Conquer Club

Not sure about other places though.

http://studentnewsdaily.com/conservative_vs_liberal_beliefs.shtml

A little simplistic. I think every person has his own opinions and cannot be boxed neatly into large boxes.

Still, as a brief, pedagogic summary, not bad.

Skoffin wrote: When I first clicked on it I thought it would be something claiming all conservatives are evul whackos and all liberals are caring fair people. However I see that is not the case. I am shocked and appalled.

Skoffin wrote: When I first clicked on it I thought it would be something claiming all conservatives are evul whackos and all liberals are caring fair people. However I see that is not the case. I am shocked and appalled.

Would you be calling me an "evul wacko?" Coming from you, not sure if that is a good thing or a bad one.

website wrote:LIBERALS – believe in governmental action to achieve equal opportunity and equality for all, and that it is the duty of the State to alleviate social ills and to protect civil liberties and individual and human rights. Believe the role of the government should be to guarantee that no one is in need. Believe that people are basically good.

Liberal policies generally emphasize the need for the government to solve people’s problems.

Isn't that Socialism?????

If you're conservative and haven't been called a Nazi wacko yet, it's a personal insult from leftists. it means they don't think you're a very effective rhetor.

I actually agree with Nap1 saying that this unnecessarily divides the US into two neat and tidy groups. There actually is more diversity ofthougth than the media or our elected officials would have you believe. That said, I'm not quite sure how "rhetor" translates into anything. Sounds Greek.

Hey, it is.

spurgistan wrote:I actually agree with Nap1 saying that this unnecessarily divides the US into two neat and tidy groups. There actually is more diversity ofthougth than the media or our elected officials would have you believe. That said, I'm not quite sure how "rhetor" translates into anything. Sounds Greek.

Hey, it is.

It's more of a general chart, yet I have found it to be pretty reliable.

It was obvious, even before I saw where it came from, that it has a conservative slant.

I guess I'm becoming more conservative than I would have thought as I become older. But I just can't support the Bush administration's original interpretation of the Patriot Act. The FISA courts need accountability, not just a promise from the president that he'll appoint good people.

The UN has repeatedly failed in its essential mission: to preserve world peace. The wars, genocide and human rights abuses of the majority of its member states (and the UN’s failure to stop them) prove this point. History shows that the United States, not the UN, is the global force for spreading freedom, prosperity, tolerance and peace. The U.S. should never subvert its national interests to those of the UN.

This is a bit rich isn't it when the UN didn't wan't the war in Iraq but US went ahead anyway

Napoleon Ier wrote:If you're conservative and haven't been called a Nazi wacko yet, it's a personal insult from leftists. it means they don't think you're a very effective rhetor.

You dont like to put things in boxes,instead you generalise wildly

Napoleon Ier wrote:A little simplistic. I think every person has his own opinions and cannot be boxed neatly into large boxes.

QFT.

muy_thaiguy wrote:

spurgistan wrote:I actually agree with Nap1 saying that this unnecessarily divides the US into two neat and tidy groups. There actually is more diversity ofthougth than the media or our elected officials would have you believe. That said, I'm not quite sure how "rhetor" translates into anything. Sounds Greek.

Hey, it is.

It's more of a general chart, yet I have found it to be pretty reliable.

Well....it just isn't.

moo_lol wrote:It was obvious, even before I saw where it came from, that it has a conservative slant.

It opens with a quote from Rush Limbaugh.

...

...

This chart is taken from this book a book entitled, The Official Handbook of the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy 2006: The Arguments You Need to Defeat the Loony Left.
http://www.amazon.com/Official-Handbook ... 055&sr=8-1

btownmeggy wrote:This chart is taken from this book a book entitled, The Official Handbook of the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy 2006: The Arguments You Need to Defeat the Loony Left.
http://www.amazon.com/Official-Handbook ... 055&sr=8-1

Actually, it came from a school website.

muy_thaiguy wrote:

btownmeggy wrote:This chart is taken from this book a book entitled, The Official Handbook of the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy 2006: The Arguments You Need to Defeat the Loony Left.
http://www.amazon.com/Official-Handbook ... 055&sr=8-1

Actually, it came from a school website.

Dude, it says under the graph that certain parts are from that book. Do you even read your own stuff?

muy_thaiguy wrote:

btownmeggy wrote:This chart is taken from this book a book entitled, The Official Handbook of the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy 2006: The Arguments You Need to Defeat the Loony Left.
http://www.amazon.com/Official-Handbook ... 055&sr=8-1

Actually, it came from a school website.

Have you not read the bit at the bottom where it says 'Certain portions of this chart have been adapted from “The Official Handbook of the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy” by Mark W. Smith'?

I find it fairly biased towards the right. The liberal descriptions seem pretty ridiculous in some places.

9/11 for example...

9/11 was caused by America’s arrogant foreign policy. America needs to stop angering other countries. The threat posed by terrorism is exaggerated by President Bush for his own political advantage.

I'd say that, at least the second sentence, would be a view held by some on the right and some on the left. Others would find the view what America needs to stop angering other countries ridiculous. For one, it talks as if countries are what perpetrate terrorism. That isn't a notion held on the left, surely?

The funny thing is, most "conservatives" (like our venerable Norse) are in fact entirely Liberal in their economic viewpoints-to simplify, Laissez-faire.

And indeed, Milton Firedman described Margaret Thatcher as "Not a Tory, but a nineteenth century Liberal Whig".

Got to love the Whigs.

Personally i've always leaned towards the conservative side even though i wouldnt consider myself anything more than a republicans.

Personally, I think the hardcore conservatives and liberals are the ones you have to worry about, because those are the ones that are NOT willing to compromise


It's the lighter-hearted "Republicans and Democrats" that are the good ones that will give a little get a little


basically u have far right conservatives, right republicans, middle independents, left democrats, far left liberals, which i hardly cant stand the absolute far of EITHER side because they dont compensate or compromise for the greater good

Have you not read the bit at the bottom where it says 'Certain portions of this chart have been adapted from “The Official Handbook of the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy” by Mark W. Smith'?

I find it fairly biased towards the right. The liberal descriptions seem pretty ridiculous in some places.

9/11 for example...

Quote:
9/11 was caused by America’s arrogant foreign policy. America needs to stop angering other countries. The threat posed by terrorism is exaggerated by President Bush for his own political advantage.

Yes, there are a lot of HardCore Liberals that think we caused and maybe even deserved what happened at 9/11. But not all of them do, seeing as most "liberals" arent truly liberals but merely have liberalistic ideas when they are in fact just basic democrats