Politics/Religion

[LuvRPgrl]

Thanks, then I know.
"Liberal" doesn't sound left. More like "liberty".
Conservative sounds old! Like "Conserved".

In our era of mass communication, words take on new meanings very quickly. One has to stick to the current definitions or they wont be able to decipher things properly. Example, gay = homosexual, which they are anything but gay, by the old definition of gay.

YES LEFT = liberal, usually are democrat
RIGHT = conservative, usually republican.

However, roles have also changed. On many issues, conservatives, which used to mean keeping the status quo, now want changes, such as the roe v wade ruling, and the judicial activism the supreme court has been showing the last 50 years or so, the conservatives want that CHANGED TO THE OLD WAYS the court would operate, so in a sense, they want change, but they dont want change, cuz they want to "change the change" back to the original status quo, away from the current status quo.
I hope that confused you, cuz I think it confused me! But it actually makes sense.

You will find most people fit into one or the other camp, but almost, if not always have disagreements on some issues. For example, I am very conservative, but I believe in open borders and legalizing drugs and prostitution, contrary to most of my conservative/repub brothers and sisters.

Those who straddle the middle are usually people who havent thought through enough issues to come down solidly on one side or the other, cuz if you are half and half on most issues, then you will have some major conflict going on with having any one main philosophy driving your belliefs.

Liberals for the most part want control, cater to special interests, are city folk, want bigger govt.

conservatives are more freedom loving, "dont tread on me", want the govt to be smaller and leave them alone, represent the mainstream american, are not city folk for the most part.

Interesting note, Illinois and Indiana. If you drove through both states, which I did, you wouldnt know the dfference or when you crossed the state line. Indiana however, sends repubs to congress, while Illinois sends democtrats. Can anyone tell me why? When I drove through, all I saw was small towns in between vast farm after farm after farm.

The political spectrum seems to be a circle. If you go far enough left, and far enough right, you will meet up.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Okay, now I get it, thanks. About my little off-topic question: Can there be a weak sort of leadership due to lack of majority?

Also, do you have an opinion in the original question?

Yes, it could happen, it would require the emergence of a strong third party.
We dont have anything close at the moment.

Third parties, despite the criticism of many in America who hate the two party system cuz they claim neither really represents them, usually just weakens the party in power.

They have that problem in the Philippines. What is funny, is those in the RP(Republic of the Philippines) want our two party system there.

It goes like this, with two parties, the winning party gets a majority vote. If you had three parties, and each gets 30%, 30% and 40% of the vote, then the winning party doesnt have a majority, and anything they try to do gets squashed by the other two parties. WHY? Because the other two parties dont want to see the winning party be sucessful cuz it hurts their chances of winning the next election.

Yes, there are inherent problems with the two party system, but not nearly as much as with a three or more party system.

RWA thinks there is gridlock in our congress, you oughta read what goes on in the Philippines congress. SHeesh, ours looks like a day in the park.

 

[Hobbit]

Interesting note, Illinois and Indiana. If you drove through both states, which I did, you wouldnt know the dfference or when you crossed the state line. Indiana however, sends repubs to congress, while Illinois sends democtrats. Can anyone tell me why? When I drove through, all I saw was small towns in between vast farm after farm after farm.

The difference is Chicago.

As for the original question, I have a theory.

Modern liberals are in favor of what's called the "secular progressive" movment. Secular meaning that they want some kid of impenetrable wall between religion and government, forbidding any consideration of religion in policy making (which is dumb, considering how many people in this country are religious). They claim to be upholding the first ammendment idea of Congress not supporting a religion, but they take it waaaaay too far.

Going hand in hand with the secular movement is the progressive part. The second part of their agenda is removing from law anything that forbids something that doesn't seem to harm others, things like drugs, prostitution, etc. They also want to further remove social taboos by recognizing deviant practices through government, via things like gay marriage, but many also support polygamy, bestiality, consentual cannibalism, etc.

The largest obstacle to this movement is the Christian church, as Christians, as a whole, believe that while the government shouldn't enforce religion, it is impossible and unethical to force a man to remove all religious considerations from government. They also believe many actions embraced by the secular progressive movement are, in fact, harmful, as many people rarely look beyond short term consequences. In order to push their agenda, the secular progressives have villified Christians in order to discredit them as a source of morals, thus why you often see Christians portrayed as bigots, hypocrites, 'hate mongers,' and other things.

American Muslims, on the other hand, do not pose as big a threat. They don't have lobbyists, nor do they compose a large portion of the population. Many of them do, however, hate Christianity, and that's something the libs can relate to. Trust me, if every Christian in the country just got up and left, and Muslims became the largest religious group, the libs would dump them like last week's leftovers.

Then there's the fact that Muslims fit the 'oppressed minority' thing.

Why do Republicans support Christians, you ask? Well, Christians are a majority, and, despite what they think, the Democrats have shunned most of that majority, making it really easy for another group to sweep in and pick up the votes.

 

[Abbey Normal]

Re: the original question.

Many liberals (usually in the democratic party) think they're secular humanists. In america, being a secular humanist means fighting christianity. In fighting christianity, they use multiculturalism, which is basically pro "anything but christianity". This myopia and singularity of focus causes them to be unable to assess the true threat from "radical" islam.

RWA: Succinct and dead-on. Hope I can rep you for it.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

RWA: Succinct and dead-on. Hope I can rep you for it.

Hey Thanks, abbey!

 

[Abbey Normal]

Hey Thanks, abbey!

Wouldn't let me rep now, but I'll catch you later.

 

[Just a guy]

Yes, there are inherent problems with the two party system, but not nearly as much as with a three or more party system.

Thank you for some intresting info. Okay, you did confuse me but I read your post like five times 'til I got a hunch anyway.

But this problem, two or many parties, is bound to happen in a democracy? It seems that any well functioning democracy (Regardless of what one might think of the current policies) always have a sound working opposition. I think (okay cry as loud as you want) most Americans can accept any government left or right. Both your parties share enough of the values you belive in. Now I don't mean that the differences are small, but these two block dive your nation quite equal without the civil war that would be the consequence in a not so well working democracy.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Thank you for some intresting info. Okay, you did confuse me but I read your post like five times 'til I got a hunch anyway.

But this problem, two or many parties, is bound to happen in a democracy? It seems that any well functioning democracy (Regardless of what one might think of the current policies) always have a sound working opposition. I think (okay cry as loud as you want) most Americans can accept any government left or right. Both your parties share enough of the values you belive in. Now I don't mean that the differences are small, but these two block dive your nation quite equal without the civil war that would be the consequence in a not so well working democracy.

It's basically cuz in life, there's right and wrong. Funnily it works out that way in our party system too.

There's policy that strengthens and empowers people, and then there's policy that strengthens and empowers government.

 

[Just a guy]

There's policy that strengthens and empowers people, and then there's policy that strengthens and empowers government.

Did you come up with this? Very nicely put...
I've never actuallt thougt much about the balance of power between government and citizens. Truely intresting.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Did you come up with this? Very nicely put...
I've never actuallt thougt much about the balance of power between government and citizens. Truely intresting.

never? You seem more thinky than that.

 

[Just a guy]

never? You seem more thinky than that.

Well, no, I guess I'm not...
Over here things are more and more turing into private control. We rarley see the reverse debate. I think we maybe a bit ahead of you in some areas. Like... pension. Here we all have to place our pension (paid monthly) into different private controlled funds. This by turn means that you can decide how much and how to place your money.
There is also some sort of minimum level you'll get...

 

[Said1]

Well, no, I guess I'm not...
Over here things are more and more turing into private control. We rarley see the reverse debate. I think we maybe a bit ahead of you in some areas. Like... pension. Here we all have to place our pension (paid monthly) into different private controlled funds. This by turn means that you can decide how much and how to place your money.
There is also some sort of minimum level you'll get...

Are you in the UK?

 

[Just a guy]

Are you in the UK?

Nope.
In what 90% of all Americans belive is a little communist country, - Sweden.

 

[Said1]

Nope.
In what 90% of all Americans belive is a little communist country, - Sweden.

Not positive, but I asked because the UK has/had a similar pension fund, didn't they?

BTW, my great-grandfather was a Merchant Marine from Sweden. He "jumped ship" when they were leaving a port somewhere in Canada (probably Halifax) and stayed.

 

[Just a guy]

Not positive, but I asked because the UK has/had a similar pension fund, didn't they?

BTW, my great-grandfather was a Merchant Marine from Sweden. He "jumped ship" when they were leaving a port somewhere in Canada (probably Halifax) and stayed.

I don't know really... this system was sort of snucked-in. There hasn't been much debate over it at all. We're only like 9 millions and with a fairly even economic standard. So putting the system up now is probably much easier than for USA which have to cope with alot of people not able to participate. Now everyone in Sweden has to think about retirement when he starts to work, it's your own responsability.