Okay, this is a bit more theory and concept than the rest of what's going on lately. I'm pretty much done venting about the election, now I want to discuss the basis of our individual ideology. I'll start with Liberals in the next post:

Liberals: Try to "protect" the individual by limiting the rights of others to harm or negatively affect them. Gun control, environmental laws, and protecting the poor from poverty are examples. Unfortunately, it's impossible to to protect one person's rights while taking away anothers.

Conservatives: Try to "protect" their way of life by limiting the rights of others: pro-life, anti-gay, and pro-religious laws. They too, contradict their own intent by taking away the rights of people who think differently than they do.

this is obviously very simplified of course, so I'd appreciate both sides helping to add to this discussion of why there's really no such thing as a true liberal or true conservative- we're ALL somewhere in between. The political spectrum is an illusion. It's much more complicated than that.

Lastly, I won't tolerate bashing of any kind in here. This thread is strictly for philisophocal discussion, not debate. I'm only interested in a frank discussion of how we generate our views as individuals, not in who is right or wrong, except by discussing the fallacies and shortcomings of the political parties main political stances. so don't ***** when I delete your post if you're not here for my purposes. You have the rest of the forum for business as usual.

Liberals: Try to protect their way of life by limiting the rights of others. Taking away rights to gun ownership, confiscating assets of citizens they find to be too rich, denying the rights of unborn children, trying to restrict religious expression and speech, trying to achieve government involvement in every aspect of life. The belief that the people should answer to the government and not the other way around.

Conservatives: Try to protect the individual by limiting the rights of the government to negatively effect them.

Nice party line. I'm asking everyone to discuss why the two party system forces each candidate into contradictory views. Explain why it's okay for you to limit the rights of homosexuals to live how they wish, with all the rights and priveleges of heterosexuals, but liberals can't limit your right to own firearms?

Party line? I'm a libertarian. I was just pointing out a contrary (and accurate) alternate view. I don't think government should make any laws regarding sexual behavior other than rape and child molestation.

Also be careful not to confuse Conservatives and Republicans. A lot of GOP policies are very far from traditional Conservative thought. But the center has moved so far left in the last 100 years, that the GOP has made huge concessions to get votes.

Same goes for Liberals and Democrats. The DNC has gone from being a liberal party to mostly unapologetic socialists.

Conservatives: Try to protect the individual by limiting the rights of the government to negatively effect them.

Where's the contradiction? You gave the conservative's mantra, not the flaws in their logic. The contradiction is conservative-backed laws like banning gay marriage, abortion, drug laws, etc. That all sounds like government telling people what to do to me. I'm not discussing the merits of those views, I'm still pointing out contradictions. Please try to keep up.

Also be careful not to confuse Conservatives and Republicans. A lot of GOP policies are very far from traditional Conservative thought. But the center has moved so far left in the last 100 years, that the GOP has made huge concessions to get votes.

Same goes for Liberals and Democrats. The DNC has gone from being a liberal party to mostly unapologetic socialists.

Who gives a crap what each party stood for 100 years ago. Won't change what they do next year. And you're bashing again, try to be impartial. You don't have to hate an idea to find it's flaws, and if you can't be impartial when examining your own beliefs, then you're just another sheep. I'm using the terms "conservative" and "liberal" as they apply here, today. republicans=conservative and democrats=liberal under current understandings of the terms. Of course there are exceptions, but you won't see any of them making a serious bid for the presidency any time soon, unfortunately.

I'm asking everyone to discuss why the two party system forces each candidate into contradictory views.

I agree with that. I think my posts show the contradictions. Both sides are corrupt hypocrites. So I don't vote for either.

I agree with that. I think my posts show the contradictions. Both sides are corrupt hypocrites. So I don't vote for either.

I wouldn't go that far with either side. I think "imperfect" is a more apt term. I think the Libertarian party has potential to become a viable third party, but odds are they'll get forced into the same problem as the Dems and Reps, which is having to choose views to gain support, rather than making views and taking the support they get. So far they are staying consistent with their views, but it isn't catching on enough. We'll see what happens over the next 10 years or so.

And you're bashing again, try to be impartial.Bashing? Huh?

You don't have to hate an idea to find it's flaws, and if you can't be impartial when examining your own beliefs, then you're just another sheep.And this isn't bashing?

I'm using the terms "conservative" and "liberal" as they apply here, today. republicans=conservative and democrats=liberal under current understandings of the terms. Maybe in TV culture those are the current understandings. Among academics or outside this country, those understandings are not so current.

Bashing? Huh?

Same goes for Liberals and Democrats. The DNC has gone from being a liberal party to mostly unapologetic socialists.

Bashing.

And this isn't bashing?

I didn't say your views were wrong, I was pointing out your failure to meet the purpose of the thread with that post.

Maybe in TV culture those are the current understandings. Among academics or outside this country, those understandings are not so current.

I live in America, and in America George Bush is a conservative and Kerry is a liberal. I'm not wasting any more time defining the terms, because we all know what someone means when they say liberal or conservative. You put one of each in a room and we all know which is which. Move on.

Warning, Massive Edit

Move on.
I'm just trying to point out to you that there is a difference between political philosophy and party membership. You admit this when you say "there's really no such thing as a true liberal or true conservative- we're ALL somewhere in between". The parties and candidates are not truly liberal or truly conservative either. They are organizations and individuals who mold their philosophy and policies to get votes from individuals who are all "somewhere in between".

PS There's some interesting stuff here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism) and here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative).

PPS I still don't see how I was bashing. Many DNC/Kerry votes and proposals are accurately described by the term socialism.

And some things the Bush administration did since 9/11 could be called fascism, but I wouldn't call them Nazis. that would be bashing. Liberal != socialist, conservative != fascist, depsite each side's more militant members' claims to the contrary.

There's some interesting stuff here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism) and here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative).

According to that, there's no such thing as a conservative, because I've yet to hear a politicain say "everything's peachy folks, I don't want to change a THING." :p and FWIW, I much prefer what the rest of the world calls liberalism over our definition.

Good links sir, thanks.

And some things the Bush administration did since 9/11 could be called fascism, but I wouldn't call them Nazis. that would be bashing. Liberal != socialist, conservative != fascist, depsite each side's more militant members' claims to the contrary.

I guess I don't consider socialism to be as much of a dirty word as fascism or nazi. Socialists are at least trying to be nice, Nazis are just dicks. :)

Anyways, I'm way off topic. I hope my edit above gets us back to your intended focus.

I much prefer what the rest of the world calls liberalism over our definition.

Yep. My european friends can never understand why we bash liberals so much, because the word means something different to them. :)

Good links sir, thanks.

You're welcome.
You'll also note that those links make my attempts at definition look a little lame. :)

I guess I don't consider socialism to be as much of a dirty word as fascism or nazi. Socialists are at least trying to be nice, Nazis are just dicks. :)

Anyways, I'm way off topic. I hope my edit above gets us back to your intended focus.

Understood on the socialism thing. I think it's the wrong means to the right ends, while fascism is nothing more than consolidation of power by the very strongest.

And your edit hits my point exactly- we worry too much about who agrees with us and who will support our views more than simply justifying them to ourselves in the face of open and honest dissection. We expect to have candidates who match us 100% when that's impossible. Maybe the root of my frustration is the american public's inability to agree to disagree.

Maybe the root of my frustration is the american public's inability to agree to disagree.

I think people refuse to "agree to disagree" because under a very powerful and intrusive federal government, disagreement causes harm. Disagreement means you get half your income confiscated or you can't marry whomever you wish or some other bad outcome. If the federal government would get out of our pocketbooks and bedrooms, we might find it easier to agree to disagree.

Just wanted to let you both know I'm listening. Its an interesting discussion, I just don't know where I can contribute.

I know I hate the current two party system and wish there was something out there that I feel I fit better with. But I don't have any solutions or answers. As with most Americans, I don't know much about any of the third parties.

But I'm definitely interested :)

Good points FUNKED1. But I have to disagree with you on the DNC stuff. I don't think they are really socalist, in fact its just the opposite. They are very centrist now. So much that they are almost indistinguishable from left leaning Republicans (and many neo-conservatices or 'compassionate conservatives').

njc200:

Quick and dirty run down of the major third parties. Also, please correct me if I'm wrong, because I may have skewed perspectives.

Libertarians: I almost want to say 'conservative' in the traditional sense of the word. Big federal government is bad. Even big state governments aren't the best. Local, local, local. Keep the government from interfering with peoples lives. Libertarians are generally anti-tax, anti-gun control, anti-drug war. Do things yourself. Don't wait for the government to save you.

Green: Socalist (in the good Canadian sense, not the evil facist sense)

Natural Law: There is only one law, the law of survival. Other laws are superflous and should be gotten rid of.

Okay, I think that wraps up the politically relevant third parties. Everyone add more if missed any.