Printable View
Social:
Most Socially Liberal: Me or Beirut
Most Socially Conservative: Navaros with a nod to DevDave
Fiscal:
Most Fiscally Liberal: One of the Scandanavians.
Most Fiscally Conservative: PanzerJager.
Political:
Most Politically Liberal: Me
Most Politically Conservative: Redleg, Panzer Jager
Overall:
Most Liberal: Me
Most Conservative: Tied between Alexander the Pretty Good, Panzer Jager and Navaros
I take the most militant centerist of them all!
Socially conservative?!?!? I don't even believe in the death penalty, I'm just a soft hearted lovable guy... ~D
**posts while holding a pro life rally in front of an abortion clinic** ~;)
Humbly submitted. ~;)Quote:
Most Liberal: Me
Me? Navaros?!? Just what criterion are you using to judge this, anyway??? :dizzy2:Quote:
Most Conservative: Tied between Alexander the Pretty Good, Panzer Jager and Navaros
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexander the Pretty Good
hehehe.. you right winger!!! ~D
One of the Scandinavians eh?.... are we that many? heh
...hm what does Fiscally mean anyway? ~D
Tax and spend and the govt policy on the economy really.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lazul
Hmm well im kinda allergic to being called both liberal and conservative.
Socialistic non-revolutionary radical.... kinda... ~;)
Liberal! And proud of it. :knight:
Viva los socialized medicino. :sombrero:
I'm a Nazi Communist. ~D
Its always good to have honest self reflection from time to time...Quote:
Originally Posted by Byzantine Prince
I'm not a pinko.
I'm downright red.
Go on try and classify me :dizzy2:
This is interesting... ~D
I'm Liberal, but that is quite far right actually. I was in fact a member of The Danish Liberal Party (better known as Ventre).
List is like this:
Conservative, Liberal, Centrist, Red-Green, Socialist, [all kind of bad stuff here]
Neo-Centristism based on Conservative Existentialism bounded by Right Wing Liberalism.Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
I got you you nailed buddy. ~:smoking:
At many points in history it was great to be liberal. The middle ages would be a good example.
However in the times we live in we must look retrospectively at ourselves and our values. To me liberalism had an important and good impact on the world but that time is over. Now liberals simply seek societal change for no other reason than the existence of a society.
The concept that society should always progress is not an inherent reality. That progression does have stopping point and I believe we have reached it in America and Europe, although Europe just kept right on going.
Of course there are many places in the world where I would welcome liberalization(sp) like the mideast and many parts of Asia, but in the Western World - liberal ideology has run its course and now, devoid of any true need for progression, has become ugly and aggressive, just like communism. And just like communism, modern socialism/liberalism needs to be thrown in the historical trash heap.
We have been a steam roller of "progress" for far too long. We should recognize that new ideas aren't always good ideas and old ones shouldn't be disregarded simply for that reason.
I honestly cannot think of one issue that I even remotely agree with the liberal position on whether its social engineering, amoral science, flirting with communism, welfare, gun restriction, taxes, lifestyle stances or anything else.
Flirting with communism??????????? ~:confused: ~:confused: ~:confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJager
It was not great to be a liberal during the Middle Ages if you don't want to be burned by the Catholic church. It is now great to be a liberal as you can now be it and act like it and survives to spread the honorable ideology behind it, which is freedom and lack of imposition.Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJager
Interestingly, our society is far, far from perfect and I would not expect to see you disagree on this. Somebody needs to go and change it, or at least lives and pass on the ideals to other generations that could.Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJager
It is. Europe isn't going anywhere near anarchy, as I see it now. America isn't, too, but it begins to "lay behind" now that so many traditions take its roots and the old, traditional Europe weakens and give way to a new, innovative Europe - a lot of opportunities awaits the European community in the 21st century.Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJager
Therefore, we should go back and slay and get rid of every single homosexual human so to destroy liberalism once and for all?Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJager
We have been stopped from progress far, far too long. New ideas are always feared for no better reasons than it's new. Therefore, somebody needs to be there and try it, even if the conservative elements in the society is pissed.Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJager
Flirting with communism is inherently good as it clearly marks the hallmark of liberalism: tolerance of even the ideas YOU disagree. I disagree with communism; I will not stop anybody from reading Communist Manifesto for the sake of it.Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJager
Besides, liberalism is not and will never be flirting with communism - you misunderstand the whole thing.
Promises, promises lumberjack :helmet: :indian_chief: :builder2: ~:joker:Quote:
Originally Posted by Beirut
Are you really implying that this is not only as good as we get, but as good as we can or should get? ~:eek:Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJager
Progress of society is exactly that - progress. How can you say we should not progress? Should we also call a halt to learning anything new, of exploration of places never been, and the attainment of goals unachieved?
Methinks you perhaps did not mean exactly what you said.
To think you guys are at the zenith would presume that all knowledge is found and understood by the majority of the population.
That would require all the basics... reading, writing, arithmetic to be understood by the vast majority of the population.
That science was understood (not necessarily agreed with) by the majority.
That freedom was maximised.
That we had viable space programs.
etc etc etc.
We are not that advanced as a species. As a species we are living on a single planet. A zygote is more advanced as an individual human then we humans are an advanced society.
You forgot Il Duce, aka me.Quote:
Originally Posted by DemonArchangel
Methinks we have different ideas of what social means. ~;)Quote:
Are you really implying that this is not only as good as we get, but as good as we can or should get?
Progress of society is exactly that - progress. How can you say we should not progress? Should we also call a halt to learning anything new, of exploration of places never been, and the attainment of goals unachieved?
Methinks you perhaps did not mean exactly what you said.
Of course science and technology are ever-progressing things, I was referring to the social engineering liberals subscribe to.
The liberals among us are holding true to their origins and are trying to change the basic fabric of society. Only this time political correctness, historical revisionism, abortion, socialism in all its forms, anti-religious stances, governmental dependency, euthanasia, amoral science, minority apologism, and of course changing the definition of the family unit are all in their bag of tricks.
It is my not-so-humble opinion that the liberal mindset which includes all of the above is not progressive - but regressive.
It is the liberal mindset that if social ills are not apparent, they exist nonetheless.
It is my opinion that the days of positive and needed liberalism are over. We dont have slaves, women are free, the rule of law is strong. Of course there are exceptions but our society in the western world doesn't have any major social problems except liberalism itself.
In short: Its not broken anymore, quit trying to fix society with harmful socialist policies.
There should be a poll about who hijacks threads and takes them off-topic the most, but it would get hijacked by an argument over conservative v liberal views.
The most under-rated neo-con is TuffStuff , wildly extreme. There are also some pretenders who arent conservatives at all, just angry young men.
Dave isnt a conservative as much as he is a fundamentalist Christian.
Kafir is the most radical liberal, which is appropriate for his name.
There are several in here who are hard to peg, and that's a damn good thing
ichi :bow:
You don't know who I am - and I'd bet you don't want to know. Mwahaha!
What about me. I swing either way. Am I Bi-Paritisan
I must be one of the most environmentally liberal. I'm pretty hardcore, although I must admit that I drive a car.
Apparently, I'm Panzer's opposite. I can't find much on which I agree with the conservatives.
I think Navaros opposed the war in Iraq. That skews his rating in my opinion. He seems the most religiously conservative to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by DemonArchangel
Politics are difficult. Emotionally I am a very liberal person. In reality I am a very reactionary person. I really like the Amercian systems, except the foreign policy and the misuse of the legal system. The emotional beliefs in individual freedom are most of the time in conflict with my practical experience with rules and regulation of people in order to get a society to function efficient. The largest threat against democracy is actually the voters themselves. Opportunism and ignorant views are today driving the western democracies away from development and evolution to a better society.
Tuff Stuff a neo-con? Wildly extreme?!?!? ~:joker:Quote:
Originally Posted by ichi
Are we talking about TuffStuff or Panzer?
Who are the angry young conservative men? Gawain?
Panz, Socialism has little do with Liberalism. Atleast here in Sweden, Socialist and Liberals tend to despise each other. Tho the political climate is far from that of america, we have no party as conservative as the Republicans and so on. (Thank God)Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJager
Indeed that was the point I made when I set that little line... But it doesn't seem to get through.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lazul
Freedom? Lack of imposition? The name may suggest these, but that is mere PR. Liberalism requires a variety of impositions a freedom restrictions. The freedom of opinion and expression thereof is restricted. While sodomites can go around skrieching "Equal rights of gays and lesbians, and whomever else joins in the marches" and "Down with homophobia", those who dislike sodomy, view it as wrong, et cetera, would be blasted by liberal-types as being evil, oppresive, fascist, and some other such things, even if they did not go on a march.Quote:
Originally Posted by AntiochusIII
Yeah, King Malcom has a valid point.
While I feel like being liberal (in France, we'd say socialist), I think liberals are clearly biased toward freedom of speech. As long as it may be useful to them, they're all for it, but someone who disagrees will quickly be qualified as 'wrong', 'stupid', 'conservative', 'religious freak' or even 'fascist' or 'nazi'.
I don't really support the gay movement (well, I don't really care about it), but the fact that homophoby (sp?) is now illegal in France sounds silly to me.
That depends on how it is illegal. If it is illegal to say you are a homophobe and don't like homosexuals, but don't exactly search for them, then it is wrong. But it is not wrong if it is there to protect the homosexuals from verbal and physical abuse, or any other kind of discimination.Quote:
Originally Posted by Meneldil
Personally I have chosen not to look up homosexuals, and I consider myself fairly homophobic, but I have learned to blank out the images I get and can thus have easy relations with them should I happen to share a space with them.
I served in the navy with a homosexual girl, and I know another guy was homosexual. Yes I did avoid taking showers when he was in it, but that was the extent of it, because he was no different than the rest of us, he even joked around with it.
It's now illegal to make 'homophobic statements'. Quite unclear, which will hopefully allow all far left associations to sue everyone who doesn't support gays nad lesbians movement
And I don't see someone claiming 'I don't like gays' in France, because he would be killed on sight.
wow that doesnt sound very democratic to me. I mean ok there should be prevented incidents where people can be physicly abused just because they are gay but how do they define verbal abuse? They enlisted all the possible bad or ironic words? I mean if this happens for gays shouldnt it extend to fat guys, bald guys, big noses, glasses, braces or i dont know what else?Quote:
Originally Posted by Meneldil
Why so much special leagal care for something that just needs good old everyday politeness?
Thats a good point - labels are different everywhere. From my examples i hope you understand the mindset I am against.Quote:
Panz, Socialism has little do with Liberalism. Atleast here in Sweden, Socialist and Liberals tend to despise each other. Tho the political climate is far from that of america, we have no party as conservative as the Republicans and so on. (Thank God)
Exactly, its called the thought police in some circles ~;) . They have become very agressive in imposing their mentality on everyone else.Quote:
Freedom? Lack of imposition? The name may suggest these, but that is mere PR. Liberalism requires a variety of impositions a freedom restrictions. The freedom of opinion and expression thereof is restricted. While sodomites can go around skrieching "Equal rights of gays and lesbians, and whomever else joins in the marches" and "Down with homophobia", those who dislike sodomy, view it as wrong, et cetera, would be blasted by liberal-types as being evil, oppresive, fascist, and some other such things, even if they did not go on a march.
Ridiculous. It only goes to support my statement:Quote:
It's now illegal to make 'homophobic statements'. Quite unclear, which will hopefully allow all far left associations to sue everyone who doesn't support gays nad lesbians movement
Im glad to see some other Europeans waking up to the fact that buzzwords like racism and intolorence can sometimes be used to serve an agenda.Quote:
That progression does have stopping point and I believe we have reached it in America and Europe, although Europe just kept right on going.
More and more in Europe, and America to a lesser extent, laws are being passed that are supposed to control your expression and your opinions. You are allowed to make value judgements on how other people live their lives - you dont have to feel bad about knowing in your heart that something is wrong!
Liberals once fought for the concept of "Hate the sin, love the sinner", which was noble, but now they are fighting for "Love the sin, love the sinner".
PJ, actually, it wasn't meant to counter your statement ^^
Lol i know, i was agreeing. ~;)
Hum, that's the last time I'll agree with you this month, I'm still not used to it. It does confuse my poor mind ~;)
I think this whole 'liberal' obsession in America is a manifestation of the 'enemy within' phenomena that occur from time to time in society. The target is always vague - yet has figureheads and hate figures. Also there tends to be a strong packing tendancy among the supporters of such mini-pogroms.
Witches, Catholics, Blacks, Jews, Chinese, Indians, Counter-revolutionaries, communists, liberals, etc. History is littered with examples of these campaigns. They all have a few features in common:
- they pick an enemy whose crimes are vague
- the enemy is never the majority
- the campaign appeals most to young men, especially those attracted to military and violent solutions
- the enemy is always out of favour or insignificant to the current government
Fortunately we live in an age where there aren't actually mock trials, etc. Most of this current campaign is just a media storm in a teacup. However the efforts by people to curry status within the group by saying how anti-liberal they are, and how extreme they would be on issue x follows a well trammelled path.
This explains why the anti-liberal thing doesn't travel well outside the US. The only support it gets in the UK/Europe are when it taps into a different political dynamic - the disgruntled young male Conservative/Christian Democrat/etc voter (about 0.5% of the population ~D )
In Europe generally liberal not only means something different, but there is no clear enemy within that can be identified by the current politcal party in power.
well spoken Idaho :bow:
Excellent (and accurate) phrase. We'll see how PBS is bullied into compliance.Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho
I also think in the US the liberal/conservative false dichotomy is used to pretend that there is actually any daylight between the two corporate/capitalist political groups.
Well said. It appears to be part of a siege mentality related to foreign commitments, as during WWI, WWII and Cold War, with the Red Scare, fifth column scare (think of detained American Japanese) and McCarthyism respectively.Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho
I don't know, when the public schools are teaching 5th graders how to properly fist their partner and teenage girls can have abortions without parental consent but can't take an aperine at school, then yes, liberalism IS a problem.
Heh theres nothing vague about the people who are ruining this country and have already ruined europe(politically speaking).Quote:
I think this whole 'liberal' obsession in America is a manifestation of the 'enemy within' phenomena that occur from time to time in society. The target is always vague - yet has figureheads and hate figures. Also there tends to be a strong packing tendancy among the supporters of such mini-pogroms.
Witches, Catholics, Blacks, Jews, Chinese, Indians, Counter-revolutionaries, communists, liberals, etc. History is littered with examples of these campaigns. They all have a few features in common:
- they pick an enemy whose crimes are vague
- the enemy is never the majority
- the campaign appeals most to young men, especially those attracted to military and violent solutions
- the enemy is always out of favour or insignificant to the current government
Fortunately we live in an age where there aren't actually mock trials, etc. Most of this current campaign is just a media storm in a teacup. However the efforts by people to curry status within the group by saying how anti-liberal they are, and how extreme they would be on issue x follows a well trammelled path.
This explains why the anti-liberal thing doesn't travel well outside the US. The only support it gets in the UK/Europe are when it taps into a different political dynamic - the disgruntled young male Conservative/Christian Democrat/etc voter (about 0.5% of the population )
In Europe generally liberal not only means something different, but there is no clear enemy within that can be identified by the current politcal party in power.
I gave clear examples of the mentality and i can give you examples of how it has affected the country negatively. You deny that there are many people with the mentality i spoke of? Its all just imaginary? ~:rolleyes:
Wow, this is great, I get to use the same response to conservative paranoia in two different threads!Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJager
Panzer, please see below:
How exactly are liberals ruining you country when conservatives are in complete control of it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Goofball
Hehe, look at history. The communists didnt control russia but through the media, lies, and propaganda changed the whole mindset of the nation for the worst.
You dont need to control the government to propagate this mentality:
Quote:
political correctness, historical revisionism, abortion, socialism in all its forms, anti-religious stances, governmental dependency, euthanasia, amoral science, minority apologism, and of course changing the definition of the family unit
You know Soviet Unit had alot of bad but alot of good stuff also. I dont think that the total image evil match. At least thats what i know by talking to many friends and visiting several times. LIke it or not they had the best medical care and educational system. I dont argue that they treated people as puzzle pieces, everyone had his prearanged place, but there i met many seemingly average low class people with huge education.Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJager
No doubt - but seeing as you have just made this up wtf does it have to do with reality?Quote:
Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave
Really? Can I have some concrete examples. Some direct quotes, references etc? Or are you just fizzing at the bunghole like Dave?Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJager
*Hoo boy.*
Let's get back on topic shall we?
Ok then, Rampantly Red: Demon
Social conservative: Navaros...
Fiscally I am not sure at all
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=17490Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho
read it for yourself, realities a bitch. Would you want the public school teaching your twins how to have oral sex with each other... think about it.
Does anyone here other than me wave the black flag? If not I'd probably take one of these prizes ~;).
And here's your lib buddies at the ACLU... put that in your bunghole, I'm sure there are plenty on your side that will help you...Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho
Could anyone please explain who's fizzing where? Or give some links or direct quotes that refer to good old reality?Quote:
Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave
Quote:
Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave
Only in Arkansas Dave. ~;p
sorry fogot the linkQuote:
Originally Posted by AdrianII
http://www.aclu.org/news/NewsPrint.cfm?ID=9034&c=223
is that real enough?
I don't see what I have to be shocked about. Abortion in this country is no big deal. Shit happens. No-one's proud of it - but no-one wants a return to the backstreet days.
"not being proud" of being a murderer does not "make it ok" to go murder childrenQuote:
Originally Posted by Idaho
as for your other comment: illegally hiring a murderer to commit murder on one's behalf even though one may be injured/die as a result of having paid to have that murder committed - is certainly no reason to "justify" making murder legal
Does cicumcision count as murder too? ~D
Only for you BP, only for you... ~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Byzantine Prince
Does cicumcision count as murder too?
Yes it can do , when it is carried out by back-street circumcisors , operating outside of the law and with inadequate medical training and fascilities .
Nav is easily the most socially conservative.
As for most liberal, I'd have to go QwertyMIDX, you probably don't know him much, but he's a Marxist (I know him from working together on EB...) I feel very much confused when he starts talking economics with some of our more conservative members... :dizzy2: