# Political Forum



## Bach (Jun 2, 2008)

Where do you stand politically?


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

Anarchist.

Actually I'm probably a Libertarian which is socially liberal and fiscally conservative. I would check Liberal, but I don't think this necessarily means Democrats by my definition.

I understand Frank Zappa considered himself a "true conservative." I guess in that respect I am a "true liberal" and they are probably the same thing. I believe in real freedom for all (including freedom from nagging people who feel they must save us from ourselves), but I want government outta my hair.

For instance, I'll support the arts -- thank you. I don't want the government choosing which arts to support.

So technically I couldn't respond to this poll. [Edit: Well, okay I suppose Socially liberal capitalist comes the closest. But I have issues with capitallism too.]


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

I'm a monarchist.


----------



## Bach (Jun 2, 2008)

Well said Weston, couldn't agree more. 'socially liberal and fiscally conservative' - me too brother.


----------



## Dim7 (Apr 24, 2009)

The last time I had a firm political opinion I was a libertarian, so that would be the fourth option. Nowadays I'm pretty much apolitical though....


----------



## Mirror Image (Apr 20, 2009)

Weston said:


> Anarchist.
> 
> Actually I'm probably a Libertarian which is socially liberal and fiscally conservative. I would check Liberal, but I don't think this necessarily means Democrats by my definition.
> 
> ...


That describes me well I think, so I'll just concur with what Weston wrote. Let me just add I would like less incompetence and more positive results in our government.


----------



## nickgray (Sep 28, 2008)

Uhh... well, I believe that the government should be run by professionals, experts in their fields and not by politicians. More freedom (true freedom, not people on TV talking about freedom), heavier taxation of people, corporations, etc. with big/enormously big income; spending money on science and improvement of quality of life instead of wasting resources on military and political affairs; also, as little bureaucracy as possible, and etc., etc. It makes me green anti-bureaucratic anarchistic technocrat, or something like that


----------



## haydnguy (Oct 13, 2008)

I have traditionally been a moderate (and voted that way), however in the last 8 years have swung more liberal.


----------



## handlebar (Mar 19, 2009)

Neutral. No party affiliation at all.

I like to make fun of all sides equally! LOL

Jim


----------



## Il Seraglio (Sep 14, 2009)

I wouldn't affiliate myself with any political party, because I believe firmly that they can never be trusted.

I'd probably describe myself as a social democrat. I think taxes need to be raised in the UK (particularly for the top socioeconomic brackets) to resolve the government deficit rather than cutting back on public spending. I'm also in favour of regional autonomy (which is seen as right wing by some, but whatever) and very very anti-censorship.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Probably Socialist, but I haven't been very happy how (in some aspects) the Australian Labour Party government of Kevin Rudd has just continued some of the policy directions of the previous conservatives under John Howard. But I was glad, like many people, that Howard didn't win in 2007. He wouldn't say sorry to the Aboriginies, denied that climate change was real (refused to sign Kyoto), & committed our troops to Iraq. At least Rudd has reversed those 3 things, but I think he should also stop the (racist?) Federal government intervention into Northern Territory indigenous affairs, started by Howard. Anyway, I'll get off my hobby horse now...


----------



## michael walsh (Sep 6, 2009)

"Democracy don't rule the world, You'd better get that in your head; This world is ruled by violence, But I guess that's better left unsaid." - Bob Dylan : American folksinger, b.1941


----------



## World Violist (May 31, 2007)

handlebar said:


> Neutral. No party affiliation at all.
> 
> I like to make fun of all sides equally! LOL
> 
> Jim


Absolutely. That's always my solution! 

I'm probably about as close to being an anarchist as anyone else.


----------



## Bach (Jun 2, 2008)

Andre said:


> Probably Socialist, but I haven't been very happy how (in some aspects) the Australian Labour Party government of Kevin Rudd has just continued some of the policy directions of the previous conservatives under John Howard. But I was glad, like many people, that Howard didn't win in 2007. He wouldn't say sorry to the Aboriginies, denied that climate change was real (refused to sign Kyoto), & committed our troops to Iraq. At least Rudd has reversed those 3 things, but I think he should also stop the (racist?) Federal government intervention into Northern Territory indigenous affairs, started by Howard. Anyway, I'll get off my hobby horse now...


Sounds like a lad to me


----------



## danae (Jan 7, 2009)

In about 2 weeks we have elections in Athens. For many years I have been voting an invalid vote, as a political statement. But a week ago I learned that, according to the new election law, no show, white vote and invalid vote, all 3 have the same result: they enforce the one that wins. 
So these days I'm calling all my friends and everyone I ever met to urge them to vote....

Of course we all know that whoever wins is just more of the same. People with this kind of power and aspiration (the power to become a country's leader) are not made overnight. Corruption is their middle name.


----------



## michael walsh (Sep 6, 2009)

I wouldn't lend my name to the Socialist Workers Party, which is unlikely to be socialist or representative of true workers. However the message on one of their graffiti posters did sum things up well: "Don't vote. It will only encourage them."


----------



## jhar26 (Jul 6, 2008)

I'm not a political animal, but I always vote for the most left-ish party that has a realistic change of influencing society - usualy that means the socialists or the greens.


----------



## Bach (Jun 2, 2008)

_Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery. _
*Winston Churchill *

_There is no such thing as society: there are individual men and women, and there are families._
*Margaret Thatcher *

_Marxists get up early to further their cause. We must get up even earlier to defend our freedom._
*Margaret Thatcher *


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

_All over the world, wherever there are capitalists, freedom of the press means freedom to buy up newspapers, to buy writers, to bribe, buy and fake "public opinion" for the benefit of the bourgeoisie. _
*Lenin*

_This crippling of individuals I consider the worst evil of capitalism._
*Albert Einstein*

_Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest good of everyone._
*John Maynard Keynes*


----------



## Taneyev (Jan 19, 2009)

I've no political opinion, but I srongly believe that in Argentina, all polititians, without exception, belongs to 
one or more of those categories: Corrupt, ignorant, stupid and/or psychopat.


----------



## jhar26 (Jul 6, 2008)

Bach said:


> _Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery. _
> *Winston Churchill *
> 
> _There is no such thing as society: there are individual men and women, and there are families._
> ...


Well, you only need to look at the faces of those two to know that they were constantly suffering from hemorrhoids.


----------



## MusicalOffering (Sep 11, 2009)

I am a conservative in terms of social issues. I stronly oppose homosexuall rights, they should not be allowed to wed nor adopt (if I were to have it my way, gay relationships ought to be banned, but that might be going a little too far). I am pro choice, allthought I advocate a much more restricted and less promiscious sexuall lifestyle, I basically think one should wait with having intercourse until you find a partner you're actually fond of. 

Having said all this, I am a market liberal and I believe in the free market.


----------



## dmg (Sep 13, 2009)

Blech. I knew I'd eventually regret reading responses to this thread.


----------



## danae (Jan 7, 2009)

MusicalOffering said:


> I am a conservative in terms of social issues. I stronly oppose homosexuall rights, they should not be allowed to wed nor adopt (if I were to have it my way, gay relationships ought to be banned, but that might be going a little too far). I am pro choice, allthought I advocate a much more restricted and less promiscious sexuall lifestyle, I basically think one should wait with having intercourse until you find a partner you're actually fond of.
> 
> Having said all this, I am a market liberal and I believe in the free market.


... and therefore, a true conservative who's clearly not in tune with the contemporary world


----------



## Tapkaara (Apr 18, 2006)

MusicalOffering said:


> I am a conservative in terms of social issues. I stronly oppose homosexuall rights, they should not be allowed to wed nor adopt (if I were to have it my way, gay relationships ought to be banned, but that might be going a little too far).


If I may say so, I find this kind of commentary disgusting.

True conservatives (read Barry Goldwater's writings) mind their own business when it comes to social issues and don't try to curtail the rights of their fellow citizens. Or even suggest it. I've never understood why emotionally stable heterosexual males are so worked up by their gay neighbors. Shouldn't they be thinking about how much they love their wives instead?

Gay relationships ought to be banned? I think relationships that produce ignorant children should be banned quite personally, but that might be going a little too far. As a conservative minded person myself, I must always remember to keep my nose out of other people's business and, while I may not agree with relationships that produce bigoted, ignorant children, it is not my right to take their relationship away or suggest that such relationships should be banned.

So, we might as well learn to get along because, in this wonderful world of ours, there are both homosexuals and ignorant people. Mexicans too. And women. Did I mention Mormons? My God...I better get my gun, my Bible, and hide under the bed until Jerry Falwell comes back during the Rapture to take my pure and perfect soul to Cloud City so I can sit at the base of the throne of Lando Calrissian.


----------



## danae (Jan 7, 2009)

Tapkaara said:


> So, we might as well learn to get along because, in this wonderful world of ours, there are both homosexuals and ignorant people. Mexicans too. And women. Did I mention Mormons? My God...I better get my gun, my Bible, and hide under the bed until Jerry Falwell comes back during the Rapture to take my pure and perfect soul to Cloud City so I can sit at the base of the throne of Lando Calrissian.


Yeah, I know, it's a scary world. Did you know that there are Iraqis too? And Pakistanis trying to get into Europe and attack our way of life! And the worst of all: there are -if you can believe it- teachers that teach our children something called "theory of evolution" or something like that... What kind of world do we live in I wonder...


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

MusicalOffering said:


> I am a conservative in terms of social issues. I stronly oppose homosexuall rights, they should not be allowed to wed nor adopt (if I were to have it my way, gay relationships ought to be banned, but that might be going a little too far). I am pro choice, allthought I advocate a much more restricted and less promiscious sexuall lifestyle, I basically think one should wait with having intercourse until you find a partner you're actually fond of.
> 
> Having said all this, I am a market liberal and I believe in the free market.


Well, isn't it a shame that your life seems to be devoid of education.

Personally, for those who live in the UK and can actually understand the parties without trying to equate them with foreign equivalents (as that usually doesn't work), I would vote for the Lib Dems or Greens.

However, the most important thing to me is the simple idea of libertarianism (socially speaking, not necessarily economically); thus I would vote for anybody who stands a good chance of increasing individual liberty. Relationships only affect the people who are in them; alcohol and drugs etc. only affect the people who take them - any individual should have the freedom to be in a relationship with whoever they like, and we shouldn't be prohibited from using our _own_ bodies in any way we see fit, whether or not there may be _fatal_ consequences. And that means that if people are suffering from an awful terminal illness, then there's no question about the fact that they have the right to end their lives!

Of course, this idea only functions properly when we have a good system of education (which apparently isn't the case in the UK), so that, when provided with the choice to do whatever we like within laws that prevent damage to others, we can make informed and safe choices. For this to become a reality, I'm afraid we're going to have keep battling against the persistent and stagnant notion that we derive morality from magical 'holy' books. Such an idea can _only ever_ hinder social progress and the increase of personal liberty, for, by definition, it never allows social morality to change.

If all else fails, then, for goodness' sake, _be rational and turn to science and empirical evidence_. Don't inherit bigoted views about _other_ portions of society who have nothing to do with you and who don't affect your sad, pointless existence.

I knew I shouldn't have read this thread!


----------



## Dim7 (Apr 24, 2009)

Tapkaara said:


> True conservatives (read Barry Goldwater's writings) mind their own business when it comes to social issues and don't try to curtail the rights of their fellow citizens. Or even suggest it.


Libertarian-influenced conservatives like Barry Goldwater are a minority in conservatives. Why should they be considered "true" conservatives and other more mainstream anti-gay marriage/adoption type of conservatives "not real conservatives"?


----------



## Tapkaara (Apr 18, 2006)

Dim7 said:


> Libertarian-influenced conservatives like Barry Goldwater are a minority in conservatives. Why should they be considered "true" conservatives and other more mainstream anti-gay marriage/adoption type of conservatives "not real conservatives"?


Because real conservatives mind their own business and leave their religious views in their own churches.

Real political conservatism is not based in religious conservatism. The likes of a Goldwater have only been in the minority for the last 40 or so years. In his day, you didn't have the right wing controlled by religious organizations like you do today. So, while libertarian-minded folks may be in the minority today, I see today's brand of majority conservatism a failing shift from its true ideological roots and fundamentals. (And let's not forget the Goldwater was once called "Mr. Conservative for a reason...! What do they call George W. Bush?)

Mainstream neo-conservatives are ruining the Republican party and that's why the Democrats currently control everything. I think conservative thinking would appeal to more people if they could get their noses out of the Bible (with its myriad bizarre rules for living a pure and perfect life) and function on a more humanistic and practical level.


----------



## Dim7 (Apr 24, 2009)

Your "real consevatism" is what I would call classical liberalism.


----------



## Tapkaara (Apr 18, 2006)

Dim7 said:


> Your "real consevatism" is what I would call classical liberalism.


I urge you to read what was considered something of a Republican/conservative bible for many years: The Conscience of a Conservative by Senator Barry Goldwater. Of course, someone with neo-conservative sentiments like yourself will probably think it's tripe, but at least you'll have an idea of what conservatism used to be like before Jesus sent us into Iraq.

Otherwise, we will have to agree to disagree that my brand of conservatism is actually liberalism.


----------



## Dim7 (Apr 24, 2009)

I don't have "neo-conservative sentiments." In fact my political stance probably wouldn't be too far from yours. Not that I have a strong one nowadays, but political ideology I'm most sympathetic towards is libertarianism which is pretty close to what "true conservatism" is in your idiosyncratic terminology.


----------



## Tapkaara (Apr 18, 2006)

Dim7 said:


> I don't have "neo-conservative sentiments." In fact my political stance probably wouldn't be too far from yours. Not that I have a strong one nowadays, but political ideology I'm most sympathetic towards is libertarianism which is pretty close to what "true conservatism" is in your idiosyncratic terminology.


Well then...let's be idiosyncratic together. We probably have more in common than we realize.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

Politics eh? Bah humbug. How's about we crack out a cigar and some Grand Marnier?


----------

