Education Time.

OK, I will be the first to admit, that I have strong beliefs that seldom prove to be popular. I will also admit that on most of them I am unwavering in those beliefs and no amount of convincing will alter them much. I have admitted repeatedly that I am not particularly politically minded so when people use political terms it tends to throw me for a loop till I get a layman's clarification of such.

On at least two occasions I have been told that I am conservative in my views, but people in real life say I am extreme in my views.

What I want to know is, what are the real definitions of "Conservative" and "Liberal"

My second question is, are there only two types of political beliefs within the political viewpoint?

Lastly, show me an example of me being conservative.

This is a legit set of questions because I truly do not want to give the wrong impression, even if the real impression is turns out to be extremely offensive to some, I want it to be the real reason you think so.

---

The best things in life, aren't things.

Personally, I like to think of conservative and liberal as the noun and
verb (dunno who I hijacked the concept from, I think mainly my dad).

Conservatives like it as it is. They are what is. Noun.

Liberals like to move things along, the verb.

Conservatives are generally more stable, since they like to keep the
status quo. Liberals are a less stable, but in most cases, right.

The perfect government has an equal blend of the two, since neither is affective without the other.

That's as metaphorical as I can put it, its pointless yapping about "hes anti-this and they are pro-that."

Sounds trippy and fairly vague, but you can apply it to any policy.

But how is being an extremist being confused with conservative in this case?

Is text so ineffectual that I give the impression that my belief system is stagnant? Being unwavering IMO does not mean stagnant.

I know people who still believe in God, in spite of all the examples that there couldn't be one, yet I wouldn't call them conservative.. In fact, most of them accept things that I find about as offensive as one can be...

I really do not understand.. Someone else explain the views please.. Sorry Mephs, but I am no closer to comprehension than I was before you posted. :/

---

The best things in life, aren't things.

I'm 14. I want things my way, whatever that may be. (conservative or liberal or whatever)

Sorry, but yes, unwavering DOES mean stagnant, Orph. If you will never change, your belief no matter what, then its stagnant.

Which technically means that demoncray and loving thy neighbour are
stagnant. But this is a good point/thread. When DO the boundries
collide?

You can easily be conservative and extreme. All the anti-abortionists are considered conservative by me, yet some of them are also extremists (especially the ones who resort to violence and bomb abortion clinics and shoot doctors).

In order to avoid opening up old wounds, I'd refrain from coming up with examples that might make some people "conservative" and "extreme".

To me, conservatives tend to hold on to their existing belives no matter what. They are unwilling to consider any alternatives or view things differently from others. Liberals tend to keep an open mind and are willing to experiment with other lifestyles/experiences.

I just try to keep an open mind to everything, and I try to think outside the box and question existing standards and believes. I give everyone the benefit of the doubt before I they prove me wrong.

---

"The greatest thing you'll ever learn is just to love and be loved in return." -- Toulouse-Lautre, Moulin Rouge

I still disagree (could be an example that you are indeed right however)

I do not think that believing in something, you know to be correct is stagnant.

If I believed the world was flat, and you proved it was not, but continued to believe it was flat then you would be correct. But I do not believe in silly crap like that.

Hmm.. Still does not explain how the two words "conservative" and "Extremest" can be the same when the very nature of each word is so foreign to each other.

I do not doubt what you are saying, what I doubt is that the definition is lacking a part that is failing to convey your true definition.

Lets assume for the moment that conservative only means "The inability to accept alternate viewpoints" With that definition, I can see some of what I say as conservative. But what happens when your unwavering belief involves extreme actions, or more accurately "Unpopular actions that could be considered extreme"

For instance.. I firmly believe that Gays are made, not born, and the action should involve jail time when caught.
For instance.. I believe that fat people have no respect for themselves so why should I?
For instance.. I believe that Child molesters are not gay, but children who were molested could become gay. (hence my strong outburst in the MJ thread)

What is conservative in those views? I was always taught that to conserve was to miser something.. being conservative was someone who didn't do outrageous actions.. My belief system involves very extreme actions sometimes.. (castration of child molesters is not to unkind a punishment)

Anywho's.. defining the two seems beyond me, or beyond you Mephs :sad:

---

The best things in life, aren't things.

Maybe they call you extremist because maybe some of your views which you express more often are extremist perhaps? I personally see some of your views extremist, and seeing as I don't take much notice of your other comments, I'd say your extremist :razz:

Its like women really... You compliment them and it goes in one ear comes out the other. Say something nasty and it stays there like a red wine stain on a creme suede sofa.

---

-[Better to be Honest than Kind]-

Conservative-

• Favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change.
• Traditional or restrained in style: a conservative dark suit.
• Moderate; cautious: a conservative estimate.
• <OL type=a>
  <LI type=a>Of or relating to the political philosophy of conservatism.
  <LI type=a>Belonging to a conservative party, group, or movement. </LI>

[*] Conservative Of or belonging to the Conservative Party in the United Kingdom or the Progressive Conservative Party in Canada.
[*] Conservative Of or adhering to Conservative Judaism.
[*] Tending to conserve; preservative: the conservative use of natural resources.
</OL>
Liberal-

• <OL type=a>
  <LI type=a>Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
  <LI type=a>Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
  <LI type=a>Of, relating to, or characteristic of liberalism.
  <LI type=a>Liberal Of, designating, or characteristic of a political party founded on or associated with principles of social and political liberalism, especially in Great Britain, Canada, and the United States. </LI>

[*]
<OL type=a>
<LI type=a>Tending to give freely; generous: a liberal benefactor.
<LI type=a>Generous in amount; ample: a liberal serving of potatoes. </LI></OL>
[*] Not strict or literal; loose or approximate: a liberal translation.
[*] Of, relating to, or based on the traditional arts and sciences of a college or university curriculum: a liberal education.
[*]
<OL type=a>
<LI type=a>Archaic. Permissible or appropriate for a person of free birth; befitting a lady or gentleman.
<LI type=a>Obsolete. Morally unrestrained; licentious. </LI></OL></LI></OL>

---

-[Better to be Honest than Kind]-

are extreme fundamentalism and fundamental extremism the same thing?

---

i eat paint

EGADS!!!.

those definitions portray conservatives as evil/satanist and liberals as saints of some sort.

I do not think I like those definitions.. truly. Its like redefining "Phobia" to make it evil to dislike homosexuals.. Its not evil by any definition of the word "EVIL"

I think.. a liberal wrote those definitions. :sad:

IN FACT.. I will take it as a personal affront from now on if anyone designates me "conservative" from now on..

beware.. i do not like those definitions at all :/

---

The best things in life, aren't things.

Basically just says Conservatives like how it is, and liberals are open to change.

---

-[Better to be Honest than Kind]-

Myrk- said:
Basically just says Conservatives like how it is, and liberals are open to change.

How about "Like it was" because the changes are here now, and many of the suck owl s**t.

But seriously, those definitions paint it "Evil" and "Good" and I really do not like to be branded "Evil".. IMO its just as bigoted of the liberals who proclaim themselves not bigoted..

sighs

Why did we ever allow the liberals so much power. :sad:

---

The best things in life, aren't things.

..........but it is never, and should never be, as cut and dried as all that....

in my mind, it all boils down to good and bad, right and wrong, and the amount of intensity youd care to press your particular viewpoint with....

i have a brother whos as gay as a flaming pride parade....i love him, hes my brother....only one i have. now, i disapprove completely of his lifestyle....the backdoor action he perpetuates is imho, completely un-natural, and then he bitches about not having a kid.... i say, "as it should be" ...im conservative in that view....but i havent killed him yet, so i suppose i have leaned a bit towards liberalism in that sense.... (perception is everything)

im pissed off that the social security system is in tatters....a liberal viewpoint....if i decided to bust into my local social security office and rant and rave and take hostages, i believe that would make me an extremeist.....and liberal.....

i believe that we as a nation should be in iraq etc, for the right reasons....a conservative view generally....im mad as hell that we didnt get the straight poop about it when we went in.....i didnt just blindly say, "well, we may as well finish it since we are here"....leans me again towards liberal.

see a theme here?

its all a mtter of percetion, and what you believe to be the right thing, the wrong thing, the good thing, or the bad thing.....IMHO.....

/////me dons bulletproof vest, and goggles, and waits in ernest...

Doc Brasso.... :dodgy:

ps.....this is also the biggest problem i have with people today....they dont quite dig MY viewpoint, because i wont, except in extreme circumstances, take a definitive side.... :wink:

Hell Doc, I brand myself a "Black and White" thinking individual yet...

I see nothing wrong with anything you just typed.. Do I agree because we are nigh onto the same age? or is it that we have similar life experiences?

I hate homosexuality, but hate damned few Gay people.. I hate Racism, yet I call many people I know friends and quite a few are Racist. I do not consider myself bigoted or two-faced either, I just think that you should at the very least, pay for your choices throughout life. My friends who are racist, know that they had better watch their mouth whenever I am around.. Pain is a valuable lesson if you get my drift.. Same with my gay acquaintances.. They had better not act gay whenever I am around.. meaning don't you dare touch,approach or otherwise incite any contact that could be considered intimate with me. What they do in their own bedroom/home is one thing, what they do in my presence, is MY business..

On another note, I have yet to kill my first gay, so perhaps I am also liberal in that sense.. shrugs

Still.. I abhor branding, and it reads to me that if you are liberal you are in effect a good person, and a conservative is a bad one.. If you do not like Good and BAD, then at the very least accept "Positive" and "Negative" persona..

Unless someone can define the words without those branding, I am suggesting strongly, do not call me a conservative hence forth.. I would really take it poorly.

---

The best things in life, aren't things.

how about....a conservationist......////runs really fast

Doc B... :dodgy:

i guess what im trying to say is that "branding" as you call it jon, is the biggest crock of s**t in the world today, but, everyone does it to a certain extent....its nature, in all its glory.

black and white, is right or wrong....and age aint gotta f**kin thing to do with it big jon....its the person. :wink:

Every statement so far has been from a liberal, and many of them not americans... The Liberal/Conservative concept is a regional one, and has slightly different meanings on the two sides of the pond. It is inaccurate to characterize liberals as "pro-change" and Conservatives as "anti-change". While I believe that is one meaning of the two words, it is not the meaning of the concept in American politics. Plainly, Conservatives do want change. In the extreme case, many seem to want a theocratic state. Conversely, Liberals would very much like to keep the status quo on many points, such as abortion.

It is also incorrect to characterize liberals as deomonstratably more open minded than conservitives. Show me the liberal who does not believe firmly that abortion is Right. That belief is no different from the conservitive viewpoint that it is Wrong. It doesn't matter who is "correct" or who has better logic, or more political clout, the point is that neither side will budge an inch... and oh, guess what, that means that both sides are both closed-minded.

Think of it this way Orph, If politics is one dimensional (I don't think it is) than at one end you have liberals, and at the other you have conservatives:

Liberals--------------------Conservatives

Left --------------------Right

To be extreme is to hold opinions that fall predominately at one end of this line or the other. It does not matter which side you are on.

I will take examples of social welfare policy:

Extreme Liberal: The government ought to provide a basic standard of living for all citizens and prevent any given individuals from being much richer than others. All health care should be free.

Moderate-Liberal: The government ought to provide financial support to those who are in need, and provide free health care for all.

Moderate-Conservative: The government ought to help people who are in need, but strict guidelines are required to keep people from leaching the taxpayers unnecessarily. Health care is a consumer commodity, and needs to be paid for just like anything else.

Extreme Conservative: It is not the governments business to support indigent people. Health care is a consumer commodity.

Now all these views are within the accepted spectrum of mainstream American politics. While I have characterized the right and left most views as extreme, that is of course relative. The word "extremist" to me denotes a tendency toward violence. For example:

Conservative extremist: Poor people ought to be rounded up by force and put into labor camps so they can do some good.

Liberal Extremist: Corporations are evil. We ought to shoot the CEOs and nationalize all industry so that every man can have a job and wealth will be spread out evenly.

The right wing extremists bomb abortion clinics and shoot gays, while the leftists attack loggers, spike trees, and burn SUVs. Both of them are reprehensible. These are people who have allowed an ideology to swallow them whole, leaving nothing left but an empty vessel committed to spreading their strange disease.

With regard to stagnation...

Orph, the simplest definition of stagnant is simply "not moving" therefore, by definition a view point that does not change is "stagnant". It deosn't matter if you are right or wrong, just or wicked. On the other hand, it is not the best term to describe a simply motionless situation, since the other connotations of the word are all negative. It undoubtedly derisive to refer to anyone's beliefs as stagnant. There are many other words which mean "unmoving" that do not have the same negative overtones. You have come up with the example yourself. You say you are steadfast, they say you are stagnant. You are both technicaly right, but an opinion is expressed in the word choice. you think you are right, they think you are wrong, or at the very least that lack of change is by definition a bad thing.

---

Some people are like slinkys...

They aren?t really good for anything, but you can't help but laugh when one tumbles down the stairs.

What confuses me most about this entire thread is.. I read this part and say "yup thats me" then I read another part and say "whoa, thats me too" but guess what? its opposing teams..

I understand many of the things you guys are saying, but some of the things still go over my head..

perhaps they should invent a new word for extreme liberal-conservatives like myself..

sighs

Life as a stupid person like me... You guys should be proud you do not have to suffer my indignities.. look at this entire thread.. except for Doc, I am getting informed by people at the very least 1/2 my age.. thats sad.

---

The best things in life, aren't things.

Don't worry that you hold views in the opposing camps Orph. I certainly do. Really, "Conservative" and "Liberal" are just umbrella labels to encompass an array of mutually opposing ideas.

I would be frightened if I ever met a person whose views were either wholly liberal or conservative.

---

Some people are like slinkys...

They aren?t really good for anything, but you can't help but laugh when one tumbles down the stairs.

Orph, i'm looking at the definitions again, and i can only see that a consertative is a bad thing if i make an assumption that it is opposite to the definitions given for liberal. which isn't really the case. in TB's 2D example conservativism and liberalism are at opposite ends of the spectrum, and that may be how it's seen in the US, but i don't think it would warrant defining everything about one as being the opposite of the other.

here in the UK, the conservatives are the right wing, pro establishment, landowner, bring back national service and hanging types. at the opposite end of the the 2D political spectrum used to be the socialists/communists/hippie types. now it's not so clear cut. the liberals are seen as middle of the roaders, which seems to be too close (on the 2D line) to whatever party people are most against to be a valid option for them to vote for.

with the policies of the traditionally opposed parties getting less opposed as each of the parties try to leech votes from the other, i can see a day coming when they will almost merge to stand against the liberals.

---

i eat paint

Both sides of the fence are bad.

Picking a side, then never considering your side my be wrong doesn't
help anything. People today have turned political tendancies into
lables. You are with your party or against your party.

Look at the FOX news channle for conservative view point, my personal
fav... Bill O'Rylie (sp?) he will not look at subjects from more than
one angle and he is mean.

Now look at a Liberal, lets say a arts student (me?) bash Bush, rant
about Iraq, and use facts (cold hard facts) that support their ideas...
but wait, the too only see the subject from one angle, if Bush does
something right they point out his grammer error. Their facts my
be cold and hard, but they dont take into account the situation and
context.

Extreme or not, picking a side with out acknowlaging the other sides
view points makes debate on an issue pointless. That is the main
problem with internet debates, people dont want to back down.
Rather than say "your point is valid" they will bring of another point
to counter that one.

I agree with doc B, go with what you think is right, not what your
lable thinks is right. For instance, I dont like Bush, but I dont
shoot down everything he does.

man...almost like old times eh?....

it just occurrred to me that we havent (at least i havent) gotten into this clean and even keeled a conversation with you guys in ages.....damn you HL2....damn you.... :dodgy:

...ive noticed that we all, in our saving graces, have at least similar views of right and wrong, despite age, ethnicity, location, or whatever monaker you care to place.....does a heart good. :smile:

///me goes back to think about things again.....

ive missed this you guys....and ya'll as well... :biggrin:

Doc B... :dodgy:

ps.....anyone heard from gollum lately?

I'm educated enough to stay out of this conversation...?

besides, talking to conservatives is like talking to a brick wall.

Jinx said:
I'm educated enough to stay out of this conversation...?

besides, talking to conservatives is like talking to a brick wall.

Likewise :razz:

---

Some people are like slinkys...

They aren?t really good for anything, but you can't help but laugh when one tumbles down the stairs.

I would consider myself a mix of conservative and liberal, but I tend
to sway more towards the republican side of things on some issues. It
seems however that the liberals (democrats if you want) are much more
extremist nowadays. Since the end of Kennedy's term they have become
more extreme. I just think it's dumb for people to believe that one
parties has all the answers or that one president is either wrong or
right in everything they do. Both sides have their extremists and some
of you seam to think that all democrats are alike.

Also Orph you can tell me many reasons why God doesn't exist, but the
truth is we can neither prove or disprove God's existance. So this is
why I do not try and force people to believe what I believe. I am
religious but I also rely alot of things on science. You might think
this is a wierd mix but it makes perfect sense.

fishy said:
Orph, i'm looking at the definitions again, and i can only see that a consertative is a bad thing if i make an assumption that it is opposite to the definitions given for liberal.

Methinks thats exactly how I am reading them.. Its like, when you go to church (stop staring, I've been in them) and the guy up front is talking to the crowd, but in your ears all you hear is "Why is he talking to me?"

Perhaps its my self conscience... I do not feel guilty of anything, because as I said, I read TB's post and I am most definitely a mixture of the two social outlooks. I do however feel that the definitions Myrk posted were written by a liberal... The definition was just to cheary and warm for it not to be so. :sad:

---

The best things in life, aren't things.

I assume we are talking about the American politic system, since it
looks different then how it is organized in The Netherlands. Do you
really have only 2 groups? I do not really know much about this
subject, if there can only one party be the governement for 4
years(rigth/wrong?), doesnt that mean they can do anything they like
without resistance from the opposition?

---

RUST Gamedesign
pepper design

The strength of the turbulence is directly proportional to the temperature of your coffee.

Someday I would like to read the history and/or science behind the liberal outlook. /me wonders why America would allow so destructive a group, to become so powerful. Are they really that shallow?

Take that comment how you will, but every time I see something going wrong, or astray, it seems hinged on some liberal outlook. Understand, I didn't know it was a liberal thing until this thread. I just knew that something was horribly wrong, and didn't know who actually did it till now. If that offends some of you, don't worry. You'll get over it. I have been offended for years now, and only just found out who's to blame. So we can all be offended at once and get it over with.

/me ponders situation more..

later peeps, /me is off to Maryland.

---

The best things in life, aren't things.

Someday I would like to read the history and/or science behind
the liberal outlook. /me wonders why America would allow so destructive
a group, to become so powerful. Are they really that shallow?

Liberals have very little power as a party, the right controls (correct
me if I'm wrong) all three branches of government, including both houses.

liberal groups, on the other hand, tend to have more power. Anti-gun/smoking/baby eating/etc.

I think it is a common thing to belive that your party has the least
power. Ask any conservative and they will tell you the media,
buissness, hollywood are all controled by liberals who have all the
power.

While a liberal will tell you Bush and his gang hold all the aces in the government and have all the power...

Course, its only natural to feel that the opposing team holds all the cards but look at it from the definition standpoint of the words. Conservatives like sameness, so in a world thats changing faster than babies diapers, how can anyone believe for a moment that the conservatives hold anything?

I don't really wanna name specifics, because someone here is bound to call me names but I see things every day, that were not there the day before..

I am oh so tired of granting new rights to someone who didn't need them the day before. :sad:

It promotes bad habits.. Tis just another example that if you do something wrong long enough, it becomes less wrong., most especially if a s**tload of people are doing it.

---

The best things in life, aren't things.

The simple definition doesn't speak for our politacal parties
anymore. There are few true conservatives, and few librals.

conservatives arn't litarly standing still. They stand for big
buisness, personal responsbility, and less social wellfare. They
change just as much as anyone.

I also dont understand your last sentance,

It promotes bad habits.. Tis just another example that if you do
something wrong long enough, it becomes less wrong., most especially if
a s**tload of people are doing it.

are you saying that conservatives do wrong so much that it becomes right.

I'm saying that many people are now doing wrong things that they wouldn't have done before. Yes, each generation says that, but I am not one of those "Good old days" types.. I never had good old days to be honest, but seriously.. I have to deal with things today, that I didn't before and neary a one of those decisions did I ask to have to..

I am rambling on, mainly because what we are talking about is much bigger than what we are putting into text ATM.. Mainly because I for one have no interest in alienating my friends here in doing so. Friendship transcends the personal belief system... If you are mature enough that is. :/

---

The best things in life, aren't things.

Friendship transcends the personal belief system... If you are mature enough that is. :/

I agree to a point. As long as those beliefs dont manifest
themselves in some kind of violance I dont think anyone has the right
to tell you not to think a certain way.

DrGlass said:
I agree to a point. As long as those beliefs dont manifest themselves in some kind of violance I dont think anyone has the right to tell you not to think a certain way.

In an internet environment, how likely is it that violence of any credible kind will manifest itself?

I have made friends of enemies right here at Snarkpit, I have yet to make an enemy of a friend. (to my knowledge.)

---

The best things in life, aren't things.

pepper said:
I assume we are talking about the American politic system, since it looks different then how it is organized in The Netherlands. Do you really have only 2 groups? I do not really know much about this subject, if there can only one party be the government for 4 years(rigth/wrong?), doesnt that mean they can do anything they like without resistance from the opposition?

Here we go, American politics in a nutshell from a physical scientist...

For about the past century ore maybe a little more, there have been only two major parties, the democrats and the republicans. The democrats are generally liberal and the republicans are generally conservative.

We practice direct democracy, the people elect the president directly rather than through a Parliament. The power of our congress is purely legislative. There are no limits on how long a particular party can dominate any given branch of government, but there are general presidential and congressional elections every four years (or is it two for congress?), and no man can hold the presidency for more than eight.

The opposition always has power for several reasons:

1. It is possible for the congress and the presidency (legislative and executive branches) to be held by opposing parties, as was the case for much of the Clinton presidency.

2. There is always the threat of the next congressional or presidential election looming in the future, so any party in "power" has to tread relatively lightly to avoid alienating moderate voters.

3. Even in a case like we have now where one party controls both the legislative and executive branches of government, there are numerous ways that the opposition can oppose any given piece of legislation, primary among them, the Filibuster.

The short answer is that you are mistaken on both points. The party "in power" cannot do whatever it wants, and there is no legislative limit on how long a given party can remain ascendant.

---

Some people are like slinkys...

They aren?t really good for anything, but you can't help but laugh when one tumbles down the stairs.

:ar15firing: ....***runs

Doc B... :dodgy:

DrGlass said:
I also dont understand your last sentance,

<DIV class=quote>
<DIV class=quotetitle>? quote:</DIV>
<DIV class=quotetext>It promotes bad habits.. Tis just another example that if you do something wrong long enough, it becomes less wrong., most especially if a s**tload of people are doing it.

are you saying that conservatives do wrong so much that it becomes right.
</div></div>

What Orph is getting at has a name: Moral Relativism

This is a state of affairs where Right is defined by the environment. In Nazi Germany, it was considered Right to round up the Jews and Roma in order to produce an ethnically pure state. In ancient Sparta (myth or not, it doesn't matter) it was Right to leave babies out on the mountain side overnight so that only those who were strongest would survive. We consider both of these actions to be Wrong because they are alien to our own culture.

Today there is the battle of whether homosexuality is Right or Wrong. By ancient Greek or roman standards, this would be a non-issue. it was completely acceptable. However, for the past fifteen hundred years or so, homosexuality has been nearly universally considered Wrong. The majority defined the reality of morality.

The question is: is there such a thing as an absolute moral standard? Orph I think would say yes, and many others with him. Others would say no, that morality is a construct of society and therefore as fluid as the culture that created it.

I take a slightly different view: Morality defines the society, not the other way around. Morals evolve as a shared concept that makes society work. They are there for our benefit and protection. Monogamy contributes to healthier happier children, chastity saves us from disease, honor allows us to trust each other and work as an effective team... I could go on forever.

Back to homosexuality: Personally, I believe that the taboo against same sex, and human-animal sexual intercourse stems from the biomedical catastrophe that helped to end the Roman empire. Gonorrhea emerged at about this time, and decimated a society that was completely lacking in our version of sexual morality. The same thing is happening in Africa with the AIDS epidemic. The taboo still operates as a way to keep us healthy, however, now that medical knowledge has shed light on the nature of disease, that taboo is weakening as it becomes clear that homosexuality itself is not the cause of disease. The debate continues, and morals evolve.

The caution is that all is not necessarily well. Rome was destroyed in part because it's set of "morals" could not cope with a changing world. The same can be said for many other civilizations. Breaking down barriers just because we can may not be the greatest idea. It seemingly takes a catastrophe to erect them.

---

Some people are like slinkys...

They aren?t really good for anything, but you can't help but laugh when one tumbles down the stairs.

Although I deeply appreciate the explanation TB, I wasn't even thinking about homosexuals at the time I posted that.. I know that many of my comments also apply to the group, but at that particular moment I was thinking of my job. I see things every day that are wrong, but many more people are doing it every day.

As I said, I appreciate the words, and yes I agree with them mostly. I just wanted to clear up that I wasn't thinking of Gays. Believe it or not, there are a lot of other wrongs in this world that do not involve homosexuality.. IN SPITE of what the Gay liberals may suggest to the contrary, homosexuality is not as important an issue as they think they are.

For the record however. unless I specifically mention Gays, I am prolly not thinking of them as I type, in spite of my negativity on the subject. I doesn't dominate my time much.

You see, I know some about gays, I know a whole lot about driving. I tend to bitch about driving issues more frequently.. My wife firmly believes I will someday have a coronary because I allow other drivers to rattle me so.

anywho's.. thanx again, it pretty much sums me up.

---

The best things in life, aren't things.

I did pick that particular example because I know it is one you have strong opinions about, but I hadn't meant to imply that that was what you were thinking of at the time of your earlier posts. My bad. I just wanted to make sure Dr.Glass understood where you were coming from. He didn't seem to grasp the concept of relativism the way you do, so I felt the need to explain.

---

Some people are like slinkys...

They aren?t really good for anything, but you can't help but laugh when one tumbles down the stairs.

/Me bows.. most humbly.

---

The best things in life, aren't things.

I very much agree with Doc Glass' point that "conservatives arn't
litarly standing still. They stand for big
buisness, personal responsbility, and less social wellfare. They
change just as much as anyone." The term "conservative" now tends to be
associated with certain individual beliefs such as deregulation, low
taxes, reform instead of spending large amounts of money, limits on the
powers of the EU etc. Interesting how "reform" is a conservative
idea... slightly ironic.

One argument that is quite interesting is that Conservative (as in the
UK political party) values are an integral part of British politics for
the past 70 years, and they are the values that the public want. This
has some evidence in the fact that the Labour party became "New Labour"
with much more right wing ideas, and one Labour MP, Chris Bryant,
recently said in parliament that the government "should be
congratulated on taking what was originally a Conservative idea".
However, it could be said that this argument is fairly narrow minded.

For anyone vaguely interested in this sort of thing, I wrote a 1000
word rambling article on why all political parties, and especially the
Conservative party in the UK, should modernise. You can find it
here.
Completely unstructured, but I was bored... :smile:

---

My site

I haven't read through all of this thread, but here's how I've set it in my mind, and done fairly well. First off, the words aren't true opposites, but politically they are near antonyms.

Conservative: Prefers legislation to set standards of behavior.
Liberal: Prefers people having the choice to do whatever they want.

Republicans tend to be socially conservative, and economically/environmentally liberal.
Democrats tend to be socially liberal, and economically/environmentally conservative.

It's still a little shady as the other meaing of the word conservative is to adhere to long standing traditions. This is not an antonym of liberal, but rather progressive, and implies a judgement of whether the current legislation is moral and/or beneficial.

Some examples:
Socially Conservative: legislating against recreational marijuana use
Socially Liberal: no legislation on recreational marijuana use so long as it involves consenting adults and no dangerous activities (i.e. driving).
Economically Liberal: no legislation against outsourcing
Economically Conservative: legislating a maximum price a landlord can charge for rent
Environmentally Liberal: no legislation regarding a farmer's pesticide use
Environmentally Conservative: a government program that monitors an endangered species' population

Thanks tracer bullet.

This means that the people whom vote only have a limited choice, no
third party if they dont agree wiht one of the 2. How do you solve this
problem?

---

RUST Gamedesign
pepper design

The strength of the turbulence is directly proportional to the temperature of your coffee.

Within each party, there are many different viewpoints. The true presidential voting happens during the primaries, when each party elects a candidate. This is when the major focus of a party can shift. We'd have a completely different Republican party on our hands now if McCain had won the primary against Bush in 2000.

Also, the two parties aren't set in stone, there are many smaller third parties roaming around. While their presidential candidates are usually ridiculous longshots, every once in a while they produce something fairly strong (Perot, Teddy Roosevelt in 1912) and their presence can definitely be felt at pretty much every level lower than the national. A few states have independant governors and Vermont has an independent senator.

People do pay attention to other parties, because these parties combined have enough supporters to swing the presidential race toward one way or another.

The Green party has been around for a long time now. Its supporters tend to be even more liberal than Democrats, and protecting natural resources ranks high on their list of priorities.

I have friends who primarily vote for the Green party. I vote for Democrats in general, but that doesn't mean I'll rule out voting for a very good and competent Republican president if ones comes along.

I vote for ideologies rather than a specific party. It just turns out that most of the ideologies I endorse are shared by other Democrats.

---

"The greatest thing you'll ever learn is just to love and be loved in return." -- Toulouse-Lautre, Moulin Rouge

I think I may have actually met my first "Liberal" person this last trip.

Sure, you are saying, "Orph you prolly met 1,000's of them already" But I never gave it any thought till this thread TBH.

Occasionally, I give rides home to fellow delivery people who work for the same company I do. If we deliver to the same location, tis usually convenient to do so.

Anywho's, to make a long story short, We talked about numerous things throughout the day, and except for one topic only, he told me flat out "you're wrong" "you're mistaken" or my favorite "You're strange"..

I have never in my life met anyone who actually said those things to me. NOT because I haven't been wrong, but because what we talked about, I was POSITIVE that I was indeed correct.

For instance.. We came out of a restaurant, there was a big painted section that said "NO PARKING" painted on the asphalt. I said to him "I guess if you park ON the words, you can claim you didn't see it" .. He said "Whats the problem? Why is it bothering you?" I said, "Because, you're not supposed to park there, it would not be marked otherwise if you were".. he looks at me funny and said "Did you want to? Were they in your space?" I said "Nope, didn't even occur to me to park there, it said not to" he says, "But, how is it, them parking there bothering you?"

The conversation continued until I actually had to tell him to drop it because he just kept going in circles..

To me, it wasn't an issue of someone parking in the wrong area. It was a symptom of things in general.. The "Its all about ME" syndrome.. The world is becoming more and more about people only concerned with themselves, or WORSE.. If it doesn't directly effect you, mind your own business.

It wasn't a complete loss, we both agreed that racism is evil.. But I actually had to tell him that my riders are only allowed to tell me I am wrong 5 times per ride or they walk... he shut up.

/ rambling.

---

The best things in life, aren't things.

What a dick. You should have let him walk.

Here's what I think:

Cassius said:
What a dick. You should have let him walk.

A dick he may be, but... How many here have said the same thing of me? Especially those whom I just met?

Its truly hard to say "He's a dick" and know for certain that they truly deserve the title. Think yourself Master Cass. You used this word on me... More than once. :sad:

shrugs

I am almost sure that some here still think me in such a light, but at least they have some reason now.

---

The best things in life, aren't things.

only one side of the story so far, but it seems to me he wasnt a liberal, he was just a dick....

........or was that mentioned? :heee:

Cass was right.....let the f**ker thumb his ass down the road with his package..... :wink:

Doc B... :dodgy:

Orpheus said:
You used this word on me... More than once. :sad:

Yeah, but never while riding in your truck.

---

[Im_invisible] "I would suck a man off, but only for sustenance."