# Demographic #3: Political ideology



## Lukecash12

As you can see, several of these categories overlap. Instead of listing basic political affiliations, I thought it would be better to list basic political ideologies and give the formal definitions of them so that we can really take stock of how people feel on the issues here. At least, hopefully as well as we can within the confines of 15 choices.

Now, this is a more laborious demographic to poll on, so I apologize for it's difficulty and would ask that you understand what exactly each choice represents before you vote.

If you are a proponent of the philosophy and fiscal thought of Toryism, please let us know in a post. Sadly, there were not enough options available for me to include several good choices.

Also, I would be very interested to know if you are a proponent of another distinct ideology that hasn't been included, whether it be Austrian, Australian, British, African, Asian, etc.

_*Anarchism* is generally defined as the political philosophy which holds the state to be undesirable, unnecessary, and harmful, or alternatively as opposing authority and hierarchical organization in the conduct of human relations. Proponents of anarchism, known as "anarchists", advocate stateless societies based on non-hierarchical voluntary associations._

_*Libertarianism* generally refers to the group of political philosophies which emphasize freedom, individual liberty, and voluntary association. Libertarians generally advocate a society with little or no government power.

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy defines libertarianism as the moral view that agents initially fully own themselves and have certain moral powers to acquire property rights in external things. Libertarian historian George Woodcock defines libertarianism as the philosophy that fundamentally doubts authority and advocates transforming society by reform or revolution. Libertarian philosopher Roderick Long defines libertarianism as "any political position that advocates a radical redistribution of power from the coercive state to voluntary associations of free individuals", whether "voluntary association" takes the form of the free market or of communal co-operatives. According to the U.S. Libertarian Party, libertarianism is the advocacy of a government that is funded voluntarily and limited to protecting individuals from coercion and violence.

Libertarian schools of thought differ over the degree to which the state should be reduced. Anarchistic schools advocate complete elimination of the state. Minarchist schools advocate a state which is limited to protecting its citizens from aggression, theft, breach of contract, and fraud. Some schools accept public assistance for the poor. Additionally, some schools are supportive of private property rights in the ownership of unappropriated land and natural resources while others reject such private ownership and often support common ownership instead. Another distinction can be made among libertarians who support private ownership and those that support common ownership of the means of production; the former generally supporting a capitalist economy, the latter a socialist economic system. Contractarian libertarianism holds that any legitimate authority of government derives not from the consent of the governed, but from contract or mutual agreement, though this can be seen as reducible to consequentialism or deontologism depending on what grounds contracts are justified. Some Libertarian socialists reject deontological and consequential approaches and use historical materialism to justify direct action in pursuit of liberty.

Such scholars of politics as Noam Chomsky assert that in most countries the terms "libertarian" and "libertarianism" are synonymous with left anarchism. It is only in the United States that the term libertarian is commonly associated with those who have conservative positions on economic issues and liberal positions on social issues, going by the common meanings of "conservative" and "liberal" in the United States._

_*Conservatism* (Latin: conservare, "to preserve") is a political and social philosophy that promotes the maintenance of traditional institutions and supports, at the most, minimal and gradual change in society. Some conservatives seek to preserve things as they are, emphasizing stability and continuity, while others oppose modernism and seek a return to "the way things were". The first established use of the term in a political context was by François-René de Chateaubriand in 1819, following the French Revolution. The term, historically associated with right-wing politics, has since been used to describe a wide range of views._ (not to cheapen the possibilities, but I would like for us to think of that option in terms of right wing conservatism, for the purposes of these demographics)

_*Environmentalism* is a broad philosophy, ideology and social movement regarding concerns for environmental conservation and improvement of the health of the environment, particularly as the measure for this health seeks to incorporate the concerns of non-human elements. Environmentalism advocates the preservation, restoration and/or improvement of the natural environment, and may be referred to as a movement to control pollution. For this reason, concepts such as a Land Ethic, Environmental Ethics, Biodiversity, Ecology and the Biophilia hypothesis figure predominantly. At its crux, environmentalism is an attempt to balance relations between humanity and their broader organismic and biogeochemical milieu in such a way that all the components are accorded a proper degree of respect. The exact nature of this balance is controversial and there are many different ways for environmental concerns to be expressed in practice. Environmentalism and environmental concerns are often represented by the color green, but this association has been appropriated by the marketing industries and is a key tactic in the art of Greenwashing._


----------



## Lukecash12

_*Liberalism* (from the Latin liberalis) is the belief in the importance of liberty and equal rights. Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but generally liberals support ideas such as constitutionalism, liberal democracy, free and fair elections, human rights, capitalism, and the free exercise of religion.

Liberalism first became a powerful force in the Age of Enlightenment, rejecting several foundational assumptions that dominated most earlier theories of government, such as nobility, established religion, absolute monarchy, and the Divine Right of Kings. The early liberal thinker John Locke, who is often credited for the creation of liberalism as a distinct philosophical tradition, employed the concept of natural rights and the social contract to argue that the rule of law should replace absolutism in government, that rulers were subject to the consent of the governed, and that private individuals had a fundamental right to life, liberty, and property.

The revolutionaries in the American Revolution and the French Revolution used liberal philosophy to justify the armed overthrow of tyrannical rule. The nineteenth century saw liberal governments established in nations across Europe, Latin America, and North America. Liberal ideas spread even further in the twentieth century, when liberal democracies triumphed in two world wars and survived major ideological challenges from fascism and communism. Today, liberalism in its many forms remains as a political force to varying degrees of power and influence on all major continents.

A twenty-first century development is an emerging new liberalism that is centred on the concept of timeless freedom (ensuring the freedom of future generations through proactive action taken today). This is an idea that has been endorsed by the President of Liberal International Hans van Baalen._

_*Egalitarianism* (from French égal , meaning "equal") is a trend of thought that favors equality of some sort among living entities. Egalitarian doctrines tend to maintain that all humans are equal in fundamental worth or social status. The term has two distinct definitions in modern English. It is defined either as a political doctrine that all people should be treated as equals and have the same political, economic, social, and civil rights or as a social philosophy advocating the removal of economic inequalities among people or the decentralization of power. An egalitarian believes that equality reflects the natural state of humanity.

Economic

Egalitarianism in economics is a controversial phrase with conflicting potential meanings. It may refer either to equality of opportunity, the view that the government ought not to discriminate against citizens or hinder opportunities for them to prosper, or the quite different notion of equality of outcome, a state of economic affairs in which the government promotes equal prosperity for all citizens.

The free-market economist Milton Friedman supports equality-of-opportunity economic egalitarianism. Economist John Maynard Keynes supported more equal outcomes.

An early example of equality-of-outcome economic egalitarianism is Xu Xing, a scholar of the Chinese philosophy of Agriculturalism, who supported the fixing of prices, in which all similar goods and services, regardless of differences in quality and demand, are set at exactly the same, unchanging price.

In the years following World War II, the social democracies of Europe have all adoped egalitarian programs designed to promote general access to health care and education.

Political

Egalitarianism in politics can be of at least two forms. One form is equality of persons in right, sometimes referred to as natural rights, and John Locke is sometimes considered the founder of this form.

Another form is a distributive egalitarianism in which the wealth created by labor is organized and controlled in some equal manner. Karl Marx is considered an influential proponent of this form of egalitarianism.

Philosophical

At a cultural level, egalitarian theories have developed in sophistication and acceptance during the past two hundred years. Among the notable broadly egalitarian philosophies are socialism, communism, anarchism, libertarianism, left-libertarianism, social liberalism and progressivism, all of which profound economic, political, and legal egalitarianism. Several egalitarian ideas enjoy wide support among intellectuals and in the general populations of many countries. Whether any of these ideas have been significantly implemented in practice, however, remains a controversial question.

One argument is that liberalism provides democracy with the experience of civic reformism. Without it, democracy loses any tie─argumentative or practical─to a coherent design of public policy endeavoring to provide the resources for the realization of democratic citizenship. For instance, some argue that modern representative democracy is a realization of political egalitarianism, while in reality, most political power still resides in the hands of a ruling class, rather than in the hands of the people._


----------



## Lukecash12

_*Communism* is a movement to create a classless, moneyless, stateless social order structured upon common ownership of the means of production, as well as a social, political and economic ideology that aims at the establishment of this social order. This movement, in its Marxist-Leninist interpretations, significantly influenced the history of the 20th century, which saw intense rivalry between the "socialist world" (socialist states ruled by Communist parties) and the "western world" (countries with market economies), culminating in the Cold War between the Eastern bloc and the "Free World".

In Marxist theory, pure communism is a specific stage of historical development that inevitably emerges from the development of the productive forces that leads to a superabundance of material wealth, allowing for distribution based on need and social relations based on freely associated individuals.

The exact definition of communism varies, and it is often mistakenly, in general political discourse, used interchangeably with socialism; however, Marxist theory contends that socialism is just a transitional stage on the road to communism. Leninism adds to Marxism the notion of a vanguard party to lead the proletarian revolution and to hold all political power after the revolution, "in the name of the workers" and with worker participation, in a transitional stage between capitalism and socialism.

Council communists and non-Marxist libertarian communists and anarcho-communists oppose the ideas of a vanguard party and a transition stage, and advocate for the construction of full communism to begin immediately upon the abolition of capitalism. There is a very wide range of theories amongst those particular communists in regards to how to build the types of institutions that would replace the various economic engines (such as food distribution, education, and hospitals) as they exist under capitalist systems-or even whether to do so at all. Some of these communists have specific plans for the types of administrative bodies that would replace the current ones, while always qualifying that these bodies would be decentralised and worker-owned, just as they currently are within the activist movements themselves. Others have no concrete set of post-revolutionary blueprints at all, claiming instead that they simply trust that the world's workers and poor will figure out proper modes of distribution and wide-scale production, and also coordination, entirely on their own, without the need for any structured "replacements" for capitalist state-based control.

In the modern lexicon of what many sociologists and political commentators refer to as the "political mainstream", communism is often used to refer to the policies of communist states, i.e., the ones totally controlled by communist parties, regardless of the practical content of the actual economic system they may preside over. Examples of this include the policies of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam where the economic system incorporates "doi moi", the People's Republic of China (PRC, or simply "China") where the economic system incorporates "socialist market economy", and the economic system of the Soviet Union which was described as "state capitalist" by non-Leninist socialists and later by communists who increasingly opposed the post-Stalin era Soviet model as it progressed over the course of the 20th century (e.g. Maoists, Trotskyists and libertarian communists)-and even at one point by Vladimir Lenin himself._

_*Fascism* is a radical authoritarian nationalist political ideology. Fascists seek rejuvenation of their nation based on commitment to an organic national community where its individuals are united together as one people in national identity by suprapersonal connections of ancestry, culture, and blood through a totalitarian single-party state that seeks the mass mobilization of a nation through discipline, indoctrination, physical education, and eugenics. Fascism seeks to purify the nation of foreign influences that are deemed to be causing degeneration of the nation or of not fitting into the national culture. Fascism promotes political violence and war, as forms of direct action that create national regeneration, spirit and vitality. Fascists commonly utilize paramilitary organizations for violence against opponents or to overthrow a political system. Fascism opposes multiple ideologies: conservatism, liberalism, and two major forms of socialism-communism and social democracy. Fascism claims to represent a synthesis of cohesive ideas previously divided between traditional political ideologies. To achieve its goals, the fascist state purges forces, ideas, people, and systems deemed to be the cause of decadence and degeneration.

The fascist party is a vanguard party designed to initiate a revolution from above and to organize the nation upon fascist principles. The fascist party and state is led by a supreme leader who exercises a dictatorship over the party, the government and other state institutions. Fascists reject conventional democracy that is based on majority rule. Fascists claim to advocate an authoritarian democracy based on rule of the most qualified, rather quantitative majority rule, though multiple scholars are strongly skeptical of fascism's claims to be democratic. Fascism supports a socially united collective national society and opposes socially divided class-based societies and socially-divided individualist-based societies. Fascists claim it is a trans-class movement, advocating resolution to domestic class conflict within a nation to secure national solidarity. While fascism opposes domestic class conflict, it favours a proletarian national culture and claims that its goal of nationalizing society emancipates the nation's proletariat, and promotes the assimilation of all classes into proletarian national culture. It opposes contemporary bourgeois class-based society and culture for allegedly being based on selfish and hedonistic individualism that results in plutocracy and war profiteering at the expense of the nation. Fascism claims that bourgeois-proletarian conflict primarily exists in national conflict between proletarian nations versus bourgeois nations; fascism declares support for the victory of proletarian nations.

Fascists advocate a state-directed, regulated economy that is dedicated to the nation; the use and primacy of regulated private property and private enterprise contingent upon service to the nation or state, the use of state enterprise where private enterprise is failing or is inefficient, and autarky. It supports criminalization of strikes by employees and lockouts by employers because it deems these acts as prejudicial to the national community.

There is a running dispute among scholars about where along the left/right spectrum that fascism resides. Fascism was founded during World War I by Italian national syndicalists who combined left-wing and right-wing political views, but Italian Fascism gravitated to the right in the early 1920s. Benito Mussolini in 1919 described fascism as a syncretic movement that would strike "against the backwardness of the right and the destructiveness of the left". Italian Fascists described fascism as a right-wing ideology in the political program The Doctrine of Fascism: "We are free to believe that this is the century of authority, a century tending to the 'right,' a fascist century." They also, however, officially declared that although they were "sitting on the right" they were generally indifferent to their position on the left-right spectrum, as being a conclusion of their combination of views rather than an objective, and considering it insignificant to the basis of their views, which they claimed could just as easily be associated with "the mountain of the center" as with the right.[35] Major elements of fascism have been deemed as clearly far right, such as its goals of the right of claimed superior people to dominate while purging society of claimed inferior elements; and in the case of Nazism, genocide of people deemed to be inferior._


----------



## Lukecash12

_*Feminism* is a collection of movements aimed at defining, establishing, and defending equal political, economic, and social rights for women. In addition, feminism seeks to establish equal opportunities for women in education and employment. A feminist is a "person whose beliefs and behavior are based on feminism."

Feminist theory, which emerged from these feminist movements, aims to understand the nature of gender inequality by examining women's social roles and lived experience; it has developed theories in a variety of disciplines in order to respond to issues such as the social construction of sex and gender. Some of the earlier forms of feminism have been criticized for taking into account only white, middle-class, educated perspectives. This led to the creation of ethnically-specific or multiculturalist forms of feminism.

Feminist activists campaign for women's rights - such as in contract law, property, and voting - while also promoting bodily integrity, autonomy and reproductive rights for women. Feminist campaigns have changed societies, particularly in the West, by achieving women's suffrage, gender neutrality in English, equal pay for women, reproductive rights for women (including access to contraceptives and abortion), and the right to enter into contracts and own property. Feminists have worked to protect women and girls from domestic violence, sexual harassment, and sexual assault. They have also advocated for workplace rights, including maternity leave, and against forms of discrimination against women. Feminism is mainly focused on women's issues, but because feminism seeks gender equality, some feminists argue that men's liberation is a necessary part of feminism, and that men are also harmed by sexism and gender roles._

_The term *political radicalism* (or simply, in political science, radicalism) denotes political principles focused on altering social structures through revolutionary means and changing value systems in fundamental ways. Derived from the Latin radix (root), the denotation of radical has changed since its eighteenth-century coinage to comprehend the entire political spectrum - yet retains the "change at the root" connotation fundamental to revolutionary societal change. Historically, radicalism has referred exclusively to the "radical left", under the single category of far-left politics, rarely incorporating far-right politics though these may have revolutionary elements; the prominent exception is in the United States where some consider radicalism to include both political extremes of the radical left and the "radical right". In traditional labels of the spectrum of political thought, the opposite of radical on the "right" of the political spectrum is termed reactionary.

The nineteenth-century Cyclopaedia of Political Science (1881, 1889) reports that "radicalism is characterized less by its principles than by the manner of their application". Conservatives often used the term radical pejoratively, whereas contemporary political radicals used the term conservative derogatorily; thus contemporary denotations of radical, radicalism, and political radicalism comprehend far left, radical left, and far right (radical right).

The Encyclopædia Britannica records the first political usage of radical as ascribed to the British Whig Party parliamentarian Charles James Fox, who, in 1797, proposed a "radical reform" of the electoral system franchise to provide universal manhood suffrage, thereby, idiomatically establishing radical to denote supporters of the reformation of the British Parliament. Throughout the nineteenth century, the term was combined with political notions and doctrines, thus working class radicalism, middle class-, philosophic-, democratic- bourgeois-, Tory-, and plebeian radicalism. In the event, politically-influential radical leaders give rise to their own trend of political radicalism, e.g. Spencean radicalism and Carlilean radicalism. Philosophically, the French political scientist Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-78), is the principal theoretician proposing political radicalism as feasible in republican political philosophy, viz the French Revolution (1789-99), and other modern revolutions - the antithesis to the liberalism of John Locke._

_*Nationalism* is a political ideology that involves a strong identification of a group of individuals with a political entity defined in national terms, i.e. a nation. In the 'modernist' image of the nation, it is nationalism that creates national identity. There are various definitions for what constitutes a nation, however, which leads to several different strands of nationalism. It can be a belief that citizenship in a state should be limited to one ethnic, cultural, religious, or identity group, or that multinationality in a single state should necessarily comprise the right to express and exercise national identity even by minorities.

It can also include the belief that the state is of primary importance, or the belief that one state is naturally superior to all other states. It is also used to describe a movement to establish or protect a 'homeland' (usually an autonomous state) for an ethnic group. In some cases the identification of a national culture is combined with a negative view of other races or cultures.

Conversely, nationalism might also be portrayed as collective identities toward imagined communities which are not naturally expressed in language, race or religion but rather socially constructed by the very individuals that belong to a given nation. These new elements of the nation are commonly presented as long standing and natural, and have been called invented traditions by the historian E.J. Hobsbawm. Nationalism is sometimes reactionary, calling for a return to a national past, and sometimes for the expulsion of foreigners. Other forms of nationalism are revolutionary, calling for the establishment of an independent state as a homeland for an ethnic underclass. This was the inspiration for the independence of Finland from Russia and the penning of the national epic, the Kalevala.

Nationalism emphasizes collective identity - a 'people' must be autonomous, united, and express a single national culture. Integral nationalism is a belief that a nation is an organic unit, with a social hierarchy, co-operation between the different social classes and common political goals. However, liberal nationalists stress individualism as an important part of their own national identity.

National flags, national anthems, and other symbols of national identity are often considered sacred, as if they were religious rather than political symbols. Deep emotions are aroused. Gellner and Breuilly, in Nations and Nationalism, contrast nationalism and patriotism. "If the nobler word 'patriotism' then replaced 'civic/Western nationalism', nationalism as a phenomenon had ceased to exist."_


----------



## Lukecash12

_*Marxism* is an economic and sociopolitical worldview and method of socioeconomic inquiry that centers upon a materialist interpretation of history, a dialectical view of social change, and an analysis and critique of the development of capitalism. Marxism was pioneered in the early to mid 19th century by two German philosophers, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. Marxism encompasses Marxian economic theory, a sociological theory and a revolutionary view of social change that has influenced political movements around the world.

The Marxian analysis begins with an analysis of material conditions, taking at its starting point the necessary economic activities required by human society to provide for its material needs. The form of economic organization, or mode of production, is understood to be the basis from which the majority of other social phenomena - including social relations, political and legal systems, morality and ideology - arise (or at the least by which they are greatly influenced). These social relations form the superstructure, for which the economic system forms the base. As the forces of production, most notably technology, improve, existing forms of social organization become inefficient and stifle further progress.

These inefficiencies manifest themselves as social contradictions in society in the form of class struggle. Under the capitalist mode of production, this struggle materializes between the minority (the bourgeoisie) who own the means of production, and the vast majority of the population (the proletariat) who produce goods and services. Taking the idea that social change occurs because of the struggle between different classes within society who are under contradiction against each other, the Marxist analysis leads to the conclusion that capitalism oppresses the proletariat, the inevitable result being a proletarian revolution.

Marxism views the socialist system as being prepared by the historical development of capitalism. Capitalism according to Marxist theory can no longer sustain the living standards of the population due to its need to compensate for falling rates of profit by driving down wages, cutting social benefits and pursuing military aggression. The socialist system would succeed capitalism as humanity's mode of production through worker's revolution. According to Marxism, Socialism is a historical necessity (but not an inevitability).

In a socialist society private property in the means of production would be superseded by co-operative ownership. A socialist economy would not base production on the creation of private profits, but would instead base production and economic activity on the criteria of satisfying human needs - that is, production would be carried out directly for use.

Eventually, socialism would give way to a communist stage of history: a classless, stateless system based on common ownership and free-access, superabundance and maximum freedom for individuals to develop their own capacities and talents. As a political movement, Marxism advocates the creation of such a society._

_*Socialism* is an economic system characterized by social ownership and control of the means of production and cooperative management of the economy, and a political philosophy advocating such a system. "Social ownership" may refer to any one of, or a combination of, the following: cooperative enterprises, common ownership, direct public ownership or autonomous state enterprises. There are many variations of socialism and as such there is no single definition encapsulating all of socialism. They differ in the type of social ownership they advocate, the degree to which they rely on markets versus planning, how management is to be organized within economic enterprises, and the role of the state in constructing socialism.

A socialist economic system would consist of an organization of production to directly satisfy economic demands and human needs, so that goods and services would be produced directly for use instead of for private profit driven by the accumulation of capital, and accounting would be based on physical quantities, a common physical magnitude, or a direct measure of labour-time. Distribution of output would be based on the principle of individual contribution.

As a political movement, socialism includes a diverse array of political philosophies, ranging from reformism to revolutionary socialism. Proponents of state socialism advocate for the nationalisation of the means of production, distribution and exchange as a strategy for implementing socialism. Social democrats advocate redistributive taxation in the form of social welfare and government regulation of capital within the framework of a market economy. In contrast, anarchism and libertarian socialism propose direct worker's control of the means of production and oppose the use of state power to achieve such an arrangement, opposing both parliamentary politics and state ownership over the means of production._


----------



## Lukecash12

*Whiggism/republicanism:* _Republicanism is the political values system that has been a major part of American civic thought since the American Revolution. It stresses liberty and inalienable rights as central values, makes the people as a whole sovereign, rejects inherited political power, expects citizens to be independent in their performance of civic duties, and vilifies corruption. American republicanism was founded and first practiced by the Founding Fathers in the 18th century. This system was based on early Roman, Renaissance and English models and ideas. It formed the basis for the American Revolution and the consequential Declaration of Independence (1776) and the Constitution (1787), as well as the Gettysburg Address.

Republicanism may be distinguished from other forms of democracy as it asserts that people have unalienable rights that cannot be voted away by a majority of voters. Alexis de Tocqueville warned about the "tyranny of the majority" in a democracy, and advocates of the rights of minorities have warned that the courts needed to protect those rights by reversing efforts by voters to terminate the rights of an unpopular minority.

The term "Republicanism" is derived from the term "republic", a form of government without a hereditary ruling class. The two major parties in the US were explicitly named after the idea-the Republican party of Thomas Jefferson (founded in 1793, and often called the "Democratic-Republican Party" by political scientists), and the current Republican party (founded in 1854)._

_The *utopian socialist* thinkers did not use the term utopian to refer to their ideas. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels referred to all socialist ideas that were simply a vision and distant goal for society as utopian. Utopian socialists were likened to scientists who drew up elaborate designs and concepts for creating what socialists considered a more equal society. They were contrasted by scientific socialists, likened to engineers, who were defined as an integrated conception of the goal, the means to producing it, and the way that those means will inevitably be produced through examining social and economic phenomena.

This distinction was made clear in Engels' work Socialism: Utopian and Scientific (1892, part of an earlier publication, the Anti-Dühring from 1878). Utopian socialists were seen as wanting to expand the principles of the French revolution in order to create a more "rational" society and economic system, and despite being labeled as utopian by later socialists, their aims were not always utopian with their values often included rigid support for the scientific method and creating a society based upon such.

A key difference between "utopian socialists" and other socialists (including most anarchists) is that utopian socialists generally don't feel class struggle or political revolutions are necessary to implement their ideas; that people of all classes might voluntarily adopt their plan for society if it were presented convincingly. They often feel their form of cooperative socialism can be established among like-minded people within the existing society and establish small enterprises designed to demonstrate their plan for society._


----------



## Lukecash12

_Toryism is a traditionalist and conservative political philosophy which grew out of the Cavalier faction in the Wars of the Three Kingdoms. It is a prominent ideology in the politics of the United Kingdom, but also features in parts of The Commonwealth, particularly in Canada. Historically it also had exponents in former parts of the British Empire, for instance the Loyalists of British North America who sided with Britain and Crown during the Revolutionary War. The Tory ethics can be summed up with the phrase 'God, King and Country'. Tories generally advocate monarchism, are usually of a High Church Anglican or Recusant Catholic religious heritage, and are opposed to the radical liberalism of the Whig faction.

The Tory political faction emerged within the Parliament of England to uphold the legitimist rights of James, Duke of York to succeed his brother Charles II to the throne. James II was a Catholic, while the state institutions had broken from the Catholic Church-this was an issue for the Exclusion Bill supporting Whigs, the political heirs to the nonconformist Roundheads and Covenanters. There were two Tory ministries under James II; the first led by Lord Rochester, the second by Lord Belasyse. Some were later involved in his usurpation with the Whigs, which they saw as defending the Anglican Church. Tory sympathy for the Stuarts ran deep however and some supported Jacobitism, which saw them isolated by the Hanoverians until Lord Bute's ministry under George III.

Conservatism emerged by the end of the 18th century-which synthesised moderate Whig positions and some of the old Tory values to create a new political ideology, in opposition to the French Revolution. The likes of Edmund Burke and William Pitt the Younger led the way in this. Due to this faction eventually leading to the formation of the Conservative Party, members of that party are colloquially referred to as Tories, even if they are not traditionalists. Actual adherents to traditional Toryism in contemporary times tend to be referred to as High Tories to avoid confusion.

In Britain after 1832 the Tory Party was replaced by the Conservative Party, and "Tory" has become shorthand for a member of the Conservative Party or for the party in general. Many Conservatives still call themselves "Tory" to differentiate themselves from opponents, and the term is common in the media.

In Canada, the term "Tory" may describe any member of the Conservative Party of Canada, its predecessor party the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada, or any similar affiliated conservative provincial party; the term is frequently used in contrast to "Grit", a shorthand for the Liberal Party of Canada.

In Australia, "Tory" is used as a pejorative term by members of the Australian Labor Party to refer to members of the conservative coalition Liberal and National parties._

Basically, if you are into Toryism, you want to conserve traditional British values and states of affairs, unlike what an American conservative might wish to conserve.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

Communist here.


----------



## Polednice

Feminist. Let the women rule over us.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

Polednice said:


> Feminist. Let the women rule over us.


I used to be a feminist until I discovered communism. Let everyone be equal.

(although I do still have a lot of feminist viewpoints, so I voted for that as well.  )


----------



## SiegendesLicht

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> Communist here.


I've found you a bit suspicious since I saw your profile for the first time.

As for mine, that depends on where I am. When I am in America or Europe I am a right-wing conservative but in that living museum of communism that is my native land I would be considered pretty liberal. Since this forum is largely comprised of Westerners, I voted conservative.

PS. And I had a huge temptation to vote "faschist", just for the sake of a certain stereotype


----------



## emiellucifuge

Am I really the only enviromentalist?


----------



## violadude

I don't really relate to any of these...


----------



## Lukecash12

violadude said:


> I don't really relate to any of these...


I find it interesting that you don't relate to a single one of these common ideologies, but I mean no offense. Would you care to share a bit about your views?


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

violadude said:


> I don't really relate to any of these...


Don't worry. We can be communists together and make the world a better, fairer place.


----------



## Mesa

Liberal as the blazes.

To be fair, i want a society where we roll around on the floor on mushrooms, listening to Ray Charles, eating pastries, playing whist and fervently copulating.


----------



## science

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> Don't worry. We can be communists together and make the world a better, fairer place.


That's for the birds.

Give me money, power, power and money, money and power and money and power, and most of all, give me a harem with more beautiful young women than I can, um, shake a stick at!

Failing that, I'll take whatever money and power I can get, and a few women who in a patriarchal society would be the wives and daughters of poorer men.


----------



## Taneyev

I hate the right, despised the left and don't like the center.


----------



## Iforgotmypassword

I believe in personal liberty and self-rule within those confines, meaning that one can claim ownership over himself and his own work and that he has the freedom and right to act in whatever manner he sees fit as long as he isn't infringing upon the same rights of others. 

This, in my opinion is the government of the future. 
This or, I shudder to say, the polar opposite.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

science said:


> That's for the birds.
> 
> Give me money, power, power and money, money and power and money and power, and most of all, give me a harem with more beautiful young women than I can, um, shake a stick at!
> 
> Failing that, I'll take whatever money and power I can get, and a few women who in a patriarchal society would be the wives and daughters of poorer men.


You evil dictator.


----------



## Lukecash12

Odnoposoff said:


> I hate the right, despised the left and don't like the center.


Fascism, eh?


----------



## Lukecash12

Iforgotmypassword said:


> I believe in personal liberty and self-rule within those confines, meaning that one can claim ownership over himself and his own work and that he has the freedom and right to act in whatever manner he sees fit as long as he isn't infringing upon the same rights of others.
> 
> This, in my opinion is the government of the future.
> This or, I shudder to say, the polar opposite.


You sound like a libertarian, my friend. But I'm guessing you and I could have some different views, because I am an American Libertarian who believes in the right wing ideals of America pre-WWI. You know, aside from the racism and lack of social freedom and equality.


----------



## Iforgotmypassword

Lukecash12 said:


> You sound like a libertarian, my friend. But I'm guessing you and I could have some different views, because I am an American Libertarian who believes in the right wing ideals of America pre-WWI. You know, aside from the racism and lack of social freedom and equality.


Well I'm American as well, but I'm not incredibly well informed as to what these right wing ideals might have consisted of... who knows, we might agree. Care to elaborate?


----------



## regressivetransphobe

Can't radicalism refer to anything?

Anyway, I voted all.


----------



## Lukecash12

Iforgotmypassword said:


> Well I'm American as well, but I'm not incredibly well informed as to what these right wing ideals might have consisted of... who knows, we might agree. Care to elaborate?


Well, basically if you are an American Libertarian and a supporter of the Libertarian group in America, you believe the following about today's issues:

The federal government should be downsized, and I mean severely. I'm talking about no federal bank. The ideal for a libertarian is for the separate state economies to be worth more than the federal government, just like it was in the roaring twenties.

Go ahead and give people their social freedoms. Unlike some other right-wing groups, we could care less about what choices people make with their lives, as long as they don't endanger other people. Maybe most of us are heterosexual Christians as American Libertarians, but we're normally pretty open about that kind of stuff.

We support an isolationist America. One that keeps to it's own when it comes to where it puts it's money and who it fights it's wars with. It's all well and good to protect ourselves, but trying to stabilize the politics of some middle eastern country whose culture and political record are demonstrably adverse to what we'd like to see happen, seems just silly to us.

We're very much into a purer market, one in which the government is laissez-faire, that is: it simply keeps to making laws and passing the legislature that it used to pass in the beginning, not bailing out banks, giving subsidies, paying so-security, opening up welfare programs and passing dozens of different stimulus bills, let alone the infamous stimulus package, every year. Maybe we seem less empathetic, but then again maybe we just want to see opportunities abounding and the job climate improving, which is great for everyone.

Now, the ideal for a Libertarian is to see things the way they were in the roaring twenties. Maybe spec stocks aren't great, and IMHO it's awful that they're still around (a spec stock is essentially buying stock without the actual assets to pay for it right then and there), but aside from that it has to be agreed that at least in terms of the job climate and the stock market, the roaring twenties were just tops.


----------



## Lukecash12

Here's the Libertarian party on all the issues: http://www.lp.org/issues


----------



## emiellucifuge

I voted environmentalist.
Government needs to legislate more extensive taxes to cover everyones external costs. Other than that, have your free market.


----------



## Iforgotmypassword

^ Well I hate to identify totally with any party, but yes that sounds like the closest thing to my personal political beliefs as anything....




.... Ron Paul 2012


----------



## violadude

Lukecash12 said:


> I find it interesting that you don't relate to a single one of these common ideologies, but I mean no offense. Would you care to share a bit about your views?


Well my problem is that I do care about world and national issues but I have no idea how I would go about fixing them, I don't know enough about the economy or anything like that. It just seems that everyone is conflicted about what to do, even so called experts so I really don't know who to believe.

The only beliefs I feel definite about are social issues like legalization of gay marriage (which I support) and things like that...and I think we should get out of the middle east, at least for now. Probably some other stuff too that I can't think of. Everything else though, I really don't know...


----------



## Webernite

And free money for oppressed minorities like viola players!


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

violadude said:


> Well my problem is that I do care about world and national issues but I have no idea how I would go about fixing them, I don't know enough about the economy or anything like that. It just seems that everyone is conflicted about what to do, even so called experts so I really don't know who to believe.
> 
> The only beliefs I feel definite about are social issues like legalization of gay marriage (which I support) and things like that...and I think we should get out of the middle east, at least for now. Probably some other stuff too that I can't think of. Everything else though, I really don't know...





Webernite said:


> And free money for oppressed minorities like viola players!


*Communism* perhaps?


----------



## Webernite

I don't even play the viola. I'm just being nice.


----------



## Lukecash12

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> *Communism* perhaps?


What I find funny about communism is that it doesn't seem to exist anywhere


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

Lukecash12 said:


> What I find funny about communism is that it doesn't seem to exist anywhere


No one does it properly. Sigh.


----------



## SiegendesLicht

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> No one does it properly. Sigh.


Perhaps the fact noone does it properly does say something about the nature of the ideology itself. As in "wishful thinking".


----------



## Polednice

SiegendesLicht said:


> Perhaps the fact noone does it properly does say something about the nature of the ideology itself. As in "wishful thinking".


I'm not defending communism, but where is democracy done well? Does that mean democracy is bad?


----------



## SiegendesLicht

Polednice said:


> I'm not defending communism, but where is democracy done well? Does that mean democracy is bad?


Democracy has a lot of problems. Communism is one single big problem. And it is hardly likely to deal out money for oppressed minorities. The money will with greater likelihood be spent on some General Secretary's golden toilet seat


----------



## Polednice

SiegendesLicht said:


> Democracy has a lot of problems. Communism is one single big problem. And it is hardly likely to deal out money for oppressed minorities. The money will with greater likelihood be spent on some General Secretary's golden toilet seat


But then CoAG would tell you that that's communism not done properly, so you're not really countering the argument.


----------



## Guest

Polednice said:


> I'm not defending communism, but where is democracy done well? Does that mean democracy is bad?


Yes, democracy is bad. I prefer constitutional republicanism to mob rule.


----------



## Lukecash12

DrMike said:


> Yes, democracy is bad. I prefer constitutional republicanism to mob rule.


I only have two issues with the republicanism of the American constitution (and they don't actually have to do with the idea itself), in spite of how brilliant I think the checks and balances are as a Libertarian:

1. It's touted as something that it isn't all the time. A republic resembles Greek demokratia only in that it is a representative body.
2. It's workings are kept abstract enough from the people it represents, that they hardly even vote on one particular election every four years.


----------



## samurai

SiegendesLicht said:


> Democracy has a lot of problems. Communism is one single big problem. And it is hardly likely to deal out money for oppressed minorities. The money will with greater likelihood be spent on some General Secretary's golden toilet seat


Then it's not truly communism. It probably can't exist in reality because of our human nature, and I really don't like the idea of government--any form, call it what you will--ramming things down people's throats because it--of course--always "knows best". It is truly a fine line we walk between dictatorship and some degree of representative democracy.


----------



## science

When we talk about the Constitution as a republican document, it'd be less anachronistic to call it a Federalist document. It was an attempt by a self-consciously elite minority to reassert their control over their states. It worked fairly well for twelve years. But by the early 1800s, the forces of democracy were simply too powerful in American society (outside of the south). Through the process of amendment and reform, wisely allowed by the Founders, the government grew generally more democratic over the next two centuries, resisted furiously by the elites of every era, and sometimes successfully (as when Reconstruction ended, or the Populist movement essentially defeated). Always "mob rule" was the cry. Today we have the paradox that a self-consciously anti-intellectual movement harnesses working-class resentment to call for a more elitist form of government. I am not sure that the contradiction can sustain itself.


----------



## Lukecash12

science said:


> When we talk about the Constitution as a republican document, it'd be less anachronistic to call it a Federalist document. It was an attempt by a self-consciously elite minority to reassert their control over their states. It worked fairly well for twelve years. But by the early 1800s, the forces of democracy were simply too powerful in American society (outside of the south). Through the process of amendment and reform, wisely allowed by the Founders, the government grew generally more democratic over the next two centuries, resisted furiously by the elites of every era, and sometimes successfully (as when Reconstruction ended, or the Populist movement essentially defeated). Always "mob rule" was the cry. Today we have the paradox that a self-consciously anti-intellectual movement harnesses working-class resentment to call for a more elitist form of government. I am not sure that the contradiction can sustain itself.


If you're going to argue that, I'd like to see you support that. Those are some fairly radical views, so unless we are to treat them as a series of IMO statements, I'd appreciate it if you made an attempt to share some of your knowledge with us.

You can find the congressional debates here: 
http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lwac.html
http://www.archives.gov/research_ro...ive_history_congressional_debates.html#annals


----------



## science

Lukecash12 said:


> If you're going to argue that, I'd like to see you support that. Those are some fairly radical views, so unless we are to treat them as a series of IMO statements, I'd appreciate it if you made an attempt to share some of your knowledge with us.
> 
> You can find the congressional debates here:
> http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lwac.html
> http://www.archives.gov/research_ro...ive_history_congressional_debates.html#annals


Nothing radical there.

You do your own homework. For the Constitution and the democratic movements of the late 1700s and early 1800s, start here:










http://www.amazon.com/Empire-Libert...2463/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1331946042&sr=8-1

Excellent book.


----------



## Lukecash12

science said:


> Nothing radical there.
> 
> You do your own homework. For the Constitution and the democratic movements of the late 1700s and early 1800s, start here:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/Empire-Libert...2463/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1331946042&sr=8-1
> 
> Excellent book.


By "radical", I mean not common and revisionary. In asking you to support your views, I challenged you to not tell us to do our reading, as if you are some sort of expert who can authoritatively supply people with an uncommon view and expect them to take your word for it. Now, I'd like to see you personally establish the merits of these views, if you so please, and if you don't please then we can assume that that previous post was an IMO post and appreciate it as such.

Also, we are literate adults here as well, my friend, and many of us can probably refer to you some books that we own on the subject. In fact, I've already referred to you the congressional record, which is easy enough to read.

If you really would like for us to read Gordon S. Wood's work, would you care to relate his CV to us, maybe tell us about his views, his historical methodology, etc.?


----------



## science

Lukecash12 said:


> By "radical", I mean not common and revisionary. In asking you to support your views, I challenged you to not tell us to do our reading, as if you are some sort of expert who can authoritatively supply people with an uncommon view and expect them to take your word for it. Now, I'd like to see you personally establish the merits of these views, if you so please, and if you don't please then we can assume that that previous post was an IMO post and appreciate it as such.
> 
> Also, we are literate adults here as well, my friend, and many of us can probably refer to you some books that we own on the subject. In fact, I've already referred to you the congressional record, which is easy enough to read.
> 
> If you really would like for us to read Gordon S. Wood's work, would you care to relate his CV to us, maybe tell us about his views, his historical methodology, etc.?


I'm not asking you to take my word for it. I'm asking you to take Gordon Wood's word for it. And he himself won't ask you to do that: there are hundreds of footnotes.

If you haven't already heard of Gordon Wood, you don't know the history of the period well enough to know what is "not common and revisionary."


----------



## Ukko

Lukecash12 said:


> By "radical", I mean not common and revisionary. In asking you to support your views, I challenged you to not tell us to do our reading, as if you are some sort of expert who can authoritatively supply people with an uncommon view and expect them to take your word for it. Now, I'd like to see you personally establish the merits of these views, if you so please, and if you don't please then we can assume that that previous post was an IMO post and appreciate it as such.


The view _science_ expresses is not 'uncommon'. It is very close to mine, and I am pretty damn common.

I won't suggest reading material, because for me it involved a half dozen or so tomes, and considerable cross-checking. I dunno why you recommend the Congressional Record as a reference for anything but excruciatingly drawn-out political doublespeak.


----------



## Lukecash12

Hilltroll72 said:


> The view _science_ expresses is not 'uncommon'. It is very close to mine, and I am pretty damn common.
> 
> I won't suggest reading material, because for me it involved a half dozen or so tomes, and considerable cross-checking. I dunno why you recommend the Congressional Record as a reference for anything but excruciatingly drawn-out political doublespeak.


The congressional record consists of primary source documents, and I happen to read primary source documents all the time. No offense to anyone, but one of my pet peeves is when people speak authoritatively without much more support than some empty statements or telling someone to read some book without even quoting it or it's citations and primary sources. To restate all of this more concisely: I deal less in someone's reference to a book and it's footnotes, that lead to footnotes, that lead to footnotes, and more in facts, data, and primary sources. I prefer to debate over how it is that we should approach something according to our source material on it, than to debate over how we should regard some commentary of it.

For me not to know your author, science, suggests nothing about my reading on the subject. Let's not be silly here, and condescend or imply condescension when there are thousands of scholars on a great variety of subjects, writing books all of the time. Scholars don't buy New York Times bestsellers when they want to learn something, so they don't say "Hmmm... You don't know this popular book? You must not be well read on this subject." They subscribe to relevant journals and book publishers, and read the primary sources.

I've taken references from people who aren't scholars before. One of those references led to me reading the work of Dominic Crossan. It was a big waste of time, because Crossan hardly referred to the data enough, wasn't thorough, and didn't display nearly enough breadth of knowledge or historical methodology.


----------



## science

Lukecash12 said:


> The congressional record consists of primary source documents, and I happen to read primary source documents all the time. No offense to anyone, but one of my pet peeves is when people speak authoritatively without much more support than some empty statements or telling someone to read some book without even quoting it or it's citations and primary sources. To restate all of this more concisely: I deal less in someone's reference to a book and it's footnotes, that lead to footnotes, that lead to footnotes, and more in facts, data, and primary sources. I prefer to debate over how it is that we should approach something according to our source material on it, than to debate over how we should regard some commentary of it.
> 
> For me not to know your author, science, suggests nothing about my reading on the subject. Let's not be silly here, and condescend or imply condescension when there are thousands of scholars on a great variety of subjects, writing books all of the time. Scholars don't buy New York Times bestsellers when they want to learn something, so they don't say "Hmmm... You don't know this popular book? You must not be well read on this subject." They subscribe to relevant journals and book publishers, and read the primary sources.
> 
> I've taken references from people who aren't scholars before. One of those references led to me reading the work of Dominic Crossan. It was a big waste of time, because Crossan hardly referred to the data enough, wasn't thorough, and didn't display nearly enough breadth of knowledge or historical methodology.


Wood is probably the second most famous living historian of the revolution and early republic, after only Bailyn. Among scholars, that is.

The question isn't how good Crossan's work is, but if you'd never even heard of Crossan, I'd know something unflattering about your knowledge of "historical Jesus" scholarship. And if you'd never read E. P. Sanders.... Well, at the very least you wouldn't be in a position to judge reliably what is "not common and revisionary" in that field.


----------



## Lukecash12

science said:


> Wood is probably the second most famous living historian of the revolution and early republic, after only Bailyn. Among scholars, that is.
> 
> The question isn't how good Crossan's work is, but if you'd never even heard of Crossan, I'd know something unflattering about your knowledge of "historical Jesus" scholarship. And if you'd never read E. P. Sanders.... Well, at the very least you wouldn't be in a position to judge reliably what is "not common and revisionary" in that field.


Hahahahaha.... You're cracking me up, saying that Sanders is so popular. Popularity has a great deal to do with region and publisher, and scratching all of this silliness, everyone who has read all of the relevant data and primary and secondary sources (without reading tertiary sources like modern commentaries), and is fully up to date on methodology, is plenty informed. Maybe you've read some appraisals of Sanders by other scholars as a preface to some works of his, but normally when you write a book or article and it's got appraisals of you, if you're writing for a reputable enough publisher, they make it sound like you s%^t gold. Better yet, he may be a greatly recognized member of a society. But what if he's a member of the Jesus Seminar, which continues to sell people a crock? When you said that you didn't know of Habermas and his work, I could easily have used your logic to say you were uneducated by pointing out that he's been on TV, he's been mentioned by Lee Strobel a bunch of times, he's a member of several associations and societies, he's the chairman of the department of philosophy and theology at Liberty University, and a distinguished research professor there, with a doctorate in the history and philosophy of religion from Michigan State, he's published thirty six books, written well over a hundred articles, has over sixty chapters or articles appearing in corroborative books, etc.

http://garyhabermas.com/habermas_resume.htm

Not to mention that his work has been published by a bunch of different journals on my side of the resurrection debate, many of them either highly reputable or widely read, such as:

Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus
Fides et Historia
Philosophia Christi
Bibliotheca Sacra
Themelios
*Saturday Evening Post*
*Conservative Digest*


----------



## science

Lukecash12 said:


> Hahahahaha....
> 
> ... highly reputable...
> 
> Philosophia Christi
> Bibliotheca Sacra


Ok then.

Anyway, the discussion is about Gordon Wood.


----------



## Lukecash12

science said:


> Ok then.
> 
> Anyway, the discussion is about Gordon Wood.


And I quote:



> *Popularity has a great deal to do with region and publisher, and scratching all of this silliness, everyone who has read all of the relevant data and primary and secondary sources (without reading tertiary sources like modern commentaries), and is fully up to date on methodology, is plenty informed.* Maybe you've read some appraisals of Sanders by other scholars as a preface to some works of his, but normally when you write a book or article and it's got appraisals of you, if you're writing for a reputable enough publisher, they make it sound like you s%^t gold.


I used Sanders as an example.


----------



## science

Lukecash12 said:


> And I quote:
> 
> I used Sanders as an example.


Look BIOLA, both Wood and Sanders are elite scholars, both among the most widely respected in their fields, both among the most influential in their generations, and by that I mean respected by influential among their fellow scholars and not merely popular with lay readers, and in both cases if you don't know that or refuse to admit it, so much the worse for you.


----------



## Ukko

Hey, _science_, you have not spent ¾ of your life studying this stuff. It is grossly unfair of you to know much of anything about it, no matter what your sources are. As a general rule, it is presumptuous of laymen to know anything outside their _trades_ beyond stuff like tying their shoes and flushing toilets.


----------



## Lukecash12

Hilltroll72 said:


> Hey, _science_, you have not spent ¾ of your life studying this stuff. It is grossly unfair of you to know much of anything about it, no matter what your sources are. As a general rule, it is presumptuous of laymen to know anything outside their _trades_ beyond stuff like tying their shoes and flushing toilets.


Ah, you are an expert in crafting straw men. Bravo, good sir. And you certainly knocked that straw man down well and good when you made him, just by making him in fact! :tiphat:


----------



## Ukko

Lukecash12 said:


> Ah, you are an expert in crafting straw men. Bravo, good sir. And you certainly knocked that straw man down well and good when you made him, just by making him in fact! :tiphat:


Thank you. BTW there is an applause emoticon clap, which would have been appreciated. This particular straw man was created to exaggerate a tendency owned by several TC members, possibly including moi. Henceforth I would like to 'call him up' by name when it's appropriate. I could use help with that; I am not much good with names.



[edit. I have come up with a tentative name for this straw man: Art Orrity. So you see, I need help.]


----------



## science

Really the point is that I do not consider myself an expert, and as I do not intend to spend 3/4 of my life studying it, I look to people like Gordon Wood who are.


----------



## Lukecash12

Hilltroll72 said:


> Thank you. BTW there is an applause emoticon clap, which would have been appreciated. This particular straw man was created to exaggerate a tendency owned by several TC members, possibly including moi. Henceforth I would like to 'call him up' by name when it's appropriate. I could use help with that; I am not much good with names.
> 
> 
> 
> [edit. I have come up with a tentative name for this straw man: Art Orrity. So you see, I need help.]


You and I should disagree more, because you're fun to disagree with :lol:


----------



## Lukecash12

science said:


> Really the point is that I do not consider myself an expert, and as I do not intend to spend 3/4 of my life studying it, I look to people like Gordon Wood who are.


I realize that, and I appreciate the input.


----------



## Fsharpmajor

Of the options available, I chose liberalism and environmentalism. I have some socialist tendencies, but I don't really consider myself to be a socialist. I also have some libertarian traits, but I don't really consider myself a libertarian.

What I really am, more than anything else, is a secularist. I have a political affiliation (the UK's Liberal Democrat party), and for the most part their stance reflects my views.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

the first one ...............


----------

