacruel]

http://www.politicalcompass.org/facebook/pcgraphpng.php?ec=-8.88&soc=-7.90

 

 

This shows you just how little variety there is in politics - there is no Left Wing anywhere - everyone is the same. I can't see how the Dalai Lama is there though, given that he believes he is a divinely appointed god-king and supports corporal punishment of dissenting, secular Tibetans.

 

I've always been amused by the fact that, according to so many people, Barack Obama is extremely liberal, yet I, an evangelical, am far more so.  People have a hard time wrapping their head around that sometimes.

 

I'm not sure about the Dalai Lama, but that doesn't sound very liberal.