Alright, we're making progress.

Black_Wing, do you believe you are a socialist?

1: No, never said that John McCain is a conservative.  However, saying that John McCain has all the same beliefs as, say, Ted Kennedy is just wrong.  Remember, to share an ideology, two people have to be in full agreement in all issues defined by that ideology.  In other words, if I can find just one thing McCain disagrees with Kennedy on, they wouldn't be of the same ideology.

Then again, this shows a second fallacy of ideologies.  What is the litmus test for what defines an ideology?

Who is the perfect liberal that holds every ideal which is "liberal," whom all others shall be compared with?  Who is the perfect conservative at that?  While many people claim to follow liberalism or conservatism, there will almost always be one political issue in which two people claiming a general ideal will disagree.  Then you're faced with this delima:

If both people, disagreeing with each other on an issue governed by conservatism, are still both "conservatives," then the word conservative has no meaning because it can be molded, twisted, and transformed, yet retain its name.

If one person is right, who is it?  There's no universally accepted yardstick for what is a "conservative."

2: I never said that to support the Iraq war, you have to be a conservative.  I said the following:
Bush supports the war in Iraq.
Kerry supports the war in Iraq.
The vast majority of people who considered "The Iraq war is bad" to be the #1 issue in the 2004 election voted for Kerry.  Meanwhile, those who disagreed, yet considered Iraq to be the main issue in the election, voted for Bush.
Logically, that shouldn't have been an issue because there was no disagreement between the candidates.  The war opposition would have chosen a third party candidate, or would have used another issue to vote.  The war supporters would probably vote based on the details of the war, such as tactics, the UN role in the war, etc., issues which they really did disagree.

This isn't labeling anyone.  The closest to a label of conservatism and liberalism that I'm using is that supposed conservatives tended to be associated with support for the Iraq war, while supposed liberals tended to be associated with opposition to the Iraq war.

Why?  Political ideologies create guilt by association.  Supposedly, since two people follow the same ideals, they agree with one another on the issues related to those ideals.  Therefore, if one person within that ideal has a particular belief, wouldn't everyone within that ideal have that belief?

This all comes down to one ending call: stop labeling people based on their political ideology.  Two supposed "liberals" can disagree with one another, which means the term "liberal" does not have any meaning as its very definition is an ideology, which apparently would not exist.

You_Fool may not be a liberal, Black_Wing may not be a conservative, and I may not be... um... whatever the hell I am, not necessarily because any of us are necessarily "wrong," while the ideology is "right," but because there's no measurement for what those ideologies believe on every issue, and thus you can't define the terms.  Rather, the only ideology any individual can be truly sure that they believe is whatever ideology... that individual believes.  You believe what you believe, basically, and that's the only way you can be certain that you're correctly telling someone what you believe.  Rather than trying to place labels on people, whether you agree or disagree with them overall, or even if that person is yourself, debate people on the issues, and create, or reinforce, your own views accordingly.  Ideological labeling doesn't accurately reflect individuals, nor does it prove or disprove any political issues, so there's no productive ends to it.

How is this in the politics forum and not general?

1: Whether or not I accept your argument isn't the point.  I was only saying that, even if I agree with you, my criticism of your thread stands.
2: Now there's no way in hell that you're going to say that you don't have a definition of "liberal" without roasting in hell for lying. 

Even if I accept it, the same argument would now be applicable to your definition of "liberal."

I'm making a starting post right now... be warned, it's really long, so it'll take a while

Sorry!

Rambi?

You_Fool, I'm honestly flattered...

I was actually thinking of making a new thread on the topic.  Once I get the time...

No contradiction there.  While I don't perscribe to the political spectrum, others do.  That's why I said "a few people," not myself.  They have a definition of "moderate," and believe I fit it, just like you have a definition of it, even though I don't.  I may disagree with the fact that a definition exists, but that doesn't mean I shouldn't be able to acknowledge that others have a definition.

That's like if I said "I don't consider myself a liberal, yet Black_Wing does consider me a liberal."  Would that be a contradiction of my own statements?  No, it would just be a contradiction between my view of myself and your view of me...

Oh, and by the way, were you planning on addressing my prior statements, or are you conceding my arguments?

Wow, that sounds like an awesome birthday party!

Nope!

Mishe?

> Black_Wing wrote:

> @ Zarf

My framing of Moderates ??  ROFL.    Makes me dumb ??

I didnt realize I framed what a Moderate is.

I think, ZARF, that the DUMB statement is yours.......unless you can show me where I "Framed" what a "Moderate" is.
Can you ??

Oh?  I accept your challenge!

"Ole' BW will then ask you a couple of counter questions, if You allow me to, and I will tell you what you are."

That means:
A: There is a definition of "moderate" with definite boundaries to define who is and who isn't a moderate.  Unless your counterquestions were "are you sure?," followed by a "Yup, you're a moderate" against every single person here, in which case this thread is just stupid.
B: You know the definition of a moderate, unless of course if you were going to randomly guess.

No, you didn't define a "moderate" yet.  I never said you did.  However, I did say that you created the image of a clear definiton of a "moderate," which I am contesting.

"Im asking, YOU , a self-Profess Moderate, ..... Who Zarf calls "Dumb" by the way,..... "

What the hell?  That's utter bull.  Here's the quote:

"Your framing of "moderates" as a unified group that can be defined is... well... dumb."

That's definitely not referring to people as dumb.  It refers to the idea behind this thread as dumb.  And I never even said you were dumb.  It's a "love the sinner, yet hate the sin" type of thing.