Well Cerek - when I say they were the more credible alternative it was by the narrowest of margins - it was a case of dumb or dumber ;) , and unlike you guys over there I don't get a choice of not turning up to the electoral booth and registering a choice. I get a pointlessly nasty little fine if I abstain from voting.

I conidered writing on the ballot paper somethng along the lines of how they were both a bunch of donkey bottom wipers, but it just got easier to put a number in a box and move on.

Is America the only country in which liberal is considered to be on the 'bleeding heart' side of the spectrum?

As far as I know, the textbook definition of a liberal would be one that suits the average conservative in the US - freedom from interference in your life being top.

My understanding of textbook Republicanism however is a more community-based system and by all accounts more intrusive.

Is my understanding wrong? Or is America unique here in its usage of the terms?

I can't remember if this has been posted on IW before but a good summary of what being left and right actually means can be found here.

It's worth checking out the links on the left for
"The Extreme Right/English Party Chart" and also the one below for the US elections.

The analysis is a great illustration of where different world leaders would be, but if you want to take the test to find out where you are, then do that first!!

You are correct, this is largely due to the nature of our independence. The founding fathers' vision would be considered very liberal in most of the world, however because it formed the basis for our nation those who try to preserve that ideal are termed as conservatives. American Conservatives (usually) desire to see at least some lip service paid to the desires of the founders, ie less interference by the federal gov't and more self-determination by the individual states. The passive (and not so passive) interference from the federal government seen largely in the Clinton administration (but in alot of the Republican administrations lately as well) of granting federal monies to be used in certain ways by the states would have had them up in arms. (The same as threatening to withhold federal monies for highway maintenance for not having the minimum blood alcohol level at .08 (or is it .06 now). The Ideal I personally would prefer is that block grants be given to the states and let them determine how it gets spent, rather than paying 100-1000 federal gov't civil servants to decide exactly how each penny must be spent. Granted when you have severely corrupt government officials at the state level it is hard to make sure the money is spent properly, but that's why voters need to carefully choose their representatives, and vote in primary elections when you can vote for the "best" cadidate, rather than on election day when you choose the lesser of two evils.

AFAIK left and right are the more universal terms than conservative and liberal.

The current administration has taken a more hands on approach than I'm happy with, especially when I read about security problems, border holes, etc. Much of the tasks of Homeland security could be better handled by state governments without their hands tied up by political correctness, with a few federal agencies to oversee special cases (essentially have homeland security being there primarily to audit state security, and help with watching our borders. There is a lot that needs to be done, and alot of house cleaning state and federal governments need to do to actually do their intended jobs effectively (I'd say efficiently, but we all should know that governments are pretty incapable of efficiency)

Interesting I'll check it out if I get a chance.

Great clarification there Morgeraut, thanks!

There's probably an argument for the government having one big homeland security agency in that some sort of rivalry always seems to spring up between smaller agencies which usually result in a reluctance to pass information on and help each other. I'd say you're probably safer the way it is now...

[ 02-28-2005, 12:04 PM: Message edited by: shamrock_uk ]

But the problem there is largely federal agencies that were getting territorial (or legally not able to share intel), I've read very little about state level law enforcement getting pissy and territorial about their "jurisdiction" not saying it doesn't exist, but I have seen remarkably little evidence of it.

{edit} my government teacher in my senior year of High School was a retired Oregon state trooper, and he remarked many times that the federal agencies usually got full cooperation from local law enforcement (unless they (the feds) were being assholes about whatever situation prompted federal intervention)

[ 02-28-2005, 12:12 PM: Message edited by: Morgeruat ]

Wow, it seems I'm actually Nelson Mandela [img]graemlins/wow.gif[/img]

Interesting, I come up as -1 to the left and -1.23 towards libertarian, almost smack dab in the middle of the graph.

Speaking of twisting, the site you pulled this from is anything but an unbiased source. As a bit of humor, your post is pretty good, as a coherent argument however, it's pathetic.
Attempting to present an argument by constantly using sources that are incredibly biased is laughably poor form. Opening a post with a general insult to the people you're attempting to debate with is rude.

Not that anything better can be expected of you... </font>[/QUOTE]YOU need to chill, Absynthe. That was totally uncalled for. </font>[/QUOTE]That's really too bad.
If this is how you want the forums to run, consider me gone. It's really too bad that ignorance, rudeness, and spitefulness is acceptable and now apparently even encouraged. I'd say I'm going to miss it, but what there is to miss has pretty much been squeezed out and stomped down in the last couple of years.
There was a time when debates about politics or religion went on for pages without any problems, but that ended when some people lost their cool. Now it's okay to be a jerk, but only if you're on the one side of the argument.
I truly hope this gets better, but with the way things are going now, it's not likely. </font>[/QUOTE]lol, you act like I kicked you in the stomach or something. All I asked is you cool it. You know you attacked him, and you know the rules. Just wanted you to cool off, it seemed you were angry at the time. [img]smile.gif[/img]

Sorry you feel that way about Ironworks. The mods and myself try as hard as we can--and I have pretty much dedicated my life to this forum. It's sad you see my hard work, and the mods in that light. :(

Well i think you do a great job.The moderation in the form is kept minimal, which is always good, but it never lets things slip. Without them the foru would exist, and i am truly thankful for all the work they put in.

But further to earlier points, i have noticed that debates do often turn into one extreme against another, with few in the middle or willing to compromise. Regretable, they also turn into personal attacks, as demonstrated by Absynthe. Your other points are valid, not to sya that i agree with all of them. But people are often quick to lose their temper and do the things that Absythne says. But reading your post it seems you are guilty of that which you accuse others of doing. However, that may be to do wit the internet's lack of ability to express tone of voice, which often leads to un-needed disputes.

<font color = lightgreen>Actually, the opposite of what you propose is true--the lack of body language and vocal inflection leads to increased clarity of communication because you focus only on what is being "said" (or typed, if you prefer). Once you click on "post reply" you have staked your claim and are "on the record"...except in cases where edits for spelling (or whatever) are needed. [img]graemlins/beigesmilewinkgrin.gif[/img] </font>