It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Ideological Incompatability and You

page: 1
4

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 01:52 AM
link   
Unless you have been under a rock, you're aware that there are two main ideological camps in the U.S. - Conservatism and Liberalism.

The two are mutually incompatible within any given issue. To understand why, you must understand the difference between a conservative and liberal principle. You'll find many conservatives and liberals don't really understand their own position, but that typically defines the average person with most issues.

A conservative ideal is that of non-interference. To conserve is to apply in a limited and controlled fashion. A government conservative would, thus, apply government in a limited and controlled fashion.

A liberal ideal is that of collective interference. To liberate is to set free and, in the case of liberal, apply heavily. A government liberal would apply government heavily and often.

There's also a key difference in thinking, particularly when it comes to this month's hot topic - demonstrations.

In most rallies for liberal causes, you often hear: "we will not back down until we get [x] from [y]!" In other words - the liberal tends to want something from another group of people, and this is the basis for their demonstration. Be it higher wages, free healthcare, or some form of government service.

On the other hand, most conservative rallies will be along the lines of "We will not lay down and let [x] do [y] to us!" The conservative generally wants to be left alone and to not be bothered by more government programs, more regulations, taxes, etc.

This can often get confusing, as anti-abortion is often considered to be a "conservative" value - when it is really a liberal value. A true conservative would recognize anti-abortion as increased government regulation over personal choices and patient-doctor confidence and not support a ban on abortion from a politically conservative standpoint (they may, however, choose to support it because of other ideological factors that they may consider to outweigh the political consequences and precedents established with a ban on abortion).

Likewise, "legalizing drug x or y" is often considered to be a liberal value, when it is, in fact, a conservative value. A true liberal would push for more government involvement in the sale of all drugs and foods - determining legalities, labeling, manufacturing rights/standards, etc.

Now, at the very core, these two ideals are mutually incompatible within a given issue (two people can agree on how to classify a given drug, but can disagree upon abortion - but you cannot have a conservative and liberal ideal agreeing upon the same issue).

As we see various demonstrations in our own country that fall right across these very exclusive and deeply held ideological differences, it is important to understand what each ideal is, and how it their mutually exclusive natures impact the behavior of society. A conservative, as stated earlier, generally wants to be left alone and to see the government left out of more things than it is involved in. A liberal wants the exact opposite - the government to be involved in everything, and everything to be under the authority of the government - including the conservatives.

This is where the rift really cuts deep. I'm a conservative. I don't take kindly to the idea that someone has made too much money, or that I need to be taxed for choosing not to join some national health insurance plan. In fact, my knee-jerk reaction is a rather violent one that I have to actively suppress.

On the flip side of things - we have demonstrations such as the ones in Wisconsin. Those people are not going to go away until they have the ability to gerrymander better pension plans paid for at the tax payer's expense. If someone in authority shows up to tell them to disperse, or at least get out of the government building and stop impeding the function thereof - it is not all that far fetched to see violence ensue.

I believe we have under-estimated the volatility of our nation, and the importance of understanding our own base ideologies. So long as liberals push for nationalization of interventionist principles, the conservatives will always feel under attack. Similarly, so long as conservatives battle against liberal policies, the liberals will feel oppressed or slighted.

The nation is beginning to lose its ability to peacefully resolve the problems of co-existing with such contrasting ideologies. We may get through this next year or two and douse the flames started by the conflicts such as those in Wisconsin - but both sides have been increasingly tense and unrelenting.

There are two or three general ways this can play out. The first is to take a conservative approach at the national level. This will be one that the liberals have to suck up and take - but it would allow each state more authority and some states could become their own liberal haven while others could become conservative constructs. This would allow separate ways of life but a unified set of nation states - and would, honestly, be similar to the type of environment the Founders would have envisioned (though I get the feeling most would have chosen to live in a more conservative region of the nation - they would not have seen it as appropriate to interfere with another state's right to govern itself).

The second is to actually have two separate nations. Along with this is a relatively 'new' idea of a "virtual nation" - something only possible with the internet, where geographic location has little to do with government jurisdiction. The mechanics of such a thing would be rather tricky - but it is a little more agreeable to those who would want to stay where they are at, but not live in a hippie commune or whatever.

The third is civil war.

This would not be the "old" civil war, where states separated. You might see some states swing one way or the other - but there are more than enough hard-core liberals and conservatives in Missouri to have their own war, regardless of what the state legislature does on an official basis.

This would be an ideological war akin to the tribal conflicts that have been going on in the Middle East for centuries. The killing would go on long after we remembered what we were killing for.

So, it is with this wall of text that I ask everyone to take a step back and think about what is going on. Yeah - I'm a conservative. I think liberals just don't get it. That said - I know a bad situation when I see one coming. I can't tell you how many times I've read and heard someone saying: "This is war" in reference to campaigning against the opposing side of the political aisle.

And I'm telling you - a war along such fronts will tear through our nation and society like nothing we have ever seen before. At the very least - I have friends, whom I love dearly, that are crazy liberals who don't get it. I'd rather not see them turned into rabid little political terrorists that I may one day kill in self-defense. That'd break my capitalist heart of steel.




posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 04:47 AM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

Except that Union membership is about 12% of the working population and people who staunchly describe themselves as "Liberal" are only 20% of the electorate.

I HOPE I am not alone when I say that letting such a tiny proportion of the overall electorate/workforce undermine the stability of society because they want some kind of stupid socialist "revolution" is ridiculous.

I HOPE I am not the only one who realizes that people are not all one thing or another. I'm very Libertarian when it comes to some things not so much in others.

I'm for same-sex marriage.

I'm against any form of gun control

I'm against abortion, HOWEVER I don't want a the Federal government involved in it. That is a state/local issue and should be handled as such. The Feds can only screw it up.

I'm for national defense of the highest order. NO ONE from a terrorist to a standing Army should have the idea in their minds that attacking us is anything but stupid.

I'm against violence as a form of protest. I used to advocate the notion of revolution, but after everything I have learned in my participation in the Tea Party, I cannot advocate such in good conscience and call myself a Freedom Loving American. The Free Market of ideas must win. If it comes down to violence it will only be in self defense. In other words, let the stupid commies riot and shoot first. I'll shoot BACK.

I'm for LEGAL IMMIGRATION. I am NOT for amnesty of those here illegally. Too bad, so sad, but my family and I were dirt effing poor and we managed not to break US law when we entered. I expect the same of anyone else.

I'm a Free Market guy. I DO believe government should enforce fraud laws, simplify the Tax code to a few pages instead of 80,000, and we should be breaking up monopolies(as they are, counter to left wing propaganda, antithetical to the free market), and we should not be rewarding laziness through socialist programs.

I'm a Christian and mostly pro Israel. This is not to say that I agree with EVERYTHING Israel does, and it does not mean that I am anti-Muslim. What it does mean is that I support the Right of Israel to exist and will defend that right, and I will stand in opposition to Radical Islam and those who tell me I should be tolerant of a religion that is vastly intolerant of me.

The point is, while I share most aspects with my Conservative friends. I have Liberal leanings as well. To label oneself or others strictly one thing or another is ridiculous.

I will say this, I have become more and more conservative over time. The older I get, the more I see, the more I begin to lean in Conservative ways. I used to be anti-Israel, I used to fancy the idea that socialist ideas could work, I used to believe that Christians we morons and generally bad people...I was even pro-Obama not so long ago(I turned against the dude even before the election)...It took some time for me to understand how I actually felt about things, and when I began to take a less conflict oriented and emotionally reactionary approach to things I began to change my mind on a lot of things.

People change, some do anyway. Things are not always black and white..


As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.

edit on 28-2-2011 by projectvxn because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 02:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by projectvxn
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

Except that Union membership is about 12% of the working population and people who staunchly describe themselves as "Liberal" are only 20% of the electorate.


Since you fail to provide a source I have to assume you are talking about this Poll from June of last year?
www.gallup.com...

I might direct you Rasmussen, a conservative pollster, for a more recent poll that shows 35% to 35%, Democrat vs. Republican.
www.gallup.com...

Or to this recent Poll showing 53% of ALL AMERICANS are opposed to reducing pay and benefits for state workers.
www.gallup.com...

It is not 20% of Americans who describe themselves as "Liberals" who oppose screwing over teachers to pay for the misdeeds of David Koch et al who caused the financial crisis...it is the MAJORITY of Americans who find it outrageous

I will give you a hint how you BSed your way A to Z. You started by assuming that only self defined "liberals" think what Walker is doing is corrupt.


Originally posted by projectvxn
I HOPE I am not alone when I say that letting such a tiny proportion of the overall electorate/workforce undermine the stability of society because they want some kind of stupid socialist "revolution" is ridiculous.


Propaganda fit for a dictatorship....Do what we say or society will crumble and socialists will take over.

It sounds like something Gaddafi would say.


edit on 28-2-2011 by maybereal11 because: (no reason given)
extra DIV



posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 02:55 PM
link   
reply to post by maybereal11
 


1. Democrats and Liberals are NOT the same thing even though Liberals are often found among the ranks of Democrats.

2. The only numbers I gave out were 12% and 20%

I don't care if people think not cutting pay and benefits is a good idea. THERE'S NO MONEY. I don't favor cutting pay and benefits for anyone either. But at the end of the day it's either cut, or lay off.

WILL YOU PLEASE, stop following me from thread to thread with your personal attacks.

Second time I've asked you.



posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 05:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by projectvxn
I don't care if people think not cutting pay and benefits is a good idea. THERE'S NO MONEY. I don't favor cutting pay and benefits for anyone either. But at the end of the day it's either cut, or lay off.


Recind the tax breaks for the wealthiest two percent.

Money does not trickle down when we give them tax breaks. Nor does recinding those tax breaks effect hiring or consumption.



Originally posted by projectvxn
WILL YOU PLEASE, stop following me from thread to thread with your personal attacks.


Nothing personal, but I can see you are uncomfortable with having your ideas challenged. Please feel free to keep aping Glen Beck re: Commies and the dangers of the comming Communist revolution....but you are in the wrong place if you don't like being challenged on such BS.



posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 06:00 PM
link   
reply to post by maybereal11
 


When every rally you see is filled to the brim with commies as I have PROVEN to you time and time again, I begin to worry.

When people like Van Jones, self avowed commies are in the white house(or were) I worry.
When the democratic party embraces socialist ideology and tells us it's not, and when the republicans
turn a blind eye to it, I worry.


I know everything I need to know about commies from my parents who suffered under those criminals.

I don't care if you challenge me or my ideas. Do so with some tact and civility.
edit on 28-2-2011 by projectvxn because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 06:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aim64C

There's also a key difference in thinking, particularly when it comes to this month's hot topic - demonstrations.

In most rallies for liberal causes, you often hear: "we will not back down until we get [x] from [y]!" In other words - the liberal tends to want something from another group of people, and this is the basis for their demonstration. Be it higher wages, free healthcare, or some form of government service.


I know that you haven't specifically referred to the current protest going on in Wisconsin in the above quote but I think it would only be fair to point out that the unions in Wisconsin have already conceded to wage and pension concessions and it's apparent that it's the conservatives who refuse to compromise. IMO, when conservatives like John Boehner attempt to demonize the word "compromise," it's a clear indication that they will settle for nothing less than dictatorial authority.


There are two or three general ways this can play out. The first is to take a conservative approach at the national level. This will be one that the liberals have to suck up and take - but it would allow each state more authority and some states could become their own liberal haven while others could become conservative constructs. This would allow separate ways of life but a unified set of nation states - and would, honestly, be similar to the type of environment the Founders would have envisioned (though I get the feeling most would have chosen to live in a more conservative region of the nation - they would not have seen it as appropriate to interfere with another state's right to govern itself).

The second is to actually have two separate nations. Along with this is a relatively 'new' idea of a "virtual nation" - something only possible with the internet, where geographic location has little to do with government jurisdiction. The mechanics of such a thing would be rather tricky - but it is a little more agreeable to those who would want to stay where they are at, but not live in a hippie commune or whatever.

The third is civil war.


I think you may have forgotten about a possible fourth scenario in which the liberals/democrats get their way and the ultra rich corporate conservatives have to "suck it up" and start paying their fair share of taxes. Maybe the Wall Street bankers might have to "suck it up" and forego those multi million dollar bonuses. Maybe the ratio of CEO to worker pay should return to the level it was during this nation's industrial boom, you know, somewhere in the neighborhood of 30 to 1 instead of the current level of 300+ to 1.



This would be an ideological war akin to the tribal conflicts that have been going on in the Middle East for centuries. The killing would go on long after we remembered what we were killing for.


I don't know if you noticed or not but the only weapon I've seen the "liberal" Wisconsin demonstrators carrying are drums. I haven't seen one image of any of them with firearms strapped to their sides. I just attended a rally this past weekend in support of the Wisconsin protestors and the only ones there carrying guns were the 5 or 6 conservative bikers that showed up to counter our rally. Thankfully, they left the scene as soon as they became outnumbered. I'll let you guess who our state troopers were shadowing the whole time.

Those who seek violence will be the ones to find it. I only hope that the majority of America is more civilized than that.



posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 06:48 PM
link   
reply to post by maybereal11
 



Recind the tax breaks for the wealthiest two percent.

Money does not trickle down when we give them tax breaks.


There's the disconnect.

Liberal: "We won't give in until we get..."

Conservative: "We won't give in until we get rid of..."

Not to mention balancing the budget and attempting to engineer an economy are two completely different goals. Although, on that same topic - a liberal will be silly enough to try and use the government to engineer the economy while the conservative will only use the government to interfere in business operations where absolutely necessary to preserve a competitive environment (no market can genuinely be "free" - particularly in markets with high start-up costs or hinged around scarce resources/trade-knowledge)


Nor does recinding those tax breaks effect hiring or consumption.


And it somehow helps by...?

The problem with defaulting to "raise taxes on the wealthy" every time you run into a spending crisis is the inherent problem of unequal taxation. Taxing economic classes disproportionately is a pretty shady business. What percentage of the vote do the top 2% of area wage earners command? Well, theoretically, about 2%. So, it should not be difficult to use the democratic and republic system we have for extortion, when people realize they can vote themselves a living with the upper 2, 10, even 20% of wage earners being completely helpless.

At least if I were to grab a gun and hold you up to steal your money, I don't do it under the banner of patriotism.

The only real solution to spending problems is to spend less. That's why it's called a "spending problem" or "deficit spending." Of course, I'm talking to a nation with a $51,000 per-capita personal consumer debt. Expecting the majority to understand the concept of a balanced budget is setting the bar too high.

reply to post by Flatfish
 



I think you may have forgotten about a possible fourth scenario in which the liberals/democrats get their way and the ultra rich corporate conservatives have to "suck it up" and start paying their fair share of taxes. Maybe the Wall Street bankers might have to "suck it up" and forego those multi million dollar bonuses. Maybe the ratio of CEO to worker pay should return to the level it was during this nation's industrial boom, you know, somewhere in the neighborhood of 30 to 1 instead of the current level of 300+ to 1.


This is not a possible scenario. Or, I should say - it is the open war scenario.

It is the inherent difference between conservative and liberal ideologies.

The conservative would be perfectly fine letting New York turn into a socialist nanny-state (provided he didn't live there). If the National government is conservative, each state is free to choose economic systems and methods that best suit the whims of their populations. The Nation simply exists to solve disputes between states and provide for the common defense (by en large).

The same with two separate nations (though that will likely come with its own trials and tribulations).

The problem with the liberals "getting their way" is that it is incompatible with conservative lifestyles. The conservative will feel oppressed. Attempts to turn a state conservative within a liberal nation are impossible - as the liberal nation would become the central and uniform power (as the very concept of liberalism will tend towards continual expansion of national powers and authority over the states).

The only recourse available to the conservative to protect his/her way of lifestyle is to declare and assert independence.

This will, invariably, result in open war.


I don't know if you noticed or not but the only weapon I've seen the "liberal" Wisconsin demonstrators carrying are drums.


How naive.

It doesn't take a liberal shooting around like an even more spectacular nutcase. A firearm is far too individual of a weapon - it's not the mob weapon of choice. The human body, rocks, sticks, etc are the weapon of the mob. It all starts peacefully - but as tensions mount and people want to show off and express their dislike and/or fear of a given authority - they begin to subscribe to group-think and do things like throw rocks, harass officers, etc.

It's a game of chicken, really. Who can be more intimidating?

Obviously, the armed officials have the far more intimidating power of a firearm - and escalation will dictate its eventual employment.

At that point, it quickly becomes a "them versus us" environment where "they" are the police, military, and government.

Right there is the spark that lights the inferno. The default reaction towards police, military, and government changes from dissenting to hostile, and officers have little choice but to act in self defense - further deepening the rift.

By this time, order is virtually impossible to restore baring genocide. Either the conflicting ideologies will massacre each other, or the government forces will.



posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 07:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aim64C
Unless you have been under a rock, you're aware that there are two main ideological camps in the U.S. - Conservatism and Liberalism.

The two are mutually incompatible within any given issue. To understand why, you must understand the difference between a conservative and liberal principle. You'll find many conservatives and liberals don't really understand their own position, but that typically defines the average person with most issues.

A conservative ideal is that of non-interference. To conserve is to apply in a limited and controlled fashion. A government conservative would, thus, apply government in a limited and controlled fashion.

A liberal ideal is that of collective interference. To liberate is to set free and, in the case of liberal, apply heavily. A government liberal would apply government heavily and often.


Understanding ideology is the KEY to understanding politics.

In America we have three groups,Republicans,Libertarians and Democrats. Libertarians
are not represented by their own party.
The Republicans are not conservative.
The Democrats are not liberals.
The Libertarians are not constitutionalists.

Ideology is a complex philosophy.

Ideologies are systems of abstract thought applied to public matters and thus make this concept central to politics. Implicitly every political tendency entails an ideology whether or not it is propounded as an explicit system of thought.


Thus by that definition it is impossible for the average person of low IQ to have an abstract ideology.
What the average person has is a POLITICAL PERSONALITY which is an expression of their personality.

The three personalities are: PREDATOR,INDEPENDENT,ALTRUISTIC.
The Predator (Republican) seeks control which is slavery and warfare:capitalism.
The Independent(Libertarian) seeks to be left alone:pacifism,libertarian philosophy.
The Altruist (Democrat) seeks to share and help:socialism.

Each group when given power will embrace fascism as power corrupts.
All three worship money and power though from a different point of view.
They may do the same thing but from a different point of view.
The Predator Republican may view fluoridation of your water as control over you,
while the Altruist Democrat may view it as good for you.
The Republican may view taxes as a form of slavery to take money
from the poor and give to the rich, while the
Democrat views it as a form of socialism to take
money from the rich and give it to the poor.

It is important to note that Republican and Democrat
politicians do not represent their ideology or even
their personality. They represent the elite rich.

The PTB use the strategy of divide and conquer to set these groups apart.

Republicans are against abortion because they are not conservatives but predators who
seek control of people.
Republicans seek to control you for their own good,Democrats seek to control you
for your own good.

Most people do not understand their own position. They think they
are logical but their positions arise from personality feelings.
Thus you have this absurd situation where a dirt poor Republican
will vote for lower taxes for the rich because they believe that
someday they might be rich and they want to be predators.
Democrats will give up their
freedom,as in gun rights, because they think it will make
you safer and they want to make that sacrifice.

As long as people identify themselves with a limited
point of view arising from personality this conflict
between capitalist(predator) and socialist(altruist) will continue and
has resulted in civil wars before.
If the middle class is eliminated
by the NWO then the poor will be to busy surviving and
will only think in terms of class warfare.
The people enslave themselves.

Anybody agree?



posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 09:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by projectvxn
reply to post by maybereal11
 


When people like Van Jones, self avowed commies are in the white house(or were) I worry.
When the democratic party embraces socialist ideology and tells us it's not, and when the republicans
turn a blind eye to it, I worry.


I know everything I need to know about commies from my parents who suffered under those criminals.

I don't care if you challenge me or my ideas. Do so with some tact and civility.
edit on 28-2-2011 by projectvxn because: (no reason given)


Argentina? Brazil? Columbia?...This is not Latin America...we don't have communist rebels and we don't have right wing Death Squads either. We have freedom of speech.

I am certain that your parents and others suffered at the hands of communists in Latin America.

And as legitimate thier grievances are, the fact remains that this is not Latin America and pretending it is for rhetorical purposes is dishonest and frankly unchecked "baggage" brought over from south America.

IMO opinion your view on the matter is emotionally driven, unsupported, reactionary to your family history, not applicable to USA and serves the agenda of fear mongers like Glen Beck and far right interests.

Glad that your parents made it to the USA and hopefully they and you have not been changed by thier suffering to become as intolerant of open debate as the communists they suffered under were....That is always the risk, becoming the beast we battle.


edit on 1-3-2011 by maybereal11 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 01:16 PM
link   
I would state that ideology is essentially pointless to argue when approaching America politics. Its such a mucked up mess of overlapping contradictions that you can't even begin to untangle it. Examples:

Obama associates with former Communists such as Van Jones, and spoke in favor of Vermont's openly Socialist senator Bernie Sanders. Meanwhile, he appoints free-market idealists such as Jason Furman (employed by the World Bank) and Austan Goolsbee (a Chicago-school economist) to his economic policy advisory team.

George W. Bush's cabinet included Paul Wolfowitz, a former member of the Social Democrats USA - a quasi-socialist organization that can read about here.

Bill Clinton enacted the majority of free-market reforms in this country since Reagan, through signing NAFTA into law (first developed by George H.W. Bush). He also claimed that his foreign policy was based on "peace through strength." Meanwhile, he appointed Penn Kemble, a leading member of the Social Democrats USA, to be the acting director of the US Information Agency.

Ronald Reagan moved the country in a more Chicago-school direction and took serious anti-union moves, while establishing protectionist trade policies here at home. He also believed in "peace through strength" as a counter to the Soviet Union, yet his surrounded himself with former socialists and social democrats, including the aforementioned Penn Kemble, Jeane J. Kirkpatrick, and Elliot Abrams.

Jimmy Carter, while seeking peace in the Middle East, armed and funded the Afghan rebels to wage war against the Soviet forces. Despite claiming to be for the "little guy", he deregulated large portions of American industry.

Richard Nixon, a Republican, who move the country away from Chicago-school ideology and directly into Keynesian territory.

Neo-conservatives, who claim to promote free-market ideals, sees no problem with the development of the military-industrial complex as taxpayer expense, as well as massive subsidies to the markets, also a tax payer expense.

Almost every free-marketeer in the nation supports the ideas of regulatory councils and the Federal Reserve, as well as tax-payer funded bail-outs.

In order to counter leftist ideologies and promote capitalism across the globe, the United States called on the help of Israel, a country that was far-left throughout the entire Cold War.

The list can really go on and on.



posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 01:23 PM
link   
reply to post by projectvxn
 


If you post in a thread, and the persons reply to you is on topic, how can you legitimately complain about that?

I often see the same people in the threads I post in too, because we share the same interests. Anyhoo.

I just find it amusing that the right thing to do is always to cut profit from the lower classes in the form of slashing wages, not cutting profit from the upper classes in the form of higher taxation.

Cut spending, increase revenue, both are ways to deal with budget deficits. And since corporate America is having a banner year with double digit profits, and main street America is NOT doing so well, I find it even more interesting that people think the right thing to do is tax the poor in the form of wage cuts.



posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 01:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by projectvxn
I will say this, I have become more and more conservative over time. The older I get, the more I see, the more I begin to lean in Conservative ways. I used to be anti-Israel, I used to fancy the idea that socialist ideas could work, I used to believe that Christians we morons and generally bad people...I was even pro-Obama not so long ago(I turned against the dude even before the election)...It took some time for me to understand how I actually felt about things, and when I began to take a less conflict oriented and emotionally reactionary approach to things I began to change my mind on a lot of things.


Hereby shaking your hands. Im also a center-left turned center-right with age and wisdom.

To the OP: They are compatible when in the center, when moderate, when balanced. Emotionally ill people lack balance. They talk in extremes. Centrists seek compromise and find common ground. They are ALWAYS Compatible.
edit on 1-3-2011 by Skyfloating because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 01:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating

Hereby shaking your hands. Im also a center-left turned center-right with age and wisdom.


It could be age and wisdom. It could also be fear.

As we get older we tend to accumulate things. And as we accumulate things, we tend to grow attached to them and want to keep them for ourselves. Both the "left" and "right" wing ideologies are self serving, and its not surprising at all that the left tends to appeal to the young and the right to the old.

The young want opportunity. The old want to hold on to their position.



posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 02:03 PM
link   
I found myself agreeing with the "Altruist" description, I am honest and open (UN-ashamed) about my Socialist leanings.
Your incompatibility theme applies to ---marriages--- which have legitimate divorce cases based upon such. And so, why not political ideology. I just don't know what I'd do, if some Ayn Rand-like right wing Neocon Republicans came in to Power, killed Social Security and abolished environmental regulation. It would just kill me, literally, figuratiely, spiritually, psychiatricaly. I DON'T EVER EVER want to live under that kind of rule, it is UNACCEPTABLE.
edit on 1-3-2011 by simone50m because: edit



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 04:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Someone336
I would state that ideology is essentially pointless to argue when approaching America politics. Its such a mucked up mess of overlapping contradictions that you can't even begin to untangle it.

If Ideology is Personality then it is pointless to argue but important to understand.
The contradictions arise because it is not logical but emotional.
American politics is
driven by the NWO elite who are interested in the accumulation of power,control
and money for the elite.
Obama represents them not socialism. The health
care bill was capitalist,forcing people to buy private insurance, though 0 said
himself that would be like forcing homeless people to buy homes.
edit on 2-3-2011 by RRokkyy because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics


active topics

 
4

log in

join