Pages: 1 2
Thus far in 2009, 40% of Americans interviewed in national Gallup Poll surveys describe their political views as conservative, 35% as moderate, and 21% as liberal. This represents a slight increase for conservatism in the U.S. since 2008, returning it to a level last seen in 2004. The 21% calling themselves liberal is in line with findings throughout this decade, but is up from the 1990s.
Read it any way you wish.Kmarion wrote:
The poll that actually means something says otherwise.
Last edited by Turquoise (2009-06-16 20:52:38)
The voting polls.Harmor wrote:
Please enlighten us Kmar.
Are you familiar with Liberalism? You should check it out.nickb64 wrote:
Conservatism does not call for ideological purity, but reason and individual liberty.
Conservatives do not have to agree on all issues, there are core principles of liberty, personal property, and unalienable rights.
Constitution: 10th Amendment wrote:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Last edited by nickb64 (2009-06-16 22:41:24)
As a conservative you know that this country is just too diverse to unite together on all things. That is why you (and I) support smaller government. The nation is just too big for one set of rules.. excluding the common defense and civil liberties of course.nickb64 wrote:
We need to work together and unite on principles, but there are those on all sides who do not wish to do so because they will not have the same ability to win elections. They thrive off of dividing the people of this country, and they will not give it up. "Conservatism" could be the largest "tent" but people are willing to get stuck on a single issue and put it before all other issues, such as abortion, which really should not be a topic for federal involvement anyway. We do not need to have ideological "purity", but can have dialogue amongst ourselves and work together, but some people just cannot get beyond single issues. We need to try to put aside petty differences and focus on the principles and concepts that made this nation a beacon of liberty and a great economic power.
That's due to the fact that when it was founded the idea was for it to be fisically conservative and fairly socially liberal.Turquoise wrote:
The Liberal Party in Australia is the more conservative party of the 2 major parties of that country (Labor being the more liberal one there).
It is too big for one set of rules, which is why the concept of Federalism was(and is) so brilliant. The Federal Government is given power over things that should be decided at a national level, but the States and the people are given power over all things that can be better determined and represented at the local level. This is a brilliant way to keep the country from becoming a tyranny, and allows people to have the liberty to move somewhere else in the country if they disagree with the policies in one area. This mobility is essential to liberty and allows people to be better represented and for ideas to be tested. If they don't work in one area, they may not be a wise choice for implementation on a national scale.Kmarion wrote:
As a conservative you know that this country is just too diverse to unite together on all things. That is why you (and I) support smaller government. The nation is just too big for one set of rules.. excluding the common defense and civil liberties of course.nickb64 wrote:
We need to work together and unite on principles, but there are those on all sides who do not wish to do so because they will not have the same ability to win elections. They thrive off of dividing the people of this country, and they will not give it up. "Conservatism" could be the largest "tent" but people are willing to get stuck on a single issue and put it before all other issues, such as abortion, which really should not be a topic for federal involvement anyway. We do not need to have ideological "purity", but can have dialogue amongst ourselves and work together, but some people just cannot get beyond single issues. We need to try to put aside petty differences and focus on the principles and concepts that made this nation a beacon of liberty and a great economic power.
Source: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articl … l_giv.html-- Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).
-- Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood.
-- Residents of the states that voted for John Kerry in 2004 gave smaller percentages of their incomes to charity than did residents of states that voted for George Bush.
-- Bush carried 24 of the 25 states where charitable giving was above average.
-- In the 10 reddest states, in which Bush got more than 60 percent majorities, the average percentage of personal income donated to charity was 3.5. Residents of the bluest states, which gave Bush less than 40 percent, donated just 1.9 percent.
-- People who reject the idea that "government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality" give an average of four times more than people who accept that proposition.
woop-dee-doo!Harmor wrote:
I'm very Conservative and proud of it.
Actually no it's just 'cause Australia is fucked up. C'mon, your $2 coin is smaller than your $1 coin, what the fuck is up with that?Flecco wrote:
That's due to the fact that when it was founded the idea was for it to be fisically conservative and fairly socially liberal.Turquoise wrote:
The Liberal Party in Australia is the more conservative party of the 2 major parties of that country (Labor being the more liberal one there).
The counter-terrorism laws introduced under Howard are a bit gimped on the 'socially liberal' part. Got the fisically conservative bit right though.
Pages: 1 2