What's your idealogy?

What's Your Idealogy

  • Monarchist

    Votes: 1 7.1%
  • Fascist

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Conservative

    Votes: 2 14.3%
  • Capitalist

    Votes: 2 14.3%
  • Right-Center

    Votes: 3 21.4%
  • Moderate

    Votes: 2 14.3%
  • Left-Center

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Socialist

    Votes: 4 28.6%
  • Communist

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Anarchist

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    14

Users who are viewing this thread

All Else Failed

Well-Known Member
Messages
10,205
Reaction score
1
Tokenz
0.00z
That's a fair enough point. I was in fact more refering more to Communism. In my defense though, the line between the two is pretty fuzy, and it moves around a lot.



Now I totally don't get what you're talking about. I thought you were a big WWII European theator guy. How could you possibly think the Russia was incapable of taking over Europe at the end of the war?
Communism and lets say, democratic socialism are pretty different. Communism generally tends to be autocratic, while socialist states generally tend to be democratic.


Russia was strong at the end of WW2, but not strong enough to risk ANOTHER large scale war, especially against us and our allies.
 
  • 47
    Replies
  • 1K
    Views
  • 0
    Participant count
    Participants list

Tim

Having way too much fun
Valued Contributor
Messages
13,518
Reaction score
43
Tokenz
111.11z
If you're talking about Latin America, that was a one or the over the edge here, but this e gone a little over the edge here, but it was either stop the cold war on every front, including stopping the soviet backed nations in Latin America, or hope for the best. Plus, Reagan probably didn't know about the huge amount of mass murder.
Besides, taking down the USSR makes up for almost everything. He could have taken every dollar in the world bank and put it on the moon for alien overlords, as long as he got rid of the soviet union, a lot of stuff can be forgotten.

Saying that Reagan took down the soviet union would be the same as me going to a building scheduled for implosion, standing in front of it and yelling "Take this building down!" the moment they push the button.
We would have both done the same thing... nothing.

Reagan was not the cause of the fall of the soviet empire, he just happened to be at the wheel when it did fall.
 

BadBoy@TheWheel

DT3's Twinkie
Messages
20,999
Reaction score
2
Tokenz
0.06z
Communism and lets say, democratic socialism are pretty different. Communism generally tends to be autocratic, while socialist states generally tend to be democratic.


Russia was strong at the end of WW2, but not strong enough to risk ANOTHER large scale war, especially against us and our allies.

No but they were strong enough to attempt the invasion of Afghanistan, and they were certainly powerful enough with intelligence and r&d both nuclear and bio to be of great help to a threat we didn't yet know we had.
 

All Else Failed

Well-Known Member
Messages
10,205
Reaction score
1
Tokenz
0.00z
No but they were strong enough to attempt the invasion of Afghanistan, and they were certainly powerful enough with intelligence and r&d both nuclear and bio to be of great help to a threat we didn't yet know we had.
If I remember correctly, they were booted out of Afghanistan rather easily. :p


All of that being true about bio and nuclear, they weren't stupid enough to try and invade Europe, the U.S. alone would have easily repelled them.
 

IntruderLS1

Active Member
Messages
2,489
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z

BadBoy@TheWheel

DT3's Twinkie
Messages
20,999
Reaction score
2
Tokenz
0.06z
I thought we were talking about a world without U.S. intervention? Jo Stalin was ready to throw down, it was the West that was too war weary to stand up to him. I could go for weeks on this subject. :nod:

As far as him not being able to invade the European continent, the Soviets took Berlin and kept everything East of it. That's already close to 50% isn't it?



Easily isn't a word I would insult the vets of that war with. That was a bare knuckle brawl. Massive sacrifice on both sides.

And one that eventually took our intervention, and to my knowledge, the Soviets would have won had it not been for the mighty fist of....Well us;)
 

All Else Failed

Well-Known Member
Messages
10,205
Reaction score
1
Tokenz
0.00z
I thought we were talking about a world without U.S. intervention? Jo Stalin was ready to throw down, it was the West that was too war weary to stand up to him. I could go for weeks on this subject. :nod:

As far as him not being able to invade the European continent, the Soviets took Berlin and kept everything East of it. That's already close to 50% isn't it?



Easily isn't a word I would insult the vets of that war with. That was a bare knuckle brawl. Massive sacrifice on both sides.
True, the Soviets had a large chunk of Europe, BUT, I just don't think they would risk having our military decimate them if they ever tried to go any further. They knew they would be.


Yes, I shouldn't have used "easy". Both sides deserve recognition for their struggle.
 

Peter Parka

Well-Known Member
Messages
42,387
Reaction score
3
Tokenz
0.06z
I dunno, this poll is quite confusing, it's possible to be a monarchist and a lot of other things at the same time. My country is currently a monarchist and labour government, before that it was a monarchist and conservative government. I really don't understand this poll.:confused
 

Carthage

Minor
Messages
933
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
In general, what is your idealogical stance? Are you super right wing? Maybe conservative. Do you believe in a one party nationalist state? Fascist. Some, like Capitalism, are more for 'what is your biggest issue' kind of thing. I, for example, can stand a left-wing government, just as long as the buisnesses are free. I'm more of a conservative, but I'm okay with liberatarianism. Capitalism takes precedence.

So I should just say, pick the one you feel strongest toward.
 

DavyBoy

DH+MM=Good Maths ♥
Messages
200
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
Okay, warning, the following is a Very Long Post.

I only wrote this a couple of days ago, but I think it's quite relevant to this topic:

Right and left - A psychological, and personal perspective.

I've always been fascinated by different political ideologies, trying to understand why we choose them. Undoubtedly, the beliefs of our parents, peers, teachers, and other notable figures have a great influence during our adolescence, but after a while we develop our own ideas, and our own individual world views.

So, what leads one to be an anarchist, or a conservative, or a moderate, or a libertarian? Surely, above and beyond our upbringings, our personalities must play a large factor in this.

I guess there's nobody I know better than myself, so I make a good example for this purpose. I cared little for politics until the age of about 14 or 15. I came from a fairly politically conservative environment - my Mum fits pretty well in the mould of a conservative christian liberal/national voter, while my Dad leans further to the right as a former One Nation (controversial anti-immigration party) supporter, and assisted in the local campaign back in 1998, somewhat to my Mum's dismay.

At the time when I started exploring political ideas, I was introduced to a very black and white picture of right and left - an 'us' of conservatives, Christian fundamentalists, Republicans and John Howard, and a 'them' of Labor, the Greens, pro-choicers and Karl Marx.

However, soon enough my (practically non-existent, anyhow) 'faith' in Christianity had disappeared, and with it went a lot of my preconceived views. Why exactly, was it wrong for people to be in same-sex relationships? Was the death penalty really an appropriate method of punishment? I still very much identified myself as a conservative, but gradually, I found myself identifying less and less with traditional conservative ideas.

Now I find myself, for all intents and purposes, a centrist - whatever that means. I still hold strong views on some subjects that might seem appropriate for a conservative (such as abortion), but I no longer see myself as having any partisan identifications, nor do I (in my own mind, or through my beliefs) identify myself as a conservative or a right-winger. Indeed, rather than the 'us' or 'them' world of my early teenage years, I now see many, many arguments, all deserving of and requiring consideration. I also see that not everybody really fits within such easily definable moulds such as 'left' or 'right', but if they do, they often align themselves with a specific ideology or political party.

So then, why is it that such people choose these sides to place themselves on? Is it, as I mused a few years back, a division between idealism and realism? Or, as those on the left might counter, a division between selflessness and selfishness?

Of course, I no longer believe it to be nearly that simple. However, I do believe that there must be simple human traits, qualities and emotions that are more dominant on either side of politics. Returning to myself - I know that my journey from a conservative to a moderate has been accompanied with a growth in experience, an increased thirst for knowledge and analysis, and perhaps most importantly, large doses of skepticism and cynicism. Are these traits more related to the 'left-wing', and is this a trend that will continue until I directly associate myself with the left side of politics, or is this as 'left' as I'm ever going to get (keeping in mind the famous Churchill quote, "If you are not a liberal by age 20, you have no heart; if you are not a conservative by age 40, you have no brain")? I honestly don't know, but all I know right now is that I avoid such labels and share an equal skepticism for both sides of politics.

Of course, another factor to consider is that perceptions of left and right change dramatically over time. A few centuries ago, Britain's right/left divide seems to have been quite squarely centred on the issue of monarchy, and yet in the last decade, democracy has been the catch-cry of America's neo-conservatives. Similarly, issues such as women's suffrage and racial equality were the domain of radicals once upon a time, but now are concepts generally accepted by all but the fringes of society.

There's the saying that all types make a world, and I have considered many times in the past that perhaps a left and a right are necessary in any functioning society - a right (forgive the blatant stereotyping for a second) to ensure the smooth running and structural enforcement of the society, and a left to provide its soul, its art, and its ability to progress. Of course, I could be completely wrong, or attributing qualities that are actually present on either side of politics.

In the end, however, I cannot see the left/right divide as a good thing. Frankly, I see it as, just like religion, culture, language and race, yet another way for people to isolate themselves in small groups. It is a shame that these 'us and them' mentalities emerge, when really, politics and philosophy should be areas that encourage free, frank and honest discussion with the goal of understanding. I hope that that is how I spend the remainder of my life - not a mouthpiece for another person's beliefs, or a devotee of a preconceived ideology. Rather, I want to always be open to any argument, any debate, and any opinion - not being conservative or liberal, tory or whig, republican or democrat, right or left. Just me.
 

Peter Parka

Well-Known Member
Messages
42,387
Reaction score
3
Tokenz
0.06z
In general, what is your idealogical stance? Are you super right wing? Maybe conservative. Do you believe in a one party nationalist state? Fascist. Some, like Capitalism, are more for 'what is your biggest issue' kind of thing. I, for example, can stand a left-wing government, just as long as the buisnesses are free. I'm more of a conservative, but I'm okay with liberatarianism. Capitalism takes precedence.

So I should just say, pick the one you feel strongest toward.

Well I agree with the monarchy but it's not a political view seeing our monarchy has no power. I really don't see Monarchy these days as a political ideology.
Other than that, I don't have an ideology anyway, there are good and bad about most ideologies. I just think what I think and don't give a shit if it falls under one movement or the other. I have some very right wing ideas on some things and some very left wing views on others. I also have a lot of middle of the road ideas too. At the next election I'll be voting Conservative but not because I am one. I'm just sick of the lies and spin Labour has fed us and the Liberals just sit on the fence offering unrealistic policies and suck up to whichever side is winning. I think it is never a good thing when one political party keeps power for a long time.
 

Peter Parka

Well-Known Member
Messages
42,387
Reaction score
3
Tokenz
0.06z
while my Dad leans further to the right as a former One Nation (controversial anti-immigration party) supporter, and assisted in the local campaign back in 1998, somewhat to my Mum's dismay.

Oh God! They were a bunch of idiots! Led by a fish and chip shop worker woman, Pauline Hanson, with no ideas about politics. LMAO when it was discovered that her economic policy of a blanket tax on everything would send Australia bankrupt in a year!

Love this thing that drag queen did about her!:24:

YouTube - I Don't Like It - Pauline Pantsdown / Pauline Hanson
 

Carthage

Minor
Messages
933
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
Well I agree with the monarchy but it's not as a political ideology.
Other than that, I don't have an ideology anyway, there are good and bad about most ideologies. I just think what I think and don't give a shit if it falls under one movement or the other. I have some very right wing ideas on some things and some very left wing views on others. I also have a lot of middle of the road ideas too. At the next election I'll be voting Conservative but not because I am one. I'm just sick of the lies and spin Labour has fed us and the Liberals just sit on the fence offering unrealistic policies and suck up to whichever side is winning. I think it is never a good thing when one political party keeps power for a long time.

:yahoo:
I may not agree with the reasons behind it, but at least you're voting conservative!
May I assume you're from jolly ole England, then?
 

Peter Parka

Well-Known Member
Messages
42,387
Reaction score
3
Tokenz
0.06z
Yep, I'm from England. The conservatives are finally seeming to get their shit together after they virtually destroyed themselves under Major, they still seem to be about a lot of spin though. However, Labour has got too complacent and think they can get away with anything seeing the've been in power nearly 11 years now, they need a good kick up the arse!
 
78,875Threads
2,185,391Messages
4,959Members
Back
Top