284 Total Votes

Liberal (Freedom and Equality)

64 votes

Conservative (Tradition and Heritage)

63 votes

Independent (Centrist, something else, or unsure)

38 votes


34 votes

Libertarian (Small government and Liberty)

25 votes

Democratic socialism

Democratic socialism is a political ideology advocating a democratic political system alongside a socialist economic system. This may refer to extending principles of democracy in the economy, or may simply refer to trends of socialism that emphasis... e democratic principles as inalienable from their political project.There is no exact definition of democratic socialism. Some forms of democratic socialism overlap with social democracy, while other forms reject social democratic reformism in favor of more revolutionary methods, and overlap with Revolutionary Socialism   more
11 votes
1 comment


Anarchism is a political philosophy that advocates stateless societies often defined as self-governed voluntary institutions, but that several authors have defined as more specific institutions based on non-hierarchical free associations. Anarchism ... holds the state to be undesirable, unnecessary, or harmful. While anti-statism is central, anarchism entails opposing authority or hierarchical organisation in the conduct of human relations, including, but not limited to, the state system.As a subtle and anti-dogmatic philosophy, anarchism draws on many currents of thought and strategy. Anarchism does not offer a fixed body of doctrine from a single particular world view, instead fluxing and flowing as a philosophy. There are many types and traditions of anarchism, not all of which are mutually exclusive. Anarchist schools of thought can differ fundamentally, supporting anything from extreme individualism to complete collectivism. Strains of anarchism have often been divided into the categories of social and individualist anarchism or similar dual classifications   more
10 votes

Libertarian conservatism

Libertarian conservatism is a conservative political philosophy and ideology that combines right-libertarian politics and conservative values. Libertarian conservatives' first value is negative liberty to achieve socially and culturally conservative...  ends. They reject liberal social engineering. Frank Meyer, a co-founder of National Review has called this combination fusionism. In political science, the term is used to refer to ideologies that combine the advocacy of economic principles, such as fiscal discipline, respect for contracts, defense of private property and free markets and the classical conservative stress on self-help and freedom of choice under a laissez-faire capitalist society with social tenets such as the belief in natural inequality, the importance of religion, and the value of traditional morality through a framework of limited, constitutional, representative government.Freedom & Virtue: The Conservative Libertarian Debate, edited by George W. Carey, contains essays which describe "the tension between liberty and morality" as "the main fault line dividing the two philosophies.   more
4 votes

Green Indapendent

3 votes


3 votes


3 votes


3 votes


Marxism–Leninism is a term invented by Joseph Stalin to describe the political ideology adopted, under his rule, by the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and Comintern, which its proponents consider to be based on Marxism and Leninism. Marxism–Len... inism is often erroneously equated to Marxism and communism; in fact, Marxists hold a broad range of views on Marxism-Leninism.The goal of Marxism–Leninism, according to its proponents, is the development of a state into what it considers a socialist state through the leadership of a revolutionary vanguard composed of "professional" revolutionaries, an organic part of the working class who come to socialist consciousness as a result of the dialectic of class struggle. The socialist state, which according to Marxism–Leninism represents a "dictatorship of the proletariat", is primarily or exclusively governed by the party of the revolutionary vanguard through the process of democratic centralism, which Lenin described as "diversity in discussion, unity in action." Through this policy, the communist party is the supreme political institution of the state and primary force of societal organisation   more
3 votes
1 comment

Social liberalism

Social liberalism is a political ideology with the belief that the right to freedom from coercion should include a societal foundation. Social liberalism seeks to balance individual liberty and social justice. Like classical liberalism, it endorses ... a market economy and the expansion of civil and political rights and liberties, but differs in that it believes the legitimate role of the government includes addressing economic and social issues such as poverty, health care and education. Under social liberalism, the good of the community is viewed as harmonious with the freedom of the individual. Social liberal policies have been widely adopted in much of the capitalist world, particularly following World War II. Social liberal ideas and parties tend to be considered centrist or centre-left. The term social liberalism is used to differentiate it from classical liberalism, which dominated political and economic thought for several centuries until social liberalism branched off from it around the Great Depression   more
3 votes

Outright Extremist Communism

The Only way to live.
3 votes
1 comment

New Democratic Party

The New Democratic Party is a major social democratic federal political party in Canada. The current leader of the NDP is Thomas Mulcair, who was elected in the 2012 leadership election.The NDP was founded in 1961 out of the merger of the Co-operati... ve Commonwealth Federation with the Canadian Labour Congress.The provincial wing of the NDP in Manitoba currently forms the government in that province. Provincial parties have previously formed governments in British Columbia, Nova Scotia, Ontario, and Saskatchewan, and the territorial party formed the government in Yukon from 1985–1992 and 1996–2000.In the 2011 federal election under the leadership of Jack Layton, the NDP won the second-most seats in the Canadian House of Commons, gaining the title of Official Opposition for the first time in Canadian history   more
2 votes


The belief that experts in a technical field should control the government. It also includes the belief that social issues can be solved using the scientific method. For more info:
2 votes


Opportunism is a system where all individuals entering the workforce and adulthood have a roughly equal chance of success, but after a "fair start for all" whatever inequalities result are accepted, seeing as how everyone who was successful must've ... done something right to earn it and those who are not successful must've either done something wrong or have shifted their priorities away from wealth to something which they deem more important (not necessarily a bad choice to make with one's life; money isn't everything), not accounting for stuff like crippling illnesses. People would be discouraged from passing on wealth to their kids but rather encouraging their kids to earn whatever level of wealth they attain. A very large inheritance tax would be placed on the rich to prevent large-scale generational transfer of affluence. Likewise, all people would have access to equal quality schools growing up. There would be only standard levels of taxes on the rich (no progressive income tax) because it wouldn't be right to take from them which they obviously earned. Likewise, the poor would also be taxed at standard rates, not being given an exemption from paying taxes for having not made something of their lives (or at least not having become economically successful). Welfare programs would be at a minimum and they'd only be for the sake of keeping people from growing up in utterly crappy homes, not for the sake of the parents   more
1 vote

Poopy face

1 vote

National Socialism

1 vote


1 vote
1 comment


Stalinism is the means of governing and related policies implemented by Joseph Stalin. Stalinist policies in the Soviet Union included: rapid industrialization, the theory of socialism in one country, a centralized state, collectivization of agricul... ture, and subordination of interests of foreign communist parties to those of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union—deemed by Stalinism to be the most forefront vanguard party of communist revolution at the time.Stalinism is also commonly used in a critical manner to refer to Stalin's style of governance with associations to political repression, cult of personality, etc. This was utilized by communist parties who detracted from Stalin's policies to assert the independence of Marxism-Leninism from Stalin, with Marxism-Leninism was first described by Stalin in the Soviet Union and later copied by states based on the Soviet model; however Marxism-Leninism stayed after de-Stalinization   more
1 vote

Techno-progressivism (science, technology, convergence)

1 vote
1 comment


Islamism or political Islam is a set of ideologies holding that "Islam should guide social and political as well as personal life". "Islamism" is a controversial neologism whose definition sometimes varies. Islamists can have varying interpretations...  on various Quranic suras and ayahs. Islamist views emphasize the implementation of Sharia; of pan-Islamic political unity; and of the selective removal of non-Muslim, particularly Western military, economic, political, social, or cultural influences in the Muslim world that they believe to be incompatible with Islam. Some observers suggest Islamism's tenets are less strict, and can be defined as a form of identity politics or "support for [Muslim] identity, authenticity, broader regionalism, revivalism, [and] revitalization of the community". Following the Arab Spring, political Islam has been described as "increasingly interdependent" with political democracy.Islamists generally oppose the use of the term, claiming that their political beliefs and goals are simply an expression of Islamic religious belief   more
1 vote

Conservative liberalism

Conservative liberalism is a variant of liberalism, combining liberal values and policies with conservative stances, or, more simply, representing the right-wing of the liberal movement.
1 vote

Liberal Libertarianism

1 vote


Trotskyism is the theory of Marxism as advocated by Leon Trotsky. Trotsky identified as an orthodox Marxist and Bolshevik-Leninist, and supported founding a vanguard party of the working-class, proletarian internationalism, and a dictatorship of the...  proletariat based on working-class self-emancipation and mass democracy. Trotskyists are critical of Marxism-Leninism, as they oppose the idea of Socialism in One Country. Trotskyists also criticise the bureaucracy that developed under the Stalin period of the USSR.Vladimir Lenin and Trotsky were close both ideologically and personally during the Russian Revolution and its aftermath, and some call Trotsky its "co-leader". However, Lenin criticized Trotsky's ideas and intra-Party political habits. Trotsky was the paramount leader of the Soviet Red Army in the direct aftermath of the Revolutionary period.Trotsky originally opposed some aspects of Leninism. Later, he concluded that unity between the Mensheviks and Bolsheviks was impossible, and joined the Bolsheviks. Trotsky played a leading role with Lenin in the revolution. Assessing Trotsky, Lenin wrote, "Trotsky long ago said that unification is impossible   more
1 vote
1 comment

Liberal conservatism

As both "conservatism" and "liberalism" have had different meanings over time and across countries, the term liberal conservatism has been used in quite different senses. In political science, the term is used to refer to ideologies that combine the...  advocacy of laissez-faire economic principles, such as respect for contracts, defense of private property and free markets with the belief in natural inequality, the importance of religion, and the value of traditional morality through a framework of limited, constitutional, representative government. It contrasts with classical liberalism and especially aristocratic conservatism, rejecting the principle of equality as something in discordance with human nature, instead emphasizing the idea of natural inequality.As the conservative ideology in democratic countries embraced typical liberal institutions such as the rule of law, private property, market economy, and constitutional representative government, the liberal element of liberal conservatism became consensual outside of the socialist camp   more
0 votes

Liberal Republicanism

0 votes

Classical Liberal

0 votes

Republican Democratism

0 votes


Authoritarianism is a form of government characterized by absolute or blind obedience to authority, as against individual freedom and related to the expectation of unquestioning obedience.Juan Linz, whose 1964 description of authoritarianism is infl... uential, characterised authoritarian regimes as political systems by four qualities: "limited, not responsible, political pluralism"; that is, constraints on political institutions and groups, a basis for legitimacy based on emotion, especially the identification of the regime as a necessary evil to combat "easily recognizable societal problems" such as underdevelopment or insurgency; neither "intensive nor extensive political mobilization" and constraints on the mass public and "formally ill-defined" executive power, often shifting or vague   more
0 votes

Greatkittesn (Free llamas, Flamewars(

0 votes

American, bend over and get fucked by the world.

0 votes

Neo-Liberal Libertarian

0 votes

Democratic Republicanism

0 votes

Social conservatism

Social conservatism is a political ideology that focuses on the preservation of what are seen as traditional values. The accepted goals and ideologies related to preserving traditions and morality often vary from group to group within social conserv... atism. Thus, there are really no policies or positions that could be considered universal among social conservatives. There are, however, a number of general principles to which at least a majority of social conservatives adhere, such as support for traditional family values   more
0 votes

Libertarian Democratic Republicanism

0 votes

Social Democratic Conservatism

0 votes

Democratic Libertarianism

0 votes

Bend over America!

0 votes
Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
PericIes says2015-07-20T14:01:20.2480763-05:00
I think it's unfair to put "freedom and equality" as the definition for liberal. Sure, that's what the bare word itself implies, but as far as political parties go, they're usually more authoritarian.
tajshar2k says2015-07-20T14:18:56.4469982-05:00
It depends. Liberals encourage personal freedom and equality, while Conservatives encourage economic freedom and equality. Liberals like to put their nose in business regulations stuff like that, and Conservatives like to put in Personal matters like Abortion and Gay Marriage.
PericIes says2015-07-20T15:15:41.7723971-05:00
Well, that depends on what country you're talking about, as well. In the United States, at least, liberals are generally more authoritarian. Its true that they support social liberties like abortion, but they also want to repress some. For example, most people that think offensive speech should be banned are liberals. Liberals want to remove gun rights or at least increase restrictions. Plus, as you said, they're against economic freedoms. Liberals are generally for bigger government and conservatives are generally for smaller government, so on the whole, liberals are more authoritarian. I'm not necessarily calling that an inherently negative thing right now, but I'm stating it as I see it.
Pro-lifeConservative says2015-07-20T15:46:24.5106788-05:00
But, Tajshar2k, those are not personal matters. Rather, they are matters that determine ones eternity. There is a difference between what one decides (opinions) and what the TRUE LAW dictates (the Bible). The legalization of abortion and gay marriage is a legalization of sin. That is scary, since sin leads to death, eternal death and hell, that is. Should a government legalize and promote the death of its citizens?
tajshar2k says2015-07-20T15:59:37.9463482-05:00
The bible is not the law of the United States. Church and State are separate. I don't want to start a whole argument on abortion, but the fact is you are meddling in the personal business of somebody, whether it is right or wrong.
triangle.128k says2015-07-20T16:02:06.1297983-05:00
Yeah, the law of the land isn't the bible, it's the Constitution.
PericIes says2015-07-20T16:20:30.0186739-05:00
@Pro-Life Conservative I'm not sure whether or not you're a troll. Either way, you're ruining this discussion. Whether your Bible-thumping is genuine or not, it would be nice if you could either accept that subjectivity exists and is applicable here or stop talking.
Thegreatdebate98 says2015-07-20T18:15:28.2008578-05:00
It's a bit of a biased poll don't ya think? Under Liberal (Freedom and equality)?? Aren't those two things everyone wants? HAH trying to be smooth, didn't work out...
PericIes says2015-07-20T22:43:33.4167713-05:00
I already pointed out the error in making that the definition.
PericIes says2015-07-20T22:43:47.4043970-05:00
But yes, I agree.
Renegader says2015-07-21T00:48:03.7656642-05:00
Yeah I don''t like the term "liberal" because it is too good a word for SOME of the people on the left who camouflage themselves as proponents of freedom while simultaneously supporting hate speech laws, censorship, anti-gun laws, anti-tobacco laws ect.
Midnight1131 says2015-07-21T07:30:06.3818191-05:00
Uh yeah, the Bible has no importance in the law
tajshar2k says2015-07-21T07:32:48.5735453-05:00
Second Hand Smoking kills people. Good enough reason to ban it.
Pro-lifeConservative says2015-07-21T15:46:37.7175634-05:00
The Bible has no importance in law? God is the creator of laws, and blessed is the nation whose God is the LORD. I do not see the lack of a correlation between God and laws. America is a nation founded on Judeo-Christian values. Clearly the Bible has a place in government.
Renegader says2015-07-21T16:25:24.6133194-05:00
There's no conclusive evidence second hand smoke does anything
tajshar2k says2015-07-21T16:26:37.6052515-05:00
Renegader says2015-07-21T16:29:05.6280117-05:00
triangle.128k says2015-07-21T16:38:48.8574472-05:00
@Pro-lifeConservative Where's your proof of that? The founding fathers strongly supported keeping religion out of law. Also, why isn't god even mentioned in the constition? The US isn't a theocracy.
triangle.128k says2015-07-21T16:42:38.3483853-05:00
"The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." Stated John Adams
tajshar2k says2015-07-21T16:47:28.1165278-05:00
@Renegader Hmm, interesting. Could you find any other sources saying the same thing.
tajshar2k says2015-07-21T16:49:40.6253329-05:00
Why isn't the state religion of the U.S Christianity then?
Renegader says2015-07-21T17:06:42.2599340-05:00 also, religion has no business in politics.
triangle.128k says2015-07-21T17:07:24.8095186-05:00
From seeing his profile, Pro-lifeConservative happens to either be a troll, or he's that stupid.
TheOpinionist says2015-07-22T17:20:53.5458571-05:00
I find myself more and more open to libertarian points, but I'm a Christian first and an American second.
TheOpinionist says2015-07-22T17:21:29.7559555-05:00
So I disagree with many libertarians on gay marriage and abortion
PericIes says2015-07-22T18:09:52.9216137-05:00
@Pro-lifeConservative You said, "America is a nation founded on Judeo-Christian values. Clearly the Bible has a place in government." The first Amendment says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" Pro-lifeConservative, meet Constitution. Constitution, Pro-lifeConservative. It would be convenient for humanity as a whole if you two became acquainted.
TheOpinionist says2015-07-22T18:11:56.0140268-05:00
You getting a little salty, triangle?
TheOpinionist says2015-07-22T18:15:09.4003865-05:00
I forgot that having a belief that differed from yours was wrong. Sorry about that. It won't happen again
tajshar2k says2015-07-22T18:15:41.9685871-05:00
@Theopinionist What libertarian points do you support?
TheOpinionist says2015-07-22T18:16:58.4574757-05:00
I like their views on economic freedom and limited government
HououinKyouma says2015-07-22T18:40:56.2830900-05:00
@TheOpinionist. So, let me guess... You are in favor of corporations being allowed to pollute if they want to, but you don't think that gay-marriage should be legal?
GHLII says2015-07-22T18:52:01.6596403-05:00
So many problems being associated with a particular party. Liberal Vs. Democrat....Etc...People are sterotyped according to their political views. Tsk tsk
TheOpinionist says2015-07-22T18:56:35.1290239-05:00
@HououinKyouma Yeah to an extent. If you've got a problem we can debate about it.
tajshar2k says2015-07-22T19:00:37.4859337-05:00
Economic freedom and limited government are also Conservative positions. Being libertarian means you support all freedom, both personal and economical. Even triangle isn't completely libertarian, he supports military intervention, and keeping prostitution illegal. I myself aren't fully liberal either. I support military intervention, death penalty and both wars.
triangle.128k says2015-07-22T19:11:06.5987009-05:00
@tajshar2k Fully libertarian would be dangerously close to anarchy.
triangle.128k says2015-07-22T19:12:10.4334917-05:00
So of course I have some more authoritarian views on certain things.
TheOpinionist says2015-07-22T19:13:31.8288130-05:00
Makes sense. I concede that I have more research to do, but at the moment I feel that conservative views fit mine the best
tajshar2k says2015-07-22T19:15:14.9491941-05:00
Don't see how protitution would lead to anarchy, but your right though on the idea. Being too supportive of freedom will lead to anarchy. Too much of anything is a principle I like to follow.
triangle.128k says2015-07-22T19:16:45.1189281-05:00
That's not quite what I meant, i'm opposed to prostitution because it can spread STDs and should be discouraged.
tajshar2k says2015-07-22T19:18:57.6116806-05:00
Should be discouraged for sure, I agree 100%, but I do not believe the government should regulate what goes on in the bedroom. It's not their job. Atleast with legalizing we can make set some regulations on spreading STDS.
tajshar2k says2015-07-22T19:20:17.9562511-05:00
Trust me, it hurt a lot changing that Con to a Pro. Protitution is a shameless act, and all of them should be humiliated for choosing such a profession.
triangle.128k says2015-07-22T19:24:33.6220995-05:00
Well I think it should just be decriminalized, not completely arresting people for it.
HououinKyouma says2015-07-22T19:41:54.7067509-05:00
@TheOpinionist. Actually, I don't think there would be much of a point in us debating our ideologies. We could debate specific policies such drug decriminalization (for which I am in favor) for instance, or universal healthcare, but debating ideology, in my experience, is usually a waste of time. But like I said, I would be more than happy to debate you on whether or not the government should regulate the environment.
Renegader says2015-07-22T20:04:34.4681073-05:00
Hmm I don't know, fully libertarian might be dangerously close to FREEDOM
tajshar2k says2015-07-22T20:09:06.4934816-05:00
So I should have the freedom of killing anybody?
Renegader says2015-07-22T20:10:39.8867353-05:00
I'm failing to see how you arrived at such a question. Did you expect me to say yes? I don't think any libertarians condone murder
tajshar2k says2015-07-22T20:14:50.6575768-05:00
TBH, I did. It does say you are an Anarchist, so that assumption wouldn't be too far off. Anyways, my point is that true libertarianism leads to anarchy.
Renegader says2015-07-22T20:39:06.0479266-05:00
Most anarchists don't support murder either. Anyways, that is kind of a slippery slope fallacy.
Pro-lifeConservative says2015-07-25T10:48:15.9700940-05:00
By Judeo-Christian, I mean laws that are founded based on the teachings of the Jewish and Christian faiths. The country was not founded on a religion, but adopted the teachings of the religion. What good is salvation if you are forced into it? No good! Salvation is a matter of the heart, and the founding fathers understood this, so they did not make a national religion. Life: God is the only giver or eternal life, and life in general. Liberty: God grants liberty to all who run to him, he frees them from their sin. Happiness: Being in Christ, we are new creations, we are filled with the joy of the LORD. Murder (prohibited in the 10 Commandments) is prohibited in America. Stealing (10 Commandments), is also outlawed. Need I go on? America is founded on Judeo-Christian principles.
triangle.128k says2015-07-25T11:30:17.1551015-05:00
You're distorting the decleration of independence to jewish-christian values. The terms "life liberty and happiness" mentioned in the DOI is literally what it means, people can live, have freedom and be happy. The terms of life liberty and happiness are political, not religious. People had those 3 things from religion back in Great Britain at the time by your describing. And stuff like theft and murder is basic morality, nearly all religions prohibit this. What's to say that the US was founded on Hindu values? Because Hinduism prohibits theft and murder. And not all of the 10 commandments take in place. The first one which is to worship no other gods to be a Christian, that doesn't apply in US law. There are atheists and polytheists (mainly hindus) in the US, there's no law against not believing in the Abrahamic god.
triangle.128k says2015-07-25T11:32:49.9096730-05:00
Also, the Decleration has no relevance to US law. It was simply a document for other nations to show why the people are rebelling and forming their own nation. The Constitution also doesn't have the word "god" in it, nor does it say anywhere about the Bible having relevancy to US law.
Hanspete says2015-07-25T19:12:55.6500728-05:00
The adding of Trumpism is a nice touch.
Teege says2015-07-27T02:45:22.3073283-05:00
Pro-Life Conservative It's true that killing and stealing are against the law, and part of the Biblical "Big 10. That doesn't mean that we are founded on Christian principles. The Code of Hammurabi was written before the OT in the Bible. So really we're founded on ancient Babylon Law. But wait, Muslims believe in the Mosiac Laws, so we must have a Babylonian Judea-Christian-Muslim law based system Oh no, there's more sacred texts that say we should no kill and steal, so now we have to add in the religions of Hindu, Buddhist, Taoist, Confucian, Jadeism, and Sikhism. I haven't even began mentioning oral tradition laws within tribal nations. The ancient Egyptians, Greeks, and Roman Empires also believed that stealing and killing were wrong...(that's why Moses ran and hid for years after killing the Egyptian). Side note, Christians that cheat on their taxes, in the US, are on a path to Hell for not rendering unto Caesar, what is Caesar's. That's in big red letters, which I believe trumps all in the Christian world. If you want an OT scripture for that try out, "Thou shalt not bear false witness, on your 1040 or 1099 forms." You said, "Liberty: God grants liberty to all who run to him, he frees them from their sin." The liberty you speak of here is the liberty from eternal damnation, which can only be given to those who turn to God. The Christian God also grants liberty to all humans, including the ones that do not follow Him. It is called free will. The Christian God, in His benevolence, has granted free will...The choice to behave as one pleases, to everyone. If an omnipotent God does not force His will on people to follow his rules, what gives you the right to force God's will on people to follow his rules. Are you more powerful than God? Do you have God's consent to force people to follow His rules? Then you said, "Happiness: Being in Christ, we are new creations, we are filled with the joy of the LORD." A semantics argument, but one that should be clarified, Happiness is temporal; it can go as soon as it comes. Joy is what the Lord gives to those who have been eternally redeemed, for joy is everlasting. I have my own set of core beliefs and standards that I hold myself to. I will voice my opinion from time to time, but I will never try to force another person to adhere to my beliefs. It is wrong even trying to do so. Each person is responsible for their own words, thoughts, and actions. If the Bible is true, then on the day of judgment, I don't believe I will be seeing you or I being held responsible for little Lucy having abortions 7 states away. That is not how the Christian God behaves, and there is no Biblical passage that says there one person will be accountable for another person's sin. In order for you to say that our nation's laws are only based on Judea-Christian laws, then all laws would have to line up with the Bible. I can think of many places where they do not agree, i.E., drunkenness. What about smoking pot? The Bible does not say anything one way or another about it, but the Bible says obey the law of the land; does that mean pot smokers in 26 states have no need to repent, but the smokers in the other 24 states have to? Be careful saying that we have a law system based on Judea-Christian beliefs, because we're far from it and haven't been since 1933 when the UCC and various other statutory laws came into play.
Oreo222 says2015-08-04T17:58:42.4026001Z
Religion has no place in politics. It's not fair to those who don't believe in the head religion.
BlackFlags says2015-10-29T18:06:43.3826274Z
Do not like the definition for liberalism. Today's liberalism is just a special brand of authoritarianism.
bpride says2015-10-29T19:19:36.7900088Z
To all those who keep stating that religion has no place in politics. Should we be allowed to say that whatever you base your opinions on how society should be structured has no place in politics? Perhaps we should realize that attempting to define who has the right to weigh in on an issue and which beliefs should be allowed is simply a form of policing thought. George Orwell would be proud.
bpride says2015-10-29T19:25:19.3482129Z
I do enjoy how "Liberal" receives the most attractive definition and first ranking. Seems to be a little bias in the creation from the start. Most liberal positions have led to less freedom and less equality in our society. But lets not judge my results, just intentions.
bpride says2015-10-29T19:26:51.0600250Z
But lets not judge BY results, just intentions. (That's what I get for not proofreading before I hit submit.)
Bob13 says2015-10-29T21:22:30.8471389Z
Umm... Liberalism does not value freedom or equality, despite what they claim. How does support for abortion, affirmative action, and welfare promote freedom and equality? Conservatism is the true proponent of the two.
BlackFlags says2015-10-29T22:03:20.0610689Z
Yeah, more like the party of dependency, sycophancy, and political correctness
reece says2015-10-29T22:38:31.7176769Z
@Bob13 @BlackFlags Can you guys please think it though. I don't wanna waste my time.
reece says2015-10-29T22:39:13.0584719Z
BlackFlags says2015-10-29T22:51:30.4589104Z
Politics are not new to me. It took me a long time to finally affiliate the way I currently do. You on the other hand, should not denounce people as wrong who are clearly eager in debating why they are right.
Bob13 says2015-10-30T00:38:00.9579454Z
@BlackFlags exactly. @reece Can you explain how liberalism values freedom and equality?
Bob13 says2015-10-30T00:38:55.9787927Z
@BlackFlags exactly. @reece Can you explain how liberalism values freedom and equality?
BlackFlags says2015-10-30T01:52:54.4863566Z
If liberalism really means freedom and equality, then today's liberals are not actually liberals
reece says2015-10-30T02:38:06.9261179Z
@Bob13 1. Abortion: Allowing women to have control of her reproductive rights gives the women freedom. I don't find a fetus as equal as a developed human. Put it like this, I wouldn't have a struggle deciding one over the other if i had to sacrifice one. 2. Affirmative action: The only way affirmative action would be against freedom and equality is if you were on the side of the people discriminating and not allowing minorities to have a fair chance. Do you even know what affirmative action is? Racists, etc don't deserve freedom to discriminate. 3. Welfare: What the hell does welfare have to do with any of this?
BlackFlags says2015-10-30T02:48:15.7853283Z
Wow, two issues? First of all, the only thing affirmative action promotes is inequality. In a world without an establishment, that is where you encounter true equality. As for abortion, I generally believe it is not the governments role to decide, although many liberals do not use this argument and devalue the life of the fetus all together. The value of the fetus is its potential, not its current state of life. That is why we do not kill newly borns out of the womb whenever we do not want to care for them. On the question of welfare, that is again a promotion of inequality, since priveleges are being granted only to the people who needed them, at the expense of people who never needed them. Welfare is also a breeding ground for dependency and fiscal irresponsibility.
reece says2015-10-30T03:02:45.1949456Z
@BlackFlags Can you explain yourself further on affirmative action? Using "potential" as a way to value a premature life is useless. The fetus could grow up to save the world or destroy it. A newly born has far greater awareness than a 8-9 week old. Need to go quick, my tutor is here.
BlackFlags says2015-10-30T03:07:18.4000038Z
A system designed on punishing earners and rewarding non-earners is not effective at creating equality. Especially in an economy in which people *should* have equal opportunity. Even if you buy into the argument that redistribution of wealth overall benefits earners as well (which is nonsense), the system would still have to be involuntary, so that makes it not so free. Either way, it fails to provide both freedom and equality, and actually produces a negative on these things.
BlackFlags says2015-10-30T03:08:17.0244280Z
Potential has a value of its own. There is not much distinction between the potential of a 2 week fetus and a 24 week fetus, because both could possibly have great things in store for their future.
reece says2015-10-30T06:07:07.8356846Z
@BlackFlags Wait, how do you define affirmative action?.. What is affirmative action? Distribution of wealth: 1. A guide to statistics on historical trends in income inequality - 2. Income disparity seen as one of the world's greatest threats - 3. The majority of amercan economic experts favour wealth redistribution - I could just keep on going. Do some research for yourself.
reece says2015-10-30T06:08:24.3551561Z
@BlackFlags You're just presenting truism. What's your point?
BlackFlags says2015-10-30T10:14:37.2445708Z
Telling me to do research is a little bit demeaning again. Just throwing links in my face does not degrade my previous viewpoints. Affirmative action is for the most part a policy self declared "positive" discrimination, but I know better than to believe that political discrimination between two people can ever be a good thing. We call for equality, but we are actively discriminating out of respect for race, instead of socioeconomic circumstances, which definitely is not equal in the slightest. I personally believe as though the system of greatest equality, is one in which there is no establishment to deny equal opportunity.
BlackFlags says2015-10-30T10:20:29.9673538Z
Income equality is not perceived as a threat by me, and I can't say I really care about what other people think on the topic, because I believe most people are just uneducated sheep in one form or another anyways.. It is just common sense that capitalism will never go away, and that in a system of capitalism, people are going to attain varying amounts of wealth. You could prop up socialist authoritarian regimes to start redistributing wealth, while to micromanage people's wallets, but if you truly want freedom, then start looking towards independent consumer education as an alternative.
BlackFlags says2015-10-30T10:26:50.4833509Z
Truism is a legitimate argument here, You made an irrelevant argument in response to my point on potential, in which I replied by stating that you cannot reasonably measure potential by age. Conception is called what it is, because it is the moment when the child is first conceptualized. The actual crime here is that we are killing a unique human with a special background, born under circumstances and at a time which can never be imitated twice. In other words, we are killing an idea which can never be re-imitated.
reece says2015-10-30T10:57:38.0021998Z
@BlackFlags I'm going to keep these posts as short as possible Because they'll get out of control, plus i don't like typing sh_tloads. It's better for people to look stuff up for themselves instead of throwing links aside without fully examining them. You've exhibited such a characteristic when commenting on income disparity (I'm pretty sure you meant Income disparity when you said "Income equality is not perceived as a threat by me...") Because otherwise you wouldn't of made sense. But anyway, my income disparity link consisted of a report that was calibrated by Marsh & McLennan Companies, Swiss Re, Zurich Insurance Group ,National University of Singapore , Oxford Martin School, University of Oxford, Wharton Risk Management and Decision Processes Center and the University of Pennsylvania. But it doesn't matter, you just think most people are uneducated sheep about it (sarcasm). I'm not done yet.
reece says2015-10-30T11:16:07.9635448Z
@BlackFlags "Just throwing links in my face does not degrade my previous viewpoints." It does if you actually looked at them. Can you send me a link of what affirmative action is please? I'm not done yet.
reece says2015-10-30T11:42:19.8497728Z
@BlackFlags Oh, we were coming from two different angles. I think i should focus on this... "The actual crime here is that we are killing a unique human with a special background, born under circumstances and at a time which can never be imitated twice. In other words, we are killing an idea which can never be re-imitated." I'm sorry, but variety isn't a unique trait of nature. There is over 7 billion of us.
reece says2015-10-30T11:44:04.4653846Z
I'm done. I won't replying for a while.
reece says2015-10-30T11:50:04.8011140Z
Bob13 says2015-10-30T12:47:14.6060738Z
@reece Abortion- allowing a woman to murder her child for no reason other than she does not want it. Affirmative Action- Punishing whites for things that their ancestors did and that they would never do while giving racial minorities an unfair advantage. Welfare- giving people money because they don't work. So you think that women, racial minorities, and the unemployed are more important than children, whites, and the employed? That doesn't sound like equality. Do you think that the right to live and the right to get a job are reserved for certain people? That doesn't sound like freedom.
reece says2015-10-30T14:45:05.6438494Z
@Bob13 First of all, Learn what murder is. Nvm, i'm done.
bpride says2015-10-30T15:23:52.7190291Z
How I define murder: The pre-meditated taking of an innocent human life. Abortion: The pre-meditated taking of an innocent human life. The vast point of difference between the pro-abortion side and the pro-life side is the definition of what constitutes a human life. Pro-life believes that the baby is a baby and deserves protection from the time it is conceived. Pro-abortion seeks to remove the humanity from the baby to justify killing it for whatever reason is convenient.
MizzEnigma says2015-10-30T16:28:36.8824050Z
Pro-choice** No pro-choicers are pro-abortion. It's not abortion itself we are supporting, but the women that want the opportunity when they will become mothers and her situation. Forcing an already developed human being to do something she does not want to do is taking away her freedom. I am not for stripping a woman's decision away to cater to a potential she didn't want. (I'm not going to debate abortion on this poll. I don't see the relevance it has to the matter of this poll.) I'm not entirely sure where I line up with my belief, so I suppose that's something I would have to think about. Pro-choice, anti-affirmative action, no opinion on welfare, for legalizing prostitution and drugs. I guess my view is: "Adults are capable of making their own decisions." With little interference of government. I suppose liberal, I guess.
Bob13 says2015-10-30T17:51:21.9118845Z
@reece Murder is the unjustified killing of a person.
MizzEnigma says2015-10-30T18:00:24.3031149Z
@Bob: Murder is the unlawful killing of another human being (person.)
reece says2015-10-30T18:03:07.9814625Z
@MizzEnigma These morons aren't worth it.
Bob13 says2015-10-30T18:04:17.2467945Z
That is the legal definition, not the one I am using.
MizzEnigma says2015-10-30T18:07:02.5943742Z
@Reece, I know. It's not worth debating here of all places either, so I thought I would clear up the definition though. @Bob: Murder is a legal term.
Bob13 says2015-10-30T18:12:29.7482655Z
@reece Says the person who builds an "argument" out of name-calling and bare assertions. @MizzEnigma Murder is not only a legal term.
reece says2015-10-30T18:14:44.9248650Z
@Bob13 You guys don't deserve my full attention.
MizzEnigma says2015-10-30T18:15:10.2597522Z
@Bob When it deals with a person killing another human being, it is. You can shape the definition, which you'd be doing either way, but it is a legal term and there are plenty of dictionaries that shows that it is a legal term.
Sunfire315 says2015-10-30T18:15:16.2043089Z
@Reece, if your positions on things are so strong that you will use profanity to defend them, you certainly must have EXCELLENT reasons for holding them. Please present them, or else you have really lost any intellectual honesty
Bob13 says2015-10-30T18:18:02.4558636Z
@Sunfire315 Thank you. @reece We don't need your full attention, but we deserve some of it, unless you really have no reasons for your opinion.
reece says2015-10-30T18:18:50.8479942Z
@Sunfire315 I don't use profanity to defend my arguments.
Sunfire315 says2015-10-30T18:19:57.7732812Z
@reece @Bob13, I think this discussion needs to be shifted to a forum.
reece says2015-10-30T18:23:52.7137992Z
Yeah, i sense some sexual tension
reece says2015-10-30T18:24:54.9589962Z
Just me?
tajshar2k says2015-10-30T20:24:04.9751661Z
FantumHeist says2015-11-02T18:22:59.5851528Z
I sense it
tajshar2k says2015-11-02T21:35:28.6276455Z
@Bob You know there is a difference between murder and killing right? I could kill a spider, but that is not murder.
Bob13 says2015-11-02T21:59:15.0915197Z
Murder is unjustified killing. A spider could be a threat, so killing it is justified and not murder.
tajshar2k says2015-11-02T22:02:10.9023927Z
So, if you are a person a to me, then killing him is justified? What kind of logic is that?
tajshar2k says2015-11-02T22:03:09.7452155Z
Also your definition is wrong, you conveniently left out the "killing of one human being by another part".
Bob13 says2015-11-02T22:07:53.0237996Z
I do not understand your obscure grammar.
tajshar2k says2015-11-02T22:09:13.9872806Z
"So, if "person a" is dangerous to to me, then killing him is justified? What kind of logic is that?"
Bob13 says2015-11-02T22:10:32.1739794Z
If someone is trying to hurt you, that is logical.
tajshar2k says2015-11-02T22:12:25.8816505Z
Yea but you said "could be a threat" Any human can be a threat to me, so I would be justified in killing everybody? A spider's job isn't to kill you.
Bob13 says2015-11-02T22:38:29.6936260Z
If you know the person is a threat, you should report him to the police, but if you don't have a chance, just kill him.
Bob13 says2015-11-02T22:39:10.7681627Z
You also have to consider the fact that a spider is not a person.
tajshar2k says2015-11-02T22:39:59.9824932Z
Neither is a fetus.
triangle.128k says2015-11-02T22:54:27.9330834Z
Abortion flamewar triggered,
BlackFlags says2015-11-02T23:48:54.6457428Z
In the context of that argument, killing a fetus would be justified.
Bob13 says2015-11-03T01:00:37.7635551Z
Why would a fetus not be a person? A spider is a spider is not a person, a fetus is a human is a person.
tajshar2k says2015-11-03T01:02:39.1985801Z
Why? Because a fetus cannot survive on it's own without another organism giving it the ability to stay alive. If a mom dies, the fetus will die. Can't say the same for a baby that was born. If the mom dies, the baby won't die, because it's organs are independent and functioning.
Bob13 says2015-11-03T01:05:54.2312409Z
How is that reason to believe it is not a person? Arguments in favor of abortion are just lies made up by self-centered feminists. Keep that in mind.
tajshar2k says2015-11-03T01:07:54.9405561Z
That's a pretty reasonable and common sense reason for it. Do you have a rebuttal for it?
tajshar2k says2015-11-03T01:11:35.6635412Z
Look up the definition of person. It says an individual, for something to be an individual, it needs to be separate. A fetus is not separate.
Bob13 says2015-11-03T01:50:10.6208811Z
You could say the same of an infant. It requires parents to take care of it. A fetus is a person because it is an individual; dependence does not negate personhood.
tajshar2k says2015-11-03T02:00:01.6226463Z
Read the post above I made...
tajshar2k says2015-11-03T02:10:38.3488908Z
I never said the same about the infant.
BlackFlags says2015-11-03T02:18:28.0982203Z
@Tajstar If I left anyone up to the age of 4 to fend for themselves, they would probably wind up dead really quick. Of course a grown fetus is able to theoretically survive outside the womb, but that wouldn't last to long without a mother or someone to take care of the child. Would you support aborting children up to the age of 4, or am I about to find a contradiction in your argument?
BlackFlags says2015-11-03T02:19:19.9210881Z
Oh, didn't even realize bob13 made the same argument as me.
BlackFlags says2015-11-03T02:20:16.7359239Z
He's right too. Do keep in mind that your opinions are almost exclusively influenced by self centered feminists and propagated political puppets without much free thought.
Bob13 says2015-11-03T12:30:26.2776171Z
@tajshar2k I never said you did say the same, I just said your logic would apply, so you almost did say the same.
MizzEnigma says2015-11-03T13:31:08.7018529Z
Personhood is philosophical. Everyone is going to have their own answers for it. Given that a fetus' personhood itself has not met a consensus,the legal definition a fetus is not a person because it has not been born. Rights have been given to born persons. Arguing the state of a fetus's personhood will eventually fall flat. Personhood revolves around human beings, under the biology definition it is not due to lack of sapience, sentience and agency, but personhood in religious tenses is absolute, and others immediately grant it to anything "human." You'll receive different opinions and answers for it.
MizzEnigma says2015-11-03T13:32:11.0546532Z
I know it's typed awkwardly. I'm in French, so I'm doing multiple things at once. My apologies.
tajshar2k says2015-11-03T14:29:51.8074131Z
That's is not the point. The point is that that the fetus is part of the mother, therefore it technically is part of the mother. It is not a person, because it is not an individual. @Blackflag, if the mother dies, technically somebody can take care of it to help it survive.
BlackFlags says2015-11-03T16:33:03.7287627Z
So my guess is that you are against abortions past 23 weeks?
redromantic says2015-11-04T16:07:31.1142189Z
Libertarianism is perhaps the worst ideology ever
Jonbonbon says2015-11-04T18:07:04.5528082Z
Republicans =/= all conservatives.
reece says2015-11-05T00:02:53.2659546Z
Depends if you were saying all republicans are conservative.
Bob13 says2015-11-13T20:23:02.7647166Z
@tajshar2k A fetus is not part of the mother. Siamese twins are two people, not one, because they can act somewhat independently.
robjohn says2018-10-20T22:16:12.4178393Z
Ridiculous seeing all these choices, You are either liberal (individualism) in the classical sense or you are anti-liberal (collectivism).

Freebase Icon   Portions of this page are reproduced from or are modifications based on work created and shared by Google and used according to terms described in the Creative Commons 3.0 Attribution License.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.