Politics

I think 'moderate' is an adjective, not a noun. 'Complete moderate' is therefore meaningless. Also 'extreme' is a biased adjective. 'Hard' is an ambigious adjective not common in political terminology. And last but not least, it is all relative as people already wrote.

I'd suggest: Radical Right - Right - Centre Right - Centre Left - Left - Radical Left

No 'other' category and no 'centre', but the latter can be added.

Having said that, I am at extreme left, judging from other people in here.

  

Originally posted by Beylerbeyi I think 'moderate' is an adjective, not a noun. 'Complete moderate' is therefore meaningless. Also 'extreme' is a biased adjective. 'Hard' is an ambigious adjective not common in political terminology. And last but not least, it is all relative as people already wrote. I'd suggest: Radical Right - Right - Centre Right - Centre Left - Left - Radical Left No 'other' category and no 'centre', but the latter can be added. Having said that, I am at extreme left, judging from other people in here.

-Well, as long as everyone understands what they are voting on.....that is enough for me.

 I'm to lazy and bored senseless by politics in general to take the time to figure out where I belong.

I voted moderate. Moderates and independants are the only one's I trust, as they are the only ones smart enought to see that politics is nothing but a civil war between two very different sides that fight using the same dirty tactics. 

Rightists and leftists just get stuck up in their own idealologies and spend most of their time trying to find a way to demonize the other side. If given power, Rightists and leftists would both end up committing the same crimes, but would do so with different "motives"

Edited by Illuminati

I think I am something between Hard Left (Kemalist) and Extreme Left (Communist).

I did not vote.

Edited by barish

None of the principles you mentioned has any ties to the right-wing.

Kemalism belongs to the left-wing; socially, economically and politically...

"Left" and "right" arose as a designation for those who sat on either wing of the French parliament under the rule of the Kings in the 18th century. It respectively defines you as someone who either wants reform or preservation of the status quo.

I am aware of its current meaning, and also aware of how such meanings differ from one nation and individual understanding to the next. The idea of fitting myself into such a category is neither valid nor appealing. I think each area of policy and national welfare must be made individually based on consideration of all the relevant circumstances. To automatically try to "slant" policy a certain way because you are "left or right" seems to me nothing short of sabotage.

For the understanding of those asking the original question, I am a mixture of left and right depending on individual policy and its circumstances. On a general issue such as immigration I may go more to the right, while on issues such as health and education benefits for disadvantaged members of society I am more to the left. But that is generally speaking, better to give oneself some room to manuever.

Originally posted by eaglecap As a conservative I would give Bush a D+ to a C- when you consider certains issues he is not dealing with but those issues are not the purpose of this thread.

Looks like his presidential performance is consistent with his university scores

Oh, I forgot to mention Australia's Pauline Hanson ...

Originally posted by flyingzone Oh, I forgot to mention Australia's Pauline Hanson ...

That is a little old now. Once she actually gained a seat in parliament the other parties practically conspired against her to bring her party down. As the major parties put Hanson's party last on their list of preferences in voting, the One Nation Party quickly ran out of steam. A variety of other bureaucratic and legal measures allowed the government to destroy her as a political force and soon even put her in gaol for electoral fraud.

In the end it had a happy ending. She was released from prison following an appeal and went on to compete in a popular TV ballroom dancing show, where her rather suave performance led to public rehabilitation.  All politics were laid aside, she is happy, the public is happy, the politicians are happy. I think things could not possibly have had a better ending. However, as much as we may hate it even rednecks need a voice (let's try to make sure it is a polite and intelligent one representing areas of legitimate national concern).

Edited by Constantine XI