Since it was in the definition of gay marriage, you really should have been able to...oh, forget it.

Here is what you actually wrote:

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).

Aside from the question whether Iraq is even a part of the war against terror, France and Germany have helped with the war on terror. Your statement, above, implies that they don't help us. In fact, Germany sent more troops to Afghanistan after we invaded Iraq. How is that not helping us?

Also, do you think that most conservatives don't consider France and Germany relevant merely because they wouldn't help us illegally invade Iraq (<- see, now there is some bias for you)? Are conservatives the kind of people who call countries allies ONLY when those countries do everything we want? That seems a bit biased, and frankly naive, to me. And, I don't think most conservatives are the "what have you done for me lately" type of people.

Some could have been worded better. I guess if I knew they would be graded, I would have put a little more effort into them. What they weren't, though, were absurdly biased.

Do you know any liberals or conservatives who want to arbitrarily impose expensive regulations? Maybe if you answer in the negative, you will believe yourself.

Fine. What I find absurd is that people can't properly report what has been written:

Here is what I wrote

Conservatives generally believe that...Business is far more important than any possible danger to the environment

Here is what you implied that I wrote

I find it absurd that people assume conservatives care little about the environment.

Now, are those two statements the same?

I also find it absurd that to artificially create conflict, people can't draw even the most simply correlation between two points:

Gay Marriage + Equal Protection Clause = Yea, I can see how you missed what I was trying to say. I mean, since I was talking about the equal protection clause with regard to gay marriage, a person who put even a tiny bit of thought into it could understand what I was saying. But, I guess you didn't (or you just wanted to write "false" as often as you could and since you actually agreed with most of what I wrote, you had to arbitrarily create conflict).

And, I never said anything about conservatives being isolationists. I didn't say that conservatives wanted to abstain from political or economic relations with other countries, I only said that conservatives don't really care what foreigners think. In fact, you wrote:

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.

which to me means the same thing. If we are going to put our concerns ahead of the complaints of others, then doesn't it seem fair to say that we don't care what they think? It is true that you put it in a far more politically correct manner, but the message is the same.

And, that's not true? What is politics if not a struggle between individuals and groups to try to shape the country the way they want? People can't be pigeonholed. The same person who is marching at a pro-life rally might also march at an anti-war rally. Based on that, would you consider the person conservative or liberal?

Since you believe "this is getting old" and since I agree with you, don't feel compelled to reply if you don't want to.

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

To the original poster,

Liberals and Conservatives are on paper quite different. But in practice Democrats and Republicans steal each other's issues and solutions often.

Clinton the Democrat signed Welfare Reform a Republican brainchild.

The best way to understand politics in America is look at 2 or 3 issues closely and compare the parties and politician's positions and past actions (votes and legislation.)

Some would say you are likely to see more similarities between the two parties than differences. Others would say the there are glaring crucial differences. Decide for yourself.

Ok, so here is my take on politics. People want to be included into a group. People want to be classified. So, at some point in a persons life, they start looking at the issues. From War, economy, jobs, welfare, abortion, etc. They form opinions on these various topics and try to see where that fits them into the whole scheme of things in the political world. I've noticed that there really is only three types of people out there. I'm not going to put labels on any of these however.

There are the ones who are completely engrossed in themselves, and only care about how the government is going to affect them on a personal level. They vote for people who they feel is going to allow them to continue their lives personally the same way or better regardless of how that affects the rest of society.

Secondly there are the people who care about how the government affects not only themselves but society as a whole. They would like to make sure that everyone including themselves is able to continue their lives the same way or better. SO they vote for people who they feel is going to work to achieve this type of government.

Finally I believe there is a third person out there who really only cares about themselves, but claims to care about society as a whole. These people will say things that mimic what the second group says, but then when it comes time to vote, they vote for the people that will help them on a personal level moreso than the people they feel will be better for society as a whole. In other words these people do not practice what they preach.

Political parties in general as I said, are merely labels. I personally don't think they are necessary, and in fact I feel they harm the system. People want so badly to fit themselves in somewhere, that they even fit the ideas of each party into their head, and follow blindly a form of government that is harmful as a whole, simply because it may have a few of the things they hold near and dear. They tend to accept everything of that particular party as good, nomatter what. They defend the policies, and make reason around them regardless of how it affects society as a whole. This can be seen by all three types of people I've mentioned. Be it conservatives, liberals, republicans, democrats, etc. it doesn't matter. There is no way that any one party could represent the ideas of the entire society, although you would think there would be by now...the problem is, we have these three types of people. Where do you fit in?

Not all conservatives are pro-life, moreso anti-partial birth abortions or "qualifying" for an abortion as opposed to using vaccuuming out your unborn fetus/partial baby/embryo as a birth control mechanism.

No, we believe that you should have the right to bare arms as stated in the Constitution, we don't believe however "the more guns the better"


No, they believe that your own country's interests should ultimately be depended and secured by your "own country". Allowing another country to tell you what to do would be in "their" best interests not yours.

Extremely exaggerated and quite simply "not true". They believe that terrorism needs to be taken under control and sometimes using "action" rather then "diplomacy" is what needs to happen. Rationalizing with a terrorist isn't an option and neither is giving those who support them the "benefit of the doubt". Conservatives don't believe in killing everyone who disagrees with us because if that was true we'd be bombing France and Russia and China and on and on. I think you get the picture here.

It's not that God needs to play bigger role in society but God shouldn't be taken out of traditions based and formed from God. Why should people have the freedom to "not have to say pray" in school, but others are forced to give it up? Why can you pay for everything with the money that states "In God we trust" but have God taken out of our pledge of allegiance? Why do some have to feel "politcally incorrect" if they put the word "God" in many things but those who want to get rid of it can fight to remove it? We can take out the word GOD for it may offend someone but not worry about those who took offense to it being taken out in the first place?

No welfare is just contributing more to bringing down society then helping it...by supporting those who don't want to get a job but keep having multiple children that they can't afford....so you and I will have to help pay for them instead. That's how they view welfare.

Nope. Terrorists.

Anything you see here is going to be very biased. I won't even try, because I'm generally a strong social libertarian and moderate economically, and if I attempted to explain objectively these things to you, there would be bias there.

If you're committed, and willing to take the time, I recommend you first read the party platforms for the Republican, Democrat, Green, and Libertarian parties. It can get tedious, but it will give you the best idea of where the four largest parties stand on the issues. I also recommend you read debates here, and other similar places, because it will expose you to new ideas and stances on topics.

Good luck.

__________________
"Violence isn't always evil. What's evil is the infatuation with violence."
Jim Morrison