Conservative or Liberal? (official poll)

Post Reply New Topic

Now there's a gem from my new homeland that I never knew about before!

I used to be very left-leaning in my views, for the most part, but now I'm more conservative in the Edmund Burke/Russel Kirk sense of the term-that is, of conservatism being the absence of ideology and more of a cautious approach to change and a respect for traditions that have been shown to benefit society, such the nuclear family. I agree with the conservative view that more power should be transferred from the federal level to local and state governments to give people more of a say and to increase efficiency, especially in things like disaster relief, but I think libertarianism goes too far in reducing the size of government and I'm really not a libertarian conservative as I have many disagreements with it that are too numerous to mention here. I also agree with the conservative view that the strength of society lies in the strength of families and communities, and I find it tends to find just the right balance between the individual and society, not benefitting one at the expense of the other, and looks to both the past and the future rather than just the present. That being said though, I'm still moderate to liberal on some issues, particularily when it comes to environmental and health and safety regulations (of course, some conservatives-especially religious conservatives-would agree with me here). Some companies are run by people who are just too short-sighted or greedy to do anything about the pollution they put out, and sometimes consumers are too, and I don't think our future generations should have to pay for that (I think it could also, ironically enough, end up hurting the economy down the road). And I think in some if not a lot of cases, if people can get away with using a cheap but unsafe material in their product or workplace environment, they'll do it. I know the free market would take care of that eventually, but people would probably have to die or get injured first, and those are deaths and injuries that I think are totally unnecessary. I also think the healthcare system in place in the U.S isn't working like it should, but I'm not sure that universal healthcare is the answer (although I have to admit I'm mostly impressed by the standard of health care I've seen so far here in Canada).

I'm right snack dab in the middle. I guess I'm what you would call a Libertarian.

I'm a Democrat, but disagree with the party line on abortion and embryonic stem-cell research.

Not all Democrats want gun control, not even Michael Moore, as his movie "Bowling For Colombine" proved that fewer guns does not equal fewer gun deaths. In fact, many of the newly elected Democrats are from hunting states, and therefore are opposed to gun control. Personally, I think it should be city by city, county by county, which is to say, it may be more important to have gun control in New York City or Detroit than in Wyoming or Montana. What's curious about the whole argument is the fact that Canada has so many more guns per person, and yet we have so many more gun deaths. Kind of counterintuitive.

Communism, as a term, has more or less gotten a bad rap. It is NOT a good method for governance, however, many Democracies, including the good old US of A, have communist or at least Socialist underpinnings or institutions. I for one am glad I don't have to retain my own private fire department, or fix the road in front of my house myself.

neither conservative or liberal. I'm radical. I make everyone squirm.

Liberal/Conservatives ( and tories/labour in UK) is a meaningless duality. Ultimately, they all work for the same people anyway. Its just a scam to placate the plebs by offering an illusion of free-will, whilst the REAL leaders manipulate events by using both 'sides' to protect their own interests, safe from public eye.

It doesnt make any difference who you vote for; the government still gets in!

I'm a hardcore libertarian and proud of it. Live and let live, I say.

As am I

Neither, I'm a progressive.

I was raised in a Republican american household with parents who were "conservative": my father had been raised Catholic and my mother was Southern Baptist. A large part of how I had been raised did not feel "right" to me, and I often questioned authority. Both the Navy and college really opened my eyes to other viewpoints, as did my ex-girlfriend. I have always wondered whether I was conservative or liberal, as I lean different ways on different issues. I had always thought conservative meant going back to how things were before, and liberal meant going forward to newer things, but I liked the way things were before they got the way most conservatives liked. So I looked it up. According to the dictionary, Conservative means 'keeping the status quo,' and liberal means 'open minded.'

I was a voting Republican until the RNC nominated George W. even after John McCaine won the primary, so I voted Green party from then on. I haven't officially left the republicans, so that I might work on McCaine's campaign, but I will soon if he doesn't win. I didn't like Clinton because he was a draft dodger, and had many reasons for not liking GWB, part of which was his military record, or lack thereof.

I am liberal in that I am not racist or sexist, am for birth control, stem cell research. I am conservative in that I believe in the death penalty and people being held accountable for their own actions. I also believe in euthanasia, and that I should be able to use deadly force to protect my property and those on it.

Studying history, literature, and theatre really opened my mind, and I realised a lot of what I had been taught by the church and my parents wasn't correct or the entired truth. With a small push from my girlfriend and much researching and questioning things, I left the corrupted church and also began looking into american history to find out what our founding fathers actually were thinking when they made the US. I am still exploring that, and studying different religions and world history until I figure out what I believe. I do know that religion has destroyed, and then rebuilt, civilizations more than once, and ethics and morals have changed over the centuries.

I am what they would call an "apathetic conservative"

I'm a bit of both really - liberal on social issues but very conservative on economics and national defense. The end result is I tend to agree with a lot of conservative thinkers and vote conservative just because it seems like while both sides have some things right and some things way off base, for me at least, the conservatives have the things of most vital and fundamental importance on point. I think of it like Maslow's heirarchy of needs where the liberals tend to have the stuff at the very pinnacle thought out but get lost up there and can easily neglect the foundations and supports (like wanting all kinds of rights, sensitivities, anti-descrimination stuff, but in a lot of cases not fully grasping the war on terror or how paramount the need for it really is). The conservatives tend to have a strong understanding of what's needed to give the pyramid solid foundation but they forget the top a lot and since religion fills their top quite often it tends to blind them at times (not quite the reverse of that - they kinda push for the rights but it tends to be only 5 or 10% of their focus and even though there are gay conservatives, eg. Tammy Bruce, they still end up being more exceptions to the rule than anything while the overall bulk of the group has trouble with it largely over biblical concerns).

Do I think it would be great if one party or the other had everything right? I'm really starting to think no. Reason being - unfortunately we need them to constantly be clamouring at each other, pointing out each other's scandals and weakness, and competing just a natural check - if one party really did have it all right and we became a one party system there'd be nothing left to keep that party on its toes and like human nature tends to be you stop being on your absolute best behavior and start giving in to yourself when there's no one around to keep you in check (not all people but the laxness just tends to creep in to the culture and pass from one person to the next).

Not really. America and Australia are the last right-wing nations in the first world. You've never met a real lefty till you travel to Europe.

To anyone who has read my political posts it is pretty obvious I am a conservative (at least by the term goes in the United States). I also use the term "classical liberal" to describe myself.

My general philosophy has been to support what I believe works. If I believe that nationalized health worked, I would support it. But I believe it has been shown fairly conclusively to be a problematic so I do not. Same goes to the minimum wage.

I believe that people who tend to support lots of government programs are compassionate but they are thinking with their "hearts" and not their "heads." Western European countries today having much lower annual economic growth rates then then United States (or say, Britain, or Ireland who have both made major free market reforms in the last twenty years). This is because of the terribly encompassing government welfare states that continue to exist. In France, for example, the government backed down recently from enacting reforms that would enable private businesses from being able to fire workers for less then a certain amount of time after youth rioted in the streets. The absurdly of this situation is these very regulations lead to high unemployment rates in France, and it is only simplified nonsense to believe that the French government can simple provide of "living wage" to these French youth if they decline to work indefinitely. Such is a presription for long term economic disaster.

In the United States we have a social security system. This system was originally instuted by President Franklin D. Roosevelt in the 1930s. Originally, the amount of person one person person paid for with their taxes when they retired was very many (I believe something like 45). Now it is very few (I believe about 3). The system cannot continue to be sustained. President Bush proposed a free-market solution, but the (Republican) congress basically ignored him (polls show the proposal is only popular with younger voters). Democrats claimed they "fixed" the problem but this is utterly false. With the current social security (as well as Medicare, and Medicaid, and other entitlements) as they are the United States will have ballooning deficits to deal with eventually if this problem is not solved.

I am fairly conservative on social issues. I oppose abortion, embryonic stem-cell research, same sex marriage, and same-sex civil unions. This almost certainly puts me on the minority on this board.

First let me speak to embryonic stem cell research (often spoken of by it's supporters by the term of simply "stem-cell research"). First off, it is controversial and deeply offensive for some people, whether you like it or not. Second, embryonic stem-cell research does not show any of the potential (at this time) of other stem cell research. Finally, and this is important, it appears now that is will be possible because of new research to get the equivalent stem cells without harvesting them from (and therefor killing) the embryo. If this is the case, is it really necessary to proceed with embryo killing research essentially without reason? What would be it's purpose? To offend pro-lifers? To demonstrate that you are a sensitive person to the majority of people that support the idea (without mentioning the word "embryonic," of course)?

I don't feel like getting into a whole discussion about abortion however did you know there are cases of people actually surviving failed abortions? It's true. (link) When this particular women testified before congress every pro-choice congressperson in the committee boycotted her testimony.

If I thought that legalizing same-sex marriage, or civil unions would not have any effects on society (as critics of this position say: "What effect will it have on your marriage? Why, none at all.) then I don't see why I should be opposed to it. But, it is seldom that simple.

Of course, there are other domestic issues: I tend to support free-market solutions on environmental issues because if you actually look at the data they tend to work (although I don't support no regulations at all). I am strongly opposed to the concept of a "living constitution" which I believe in nothing more then an excuse for judges to act as tyrants from the bench (even if they don't realize it themselves).

I differ from the "norm" with conservatives on some issues: I oppose an amendment on burning the American flag to the U.S. constitution on speech grounds, I oppose the line-item veto, I oppose the balanced budget amendment, and am a bit of a centrist on immigration. I also sometimes take issue with certain figures on the right's (just as I do with the left) rhetoric.

I despise racism. I oppose racial, or ethnic quotas as I believe they are immoral, and they hurt the minority groups they claim to help.

I am mostly a liberal, with maybe more centrist leanings involving economics and foreign policy. I believe that gay people should have equal rights. I am largely indifferent on abortion but support stem cell research. I believe we should be fighting terrorism more with intelligence than the military, though I initially support the war in Iraq. I am pretty neutral when it comes to gun control, I agree with the current restrictions. I think schools should do away with abstinence only education because it is only making the problem worse.

Once again the terms generic term " stem cell research" are misleading. The media only uses the term to refer to embryonic research. Why are supporters unwilling to be specific? This reminds me of how some who are pro-choice do not like use the term "abortion" but instead euphemisms such as "family planning, ect..."

A ballot initiating was recently passed in Missouri in which the those who fought to get the measure on the ballot successfully were able to get the courts to keep the language vague and rather misleading. The measure in the voting booth read to say it banned all human cloning when the law as enforced actually specifically allowed for the creation and destruction of human embryos. Polls showed that had this been mentioned on the ballot itself the measure would have been easily defeated.

I don't understand this willingness to be dishonest with words for political purposes.