muddysmind.com

i never did care for that site. you simply cant have an accurate assesment of what someone belives from 10 complex issues that are vaguely worded.

another reason that quiz is faulty, is because politcal terms are meaningless nowdays. that is, execept for "Conservative" and "Religious Right."

if you asked 100 "liberals" 100 questions from iraq to public school vouchers, death penalty and on down the line you would find many discrepancies. you would barely be able to say there was a pattern in their beliefs.

however, with "conservatives", and much more specifically "religiuos right" you have a higher density with the answers. most religious right tend to have the same view on issues, where as "liberal" is the most amorphous and vague term people use toady, its a true enigma.

even the people who like to toss it out cant describe it. i remember on this site a while ago something came up about the tv. i said i watched BBC world news on a pbs station. skywalker said it was part of the "liberal media," but when i pressed him for a definition or to site how BBC was part of the liberal media, he never responded.

that is just a small microcosom of how people use the term "liberal." its the all encompassing Straw Man that "conservatives" like to throw out and burn to escape from defending their belief on a certain issue.

example, IRAQ. everyone who is against the war is "Liberal." everyone who says anything that is not ROSEY about bush is a "liberal" that "hates america." "liberals" are the cause of Every problem in society. now im not speaking of present company, although you do see it on this site, i mean people in the media and the "conservative" attack dogs in general.

Listen to any talk radio show in america. every other word that comes out of these blow hards mouth is "liberal." the cause of Every problem is because of "Liberals." the soultion could be easily rought if it wasnt for "liberals." in short, "LIBERALS" is the big Straw Man that people [conservatives] like to throw out there to stifle debate. so far during the bush era it seems to be working.

"example, IRAQ. everyone who is against the war is "Liberal."

Well, I did (and still do) notice that *most* people who are against the Iraq war truely *are* liberal. Not because that's what *I* call them but because that's how they refer to themselves. But that's not always the case. Quick example: a long time friend of mine who happends to be pretty conservative was completely against the war (I believe he still is). He even went as far as to email me (and hundereds of other people) a petition to sign in protest *against* the war so it could be sent to congress. I did not sign it. Nor did I forward it to someone who I thought *would* be interrested in signing it like I was requested to. I didn't agree w/his views but I also did not view him as "anti-american" either.

Look, things got pretty stupid on BOTH sides. If you were against the war - some acussed you of being liberal and Sadaam's best friend. If you were in support of the war well then - "you must love to see innocent civilians getting blow to bits! You're such a neo-con! You stupid right-winger!". There was enough bull sh*t and name calling from both sides of the fence.

"in short, "LIBERALS" is the big Straw Man that people [conservatives] like to throw out there to stifle debate. so far during the bush era it seems to be working."

You mean the same way the term "right winger" used to be (and is still to this day) used to describe the "big Straw Man" that people [some liberals but mostly *extreme* liberals] like to throw out there to stifle debates? It worked in the Clinton era.

Like I said: Sometimes the name fits. Sometimes it's just bull s**t.

So, what you're telling me, is that conservative is the only political label that really applies any more cause everyone else is a centrist.

Sure, that makes sense.

And on that note, why are people who are truly liberal so afraid to be called what they are?

Quick question mooseboy84, What is your definition of the "Religous Right". It seems to me that when most people use the term "religous right" it seems to be in a very derogatory manner. So when you label these groups and complain about being labeled yourself you are being a hipocrite. I think that all the major political parties and groups use these labels to influnece or scare their voting base. It is sad that instead of debating issues or solving the nations problems they regress back to name calling.

who said everyone was centrist? who is afraid of being called liberal? who said anything about "labelling" anyone? im talking about the reality of the modern political Idiom.

i never stated or implied everyone was centrist. i said that "LIBERAL" is a big straw man that Conservatives use to demonize everyone thats non conservative, and that it lacks any finite meanying nowadays.

for instance, anyone who disagrees with bush is a Liberal. only "liberals" did not vote for bush. so i guess you people who voted for pretorvikasdasdas are "Liberals" because you didnt support bush? the term liberal is used to describe someone who disagrees with Bush administration. even if the person is no where Near "liberal", the broad brush is still used. For istance, Pat Buchanan who is a well known paleo-conservative could be classifised as "liberal" because he didnt support the war in iraq. now does that make sense? no, but thats the way the things are framed.

one could argue that Liberal/Conservative are used by the party(s) to label one another. Republicans and Conservatives use "liberal" to describe Anyone who opposes Anything the Bush administration does. Democrats use the term conservative inversly.

However the point i was trying to make, is that the term "Liberal" holds no meaning nowadays. alot of the usage liberal/conservative is Dictated by party lines. However, party lines aside when you get to the basic definition...... liberal is still meaningless.

the Best way to define it, is that the term "Liberal" is meaningless because there are no Core Values of Modern "Liberalism." it is something that is used to describe a Non-Conservative. If you took these 10 issues.

1.Abortion
2.School Vouchers
3.Gun Control
4.War in Iraq
5.Death Penalty
6.Welfare
7.Gay marriage
8.tax policy

now those are only 7 big issues i can think of at the moment. the Only thing that you could probably get most people who identify themselves as Liberal to agree with......[75% or more]-- is abortion and Maybe support for gun control. all the other issues are cloudy as to where people will fall. its a much more individual opinion than group identity. ive heard Bill Clinton described as a "Liberal," yet he enacted welfare reform and had the largest downsize in government in modern history.

you see, We can talk about politcal terms in a classical sense, "liberals" being for bigger governemnt -- conservatives being for 'smaller' governemnt. However, that just doesnt hold clout in the modern political milieu. please show me how the Bush administration has shown in Any way he is for smaller government? sure they cut taxes for their rich buddies, but what beyond that has been smaller government?

the Term "Liberal" in nebulous in nature, because you just cant get enough Pillars to form a foundation. Conseratives and more specificly the Religious Right have several key issues the Majority stand for.

1.Against Abortion
2.Support School Vouchers
3.Against "Gun Control"
4.For the war in iraq
5.Pro death penalty
6.anti welfare state
7.anti gay marriage
8.support trickle down, [i mean trickle down] tax policy

you see, on those 8 issues, the Majority of Conservatives and damn near ALL of the "Religious Right" agree with what i said. with "liberals" its not nearly as unaminous.

this may be hard for you all to visualize. if i had a Scattered Chart, you would see a much higher density of of dots with conservatives agreeing on issues. with "Liberals", you would see a few issues with lots of dots, but for the most part it would be pretty stratified all over. Thus, rendering my inital point true that Liberal is a non descript term.

Last time I did it, I think I was a centrist, now I'm a liberal... Who cares. I know I'm green.
BTW oil is over 60 dollars.
Hurricane season is up.
Bush is increasingly being forced to admit there is global warming, though he would prefer to continue to mess up the scientific report showing evidence of this warming up.
The USA (and most of the world) is one big speculative bubble (derivatives, stocks and now housing). All it needs is some more months to pop.
And then we'll start the real green business and overrun those nasty conservative elites who put a fake value agenda in the front to cover their greedy activities in the back.

Hit the homosexuals, the muslims, the blacks, the women and the chinese ... All the feeble ones are bound to be losers. Meanwhile let's take another bite of this halliburton cake. mmmh. Let's take new debts that we will never repay. Let's enjoy the party while it lasts. Ahhh. It's cool to see all these dumb followers believing they fight for values when they help us to exploit them.
Let's suppress overtime on top of it.
Let's reform bankrupcy laws to help banks.
Let's reform social security so we can increase debt some more, and never mind if later people will not get a fair pension. WHo cares about losers...

It's cool to be rich and suppress the poor's right one by one and get richer out of it.
It's even cooler to do so and say that you have God's mandate to do so.
I'm taking your money to put it in my pocket, you work more, are more productive, and you're paid the same, or less ... But God made it so man.
That's life.
Join the republican party and you'll understand it all, join the elite that get's all the fun.

There's an old summary of how nazi won the elections and power in Germany back in the 30's :
They jailed the commies and I did not complain, I was not communist.
THey jailed the socialists and I did not protest, I was not socialist
They jailed union leaders and I did not protest, I was not in a union.
They jailed the jewish and I did not protest, I was socialist.
They jailed the homosexuals and I did not protest, I was not homosexual.
They jailed me and there was no one left to protest.

There's always some side to take.
Choosing the creationists anti environmentalist pro market pro arms pro war in iraq in the present case is just choosing the loosing backward and dangerous side on all occasions.

changed the poll answer from center to center-ish, I doubt anyone is exactly on center.

"changed the poll answer from center to center-ish"

Awe.....that's so sweet of you to try to accomidate such petty general semantics. Now if you people will excuse me, I'm going to go have lunch....ish.

Muddy wrote:

"changed the poll answer from center to center-ish, I doubt anyone is exactly on center."

Was pretty close actually. Slightly to the left-libertarian side, which is a pretty good reflection of me politically.

DF wrote:

"BTW oil is over 60 dollars.
Hurricane season is up.
Bush is increasingly being forced to admit there is global warming, though he would prefer to continue to mess up the scientific report showing evidence of this warming up.
The USA (and most of the world) is one big speculative bubble (derivatives, stocks and now housing). All it needs is some more months to pop."

On the brighter side of things, it appears that Karl Rove is in some really deep shit. Couldn't have happened to a nicer fella.

Hi lurker, it's been a long time since you posted here.
That's one of the funny things about USA, people get in deep shit for details. I doubt revealing the identity of a CIA agent is the worst thing Karl Rove did.
You'll notice that the journalists are in prison right now, Karl Rove is not.

You'll notice also that all this was part of the grand scheme aimed at artificially increasing the danger of the supposed Iraki WMD's ...

i recently came across a Good politcal test. its the Pew typology poll wich is much more thorough in their diagnosis of american politics.

http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=242

there is also a poll you can take here.

http://typology.people-press.org/typology/

Thanks for the link, Mooseboy.

As I suspected from the nature of the questionnaire, this one ranked me a bit more on the Liberal side of things than I really am.

Then again, I'm a little harder to peg politically exactly because I'm a centrist.

For instance, I tend to side with the conservatives on moral issues(with an exception or two), although I'm apprehensive about legislating them. On economic and social issues, I find myself leaning left a bit more often--something of a classic liberal approach, I guess. When it comes to civil liberties/Bill of Rights, I am downright nasty in my defense of them.

It tells me I'm a liberal too.
I would agree with lurker I think. It's not that i stand with the conservatives. It's just that I think that some liberals go to far, and most of all that all these socalled issues are an utter loss of time.

Moral issues are not issues according to me. Let people have sex the way they want to, smoke, drink alcohol, take drugs, read what they like, choose their religion etc. It's not something the government should interfere with.

The only thing the government has to do, it to protect citizens from other citizens where inequality is huge. It's job is to ensure that each citizen is free to act, without any citizen or group of citizen oppressing others and preventing them from exercising their liberty.

For instance :

Children have to be protected from dangerous parents,
so basic public education has to be provided so that children can learn about science for instance even if they were born in fundamentalist religious groups.
So adoption can be barred to homosexual parents so that children be raised in a traditional family.
So molested children can be taken care off by others then their natural parents with the help of the government etc.

Drug addicts have to be protected from drug sellers, this is why some very addictive drugs have to be forbidden (like cocaine and heroin), and information onthe negative impact of drugs (alcohol, tobacco) is mandatory (majiruana should join the latter list if politicians had any moral standard).

Workers have to be protected from abusive employers, with laws favoring the creation of unions, the right to strike etc. Citizens have to be protected from the government and its different branches (and mostly from the executive one) (but here we move out of what people usually consider moral issues)

etc (you can add to the list of the citizen in need for protection).

Of course there are tricky questions. For instance, what are the foetus rights ? When does human life start ?
Once there is a potential citizen in the womb of the woman, it is natural that the government protects it against dangerous mothers.

Therefore, there can be discussion has to until when can abortion be freely chosen by the mother : 2 months ? 3 months ?
But any attempt to barr any form of abortion is not a democratically acceptable political fight ...

Sometime some lobbies try to make transform moral issues into political ones. Hence alcohol, abortion, homosexuality etc. But those people are not defending a democratically acceptable political view point, they are infringing on the basic liberty of others to choose to conduct their life the way they want.
Most of the so called moral issues should simply be disregarded as undemocratic attempts at the civil liberties : they are a loss of time.

It is far more important to deal with all the major problems plaguing our common earth :
environment, wealth inequalities, unefficient markets and/or government intervention etc.