• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Ideological Census

What are You

  • Conservative

    Votes: 18 31.6%
  • Liberal

    Votes: 15 26.3%
  • Moderate

    Votes: 17 29.8%
  • Socialist

    Votes: 2 3.5%
  • Commie pinko

    Votes: 5 8.8%
  • Sex fiend

    Votes: 9 15.8%
  • Can't remember since my lobotomy

    Votes: 3 5.3%
  • Undecided.

    Votes: 4 7.0%
  • reality show addict

    Votes: 2 3.5%
  • other

    Votes: 15 26.3%

  • Total voters
    57
I consider myself to be an independent with a leaning towards conservatism on many political areas (like national security and abortion). Although there are some issues you could call me liberal on (like *some* regulation to business and fair wages, maybe even a liberal form of health care if it is efficient). I tend to make up my mind based on each issue, not put myself in one group that encompasses many issues.
 
I consider myself to be an independent with a leaning towards conservatism on many political areas (like national security and abortion). Although there are some issues you could call me liberal on (like *some* regulation to business and fair wages, maybe even a liberal form of health care if it is efficient). I tend to make up my mind based on each issue, not put myself in one group that encompasses many issues.

So in other words you are wishy washy. ;)

I kid, I kid!
 
The only time I was wrong was when I confessed to being wrong when I was really right.:roll:

Seriously I've been a debater for years.:) There is only one person who always whips my arse. My wife.:roll:

Yes dear, I am coming.:roll:
 
I hate to go Gumpism but here I go again:roll:

It was one day before JFK was killed. I was the captain of a shrimp trawler making my way from Aransas Pass, Texas to Fort Meyers Beach, Florida. At the time we were trawling off the Texas coast off High Island near Galveston.

I had a rig man that was really a weird dude. He was a white guy, about 21 from Texas. All during the trip he kept telling me that when we returned to Texas after the Flordia fishing season that he was going to do a scam on a country church that he knew about in a rural town in texas.

He never told me about any of the details and I really did not want to know the details.

That night a perfect storm occured right where we were fishing. The wind was blowing one hundred plus as we rode the monstorous waves in the 72 feet long wooden trawler. It started leaking like a sieve due to the pounding the boat was taking.

Then murphy's law became reality. The clutch went out and we got a fishing net in the propeller. We began to drift towards the shore. I saw other shriimp trawlers, shining their spotlights, cruying for help on the coast guard emergency channel 2182. I could recieve but the radio could not transmit.

I had the rigman follow me into the engine room. The water was up to our knees from the flooded bilge. The bilge pump on the main engine had failed and I was trying to get the gasoline emergency bilge pump started. It had become soaked by the torrential rain blowing in from the engine room hatch.

My rigman got down on his knees in the oily water and cried, "Jesus, sweet Jesus, I am sorry, please don't let me die". I told him to wait until we got the pump started before he continued any more praying.

I got the pump started. It cleared up the next morning and the coast guard towed us into Galveston.

That night we went honky tonking and the rigman started talking about the church caper again. I walked away and that's the last I ever heard of him.

The moral of this story is that ideologies and attitudes are often changed more than dirty underwear, I guess.
 
Last edited:
****ed if I know.



:lol:

You are the only person I know who can do screed in ten words or less.

Question: As an Freelance Gynecologist do you think you would need a diving suit to examine Madonna?:confused:
 
Last edited:
I voted:
Conservative, Moderate, Undecided.

I have opinions, but I try to keep an open mind about the topics I have opinions on because I will likely never have all the information, or understand it all if I do.
 
All of this is subject to change as my mind is fairly flexible, so I will try my best to paint a political picture of myself.

In Canada I'm considered right of centre, especially where I live right now.

In the U.S. I'd probably be considered left of centre because I bring my background in Canadian politics (which are, in general, more liberal) to the American arena.

I see myself as a moderate because even though I may have my initial views on things, after reading through most debates I find myself torn between two sides and want to compromise. Only with a few issues am I staunchly one side or the other.

I am susceptible to having my mind changed if people put forth a sound rationale. If two, perfectly rational and courteous people were to be put in a room with me and have a heated debated in front of me, I'd probably come out of it favoring some elements of both sides. Poorly thought out arguments or insulting tactics tend to drive me in the opposite direction even if that's not where I started; it's disgusting behavior in politics that tends to repel me to the other side, even if it's not where I would normally be. I detest extremism and favor bridging of views, since all leans have some inherent value.

Socially I am mostly live and let live... I see no need to restrict people's expression or desires based on my own social views.

Fiscally I am right of center.

In foreign policy... it depends on the situation, but mostly I am centrist. I think most things can be worked out through diplomacy if both sides are willing, and war should always be a last resort; but even then, wars should be productive and with purpose, not pro-longed and costly. Some people call me a liberal for no longer supporting the war in Afghanistan or Iraq, but it's actually for fiscal reasons that I no longer support them.
 
i am a communist, i like the ideas but im not naive enough to think it'll work without some serious change in the world
 
International revolutionary socialist. Socialism from below. Socialism as working class self emancipation. I believe a feller named Marx called it communism on occasion, but not always.
 
There is no single group that can adequately represent my beliefs but I, generally, side with libertarians.

I draw some of my beliefs from [ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributism]Distributism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame] (Thanks to Wessexman for introducing me to it), [ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agrarianism]Agrarianism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame], [ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austrian_economics]Austrian School - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame] as well as some other groups.

I believe that most of the economy should be left to itself, as Keynesian policies requires controllers to be perfectly moral and wise.

The core of my economic and political beliefs in decentralization.
Decisions are best left to individuals and they must also suffer the consequences of said choices.
 
There is no single group that can adequately represent my beliefs but I, generally, side with libertarians.

I draw some of my beliefs from Distributism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (Thanks to Wessexman for introducing me to it), Agrarianism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, Austrian School - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia as well as some other groups.

I believe that most of the economy should be left to itself, as Keynesian policies requires controllers to be perfectly moral and wise.

The core of my economic and political beliefs in decentralization.
Decisions are best left to individuals and they must also suffer the consequences of said choices.

Great. I didnt know these things had names. I agree with these ideas, but I think the PEOPLE need to cooperate together to make things happen and to create the best lifestyle for themself, this is best done through some kind of organization like government or church or similar organisations.

In an ideal world the "church" meaning "faith/common best knowledge" would drive people to the correct choices rather than a central authority dictate(government).
Private property is not necessary in a society where everyone work for everyone and contribute the best and contribute the most and best they can and will. Therefor I somewhat disagree with distributionism. I believe if we reach ideals that we all know about and can have faith in, money is not needed, just honesty and honor. We can all work together to cover each others needs and add other values on top.
 
Last edited:
I believe if we reach ideals that we all know about and can have faith in, money is not needed, just honesty and honor. We can all work together to cover each others needs and add other values on top.

Yeah...good luck with that. :roll:
 
Yeah...good luck with that. :roll:

Good luck when we reach disaster point with our current direction..

Personally I am prepared for everything, including being a victim og global disasters that WILL happen because we dont change.
 
Great. I didnt know these things had names. I agree with these ideas, but I think the PEOPLE need to cooperate together to make things happen and to create the best lifestyle for themself, this is best done through some kind of organization like government or church or similar organisations.

In an ideal world the "church" meaning "faith/common best knowledge" would drive people to the correct choices rather than a central authority dictate(government).
Private property is not necessary in a society where everyone work for everyone and contribute the best and contribute the most and best they can and will. Therefor I somewhat disagree with distributionism. I believe if we reach ideals that we all know about and can have faith in, money is not needed, just honesty and honor. We can all work together to cover each others needs and add other values on top.

I could not agree more. Well said.

Unfortunately people who share that view who achieve any type of power are simply slaughtered by the majority.:(
 
Great. I didnt know these things had names. I agree with these ideas, but I think the PEOPLE need to cooperate together to make things happen and to create the best lifestyle for themself, this is best done through some kind of organization like government or church or similar organisations.

In an ideal world the "church" meaning "faith/common best knowledge" would drive people to the correct choices rather than a central authority dictate(government).
Private property is not necessary in a society where everyone work for everyone and contribute the best and contribute the most and best they can and will. Therefor I somewhat disagree with distributionism. I believe if we reach ideals that we all know about and can have faith in, money is not needed, just honesty and honor. We can all work together to cover each others needs and add other values on top.

Most of these ideas have no problem with property rights but as you noticed they do emphasize family and community(towns and counties) .
In my mind, if we are to have any type of socialist policy, it should exist at that level.
 
I could not agree more. Well said.

Unfortunately people who share that view who achieve any type of power are simply slaughtered by the majority.:(

The problem is that the majority dont really understand or know what they want. If they werent being dragged in all directions all the time by capitalism and politics and all kind of other things, they would probably have a better idea of what they themself really want. And my belief is that if undistorted, almost all people want the same things, for them and others.

Most of these ideas have no problem with property rights but as you noticed they do emphasize family and community(towns and counties) .
In my mind, if we are to have any type of socialist policy, it should exist at that level.

In a society where all humans cooperate, there are no needs for borders, while values will certainly be built around the family and neighbours(/network) first, and then all other people(in totality), certainly not nations or such things.
I agree it should be at that level, but if that was the reality, everyone should want to contribute so that all other people live equally well. For example, people would be far more free, and could travel the world by foot without money or food, to be received by other good people, who could automatically assume the same back. Meaning a human race who could all assume that we work together, not only for selfish goals, but also for greater common goals(without governance!).

This is how ideal races of "aliens" are often portrayed in games and movies as a collective conciousness in a hive, where our common driving factors could be for example human exploration, expansion and accomplishment(as these seem to be important human values).
 
Most of these ideas have no problem with property rights but as you noticed they do emphasize family and community(towns and counties) .
In my mind, if we are to have any type of socialist policy, it should exist at that level.

But how do you account for greed and the pursuit of power. These are realities.
 
But how do you account for greed and the pursuit of power. These are realities.

Greed and power structures are not inherently bad.

I don't like them on the big scale like National governments, Multinational corporations, etc.

The philosophy is decentralization.

In my opinion, socialist style programs like public education, welfare, etc only operate well on a local level where the results can be scrutinized with more accuracy and needed changes can be made immediately.
 
Greed and power structures are not inherently bad.

I don't like them on the big scale like National governments, Multinational corporations, etc.

The philosophy is decentralization.

In my opinion, socialist style programs like public education, welfare, etc only operate well on a local level where the results can be scrutinized with more accuracy and needed changes can be made immediately.

But they exist at those big scales.

I agree with you that socialist style programs work best decentralized.
 
But they exist at those big scales.

I understand, I just heavily dislike them.
They grow until they are no longer supportable and then fall hard hurting everyone underneath.

It's a personal preference.

I agree with you that socialist style programs work best decentralized.

I'm pretty rabid about not supporting those types of things, however, if it were on a local(county or town) level, I would at least give the argument a chance.
 
Economics:
I was raised with libertarian influences and that is what most of my family is. However, after some study of my own experiences, history, economics, sociology, and pretty much anything I can get my hands on, I have come to the conclusion that the best policy for a prosperous nation is a more liberal one. The main reason is that I see no conclusive evidence that neither liberal nor conservative economics are inherently superior to each other and probably the best policies have a mix. However, the US system is inherently tilted towards the conservative side right now and I think we need to bring it back to balance. However, I call myself a liberal because in the US spectrum, being a centrist to the world means you are a liberal to the US.

My preference is to let the market figure it out (great for shoe production) but there are some things that the market simply sucks at (health care) and use other means of solving an issue when the market does fail to provide for the welfare of the country.

Social:
I prefer to live and let live when possible. When it is not possible, than to try to eliminate harm and promote good. In the case of two equally bad choices (abortion would be one example), try to take it on a case by case basis.
 
My preference is to let the market figure it out (great for shoe production) but there are some things that the market simply sucks at (health care) and use other means of solving an issue when the market does fail to provide for the welfare of the country.

Healthcare including the food industry and the advertisment industry in my opinion.

Another one that sucks is the media industry, they need laws.
 
Back
Top Bottom