Heroes of Might and Magic Community
visiting hero! Register | Today's Posts | Games | Search! | FAQ/Rules | AvatarList | MemberList | Profile


Age of Heroes Headlines:  
5 Oct 2016: Heroes VII development comes to an end.. - read more
6 Aug 2016: Troubled Heroes VII Expansion Release - read more
26 Apr 2016: Heroes VII XPack - Trial by Fire - Coming out in June! - read more
17 Apr 2016: Global Alternative Creatures MOD for H7 after 1.8 Patch! - read more
7 Mar 2016: Romero launches a Piano Sonata Album Kickstarter! - read more
19 Feb 2016: Heroes 5.5 RC6, Heroes VII patch 1.7 are out! - read more
13 Jan 2016: Horn of the Abyss 1.4 Available for Download! - read more
17 Dec 2015: Heroes 5.5 update, 1.6 out for H7 - read more
23 Nov 2015: H7 1.4 & 1.5 patches Released - read more
31 Oct 2015: First H7 patches are out, End of DoC development - read more
5 Oct 2016: Heroes VII development comes to an end.. - read more
[X] Remove Ads
LOGIN:     Username:     Password:         [ Register ]
HOMM1: info forum | HOMM2: info forum | HOMM3: info mods forum | HOMM4: info CTG forum | HOMM5: info mods forum | MMH6: wiki forum | MMH7: wiki forum
Heroes Community > Other Side of the Monitor > Thread: The Liberal Club
Thread: The Liberal Club This thread is 6 pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 · «PREV / NEXT»
mvassilev
mvassilev


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
posted April 07, 2009 05:58 AM

You consider yourself a libertarian. What does "libertarian" mean to you specifically?
____________
Eccentric Opinion

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
RedSoxFan3
RedSoxFan3


Admirable
Legendary Hero
Fan of Red Sox
posted April 07, 2009 07:16 AM

Quote:
I used to be ok with the republican party.  They used to at least believe in fiscal conservatism.  The big government social aspect I could tolerate because the SC would keep them from doing anything too obnoxious.  But now they stand for big government in spending AND on social issues, pretty much exactly the opposite of a Libertarian agenda.

Argh, what's a Libertarian to do these days?  :sigh:  
Right here with you Corribus. The real issue at hand is that Fiscal Conservatives are still out there, it's just that their philosophy doesn't cater very well to campaign running.

By spending no wasteful money, they are unable to payoff their campaign supporters and thus get reduced funding and little to no media support.

It also doesn't help that the mainstream media has made it a social taboo to be conservative. The fiscal conservative has been blackballed to be nothing more than a religious intolerant bastard that cares only about not letting gays marry and cares nothing about the helping the less fortunate.

The whole idea of fiscal conservatism is that our current social programs create a population that is dependant upon financial assistance. Our economy cannot grow or recover under an American workforce that is not independant and self-sufficient.

All of these bail-outs are ridiculous. We are just creating companies that are dependant upon help from the government.
____________
Go Red Sox!

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | PP | Quote Reply | Link
blizzardboy
blizzardboy


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
posted April 07, 2009 07:38 AM
Edited by blizzardboy at 07:40, 07 Apr 2009.

Even FOX News, which is supposedly the conservative media outlet (theoretically no major media outlet admits to being liberal or conservative, but you know what I mean) majorly dissed Ron Paul in the '08 primaries, who was the only candidate that was wholeheartedly standing up to the new wave of Republicans that took over. As Ron Paul said several times throughout the debates, his platform was largely similar to the platform George Bush ran on in 2000 (and obviously didn't carry out). And just a short 8 years later, that platform has become a mockery by the very party that endorsed it 8 years ago.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
JollyJoker
JollyJoker


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
posted April 07, 2009 08:17 AM

I don't want to mix into this thread of the economic liberals (as opposed to other liberals, there ars those as well), but whenever socialism or communism is mentioned, inevitably someone comes with the real existing things and how reality has shown the invalidity of the concepts, blabla.

But doesn't it look like you'd suffer under the same "real existing liberalism" flaw? As soon as someone enters governmental responsibility who has been waving a liberal banner, everything just dissolves under the pressure of reality, does it?

Shouldn't teach that a lesson about the real existing quagmire?

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
baklava
baklava


Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
posted April 07, 2009 10:46 AM

Liberalism is anarchy for rich people.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
mvassilev
mvassilev


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
posted April 07, 2009 02:42 PM

RSF:
I agree with you so far, but once you start bringing foreign policy and social issues into the mix, I fear that you will find little support even among us.

JJ:
How often do liberals enter the government? Very rarely. Usually, it's either social democrats or conservatives.
____________
Eccentric Opinion

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Lexxan
Lexxan


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Unimpressed by your logic
posted April 07, 2009 05:26 PM

Glad to join
____________
Coincidence? I think not!!!!

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | PP | Quote Reply | Link
RedSoxFan3
RedSoxFan3


Admirable
Legendary Hero
Fan of Red Sox
posted April 08, 2009 12:42 AM
Edited by RedSoxFan3 at 00:43, 08 Apr 2009.

Quote:
Even FOX News, which is supposedly the conservative media outlet (theoretically no major media outlet admits to being liberal or conservative, but you know what I mean) majorly dissed Ron Paul in the '08 primaries, who was the only candidate that was wholeheartedly standing up to the new wave of Republicans that took over. As Ron Paul said several times throughout the debates, his platform was largely similar to the platform George Bush ran on in 2000 (and obviously didn't carry out). And just a short 8 years later, that platform has become a mockery by the very party that endorsed it 8 years ago.
Fox News dissed Ron Paul, because he's a conspiracy theorist and a liberatarian. He's against free trade and his foreign policy is to be completely uninvolved in any foreign affairs.

Granted he's a fiscal conservative, but the lack of free trade and the fact that he thinks the banks are going to take over the world puts 2 strikes against him.
____________
Go Red Sox!

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | PP | Quote Reply | Link
mvassilev
mvassilev


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
posted April 08, 2009 12:46 AM

Quote:
he's a conspiracy theorist
Not really. Many of his followers (like Moonlith) are, but he isn't.

Quote:
He's against free trade
Nope, he's for free trade. He's against NAFTA because he (partially rightly) views it as not free trade.

Plus his foreign policy is decent. Total non-interventionism is bad, but it's certainly better than what the neocons have to offer.
____________
Eccentric Opinion

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
RedSoxFan3
RedSoxFan3


Admirable
Legendary Hero
Fan of Red Sox
posted April 08, 2009 06:57 PM

Well they guy I wanted was Mitt Romney.

He actually had his own ideas. And I liked his stance on many of the economic topics including national healthcare.
____________
Go Red Sox!

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | PP | Quote Reply | Link
mvassilev
mvassilev


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
posted April 08, 2009 10:47 PM

I didn't like Romney's health care plan. I though it was quite terrible - it was absolute pandering to the insurance companies. Think about it: everyone forced to buy private health insurance. It'd be like Christmas come early for them!

Plus Romney flip-flopped on abortion.
____________
Eccentric Opinion

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Lexxan
Lexxan


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Unimpressed by your logic
posted April 08, 2009 10:51 PM

Quote:
Plus Romney flip-flopped on abortion.


but then again, name me one politician who has never flip-flopped on any matter?
____________
Coincidence? I think not!!!!

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | PP | Quote Reply | Link
mvassilev
mvassilev


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
posted April 08, 2009 10:52 PM

Abortion is (at least in America) a pretty major issue. A lot of politicians flip-flop on relatively minor stuff.
____________
Eccentric Opinion

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Corribus
Corribus

Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
posted April 08, 2009 10:52 PM
Edited by Corribus at 22:53, 08 Apr 2009.

Quote:
but then again, name me one politician who has never flip-flopped on any matter?  

Ok, John Kerry.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Lexxan
Lexxan


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Unimpressed by your logic
posted April 08, 2009 10:58 PM

I'm indeed quite a liberal person myself. I'm in favour of legalizing Abortion, Same-sex marriages (though I'm currently opposed to adoption), and Euthanesia. My main concernes are the Wellfare of Society. Imo, SSMs, Abortion or Euthanesia can do little harm, but Same-Sex Adoptions (though not proven) and drugs (Proven!!!) may disrupt the Wellfare.

I generally tend towards Liberalism and Right-wing ideas, but my main political Ideology is something that I would call "Balancing." I'm Striving for a Balance in society, one between Tolerance and Intolerance, Authoritairianism and Liberalism, between Left and Right. I know that this is very utopian, so I will choose sides anyway, which then would be Tolerance, Liberalism and Rightwing of the above examples.
____________
Coincidence? I think not!!!!

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | PP | Quote Reply | Link
mvassilev
mvassilev


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
posted April 08, 2009 11:00 PM

Quote:
a Balance in society, one between Tolerance and Intolerance, Authoritairianism and Liberalism
A balance between authoritarianism and liberalism? So you want the government to be authoritarian half the time?

As for drugs - I'd like to hear some of your arguments.
____________
Eccentric Opinion

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Corribus
Corribus

Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
posted April 08, 2009 11:12 PM
Edited by Corribus at 23:12, 08 Apr 2009.

@Lexxan

I'd have to strongly disagree with you on same-sex adoptions.  As for drugs, I'm open to legalization as an experiment.  It certainly can't be any worse than it is now.  Why it's ok to legalize alcohol and tobacco but not cannabis or certain other drugs eludes me.  At the very least, think of all the great tax revenue!
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Lexxan
Lexxan


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Unimpressed by your logic
posted April 08, 2009 11:12 PM
Edited by Lexxan at 23:18, 08 Apr 2009.

Mvass:
Quote:

Quote:
a Balance in society, one between Tolerance and Intolerance, Authoritairianism and Liberalism
A balance between authoritarianism and liberalism? So you want the government to be authoritarian half the time?


No, no. Too much Liberalism (which is in my ideology, legalizing anything, making Laws obselete; IOW Pure Chaos) is not favorable. On the other hand, Total Authoritarianism (which is pure Law) isn't favourable either. There needs to be a balance between those two, a powerfull Government that controlls the country with Justice and Righteousness, but one that holds Civil Rights above the Pure Justice of the Law. Of course, a Pure Balance (50% Liberalism and 50% Authoritarianism) is not favourable either; The finished product of Pure Balance is often Grey, colourless, boring and uninispiring. Something like 75% Aut-25%Lib or 75% lib-25% Aut is what I would can favourable. Authoritarian (Stern, Law-abiding) Government with much Civil Freedoms and Rights or a Liberal Democracy with a strong and just Government are perfect examples of what I'm striving for. Choosing between those two, I myself favor the Liberal Democracy.

I apply this idea to every kind of contradiction (Chaos <=> Law, Left <=> Right, etc) and then my most prefered scenario of the two most favored ones.

Quote:
As for drugs - I'd like to hear some of your arguments

First of all, With Drugs, I do not mean medicine (knowing that you Americans also call medicine drugs)
I think the accounts of Used-to-be-drug-users speak for themselves. Drugs (= Marihuana, Cocaine, Weed, etc) are a negative impact on Civil health, Education and Economy. I don't think I need to Explain this any further.

EDIT:

The C:

Quote:
I'd have to strongly disagree with you on same-sex adoptions.
The problem is that is hasn't been proven that is beneficial or negligable or malficial for the child. As long as it isn't proven that is Beneficial or that it makes no difference, I will not be in favour (though I am not really opposed either). Can you guarantee me that it makes no difference?

Quote:
As for drugs, I'm open to legalization as an experiment.  It certainly can't be any worse than it is now.  Why it's ok to legalize alcohol and tobacco but not cannabis or certain other drugs eludes me.  At the very least, think of all the great tax revenue!
Alcohol and Tobacco have, as you undoubtably know, a less horrible effect than other drugs have. Alcoholists and Chain-smokers are less of a problem that Durg-users are, relatively speaking, taking 1 vs 1. In my country, it has never been a real problem, (knowing that Belgium is one of the biggest Beer producing countries in the World), so my opinion must be biased. Also, I'm having moral issues with Legalizing Drugs just for the Tax Revenue.
____________
Coincidence? I think not!!!!

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | PP | Quote Reply | Link
DagothGares
DagothGares


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
posted April 08, 2009 11:14 PM

Yes, Lex, you do

I know what you're gettin,g at, but I'd love to see pro and contra getting in a debate.
I, myself, have no stance on drug issues.
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Lexxan
Lexxan


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Unimpressed by your logic
posted April 08, 2009 11:24 PM
Edited by Lexxan at 23:25, 08 Apr 2009.

Quote:
Yes, Lex, you do



Well, I've have seen people take minor drugs in real life (though I made clear that I woud rather die than take drugs myself), Incudling friends on mine. They really kick on the weed, desiring it above anything else. After they've taken it, they eyes are bloodred, they lal like drunks do and stare in front of them like any stone person does. I have only one word to describe this: pathetic. Or no, maybe I have another one: Pitifull.

I cannot beleave that this can even be beneficial, I simply cannot. Not even Chain-Smokers or Alcoholists come close to this. It cannot be good to legalize this, for whatsoever reason.

I'm pretty convinced that Social Wellfare, as well as Individual wellfare will suffer. The only thing that will remain the same, is that the Government itself engages in drug-dealing themselves, instead of the Black Market.

How can this be right?
How can this be Morally justified?
How can it be?
____________
Coincidence? I think not!!!!

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | PP | Quote Reply | Link
Jump To: « Prev Thread . . . Next Thread » This thread is 6 pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 · «PREV / NEXT»
Post New Poll    Post New Topic    Post New Reply

Page compiled in 0.0572 seconds