Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

AustonT wrote:No, then the voting pool gets smaller and only the really opinionated people are represented.

Yep. The problem in US politics of having an extremely narrow set of interests served would be made worse by a reducing vote base.

Liberals do tend towards more government. And liberalism is the gateway drug to the extreme left.

While I agree that the "American left" aka. "liberals" are (slightly) more prone to authoritarianism than the "American right," aka. "conservatives" this thread is about definitions...

Originally "liberal" meant something like "libertarian" means today. It has always been an important part of the American psychology.

Since 1776, though, people have said the word about 15 trillion times, and used it in the context of screeching at one another, and now it's joined the lofty ranks of the "meaningless words." Words that have been overused, misused and used in anger so many times that they stop meaning much of anything except *STRONG EMOTION.*

For example "racist" is a meaningless word. It basically just means that the person using it is in an argument, is angry at the other person, and lacks the sophistication/interest/wherewithal to use a more useful term.

It's also worth noting, given the last several posts, that in addition to "meaningless words" there are also "meaningless people." Rachel Maddow, Bill Maher, Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity all fall into that cateogry.

If, by some lucky twist of fate, they happen to provide illuminating and factual information, then cite that. Don't wield these media personalities like some sort of nebulous "truth mallet."

"Rachel Maddow is on MY TEAM, and she wins cause she has FACTS, so by extension I WIN."

sebster wrote:

AustonT wrote:No, then the voting pool gets smaller and only the really opinionated people are represented.

Yep. The problem in US politics of having an extremely narrow set of interests served would be made worse by a reducing vote base.

I think all populations have a narrow set of political interests, they change over time but they almost never multiply. It's certainly not unique to America. The issues currency galvanizing our politics will probably not be issues 50 years from now.

Or I'll be the Prime Minister of North America and it won't matter.

Phanatik wrote:
All of these types of government reside on the extreme left. An extreme right position would tend towards little or no government, or anarchy.

A man named Pinochet would like a word with you.

AustonT wrote:I think all populations have a narrow set of political interests, they change over time but they almost never multiply. It's certainly not unique to America. The issues currency galvanizing our politics will probably not be issues 50 years from now.

Or I'll be the Prime Minister of North America and it won't matter.

Sure, there's always super important issues of the day, that over time get resolved or simply stop being of interest, and end up getting replaced by some other super important issue of the day.

But in US politics there's another phenomenon, that I meant by 'narrow political interests' - there's folk who'll vote in the next election purely on the issue of abortion (either way). Or gun control (either way). Or the continuance of corn subsidies (pretty much just one way). The more people with general interest in politics lose interest and drop out, the more US politics will be decided by how candidates cater to the narrow interests of those voters. In the end, you don't get general policy that aims for the overall good, but balkanisation of politics, which each interest group getting its own little piece, in accordance with how many voters is can drum up.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:A man named Pinochet would like a word with you.

I've seen them call Hitler leftwing. It seems only a matter of time until they pretend the same is true of Pinochet as well.

I am a conservative, Left winged Liberalist don't care about other. The thing they care about is making money in "Humane" exploitation.

What about right winged Liberalists?

Ahtman wrote:What about right winged Liberalists?

Liberal anything is evil.

Well, how can you argue with that?

rockerbikie wrote:

Ahtman wrote:What about right winged Liberalists?

Liberal anything is evil.

So America is evil?

going by what a lot of populations in other countrys think I guess yeah

rockerbikie wrote:I am a conservative, Left winged Liberalist don't care about other. The thing they care about is making money in "Humane" exploitation.

Funny, i don't think you are "Evil" just because you're a conserative.
I tend to let people's actions or expressed intentions do that for me.
I've worked with a nice fellow for 13+ years that is a staunch conservative,
listens to Limbaugh, the whole 9 yards. we get along great. just because we
view things differently, doesn't mean we can't agree to disagree and get on
with really important issuess (ie. work in this case).

That's the problem, IMHO, with all these labels. we need to focus on what
we share and have in common, not get stuck on what we don't have in common.
we all bleed red when we're cut.

well, except for Frazz. he bleeds Weiner dog!

rockerbikie wrote:Liberal anything is evil.

Go team red! Boo team blue!

sebster wrote:

rockerbikie wrote:Liberal anything is evil.

Go team red! Boo team blue!

It's on now.

rockerbikie wrote:

Ahtman wrote:What about right winged Liberalists?

Liberal anything is evil.

Cant tell if serious.