Ideaologies



  • Alright, I wish to attain a feel from the community as to how these ideologies intertwine with your thinking.

    Something like this:

    Ideology of (name)

    Economic:

    School- Keynesian

    Sect: Progressive

    Social:

    Liberal, slightly left of center

    Foreign Policy- Conservative, slightly right. However, liberal in terms of nation building

    Reasoning- To stimulate growth over long term debt cycles, and maintain a reasonable balance of income inequality. To stimulate the economy during times of recession. Foreign Policy, to actively protect American interests during free trade. To ensure stability in the markets. Nation building, to elevate third world Countries with the rest of the world, to continue with interdependence.

    Example of where it actively functions (functioned)- America 1890s to 1920s, rebooted during FDR. Resumed by Obama for a short period of time. As for foreign affairs, America ever since ww2

    If you’re unsure, you don’t deserve to have an opinion ^.^ This is going to turn out very different for EU, as political parties are wayyyy different over there.



  • my ideology is to, never ever, poop outside of my home



  • @CRUSHED:

    my ideology is to, never ever, poop outside of my home

    Have you never pooped in the ocean? You don’t even need wipe after



  • ocean? u mean where the monsters are?



  • Chum up the waters and it’s ez fishing. Just remember to shuffle your feet it’s stingray season



  • the waters?

    NOPE


  • Global Moderator

    Hell every American on the Internet I spoke to hated liberals. Even through America was founded on liberalism and were actually quite liberal themselves.

    New Zealand is out of the red and into the black and only gonna get further into the black. There’s a light money going around the government doesn’t know what to do with it. Australia on the other hand is $50 billion in the red. All those people who moved to Australia are feeling like right monkeys. They can’t even get citizenship very easy.

    More houses, lower living costs, better natural disaster protection and fibre for everyone is the concern of the every day New Zealander. ideology wise we don’t care as much. We have a whole government with executive power not one man. Agovernment that’s often a coalition of parties each with their own ideas.

    No one is really left wing right wing. Its who’s got the better offers come elections.





  • @gregcau:

    Greek

    reference: http://html.rincondelvago.com/sexual-ideology.html

    Is anyone really surprised?



  • @lemonater47:

    Hell every American on the Internet I spoke to hated liberals. Even through America was founded on liberalism and were actually quite liberal themselves.

    New Zealand is out of the red and into the black and only gonna get further into the black. There’s a light money going around the government doesn’t know what to do with it. Australia on the other hand is $50 billion in the red. All those people who moved to Australia are feeling like right monkeys. They can’t even get citizenship very easy.

    More houses, lower living costs, better natural disaster protection and fibre for everyone is the concern of the every day New Zealander. ideology wise we don’t care as much. We have a whole government with executive power not one man. Agovernment that’s often a coalition of parties each with their own ideas.

    No one is really left wing right wing. Its who’s got the better offers come elections.

    ^ so unique…. But no, really you’ve never spoken to a Northerner before. We’re either conservative and sophisticated, or liberal and still pretty much sophisticated. It’s a lot to do with culture and how you were raised as far as social issues go, but most Northern republicans are actually more inclined to agree with democrats than their own leaders. It’s sad that countries try to use the South to label America these days. Sorry for that comment, but in all honesty using a small minority of uneducated slobs to judge an entire Country is a bit ridiculous. Not all southerners are like that, specially some of my friends from Austin



  • wth? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RV7Qz640OeM
    have you been smoking the green tea leafs again huggy bear?



  • @loin:

    wth? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RV7Qz640OeM
    have you been smoking the green tea leafs again huggy bear?

    Yesssssir, yuropean socialists need to 1v1 me in economist smackdown bruh



  • and how you were razed

    I was razed when I was only 5 years old. I got the scar on my butt to prove it.

    Every time I pooped it stun my butt for 3 years before it finally healed.



  • @Flippy:

    I was razed when I was only 5 years old. I got the scar on my butt to prove it.

    Every time I pooped it stun my butt for 3 years before it finally healed.

    Why aren’t you confident in your libertarianism dude. What, do you need to side step the issue by pointing out miniscule mistakes?



  • I would say anarchist, or something along these lines.



  • Anarchy could only work in a world of infinite space, and nearly unlimited economic opportunity. Basic,crude human urges and desires might make biological sense further back in our species history (lust, ambition and greed,) but in a situation with any observable population density such base urges must be moderated, that’s where laws come in. The higher population density the greater the need for laws and regulations. Anarchy today would turn into total chaos and insecurity. Not everyone is going to behave because there will always be greedy, lustful, jealous, unruly people. When we were disperse, small bands of hunter gatherers such people were in less contact with other people, likely only in contact with blood relations within their tribe or band. So on a small scale, it could totally work, on a large scale? Nope. Also we would be living primitive lives, how much advancement can we get done with a group of 20 or so people? Laws and regulations are the only way to rule a large scale society, and a large scale society is the only effective society.

    /idiotic post



  • @Huggles:

    Anarchy could only work in a world of infinite space, and nearly unlimited economic opportunity. Basic,crude human urges and desires might make biological sense further back in our species history (lust, ambition and greed,) but in a situation with any observable population density such base urges must be moderated, that’s where laws come in. The higher population density the greater the need for laws and regulations. Anarchy today would turn into total chaos and insecurity. Not everyone is going to behave because there will always be greedy, lustful, jealous, unruly people. When we were disperse, small bands of hunter gatherers such people were in less contact with other people, likely only in contact with blood relations within their tribe or band. So on a small scale, it could totally work, on a large scale? Nope. Also we would be living primitive lives, how much advancement can we get done with a group of 20 or so people? Laws and regulations are the only way to rule a large scale society, and a large scale society is the only effective society.

    /idiotic post

    But dude… Anarchism is not the lack of laws, modern anarchism comes from the proletarian theory and is mostly about abolishing the class divided society and so, abolish work exploitation and shit like that. Have you EVER read anything from the proletarian theory?
    Do you know what it means?



  • @Vanguard:

    But dude… Anarchism is not the lack of laws, modern anarchism comes from the proletarian theory and is mostly about abolishing the class divided society and so, abolish work exploitation and shit like that. Have you EVER read anything from the proletarian theory?
    Do you know what it means?

    Ummmmmm you don’t know what anarchism means. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/anarchism



  • @Huggles:

    Ummmmmm you don’t know what anarchism means. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/anarchism

    Thats your sorce?

    Shit man… Dictionary… lol…

    Wanna understand what is anarchism? Guy Debord, Errico Malatesta, Mikhail Bakunin, Proudhon, Piotr Kropotkin. Guy Debord is the best to get the idea. I mean, is a complex theory that has changed a lot during modern history.



  • @Vanguard:

    Thats your sorce?

    Shit man… Dictionary… lol…

    Wanna understand what is anarchism? Guy Debord, Errico Malatesta, Mikhail Bakunin, Proudhon, Piotr Kropotkin. Guy Debord is the best to get the idea. I mean, is a complex theory that has changed a lot during modern history.

    Ik man, these dictionaries. It’s like, the only function they serve is to give definitions over what a particular concept is. Some of the guys you listed here are marxist socialists, not very good examples of anarchism……

    All of that complexity means absolutely nothing if it can’t function more effectively than Capitalism. You can’t limit the growth of private Industries, you should only limit how they achieve their goals so that they ultimately benefit the society rather than enslaving it.