Are you more Liberal or More Conservative now than when you were 18?

Blisterman

I hear it repeated again and again, that you get more conservative as you get older, so I thought I'd put it to a poll.

I myself, have always been liberal in some regards, and conservative in others, in some areas, I've become more conservative, others more liberal, but as a whole, I'd consider myself more liberal. Than again, I am only 22.

_blank_

Liberal Lefty PC Brigade assholes.

I wonder how long it will take Dudess to post in this thread.

admiralofthefleet

im 27 and would say im very liberal but i hate hearing kids using bad language

Gauge

Far more liberal at 22 than I ever was at 18.

thelordofcheese

Liberal in it's proper meaning - yes.

Liberal as used pejoratively, no. And anyone who attempts to use it that way has nothing but my contempt.

purplegeko

25 - Way more liberal now than i ever would have imagined when i was 18 may change when i have kids i think thats when your ideals change.

MagicMarker

Defo more liberal.

I now accept women for the dirty whores that they are.:pac:

_blank_

MagicMarker wrote: »

I now accept women for the dirty whores that they are.:pac:

Especially ones that sleep with you on the first date.

Slappers.

jim o doom

Yeah not more but not less - but I've always been pretty damn liberal - what people do to themselves is their own business & I don't see myself ever changing that particular view!

Morlar

More conservative - less wishy washy, idealistic, utopian and more grounded in reality. Travel, life experience + common sense = lean to the right, and all that.

Rob_l

A little of both please
In certain issues im much more liberal and open
and then in other issues I have become more conservative


So yeah I'm super thanks for asking!

stovelid

Outwardly I probably seem more conservative, but I'm really just as liberal at heart, but just far more cynical / burned out and that tends to come across badly, especially when you encounter zealous beliefs and certainties.

I could sum it up simply by saying at 18, I believed certain things could (and would) happen, now I honestly don't think they ever will, but it doesn't mean that I don't really wish that they would.

Otacon

About the same, have maintained my views since I was about 15, when I started reading Politics sections in newspapers... I have no life

EDIT: I'm quite liberal btw...

nyarlothothep

Read the Che bio, read the communist manifesto, tried to get through Das Kapital, listened to a lot of RATM, listened to Chomsky tapes when I was a teenager etc. But it was quite superficial in the sense that I didn't really take it seriously. Now at 23, I would say I am still in the same political spectrum, though a good deal less naive and a lot more serious about what I read and learn and the action that can be taken based on challenging unjustified systems and institutions.

tallaght01

I used to be pretty conservative when I was in my early 20s actually.

But, through living in the real world after uni etc I've become pretty left wing.

I guess it comes from:

A) Meeting more rational left wing people post-uni (at college most of the liberal viewpoints I'd hear were just your unimaginative reflex anti-american/anti-capitalist stuff, or radical groups shouting through a megaphone)

and

working in the real world and hearing so many dumb people spout on about how society's ills are all the fault of people who just happen to be poor, and that the solution is tougher sentences, the death penalty, tighter immigration control, a "look after our own first" policy, and cancelling social welfare :P

I guess as you get a bit older, do a bit of overseas work and just generally expand your horizons (and become INCREDIBLY patronising in the process :P ) you just realise how short sighted those attitudes are.

Anyone wanna sign my petition to have non-organic pesticides removed from Southern Rwanda? Then come to my vegetarian commune in Glen of the Downs and I'll take your details :pac:

tallaght01

I also tried to explain the difference between social, economic and political liberalists to my 21 year old sister today, after it came up in one of her law exams.


The glazed look on her face made me realise I was never born to be a teacher

Steve.Pseudonym

More conservative. Exposure to more left wingers in college has coloured my outlook, and I have decided that I'll take pragmatism over idealism any day.

The problem is, identifying yourself as a conservative puts you in the same boat as some undesirable people, such as racists, homophobes, sexists, even outright fascists. Basically I believe in people's right to self determination with the least government interference feasible. I'm a big fan of capitalism, you make your own money based on your own merit rather than being given things by the state, but that said I still support a safety net for people who fall on hard times.

K-9

Depends on the issues, probably more Conservative on Economic issues, more Liberal on Social ones.

N. Ireland would be the main change, more Liberal by a long way.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

I believe I am more liberal now than when I was 18. I wasn't very rebelious, I joined the reserves FFS. I did drink underage, smoke weed and cigarettes. I just see that as the norm now though

Oh I fcuking hate politics... with a passion.

Snowie

I think ive always been liberal my perents where hippies.. Getting high with your folks is pretty normal for me.... soid say yeah very liberal.....

pablomakaveli

Im turning more fascist every day. I'm not a bad person, i just like shouting at people and ordering them around.

deleriumtremens

I'm still a teenager and I dont really know where I stand. My political opinions are often drawn from both sides but I would imagine I am more liberal than conservative, but I am not one of those naive, tree hugging, airy-fairy teenage liberals who's obsessed with capitalism, marx, communism..yada yada ya. I am clued into how real life works and would consider my opinions quite rational and practical.
In a non political sense though I would consider myself quite liberal..not hardcore though!

Earthhorse

Both labels are misleading, I think, but to answer the question I would say that politicaly I am more conservative and personally I am more liberal.

Red Hand

I'm a Whig.:pac:

Hmmmm...it depends. Liberal in many ways-however my expression and idea of liberalism might in many instances reek of extreme conservatism to many people.

If that makes sense.

I'm a member of the Society for Procreative Racial Deconstruction. So yeah, pretty liberal, I guess.

philologos

I've become more conservative in the whole year and a bit that has passed

Pen1987

The terms liberal on conservative are bandied around a bit to much in term of political ideologies for my liking, if you're a liberal you're automatically a left-wing thinker, if you're a cnservative you're automatically a right-winger.

e.g. Conservatives in the US would always be associated with small government and the christian fundamentalists, they'd be all for the US constitution train of thought of free market etc. People don't realise that the free market that neo-cons defend with such venom is something that liberals originally developed and the basis of much of the classic liberal philosophy. The US was the first truly liberal state because of that free market idea.

Personally I wouldn't describe myself as either a lib or a con. My feelings on such a range a subjects meander all over the lib-con divide. In all honesty I reckon it'd be almost impossible to box anyone into a "total" conservative or "total" liberal anyway. "Oh so you're a conervative - so you support the death penalty? Yes. So you don't believe in the welfare state? I don't. So you don't agree anyone should ever recieve funding to attend college if they are from socially deprived backgrounds? No. What about your poorer voters? Well..."

The two definitions are too extreme for any normal person to slot into IMO.

Exit

Pen1987 wrote: »

Personally I wouldn't describe myself as either a lib or a con. My feelings on such a range a subjects meander all over the lib-con divide. In all honesty I reckon it'd be almost impossible to box anyone into a "total" conservative or "total" liberal anyway. "Oh so you're a conervative - so you support the death penalty? Yes. So you don't believe in the welfare state? I don't. So you don't agree anyone should ever recieve funding to attend college if they are from socially deprived backgrounds? No. What about your poorer voters? Well..."

The two definitions are too extreme for any normal person to slot into IMO.

I was about to say the same thing. I'm liberal towards immigration, but I'm more conservative on things like crime and punishment, and while I'm not anti-abortion, as an expectant father, I can understand where the pro-lifers are coming from.

For me, I've become slightly more conservative in certain areas. At age 18, there's a belief that you can honestly change the world. Over time, you start to become jaded towards that stuff, and just live your own life the best you can.

rainbow kirby

I've become more socially liberal, and slightly more economically conservative. That said - I still fall very much on the "left-wing pinko" part of the spectrum.

Pen1987

"At 21 if you're not a socialist, you've no heart. At 51 if you're still a socialist, you've no brain." Winston Churchill.

K-9

Pen1987 wrote: »

"At 21 if you're not a socialist, you've no heart. At 51 if you're still a socialist, you've no brain." Winston Churchill.

And whether he is right or not, I'd say that tracks the majority of political opinions as they progress!

GA361

I am only18(well almost).I'd personally describe myself as a Liberal-Conservative,that is to say,Im right wing,but just about.Economically,Im strongly conservative. . . it is tough times like this with the recission that conservative economic policies prosper.Case in point-The Irish Govs basic economic attitude from 1920 right up until the start of the Celtic Tiger.Of course the Government became a bit too liberal in the Boom years(i.e investing too much in social policy and not focusing on the more serious financial issues like national debt)And we see where that got us!The government is now doing the sensible conservative thing,cutting down on pointless expenditure.Of course they are cutting away at important things too like education.But remember,it was generally liberal economic thinking that put the Government in that position.
Although I am conservative,I have some fairly socialist views too(hence the name-liberal conservative.For example,I believe in social welfare,free medical care,high taxes on the rich.But at the same time I don't think that a huge amount of money ought to be assigned to social policy.

Pen1987

GA361 wrote: »

I am only18(well almost).I'd personally describe myself as a Liberal-Conservative,that is to say,Im right wing,but just about.Economically,Im strongly conservative. . . it is tough times like this with the recission that conservative economic policies prosper.Case in point-The Irish Govs basic economic attitude from 1920 right up until the start of the Celtic Tiger.Of course the Government became a bit too liberal in the Boom years(i.e investing too much in social policy and not focusing on the more serious financial issues like national debt)And we see where that got us!The government is now doing the sensible conservative thing,cutting down on pointless expenditure.Of course they are cutting away at important things too like education.But remember,it was generally liberal economic thinking that put the Government in that position.
Although I am conservative,I have some fairly socialist views too(hence the name-liberal conservative.For example,I believe in social welfare,free medical care,high taxes on the rich.But at the same time I don't think that a huge amount of money ought to be assigned to social policy.

The government became more liberal in the boom years? You mean when they invested all that money in school and hospitals? And raised taxes for multinationals? Oh and when they closed all the loopholes for super-rich tax exiles and upped the higher tax bracket.

And the huge financial debt we had during the boom years? wtf...

K-9

Pen1987 wrote: »

The government became more liberal in the boom years? You mean when they invested all that money in school and hospitals? And raised taxes for multinationals? Oh and when they closed all the loopholes for super-rich tax exiles and upped the higher tax bracket.

And the huge financial debt we had during the boom years? wtf...

GA361 wrote:

I am only18(well almost).I'd personally describe myself as a Liberal-Conservative,that is to say,Im right wing,but just about.Economically,Im strongly conservative. . . it is tough times like this with the recission that conservative economic policies prosper.Case in point-The Irish Govs basic economic attitude from 1920 right up until the start of the Celtic Tiger.Of course the Government became a bit too liberal in the Boom years(i.e investing too much in social policy and not focusing on the more serious financial issues like national debt)And we see where that got us!The government is now doing the sensible conservative thing,cutting down on pointless expenditure.Of course they are cutting away at important things too like education.But remember,it was generally liberal economic thinking that put the Government in that position.
Although I am conservative,I have some fairly socialist views too(hence the name-liberal conservative.For example,I believe in social welfare,free medical care,high taxes on the rich.But at the same time I don't think that a huge amount of money ought to be assigned to social policy.

I'd agree with your points, but taxes are reduced to such a level, we can't cut them anymore to get out of the recession.

Liberal tends to mean different things economically than politically.

PS. The Govt. did concentrate on reducing National debt during the boom years. It's why we can borrow so much now, unlike the UK, Still, it can only last so long.

Firetrap

More liberal. As I've lived life in the real world, I've learned that there are shades of grey. Now, my philosophy is that as long as nobody gets hurt and no-one frightens the horses, let it be. I suppose too, as I've aged, I've done things I thought I'd never do when I was 18.

GA361

Pen1987 wrote: »

The government became more liberal in the boom years? You mean when they invested all that money in school and hospitals? And raised taxes for multinationals? Oh and when they closed all the loopholes for super-rich tax exiles and upped the higher tax bracket.

I get the feeling that your implying that conservative principles were put into action as opposed to liberal!Is that what you are trying to say?If so,then you seriously misunderstand the differences between liberal and conservative economic and social policy.Believe it or not,as I have mentioned in my previous post,education and healthcare roughly fall into social policy bracket:eek:.
You should be a bit more clear in the future as to what exactly you are saying.

Pen1987

GA361 wrote: »

I get the feeling that your implying that conservative principles were put into action as opposed to liberal!Is that what you are trying to say?If so,then you seriously misunderstand the differences between liberal and conservative economic and social policy.Believe it or not,as I have mentioned in my previous post,education and healthcare roughly fall into social policy bracket:eek:.
You should be a bit more clear in the future as to what exactly you are saying.

No. I was saying that the government never ploughed money into any schools or hospitals as you implied. You see the A&E's going off call last week? The crisis in the Healthcare system all through the boom? If anything they neglected the healthcare system.

As for your comment about national debt being huge, we had hardly any national debt, and still have hardly any.

K-9

Pen1987 wrote: »

No. I was saying that the government never ploughed money into any schools or hospitals as you implied. You see the A&E's going off call last week? The crisis in the Healthcare system all through the boom? If anything they neglected the healthcare system.

As for your comment about national debt being huge, we had hardly any national debt, and still have hardly any.

Did they not? Is this opinion or backed up by facts?

K-9

Pen1987 wrote: »

l

As for your comment about national debt being huge, we had hardly any national debt, and still have hardly any.

WAH? Not being smart, but what age where you in the late 80's?

Pen1987

Seanies32 wrote: »

Did they not? Is this opinion or backed up by facts?

RE: National debt

RE: Healthcare system. Although admittedly that article is from yesterday. I'm not arsed digging out anything more, it is generally accepted that while we had less national debt than the majority of the world we were having our cash pissed into the foundations of dodgey hi-rise office blocks and not public health.

K-9

Pen1987 wrote: »

RE: National debt

That is 2005, not 1988.

GA361

Pen1987 wrote: »

No. I was saying that the government never ploughed money into any schools or hospitals as you implied. You see the A&E's going off call last week? The crisis in the Healthcare system all through the boom? If anything they neglected the healthcare system.

As for your comment about national debt being huge, we had hardly any national debt, and still have hardly any.

Firstly,I never said we had 'huge' national debt,I just said that thrugh conservatives eyes' national is indeed a 'serious' issue,in fact,I didn't even mention Ireland's national debt.
As regards the government 'plughing' money into education and healthcare,you couldn't be more wrong.The government did plough huge money into edu and health.But that's all they did.They failed to organise how every penny of the money would be spent like a conservative gov would have done.Result:A huge amount of dead wood being hired/money sqaundered.Similarly,in education money was also squandered.Eg,instead of building new schools,they decided to hire,at a huge cost, prefabs. . . . there's some nice liberal economic logic-We'll pump the money in but we won't make it efficient.

K-9

Pen1987 wrote: »

RE: Healthcare system. Although admittedly that article is from yesterday. I'm not arsed digging out anything more, it is generally accepted that while we had less national debt than the majority of the world we were having our cash pissed into the foundations of dodgey hi-rise office blocks and not public health.

Oh, are these the consultants on €280,000 contracts and nobody the world over, can believe they can treat private patients on Govt. property.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Steve.Pseudonym wrote: »

The problem is, identifying yourself as a conservative puts you in the same boat as some undesirable people, such as racists, homophobes, sexists, even outright fascists. Basically I believe in people's right to self determination with the least government interference feasible. I'm a big fan of capitalism, you make your own money based on your own merit rather than being given things by the state, but that said I still support a safety net for people who fall on hard times.

True, but call yourslef a liberal and eveyone accuses you of being a dreadlocked tree-hugging hippy.

I don't think true liberalism exists in Ireland.

K-9

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

True, but call yourslef a liberal and eveyone accuses you of being a dreadlocked tree-hugging hippy.

I don't think true liberalism exists in Ireland.

No, or true conservatism.

Pen1987

Seanies32 wrote: »

That is 2005, not 1988.

Did I miss something? We were talking the boom years... the ones that just ended I thought?

to Quote GA
"Of course the Government became a bit too liberal in the Boom years(i.e investing too much in social policy and not focusing on the more serious financial issues like national debt)"

I'm certainly not taking "the boom years" to be 1988, I'd hardly even take them to be around 1998. Hence my source of 2005.

The government did plough huge money into edu and health.But that's all they did.They failed to organise how every penny of the money would be spent like a conservative gov would have done.Result:A huge amount of dead wood being hired/money sqaundered.Similarly,in education money was also squandered.Eg,instead of building new schools,they decided to hire,at a huge cost, prefabs. . . . there's some nice liberal economic logic-We'll pump the money in but we won't make it efficient.

I'm with you on the squandered but I'm far from with you on the "huge" money. It's 01.35, I'll go source the budgets from the boom years in morning and check what % went towards health edu as opposed to multinationals.

Just so we're on the same boat here, you're not referring to "free fees" at third level as ploughing money into education right?

tallaght01

Seanies32 wrote: »

Oh, are these the consultants on €280,000 contracts and nobody the world over, can believe they can treat private patients on Govt. property.

Well, the ones on the 280k contracts don't treat private patients.

And they don't get juniors, or a secretary.

So, it IS bad value for money, but for the reasons that it's just a numbers exercise, as a consultant who's not got a team to run is not going to be as productive as he should be.

But who knows the secret to a liberalist approach to healthcare. The UK have tried it, and just can't afford it, and they pay their docs much less than most countries.

It's just very hard to give people free health. The cheaper it is, the more people use it. It's a vicious cycle.

The Conservative approach has been tried int he states. You get fantastic healthcare if you can afford it, but third world health if you can't.

I don't know what the answers are though

GA361

Pen1987 wrote: »

Just so we're on the same boat here, you're not referring to "free fees" at third level as ploughing money into education right?

Jaysus no.That is one of the main reasons that I am Liberal-Conservative as opposed to Conservative.That was an area where money was invested wisely.I just think that national debt is a serious issue,however minute it may be. . . I guess that is just the Coservative half of me coming out.

Anyways,its late.Goodnight.

K-9

Pen1987 wrote: »

Did I miss something? We were talking the boom years... the ones that just ended I thought?

Yep, you did miss something, my post. You also seem to have missed the boom years from 96 - 05.

MANY would say the boom ended in 01.

Where do you think YOUR boom started? 2005?

Tallaght01 wrote:

Well, the ones on the 280k contracts don't treat private patients.

Indeed they don't. They get paid €320 k?

K-9

Pen1987 wrote: »

Just so we're on the same boat here, you're not referring to "free fees" at third level as ploughing money into education right?

Not for me. Waste of resources. Middle class sop it was.

tallaght01

Seanies32 wrote: »

Indeed they don't. They get paid €320 k?

From the dept of health: (Type A contracts are public only)

Health service employers have offered Consultants an annual salary of up to €216,000 to sign up to the new Type A contract, and up to €190,000 for the new Type B contract. This is an interim offer. The final determination of the salaries applicable to the new contracts will be made by the Review Body on Higher Remuneration in the Public Sector.

This offer relates to basic salary only. The potential annual earnings of a Type A contract holder would be in the region of €275,000 when weekend working and on-call, call out payments are included.

I think, though, the issue is where health is inefficient? Do you think consultants dropping, say 100k of their salaries would improve it?

Is the cutting of healthcare salaries a left wing or a right wing stance?

On one hand, you're taking money away from the middle class consultants, but at the same time you're taking healthcare staff away from the poor and sick.....hmmmm, I don't know the answer myself.