Define your lean

Most of you have selected a lean on your profiles. Now that you've selected it, will you please define what it means to you? Often we find ourselves pigeon-holed by other posters because they view our lean differently than we do. I know I, for one, changed my lean to "other" specifically for that reason. In an effort to understand my fellow posters better, I'd like to know what your lean means to you.

What does it mean to identify yourself as "liberl", "conservative", or any other available selection?

tessaesque said:

Most of you have selected a lean on your profiles. Now that you've selected it, will you please define what it means to you? Often we find ourselves pigeon-holed by other posters because they view our lean differently than we do. I know I, for one, changed my lean to "other" specifically for that reason. In an effort to understand my fellow posters better, I'd like to know what your lean means to you.

What does it mean to identify yourself as "liberl", "conservative", or any other available selection?

Click to expand...

moderate liberal. fiscally moderate, socially liberal. on a scale of 1 - 10, 10 being hard right, i am a 3.5.

i chose conservative,because the majority of my views are conservative.however i do have disagreements with some mainstream conservative ideology,and also im not a republican!!!!!!!!!!!

Commie Pinko.

tessaesque said:

Most of you have selected a lean on your profiles. Now that you've selected it, will you please define what it means to you? Often we find ourselves pigeon-holed by other posters because they view our lean differently than we do. I know I, for one, changed my lean to "other" specifically for that reason. In an effort to understand my fellow posters better, I'd like to know what your lean means to you.

What does it mean to identify yourself as "liberl", "conservative", or any other available selection?

Click to expand...

How interesting to see this post today. I just this morning when into my Control Panel and changed my lean from Undisclosed to Conservative. What "conservative" means to me is probably very different from what it connotes to others on this board.

I'm not a die-hard as evidenced by my support of Obamacare, Social Security and the myriad of public assistance programs. I am against employers' rights being infringed upon by much governmental regulation, yet fully understand the need for rules/regulations as I don't trust big business (nor small, for that matter) to act in good faith safety-wise and environmental-wise.

I'm against the government picking winners and losers...against the fraud that I believe our public assistance programs are fraught with...against full amnesty for illegal immigrants...I support a strong military, but not sending our men and women to fight in "faux" wars with a list of rules so complicated only a Philadelphia Lawyer can understand them...I am completely against public unions as I do not believe negotiations happen in good faith within them and the taxpayers' dime seems to be a bottomless pit against which unions can bargain. (As opposed to profit-making corporations that can either afford union demands or not depending on their individual condition.) I believe in term limits and campaign finance reform. Oh, and I support a woman's right to an abortion (though I'd much prefer we had a 3-month or 4-month window for them to occur). Double Oh. I think the Christian Right is NUTZ.

Whew! I feel much better now. Thanks for asking.

PS Edit: I changed my lean from Undisclosed to Conservative today because of Rush Limbaugh and the most partisan discussion I've yet to read on DP. ......Not that anyone who reads my post wouldn't have known my lean anyway.

independent
views are formed without respect to party or lean expectations
they are based on good sense and not in conformance with any political ideology

In my personal life, I'm conservative, but I tend to vote libertarian. I support small government and free markets, with very little government involvement in anything not laid out in the founding documents. I think the role of government is to uphold laws, and those laws should be primarily for the protection of individual rights and liberties of all free citizens.

I have actually been thinking about this a lot lately.

At first, I tagged myself as liberal. However, in further exploring that label, I realized that I am very much NOT in favor of enforced equality as it is impractical, unnecessary, and frankly immoral in many cases. Thinking about conservativism, I am certainly not socially conservative, while I am in certain ways fiscal conservative, (such as believing we should not fun a deficit in our spending and favor lowering spending when ends do not meet, also I am not big on high amounts of taxation because it impedes the market, which is a very necessary force for modern society and prosperity). I completely disagree with libertarians on a lot of issues and especially on the foundations of thinking about societal issues.

Lately, I have tagged myself as centrist due to the fact that I swing both liberal and conservative, depending on the issue. However, I do not feel that the public and private sector are necessarily in conflict with each other, but in fact both sectors need each other. So I don't think that is an appropriate tag for me either.

Right now, I think probably the closest label is progressive (which is not the same as liberal for those one dimensional political thinkers we have on this site). In combining my various views, there is one theme that comes up over and over. The betterment of mankind. I am for the future. I am for using whatever has been shown to work for that cause without regard to their philosophical foundations, just as tools. I wish to see the free market and government improve people's lives, health, standard of living, happiness, what have you. I wish to see more and more opportunity for people as we allow science to push away our previously natural boundaries to make mankind better by use of its tools, whether they are a hammer, economic theory, regulation, what not. I want to see people truly set free from what nature has given them to be more as time goes on. To what end? I have no idea, but I do know this. We have had less war, less strife, less starvation, and generally fewer problems in modern countries. Even today's problems in Europe, the US, or even China, these problems are BETTER then the day to day existence of life a few generations ago. I believe this is a result of all of those factors I mentioned from science and engineering to better policy, to plain old hard work. I am for more of THAT.

I originally self-labeled as Libertarian, because I have a strong vested interest in personal liberty, and prefer small government as much as is feasible.

At lot of what passes for libertarian these days is mighty extreme, though, and much of it just impractical and politically unfeasible. I needed a new lean.

I am quite conservative in my personal life but largely disinclined to poke my nose into others' business; I am fiscally rather conservative but recognize the need for progressive taxation and some form of safety net, as well as some intervention in the "free" market by gov't to protect the individual from the corporation.

For the most part I do not favor rapid or extreme change, especially based on untested ideas, but careful progress towards improvment with due compassion for the little people that might get steamrollered in the rush to push an ideology. I have a wide streak of pragmatism but also certain principles that I hold to like life itself.

I chose "independent" because I do not fit well under any label, really. The next-closest thing would be a center-right Centrist with a few "flyer" positions.

Goshin said:

I originally self-labeled as Libertarian, because I have a strong vested interest in personal liberty, and prefer small government as much as is feasible.

At lot of what passes for libertarian these days is mighty extreme, though, and much of it just impractical and politically unfeasible. I needed a new lean.

I am quite conservative in my personal life but largely disinclined to poke my nose into others' business; I am fiscally rather conservative but recognize the need for progressive taxation and some form of safety net, as well as some intervention in the "free" market by gov't to protect the individual from the corporation.

For the most part I do not favor rapid or extreme change, especially based on untested ideas, but careful progress towards improvment with due compassion for the little people that might get steamrollered in the rush to push an ideology. I have a wide streak of pragmatism but also certain principles that I hold to like life itself.

I chose "independent" because I do not fit well under any label, really. The next-closest thing would be a center-right Centrist with a few "flyer" positions.

Click to expand...

I think what I find striking Goshin, it sounds like we are not too different, except I don't care how fast the change is, as long as it ends up working.

Socialist. I grow up after I left the home with socialists and saw the benefits of a universal humankind. I believe in shared wealth, public business and universal care of sisters and brothers. I am not a proponent of the welfare system as it is in the US. I believe it comes from the disparity of incomes from ultra rich to very poor. If there was a greater sharing and better pay to even the lowest person there would be less welfare. I think the disabled and elderly should be cared for. in many ways including assistance from caregivers.
I see socialism as a group work that encompasses all. I am against the military industrial complex because I believe there are better ways to relate to humankind. Trying to convince the rest of the world that socialism is not a free handout but a group work is difficult. There is a saying Those that work eat. I think there should be a job for everyone and a dignity in life even in a modest setting.
I also carry this to no private property as we all own the world. It is ours to share and survive on. That's about it. I lean pretty hard in that direction.

I chose "Liberal" because to me that's a positive label. My family were FDR democrats and proud of it. I don't think I'm liberal to the extreme on any of my opinions. I like to hear other views and to understand why people believe the way they do. I'm very much for not imposing on the rights of others, and for letting people live they way they want, so long as it's not hurting anyone else.

Goshin said:

I originally self-labeled as Libertarian, because I have a strong vested interest in personal liberty, and prefer small government as much as is feasible.

At lot of what passes for libertarian these days is mighty extreme, though, and much of it just impractical and politically unfeasible. I needed a new lean.

I am quite conservative in my personal life but largely disinclined to poke my nose into others' business; I am fiscally rather conservative but recognize the need for progressive taxation and some form of safety net, as well as some intervention in the "free" market by gov't to protect the individual from the corporation.

For the most part I do not favor rapid or extreme change, especially based on untested ideas, but careful progress towards improvment with due compassion for the little people that might get steamrollered in the rush to push an ideology. I have a wide streak of pragmatism but also certain principles that I hold to like life itself.

I chose "independent" because I do not fit well under any label, really. The next-closest thing would be a center-right Centrist with a few "flyer" positions.

Click to expand...

i like you more each day!

I am "other" because I'm not sure I can fit into any one category.

I support a very frugal fiscal policy and would like to see redundancy and over-reaching end. I fully support an entire system overhaul in relation to governmental procedure. I think that one of the most costly aspects of any government agency is the "red tape" processes involved in the completion of any task. I support a complete restructuring of entitlement programs to ensure that we are actually offering a "hand up" and encouraging growth, rather than providing stop-gap measures that leave families underwater when the aid ends.

I support equal rights. I believe gays should be able to marry, live openly, and enjoy the same legal protections and support that straight individuals receive. I believe that women should be viewed and treated equally. I believe AA and EEOC programs are flawed and in need of a complete restructuring. I believe that we are ignoring the root cause of disparity amongst races and fail to focus heavily enough on how to break patterns early in a minority's life.

I don't support amnesty for adults who access America illegally, but I'm torn on the issue of their children. I can't see punishing a minor with deportation because they were brought here illegally by their parent or guardian.

I don't support heavy military offense, but I do support military involvment when the safety of America or its trading partners are at risk, but only as a last resort.

I don't support government run enterprise in any respect and feel government intrusion into business should be limited to measures which protect consumers from predatory behavior. I don't support bailouts for business or individuals.

I believe in absolute accountability. I do not believe in making excuses for ignorance or saving businesses or individuals from "financial ruin" in order to "save" the economy.

I am pro-choice, but I feel that limitations should exist that restrict abortion to the first few months of gestation (point of viability stance).

I am pro gun ownership for responsible, law abiding citizens. I would support a restriction that required psychiatric evaluations prior to gun purchases, but recognize that many current litmus tests are not necessarily accurate, so I'm at loss on how to make this happen.

I don't support public unions, but I respect the legal justification for private unions to exist. I don't like unions and would not join one, but I wouldn't support de-legitimizing them.

I believe our education system absolutely sucks. I believe teachers are torn between a desire to educate and foster the development of children and their obligation to meet the archaic, misguided demands of administrators. I believe we should be far more selective in choosing educators. I believe we should make education much more multi-faceted. I believe that state BOEs and the federal DOE should be run by individuals with a strong background in education. I would support tax-deductable scholarship and tuition program agreements between the federal government and in-demand fields of employment, to be evaluated and reassessed on a set cycle (every few years, perhaps). I do not support "free" college. I do not support admissions based on race, sex, sexuality, or ethnic heritage.

I'm sure there's a ton more, but I'm drawing a blank at the moment.

megaprogman said:

I think what I find striking Goshin, it sounds like we are not too different, except I don't care how fast the change is, as long as it ends up working.

Click to expand...

Two things concern me about change that is 'too much too soon'.... people need time to adapt or too many will fall by the wayside. The other is the law of Unintended Consequences, which can rear its ugly head anywhere anytime.

I chose socialist because that is what my mother refers to me as. The first time she did that I thought about it and decided she was right.

I find greed, lust and envy to be very dangerous to humankind. Why can't we truly be equal? Greed, lust and envy. I do not believe that anyone should have power over me, consensus is important because it addresses a variety of opinions. If a variety of ideas are not explored how can you find the "right" answer?

I find extravagance ridiculous. Example: the county courthouse where I live was revamped and they installed the "wrong" windows in the courtroom doors. It was purely for aesthetics, they paid over 200 dollars to have the replaced with the "right" windows. I guess that would make me a minimalist as well.

I do not understand all the hatred toward socialism. It is about helping each other and creating a society where everyone is valued. Just as true communism was not achieved neither was true socialism and that was because of greed, lust and envy. Yes, many people were killed and a lot of bad things happened, but that was not socialism.

tessaesque said:

Most of you have selected a lean on your profiles. Now that you've selected it, will you please define what it means to you? Often we find ourselves pigeon-holed by other posters because they view our lean differently than we do. I know I, for one, changed my lean to "other" specifically for that reason. In an effort to understand my fellow posters better, I'd like to know what your lean means to you.

What does it mean to identify yourself as "liberl", "conservative", or any other available selection?

Click to expand...

Lean implies one direction or the other, you can't lean in both directions at once.

And since Pragmatic is not a choice, or a party, then I went with the only word that made sense -- moderate.

For instance, the death penalty in moderation = murders and child rapists.

Animal protection in moderation, domestic pets and other beasties that bring pleasure to man.

Cutting spending in moderation, don't through the baby out with the bath water.

Safety nets in moderation = programs should show cost-effective measurable results.

Basically, the federal government needs to shrink, but not all at once, a thoughtful, reasonable cutting back of federal authority. States can work out welfare, healthcare, gun laws and other issues as needed. And as long as their own say, gun laws, don't endanger citizens in another state.

A "don't screw your neighbor" policy.

But corporations should also adopt a 'moderation' ideal. Better service, better quality, higher standard of living should come before CEO bonuses based on quarterlies. Too big to fail would not exist in the moderation world.

Elections should start 6 weeks before the election day. And end at midnight on the election. Then people go back to their jobs of running the country.

Lobbyists and special interest should only get limited access and a proportionate amount of groups without money should also be seen and heard by congress. MODERATION.

And "Progressive" should go back to meaning forward-thinking.

Goshin said:

Two things concern me about change that is 'too much too soon'.... people need time to adapt or too many will fall by the wayside. The other is the law of Unintended Consequences, which can rear its ugly head anywhere anytime.

Click to expand...

I totally agree. I was thinking about the 1900s recently. In the 1700s, we have enlightenment theory and one aspect of that theory is that humans have no upper potential we can do anything we put our mind too. It is a very optimistic view. Then comes theories such as communism, fascism, libertarianism, and what not. All extremes in one sense or another, that ended up doing a LOT of harm to society. We moved too fast, we got too optimistic, we forgot human nature.

However, on the flip side, from all of those things we tried and failed, we found things within those frameworks that were beneficial and helpful. However, there are more intelligent and structured ways for positive change.

So yes, I agree, but then I also don't.

I am anti-capitalist for one principal reason. I do not think that capitalism has failed to generate wealth, or that inevitably it must, even though it has been performing so appallingly for these past few years. I am anti-capitalist because it creates wealth and chooses unfairness over equity. It has generated the means to end poverty and suffering but chooses not to do so in the interest of creating more wealth for those that already have it. It knows that its path is unsustainable both economically and ecologically and yet still insists on prioritising short-term profit over long-term development.

I am anti-liberal-democracy because it is predicated on maintaining the capitalist system of global wealth inequality; it is its tool for deceiving the masses into acceptance of the unacceptable. It also maintains a class system with the wealthy and the politically corrupt at the top. It is knowingly and deceitfully anti-democratic by its very nature. It has turned the exercise of its so-called 'democracy' into a spectator sport where the only teams in the game are the playthings of the rich. Generally I see modern western 'democracies' as nothing less than plutocracies.

I don't like sucking the government tit.

I chose very liberal because, I don't know I didn't think about it that much. I do think it fits though. Socially you could class me as a libertarian, as long as it doesn't **** with anyone, the government should just stay out, and treat everyone equally.

Fiscally I believe that the government has it's role to play. I believe it should provide social safety nets, and other vital services for people, that the role for the government is to protect the country, and provide all the basic needs for the people. Also I think the government should be active in protecting the environment from over pollution, because that helps us all.

Just off the top of my head, probably why it's a bit convoluted.

I'm Independent. Basically what Bubba said.

Give me an issue and I'll give you a position.

Liberal. Fiscally and socially.

It may be a little early for this, but I'd like to thank everybody for sticking to the topic at hand and being so darned civil! This is a refreshing break from the normal back and forth we're all so used to!!

Please keep it up!

tessaesque said:

Please keep it up!

Click to expand...

giggity.