Help me define who I am in this lib vs conserv debate
 

I believe in the free market system

I believe in the elimination of all form of subsidies, including farm and steel, etc.

I believe in helping other countries not through AIDS but through giving them access to the world's market

I believe that religion should not be involved in anyway in governments.

I believe in gay marriages/union, legalizations of drugs, abortion,, and the legalization of prostitution.

I do belive in some form of gun control.

I don't believe in the PAtriot Act

I don't believe in the domino theory of all form, whether it's during the cold war, or the democrazation of the middle east.

More when I'm somewhat sober.:cool:

Re: Help me define who I am in this lib vs conserv debate
 

Let's see how you score:

In conclusion, you are one scattered puppy, politically speaking. As I've scored it, you've got 4 Republican leanings (3 conservative, 1 moderate), and 4 Democratic leanings (2 moderate, 2 liberal).

Take heart, fence sitter! The good news is that YOU are the kind of voter that each party is courting! So when you hear those debates, ads, and speeches this coming election season, you can take comfort in the fact that you're the girl they all--Dems and 'Publicans alike--want to take to the ball. :)

Re: Re: Help me define who I am in this lib vs conserv debate
 

Moe.ron is a man. :)

Re: Re: Re: Help me define who I am in this lib vs conserv debate
 

I realize that, honey. It's a figure of speech.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Help me define who I am in this lib vs conserv debate
 

Please, don't call me honey.

What would someone who wants religion to be involved in government be?

I agree I though republicans were all for the school prayier and ten comandments in the courts and such.

No, that's the Conservative Christians, or the Religious Right, which (unfortunately, from my opinion) are groups that many people lump in with mainstream Republicans. As a party, however, Republicans don't espouse those doctrines per se.

At best, I can say this: I consider myself a Conservative Republican, but I don't agree with prayer in schools, nor do I think the 10 Commandments belong in public (read: governmentally purchased/owned) buildings.

I have never understood (personally) the need to bring religion into politics. It's hard for me to understand why the abortion debate (as an example) is often so infused with religious rhetoric--when religion should have no bearing on our law-making process. Either a thing is or is not a crime.

I realize that our law-making system is heavily based upon the law-making system of Judeo-Christianity, and so of course there are hints and influences that will slip in from time to time.

In sum, I know that many believe (mistakenly, in my opinion) that all Republicans--or that the Republican party as a whole--is for co-mingling religion and government, but keep in mind this is really just a small (though very vocal) segment of the party that feels this way.....much like the perception that all Democrats--or the Democratic party as a whole--is supportive of gay marriages, when in fact the overwhelming majority of the Democratic party is not. Again, there is a very vocal minority within that party.

That's why we can never underestimate the power of getting your voice heard, I guess. Good thing we live in a country where we are free to do so.

I would say that you are fiscally conservative and socially moderate. Pick and choose a side. I always say that there often very little difference between Democrats and Republicans, but it's more a matter of choosing which issues are most important to you. Politics is a give and take game.

Well stated, RedHotChiO!

I identify myself as a conservative-libertarian.

I think you should be able to pray in school on your own. A forced moment of silence, etc. is just a waste of time.

I think most drugs should be legalized but should be controlled. Much like how the Dutch government has handled that situation.

I think abortion should be illegal as soon as (if not earlier) the fetus would be able to be kept alive after birth through prenatal care.

I believe in free religious and self expression so long as it doesn't infringe on the rights or well-being of others.

I don't believe in any kind free entitlements for individuals or subsidies for corporations.

I think the US has a right and duty to protect itself from foriegn threats regardless of what the UN thinks.

I believe if we dole out foriegn aid, we should expect something in return.

I don't think the US should be so buddy-buddy as it is with China (allowing them to have a naval base at Long Beach is insane).

I believe that English should be the official language of the US.

I don't think we should have to feel guilty because we're Americans.

But as of late the Republican party has aligned themselves with the Religious Right. This is especially true of the Bush organization. Of course they don't speak for all Republicans, but the association of religious and governmental comingling would certainly be associated with them.

Traditionally neither party aligns itself with the idea of religious intervention in the government and vice versa -- but the Republican and Democratic parties today have broken far away from the traditional lines of national rights versus states rights. (I.e., the Bush administration isn't what you would call "financially conservative.")

As I pointed out, it's true that the Religious Right has, especially in the last 6 years, voiced strong ties with the Republican party, BUT it is important to keep in mind that they are not even close to the majority voice in the Republican party. So perhaps that faction of the party would like to see religion and government go hand-in-hand...but I assure you that the majority of the party would like to see anything but that take place. As such, it is unfair to use the voices of a few in the Republican party to fill the mouths of many in the party (and the same applies to the Democratic party!).

This is only half of it. There is also a "Religious Left" that aligns itself with the Democratic Party that gets very little criticism.

Example: Rev Al Sharpton. Now if a Republican "Reverend" were running for any office, he/she would be shredded for mixing religion and politics. But hey, he's a Democrat-- you can practically hear the crickets chirping.

Also, in major elections in my neck of the woods (Governor and higher) you will see Democratic candidates campaigning IN CHURCHES during CHURCH SERVICES, with the pastor of said church campaigning from the pulpit. I'll never forget the film footage of Ann Richards speaking from a Baptist pulpit in Houston, and little girls in their Sunday best dresses holding campaign picket signs in the front row.

Separation of church and state? Not for these folks. But that's OK--they're Democrats.

I'd be more willing to talk any inappropriate church/state mixing on the Republican side if the Democrats fessed up on this little tactic.

--add

Still, you have to admit there's a difference between reaching out to the religious and reaching out towards the religious right. Both parties have been doing the former for years, and I don't think that there's anything wrong with it. But reaching out to the religious right was a pretty gutsy move on Bush's part and I'm continually surprised that it hasn't backfired on him.

Plus, Democrats are often given the benefit of the doubt when it comes to religion because they aren't a party that is traditionally associated with mixing church and state. But that's the case with a lot of issues across the board for both parties.