What's your political orientation?

[Filtymcnasty]

According to several political tests, I am considered an extreme...moderate. My political orientation on each platform is pretty much: lib, con, lib, con, lib, con. Or as I like to call it, Independent. I like some of the stuff the Republicans support, and the same is true of the Democrats. Hell, I'm so moderate I don't wear boxers or breifs, I wear boxer briefs!

[Droid party]

I'm a member of the party that wishes people wouldn't bring up politcal shit on a gaming forum.

[newt42]

Radical libritarian. Strictly against violence, pro choice, pro gay marriage and Buddhist.

[marurun]

I'm considered right wing. Glad to know you all think I'm wrong without wondering why I think what I think.

Actually, I have a lot of meaningful discussions with right-wingers. On a number of conservative issues I'm quite sympathetic. I view political discussion not as an argument but an ongoing dialogue based on understanding the hows and whys of what others think. A couple individuals who think very differently than I do have definitely changed my mind on some issues by being eloquent and non-argumentative about their views.

[Ack]

I'm glad to hear that Marurun, but the problem I have with it is that I've almost never seen that happen in either direction. And often times I feel it comes from willing ignorance on the part of one or both parties.

I suppose it's partly a knee-jerk reaction for me to not voice my political views right now, since I'm about to join a profession that generally doesn't agree with me, I am interested in working for the government where a misphrasing of a belief may hinder me later, and I am opposed for various reasons to the current dominant political party.

I will say to some of the other guys here that there is supposed to be a difference between parties, though the Republicans have been attempting to appear more moderate for several years in an attempt to win elections. As you can see, it didn't work. Still, it doesn't just come down to abortion. There are other factors, relating back to the Constitution, that divide the two, and not just including the interpretation of the second Amendment. Other questions include the manner in which the nation is supposed to provide for the common defense, as well as the selection of judges based on their interpretation of the Constitution. For instance, should a Supreme Court Justice rule in favor of a case based on his or her interpretation of what the Constitution was supposed to mean at the time of it's writing, or was the Constitution something that was meant to adapt to the times, even if it means having to change the document? Also, you should consider their stances on how government should handle our economic markets. Now if you still find you don't agree with either party, that's fine. It happens. I just don't think that abortion should be the one thing you look at.

[Erik_Twice]

I cannot really say what's my political orientation without getting to lots of misunderstandments because my thoughts are very complex after a while.

Let's just say that I use as basis a mix between Kant and Nietsche. Morality, buit the best morality, not a mediocre one. I think that Spain's main problem (Where I live) is what I call "goodism".

Goodism is when you try to act well but fall prey to political correcteness. For example Spain gives money to Asturian coal miners because they are not competitive. The result? We are forced to pay for crappy-overcoasted coal instead of letting those useless mines die. There's a difference between protecting jobs and making the poor worker pay for other's loses.

This is jsut an example but it applies to everything there. Nationalism, abortion, education, energy production. In my opinion, this country is full of bullshit and I can't stand that.

I want gay rights but I don't want radicals being counterproductive, I want a clean planet but I do not want to side with Greenpeace, I neither want radical capitalism nor letting the workers sleep because it's franquist to do otherwise, I want an economical system that approves growth and dissaproves opression and laziness.

In the end I would say I'm economically to the right but law-wise to the left but not because the same reasons as the traditional right-wing and left-wing.

[The Apprentice]

According to http://www.politicalcompass.org, this:


It also mapped out a bunch of historic political leaders, where it said my views most resemble Gandhi, Nelson Mandela, and the Dalai Lama, and I'm the exact political opposite of George W. Bush!

[RyaNtheSlayA]

[Octopod]

I'm glad to hear that Marurun, but the problem I have with it is that I've almost never seen that happen in either direction. And often times I feel it comes from willing ignorance on the part of one or both parties.

I suppose it's partly a knee-jerk reaction for me to not voice my political views right now, since I'm about to join a profession that generally doesn't agree with me, I am interested in working for the government where a misphrasing of a belief may hinder me later, and I am opposed for various reasons to the current dominant political party.

I will say to some of the other guys here that there is supposed to be a difference between parties, though the Republicans have been attempting to appear more moderate for several years in an attempt to win elections. As you can see, it didn't work. Still, it doesn't just come down to abortion. There are other factors, relating back to the Constitution, that divide the two, and not just including the interpretation of the second Amendment. Other questions include the manner in which the nation is supposed to provide for the common defense, as well as the selection of judges based on their interpretation of the Constitution. For instance, should a Supreme Court Justice rule in favor of a case based on his or her interpretation of what the Constitution was supposed to mean at the time of it's writing, or was the Constitution something that was meant to adapt to the times, even if it means having to change the document? Also, you should consider their stances on how government should handle our economic markets. Now if you still find you don't agree with either party, that's fine. It happens. I just don't think that abortion should be the one thing you look at.

Youre 100% right about abortion. It definitly should not be the big consideration that determines who you go along with. I know I mentioned that Im pro-choice but honestly the "abortion issue" pretty much does not matter to me. It is way down the line of things Im concerned with personally.

[Limewater]

I am in the neighborhood of radical libertarian and Republican. My personal values and my political values are distinct from one another.

Personally, I am very religious and very conservative.

Politically, I support as small a government as possible.

For example, I do not support government recognition of gay marriage, but I also do not support government recognition of heterosexual marriage. My marriage is between me, my wife, and G^d. Otherwise, I should be able to enter into a contract with anyone I wish. So, for instance, if I want my wife to have power of attorney or something, I should just be able to sign a contract with her. If I don't want her to, then I won't. My gay neighbors should be able to do the same with each other.

I oppose all, or at least almost all, government social programs and regulation. However, I do believe that the unborn are humans with the same rights as those out of the womb, and so I oppose abortion. I also oppose the death penalty.

One area where I am a little torn is defense. I believe that the government just doesn't do anything very well. However, in the area of defense, at least they only have to compete with other nations who are similarly handicapped by having government-run militaries.

So, I guess this makes me a far-right libertarian or something.