I think he means liberalism means believing in rights, which is hypocritical because they're always trying to get rid of rights to guns. Something like that.Xombee said:Does not compute.seryoga said:liberalism means believing in rights and change gun control and liberals is entirely hyprcitical its like if Vladimir lenin pulled a ponzy scheme or whateverXombee said:Economically conservative I guess.
"Treating people" liberally, minus gun control and all that touchy feely shit. Okay, that didn't make much sense, more like I don't care if someone is gay or an illegal immigrant or something.
Makes sense if you suppose that Merteg (no offense if you're not Merteg) is an American. In America socialism and capitalism are opposites. A lot of us yanks don't know that European Parliamentary Socialism and Marxism/Democratic Centralism/Communism aren't the same things.Federalist92 said:that makes no sense....but whateverMerteg said:I'm a capitalist, but I'm definitely left wing....
I would consider the Democratic and Republican parties as right wing, and extremely right wing respectively. But from this person's perspective the Democrats appear quite left wing. I'm sure many of the people who describe as left wing or 'liberal' in this thread would turn out to be quite right wing by my estimation.Destal said:Personally, I think they both suck and the two party system needs to die.
No. It makes people actualy defend their side rather than just blindly voting on what side that people told them was 'the good side'.Federalist92 said:I should have really done a poll for this.
Too late now though.
they're not even that different! You've got the republicans, extreme right wing, and then you've got democrats, slightly less right wing. there's no deviation! it's not tea or coffee, it's milk or sugar!A random person said:But I think we can all agree that the two-party system is crap. Really, when party lines become so important, something went wrong.
The problem is, socialism doesn't encourage people to "share the wealth", it forces them to.Captain Pancake said:I'm quite a bit left wing myself. And to be honest i think it's very narrow minded how so many americans are devout anti socialists. nobody remembers you for the things you do for yourself, after all. you could be the richest bastard on the planet, and nobody would give a shit.
No...I think he proposes an American stance...O wait, America already has that stance! Yeah, there are plenty of socialist and capitalist policies and ideas in the American government. Sure we have big corporations, but we also have anti-Trust laws. We have taxes, but we also have tax breaks. We have jobless workers, but we also have welfare and unemployment. America is incredibly centrist, and that's why the two-party system works and IS A GOOD THING.Federalist92 said:So you propose a Brit stance. A sort of bit of both worlds. Like free health care and Education.Mad Maniac with axe-firing chainsaw said:I'm not sure. On one hand, I believe that you need capitalism to drive wealth, motivation and inspiration as well as independence and individuality. On the other hand, socialism is required to catch people who through hard times, personal weakness or just plain bad luck would slip through the cracks of society into total ruin otherwise. However, the system needs to be geared into getting these people back up on their feet as fast as is possible. It should be around to help unfortunate or weak individuals, but it shouldn't encourage reliance on socialist mechanisms.
I suppose I'm a centrist. I support a society geared towards capitalism but with enough well made socialist policies to prevent people from falling destitute when times get desperate.
Which Obama wants the US to have.