[Kazan]

Blaise: classic

[Night Hammer]

Of me? or Mr Bush?

[Kazan]

probably Mr ****-on-The-Constitution Bush

[Blaise Russel]

Everyone, I suppose. People are scary, especially when it comes to politics and such. They say things like 'we must encourage and protect decency and moral fibre' or 'it has to be done for the good of the workers' and I go all pale and start shivering like crazy.

My one battle-cry is "Can't we all just... leave each other the hell alone?" Not really much of one, but I lack the capacity to believe myself so correct that I can happily enforce my views on other people with nary a second thought.

[moddy]

First of all, the poll in itself is fairly inadequat, since I consider myself a Right-Liberal, which means that I am in favor of a Minarchist government...

So, it depends of how you interpret liberal. If you say left-wing wackos are liberal, than I am certainly not a liberal. I also tend not be a conservative, because at the moment, conservatives are mostly neo-cons.. (wherever this term came from... It'd be Christian Socialists, rather than Conservatives)...

So, it is not easy to choose.. I suggest this formula instead:

- Communist
- Socialist (Marxian, Democrats (US))
- Left-Wing Anarchist
- Right-Wing Anarchist (Proudhon etc.)
- Classic Liberals
- Conservatives
- Neo-Cons
- Fashists

That'd be a bit wider in political schemes

[vyper]

No it wouldn't.

[Petrarch of the VBB]

I maintain that the axes-and-coordinates way is the best system of displaying political alignment.
Alors,

[moddy]

Seeing that some argument with conservativism and Bush, I have to concur here. Bush is not a classic conservative, but rather a new breed, which is called neo-con.
Since conservatives of the old class did not confuse religion and state-politics in any way. The US have god in their constitution, that's right, but still most conservatives have never let god come in their way of just and reasoned thinking... until the late 60s...

Now, to something completely different, since I am concerned that some might argument against homosexuality by using the bible, this is foolish thinking. It is always a question of interpretation and of context. The bible doesn't prove any side completely right, so it is no use. Besides, the book was written by a human mind and thus it lacks the divinity of god (thereby argumenting on your religious ground). So, instead you should use your head and think about it

As for civil liberties and most of all same-sex-marriage, I can only point to:

Light of Reason - featuring many reports on the on-going war on people

[moddy]

I am rather distrubt, that you can position musicians so clearly in political era, but it might be that I never actually went to read their political essays or opinions (if they exist ?!).

And yes, it would indeed widen the poll, because the poll is not self-explanatory in its current state, since I don't clearly know what you mean with centrist liberal, because such does not exist. You can't hold and eat the same cake at a time, it's a contradiction.

If you are libertarian you still will choose whether you are slightly right-winged or left-winged
This is decided when you proclaim to be pro- or contra- free markets

So, this poll is not yet perfect

[Drew]

Originally posted by Kazan
So mongoose is in favor of forcing women to carry babies to term that will cause their death, are the results of rape, are massively deformed (inhumane to the mother and the baby), etc

he wants to deny people their human rights and prohibit them from entering into civil contracts

he wants to prevent us from creating medical technologies that will save millions of lives and cure debilitating diseases (so much for sanctity of life!)

he is against the EU which is the europe tending tword becoming a centralized power and more stable thereby

Small government we can agree on, just how small is a different matter

I am in favor of legalizing almost all firearms -- but you must get a license (guns laws don't stop criminals from getting guns, and people kill people - they only sometimes use guns)

I'm all in favor of kicking the ass of _REAL_ terrorists

US out of the UN = bad idea, isolationism harmed us in the past, it will harm us again -- you should learn from your mistakes.  The UN does need to get off it's collective asses and do things about the genocide in Sudan, etc

centrist liberal?

I dont fit on the liberal side and im only half conservative, so i voted vegetable

[moddy]

Yeah, I think he is pretty Centrist Liberal, if something like that exists..

Although I disagree about the free-arms thing, because we already have it (with controls and so)..

And I think that since the UN has no real success to show off, it didn't matter if the US is in or out, because they really just do what they think is necessary in their eyes.
So, in regard to the US, it is back to bilateral treaties

On the abortion, research and civil liberties issues, I am with Kazan

[Black Wolf]

I voted vegetable because I am a potato. Mmmmm.

[Deepblue]

Originally posted by beatspete
I'm not really sure what the word is.

I don't believe in democracy (anymore), i think countries should be ruled by a group of anonomous interlects, who aren't voted into power.  Thus they make the best decision, as apposed to the descision that will get them re-elected.  This sort of thing stops G W Bush getting into power.  The group of interlects would be monitored/moderated to prevent coruption by another group (with appropriate monitoring too).  Citizens would enjoy a reasonable amount of freedom in their lives, but be encouraged to make a valid contribution to the nation and be good citizens.
Unfortunatly i don't belive this form of goverment will be seen soon, as the general populace is too stupid/greedy to accept it.


But anyway
As far as my 'moral' standpoint, I am quite liberal, i do believe in things like abortion, legal recognition of gay couples etc.  
Imigration is something i've been thinking about a lot lately.  I'm a bit more conservative about this, i think asylum seekers should be closely screened, and only those let with valuable skills (ie doctors, teachers, educated people) let in to the country.  Many imigrants make a valuable contribution to the nation, but equally some are welfare cheats and even terrorist.  Those fleeing persicution surely have more places to go than just Great Britain.


Ultimatly I beleive in solving problems via the best solution, than taking a one sided politcal view and sticking to it.

Edit.
Mmmm, anyone for controversy?

Brave New World...

[moddy]

Brave New World

Yeah, I don't think this would work for several reasons

Who would be the monitoring groups? Who would elect them and on what legitimate basis could they rule the people of this country?
Who says that intellectuals can really do the right choices? Many people in the Nazi regime were very intelligent (Goebbels f.e.) and even those in the Monarchies before WW I had outstanding knowledge (Germany's Realpolitician Bismarck f.e.), so how do you define intellectual?
And the third thing is, do those people know how to organize a state or do they have knowledge on fields like morality and so on? (Good, on the contrary do have todays politicians knowledge on those fields )

So, you restrict freedom by an assumed greater good of the nation (in other words, the ruling class government?). This is not freedom, this is the start to an authoritarian state.
Who will stop those intellectuals if they make a bargain with the monitoring party?
Is there a freedom of media?

Your Idea, beatspete, reminds me a bit of a elite-version of communism

[Deepblue]

Originally posted by Kazan
So mongoose is in favor of forcing women to carry babies to term that will cause their death, are the results of rape, are massively deformed (inhumane to the mother and the baby), etc

Deformed babies are still precious, babies that are the result of R, the mother should have a choice, but maybe cared by the mother and if not, put up for adoption into a loving home (probably the best option).

Anyway, if I were in an insulting mood I could say that Kazan is in favor of killing babies and wasting precious life. Life is too precious just to throw away because someone wanted to do whatever they wanted. Now they have to accept the consequences of their actions. One of the major differences (my thoughts) between liberals and conservatives is the idea of responsibility, one has it, the other does not.

Chill

[Deepblue]

Hmmm... It appears that were pretty evenly split, however most political threads are started from the liberal viewpoint. Anyone know why this is?

(Mmmmm... vegetables....)

[Mr. Vega]

furthemore mongoose -- it is _NOT_ it's own lifeform as it cannot exist outside it's mothers body, and if unique geneitic material makes it it's own thing then every cell in our body is host to another lifeform - our mitchondria

Then at what point does the fetus become more than that? When it's born? When the brain develops (which is well before birth)?

[moddy]

Yes, but another difference is the legitimation of this responisibility. The liberals believe that anyone can do with his life what he wants, as long as it does not limit the personal liberty of another person as proclaimed in the Bill of Rights, f.e.

The Conservatives, however, believe that they are in possession of the ultimate right to know what is good and just about another persons life (that's why they force a war on drugs, alcohol and smoking). They seem to think that the government has the responsibility and the means to adjust people to their own believes. They claim that an abortion would be a violation of the sacred (through god ?!) life of an unborn.

There you can argue whether the life in existence or the life in potentia is the more important one? How can we dare to force a human being to give birth to something they didn't want or they have not the means to take care of? And one step further can we decide whether the child could survive under certain conditions within the family?

No, we can't say it, thus we have to leave the decision in the caring and knowing hands of the woman. Instead we should advise her on the problems of abortion. I think the woman will be reasonable and intelligent enough to decide wisely by taking everything into account....
The Conservatives deny this right to the mother, which seems to say that they believe women and men, except themselves, to be stupid and ignorant to the situation...

[Mongoose]

Thank you, Deepblue.  That was a nice sum-up of what I was attempting to say about abortion, although I couldn't get it across right.

Mr. Vega: I am opposed to artificial contraception, so yes, I think it is a shame when couples decide to not have children.  I believe that marriage is of twofold purpose: the sharing of love and the giving of new life.  Contraception prevents one of these from occurring, and as such, I do not agree with it.  I am also opposed to divorce; I actually believe in the "till death do us part" aspect of marriage.

Zarax: Is being an unwanted child worse than never having a chance at life at all?  I don't think so myself.  All human life is precious and should be treated as such.  Many children from broken families have grown up to accomplish great things.  Would you eliminate the gifts that these people have to share?  Is killing an unborn child simply because it is "unwanted" really that much of a favor? Oh, and I highly doubt that the EU will ever obtain the same status as the United States.  God forbid that ever happen.

Kazan: Abortion isn't just an issue of the mother.  Millions of people from my generation have been killed because of it.  I could have lost best friends, co-workers, and even my future wife because of abortion.  It really does affect society as a whole and is much more than a personal "choice."  Abortion truly is killing our future, removing the potential for human growth that all of those lives represent.  By your description, a fetus is something akin to a tumor, dependent on its host for nourishment.  I hope I speak for most people when I say that this is far from the truth.  You keep making reference to "mother's health," but very few abortions are performed for that reason.  "Health," as stated in Roe v. Wade, has come to mean such things as emotional well-being or lack of mental stress.  For the most part, abortion has nothing to do with physical well-being and everything to do with convenience.

I'm not exactly sure where I stand on the death penalty.  While I think that taking a life for a life really doesn't accomplish anything, I recognize that the state has the right to protect its citizens, and that sometimes, the death penalty may be a required method of doing so.

Tell me:  why exactly is the sancity of human life "****"?  What kind of view of humanity is that?  I wonder about your own mental status if that's what you think of humanity.

I did not say that I was against all stem-cell research; stem cells can be obtained from umbilical cords and even the adult body.  What I am against is killing embryos to obtain stem cells.  It's not hard to see how this could easily lead to "farming" embryos for usable cells.  Now that's a frightening concept.

I'm sorry if you don't agree with my language.  I disagree with you; some things in this world are black and white.  Abortion is one of them.  You're wrong: it isn't the woman's body, it's also the unborn child's.  It has as much right to live as the mother.  The mother is entrusted with the care of her child, and abortion is the ultimate betrayal of that trust.  I have every right to say that abortion should be outlawed; those whom abortion affects have no voice to cry out against it, so it is up to the rest of us to defend them.

[Genryu]

With that much vegetables in the poll, someone care for a mixed salad ?