# Conservative Furs?



## Steel-Fox (Mar 15, 2009)

Any furries out there that would consider themselves to be a republican, conservative, or libertarian?


----------



## Ouroboros (Mar 15, 2009)

Conservative , right here ^^


----------



## Ratte (Mar 15, 2009)

Mildly.


----------



## Rifter (Mar 15, 2009)

Less so than I used to be, but probably.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Mar 15, 2009)

Whatever Cyberfox _isn't_. Is what I am.


----------



## Heilmittel (Mar 15, 2009)

jjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjj


----------



## Panzermanathod (Mar 15, 2009)

Umbrella. But only because I hardly know what the others (Republican, etc) stand for.


----------



## Ratte (Mar 15, 2009)

Panzermanathod said:


> Umbrella. But only because I hardly know what the others (Republican, etc) stand for.



Look here.


----------



## Takun (Mar 15, 2009)

Libertarian here I suppose.

Hello.


----------



## HyBroMcYenapants (Mar 15, 2009)

Centrist, slightly libertarian.

Lets yiff


NOBAMA.....does that turn you on bebe


----------



## Irreverent (Mar 15, 2009)

Canadian Libertarian; with caveats. I fear the religious left and the only party that has ever pointed machine guns at my family or confiscated lawful property was Liberal.

But the problem with political labels is that they aren't universal in definition.  For example, Canadian Conservatives are often (incorrectly) compared to US conservatives, and Canadian Liberals to US Democrats.  In reality, Canadian Conservatives are closer to socialists, and Canadian Liberals closer to communists.  This upsets the Canadian establishment, but consider this:

The most vile Canadian conservative is still pro-universal health care, pro-social medicine, pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage, anti-gun, anti-death penalty, pro-social education (k-12 is free) and anti-separation of church and state (see Ontario Catholic schools for examples).  At least they've never invoked the Notwithstanding Clause (a suspension of the so-called Canadian Constitution or British North American Act).  Or put another way, Barrack Obama would consider Stephen Harper to be a Socialists, not a US-style Republican.


----------



## Endless Humiliation (Mar 15, 2009)

ConFURvatives.


----------



## SnowFox (Mar 15, 2009)

John_Galt said:


> ConFURvatives.



Dude, you should get a medal for that.


----------



## Endless Humiliation (Mar 15, 2009)

SnowFox said:


> Dude, you should get a medal for that.



No, not really...


----------



## Skyfire (Mar 15, 2009)

I'm politically conservative myself.  So I'm one too.


----------



## SnowFox (Mar 15, 2009)

I've always thought of myself as a conservative, but I'm probably not. It's just that I'm not a communist like tony & gordon.


----------



## TopazThunder (Mar 15, 2009)

I have both conservative and liberal leanings. Depends on the subject. I'm a registered Independent, and more moderate than anything.


----------



## Sunny_Otter (Mar 15, 2009)

I voted Green last election, don't hurt me, I wanted to give it more credence as a viable political party. :x I was also a proud voter in Quebec's last "ANYTHING BUT BLOC" election.

I usually vote Canadian Liberal but I am honestly very, very happy that we have Conservatives in power right now, I'd rather an economist at our head when the economy is tanking than someone who doesn't intimately understand what's going on and needs it explained to them, you know?

There's times when any of our parties are a good fit but all of them are significantly further to the left than the US parties are.

http://paulitics.files.wordpress.com/2007/08/new-left-right-spectrum-canada-us-08.png


----------



## Bunneh45 (Mar 15, 2009)

Furry conservatives are pretty rare considering the open-mindedness required to be part of this fandom.


----------



## Irreverent (Mar 15, 2009)

Bunneh45 said:


> Furry conservatives are pretty rare considering the open-mindedness required to be part of this fandom.



This I take exception too.  You can still be open minded and fiscally conservative.  Gawds know, I am.


----------



## Bunneh45 (Mar 15, 2009)

Sorry, I was talking about socially-conservative. I should have been more specific.

Also, saying you are fiscally-conservative doesn't mean anything about your political ideology. Almost everyone who manages their money well is fiscally-conservative. The whole economically conservative/liberal thing is totally different.


----------



## Sunny_Otter (Mar 15, 2009)

In Canuckia our political parties are directly tied to economic policies, that's basically their biggest differences that affect everyone when they come into power -- NDP is SPEND SPEND SPEND and then the Conservatives have to come in, make a thousand cuts and try to dig us out of debt. But then health care and schools start to suffer badly so we change parties again to give them a little more money...

The other issues are honestly small fry compared to their economic agenda.


----------



## Irreverent (Mar 15, 2009)

Bunneh45 said:


> Sorry, I was talking about socially-conservative. I should have been more specific.



No worries, cheers mate!



> Also, saying you are fiscally-conservative doesn't mean anything about your political ideology. Almost everyone who manages their money well is fiscally-conservative. The whole economically conservative/liberal thing is totally different.



Agreed.


----------



## Aden (Mar 15, 2009)

Speaking of Conservative furs, you know who's really really funny? Cigarskunk.


----------



## SnickersTheCat (Mar 16, 2009)

Haha, I'm an uber-Libertarian with social-conservative leanings. 
Rock on! \\m//
Most furs I know are really liberal and such XP.


----------



## Telnac (Mar 16, 2009)

Steel-Fox said:


> Any furries out there that would consider themselves to be a republican, conservative, or libertarian?


*raises a paw* Aye, I am one.  Fiscally, VERY conservative (what Obama's doing to the budget & by extension to the economy makes me SHUDDER), socially moderate.  I am a registered Republican.


----------



## jagdwolf (Mar 16, 2009)

I am a Constitutionalist minus the GOD BS.  If its against the Constitution im against it.  Im not left, im not right, im not conservative and im not Liberal.  If its not for the Constitution then its wrong.  thats where I stand.

Im sure when I run for SD32 in 2010 I wont get elected, but then again I might.  Because the only thing that can save American is a return to the Consitution as it was originally written, and the amendments to the constitution that support the consitution and the people.

kinda clear cut in my eyes.


----------



## Steel-Fox (Mar 16, 2009)

jagdwolf said:


> Im sure when I run for SD32 in 2010 I wont get elected, but then again I might.  Because the only thing that can save American is a return to the Consitution as it was originally written, and the amendments to the constitution that support the consitution and the people.
> 
> kinda clear cut in my eyes.



I wish you luck then


----------



## muddypaws (Mar 16, 2009)

American Constitutionalist: The Republican Party left me a long time ago!


----------



## Lost~Koneko (Mar 16, 2009)

I'm personally very liberal, and will debate politics for as long as the other person is willing.  There are a lot of things with conservative policy {mostly social issues} that I disagree with very strongly


----------



## dietrc70 (Mar 16, 2009)

muddypaws said:


> American Constitutionalist: The Republican Party left me a long time ago!


 
Same here.  I like Pat Bucchanan's writings, and I enjoy reading *The American Conservative* and takimag.com.


----------



## Kanin (Mar 16, 2009)

Heilmittel said:


> I make my own choices based on the politicians plans to help the Country. I can't vote yet though .


 
^this^


----------



## Bunneh45 (Mar 16, 2009)

Honestly I don't think economic orientation doesn't mean anything to do with your party anymore. The republicans in the last 8 years spent spent spent on Iraq just like Obama is spending spending spending for stimulus.

Plus too many people throw around the word "fiscal-conservative" like it has anything whatsoever to do with your political ideology. It means managing your money well. Unless you own a whole economy does a liberal economic policy make any sense at all.



jagdwolf said:


> I am a Constitutionalist minus the GOD BS.  If its against the Constitution im against it.  Im not left, im not right, im not conservative and im not Liberal.  If its not for the Constitution then its wrong.  thats where I stand.
> 
> Im sure when I run for SD32 in 2010 I wont get elected, but then again I might.  Because the only thing that can save American is a return to the Consitution as it was originally written, and the amendments to the constitution that support the consitution and the people.
> 
> kinda clear cut in my eyes.



Sorry, but thats an extremely simplistic view. Unfortunately, not everything is that easy to decide based on the constitution, which is easy to realize once reading many of the different Supreme Court cases.

Anyway, what does interpreting the constitution have to do with the legislature? Thats the judiciary branch's job.


----------



## jagdwolf (Mar 16, 2009)

Bunneh45 said:


> Honestly I don't think economic orientation doesn't mean anything to do with your party anymore. The republicans in the last 8 years spent spent spent on Iraq just like Obama is spending spending spending for stimulus.
> 
> Plus too many people throw around the word "fiscal-conservative" like it has anything whatsoever to do with your political ideology. It means managing your money well. Unless you own a whole economy does a liberal economic policy make any sense at all.
> 
> ...


 

yep thats why its all screwed up.  Because everyone tried to bend it to their will and ways.  And then the Judical brance has to make decisions on it, but who appoints them?  The Executive brance, reviewed by the legislative brance and when it comes down to it, their gonna put the ones in who are gonna support their views.  

So the there was a full understanding by legislate and executive, that the consititution was not a gumby toy to bend in any shape that THEY desired, we would not have the mess we have today.

government should really apply the KISS principal


----------



## Shadow (Mar 17, 2009)

Centrist present.


----------



## dwolv (Mar 17, 2009)

Slightly Republican but also liberal with small issues


----------



## Telnac (Mar 17, 2009)

jagdwolf said:


> I am a Constitutionalist minus the GOD BS.  If its against the Constitution im against it.  Im not left, im not right, im not conservative and im not Liberal.  If its not for the Constitution then its wrong.  thats where I stand.
> 
> Im sure when I run for SD32 in 2010 I wont get elected, but then again I might.  Because the only thing that can save American is a return to the Consitution as it was originally written, and the amendments to the constitution that support the consitution and the people.
> 
> kinda clear cut in my eyes.


You, sir, would have my vote!



Bunneh45 said:


> Honestly I don't think economic orientation doesn't mean anything to do with your party anymore. The republicans in the last 8 years spent spent spent on Iraq just like Obama is spending spending spending for stimulus.



Ugh, don't even get me started.  Both parties have been spending money like a drunken sailor.  I want to go back to the days when we had fiscal responsibility in Congress & a budget SURPLUS.

The reason everyone talks about being fiscally conservative is because that's the voice that's been lost in political debate in the USA today.  The Republicans haven't been fiscally conservative since '00 when the social conservatives wrested control of the party away.  Since then, they've tried to sound fiscally conservative by talking about tax cuts.  Tax cuts != fiscally conservative.  It means spending what you earn & putting some away for a rainy day.

Yet the Democrats want to tax the rich & resurrect the social programs that were dismal failures back in the '70s.  Yeah, I was alive back then.  No, I don't want to do back to days of double digit inflation & a stagnant economy.  If Obama & Congress can't get the clue that money doesn't grow on trees, then we can expect inflation to skyrocket once again.

But if the only thing Republicans can talk about to counter that is abortion... oi, and we wonder why we lost?


----------



## Blitzkrieg_fox (Mar 17, 2009)

i am libertarian with conservative leanings.  the government should only be for defense and infrastructure.  they shouldnt delve into the personal lives of its citizens.  also i believe states should have more control (like they used to have until the 14th amendment) and that control should also be pushed down to the local governments.  the smaller and closer the government the more control the people have over it.  the bigger and farther away the less control the people have.

the problem we have is the politicians have more power than they should and they dont want to give it back.


----------



## Bunneh45 (Mar 17, 2009)

Telnac said:


> Yet the Democrats want to tax the rich & resurrect the social programs that were dismal failures back in the '70s.  Yeah, I was alive back then.  No, I don't want to do back to days of double digit inflation & a stagnant economy.  If Obama & Congress can't get the clue that money doesn't grow on trees, then we can expect inflation to skyrocket once again.



Yeah, but you have to spend money to make money. For example, food stamps give almost two dollars back for every dollar spent by the government on them. Economic stimulus, money given to programs (which Obama is doing right now), if well placed, can give back a pretty good amount for every dollar spent on it. Tax cuts, though, the solution proposed by the Republicans time and time again, give back a dollar and a few cents for every dollar spent on it.

Yes, Obama is spending a ton, but thats the point, and this money should be paying for itself eventually, if it works. I really hope it does.



> The Constitution is extremely simplistic in itself. Its the 3 branches of government that polute it. It has been bent so much that it is at its breaking point. If it were taken for the simplicity that it was written in, and applied universally, then there would be no questions as to "IN GOD WE TRUST" or as to if you can own arms. Or when your property can be searched. It has become poluted as people have tried to mold it in their image.



Thats completely *wrong*. Sorry, its just wrong. The constitution does NOT have simple language. For example, the 4th amendment: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." Now, whats an "unreasonable" search and seizure? What makes something "probable cause" enough?

Another example: The 9th amendment. No one knows what it means and many argue that it should just be ignored.

If you really, honestly, think the constitution has simple language, I doubt you have even read it. Sorry for being harsh, but this is a bipartisan and well-accepted view. The constitution has tons of ambiguities and loopholes, and you can't honestly think there aren't if you have read it in depth before.

Strict constructionalism is a farce. Its an excuse to pass unpopular and stupid decisions saying that "the constitution made me do it".


----------



## Blitzkrieg_fox (Mar 18, 2009)

Bunneh45 said:


> Yeah, but you have to spend money to make money. For example, food stamps give almost two dollars back for every dollar spent by the government on them. Economic stimulus, money given to programs (which Obama is doing right now), if well placed, can give back a pretty good amount for every dollar spent on it. Tax cuts, though, the solution proposed by the Republicans time and time again, give back a dollar and a few cents for every dollar spent on it.
> 
> Yes, Obama is spending a ton, but thats the point, and this money should be paying for itself eventually, if it works. I really hope it does.
> 
> {cut}


tax cuts let everyone keep more money, its their money to spend as they want.  this lets businesses grow because people invest their money in businesses and technology.  the welfare program is being abused and the taxpayers are the ones getting screwed.  it can be good for those that need it but the current system encourages people to stay on it.  and the type of help it gives out stagnates the economy as we would be low end consumption based instead of high end technology based.



> Another example: The 9th amendment. No one knows what it means and many argue that it should just be ignored.
> 
> {cut}


Amendment 9
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed
to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

enumerate |iËˆn(y)oÅmÉ™ËŒrÄt|
verb [ trans. ]
mention (a number of things) one by one : there is not space to enumerate all his works.

basically its saying that list of rights given by the constitution shouldn't be made to take away rights of the people.  thats what i get out of it anyway.


----------



## Irreverent (Mar 18, 2009)

Bunneh45 said:


> Another example: The 9th amendment. No one knows what it means and many argue that it should just be ignored.



As I interpret it, your constitution's 9th amendment means, "Just because rights aren't listed here, it doesn't mean they aren't rights."  Or paraphrased, anything not explicitly forbidden, is permitted.  So someone that thinks the 9th should be ignored would be of the mindset "everything not explicitly permitted is forbidden."  Laws make things illegal vs laws make things legal.  Libertarian vs. nanny-state-ist.

At least your country has a constitution and a bill of rights.  The Canadian experience is not the same.  We're still operating under a repatriated Constitution that has not been fully ratified by all of the provinces and territories; and a Charter of Rights that is exclusive.  Worse, both can be suspended for periods of up to 5 years by a mechanism of Parliamentary government known as "The Notwithstanding Clause."  And the final insult....justice in Canada is determined by geography and race.  Quebec operates under the Napolionic code, the remainder of Canada operates under English Common Law and the Indian Act dictates the rules for status Indians.


----------



## Bunneh45 (Mar 18, 2009)

Blitzkrieg_fox said:


> tax cuts let everyone keep more money, its their money to spend as they want.  this lets businesses grow because people invest their money in businesses and technology.  the welfare program is being abused and the taxpayers are the ones getting screwed.  it can be good for those that need it but the current system encourages people to stay on it.  and the type of help it gives out stagnates the economy as we would be low end consumption based instead of high end technology based.
> 
> 
> Amendment 9
> ...



1. Tax cuts do give money back to the people but it has such a small return that stimulus is more effective. Also, lower taxes are just used to pay off debts, while stimulus makes people more likely to buy things, which is what is needed to jump-start the economy again.

2. Yes, that is the common interpretation of the 9th amendment, but what does it actually _mean_? It has commonly been used to give more rights, but it is so elastic it could mean almost anything. To be more clear I wasn't saying it didn't mean anything, it just has so many different interpretations about just how much it means and how many rights it covers.

Ehehe I'm just flexing my muscles because I am in an AP Government Politics class right now. Sorry if I'm a bit snobby lol. 



> At least your country has a constitution and a bill of rights. The Canadian experience is not the same. We're still operating under a repatriated Constitution that has not been fully ratified by all of the provinces and territories; and a Charter of Rights that is exclusive. Worse, both can be suspended for periods of up to 5 years by a mechanism of Parliamentary government known as "The Notwithstanding Clause.":sad: And the final insult....justice in Canada is determined by geography and race. Quebec operates under the Napolionic code, the remainder of Canada operates under English Common Law and the Indian Act dictates the rules for status Indians.


 sounds annoying. Sometimes I think that America has the best government-set up but Canadia more open-minded, tolerant people that I wish America had.


----------



## Squeak (Mar 18, 2009)

Extreme social liberal, moderate economic liberal (why this is call 'fiscally conservative' in America I will never know. The idea of free markets is derived from old school liberalism after all). Libertarian over all.


----------



## Bunneh45 (Mar 18, 2009)

Squeak said:


> Extreme social liberal, moderate economic liberal (why this is call 'fiscally conservative' in America I will never know. The idea of free markets is derived from old school liberalism after all). Libertarian over all.



Yeah, its funny. Democrats are social liberals and economic conservatives (more regulation, etc), while Republicans are social conservatives (what a totally useless political ideolog), and economic liberals (more freedom in business).

The free market is totally flawed, though. It sounds like a good idea and I really wish it would work, but if we had a free market in the USA with no regulation, shit like lead-toys and poison baby-food would make it into the market like in China. We need regulation for this!

But for me the only thing that really matters is your social ideology because I view different economic ideologies as just differences in opinions. I can't say I know much about economics, anyway.


----------



## Irreverent (Mar 18, 2009)

Bunneh45 said:


> sounds annoying. Sometimes I think that America has the best government-set up but Canadia more open-minded, tolerant people that I wish America had.



I'd like Canada to be a republic one day, even though I'm a bit of a monarchist at heart.  A Canadian-republic would be my ideal blending of US and Candian government, both of which are based one Common Law and Magna Carta.

The Canadian existence is full of dualities.  We have lawful gay marriage, but not gay adoption or gay divorce; much work still to be done.  We have separation of church and state.....but constitutionally protected Catholic schooling on Ontario and Quebec (dates back to the Family Compact, circa 1867).  China has property rights.....none exist in Canada.  While my passport says "Citizen" I'm legally still a "subject" of the Crown.  Its 2009, but not much has changed since 1776 and 1812.  

Which might explain why more Canadian Furs are Libertarian, Reform or Socialist than true American-style "conservatives."


----------



## Blitzkrieg_fox (Mar 19, 2009)

all in all the definition of conservative and liberal changes many times.  at one point in time the US was considered extremely liberal.  now its considered mostly conservative.  i believe the best definition of the founding fathers would be Libertarian (as it is defined today).

yes the US is kind of behind when it comes to social openness and acceptance.  maybe things might have been different if we never had a civil war (if the CSA didnt break away), slavery was already in decline and letting it end naturally might have been better than forced to end.  but thats all "what if" now.  at times its the military that takes the first step and the rest of the country follows, but its behind on the homosexual issue (at the top levels at least, no one on the lower end cares).

the turning point when i learned that liberal can mean something different is when i met a dutch man in seoul and we started talking politics.  his view of liberal is just the same as my view of libertarian.

this ended up being a little longer than i intended it to be :Ãž


----------



## Bunneh45 (Mar 19, 2009)

> all in all the definition of conservative and liberal changes many times. at one point in time the US was considered extremely liberal. now its considered mostly conservative. i believe the best definition of the founding fathers would be Libertarian (as it is defined today).



Although I agree that America is behind in social openness, its getting there, even if its slow. The prop-8 thing is not a sign of going backwards... it is just another obstacle as we go forward. Also, anyone who tries to tell you that America is a center-right country is a conservative who wants you to think that way. It used to be more liberal, but it is still center-left. Especially now, when we have democratic majorities in both houses and a black, democrat president.


----------



## Tycho Rass (Mar 19, 2009)

Radical, left-wing, liberal, socialist bastard here!!!!!!



(Not really, but I think Obama rocks)


----------



## Phazon (Mar 19, 2009)

Militant Conservative right here. Not a fur, but meh.

I am not a republicrat, or a demican.


----------



## -Lucario- (Mar 19, 2009)

I'm conservative, even though I'm in California.


----------



## muddypaws (Mar 22, 2009)

dietrc70 said:


> Same here.  I like Pat Bucchanan's writings, and I enjoy reading *The American Conservative* and takimag.com.




I must admit I've yet to read Bucchanan's writings, however I have read the works of Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, the Federalist Papers, and I have copies of our Declaration of Independence (which an ancestor of mine signed) and the United States Constitution at home.

By the way if you want to read a really good biography of Benjamin Franklin, get the book by Brands, titled "The First American."

This is just loaded with history, quotes, and gives one the sense that all the basics of our Republic were devised by Franklin, during his time in the Philadelphia legislature in the 1750's.


----------



## Lowblock (Mar 23, 2009)

Kitstaa (S.L.A.B) said:


> Centrist, slightly libertarian.
> 
> Lets yiff
> 
> ...



I just got a furection.  Wanna vote?


----------



## Telnac (Mar 24, 2009)

Bunneh45 said:


> Yeah, but you have to spend money to make money. For example, food stamps give almost two dollars back for every dollar spent by the government on them. Economic stimulus, money given to programs (which Obama is doing right now), if well placed, can give back a pretty good amount for every dollar spent on it. Tax cuts, though, the solution proposed by the Republicans time and time again, give back a dollar and a few cents for every dollar spent on it.
> 
> Yes, Obama is spending a ton, but thats the point, and this money should be paying for itself eventually, if it works. I really hope it does.


In the short term, deficit spending to stimulate a stagnant economy is the right thing to do.  But ultimately the total strength of any nation's economy can only be measured by the totality of the goods & services the economy produces.  That's ANY nation, not just the USA.

In the short term, deficit spending will boost demand, causing a boost a few months later in supply (and inflation as demand & supply are temporarily unbalanced.)  In principle, increased supply means more jobs which means more demand & the economy has recovered.  But that only works if the deficit spending is TEMPORARY.

It the deficit spending becomes long-term, the debt payments start to sap away from the demand (through higher interest rates, higher inflation and the like.)  The spending becomes less and less effective and soon you'll find that NO amount of deficit spending will get you out of your mess.

As for specific programs, food stamps work because they support the working poor.  Keeping the working poor fed means they stay WORKING, which is what's important to the economy as a whole.  Wal-Mart may only want to may single moms slightly better that minimum wage, but their true value to the economy is much more than that.  W/o food stamps, they couldn't work, children would starve and we'd not only lose a labor force but also human lives.  So yes, food stamps are a good program that should be kept in place.

Paying someone to NOT work, however, as happened before welfare reform & as will happen now that welfare reform has been lifted... returns FAR, FAR less than $1.00 for every $1.00 spent.  That's because w/o an incentive to actually work, many poor parents would rather just stay home & pump out babies.  It removes workers from the labor pool AND adds the burden of the cost of raising children that would have never been conceived had one or both parents been at work.


----------



## NahaniDeer (Mar 24, 2009)

Socially very liberal.

Living in Massachusetts has given me a very decidedly conservative streak on taxation, gun control laws, and who i'll be looking to vote for in elections on the state level.

True New England conservatism usually follows the guidelines of socially liberal/fiscally sensible pretty closely, so we get some very compassionate conservative politicians here that aren't all about trying to block equal rights and swing a bible around, or are automatically partisan.

Massachusetts, however, is a different ball game. 

Yanno how the Republicans got high on the hog in Washington and fucked everything up the past eight years, and became extremely outrageously corrupt because they could get away with it? 

Massachusetts is exactly the same way, except it's the Democrats. 

One political party having too much influence is a bad thing, no matter which side it is.


----------



## dietrc70 (Mar 24, 2009)

muddypaws said:


> I must admit I've yet to read Bucchanan's writings, however I have read the works of Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, the Federalist Papers, and I have copies of our Declaration of Independence (which an ancestor of mine signed) and the United States Constitution at home.
> 
> By the way if you want to read a really good biography of Benjamin Franklin, get the book by Brands, titled "The First American."
> 
> This is just loaded with history, quotes, and gives one the sense that all the basics of our Republic were devised by Franklin, during his time in the Philadelphia legislature in the 1750's.


 
Thanks for the advice on the Franklin biography.  I had heard good things about it.  That's a great reading list.

You would probably like Paul Gottfried.  He has written some very interesting books and articles on politics in the 20th century.


----------



## Anthrocoon (Apr 18, 2009)

I am conservative on many issues, liberal on a couple; I am unenrolled in either party.
Kind of like Dennis Miller ("I don't mind if Larry marries Steve, but I'd object to an
Islamofascist firebombing their wedding"). I believe in individual freedoms and don't want a nanny state; while the government certainly can do some things for us, it should be limited in power and scope. I hate cronyism and political patronage, government waste, etc. In some ways views like mine have been described as
"South Park Conservative" or "classical liberal"


----------



## Shindo (Apr 18, 2009)

i dont think im conservative on any views


----------



## Anthrocoon (Apr 18, 2009)

>>One political party having too much influence is a bad thing, no matter which side it is.

Am from MA as well, where there are two parties, the Democrats and the Democrats.
And the occasional Republican who might get elected but are viewed as "Republicans In Name Only" (hello Mitt). From the Big Dig to politicians literally stealing (and sometimes, thankfully getting caught) from us (cut to Dianne Wilkerson sticking
a bribe in her bra, or the reg. of probate caught looting the change and copy
machines) to the hacks and cronies and wasteful spending to the Easter Sunday
Mass $pike incident where it took people 8 hours to get from Albany to Boston due to
a "we want more tolltakers" sickout... God, I love Massghanistan!


----------



## Torrijos-sama (Apr 18, 2009)

A Green Libertarian, says Connor.


----------



## Lethe5683 (Apr 19, 2009)

Steel-Fox said:


> Any furries out there that would consider themselves to be a republican, conservative, or libertarian?


Neagatife.


----------



## Kai Tigrhynte (Apr 19, 2009)

Semi-radical libertarian right here XD


----------



## Drake_TigerClaw (Apr 20, 2009)

Mostly libertarian here. I like government to be small and limited and for people to have maximum civil liberties. Well armed, lightly taxed, take care of yourself, be free to do what you want as long as your not hurting anyone else, that's my philosophy. >^.^<


----------



## Ruko (Apr 20, 2009)

> Mostly libertarian here. I like government to be small and limited and for people to have maximum civil liberties. Well armed, lightly taxed, take care of yourself, be free to do what you want as long as your not hurting anyone else, that's my philosophy. >^.^<



This. Couldn't say it better myself.


----------



## Iceyguy (May 17, 2009)

I'm a Card carrying member of the liberal party of canada . I still disagree with some of the policies they put in place, but hell there better than the other guys =)


----------



## Kao (May 17, 2009)

I'm conservative only as far to say that I support the parties views in the UK however tbh I'm a mix between most of them, just the policies which Labour have been churning out recently are pathetic and I would like a change.

Its more of a lesser of many great evils to be honest. Who'd vote me in for PM? I could do it better


----------



## Arch Wolf (May 17, 2009)

Very liberal here. Mostly due to the fact that our country was basically wrecked due to a conservative. Do the math.


----------



## Kao (May 17, 2009)

Maggie T perchance?

edit: just noticed you were from the USA, ignore me ^^


----------



## krisCrash (May 17, 2009)

Collectivist/anarchist

That's probably _socialist devil_ in American.


----------



## Telnac (May 17, 2009)

Arch Wolf said:


> Very liberal here. Mostly due to the fact that our country was basically wrecked due to a conservative. Do the math.


I don't consider Bush to be a conservative.  Tax + spend or borrow + spend all amount to the same thing: a giant, lumbering government that we can't can't afford.  I'll give props to Obama: he IS trying to fix things.  But the only thing he's changing is what programs get the lion's share of the money.  So far, the stimulus money has had much of effect.  I fear that the only real effect it'll have in the long run is to give us double digit inflation again.

The only thing Bush was conservative on was social issues (which is a form of conservatism I'm not all that enthusiastic about.)  Finish the fight in Iraq???  Nah, he'd rather make sure we can't use IVF embryos for research!

I'm hoping for the day when a real conservative steps up and actually defends the things I believe in instead of going out and saying only talking points given to them by the Christian Coalition.


----------



## gray_foxor (May 17, 2009)

Extreme Libertarian. I can't believe Bob Barr lost...


----------



## El Furicuazo (May 17, 2009)

Extreme libertarian, I CAN'T STAND PUERTO RICO BEING A COLONY FOR ANOTHER YEAR (500 & 3/4 years are WAY TOO MANY!!).  Here in Puerto Rico, independentists would be libertarians, simply because we want big changes & because we're a minority.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (May 17, 2009)

Don't know if i can include myself in this as i am not american. I am not keen on pollitical debates either. As far as i care british politicians can drop of the planet.


----------



## KatmanDu (May 17, 2009)

Don't follow any one party; more concerned with which candidate I think will do the best job, regardless of party. Unfortunately, most elections tend to come down to the lesser of the evils. Conservative on some issues, liberal on others; really depends on what issue it is.


----------



## krisCrash (May 17, 2009)

KatmanDu said:


> Don't follow any one party; more concerned with which candidate I think will do the best job, regardless of party. Unfortunately, most elections tend to come down to the lesser of the evils. Conservative on some issues, liberal on others; really depends on what issue it is.


It must really suck then for you guys to only have 2Â½ party?

We had 13 and it still wasn't really enough. Many of them crawl so much to the centre for the votes, I hope it bites them in the ass because populism like that does not make good country rulin'.


----------



## Irreverent (May 17, 2009)

Iceyguy said:


> I'm a Card carrying member of the liberal party of canada .



I _was_ too.  Those bastards actually asked me to renew my membership, after they passed Bill C-68 and raided my house.  

I held my nose and started working for the other guys after that.


----------



## Tryp (May 18, 2009)

Irreverent said:


> But the problem with political labels is that they aren't universal in definition.  For example, Canadian Conservatives are often (incorrectly) compared to US conservatives, and Canadian Liberals to US Democrats.  In reality, Canadian Conservatives are closer to socialists, and Canadian Liberals closer to communists.  This upsets the Canadian establishment, but consider this:
> 
> The most vile Canadian conservative is still pro-universal health care, pro-social medicine, pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage, anti-gun, anti-death penalty, pro-social education (k-12 is free) and anti-separation of church and state (see Ontario Catholic schools for examples).  At least they've never invoked the Notwithstanding Clause (a suspension of the so-called Canadian Constitution or British North American Act).  Or put another way, Barrack Obama would consider Stephen Harper to be a Socialists, not a US-style Republican.



I think that might be stretching it a bit.  Canadian conservatives aren't as far right as Republicans, but they aren't really that socialist either.  

Remember, the Conservatives tried to repeal the gay marriage law.  As for other issues, they don't really have a choice.  Dropping support for health care, education or abortion would guarantee they would come in third in every federal election, behind the NDP.  

As for church and state, being anti-separation is a right-wing thing.  Liberals and socialists support a separation.  Alberta is the only other province that funds Catholic schools.  That's an issue with the provincial Liberals, not the federal ones.


----------



## Leostale (May 18, 2009)

Coservative we are.. yes?


----------



## MattyK (May 18, 2009)

My Father's Irish, so I'd have to say, Republican. All for one, and One for all!


----------



## Irreverent (May 18, 2009)

Tryp said:


> I think that might be stretching it a bit.  Canadian conservatives aren't as far right as Republicans, but they aren't really that socialist either.



I don't think its that much of a stretch.  Canadians, by and large, of all political stripes are a socialist lot.  Its not a bad thing, but it puts the political baseline of our right-most parties far to the left of of the US.



> Remember, the Conservatives tried to repeal the gay marriage law.



There was a motion, for sure.  But it was a political prop to their supporters.  Harper pulled the motion as soon as they realized the Liberals were going to let it be a free vote......with full Liberal support, it would have passed.  And it was never Harper's intention that it should.  So at the end of the day, they supported gay marriage.



> As for church and state, being anti-separation is a right-wing thing.  Liberals and socialists support a separation.  Alberta is the only other province that funds Catholic schools.  That's an issue with the provincial Liberals, not the federal ones.



Alberta has been a right-wing province for the last 167 years.  And yet, like Ontario (which has also been predominantly conservative for its 187 odd years) Alberta still supports Catholic schools.  Explain to me again how being anti-separation of church and state is a right wing thing?  Looks like they support it to me.

With the exception of the BC Liberals and the Quebec BQ, there's really no difference between the provincial and federal parties.  They're pretty heavily intermarried.


----------



## KatmanDu (May 18, 2009)

krisCrash said:


> It must really suck then for you guys to only have 2Â½ party?
> 
> We had 13 and it still wasn't really enough. Many of them crawl so much to the centre for the votes, I hope it bites them in the ass because populism like that does not make good country rulin'.



In a lot of ways, parties are cliff's notes for voters... an easy way for the franchised to choose a candidate. No need to study the issues and research the candidates; who's got time for that? Just punch the card down the line. If they're not just voting straight party ticket, they're voting charisma and television character.  *sigh*



But maybe I'm just cynical. My political views straddle both sides of the spectrum so far that I doubt I'll ever find a candidate that matches all of them.

"A conservative is a liberal who was mugged. A liberal is a conservative who was arrested."


----------



## Telnac (May 19, 2009)

krisCrash said:


> It must really suck then for you guys to only have 2Â½ party?
> 
> We had 13 and it still wasn't really enough. Many of them crawl so much to the centre for the votes, I hope it bites them in the ass because populism like that does not make good country rulin'.


Yes.  Yes, it does.  Too many Republicans look like Democrats these days, and vice-versa.

As for Canadian politics, C-68 is the reason that I'll never register any weapons I may ever own.  I don't currently own a gun, but I may inherit one from my grandfather's estate.  He never registered his firearms (the majority of which date to 1960 or earlier) and if I get any of them, neither will I.

If someone threatened my life or some other reason I felt a real need to get a gun & I didn't have one, I'd buy one underground just to get one that's unregistered.  The last thing I want is to be on some government list of people to visit if/when something like C-68 is passed in the USA.


----------



## Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs (May 19, 2009)

Irreverent said:


> At least your country has a constitution and a bill of rights. The Canadian experience is not the same. We're still operating under a repatriated Constitution that has not been fully ratified by all of the provinces and territories; and a Charter of Rights that is exclusive. Worse, both can be suspended for periods of up to 5 years by a mechanism of Parliamentary government known as "The Notwithstanding Clause."


 
Hey, I guess they figured that by giving the people gay-marriage and socialized health care, since most are left, you wouldn't complain about other stuff. Also, WTF was with the Queen of England suspending your parliament? I thought you broke off from the crown in the 80's? Man, I bet Lyndon Laroche had a field day when he heard what she did lol.


----------



## Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs (May 19, 2009)

Oh, I also forgot, RINOs, GTFO my party.


----------



## Kaizou (May 19, 2009)

Social-conservative. Don't see much hope for libertarian views in the long run. People will notice in a couple of years the shitstorm they brew up.


----------



## Irreverent (May 19, 2009)

Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs said:


> Hey, I guess they figured that by giving the people gay-marriage and socialized health care, since most are left, you wouldn't complain about other stuff.



The the principle.  The NWSC can be used by the next party to form a government to revoke everything that the previous party gave us.  Hasn't happened Federally, but in Quebec it has been used to deny English language rights to minorities.



> Also, WTF was with the Queen of England suspending your parliament? I thought you broke off from the crown in the 80's?



Nope.  Still a consitutional monarchy and Confederation.  Canada is not a republic.....yet.


----------



## Tryp (May 20, 2009)

Irreverent said:


> Alberta has been a right-wing province for the last 167 years.  And yet, like Ontario (which has also been predominantly conservative for its 187 odd years) Alberta still supports Catholic schools.  Explain to me again how being anti-separation of church and state is a right wing thing?  Looks like they support it to me.
> 
> With the exception of the BC Liberals and the Quebec BQ, there's really no difference between the provincial and federal parties.  They're pretty heavily intermarried.



Sorry, should have double-checked what I wrote.  What I meant to say was that conservatives were anti-separation.  In your post on the first page, you said even hardline Canadian Conservatives were pro-health care and all that, and anti-separation of church and state, which is a conservative belief, not a liberal or socialist one.


----------



## chordate (May 21, 2009)

I'm conservative libertarian... in southern California. D: 
*abject terror*


----------

