LibriumArcana.Games

Well, do you consider yourself conservative or liberal? And why?

As for myself, I'm actually neither. I support gay rights (for example, their rights of marriage), but I also support the rights of gun possession. I'm pro-science and don't like religion, but I don't like PETA either. I hate big corporations and the evils they brought like DRM and DMCA, but I also don't like welfare states where the cost of founding an business is so high so it is almost impossible to be an enterpreneur.

I hate both communist states and big corporations for their monopoly and their restriction on consumer's freedom.

I hate communist states because they're not allowing enterpreneurs, but I hate big corporations for their tendency of killing off small business.


Well, although my views are mostly "leftie", Josh once said I'm actually a libertarian instead of a liberal. So how about you guys? Are you a conservative, a liberal, or neither?

I consider myself a Liberal, definitely. Although I will confess I'm more economically conservative, and I have my concerns on abortion. But otherwise? Liberal all the way, baby.

British Conservative...

Rather Economically conservative and somewhat socially conservative. It's better than this PC hellhole we live in today. Hell, I'd prefer infinitely more conservative teaching methods, because there WAS something good in the 'good old days', it was called METHODS OF EDUCATION!!! Fucking crappy good-for-nothing education system.

So, I'd prefer a British Conservative government which rid us of Political Correctness. And kept the beneficial equal-rights laws of course, but none of this fucking crappy education or supression of speech that seems to be going on nowadays.

Moderate Conservative.

I'm not a rabid right-wing nutjob, it's not like I'm trying to be conservative, I've just noticed that on most issues I fall just slightly right of the line. There are subtle differences (I'm extremely pro-gay rights, Bush really isn't impressing me), but other than stuff like that...

I figure I'm a conservative and the guys in office claiming to be conservative are just fooling around.

More seriously... I am conservative when it comes to government size and power (what the hell happened to this Bush??) and business regulations, economy etc... although not rabidly so. When it comes to social issues I am far more liberal, I definately support minority rights, environmental destruction makes me want to kill millions (heh, I have lots of residual anger over this one) and I generally think religion is a huge problem that would be fixed in an ideal world. Of course that won't happen...

I suppose I could go on, but those are the basics.

Classic liberal, essentially. If you want to fry your brains on various chemicals, fine, just don't expect me to pick up the tab for your reassembly.

Pro gay rights, pro gun, pro pot, you name it, a fairly standard libertarian social issues stance.

Personally, I hate what's become of liberalism in America, inasmuch as it's simply another form of conservatism these days (affirmative action, social security, fucking useless unions, etc.)

Government has a role and function, obviously, but it should be the function of last resort, for matters that, due to lack of clear profit incentive, cannot be handled by the private sector. (National defense, obviously, is the biggest example.)

I am an economic and foreign policy conservative.

I dont like excess regulation. I would prefer to use monetsaryb incentives to foster new technologies to be used for things like reducing gas usage (massive tax credit for use of alt fuels, with a massive tax on gasoline run non-commercial vehicles for example)

I HATE welfare states (though recognize that a few such programs are necessary) I dont like supporting people who refuse to pull their weight(as opposed to being unable) While I like helping people who just need a helping hands to get back on their feet. In other words, I view such programs as an investment, with the eventual expectation that the individual being helped will eventually contribute back, as opposed to leeching off society for 4 generations. If this does not happen. Cut them off(albeit slowly, and give them plenty of warning).

FUck mexico. You heard me. RIght in the ear. Economic benefits of immigrant workers asside, we have a right to control our territory. Mexic does NOT have a right to dictate to use what we do on our side of the boarder, that includes building a wall to keep out illegals. I have nothing but praise and good will toward those who come here legally to build a life for themselves, but the ones who violate our boarder, steal someone's social security number, and contribute to our crime rate and government expoenses... no. Mexico has NO RIGHT to ENCOURAGE their citizens to break our laws.

FOreign engagements. Military force is often a very very good solution to problems like Iran and NK.

Domestic policy: A government which governs least governms best. SO when it comes to that stuff that is in the bill of rights... DONT FUCKING TOUCH IT. I have a god-damn right to be secure in my person home and effects. I will defgend that right. Vioplently if necessary, unless their is probable cause that I have commited a crime, and a warrant is signed and delivered to me, under sworn oath or affirmation as to the nature of that probable cause, which details the things and places to be searched or seized.

I have a gorram right to sday whatever the hell I want, when I want, and where I want. Unless saying such will cause or incite a riot or panic. This :free speach zone" bit is absolute bullshit, and I will not stand for it. Nore will I stand for my right to be free of religious enganglements to be violated. I will not stand for government programs which makle special rules and exceptions for religious groups. If they want a portion of my money to help the homeless, fine. But they MUST abide by the same rules any other organization abides by, which means no discrimination, and no endorsing candidates.

The environment: DOnt get me started on the environment... I can use one run on sentence

STOP DESTROYING HABITAT AND CAUSING EXTINCTIONS WHEN YOU DONT NEED TO ASSHOLES; STOP FISHING IN THE NORTH ATLANTIC, STOP WHALING,EATING TIGER PENIS, DRIVING ASLL CARNIVORS TO EXTINCTION, BUTCHERING MILLIONS OF SHARKS A YEAR, AND STOP FUCKING DRAINING WETLANDS AND SPEWING OODLES AND OODLES OF POLLUTANTS INTO THE AIR!!! THAT'S RIGHT U.S., NORTHERN EUROPE, JAPAN, AND CHINA! I AM LOOKING AT YOU!!! SPEAKING OF YOU JAPAN! STOP MAKING TENTACLE PORN AND FISHING YOUR WATERS DRY!!

OK. Three sentences.

My stances on minority rights and gay mariage and the like should be obvious.

CT wrote:FUck mexico. You heard me. RIght in the ear. Economic benefits of immigrant workers asside, we have a right to control our territory. Mexic does NOT have a right to dictate to use what we do on our side of the boarder, that includes building a wall to keep out illegals. I have nothing but praise and good will toward those who come here legally to build a life for themselves, but the ones who violate our boarder, steal someone's social security number, and contribute to our crime rate and government expoenses... no. Mexico has NO RIGHT to ENCOURAGE their citizens to break our laws.

I hate to sound like a Me-Too, but I fully agree with this. The border situation is out of control, and Mexico needs to be held responsible for actively encouraging their citizens to shit on our laws. At the very least, perhaps it'll come back to bite them in the ass when they lose most of their population (and tax base) to emigration. Someday.

Actually Ra, the way things are set up now, immagrent workers only benifit Mexico. You see Mexico's economy is so fucked up most of them wouldn't be working if they stayed home anyways. But when they come up here, they send money back home.

That's one of the reasons Mexico finds it in it's own best interest to encourage illegal immagratation and that's why it will do anything it can to keep us from exerising control over our own damn territory.

Liberal.

*darts out*

Very liberal with strong financial responsibility.

I suppose I'd be labelled a Liberal, although I don't think I subscribe to either fully.

frigidmagi wrote:Actually Ra, the way things are set up now, immagrent workers only benifit Mexico. You see Mexico's economy is so fucked up most of them wouldn't be working if they stayed home anyways. But when they come up here, they send money back home.

That's one of the reasons Mexico finds it in it's own best interest to encourage illegal immagratation and that's why it will do anything it can to keep us from exerising control over our own damn territory.

Wow, that clears it up a bit. It's even more alarming than I had imagined it.

Let's not leave the US corporations out of the equations, because they profit mightily by usage of illegal labor. Through them, any number of politicos get a lot of cash to maintain the status quo.

There's a whole rotten system at work here, on both sides of the border, and illegals are the ones who get screwed.

Liberal.

Cthulhuian

B4UTRUST wrote:Cthulhuian

wait a minute wait a minute, how in the world does that fit in?*wants some sort of explanatioon on how that's considered a wing*

The problem with Mexico is border crossings will not stop (without drastic counter measures which I don't think will happen) until Mexico fixes enough of its own problems to make working there viable for many, many more people.

I've been to run down city outskirts; the living conditions are horrible, the kids are hungry, there is no running water, gangs divide the neighborhoods and the only ligitimate work comes from factories miles distant. And this was a lucky town--they had jobs.

So telling the people there to stop is not going to work; they will look at their crappy life, their starving kids, and look over the fence where the grass really is greener, and mere rules will not stop them (and I would argue those rules should not stop them; what kind of parent would not do what they can to feed their kids?). Until Mexico can get its act together the situation will not improve.

*********

So what to do? For the short term I suggest Bush's guest worker program; they will come anyway, may as well make it legal. For the longer term we need to apply political pressure on Mexico to shape up and fix its economy. People point sticks and insults at American corruption (and they certainly should ) but the USA does not, cannot hold a candle to what you'll find in Mexico. At least our cops cannot be bought off like it was a routine business transaction...

Frankly I'm not sure even where to begin; their system is a messed up tangle of crap I cannot comprehend. We can spend billions and block off access, or we can try to fix the source and deal with the symptoms in the interm. I favor the second because it is the moral thing to do. But it might not be as viable, I really cannot know for sure.

As everything is now, though, there's no incentive for anyone (with power) within Mexico to improve conditions themselves. It'd be a lot of work to reform educational systems, unprofitable (for them, anyway) to remove corruption, encourage new business growth, set up a decent health infrastructure, and so on. Much easier to just tell people to cross the border and have the U.S. put up with it.

Um, alright. So are you guys conservative or liberal?

I already posted that

But I'll answer again anyway

I'm sort of a right leaning moderate. I would call myself conservative except the real conservative party is embarrassing me with each passing day, and I don't want to be associated with many of their current ideals.

I am pro guns/gay rights/freedom of religion and speach/individual rights--such as self defense/etc

I am against big government and most of what that entails, I dislike welfare as anything more than a necessary measure to help those that actually need it, I dislike excessive laws and regulations on day to day life (ties back to freedom of speach; read: 'polically correct' and the garbage that goes with it).

Generally I favor reduced taxes partly because I think there is at least some merit to the 'Reaganomics' idea and partly because I happen to think the government is too big as it is and shouldn't require so much income. I do not think taxing the richest by a significantly larger amount is 'fair' in part because there are other ways to get the income people--mostly democrates--say is required (read: smaller government, flat tax, tighter tax evasion countermeasures etc) and in part because the whole capitalism idea promises to reward ingenuity and effort; you put in the effort to make gobs of money and you reserve the right to keep gobs of money.

I happen to think the USA's (AKA where I live) education system needs a dramatic overhaul; teacher's unions suck the life and money out of progress--which serves to remind me that I despise unions; they served their purpose and it was a good one, but they are currently too powerful and get in the way of reality. Another huge problem area is health insurance. I do not favor a national health plan (government is too big thus far) but I do favor improving the system we have because at the moment it is broken for a great many people. It needs to be cheaper; maybe with government subsidaries, I really haven't thought about how to go about fixing it so far. I do know that independent health insurance firms should continue to exist--options are the American way of life.

And so on. I am a composit spectrum of platforms and ideals and ideas.

The Silence and I wrote:I already posted that

*whistles innocently*

The Silence and I wrote:I do not favor a national health plan (government is too big thus far) but I do favor improving the system we have because at the moment it is broken for a great many people. It needs to be cheaper; maybe with government subsidaries, I really haven't thought about how to go about fixing it so far.

Hold on, this is a new thing to me. Why don't you favor a national health plan? What are the downsides of it?

Here in Indonesia, we have a national health plan (although it is optional instead of mandatory), but many people chooses commercial health insurance instead, due to the sub-standard services and other hassles (because of things like corruption and government inefficiency), but in developed countries, I guess the things are different. Yes, government inefficiencies still exist, but not as bad as here I guess.

Well I am not particulary against the idea of an optional national plan, but replacing independent health plan providers with a big government plan rings bells for me.

Partly because I despise large government, partly because if you only have the one realistic option then what do you do if it sucks? Now over in Indonesia you might have something I am ok with (your brief description sounds ok, but I need more info before I can be sure), but I would not favor something more like Canada's system, where you essentially have one option unless you have the money and location needed to take advantage of some of the better American plans accross the border.

KAN you're about to step into an American agruement that has been going on in one form or another since WWI. Don't say I didn't warn you.

The Silence and I wrote:Well I am not particulary against the idea of an optional national plan, but replacing independent health plan providers with a big government plan rings bells for me.

Partly because I despise large government, partly because if you only have the one realistic option then what do you do if it sucks? Now over in Indonesia you might have something I am ok with (your brief description sounds ok, but I need more info before I can be sure), but I would not favor something more like Canada's system, where you essentially have one option unless you have the money and location needed to take advantage of some of the better American plans accross the border.

Ah, I see. So the downside of those National Health Plan schemes is that it is the only option available, and you can't use commercial health insurance provider anymore once the National Health Plan is applied, am I correct?

Well I don't like monopoly either, be it government or corporations.

frigidmagi wrote:KAN you're about to step into an American agruement that has been going on in one form or another since WWI. Don't say I didn't warn you.

Um, I'l watch my step then.