poll: political beliefs on bobcatnation.com

Hell's Bells · Post by **Hell's Bells** » Sat Jul 23, 2005 2:43 am

this subject speaks for itelf, another political board...well kinda...

Post by **SonomaCat** » Sat Jul 23, 2005 6:14 pm

None of the above describe my political philosophies, so I guess I have to abstain.

Hell's Bells · Post by **Hell's Bells** » Sat Jul 23, 2005 7:42 pm

sooo bac you are calling yourself a libertarian then....

Post by **SonomaCat** » Sat Jul 23, 2005 7:52 pm

I tend to agree with many libertarian philosophies, but not all of them. If I had to pick one, though, Libertarian would be the choice.

longhorn_22 · Post by **longhorn_22** » Sat Jul 23, 2005 11:17 pm

How about member of the "vast right wing everyone knows their philosophy is correct" party.

Cat Grad · Post by **Cat Grad** » Mon Jul 25, 2005 9:20 am

Since I used to get told "You're worse than a redneck, you're a cowboy..." I had to mark redneck as that's the closest categorie

I'll buy the next round since it's your shot and I hope you scratch...

Grizlaw · Post by **Grizlaw** » Mon Jul 25, 2005 9:35 am

Of the major parties, I'd say the Libertarians probably come the closest to reflecting my views as well, although I don't think I've ever actually voted for a Libertarian candidate.

I dunno -- the words "liberal" and "conservative" have become twisted to the point that most people don't even know what either term means anymore, and I thus refuse to allow myself to be labeled as either. I used to consider myself a conservative, but I don't think my ideals match what the average person calls "conservative" in this day and age. On the other hand, I'm certainly not a liberal, either...although I do sometimes agree with "liberals" on certain issues (I place the term in quotes, because I think the "liberals" are actually more conservative than the "conservatives" on those issues).

El_Gato · Post by **El_Gato** » Mon Jul 25, 2005 10:01 am

Agreed, grizlaw.

Although I think the terms Republican & Democrat are TOTALLY meaningless anymore. There are really only Democrats & "Light" Democrats, IMO. NONE of them have any fiscal responsibility whatsoever.

I often stun people with my various views; most know that I am a staunch fiscal conservative but I would ultimately classify myself as a Libertarian as well. I believe in the power of the free market and I also believe that we should all be FREE to do darn near anything we want, provided our actions don't negatively affect any other person and/or their property.

A couple of examples: Anyone should ultimately be free to use any product in the privacy of their own home. Want to light up a joint? Go ahead. Want to shoot up some heroin? Be my guest. BUT, the instant you harm someone or their property while under the influence of any of these substances, the punishment must be SWIFT & SEVERE. Also, if you are my employee and you show up for work in an impaired state, I have the right to terminate you IMMEDIATELY, with no questions asked and no unemployment available for you.

Next: The 2nd amendment tells me I can own ANY weapon I choose. Why would you care how many or what types of weapons I have? Why is it your concern? IT ISN'T; provided again that I never injure you or your property with them. If I do, the punishment should also be swift & severe.

Government oversteps it's bounds DAILY when it passes laws that essentially tell us how we can or cannot live our lives. It's PRIMARY function is that of the protector of our individual rights; it's amazing how few new laws really have that as their intent...

CARDIAC_CATS · Post by **CARDIAC_CATS** » Mon Jul 25, 2005 12:59 pm

longhorn_22 wrote:How about member of the "vast right wing everyone knows their philosophy is correct" party.

Nooooo, that sounds like EGRIZ philosophy

Hell's Bells · Post by **Hell's Bells** » Mon Jul 25, 2005 3:19 pm

Grizlaw wrote: I dunno -- the words "liberal" and "conservative" have become twisted to the point that most people don't even know what either term means anymore, and I thus refuse to allow myself to be labeled as either. I used to consider myself a conservative, but I don't think my ideals match what the average person calls "conservative" in this day and age. On the other hand, I'm certainly not a liberal, either...although I do sometimes agree with "liberals" on certain issues (I place the term in quotes, because I think the "liberals" are actually more conservative than the "conservatives" on those issues).

GL i think you can call yourself a classical concervative. for myself i call myself a member of the "conspiricy" because...well...to make a long story short i was a liberal but many of the liberal thinkers/pundits/politicans...ect..are now way to extream for me....ex their views on gun control, how many treat the religious population of this country, to the extent that falwell cant exersize his right to free political speach because....shock....he's a preacher.

Post by **SonomaCat** » Mon Jul 25, 2005 3:35 pm

At what point has Falwell ever been disallowed his right to say anything he wants (regardless of how nonsensical it may be)?

I think way too many people confuse First Amendment rights with a blank check to say anything at all without being criticized for it. There has never been a preacher in the U.S. whose Freedom of Speech has been revoked, but several have been criticized by others using their rights of free speech to denounce what the preacher said.

I'm sure you are glad to know that the ACLU sides with your views on free speech, regardless of the message:

http://www.aclufl.org/take_action/downl ... ers/16.cfm

Grizlaw · Post by **Grizlaw** » Mon Jul 25, 2005 4:22 pm

Hell's Bells wrote:GL i think you can call yourself a classical concervative. for myself i call myself a member of the "conspiricy" because...well...to make a long story short i was a liberal but many of the liberal thinkers/pundits/politicans...ect..are now way to extream for me....ex their views on gun control, how many treat the religious population of this country, to the extent that falwell cant exersize his right to free political speach because....shock....he's a preacher.

That's the thing; nobody knows what a "classical" conservative is anymore.

I believe in free markets, fiscal responsibility, and minimal government intrusion in our lives. I recognize that *some* government intrusion / regulation is necessary and desirable to keep society functioning in a safe and orderly manner, and I believe it should be minimized.

What I do *not* believe, however, is that government intrusion into our daily lives should be based solely on the collective morality of some segment of society. A lot of people today who call themselves conservatives will preach about "minimizing the government's intrusion into our lives," or "right to privacy," but only so long as it suits their own moral beliefs. As soon as the discussion turns to conduct that they deem morally undesirable, those same "conservatives" will quickly abandon that mantra in favor of "upholding moral values."

El_Gato · Post by **El_Gato** » Mon Jul 25, 2005 4:42 pm

grizlaw,

That may apply to SOME conservatives, but not all of us. I, for one, feel that the government has NO business trying to dictate morality. We can certainly agree that any violation of another person's rights is "immoral", but when politicians/bureaucrats try to limit what I do in the privacy of my own home without affecting anyone else, they've overstepped; something they do routinely, unfortunately for ALL of us.

Over the years I've determined that you can NEVER legislate morality into a society and you can never legislate away tragedy. Yet our government officials at all levels have unfortunately gotten the misguided idea that they CAN, in fact, accomplish those things and I'm afraid no one can claim they've been effective at either one.

Post by **SonomaCat** » Mon Jul 25, 2005 5:01 pm

This is so cool. El Gato is, dare I say, a social LIBERAL (in the parlance of our day) in terms of the role of government in our personal lives. Welcome to the club, man!

Hell's Bells · Post by **Hell's Bells** » Mon Jul 25, 2005 5:17 pm

the trouble is that most of this nation's political belifs actually shifted towards the left. there was a day which G.W. Bush 43 would be consitered a Democrat and a liberal but now he is a Republican.

Post by **SonomaCat** » Mon Jul 25, 2005 5:24 pm

Well, yeah, things have shifted since, say, 1950 (such a convenient year to use, to I use it a lot). Of course, about that time the Republicans were still the party of civil rights (before the Dixiecrats became Republicans and the party went after the southern white vote), and racism and sexism were the norm. Set against that context, GWB would not have been seen as a conservative like he is today.

This just goes to show that (social) liberals are often just people who are a bit ahead of the curve in terms of social justice. What appears radical at one point in history becomes the norm later on, and we look back at the conservatives of that period with scorn and shame.

(In other words, "liberal" is not a bad thing. We are a very liberal country, which is what makes us great. Iran -- that's a conservative country.)

Helpful definition of "liberalism": http://merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/dict ... liberalism

Hell's Bells · Post by **Hell's Bells** » Mon Jul 25, 2005 5:30 pm

Bay Area Cat wrote: This just goes to show that (social) liberals are often just people who are a bit ahead of the curve in terms of social justice. What appears radical at one point in history becomes the norm later on, and we look back at the conservatives of that period with scorn and shame.

alrighty let us actually set the year(s) of demarkation at 1969-1974. that is when nixon went after the southern vote. nothing racist about it at all, actually it is pretty darn smart, i will say, because there is a lot of electoral vots there. the only dems that won the presidency since then are southern govenors.

who was it that fillibustered the 1964 civil rights act?
senitor fulbright...bills and hills mentor
senitor gore...not former vice president...his daddy

Post by **SonomaCat** » Mon Jul 25, 2005 5:36 pm

Hell's Bells wrote:
Bay Area Cat wrote: This just goes to show that (social) liberals are often just people who are a bit ahead of the curve in terms of social justice. What appears radical at one point in history becomes the norm later on, and we look back at the conservatives of that period with scorn and shame.
alrighty let us actually set the year(s) of demarkation at 1969-1974. that is when nixon went after the southern vote. nothing racist about it at all, actually it is pretty darn smart, i will say, because there is a lot of electoral vots there. the only dems that won the presidency since then are southern govenors.

who was it that fillibustered the 1964 civil rights act?
senitor fulbright...bills and hills mentor
senitor gore...not former vice president...his daddy

Well, the Republicans just apologized for the overt racism in their southern strategy, but if you want to excuse that immorality as "smart," then that's your choice:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/18/opini ... rt.html?hp

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/colu ... i-news-col

And yes, the Democrats used to be the party of segregation and racism -- that's what I said above. What relevance does Gore Sr. have other than to reaffirm what I already said about that party at that time in history? Strom Thurmond was a Dem back then as well, and in the KKK (as was Bob Byrd, who is still a Dem).

Hell's Bells · Post by **Hell's Bells** » Mon Jul 25, 2005 6:18 pm

Bay Area Cat wrote:
Hell's Bells wrote:
Bay Area Cat wrote: This just goes to show that (social) liberals are often just people who are a bit ahead of the curve in terms of social justice. What appears radical at one point in history becomes the norm later on, and we look back at the conservatives of that period with scorn and shame.
alrighty let us actually set the year(s) of demarkation at 1969-1974. that is when nixon went after the southern vote. nothing racist about it at all, actually it is pretty darn smart, i will say, because there is a lot of electoral vots there. the only dems that won the presidency since then are southern govenors.

who was it that fillibustered the 1964 civil rights act?
senitor fulbright...bills and hills mentor
senitor gore...not former vice president...his daddy
Well, the Republicans just apologized for the overt racism in their southern strategy, but if you want to excuse that immorality as "smart," then that's your choice:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/18/opini ... rt.html?hp

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/colu ... i-news-col

And yes, the Democrats used to be the party of segregation and racism -- that's what I said above. What relevance does Gore Sr. have other than to reaffirm what I already said about that party at that time in history? Strom Thurmond was a Dem back then as well, and in the KKK (as was Bob Byrd, who is still a Dem).

how was it racist?

Post by **SonomaCat** » Mon Jul 25, 2005 6:23 pm

If reading the articles and applying your background knowledge to the subject don't get you there, there's nothing I can say to help you out.

Regardless, the GOP has apologized for it (and they weren't apologizing for simply winning elections, but rather how they won elections), which is at least a nice token effort at fixing errors of the past.

poll: political beliefs on bobcatnation.com

what describes you politically?

poll: political beliefs on bobcatnation.com