Can I be conservative, liberal, progressive all at once or do I have to pick only one

[Pheonixops]

All these terms sound nice and seem to apply to me: I am a thrifty shopper, I live a conservative lifestyle, I love to see progress every day, I am liberal when it comes to certain things... are these names strictly reserved for political pundits, or can I consider myself all 3? and if I do, will I still be taken seriously on this playing field of politics? please advise...

You are simply being yourself and not pigeonholing yourself into one ideology or another.

 

[Bombur]

Libertarianism is just a clever way of trying to get government out of the way so that corporations can rule without any concern for anything but themselves.

Tell us genius...if politicians were restricted to their limited enumerated powers, how exactly would corporations rule? Stated differently, how could a company make or enforce a law without a crony politicians, which you could not find in a libertarian society???

It is a movement that is funded by billionaires .

You have zero proof this ridiculous statement. I'm sorry, put pointing to one or two rich people that happen to be libertarians does mean the "movement is funded by billionaires". And by the way, if billionaires are funding it, why do we see so few libertarian politicians in office?



Bullshit. No libertarian thinks it's acceptable to allow anyone to pollute. That is NOT consensual activity. It is activity that infringes on the rights of others, the illegality of which is at the very heart of the idea of libertarianism.

You clearly have no fucking clue what you're talking about.

They are anti-science

Really? And what evidence do you have to support this bullshit claim?

and they are as concerned for your freedom as slave owners were concerned for the freedom of their slaves

And there you have it...the most ridiculous statement of the month, at least so far.

Please tell us how libertarian ideals, which value freedom and liberty above all, are akin to slavery.

What an asshole.

They don't need law when there is no law and they have all the power.

There is a lot of money coming from "libertarians" or going to "libertarians" who are trying to deny MMGW because it is in their financial interest to do so.

Under the right market conditions people can and do sell their own children and themselves into slavery.

Libertarians like yourself are naïve idealists. You are about as relevant to the reality of a libertarian world as the naïve people who supported Lenin only to learn too late what they have done.

 

[eflatminor]

Libertarianism is just a clever way of trying to get government out of the way so that corporations can rule without any concern for anything but themselves.

Tell us genius...if politicians were restricted to their limited enumerated powers, how exactly would corporations rule? Stated differently, how could a company make or enforce a law without a crony politicians, which you could not find in a libertarian society???



You have zero proof this ridiculous statement. I'm sorry, put pointing to one or two rich people that happen to be libertarians does mean the "movement is funded by billionaires". And by the way, if billionaires are funding it, why do we see so few libertarian politicians in office?



Bullshit. No libertarian thinks it's acceptable to allow anyone to pollute. That is NOT consensual activity. It is activity that infringes on the rights of others, the illegality of which is at the very heart of the idea of libertarianism.

You clearly have no fucking clue what you're talking about.



Really? And what evidence do you have to support this bullshit claim?

and they are as concerned for your freedom as slave owners were concerned for the freedom of their slaves

And there you have it...the most ridiculous statement of the month, at least so far.

Please tell us how libertarian ideals, which value freedom and liberty above all, are akin to slavery.

What an asshole.

They don't need law when there is no law and they have all the power.

"No law" eh? Someone needs a dictionary. Libertarianism is NOT anarchy. The rule of law is paramount in libertarian ideals. That includes laws that PREVENT nanny state meddlers from engaging in the crony capitalism you so despise.

God you're dumb.

There is a lot of money coming from "libertarians" or going to "libertarians" who are trying to deny MMGW because it is in their financial interest to do so.

So you got nothing. No evidence whatsoever.

Typical.

Under the right market conditions people can and do sell their own children and themselves into slavery.

Oh my God. Dumb doesn't begin to describe you.

Look, get this into your thick scull...slavery is the antithesis of libertarian ideals. Got it?

Libertarians like yourself are naïve idealists. You are about as relevant to the reality of a libertarian world as the naïve people who supported Lenin only to learn too late what they have done.

Now you're comparing libertarians, those limited government, maximum freedom loving people...to Lenin.

Wow, just wow. Ignorant and stupid. That's no way to go through life there son.

 

[Bombur]

Tell us genius...if politicians were restricted to their limited enumerated powers, how exactly would corporations rule? Stated differently, how could a company make or enforce a law without a crony politicians, which you could not find in a libertarian society???



You have zero proof this ridiculous statement. I'm sorry, put pointing to one or two rich people that happen to be libertarians does mean the "movement is funded by billionaires". And by the way, if billionaires are funding it, why do we see so few libertarian politicians in office?



Bullshit. No libertarian thinks it's acceptable to allow anyone to pollute. That is NOT consensual activity. It is activity that infringes on the rights of others, the illegality of which is at the very heart of the idea of libertarianism.

You clearly have no fucking clue what you're talking about.



Really? And what evidence do you have to support this bullshit claim?



And there you have it...the most ridiculous statement of the month, at least so far.

Please tell us how libertarian ideals, which value freedom and liberty above all, are akin to slavery.

What an asshole.

They don't need law when there is no law and they have all the power.

"No law" eh? Someone needs a dictionary. Libertarianism is NOT anarchy. The rule of law is paramount in libertarian ideals. That includes laws that PREVENT nanny state meddlers from engaging in the crony capitalism you so despise.

God you're dumb.



So you got nothing. No evidence whatsoever.

Typical.

Under the right market conditions people can and do sell their own children and themselves into slavery.

Oh my God. Dumb doesn't begin to describe you.

Look, get this into your thick scull...slavery is the antithesis of libertarian ideals. Got it?

Libertarians like yourself are naïve idealists. You are about as relevant to the reality of a libertarian world as the naïve people who supported Lenin only to learn too late what they have done.

Now you're comparing libertarians, those limited government, maximum freedom loving people...to Lenin.

Wow, just wow. Ignorant and stupid. That's no way to go through life there son.

No I am comparing ignorant naïve people who followed Lenin but didn't like the results to the ignorant naïve people who believe in Libertarianism but if they ever got their wish they wouldn't like the results.

The irony of Libertarianism is not lost on me. It is a world view that only sees government as their potential slave owner but ignores the threat of the power wielded by those who own the means of production. Owning the means of production is the traditional power in human history. Putting government and power in the hands of the people is a relatively new concept and libertarianism is just about putting it back in the hands of capital owners.

I couldn't care less about your intentions which is the only thing you can argue with. Socialists had good intentions too.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

All these terms sound nice and seem to apply to me: I am a thrifty shopper, I live a conservative lifestyle, I love to see progress every day, I am liberal when it comes to certain things... are these names strictly reserved for political pundits, or can I consider myself all 3? and if I do, will I still be taken seriously on this playing field of politics? please advise...

Of course you don’t have to ‘pick just one.’

The best course of action is to be pragmatic and address the various issues predicated on objective facts and evidence, not subjective doctrine and dogma.

Also understand that there are no simple solutions to the complex problems we face; those who advocate simple solutions to complex problems, such as term limits and balanced budget amendments, are more often proven to be wrong.

 

[occupied]

All these terms sound nice and seem to apply to me: I am a thrifty shopper, I live a conservative lifestyle, I love to see progress every day, I am liberal when it comes to certain things... are these names strictly reserved for political pundits, or can I consider myself all 3? and if I do, will I still be taken seriously on this playing field of politics? please advise...

Resist labeling, work on your bullshit detector. Believe what you want, throw out beliefs if they become blinders.

 

[francoHFW]

How you shop has nothing to do with politics, it's the POLICIES you support. Libertarians are ANOTHER flaky far right/dupes of the greedy idiot rich GOP. Or at least make themselves irrelevant. The new bs GOP just wants deregulation so they can screw the country AGAIN...

 

[Clementine]

All these terms sound nice and seem to apply to me: I am a thrifty shopper, I live a conservative lifestyle, I love to see progress every day, I am liberal when it comes to certain things... are these names strictly reserved for political pundits, or can I consider myself all 3? and if I do, will I still be taken seriously on this playing field of politics? please advise...

When Republicans disagree with each other, the Dems say there is a lot of infighting among party members and they laugh.

Dems never disagree with each other.

Most people I know go issue by issue, but thanks to labeling by liberals, we will get thrown into a category based on our opinions of one issue and they will assume the rest.

I think Obamacare sucks and is the worst legislation ever to get shoved through by questionable means and I want answers on Benghazi, so they stuck me in the far right, wealthy white racist category, which doesn't begin to fit me. I'm stuck with it until I drink some koolaid and start nodding in agreement with whatever they tell me.

I tell my Republican friends that I don't have any issue with gay marriage and don't think social issues should be the top concern for the federal government and they are okay with that and we go on to other issues. No labels. I appreciate that.

 

[eflatminor]

They don't need law when there is no law and they have all the power.

"No law" eh? Someone needs a dictionary. Libertarianism is NOT anarchy. The rule of law is paramount in libertarian ideals. That includes laws that PREVENT nanny state meddlers from engaging in the crony capitalism you so despise.

God you're dumb.



So you got nothing. No evidence whatsoever.

Typical.



Oh my God. Dumb doesn't begin to describe you.

Look, get this into your thick scull...slavery is the antithesis of libertarian ideals. Got it?

Libertarians like yourself are naïve idealists. You are about as relevant to the reality of a libertarian world as the naïve people who supported Lenin only to learn too late what they have done.

Now you're comparing libertarians, those limited government, maximum freedom loving people...to Lenin.

Wow, just wow. Ignorant and stupid. That's no way to go through life there son.

No I am comparing ignorant naïve people who followed Lenin but didn't like the results to the ignorant naïve people who believe in Libertarianism but if they ever got their wish they wouldn't like the results.

And yet another monumentally ignorant statement. Uh, dude...libertarians don't "follow" anyone.

The fact that you've have been completely unable to articulate a single example of why libertarians wouldn't like a libertarian society is rather telling. It tells us you're full of shit.

Or are we supposed to just accept your "because I say so" argument???

The irony of Libertarianism is not lost on me. It is a world view that only sees government as their potential slave owner

Yea, that's it. Libertarians WANT to be slaves to the government.

The more you write, the dumber you sound. I didn't think that could be possible.

but ignores the threat of the power wielded by those who own the means of production.

Which is only a threat when those business owners have politicians meddling on their behalf beyond their enumerated powers...EXACTLY what libertarians stand against. And ironically (yes, a proper use of the word), EXACTLY who the collectivist assholes embrace in the ridiculous hope those central planners will be benevolent towards their needs and not those owning the means of production.

Yes, you're really that ignorant.

Owning the means of production is the traditional power in human history.

Correct. And, for the first time in history, the American concept of LIMITED GOVERNMENT severely restricted the ability of those owners to inflict their will on others. But you Progressive central planners were just SURE that your guys wouldn't engage in that cronyism.

Remind me, in whose district is Wall Street???

Putting government and power in the hands of the people is a relatively new concept and libertarianism is just about putting it back in the hands of capital owners.

Further demonstrating you haven't a fucking clue what libertarianism is about.

Libertarianism puts power in the hands of individual by involving government only when the rights of others are infringed upon.

Sorry comrade, you're an idiot.

 

[Bluedog]

Be a conservative democrat. You don't need a board you can argue with yourself all day,


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[pvsi]

Give up all three and become a libertarian.

And besides, the difference between a progressive and a liberal is NOTHING! And sadly, many conservatives are in agreement with liberals/progressives on many things. One being the size and grow of state power.

I only donated money to political campaigns twice - And one of those times was to Ron Paul in 2008, and although he was running as republican, I believe he is a libertarian.

 

[pvsi]

All these terms sound nice and seem to apply to me: I am a thrifty shopper, I live a conservative lifestyle, I love to see progress every day, I am liberal when it comes to certain things... are these names strictly reserved for political pundits, or can I consider myself all 3? and if I do, will I still be taken seriously on this playing field of politics? please advise...

You are like me and the vast majority of other Americans. We don't fit neatly into pigeon holes.

I congratulate you for not being tied to an "ism" - it's rough sledding sometimes. So many are too lazy to listen and interact l;ong enough to get a complete picture of who you really are in full. They're too lazy - so they'd rather just slap a label on you and be done with you.

It's lazy and it's ignorant - but unfortunately that the way most posters on these boards are. But message boards are not the real world - I hope you have happy interaction here and - more importantly - in the real world.

Thanks, my whole political philosophy revolves around my understanding that what the media shows and the real world is different, here is my speech about that, hope you watch and share, it's short:
Pay attention to the text at 3 minute mark
[ame=http://youtu.be/AfozAw40_zM]Nobody the Leader - Greatest Story Never Told Part 1 - We 1% Will Win - YouTube[/ame]

 

[pvsi]

You are like me and the vast majority of other Americans. We don't fit neatly into pigeon holes.

I congratulate you for not being tied to an "ism" - it's rough sledding sometimes. So many are too lazy to listen and interact l;ong enough to get a complete picture of who you really are in full. They're too lazy - so they'd rather just slap a label on you and be done with you.

It's lazy and it's ignorant - but unfortunately that the way most posters on these boards are. But message boards are not the real world - I hope you have happy interaction here and - more importantly - in the real world.

Typically that means that you're a Democrat who supports the Democratic party on every issue, but you don't like to be thought of that way.

pvsi - See what I mean.

kaz - I've voted in 9 presidential elections in my lifetime. I've voted for the democratic candidate twice, the libertarian candidate twice, and the republican candidate five times.

Got anymore "terrific" theories?

Well, you are a LOT like me in that sense, considering in USSR teachers used to ridicule me calling me a capitalist American, and then here I had to take a LOT of insults from self titled conservatives calling me a socialist. Yes, the last time I voted was for a war criminal Kerry, but my intention was to vote for a third party candidate Ralph Nader, that was back in 2004. I have absolutely no intention to vote in another American election unless it is a referendum, which is the only way 3rd parties would replace establishment - that is my destiny in life now, to organize a popular referendum.

 

[pvsi]

All these terms sound nice and seem to apply to me: I am a thrifty shopper, I live a conservative lifestyle, I love to see progress every day, I am liberal when it comes to certain things... are these names strictly reserved for political pundits, or can I consider myself all 3? and if I do, will I still be taken seriously on this playing field of politics? please advise...

Of course you don’t have to ‘pick just one.’

The best course of action is to be pragmatic and address the various issues predicated on objective facts and evidence, not subjective doctrine and dogma.

Also understand that there are no simple solutions to the complex problems we face; those who advocate simple solutions to complex problems, such as term limits and balanced budget amendments, are more often proven to be wrong.

I disagree about solution being complicated - I believe they are MAKING it complicated, but it is really very simple: federal reserve prints money, charges interest on it, enslaving humanity and creating a welfare class of billionaires. Solution is as simple as eliminating federal reserve and as American founding fathers (today aka slave owners) were warning against, and it can be done by a popular referendum. that is all there is to it - COMPLICATIONS ARE THERE TO DISGUISE THE SCAM.

 

[Bombur]

"No law" eh? Someone needs a dictionary. Libertarianism is NOT anarchy. The rule of law is paramount in libertarian ideals. That includes laws that PREVENT nanny state meddlers from engaging in the crony capitalism you so despise.

God you're dumb.



So you got nothing. No evidence whatsoever.

Typical.



Oh my God. Dumb doesn't begin to describe you.

Look, get this into your thick scull...slavery is the antithesis of libertarian ideals. Got it?



Now you're comparing libertarians, those limited government, maximum freedom loving people...to Lenin.

Wow, just wow. Ignorant and stupid. That's no way to go through life there son.

No I am comparing ignorant naïve people who followed Lenin but didn't like the results to the ignorant naïve people who believe in Libertarianism but if they ever got their wish they wouldn't like the results.

And yet another monumentally ignorant statement. Uh, dude...libertarians don't "follow" anyone.

The fact that you've have been completely unable to articulate a single example of why libertarians wouldn't like a libertarian society is rather telling. It tells us you're full of shit.

Or are we supposed to just accept your "because I say so" argument???





Yea, that's it. Libertarians WANT to be slaves to the government.

The more you write, the dumber you sound. I didn't think that could be possible.



Which is only a threat when those business owners have politicians meddling on their behalf beyond their enumerated powers...EXACTLY what libertarians stand against. And ironically (yes, a proper use of the word), EXACTLY who the collectivist assholes embrace in the ridiculous hope those central planners will be benevolent towards their needs and not those owning the means of production.

Yes, you're really that ignorant.

Owning the means of production is the traditional power in human history.

Correct. And, for the first time in history, the American concept of LIMITED GOVERNMENT severely restricted the ability of those owners to inflict their will on others. But you Progressive central planners were just SURE that your guys wouldn't engage in that cronyism.

Remind me, in whose district is Wall Street???

Putting government and power in the hands of the people is a relatively new concept and libertarianism is just about putting it back in the hands of capital owners.

Further demonstrating you haven't a fucking clue what libertarianism is about.

Libertarianism puts power in the hands of individual by involving government only when the rights of others are infringed upon.

Sorry comrade, you're an idiot.

The entire Libertarian movement is a "because I said so" argument. A well funded one at that.

You keep arguing intent. It is cute. It is ignorant and naive too. Corporations are only a threat because of government? Dude I don't know how anyone could be so ridiculously stupid.

 

[blackhawk]

All these terms sound nice and seem to apply to me: I am a thrifty shopper, I live a conservative lifestyle, I love to see progress every day, I am liberal when it comes to certain things... are these names strictly reserved for political pundits, or can I consider myself all 3? and if I do, will I still be taken seriously on this playing field of politics? please advise...

Be anything you want the vast majority don't care and those that do really don't matter.

 

[hjmick]

This is America, you can be anything you want to be...

 

[pvsi]

This is America, you can be anything you want to be...

But to be on TV you need to point fingers at either right or left.

 

[Wildman]

...message boards are not the real world...

WOW ! THAT..., is the most profound statement ever made on this forum, or any forum i have ever posted in, i have been involved in message boards since the early days of "Prodigy", ............, my gawd !! that has been nearly 30 years !!!!!

pvsi: what ever your political beliefs are toward the views of the political candidate, Congressmen, Senators that you agree with is the "label" you will be branded with on this forum, e.g., if you agree that the president is great or a failure is your "box".

"shopping" is political, pretty much boils down to your favorite cut of meat or a tub of Tofu, in my OPINION the guy who buys a big juicy steak is a Conservative, prefers a Republican ideology, drives a big SUV with a V8 engine, has a CCW permit and owns at least 6 other guns, loves fishing, and lives a spiritual, meaningful, loving relationship with nature and GOD..., there is so much more about being a Conservative, but i at least have given you some of the basics.

OTH, liberals are the 180 degree opposite, they eat Tofu, deny GOD, drive hybrid cars, hate guns, are democRATS and will defend any other democRAT to their death, right or wrong.., and it is usually WRONG !!

 

[hazlnut]

All these terms sound nice and seem to apply to me: I am a thrifty shopper, I live a conservative lifestyle, I love to see progress every day, I am liberal when it comes to certain things... are these names strictly reserved for political pundits, or can I consider myself all 3? and if I do, will I still be taken seriously on this playing field of politics? please advise...

Conservatives tend to be very tribal.

Liberal won't want to hurt your feelings and exclude you.


Progressive used to mean Teddy Roosevelt and Lincoln, but Fox has turned it into a dirty word. So, yeah, Cons aren't allowed to consider something that has been tried yet. Liberals want to be loved so they won't admit to having a progressive idea.

Yeah, progress used to be the American way, now we seem to fear it.