Forum for discussing local and world politics and issues. All views are welcomed. Let your opinions be heard on current news and politics.
All standard guidelines apply to this board, No Flaming, No Taunting, No Foul Language,No sexual innuendos,etc..
As politics can be a volatile subject, please consider how you would feel if your comment were directed toward yourself.
Any post deemed to be in violation of guidelines will be deleted or edited without warning or notification. Any continued misbehavior will result in a ban or hidden status, so please play nice!!!
*"Moderators are here for a reason. If a moderator (or Global Moderator or Fencer) requests that a discussion on a certain subject to cease - for whatever reason - please respect these wishes. Failure to do so may result in being hidden, or banned."
It seems though from what I've read that the terms (democrat/republican) realistically in terms of being conservative/liberal/moderate have no real meaning. It is possible that a Republican can be liberal and that a Democrat can be conservative. When saying (as it seems to be the way on this board) the likes of "democrats are 'x', republicans are 'y'" it appears this is a void argument.
When the likes of Charles Krauthammer are considered 'neo-conservative' yet hold many "liberal" ideas, such as ...."legalized abortion, an opponent of the death penalty, an intelligent design critic and an advocate for the scientific consensus on evolution, calling the religion-science controversy a "false conflict;" a supporter of embryonic stem cell research using embryos discarded by fertility clinics with restrictions in its applications, and a longtime advocate of radically higher energy taxes to induce conservation"
Political fencing of ideas into camps is imho a fallacy.
(kaŝi) Se vi volas eltrovi pli pri iuj ludoj, vi povas rigardi en la sekcio "Ligiloj" ĉu vi trovas tie interesajn ligilojn. (pauloaguia) (Montri ĉiujn konsilojn)