[POL] Based on my views, am I "conservative" or "liberal"?

[WVUFAN]

There was a point in time where I considered myself very conservative. Now, I'm not so sure.

Firstly, I really, REALLY dislike Romney, especially after the "49%" video leaked, although it's possible his words were misconstrued. Conversely, I'm disapointed in Obama and what he's accomplished, although there's only so much you can do when you have an opposition-led Congress.

So, here's my basic views, and I'd love, based on how you view conservatism and liberalism, how I fall.

I believe that the 2nd Amendment is very clear, and there should be no limitation to that right. Yes, that means that if you want to own a machine gun, you have the right to have it. No, you should have to justify as to why you have it just like you don't have to justify why you express your freedom of speech -- you just have it.

Fiscal responsibility is fine, but the government has a responsibility to help those who cannot help themselves, which means the so-called "entitlement" programs need to continue to be funded. Should there be welfare reform? Yes, in that in the current form, in many cases it's actually worse for families if they get a job than if they stay on welfare. You encourage people to get jobs by forcing greedy corporations and business owners to pay their people a living wage. When business owners are paying your workers minimum wage while buying their teenage children new cars, you're not paying your workers enough.

We need to stop being the world's police. I'm all for isolationism when it comes to foreign policy. We need to stop helping other countries financially when we have needy people HERE. If we do involve ourselves in another country, we need to have that country fund our involvement. When we took Iraq, we needed to take their oil as payment for our involvement, otherwise, we need to stay out.

Speaking of military and budgets, when we're spending more in military than the next 10 largest countries combined, we're spending too much. Cut defense.

A buddy has said I've fallen off the conservative wagon.

[cartman]

You've fallen off of the tea party wagon, but not the conservative wagon. Your views are pretty much in line with what the Republican party believed in up until Clinton came around. Take a look at Eisenhower's acceptance speech in 1956, and it mirrors many of your views.

[sterlingice]

Serious question: do you need to be defined as "conservative" or "liberal"?

There are a lot of contradictory viewpoints between the two and a lot of good ideas on "both sides".

SI

[Young Drachma]

Neo-classical liberalism.

[Blackadar]

Pinko liberal commie.




By JIMG's standard.

[JonInMiddleGA]

By contemporary definitions you've definitely got more liberal tendencies than conservative ones. And based in no small part on your attack on business owners rant here, I'm afraid your buddy is right. Once you cross over into class envy, you're pretty much in the liberal camp. They'll browbeat whatever conservative thoughts you have left out of you soon enough & the indoctrination will be complete.

[larrymcg421]

Your views make you a classic Republican and a right leaning moderate today. This is of course without looking at social issues, though.

[Young Drachma]

"Class envy"

[Solecismic]

I don't know. Sounds like you've put yourself in the same position I'm in. When I'm in a room of liberal people, they think I'm a conservative and when I'm in a room of conservative people, they think I'm a liberal.

I try to look at every issue separately. I don't get everything right, and my views sometimes change when I take a deeper look, but there is some consistent underlying philosophy there.

Like yesterday. I posted that Obama essentially clusterfornicated Libya. ISiddiqui said, "hey, wth, the new Libyan leadership isn't that bad." So I read a little, and I realized that I had taken my view from a report that wasn't even-handed - the Libyan government really is about the best we could hope for right now given a terrible situation. And I moderated my position some.

What happens when we have these extreme parties is that either you follow the party line, or you get people angry with you, thinking you're not one of them.

Your views and my views are different, as well. It would be nice if there were no political parties, and everyone just wanted to find the best way to solve a particular problem.

Power corrupts. Politicians corrupt absolutely.

(edited to rearrange consonants)

[lungs]

You're not too far off of what I believe in. And I pretty well accepted that I'm a liberal about 5-6 years ago. Gun control is the one issue I'm at odds with the modern liberals. My transformation has gone from full fledged GW voting Republican in 2000 to Libertarian in 2004 and then the economic crisis in '08 pretty well pushed me to the left economically and into the Democratic camp.

As a rural liberal, I do get pretty irritated at times with the arrogance of urban liberals at times.

[ISiddiqui]

I think that in 2012 terms you are more of a moderate Democrat (Blue Dog?). Though your positions are very much of a classic conservatism - you'd be quite comfortable as a moderate Republican in 1990, if fact your views likely would be have been shared with President George H.W. Bush.

[ISiddiqui]

I try to look at every issue separately. I don't get everything right, and my views sometimes change when I take a deeper look, but there is some consistent underlying philosophy there.

Bravo! I hope that I do the same, but in this culture, where there is such a pressure to "be right" rather than come to the right position (if you get what I'm saying) causes people to be hardened in their views regardless of contrary positions.

[Suicane75]

Why on earth would you want to be labeled something? By yourself or anyone else.

[JediKooter]

I'm with Suicane on this. I understand what WVUFAN is getting at though. Who cares if someone thinks you're a pinko commie liberal or a bible thumping, misogynistic conservative? That's their problem not yours and quite frankly if that's how someone is judging you and not the whole person that you are, with their pettiness and small mindedness, they aren't worth the time or effort.

[Passacaglia]

Maybe he was asked what he is by a pollster?

[ISiddiqui]

Well it's an interesting thought question as well. Don't have to want to search out for a label, but interesting to think "what is my label?"

[EagleFan]

F*** Labels. They are for pinko liberals....

- All for the death penalty, there are some people who serve no good to society and are not going to rehabilitate.
- All for rehabilitating criminals, not just punishing and creating better criminals (though the criminal has to do their part as well or it'll be all punishment).
- Protect the borders.
- Build US business, let the rest of the world worry about their own problems.
- Incentives to hiring American workers.
- Incentives to companies that understand that they will achieve more by not paying obscene salaries to the Good Old Boys network of CEO's and instead using that money to invest in their workers.
- Religion is a fine personal choice and it needs to stay just that, a personal choice.
- Two consenting adults have the right to get married.
- Government is not going to hold your hand if you refuse to take responsibility for your own life.

[ISiddiqui]

Fun... aside from the rehabilitating criminals, incentives to companies to invest in workers, and two consenting adults can get married - I think I'm completely opposite from you other positions ;).

[Marc Vaughan]

I believe that the 2nd Amendment is very clear, and there should be no limitation to that right. Yes, that means that if you want to own a machine gun, you have the right to have it. No, you should have to justify as to why you have it just like you don't have to justify why you express your freedom of speech -- you just have it.
Out of interest then ... nuclear weaponry that'd be ok for anyone to have in your opinion? - if not then you DO have some limits in this regard ....

(and whats your stance on countries in the middle east and their armament?)

[Marc Vaughan]

I don't know. Sounds like you've put yourself in the same position I'm in. When I'm in a room of liberal people, they think I'm a conservative and when I'm in a room of conservative people, they think I'm a liberal.

I try to look at every issue separately. I don't get everything right, and my views sometimes change when I take a deeper look, but there is some consistent underlying philosophy there.

I have the same problem myself - it might amuse some people here to know that a lot of people at SI tend to view me as 'right wing' because of some of my stances ...

(then again 'right wing' in England is positioned somewhat to the left of 'right wing' in America)

[WVUFAN]

Why on earth would you want to be labeled something? By yourself or anyone else.

Because I'm described as different things depending on whom I ask. My Republican friends say I've "fallen off the conservative wagon", and my Democratic friends say I'm still conservative, so I was curious as to what others thought and to discus the differing viewpoints as to what constitutes a "Liberal" and "Conservative".

Out of interest then ... nuclear weaponry that'd be ok for anyone to have in your opinion? - if not then you DO have some limits in this regard ....

(and whats your stance on countries in the middle east and their armament?)

I define "arms" as personal arms, aka rifles and handguns. Note that's my personal definition, certainly not something that can be argued in court. In my mind, if the Founding Fathers were writing the 2nd Amendment today, their intent would be personal arms. So tanks, nuclear weapons, ect. wouldn't be included.

As for the second question, it depends. If we are going to be involved in world affairs in the way we are now, we should do what we can to ensure our enemies do not have weapons of that type. However, I think we HAVE enemies, especially in the Middle East because we have stuck our noses into business we have no place in.


- All for the death penalty, there are some people who serve no good to society and are not going to rehabilitate.
- All for rehabilitating criminals, not just punishing and creating better criminals (though the criminal has to do their part as well or it'll be all punishment). [/quote]

Agreed.


- Protect the borders.

Agreed to a point. I am against illegal immigrants because I think it's an insult to the millions that came her legally. I think a great majority of illegal immigrants are here to work and support their families, and are constructive members of society. I would make coming to this country easier for folks who are trying to get a better life. I think there would be less illegal entries if it was not a paperwork nightmare to come here legally.


- Build US business, let the rest of the world worry about their own problems.
- Incentives to hiring American workers.
- Incentives to companies that understand that they will achieve more by not paying obscene salaries to the Good Old Boys network of CEO's and instead using that money to invest in their workers.

Agreed. Tax the hell out of corporations who manufacture overseas, then import here. Tax the hell out of corporations who pay upper management obscene salaries and have obscene profit margins while paying their workers (y'know, the people who ACTUALLY do the work) less than living wage.


- Religion is a fine personal choice and it needs to stay just that, a personal choice.
- Two consenting adults have the right to get married.

I'll go farther than that. If one man and 4 women want to be married, and they are all adult and it's consentual, who are we to say otherwise? It's none of the government's business, as long as there's no harm to one of the participants.


- Government is not going to hold your hand if you refuse to take responsibility for your own life.

Government has a responsibility to help care for those who cannot do so themselves. For all the talk of people "milking welfare", I can guarantee they haven't had the "pleasure" of having to rely on it. At one point, I went from making a very comfortable living to having to rely on foodstamps to feed my family.

I've seen things from a different perspective; seen how difficult it can be to make ends meet; felt the demeaning looks you get when you pay for food with foodstamps have really made me open my eyes. Add to that the utter lack of incentive to get off the program is what needs to change. For many, if they get a job, they're off the programs entirely and cannot make ends meet, so they can either stay on welfare and survive, or get a job and not.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I was curious as to what others thought and to discus the differing viewpoints as to what constitutes a "Liberal" and "Conservative".

FWIW, this is how I interpreted your question so I tried to give you an honest answer. I figure your positions are whatever they are regardless of what label anybody puts on 'em and saw no harm in giving you a straight answer. In the context of what seemed to be genuine curiosity I answered with no malice intended (and hopefully none perceived).

[WVUFAN]

FWIW, this is how I interpreted your question so I tried to give you an honest answer. I figure your positions are whatever they are regardless of what label anybody puts on 'em and saw no harm in giving you a straight answer. In the context of what seemed to be genuine curiosity I answered with no malice intended (and hopefully none perceived).

None at all, and I appreciate your comments and viewpoints. The last thing I want if for this discussion to turn into a "liberal/conservative is bad" or "your opinion/viewpoint is wrong" typical POL thread. I'm all for rational, good discussion (like Marc's question to me about gun control), though.

[TRO]

Labels are especially bad when they are used to allow uninformed voters to simply vote party line.

[sterlingice]

Labels are especially bad when they are used to allow uniformed voters to simply vote party line.

I feel that butlers, baseball players, and bus drivers should all be allowed to vote

SI

[RomaGoth]

I feel that butlers, baseball players, and bus drivers should all be allowed to vote

SI

I guess postal workers and the military are out of luck then, eh?

[sterlingice]

I was trying to come up with less obvious uniforms but they could, too. My wife said my funniest ones like clowns and chefs were not uniforms, tho

SI

[EagleFan]

Government has a responsibility to help care for those who cannot do so themselves. For all the talk of people "milking welfare", I can guarantee they haven't had the "pleasure" of having to rely on it. At one point, I went from making a very comfortable living to having to rely on foodstamps to feed my family.

I've seen things from a different perspective; seen how difficult it can be to make ends meet; felt the demeaning looks you get when you pay for food with foodstamps have really made me open my eyes. Add to that the utter lack of incentive to get off the program is what needs to change. For many, if they get a job, they're off the programs entirely and cannot make ends meet, so they can either stay on welfare and survive, or get a job and not.

I should clarify. I was aiming at those abusing the system, not the legitimate cases.

[TRO]

I was trying to come up with less obvious uniforms but they could, too. My wife said my funniest ones like clows and chefs were not uniforms, tho

SI

WTF is a clow? :p

[sterlingice]

Touche, good sir! (Great googily moogily)

SI

[Abe Sargent]

There was a point in time where I considered myself very conservative. Now, I'm not so sure.

Firstly, I really, REALLY dislike Romney, especially after the "49%" video leaked, although it's possible his words were misconstrued. Conversely, I'm disapointed in Obama and what he's accomplished, although there's only so much you can do when you have an opposition-led Congress.

So, here's my basic views, and I'd love, based on how you view conservatism and liberalism, how I fall.

I believe that the 2nd Amendment is very clear, and there should be no limitation to that right. Yes, that means that if you want to own a machine gun, you have the right to have it. No, you should have to justify as to why you have it just like you don't have to justify why you express your freedom of speech -- you just have it.

Fiscal responsibility is fine, but the government has a responsibility to help those who cannot help themselves, which means the so-called "entitlement" programs need to continue to be funded. Should there be welfare reform? Yes, in that in the current form, in many cases it's actually worse for families if they get a job than if they stay on welfare. You encourage people to get jobs by forcing greedy corporations and business owners to pay their people a living wage. When business owners are paying your workers minimum wage while buying their teenage children new cars, you're not paying your workers enough.

We need to stop being the world's police. I'm all for isolationism when it comes to foreign policy. We need to stop helping other countries financially when we have needy people HERE. If we do involve ourselves in another country, we need to have that country fund our involvement. When we took Iraq, we needed to take their oil as payment for our involvement, otherwise, we need to stay out.

Speaking of military and budgets, when we're spending more in military than the next 10 largest countries combined, we're spending too much. Cut defense.

A buddy has said I've fallen off the conservative wagon.



I haven't read the thread, but I consider you a classic conservative, not a modern one, like me! I've rarely met someone who actually interprets the 2nd Amendment similarly to how I do, so thanks for that!!


EDIT: Maybe its the WV in us??? :)

[Abe Sargent]

As a matter of fact, I push harder on the 2nd than you do, and I feel it works for tanks, jeeps, missiles, destroyers, etc.


A quick reason why, as can be seen from #2, armed citizens are a guarantee that the government will not violate their rights. As you will recall, democracy usually stemmed form gun ownership - as peasants could have a weapon that equalled the knights's money on armor, weapons, training and horse, it put them on even footing, and they begin to get rights. As long as the citizens can rise up and overthrow you you are forced to play honestly with them. A militia guarantees our rights. But look at the army now. If tomorrow the government suspended all rights for Arabic and Moslim people in order to end terrorism, and the court upheld it, an armed rebellion to restore those rights would end in twelve minutes - roughly how long it would take to bomb the crap out of them. But if we had tanks, planes, bazookas, ships, and more, then it's a level playing field, and we have a chance.

[RainMaker]

Edit: Someone already asked nuclear device question


I define "arms" as personal arms, aka rifles and handguns. Note that's my personal definition, certainly not something that can be argued in court. In my mind, if the Founding Fathers were writing the 2nd Amendment today, their intent would be personal arms. So tanks, nuclear weapons, ect. wouldn't be included.

This is a limitation which you said you were against. And 2A says nothing about personal arms, it says a person can keep and bear arms. But your argument is the same exact one that people who argue for bans on assault rifles make. So you agree with them that there should be limitations on arms, just differ on where that line should be.

[WVUFAN]

This is a limitation which you said you were against. And 2A says nothing about personal arms, it says a person can keep and bear arms. But your argument is the same exact one that people who argue for bans on assault rifles make. So you agree with them that there should be limitations on arms, just differ on where that line should be.

You say arms and personal arms are different according to the intent of the Second Amendment, and I disagree. Rifles and handguns are what I consider arms. You call it a limitation, and I can see what you are saying, I say the intent of the amendment is what Abe said earlier -- it's to allow the people to retake the government if it goes out of control. To do that, people need to be armed. I believe (again, personal opinion, I'm not an expert on the Constitution) the intent of the amendment is rifles and handguns.

[CrimsonFox]

<-------Whig

[CrimsonFox]

Anyone here from England? Can you lay out the different parties from there? I think it would be much more useful aligning ourselkves with that type of system.

[RainMaker]

You say arms and personal arms are different according to the intent of the Second Amendment, and I disagree. Rifles and handguns are what I consider arms. You call it a limitation, and I can see what you are saying, I say the intent of the amendment is what Abe said earlier -- it's to allow the people to retake the government if it goes out of control. To do that, people need to be armed. I believe (again, personal opinion, I'm not an expert on the Constitution) the intent of the amendment is rifles and handguns.

If it's to allow people to re-take the government, rifles and handguns are not going to be able to compete with stealth bombers, tanks, and nuclear submarines. Going to need a lot more to compete with the most powerful military.

We have similar stances on 2A, just different parts where we'd start to set limitations. I just don't think it's fair to argue that there should be no limitations to 2A and then come out later and say here's my limitations on 2A.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Anyone here from England? Can you lay out the different parties from there? I think it would be much more useful aligning ourselkves with that type of system.

Maybe this helps List of political parties in the United Kingdom - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_the_United_Kingdom#Major_parties_in_the_House_of_Commons)

Interesting (if it's accurate) to see the description of three factions within the Conservative & Unionist Party.

[cartman]

Anyone here from England? Can you lay out the different parties from there? I think it would be much more useful aligning ourselkves with that type of system.

MV can provide more details, but there are basically two main parties in the UK that run everything, the center (or centre) left Labour Party and the center right Tories. Those two control 563 seats in the House of Commons, while 85 other seats are split among 9 parties, the biggest of which are the 57 seats controlled by the Liberal Democrats party. So while there is a bit more representation by the minor parties, it is still much like the US where there are two main parties calling the shots. But since there are minor parties that appeal to the outer fringes and can win seats, it helps to keep the main parties towards the center.

[CrimsonFox]

What I vaguely remember being told by a genuine Englishman was that things were sort of reversed there. The parties themselves are actually named after their approriate issue and that there are a lot of them and the politicans choose which of these they represent or associate with. SOmething like that.