liberal or conservative?

Fiscal conservative.

There's so much on this thread I agree with I'm not going to bother trying to quote. For the record I consider myself socially liberal and fiscally moderate/progressive.

I agree we've effectively twisted all meaning out of the words 'conservative' and 'liberal' in the US. It's why I'm an independent - neither party practices it's doctrine and hasn't for some time. Republican does not equal "conservative" by any stretch of the imagination, just as much as Democrat does not equal "liberal." We have a Republican party that's dominated by social conservatives with little to no fiscal responsibility and a Democratic party that panders to corporations (in practice, not preach) and caves on civil liberties. Goldwater in particular must be spinning in his grave so fast his corpse could power Phoenix.

Anymore the word 'conservative' connotes "hard line Jesus freak" and 'liberal' means "naive snob."

The US (in particular) is too large and complex for only two official major party lines to be effective, which is probably why so many voters have gone for McCain and Obama. Neither is as iconoclastic as his image, of course, but they are (for different reasons) appealing to people who desire a little less bullshit and a little more pragmatism.

If I labelled myself I think I'd be
Fiscal Conservative
Social Liberal

aka independent

That's sort of like libertarian (the philosophy, not the political party.)

Ultra-Liberal, Free Thinker, Libertarian, Traditionalist here. Yes it's possible to mess them all together, but it's not easy.

I have a friend who is married and has two children and he's the most liberal person that I know. I have some ultra-conservative friends (not many), and they keep me grounded.

My conservative and liberal leanings change according to the issue at hand. Some matters bring about a conservative stance, others draw out my liberal views. I'm registered as a Democrat; however, I often vote Republican, Conservative and even Green Party (but never the right to life party-they sicken me).

conservatives like to spend a lot of money :(

conservatives say the National Debt is good because they are spending money on us :(:(

You're oversimplifying an argument for deficit spending being good for the economy, which has been part of what's accepted, by some, as conservative philosophy for a while now. But traditional fiscal conservatism means less spending, smaller government, smaller budgets, balanced budgets, less regulation, lower taxes. Neocons have kept the less regulation and lower taxes part and done away with all the rest even while preaching that they are still the party of small government, which is now absolutely preposterous.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Love-it http://www.lpsg.org/images36/buttons/viewpost.gif
Fiscal conservative.

conservatives like to spend a lot of money :(

conservatives say the National Debt is good because they are spending money on us :(:(

Thank you, that pretty well covers it. It may help to explain my position if you know that I come from a small town in Vermont, town meetings and conservative until the out of state liberals came in and took over.

I say, TO HELL with big business. When most of the large companies outsource for jobs, they become traitors to our country and it's people. I think the leaders of these companies should be rounded up, taken to some border town, and ass-kicked out of this country for good and confiscate everything they own for being the criminals they are.

Bbucko, I think I'm an Anarchist too!

The Language Police: How Pressure Groups Restrict What Students Learn by Diane Ravitch (2003) Alfred A. Knopf, hardback, 255 pages. $24.00.


What’s not to like?
It’s always a pleasure seeing the smug and self-righteous exposed in the daylight of public opinion. In this case, the smug, politically correct folks, usually from the left, and the self-righteous social conservatives (to use the politically correct term for religious fundamentalists) seem to have the same agenda: The control of what our children learn from textbooks. What goes out the window is historical accuracy and cultural reality, not to mention any semblance of what literature means. Science especially suffers. Evolution, the backbone of modern biology, cannot be mentioned in some textbooks since it might offend certain religious pressure groups. For fear of upsetting leftish visions, a careful balance of ethnic minorities must be maintained making it difficult, if not impossible, to present history accurately.
Textbook publishers are eager to please. All of the major American publishers of schoolbooks are divisions of large corporations. Each year they consolidate and merge giving even less choice. Their primary concern is the bottom line. Small publishers cannot afford the multi-million dollar development costs. Any pressure group, left or right, is going to be listened to. After all, almost any Miss Grundy can stop a multi-national in its tracks with a well-placed letter to a state board of education.
So guidelines are developed, filtering committees are put in place, and everything becomes bland and muddled from the cumulative affects of removing anything that smacks of controversy. No wonder the philo-babble of films like “The Matrix Reloaded” holds so much appeal. Modern students are rarely exposed to real philosophy or the great political debates of this generation or those of our forebears.

Or this:
Berkeley to Marines: You're 'not welcome in our city'

Berkeley to Marines: You're 'not welcome in our city' - CNN.com

I do think multi-culturalism & political correctness is an abandonment of the cultivation of character

I try not to view too many things through Liberal or Conservative eyes. Nothing on this planet is that cut & dry. However, if there was any way I could push the concept of "common sense" as a political party, I'd be on it in a heartbeat.