Where do you stand - a poll
POSTED BY: dreamtrove
UPDATED: Wednesday, September 20, 2006 23:48
VIEWED: 3202
PAGE 1 of 4
Okay, I think that things are getting partisan yackedy again, and we should delineate our positions so that we don't end up beating ourselves over the head again. I think someone was implying if you support Nixon you support Bush, which is absurd, and on the other side, if someone said if you don't support Bush you support terrorists, which is also absurd.
So, for the sake of simplicity, I'm killing "democrat" and "republican" because a substantial % of forum goers are not americans.
So, I think there are four basic positions,
1. I'm a liberal, Clinton is great
2. I'm a liberal, Clinton is flawed
3. I'm a conservative, Bush is great
4. I'm a conservative, Bush is flawed
You can replace Clinton with Blair if you need to.
I don't have a good british neocon, but Australian John Howard will do.
I'll start with a 4.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
They're all crooks and have no interest in anything that's not paid for...Option #5.
King of the Mythical Land that is Iowa
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I'm with Penguin, though I did prefer Clinton to Bush (though that goes without saying).
*************************************************
"It sure as hell ain't normal, but we deal."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by deepgirl187:
I'm with Penguin, though I did prefer Clinton to Bush (though that goes without saying).
Of course...
King of the Mythical Land that is Iowa
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Put me down for 5 as well. I know you're looking for something more proactive, DT, but those options don't work for me. At least not by the common definitions of liberal and conservative.
Anyway, I didn't think I could dislike a president more than Clinton - until GW came on the scene.
SergeantX
"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Umm...
.7 - Anarchist
Tar and feathers for the whole feckless lot of them! 
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Option five for me as well.
---------------------------------------
The only animals I'm not comfortable with are parrots, but I'm learning as I go. I'm getting better and better at 'em. I really am. - Steve Irwin, our Honorary BDH
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
but those options don't work for me. At least not by the common definitions of liberal and conservative.
I agree with Sarge - at least this part, anyway.
The options you have given, DT, are not valid. You give no room for variance besides whether or not someone liked Pres. A or B, and really, the definitions of what makes someone a "liberal" and what makes someone a "conservative" have become so confused as to make no sense.
Classic conservatives, as I am, are now considered "far-left." I voted for Bush the 1st in 92, and Clinton in 96 (once I realized he was the best Republican Pres. we ever had).
Small government, socially liberal conservatives who believe the govt is best kept out of the bedroom and private areas like hospitals are now considered, by position, libertarian at best and far-left liberal scum at worst.
I'll take option 6 - Conservative who liked Clinton, and thinks Bush is a disaster.
------------------------------------------
"A revolution without dancing is no revolution at all." - V
Anyone wanting to continue a discussion off board is welcome to email me - check bio for details.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I think that a close examination of Clinton on:
1. Total civilian death toll.
2. Total money stolen
3. Selling america down the river
4. pro-corporatist, monopolies, halliburton, etc.
5. Attempted attacks on civil liberties, not to mention Americans
I think Clinton deserves no "better that Bush"
There's two things different which affect everyone's bias:
1. in the 90s the press was solidly democrat, and so it glossed over clinton's evil, and basically worshipped the ground he walked on.
2. Bush has been able to push the evil further, because he had Clinton's evil as a starting point.
If Bush had come first, and the media had been republican, I think you'd see a reversal on this.
But I see them as the same thing.
Anyway, this was a wash. I was trying to prove that there was more of an independence from Bush/Clinton on both sides here than people posting were assuming (ie. you all love Bush or Clinton was the assumption I kept seeing)
But it failed. No one wants to be a liberal or a conservative. Should we be a new political perspective? Fireflyians?
And when people saw the level of infighting in the firefly party, they'd be truly confused.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME