I was far too young when Goldwater ran to support him or vote for him, but from what I know about him, he'd be the ideal candidate for me today.
I don't know that he'd be ideal but he'd certainly be head and shoulders above anyone from any party that we have to pick from today.
Wow, you assume the best in people, don't you? lol
I'm asking to be associated with Republicans, not against them.
If I'm only a little bit fiscally conservative (that's the only kind of conservative), yet I'm liberal on many instances, but fit the definition of actual Republicanism (political tests put me a Center-Right), why is my request not "fitting" to you?
I'm literally a centrist who leans Republican, not conservative. In fact, I'm more liberal than conservative.
It's attitudes like yours that really make me wonder....Best of luck with all of your future pessimism
It's even more frustrating when you feel compelled to give someone's post a "like" when they're publicly listed as being directly opposed to your ideology. How dare they step outside my stereotype of their views?!I know you've changed your lean a few times in the last year and now that I think about it, you're really smart for doing it. I should probably do the same thing. I'm sick of the idiotic posts from posters who think they know my "lean" - yesterday I was called a progressive by one poster, a leftist by another poster, and a rabid right winger by a 3rd poster.:roll:
Posters tend to get too wrapped up in what they believe your "lean" is based on the specific post that is being quoted and responded to. That's why lean is irrelevant. Unless a poster is a die hard leaner (uber Liberal or ultra Conservative), you can usually find other posts from the poster on the same day that don't feat neatly and nicely into that little "Liberal" or "Conservative" box.
Do you currently feel our government is fulfilling all its duties adequately? If you don't, you're for bigger government.sorry no, i am for smaller government, reduced to the confines of the constitution.
It's even more frustrating when you feel compelled to give someone's post a "like" when they're publicly listed as being directly opposed to your ideology. How dare they step outside my stereotype of their views?!
Fair enough. Except the liberals believe that because mine says "slightly conservative", that I'm some Bush loving, god fearing, anti- gay commenter.
When the only thing i'm really conservative on is 2 aspects of our economy.
yesterday I was called a progressive by one poster, a leftist by another poster, and a rabid right winger by a 3rd poster.:roll:
Do you currently feel our government is fulfilling all its duties adequately? If you don't, you're for bigger government.
Reminds me of an anecdote a friend told me a few months back - "If you get called a socialist, an anarchist, a liberal, and a conservative, all in the same day, you might be a Libertarian." :lol:
Do you currently feel our government is fulfilling all its duties adequately? If you don't, you're for bigger government.
When filling out my Bio, I wanted to list my accurate political lean. I am not slightly conservative, but I am more Republican than a centrist. Political tests put me at "right-leaning centrist". However, my right-leaning views aren't really conservative, more general Republicanism. I'm a social liberal too.
What do you guys think? Could we add the choice "slightly Republican"?
Well ya ain't to fond of Obama. Perhaps those comments on the Iran negotiations put a nail in that coffin.
But what is 'liberal' in modern day vernacular? Is being pro gay marriage, for instance, 'liberal' or 'progressive', which in modern day vernacular would mean somebody wants a powerful government to order something like that?
Or is it true liberty that the most staunch conservative (as defined in modern day vernacular) would favor along with a conviction that the government should not interfere in that one way or the other?
This is where the lines get really blurred when we try to pigeonhole a conviction about something as 'liberal' or 'conservative' or 'left' or 'right' or whatever.
When I describe myself as a 'classical liberal', it is strictly defined by me as what I think the proper role of government should be and says nothing about what I believe about religion, abortion, welfare, gay rights, human rights, etc.
The entire labeling system is wrong and outdated.
"Liberal" does not apply to most Democrats as they are more socialist than Canada's socialist NDP. Conservative does not apply to me, however most of my posts tend to agree with "conservative" members.
Today, even left and right are absurd. In Canada we have a very strong social safety net, including the ever-so-frightening universal health care....a plan our current Conservative is pouring more and more money into.
In the US you have self identified "liberals" who are really socialist opportunists [usually evidenced that their programs are for 'everyone' else as they opt out]. From there, you have conservatives in varying degrees.
So the choices could read:
Very conservative, nuke Bejing and bring back jobs
A lot conservative - but you're still on your own for medical
Conservative - we'' talk health care but illegals have to be stopped first
Not so conservative - The Keystone goes now
Lukewarm conservative - a health plan that creates jobs
Least conservative - yes to Keystone after massive environmental studies that line the pockets of the new companies we create....and we might consider universal health care..if its "viable"
last but not least
Stupid voters - whatever costs the most
Good question. I am speaking of literal definitions, not what might be hip or cool version of those definitions today.
Many independents and serious liberals hate Obama. Obama has been droning women and children in nations that don't want us there since 2008.
Nice try though
There's a difference between the government doing things you don't like and the government doing all the things you want it to, correctly.our government is doing many things it was never intended to do.
anything not in article 1 section 8 is not a power of the federal government, plain and simple.
Holding a belief or strong conviction about something is not the same thing as being 'close minded', but unfortunately on message boards, there are always those numbnuts who accuse people of some form of fanaticism because they do hold a certain belief or a strong conviction. But that is irrelevant as to whether we can articulate a rationale for our belief or conviction. Those who cannot are almost certainly just parroting what somebody else said or wrote just because it sounds good to them or they are just being jerks or worse just for the fun of it. Just like those who can't discuss any topic without making an insulting comment about those with whom they disagree.
My goal is not to change somebody else's mind, but to reassure myself that my own beliefs and convictions are based on something defensible. In the process I occasionally learn from others and I hope others will sometimes get something worthwhile from what I post.
A discussion does not always have to have winners or losers or result in agreement in order to be worthwhile. But those who are truly close minded can't see that.
And in any case there is no classification offered on the 'lean' options that fit my own sociopolitical ideology.
There's a difference between the government doing things you don't like and the government doing all the things you want it to, correctly.
Umm..ok.
No offense, I don't care about articulating anything. And I care little about theories.
I care about one thing only...can you (a theoretical poster) back up your position with unbiased facts? If you cannot, you opinion means little to me (unless I know/respect you). If you can, then I am interested. It is totally irrelevant how articulate you presented your opinion...back it up with proof and you have my attention.
As I said, I am here to learn, teach and kill time.
Sitting around, going back-and-forth with endless 'theories' with no facts from unbiased sources to back them up seems silly to me. And most people on here do exactly that, it seems.
What's the point? If it's not a fact, what difference does it make?
Sure, do a couple of back-and-forth's with your theories. But why on Earth people waste lots of time on debating just theories (with no facts for evidence) with faceless nobodies on a chat forum is beyond me.
Boredom, I guess.
Anyone that can have their minds changed by unproven theories is weak-minded. And anyone that is not open to change is arrogant.
Unfortunately, I believe at least 80% of all humans fall into one or both of these two areas.
Your comments then were over the line. Hateful is all I can say. Never mind excuses, generalizations or assumptions, you posted it, not others, you own it.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?