He bats for both teams and he wouldn’t mind a party that participated in the same.

That’s all.

However, it seems that for the most part, conservatives have tended to be the wealthier classes, where liberals have seemed to be the middle to lower classes.

And yes with an open bar at least until 11, even if it’s only for whatever kind of vodka they’re trying to promote.

As far as what constitutes liberal and conservatives ideologies, traditionally I would say the liberal ideology priotizes the protection of social liberty and holds that a society has an obligation to protect the socially weak (e.g. minorities [politically weak], or poverty-stricken [economically weak]). This implies economic regulation and progressive social policy. On the other hand, conservativism prioritizes the protection of economic liberty (free-market) as the best way to advance society, and deals with social progress in a very cautious, skeptical manner (if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it). These ideologies traditionally end up meaning more taxes and bigger government for liberals, and smaller govnernment with less taxes for conservatives.

But I think you are totally right with regard to breaking up political ideologies into multiple dimensions, as you did in your first comment (”economically, religiously, etc”). There are probably many relevant, independent dimensions (perhaps foreign policy, individual liberty, environment) but I think the two simplest dimensions that correlate highly with the vast majority of people’s interests are the broad dimensions of social policy and economics. That’s how most political groups define themselves in Europe and the UK. So you can have groups that are socially conservative but economically liberal (fascism, hehe), or socially liberal and economically conservative, which is a party I would like to see in the U.S.

I’d also like a party with an open bar policy. Haaa!

Anyways, for the most part it seems as though the low standard of living contributes a major factor to the adoption of extreme fundamentalism in the Middle East. I mean even though the 9-11 terrorists were well educated in math and science doesn’t mean that they were well educated in other subjects such as history, religion, economics, etc., especially those subjects from a more objective point of view. Therefore, can we really say that they were truly educated? Furthermore, their education was funded by terroist networks. They were probably raised in poverty and violence, which could have help to cloud any rationality that their new “education” would have strived to provide.

On the other hand, there are terroist supporters who are being raised in an otherwise prosperious environments. I saw an interview on the History International channel about the growing seperation between European and American mentalities. In it, there were 2 female, Muslim high school students being interviewed who lived in France and openingly supported all of Osama Bin Ladens ideals and actions. One girl even showed her face, and added that many of her Muslim collegues at school agreed with her. So that just goes to show that even in areas of economic prosperity, there can still be some huge dumb asses, ha ha ha !!!!!!!!!!

Either way, can one be only either a conservative or a liberal? Are there only two ways you can swing? Is one side’s win another side’s loss, and politics is a never ending epic battle between the two sides for control of Middle Earth?

Ahhhhhhh whatever, let’s just unite the two parties and kill all the Arabs, starve all the Africans, buy everything in Latin America using Latinos for slaves, then party with the Asians getting Chinesse massages in Southeast Asia.