Actually, no. Ron is little more than a caricature and apparently he thought that the forum was amateur night at some comedy club.

Of course the outline doesn't fit everyone exactly. No general outline could fit everyone exactly. My point was that conservatives like guns and liberals generally don't.

Defining "common sense" with regard to business regulations is a matter of opinion. Look at the ergonomic regulations. When Bush repealed Clinton's rules regarding ergonomic regulations he did so because he felt that the regulations were too expensive. Bush apparently thought that common sense dictated that he save businesses from costs he believed were unreasonably high because not to do so would have hurt the businesses and by extension, the economy. Liberals complained about his repealing of the ergonomic rules because they thought that "common sense" dictated that human health and human lives are more important than any cost businesses would have to shoulder to comply with the new rules.

I don't think that Bush hated the workers adversely affected by ergonomic injuries and I don't think that Clinton and liberals hated businesses and wanted them to have to pay more money. The fact is that both sides were doing what they felt was "common sense." Conservatives normally side with business and liberals normally side with workers. I think that liberals would have been okay with bush's repeal IF he had found a way to alleviate the injuries associated with ergonomic injuries and I think Bush would have supported the ergonomic regulations IF there was a way to keep the costs low.

To say that Bush hates the American workers is not fair and to say that liberals are anti-business is not fair. Both sides are just doing what they feel is in society's best interest.

__________________
"George W. Bush surrounds himself with smart people the way a hole surrounds itself with a donut." —Dennis Miller

This will be good for the 15 year old kid trying to learn about politics. I will explain how PJ's post is biased.

**Note: When I write 'true' after a statement, it does not mean that I believe that the statement itself is true. It means that the statement is in fact representative of a belief of that political ideology. If you really want to get into which ones are true or not, ask me later.

PJ's conservative beliefs list.
Abortion: pro-life - True
Military: large and expensive military (including so-called star wars programs) - Somewhat true. Many conservatives opposed Star Wars.
Government: favor state's rights as opposed to strong federal government - True
Gay rights: homosexuality is a sin and the equal protection clause does not apply to gays False. Conservatives do not believe that the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment does not apply to gays. They believe that the clause cannot be construed to require the state to sanction homosexual marriage.
Affirmative Action: do not favor - True
Spending: fiscally conservative (spend less, tax less) - True
Size of government: small government - True
Business regulation: do not favor the strict enforcement of regulatory schemes set by congress because complying with regulations costs businesses money (i.e. Bush killed ergonomics regulations because he thought that enforcement would cost too much money) - This is somewhat true though too complex to get into here.
Guns: the more guns the better There is an obvious value judgement on the part of the author here based on the phrasing. Conservatives do not believe "the more guns the better." Rather they believe that law-abiding citizens ought to have the right to own guns. They believe that excessive regulations violate the 2nd amendment and insure that only criminals have access to guns.
Lawyers: generally consider lawyers to be a hindrance on business and favor tort reform in all areas - This requires qualification. Conservatives believe that lawyers have a proper place in society. They favor tort reform to encourage personal responsibility and discourage people from looking at businesses and doctors as potential litigants. Conservatives believe that tort reform can help reduce the cost of consumer goods, services, and healthcare.
International relations: who cares what a bunch of foreignors think about us? False. Again, the author's bias here is obvious. Conservatives, especially nationalistic ones, or neocons, tend to think that America must put its concerns ahead of the complaints of other countries. That is, just because France or Germany do not want us to do something, does not mean we should not do it. The simple way to put it is that Liberals are more internationalist while conservatives are more nationalist.
The war against terror: let's kill the terorists, the governments that harbor them and anyone who disagrees with us are not our allies anymore. - Mostly true, though over-simplified and biased.
God: God needs a bigger role in society. Public school prayer should be allowed, the ten commandments should be posted in public places, and faith based organizations should have equal access to federal money - half true. Many religious conservatives would like to see all of this happen, while plenty of fiscal conservatives would not.
Welfare: if people can't take care of themselves, they should get help from charities; taxation for welfare is theft - This is more a libertarian belief. Conservatives would like to see welfare stream-lined and more concentrated on private charities. Libertarians see taxation for any kind of handout as theft.
Corporate welfare: if corporations can't take care of themselves, they should get as much tax money as they need to keep their businesses profitable. Taxation for corporate welfare is just fine. - False. This is not a conservative belief. Sniveling republican congressman in the pockets of various special interests may believe this, but no true conservative believes his tax dollars should keep failing businesses afloat.
The environment: business is far more important than any possible danger to the environment. Innovation will fix any problems we cause. - The first sentence is false, the second is partially true. Conservatives do not believe there is a necessary conflict between protecting the environment and allowing businesses to be profitable and productive.
Drilling in the Arctic: go for it! - This issue is not really related to the liberal/conservative dichotomy. Plenty of liberals are for drilling and plenty of conservatives are not.
Bush: Bush is a good man and a great leader (some exceptions apply). - Partially true. Many conservatives do not like Bush's spending policies and many were against the war in Iraq.
Most hated group: lawyers - Eh, sort of true, not really relevant.
Outsourcing: Its hurts individuals, but it is good for the economy and the jobs created are usually better than the jobs we lose. - True

PJ's liberal belief list.
Abortion: pro-choice - True
Military: smaller military - True
Government: favor a strong federal government - True
Gay rights: gay marriage should be allowed because to deny gays the right to marry violates the Constitution. - True
Affirmative Action: favors - True
Spending: Tax more, spend more (this is in contrast to Bush's tax less, spend more policies that have been so successful) - True, and the author is right about Bush's idiotic spending policies.
Size of government: larger government - True
Business regulation: saving lives and protecting health is more important than the money businesses have to spend on protections for their workers and the environment. - True, liberals believe this, however there is an obvious value judgement made by the author. The premise in the author's statement is that government regulation "saves lives." I defy anyone to establish a causal connection between government regulations and less deaths.
Guns: guns are ok, but regulations are necessary - Partly true. many conservatives also believe exactly this. Many liberals believe all guns should be banned.
Lawyers: lawyers are honorable people who serve an important purpose (some exceptions apply) - lol, true, liberals do believe that lawyers are 'honorable'
International relations: alliances are important and goodwill internationally is equally important. - True
The war against terror: let's kill or capture the terrorists but let's not go crazy and invade any country unless absolutely necessary. Obvious bias by the author's phrasing and the tacit assumption that we are 'going crazy.'
God: God is fine, but religion should not overwhelm society - Pretty much true
Welfare: we have a responsibility to care for those who have fallen through society's cracks. Some wealth re-distribution is ok. - True
Corporate welfare: if corporations can't take care of themselves, they should get as much tax money as they need to keep their businesses profitable. Taxation for corporate welfare is just fine. - Not really true. Liberals believe certain individuals and businesses ought to get tax dollars and others should not. This is again a problem of politicians being controlled by special interests and not principles.
The environment: we should try to protect our world. Expensive regulations are acceptable. - True, they assume regulations must be expensive.
Drilling in the arctic: the amount of oil is small and the damage will be large and irreversible. Drilling should not be allowed. - True
Bush: Bush is an idiot and he does nothing right (some exceptions apply). - True
Most hated group: CEOs - haha, yes, true
Outsourcing: corporations that outsource are betraying the US by making most of their money here and exporting opportunities to other countries. - True

Take everything you read in a debate forum with a grain of salt. A lot of people here and all over the web have an axe to grind, especially people who mix their emotions with politics, which is never a good idea.

__________________
"The best part about hating people is that I never run out of great ideas."

~ Dogbert

Wow, many of those posts were very informative. I thank you guys so very much for being so respectful, and responding to my questions, everything given is much appreciated. Please, feel free to add more if you wish, as I am going to go take the test at politicalcompass.com

Some of those questions were a bit over my head. Didn't understand all of them. Kind of feel stupid, don't want to finish it, until I understand all the questions.

Good luck -- since it isn't.

Would you agree that in general, conservatives view programs like Star Wars more favorably than liberals? It may be true that "many conservatives opposed star wars," but liberals hated it. And, since Reagan and Bush both support(ed) it, it seemed reasonable to include it into the conservative beliefs.

Oh come on. You know what I meant here.

What you wrote here is the politically correct version of what I wrote. The fact is that conservatives have little regard for international opinion and the treaties this country has signed. I may have said it in a sarcastic way, but the end result is the same.

If it is "mostly true," then it must be at least a "little bit false." What is false about this statement? Do conservatives have a problem with killing terrorists? Do conservatives have a problem with toppling the governments that harbor them? Do conservatives consider countries like France and Germany our allies anymore? I submit that the only part that is even arguable is the third part and I included that because I have heard the President say "you are with us or you are with the terrorists." And, I have seen comservative commentators like Bill O'Reilly argue for boycotts of France and I have heard other commentators like Hannity openly admit that he doesn't believe countries like France are our allies anymore.

None of these people held this belief during the Afghanistan war because countries like France and Germany fought with us. So, it seems logical to conclude that the anti-France sentiment has occured with regard to their opposition to the Iraq war. Therefore, it seems as if conservatives believe that if a country disagrees with us, they are no longer our ally.

I think some conservatives might not want to see this happen, but I think the vast majority believe that a bigger role for God in society would be beneficial and that is the point I made.

Oops.

As you can see, I included the same thing in the liberal outline. The fact is that if "no true conservative" believes in corporate welfare then we should do something about it.

The operation of many businesses harm the environment but conservatives often don't support regulations that would protect the environment if the regulations would siphon some profit from the business. The rationale is that future innovation will cure the damage that is caused.

I think if you are honest with yourself, you will admit that conservatives are more comfortable with the idea of drilling in the ANWR than liberals. I have no doubt that some conservatives oppose it and some liberals support it, but an outline like this by necessity deals with generalities.

Bush's spending is why I added the "some exceptions apply" part.

Relevant to what? The outline? Apparently I disagree.


PJ's liberal belief list.

It is not a value judgement on my part. The fact is that that is how the liberals frame the argument. Whether proof of deaths can be shown is irrelevant to my decision to include the statement here.

Of course some do. Some conservatives would like to see them banned also. Some liberals want more guns. I am listing generalities. The fact is that most Americans believe in responsible gun ownership by responsible individuals. But, conservatives are MORE likely to frown on what they consider over-regulation and liberals are MORE likely to favor regulations (including strict regulations).

Again, this is how liberals frame the issue. Liberals support the war on terror, but most are against invasions unless ABSOLUTELY necessary and they feel that Bush's war in Iraq was unnecessary and rash.

Again, I added this to both lists to show that both sides allowed the politicians to get away with this.

Funny. You put true even though, above, you posited that "plenty of liberals" favor drilling in ANWR.

You know what is funny? You posted, above, that "PJO34 posted absurdly biased definitions that will do you little good" but you agreed with the vast majority. And, if you add in the definitions you partially agreed with, then it is legitimate to say that you only had a problem with a handful. Of the ones you had a problem with, most of your problem arose from the fact that I stated the argument the way liberals generally frame the issues. Also, with regard to others (Conservative: gay marriage, for example), you merely tried to find a problem where none existed. The fact is that the definitions were generally correct and no bias was intended.

You also make hay from the fact that some conservatives and liberals don't fit the definitions I created. The fact that people are not easily pigeonholed should not come as any surprise to anyone. I have a conservative friend who is an avid bird watcher and he is a bigger tree hugger than most liberals. I also know many liberals who are pro-life. My point is that the definitions were generalizations and keeping that in mind might have disabused you of your opinion regarding the definitions.

I do not like the job Bush has done, but except for when I am ornery I am always objective. To contest that and at the same time agree with most of what I have wrote puts into question your possible biases.

__________________
"George W. Bush surrounds himself with smart people the way a hole surrounds itself with a donut." —Dennis Miller

You can look at other's results here.
Some of the questions are odd to say the least, but just answer what you think is right. It's probably the best political test online. (that I've seen)

To PJ034:

Most of your justifications do not merit point by point refuations. I'll keep this as brief as possible.

Firstly the 14th amendment issue with regard to gay rights was the most obvious. Then there are a few other gems.

The fact is that conservatives have little regard for international opinion and the treaties this country has signed.

This is fact?

You also wrote that conservatives believe "let's kill all the terrorists and the governments that harbor them and anyone who disagrees with us are not our allies anymore." This is a vast over-simplification. There are governments that actively work against the war on terror, and then there are those who simply do not help. Those that do not help us are, in the minds of conservatives, of little relevance (France and Germany for example). The issue is too nuanced to be summed up the way you did.

but I think the vast majority believe that a bigger role for God in society would be beneficial and that is the point I made.

This is mostly true but it is important to distinguish between the fact that many conservatives are religious, and some conservatives want to legislate religion itself. The ladder group is a minority.

conservatives often don't support regulations that would protect the environment if the regulations would siphon some profit from the business.

This is absolutely false. Virtually every regulation that has markedly protected the environment is supported by conservatives. The Bush administration and many conservatives have supported overhauling the EPA and tightening environmental regulations in several areas. Contrary to popular conception, conservatives do not believe that profit is more important than the environment. Instead they believe that bureaucractic regulations decreed by civil-servants in no way connected to businesses are not necessarily to be taken as gospel. The Bush administration has done a lot of work trying to get the EPA to work with businesses to create incentives for reducing pollution. The liberal view tends to view businesses as the enemy.

It is not a value judgement on my part. The fact is that that is how the liberals frame the argument. Whether proof of deaths can be shown is irrelevant to my decision to include the statement here.

I suppose I have to take your word for it that you were not making a value judgement in what you wrote. I cannot read your mind.

Some conservatives would like to see them [guns] banned also. Some liberals want more guns. I am listing generalities. The fact is that most Americans believe in responsible gun ownership by responsible individuals. But, conservatives are MORE likely to frown on what they consider over-regulation and liberals are MORE likely to favor regulations (including strict regulations).

Why did you not write this instead of "conservatives: the more guns the better!"?

You know what is funny? You posted, above, that "PJO34 posted absurdly biased definitions that will do you little good" but you agreed with the vast majority.

To contest that and at the same time agree with most of what I have wrote puts into question your possible biases.


I did not write that the vast-majority of what you wrote was incorrect. I wrote that you posted absurdly biased definitions, which you did. Please read what I write before responding.

You also make hay from the fact that some conservatives and liberals don't fit the definitions I created. The fact that people are not easily pigeonholed should not come as any surprise to anyone.

The overall point I was tacitly making was that conservatism and liberalism are not about specific issues. Rather they are about philosophical premises regarding the nature of government and rights. To go issue by issue does little good unless you include dozens of qualifications and nuances, which you did not do.

__________________
"The best part about hating people is that I never run out of great ideas."

~ Dogbert

The gay rights portion was the best proof that you were bending over backwards to find conflict where none existed. Any rational person would realize that when I wrote: "and the equal protection clause does not apply to gays" I was referring to the equal protection clause with regard to gay marriage. I doubt anyone else but you thought I was positing that conservatives don't believe that the equal protection clause applies to gays.

Yes it is and I told you why. Let me see how you refuted what I wrote. Oh wait, you didn't.

The problem with that contention is that France and Germany have helped with the war against terror. Both have contributed intelligence and at France has made arrests (Germany may have also, but I actually remember arrests made by France). France and Germany also helped with the invasion of Afghanistan. So, to posit that France and Germany "do not help us" is patantly wrong. What you wanted to say, I believe, is that France and Germany are irrelevant because they did not help with the invasion of Iraq. And, time has shown that they were right not to help. Except for the US, and possibly England, I would be willing to bet all of the rest of the coalition are sorry they signed on. It has gotten so bad that countries that contributed NOTHING to the coalition except their names are wanting out (well, not wanting out because they were never in, but you know what I mean -- well, after the gay rights issue, perhaps you don't).

I think everyone, except you, realized that my definitions were sketches. It is easy to include 1k words on each topic, but since no one would want to read that much, I kept it short. As such, there were generalizations.

Of those who support school prayer, it is safe to say that the vast majority consider themselves conservatives. Also, you will not often find conservatives that believe that God has too large a role in society. The three examples I choose (1) prayer, (2) 10 commandments, and (3) faith based organizations, are issues that MOST conservatives support. If I were to be biased, I would have used examples like "conservatives believe that bible study should be part of the public school curriculum and they believe that evolution should not be taught in public schools." I didn't because those are fringe far right wing beliefs, not general conservative beliefs. Likewise, I didn't include under liberal views that "Liberals believe that 'under God' should be removed from the pledge and 'in god we trust' should be removed from money" because those are the beliefs of fringe far left wing liberals.

See, now you are being biased (not that you haven't been all along) because liberals don't view businesses as the enemy. Liberals view businesses that destroy the environment and harm consumers as the enemy. There is a big difference there. Liberals realize that the economy can't exist without business, but a good economy shouldn't take priority over ecological harm and danger to consumers. Like it or not, there are businesses that believe their profits are more important than any harm that results from those profits. Granted that they are a small percent of total businesses, but they do exist and the regulatory agencies that are charged with protecting the environment and consumers should actually fulfill that responsibility. When business gets a free pass from the government and when the government limits the available lawsuits (and damage), we are in danger. Ford may be the most famous corporation to do a cost/benefit analysis on deaths to consumers and profits lost, but they are not the only ones. Look at President Bush's energy council. No one knows who was on it and no one knows what was decided. That was the ultimate meshing of business and government and liberals were troubled by it. They didn't believe that the businesses were evil, but they wre concerned whether campaign contributions were going to, once again, dictate governmental decisionmaking.

Also, I don't know any liberal (or conservative for that matter) who wants to arbitrarily impose expensive regulations. Liberals are not stupid and they realize that unnecessary regulations hurt everyone.

The statement: "Contrary to popular conception, conservatives do not believe that profit is more important than the environment" is patantly wrong. I don't think that conservatives favor harming the environment, but profits are more important to them than the environment. It is for that reason that conservatives generally have less concern for global warming and usually have a more favorable view to drilling in ANWR. They justify this by believing that innovation will cure future problems.

Maybe because I wrote my post at 3am and I didn't think I needed to qualify everything I wrote. I was providing a general sketch. That is why I headed the topics as "conservatives generally believe" and "liberals generally believe."

I did. Your statement was wrong for a couple of reasons including (1) even if some of them had a hint of bias -- which I don't think thay did -- the bias was not to the level of the absurd; (2) when you wrote that I posted "absurdly biased definistions" instead of writing "some absurdly biased definitions" you made a blanket statement and your later agreement with at least some of them (well, actually the vast majority) shows your earlier statement to be patantly wrong.

In theory, you are right: liberalism and conservatism are belief systems. But, in the real world, the belief systems also need a lot of qualifications. For example, you say that liberals are "generally pro-individual freedom" but that doesn't tell anyone anything UNTIL you get into specifics. A person who believes that they understand the liberal mindset with that rather amorphous description doesn't have a really good idea what you mean. Politics is about specific issues.

__________________
"George W. Bush surrounds himself with smart people the way a hole surrounds itself with a donut." —Dennis Miller

This is a great example of an issue that doesn't fall neatly into conservative/liberal camps.

I'm socially liberal, but I like having a strong military. However, I opposed Star Wars on fiscal conservative grounds — it was a pie-in-the-sky boondoggle that wasn't going to deliver an operational system in the forseeable future, and would be easily defeated by cheap countermeasures. I saw far better uses for the money, even as the science nut in me salivated at the thought of all that pure research into fascinating stuff like particle beams and giant lasers.

For what it's worth, I thought Ron's post was useless, PJs was pretty good but not perfect, and Renegade's commentary on PJ's post was fairly spot on.

__________________
Man up.

I doubt anyone else but you thought I was positing that conservatives don't believe that the equal protection clause applies to gays.

Well gee-whiz. I'm sorry I got that idea when you wrote that conservatives believe "the equal protection clause does not apply to gays."

Yes it is and I told you why. Let me see how you refuted what I wrote. Oh wait, you didn't.

You didn't offer a shred of evidence to establish the idea that conservatives have little regard for international opinion is 'fact.' You mentioned something about treaties which is silly since conservatives support the vast majority of treaties this country has signed. What you stated was an opinion, not a fact, that is bias.

The problem with that contention is that France and Germany have helped with the war against terror. Both have contributed intelligence and at France has made arrests (Germany may have also, but I actually remember arrests made by France). France and Germany also helped with the invasion of Afghanistan...blah blah I can't read

You are great at responding to things I never said. I didn't say that France and Germany have not helped with the war on terror. They did, however, work against the U.S. invasion of Iraq. What I wrote is that conservatives believe that those who do not help us are not worth worrying about. France and Germany were not with us on Iraq, and most conservatives didn't give a crap.

I think everyone, except you, realized that my definitions were sketches. It is easy to include 1k words on each topic, but since no one would want to read that much, I kept it short. As such, there were generalizations.

I knew they were generalizations. Some were biased. Simple.

Liberals view businesses that destroy the environment and harm consumers as the enemy. There is a big difference there. Liberals realize that the economy can't exist without business, but a good economy shouldn't take priority over ecological harm and danger to consumers.

This is quickly turning into an issue by issue debate rather than a disagreement over definitions. One who is liberal would say exactly what is written here. You imply that conservatives do not view danger to consumers and ecological harm as a serious problem worthy of regulating businesses to solve. This is false.

Also, I don't know any liberal (or conservative for that matter) who wants to arbitrarily impose expensive regulations. Liberals are not stupid and they realize that unnecessary regulations hurt everyone.

Sure sure, if you say so it must be true.

Maybe because I wrote my post at 3am and I didn't think I needed to qualify everything I wrote. I was providing a general sketch. That is why I headed the topics as "conservatives generally believe" and "liberals generally believe."

Great excuse. Perhaps what you should have done is simply outline what liberals believe.

(1) even if some of them had a hint of bias -- which I don't think thay did -- the bias was not to the level of the absurd;

Adjectives are relative. I find it absurd that people assume conservatives care little about the environment. I find it absurd that people assume conservatives are all isolationists who "don't care what foreignors think" I find it absurd when people write that conservatives think that the equal protection clause does not apply to certain people.

(2) when you wrote that I posted "absurdly biased definistions" instead of writing "some absurdly biased definitions" you made a blanket statement and your later agreement with at least some of them (well, actually the vast majority) shows your earlier statement to be patantly wrong.

I was referring to both you and Ron. To say someone "posted biased definitions" is the same thing as saying "posted some biased definitions." My earlier statement was patently correct.

Politics is about specific issues.

That's exactly what politicians want you to think.

__________________
"The best part about hating people is that I never run out of great ideas."

~ Dogbert