Entitlement reform. I know far too many people drawing down social security because of anxiety. It is too easy to scam the foodstamp and HUD housing system. (most recipients are honest, but there are enough dishonest people to drain a huge amount of resources).

This is dependent on where you live. In Germany you are with a conservative opinion a rightist extremist or Nazi! Here you are (99% of the population) already ill (homo's phobia) if you are not a friend of homosexuality (1%) or not liked to see it in the family politics...

It spreads we are:

15-30 years -> an idealist
30-45 years -> a socialist
45-xx years -> a conservative

2nd Ammendment rights. I'm not in the insane "come and get them" camp with Ted Nugent and his ilk, but I'm still pro-concealed carry and opposed to federal statutes like the assault weapon ban.

iPillage, please check your email associated with your account here.

-WebDip Admin

There may be trouble ahead but when there's music and moonlight and love and romance .........

Let's keep the entitlements - I'd rather have the slackers and scammers on the government dole rather than wrecking someone's business as an employee.

I tend to be conservative in situations where people are required to interact with the government when they would rather not, e.g. business owners dealing with Obamacare stuff. After the taxes are paid, the government should be working for you, not vice versa.

The ones I already do:

-Commitment rather than emotion plays the key role in romantic relationships.
-Assisted suicide should not be permissible, suicide in general should not be encouraged
-the military needs to be large because any power a good (or bad) man has is sadly predicated on the possession of weaponry
-privacy is a luxury that technology is making obsolete, and we had better focus on adjusting to it rather than fighting it, because it's not going away till replaceable parts goes away
-incentivizing people with positive reinforcement really is the best way to get our lazy self-interested species to behave pro-socially on massive scales. Capitalism in general does an amazing job at this (people serving their selfish ends endeavor to please the customer), though unfettered capitalism certainly does not encourage pro-social behavior among elites
-I generally think the assimilation/homogenization of cultures is good rather than bad, not to diminish the tragedies of lost languages and cultures. I think one can both preserve and assimilate and this is what we should do.

Oh and lastly although America is in fact a disgusting, racist, ignorant, and self-important country that has actively worked against the cause of good internationally on innumerable occasions, I believe it is true that in 1000 years a major legacy of the a United States will be the general democratization of the world. So I really do believe the US has been (if not is) a beacon of democracy, for better or worse

Tendmote, someone who voted for Romney and hates government, calls himself a liberal?

More proof that the word is meaningless.

Recreational drugs are bad things. Unfortunately, the consequences of outlawing them are even worse.

Can I have two? Okay, after entitlement reform; choice #2 would be victimhood and identity politics. I'm just tired of it.

"So I really do believe the US has been (if not is) a beacon of democracy, for better or worse"
The irony of course being that they preach it to foreigners after an invasion of their country (which was very anti-democratic) but do not have a fully functioning and credible democracy domestically due to corporate corruption of the political system and an antiquated voting system.
Oh how we laugh at US style democracy ...... chuck me another billion, I feel another set of tv commercials may be needed. Did we get that extra 5-tonne of ticker-tape and USA flags delivered I've got 17 rallies to go to at the weekend.....
Don't confuse universal suffrage with democracy or accountability or protection of civil and human rights.

I think the government is too big, and I'm growing ever more scared of the Keynesian model of spending. I feel there have to be cuts across the board. Ufortunately such cuts will also probably leave me unemployed. Quite a fix.

@Santa - try the latest in economic modelling, Supply Side Theory, brought to you by your friendly man at the nuthouse Milton Friedman, of course you may know it by its more popular name 'Reaganomics' ...... if it worked for him it will work for you !!

I'll go the other way since I'm more conservative than liberal per US common definitions.

* The US should institute a guaranteed minimum income for all Americans. This point is still going to end up mostly conservative, because I think this should be implemented in conjunction with the removal of living and employment subsidies (so we're talking as vast a net as eliminating a fair chunk of military contracts, probably all welfare programs, replacing Social Security). The idea here is that our current rate of technological advancement will probably leave us with a serious structural employment crisis in a few decades, as labor inputs continue to be permanently substituted out for newer, better and more efficient machines. The only functional solution to this crisis is to institute a guaranteed basic income that individuals can live off of, which will allow workers who are 'left behind' the leeway to learn skills that will bring them back into a modern economy.

Deutschland, you are aware, are you not, that in some parts of the world Liberals already are Conservatives?

Yes, like in the UK

I am not sure that I should be regarded as a "Liberal"
or how my position on gun control fits with the policies of your US political parties
as I understand the concept of being "Liberal" politically,
it means "supporting the Individuals right to choice"
I am however, in favour of strong gun controls.
It is my personal opinion that other than defence forces personell, on active duty,
NO person in civil society should need to use or have an assault rifle.
Frankly if a "recreational" shooter needs an assault weapon to shoot Deer in the USA,
or Kangaroos in Australia, then that person is an incompetent shooter & probably wastes a lot of ammunition blazing away when only one good shot is required.
Assault weapons can no longer be owned privately in Australia.
We had a Conservative Prime Minister, John Howard, who in response to one of these mass shooting tragedies, introduced a series of major gun control reforms, and stood up to the political backlash within his own political party over his proposals. this occurred almost 20 years ago.
It is now obvious that the effect of these gun reforms has been to significantly reduce the number (per 100,000 of population ) of gun deaths and gun injuries in Australia.

Now if anyone wants to make the argument that fewer Australian citizens being killed or injured by guns as a result of effective gun control reform is a bad thing, may I wish them with some irony, "bon chance"

not surprised that iPillage has been rubbed out by the almighty mods, his ethical immaturity & idiocy would seem to match his political & philosophical immaturity & idiocy

I love the premise of this thread.

I am a 'liberal' therefore every opinion I have is predetermined by the leftist party of my country. There is no nuance to my political opinions, and I am in perfect accord with every other liberal. It's certainly silly to assume I might already have a few conservative political leanings. No room for that.

I can sum you and your kind up with one word ..... Libtards.

Yes YJ...and anyone who disagrees with Obama shares a room with Rush Limbaugh and has a secret microchip in their brain to receive Fox News 24/7. No conservative has ever had an individual thought.

Oh...you are so witty, YJ, with your hillarious parody of how Libtards are viewed by others. Ho ho ho...<belly laugh>.. Jolly good...


And since you and your Libtards are all so wise, and each of your thoughts are so unique and nuanced such that every Libtard is in disagreement on each and every topic....then I expect you will give the same courtesy of understanding to Conservatives, and not paint them each and every one with the same narrowly defined brush.

But...certainly that's asking a bit much of you, no doubt...

Ok so it is a real word in the urban dictionary:-
Libtard
As repetitive as it sounds, it stands for "liberal retard."

A libtard wants to live in a fantasy world (in which life is the way that they WISH IT WAS) as opposed to dealing with life the way it actually is.

(This explains the religious fervor that many of them demonstrate when it comes to smoking pot).

The most idealistic libtard envisions a time when science/technology and Socialism will eliminate all poverty, hunger, war, disease, injustice, unemployment and prejudice. (It is a nice pipe dream but human nature will forever stand in the way of that goal).

Most libtards subscribe to the notion that "people are basically good", and build their foundation for activism and "improving the human condition" on that faulty premise. Because they deny the facts about human nature, their "reasoning" is diametrically opposite to common sense (blue states vs. red states).

The reality that people have different initiative levels, are basically selfish, and often work for their own interests before helping others, puts a libtard's panties in a wad. So, when citizens will not voluntarily comply with various libtard prescriptions for "the common good", then laws must be passed, or force used, to MAKE them comply. (It is the gradual path to totalitarianism).

Likewise, his/her naïve cries of: "can't we all just get along?" and "there is nothing worth dying for" are red flags for anyone with a clue.

Metaphorically speaking, a libtard is a sheep who thinks that their grasp of diplomatic nuance or metaphysical sensitivity will prevent their flock from being devoured by the world's Islamic/Communist wolves. When America, the sheep dog, responds to wolf attacks, the libtard judges these defensive actions as offensive and wolfish.

Since libtards are unable to recognize our enemies for what they are, they cannot be trusted to safeguard our future.

it's not a parody krellin, it's how many of you DO see us. Hence the word "libtard" as Nigee pointed out.

For the rest, I think you'll struggle to find examples of times I tried to paint all conservatives as the same. There is a LOT of nuance in the ways in which you guys are wrong :)

Is drug legalization a Liberal position and continued enforcement Conservative? If so, I choose that.

Which? Enforcement? Or legalization?

Enforcement. I don't support legalization efforts.

Not that I agree with mandatory minimums and that sort of thing. But I voted against my city's recreational pot law when it came up.

Oh YJ...you truly disappoint me. the ridiculous arrogance, combined with the exact same narrow-minded foolishness you accuse others of is astounding.

No...most conservatives are aware that each individual Libtard is a variation on a theme, and that you are all uniquely wrong, subjected to the errors of your own individually nuanced illogic.

That being said, collectively Libtards like to (for example) vilify the "rich" and pierce their bleeding hearts in sympathy for the poor and desolate upon which the rich enriched themselves (through some magic of squeezing blood from a stone...)

Are you *truly* too dense to grasp that many of you Libtards...while unique in each thoughts...have a tendency to believe the same thing "big picture".

Good lord, man, you are either for taxing the rich, or against it...to pick a singular example.

So please don't make yourself look so foolish by suggesting you Libtards are all so intelligent and nuanced, and in the same breath suggest that conservatives are all just mindless robots rolling off the line.

"Most libtards subscribe to the notion that "people are basically good"

That's hilarious...because it truly seems that most libtards think that only poor, jobless people are basically good, and that your descent into evil is directly tied to the size of your bank account, for there doesn't seem to be a libtard out there that looks at the "rich" as anything but villains out to screw the poor, but infinitely kind and decent, poor man.

If most people are basically good, you wouldn't have to tell them what is proper to think. If most people are good, you wouldn't need to take away their guns, or tell them what to do, because they would just do good without the need to government oversight, right?

On the contrary, I think the the excessive need for regulation, the excessive need to monitor and correct language as demonstrated by the libtard left indicates a woeful distrust of fellow man.

@heck....well this Conservitard fully supports drug legalization...

:P

I don't know whether what I'm about to say constitutes agreement with Krellin, YJ, both, or neither, but the most difficult part of this exercise from my standpoint was identifying any positions (other than taxation) that are truly Liberal or Conservative. Support of foreign military intervention, for example, is strong among the McCain-esque Republican mainstream neo-cons, but deeply unpopular with the Libertarian right of the party. Drug legalization, likewise, is very popular with the Libertarian wing, but has very little support among the centrist conservatives.

I guess what I'm saying is that trying to identify an issue where you're willing to break from the platform of your particular political camp is difficult because "Liberal" and "Conservative" don't really have set platforms. Republicans and Democrats do, but even those are often hotly contested among the various factions at the respective party conventions.

@Krellin,
For argument's sake, is it possible for someone to believe both that someone is a good person AND that they could reasonably be expected to do more than they currently are? In other words, is it impossible to ask wealthy people to pay more in taxes while also admiring them and wanting to encourage more people to do what they've done?

@Krellin,
You're not a Conservitard. You're a Libertariantard... a Libertard... a Libtard, I guess.

Krellin's a Libtard.

So, serious question @hecks. Why don't you support legalization of pot in some form? I get not supporting harder drugs, but pot? And I ask as a non-pot smoker who has no interest in it. It's no worse than alcohol (better in some ways as I've never seen an "angry" pothead). It's less carcinogenic than tobacco (and *way* less than cigarettes). And it is no more likely to be a "gateway" drug than tobacco or alcohol if legalized. It's only the current illegal status that makes it into one.

So, honestly, why do you oppose legalizing pot?

hecks - I'm neither conservative nor libertarian. that's what I'm saying. I probably tend to be more vocal about certain issues, and there are certain issues that really never much come up for discussion. The topics on conversation around here tends to be mind-numbingly repetitive (not complaining, per se...just pointing out)...and as such, we tend to get repetitive in our arguments, and then maybe get a little extreme/hyperbolic in our defense/arguments, making us ALL come off as ridiculous parodies.

Okay, you asked an honest question, I'll give you an honest answer: unmitigated selfishness. The smell itself makes me sick. The sidewalks in my town already reeked of it before it was legalized. My punk neighbor stands outside my window smoking up, stinking up my living room, then plays his music too loud. It's a nuisance, and I'm a grouchy old man.

"My punk neighbor stands outside my window smoking up, stinking up my living room, then plays his music too loud. It's a nuisance, and I'm a grouchy old man. "

Well that is easily handled with a call to the police. Nuisance ordinances and noise ordinances are there for a reason. And not legalizing it isn't going to stop your punk neighbor. I assume he lives in the same apartment building as you or something cause if one of my neighbors was standing outside my window, he would quickly be arrested by the cop across the street for trespassing.

@Krellin,
That's an interesting observation. Moreover, the only image we HAVE of each other is the image we put out there. Thus, we're only ever known for the bombastic, self-conscious things we say, not the very normal, human, and probably nice things we all do on a daily basis.

Internet anonymity is a sword that cuts both ways. You can say whatever you want with few or no consequences, but you can never let your actions or your humanity speak for itself.

@Draug,
No, we have house, not an apartment, but it's a very dense neighborhood. My living room window is about 3 feet from the sidewalk.

Oh, and another solution is to just leave a big ol' deuce in front of his door every time he smokes outside your window. It's like training a dog through negative reinforcement.

Sprinklers on the lawn you can remotely control will stop that in a hurry then.

@Draug,
Legalized public defecation? I'd vote for that.

Maybe I should vote for legalized consumption of pot, but not smoking. Like... only if you eat it.

No, take a dump in a bucket out in your backyard then dump the bucket on the neighbors door.

"and as such, we tend to get repetitive in our arguments, and then maybe get a little extreme/hyperbolic in our defense/arguments, making us ALL come off as ridiculous parodies."

this is not just krellin's most self-aware post but the most self-aware post in the history of webDiplomacy

Hecks, I'll take your observation one farther, and playe dthe tired old Bad Media card, because most of us came with pre-formulated opinions of our political opposition based not on internet trollery, but based uipon theridiculous crap we are fed through the idiot box we stare at to 'relax'.

And it's not just the Fox News v. CNN debate (Right-tard v. Left-tard) that wildly skews out vision of whom "the other guy" is. It is also the pervasive charicatures of people on our sit-coms. Every conservative in a sit-com is some up-tight jackass, every father is a blithering idiot who's kids can trick him in to doing anything, every liberal -if not gay- wishes he were as enlightened and gay as helium is light, and the world would be a big old delicious bowl of pudding if this were so.

So our gross misperceptions of everything around us are actually very reasonable, given that very few of us often co-mingle that much with the "opposition" in any real and meaningful way.

OK, who the fuck are you and what did you do with krellin?!