Warning, Massive Edit

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 and here.

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 *****. that would be bashing. Liberal != socialist, conservative != fascist, depsite each side's more militant members' claims to the contrary.

 

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." and FWIW, I much prefer what the rest of the world calls liberalism over our definition.

Good links sir, thanks.

 

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

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

 

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

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

 

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.

 

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.