Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
What is your political orientation?
Topic Started: Sep 24 2003, 09:44 AM (685 Views)
gvok
Unregistered

Dandandat
Sep 26 2003, 02:29 PM
gvok
Sep 25 2003, 10:43 AM
The intent of this post was not to lable anyone but rather to get a sense of weather my impression that most people lean conservative on this site.  I also wanted to generate some conversation on the topic.  So, no one is trying to pigeon hole you into any category.  Honestly. ;)

where your suspicions correct?

Also just to clarify I wasn’t worried about being labeled, I just don’t like those labels as I believe they do more harm then good. Politics is more about who’s team is going to win, and less about making good policies. So I chose not to join a team.

I'm not sure what you are asking when you say "where [sic] you suspicions correct?" But anyway this was merely a query as to people's political orientations. It was not a query as to which "teams" people associated with. Either way, I accept your answer and respect your philosophy. :unsure:
| Quote | ^
 
Dandandat
Member Avatar
Time to put something here
Quote:
 
I'm not sure what you are asking when you say "where [sic] you suspicions correct?"
I am just asking what did you think before the pole and did the pole back up or refute what you thought? :D

:D you don’t have to respect my philosophy - my comment wasn’t meant that way. just explaining what I thought.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
gvok
Unregistered

Dandandat
Sep 26 2003, 02:59 PM
Quote:
 
I'm not sure what you are asking when you say "where [sic] you suspicions correct?"
I am just asking what did you think before the pole and did the pole back up or refuse what you thought? :D

:D you don’t have to respect my philosophy - my comment wasn’t meant that way. just explaining what I thought.

I did not have any suspicions as to you specifically. I just had a general sense that the members were mostly conservative -- especially the Americans. I was also interested to see if there was some sort of connection between one's political orientation and one's propensity to be attracted to Star Trek. The jury is still out on that one.

As for respecting your philosophy what I meant was I respect your and everyone's right to believe whatever you want to. That's all. :)
| Quote | ^
 
Hoss
Member Avatar
Don't make me use my bare hands on you.
It has been shown that conservatives are attracted to the engineering and medical professions.

One of the things that attracts me to Star Trek is the sci-fi aspect of it. Perhaps that is true with others as well. But, Star Trek is multi-dimensional and has also been known to have gripping stories and developed characters. So its appeal might be weighted toward conservatives, but should have a good representation of others.

Just my personal opinion. Conservatives show a willingness to trust people to do the proper thing with their lives if given the freedom to do it. Liberals want the state to look after people. Star Trek shows a faith in humanity to perservere. I'll probably get reamed for that statement.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Cool Vulcan
Captain
38957
Sep 26 2003, 05:49 PM
It has been shown that conservatives are attracted to the engineering and medical professions.

One of the things that attracts me to Star Trek is the sci-fi aspect of it. Perhaps that is true with others as well. But, Star Trek is multi-dimensional and has also been known to have gripping stories and developed characters. So its appeal might be weighted toward conservatives, but should have a good representation of others.

Just my personal opinion. Conservatives show a willingness to trust people to do the proper thing with their lives if given the freedom to do it. Liberals want the state to look after people. Star Trek shows a faith in humanity to perservere. I'll probably get reamed for that statement.

Liberals want to take away most freedoms like freedom to speak, freedom to kick your ass. This is where PC comes in, you tke it out if someone hurts you or my favourite guns are dangerius, they have bullets. If it was up to the PC burgade then Bush and Saddm be arm resling to see who wins. They even cry if a cilvilian gets shot, well tell me this if you were in a war no one got shot wouldn't that make it peace and no war? Democrates used to be for the people to help, nows it give the people no freedom and be depressed and told what to think.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
qubed
Ensign
WooHoo! The 2nd Liberal!

I'm very socially and economically liberal. I don't believe in either socialism or communism but am outrageously pissed that we live in a country with such a massive (and growing) divide between the wealthy and middle and that we have no basic health guarantee and that the business lobbyists outnumber all other lobbyists combined by a (12to1) to (10to1) margin.

I am a very active activist. Especially now that I have the money to travel and push a little weight around. I'm one of those freaky protestors out to fry your brain. You know, the kind that gets railed against constantly by the "liberal media" and is constantly eyed suspiciously yet we have no real power or authority. But watch out cause I eat babies. I could go for a little baby right now. :o

What really brought me to being to the left is information. The more of it I get and the more I come to understand the world outside my own personal shoebox the further and further I go swingin' that direction.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Hoss
Member Avatar
Don't make me use my bare hands on you.
Quote:
 
I'm very socially and economically liberal. I don't believe in either socialism or communism but am outrageously pissed that we live in a country with such a massive (and growing) divide between the wealthy and middle and that we have no basic health guarantee and that the business lobbyists outnumber all other lobbyists combined by a (12to1) to (10to1) margin.


For someone who doesn't believe in communism, you sure spout the communist party line quite well.

What growing divide? We have the wealthiest poor in the world. If you want to see a massive divide between haves and have-nots, look at the old Soviet Union.

Why should their be any health care guarantees? This is a free country. The more guarantees for security and health care and other 'entitlements', the less free our country is.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ImpulseEngine
Admiral
Ok, I was avoiding this poll up to now because none of the choices really reflect my position. I finally chose "liberal" because it's probably the most accurate of the available choices. The truth though is that I do have a few conservative views - for example, with respect to the treatment of criminals - so I would really put myself somewhere between liberal and moderate. In addition, my views are always evolving...
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ds9074
Member Avatar
Admiral
I think some people have a confused view of 'liberalism'. Being a Liberal is about trusting individuals to make choices, economic and social. Socialists and Communists would take away individual choice by giving economic power to the state in varying proportions. Conservatives would do the same socially in terms of laws on what people can and cannot do.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dandandat
Member Avatar
Time to put something here
ds9074
Oct 4 2003, 12:45 PM
I think some people have a confused view of 'liberalism'. Being a Liberal is about trusting individuals to make choices, economic and social. Socialists and Communists would take away individual choice by giving economic power to the state in varying proportions. Conservatives would do the same socially in terms of laws on what people can and cannot do.

I do not think your explanations are adequate, because many conservatives would claim they would like less governmental control over their daily lives. While many liberals would like to see more government controlled operations (like a national heath care system) that would takes away from "trusting individuals to make choices".


Quote:
 
I think some people have a confused view of 'liberalism'. Being a Liberal is about trusting individuals to make choices, economic and social.

First this is a very colorful remark. As I read it, I get the idea that conservatives must be mindless sheep and like it that way, witch they are/do not.

But if I could trust people to make correct economic and social choices, I would then count my self a liberal. Since I can not does this I must not be one. There are to many stupid people out there, and as our world shows, they are making some pretty bad choices.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
qubed
Ensign
38957

"For someone who doesn't believe in communism, you sure spout the communist party line quite well."

- Modern liberal politics must be communist? If your not a moderate or Republican you HAVE to be a socialist? The truth is most democratic 1st world nations have guaranteed health care and education. We've been lagging behind in both categories for decades.

"What growing divide? We have the wealthiest poor in the world. If you want to see a massive divide between haves and have-nots, look at the old Soviet Union."

- A simple comparison against a single source is not a wonderful way to make a judgement. Especially against a country which hasen't existed in years and was never comparable economically or politically. The problem is with the trend of the widening wealth divide in the US. If the divide was remaining steady or closing without the loss of decent paying, low skill jobs that would be one thing. But the rich are getting richer, the poor are getting poorer and losing their jobs. And actually no we don't have the wealthiest poor in the world. In fact our bottom rung, compared to 1st world nations, is nowhere near the top of that category. There are several European countries that have far less homeless and better protections for wages for low incomers.

"Why should their be any health care guarantees?"

- Simple. Because we can. If you can help stop suffering and death you should. Its immoral for us to allow so many to go without health care in our own country. If you love America then you should love Americans which means not letting them suffer when you can help.

"This is a free country."

- Having a national health care program does not mean the death of choice. In most countries I've been to you can either choose between a not-so-great government program or from several private programs. Its not that nationalized health care would some how out compete for the upper to middle level health coverage market because it would never be able to offer anyone all the benefits these programs do or at the same level.

"The more guarantees for security and health care and other 'entitlements', the less free our country is."

- Huh? So people are free to get cancer and free to be poor enough not to get treatment. How does providing people with the oppurtunity to stem their suffering and prolong their life going to make anyone less free. In fact one of the major blockades for expanded job growth in this country is the incredibly high cost of health care. If we want people to have more freedom of choice about jobs having a national health care plan companies could use to lower their costs would be paramount in creating and sustaining American jobs. And I also take issue with the word "entitlement". I don't think we can talk of ending real suffering as providing someone with an "entitlement". Again we do it because we can. If we have the power to help and do nothing we are at fault.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Wichita
Member Avatar
The Adminstrator wRench
Quote:
 
There are several European countries that have far less homeless and better protections for wages for low incomers.


I don't think that was what he was talking about in reference to "wealthiest poor".

Quote:
 
If we want people to have more freedom of choice about jobs having a national health care plan companies could use to lower their costs would be paramount in creating and sustaining American jobs.


How would this be possible when the companies (and people) would only see their taxes rise to pay for the national health care plan?

Health care and economic protections for the workers are things that can be argued for in a discussion on morality, but they do not come without a price. Several of those same European nations are looking at financial crisis that result from the economic protections that they have committed to for the future. Didn't France recently have angry pensioners rioting?
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
qubed
Ensign
"I don't think that was what he was talking about in reference to "wealthiest poor"."

- Actually I'm not at all certain what he meant. But in comparison to many 1st world nations our poor are poorer in comparison to their poor. How many times can I use the word poor in one sentence. The poorest poor of poorlingtown went to the poor part of Poorlingtown to buy a poor dog to make poor pesrons poorage. 8 times!

"How would this be possible when the companies (and people) would only see their taxes rise to pay for the national health care plan?"

- Simple, in comparison to what it costs to pay profit seeking companies to provide health coverage the government is capable of providing health care cheaper then any possible source. The government simply has the tools, namely laws and capitol, to do things cheaper. I'm not saying they always or even often or even sometimes do. But buying into a national health care plan would easily be hella cheaper then any alternative. I'm also not entirely convinced that the program would have to be utterly funded from taxes. Many government provided programs, especially in Europe, require a certain buy-in from participants able to pay something. And if the government actually regulated the profiteering drug companies, which would lower health costs in the first place for everybody, to reasonalbe standards the taxes required to fund such an institiution would very well be small. At least small enough to be worth ending the suffering of fellow Americans. Which I think would be worth heavy taxes anyway.

"Several of those same European nations are looking at financial crisis that result from the economic protections"

- There are several failed programs that I most certainly would not like to see in the US. Such as Japan's hired-for-life for example. That screwed em good. But many of these programs have alos led to increased prosperity. The more money that flows down the safer any economy is as long as the government, and ours most certainly, is willing to step in and solve problems and give corpoarte welfare when needed. One economist I recently talked with said that France's issue with workers is that their government is too afraid to step in and aid corporations because they beleive too strongly in the free market and are afraid of looking to tied to corporations. But that was his opinion, what the hell do I know about the economic attitudes of the French government.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ANOVA
Vice Admiral
How can I vote when you didn't include "free market anarco capitalistic libertarian" as one of the choices.


How about old social liberial "it's your business what you want to do..."
and fiscal conservative "...but, you aint doing it with my money."

as opposed to modern liberal "it's your business to what you want to do, and will gurantee you DVG (designated victims group) status and help subsidies it."

I'm not sure about the modern conservative.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
« Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Tweet
comments powered by Disqus