Are you a liberal?

[FFTT]

When someone makes a statement opposing a deeply corrupt political system,
that does not make them a "liberal". I would argue strongly that they are the True Patriots
who care about what is happening to our great nation.

In my view, anyone who allows a deeply corrupt political system to continue
is indeed quite "liberal" with their own freedom.

[MattG]

Well put. I can't stand how anyone without their blinders on is automatically labeled a "liberal" just for realizing how messed up our government is.

[D0ct0rteeth]

hahaha.. I can't wait to see this thread explode into another huge disaster :)

............

As for my political views, I tend to be atypical and niether democratic or republican. I am a cynical free thinking artistic guy which basically asssures that I will rethink everything I am told.

1 - I believe that the "Free Heathcare debate" is totally insane. Your healthcare is your responsibility, but like education it is our responsibility to ensure the safety and future of our children. If your a 40yr old 300lb smoker.. well, go ahead and die my friend - but I have no problem paying my 12.5 cents for your 13 year old kid's kidney transplant.

2 - Some people are evil. Plain and Simple. Regardless of your Religion or your nationality I have no doubt that by and large most people are human and have good intentions, but the freaks who are driving exploding cars into groups of children need to be destroyed. The solution is that we need to stop having Old American White Guys be the voice of the solution, and start having Moderate Educated Arabs get serious about stopping it themselves. I am proud to be an American and I'll do anything I can to defeat those who are truly insane and need to be stopped - but we need to have the Iraqis screaming that "By Allah - We have had enough of this. Stop killing my kids!" and start stopping the terrorists themselves. Teach a man to fish...

3 - The Environment and the Economy are not mutually exclusive. Good companies with solid leadership can and will make money despite what the government regulates. If we got serious and set a goal for a serious energy plan and abandoned foreign oil by 2020 we could do it. No question about it. Exxon and BP would be investing in solar power and biodeisel faster than you can say "Inflated Gas Prices".

I can elaborate more, but thats the main idea. I am liberal, but I would vote for McCain before Hillary - that stuffed shirt can kiss my ass. (Can you call a woman a stufffed shirt?)

[zimv20]

1 - I believe that the "Free Heathcare debate" is totally insane.
having a national healthcare plan isn't the same as free healthcare. it's more an effort to provide affordable healthcare to those currently uninsured, while providing an insurance safety net when people are between jobs, an employer drops coverage, et. al.

also, the self-employed get screwed on premiums. i'm paying $400/mo., but when i was last employed, it was costing the company about 1/3 that to insure me. and, no, i don't have better coverage now.

[IJ Reilly]

Let's see,

liberal
adj 1: showing or characterized by broad-mindedness; "a broad political stance"; "generous and broad sympathies"; "a liberal newspaper"; "tolerant of his opponent's opinions" [syn: broad, large-minded, tolerant] 2: having political or social views favoring reform and progress 3: tolerant of change; not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or tradition [ant: conservative]

Kind of makes you wonder why anyone would be proud to call themself a conservative.

[mactastic]

Strangely I don't see either Socialist or Communist included in that definition...

[xsedrinam]

I'm generally against:
lovers of war
lovers of wealth
totalitarianism regimes
racism
gouging medical/pharmaceutical industry
the invasion of privacy with telemarketing schemes.

I've voted for candidates on both sides of the ticket;
Basically pro choice with some stipulations attached, and I despise all cats with the exception of tigers. I really don't know where that lands, but it's dynamic, not static.
X

[solvs]

Kind of makes you wonder why anyone would be proud to call themself a conservative.
Because Liberals are bad... for some reason.

Of course, everyone to the right of me is a war-mongering, gun toting, Bible-thumping nutcase. But everyone to the left of me is a tree-hugging, pot-smoking, whiny hippie. You really can't win.

[broken_keyboard]

Kind of makes you wonder why anyone would be proud to call themself a conservative.

Because that's only half the story: Liberals favor moral freedom, but not economic.

[skunk]

Because that's only half the story: Liberals favor moral freedom, but not economic.That's strange: the French are moaning precisely because the "Anglo-Saxon neo-liberal" economic model is too "free".

[broken_keyboard]

That's strange: the French are moaning precisely because the "Anglo-Saxon neo-liberal" economic model is too "free".

Well, there's a clear difference between Dems and Repubs on taxes...
Maybe the French think both are too free, but that doesn't eliminate the difference.

[skunk]

Well, there's a clear difference between Dems and Repubs on taxes...There's a clear difference in the rhetoric, but is there in practice?

[broken_keyboard]

There's a clear difference in the rhetoric, but is there in practice?

There are differences, subject to still being able to get 51% of the vote...

[toontra]

Strangely I don't see either Socialist or Communist included in that definition...

Why is that strange? In the UK liberalism (in the political sense) isn't connected to socialism or communism in any way.

Having said that, since "new" Labour policies have moved increasingly towards the centre (some would say the right), some of the current Lib-Dem policies could easily be mistaken for those from an "old" Labour election manifesto 20-30 years ago.

[wordmunger]

I took a survey once -- I think it was on a thread here, but I can't find it now -- and it said I was an economic moderate but a social libertarian. That sounds about right to me. The main point is that political ideas are too complex to be categorized along just the "conservative-liberal" dichotomy.

On the healthcare thing, I'd lean towards government healthcare. I imagine it will become a bureacratic nightmare, but it can't be much worse than the nightmare we're already facing with our bizarre mix of private/government/charity healthcare.

[FFTT]

Many of our social problems could be reduced if those making the most would have to pay their fair share in taxes.

We do need some alteratives for a health care plan to cover those on fixed incomes and those with catastrophic and long term illnesses.
In todays world, one major illness can wipe out everything you've worked for.

We should also not be forced to mortgage our homes or sell our property
to afford a college education for our children.
A high school education may have been sufficient 100 years ago, but now
it's virtually mandatory to have at least a 4 year degree.
Most of the civilized world provides a college education at a reasonable cost, but here the average student graduates with $40,000-$80,000 in debt.


Our hard earned tax dollars are being squandered away to benefit those
who never pay their fair share while the working class suffers.

Something has to change.

I welcome solutions to these major issues from both sides of the fence.

[IJ Reilly]

Because that's only half the story: Liberals favor moral freedom, but not economic.

They do? Where does it say that in the definition?

[skunk]

They do? Where does it say that in the definition?You're obviously not looking in the right dictionary.

[IJ Reilly]

You're obviously not looking in the right dictionary.

I know, it's the Talk Radio edition, which is the only one most people seem to use anymore. Have they published that one in your country, or do you still rely on that boring old one compiled by a bunch of dead Englishmen?

[zimv20]

You're obviously not looking in the right dictionary.
or the Right's Dictionary.

[skunk]

I know, it's the Talk Radio edition, which is the only one most people seem to use anymore. Have they published that one in your country, or do you still rely on that boring old one compiled by a bunch of dead Englishmen?I'm still using the Old European one.

[broken_keyboard]

They do? Where does it say that in the definition?

If you take your eyes off the dictionary, and look at reality, you will see that they do.

[skunk]

If you take your eyes off the dictionary, and look at reality, you will see that they do.You'll have to do better than that.

[mactastic]

Because that's only half the story: Liberals favor moral freedom, but not economic.
Funny, you'd think economic freedom wouldn't involve the Chinese holding huge amounts of our swelling national debt...

That ain't my idea of economic freedom.

Besides, Karl Rove is pretty free with his morality wouldn't you say? ;)

[broken_keyboard]

You'll have to do better than that.

There is nothing better. Reality is the ultimate standard, the ultimate proof.

[skunk]

There is nothing better. Reality is the ultimate standard, the ultimate proof.I don't suppose there's any chance of your offering a rational argument, is there?

[broken_keyboard]

Funny, you'd think economic freedom wouldn't involve the Chinese holding huge amounts of our swelling national debt...

That ain't my idea of economic freedom.


The Chinese holding government debt does not impinge your freedom. What they hold is dollars. All they can do with dollars is trade with us, and each of us is free to take their money or walk away. Dollars are not bullets.

[broken_keyboard]

I don't suppose there's any chance of your offering a rational argument, is there?

You have to look at what each side cares about.

Liberals are typically less religious and believe we are evolved apes. Conservatives are just the opposite, they think our bodies are a temporary shell only, and we have an eternal soul.

Both are power lusters in the area they care about. Since Conservatives think your body is unimportant, they are quite happy to give you economic freedom. As long as they control your morality (soul).

Liberals don't care about your morality - you are just a lowly souless animal anyway. All that is real is this world, and that is what they want to control through their higher taxes.

The evidence comes from the things they say:
Conservative: "Don't be gay, it is wrong. Taxes will only be 15%"
Liberal: "Screw whomever you want. Taxes will be 50%"

[mactastic]

Is that what purple Kool Aid tastes like?

[Mike Teezie]

You have to look at what each side cares about.

Liberals are typically less religious and believe we are evolved apes. Conservatives are just the opposite, they think our bodies are a temporary shell only, and we have an eternal soul.

Both are power lusters in the area they care about. Since Conservatives think your body is unimportant, they are quite happy to give you economic freedom. As long as they control your morality (soul).

Liberals don't care about your morality - you are just a lowly souless animal anyway. All that is real is this world, and that is what they want to control through their higher taxes.

The evidence comes from the things they say:
Conservative: "Don't be gay, it is wrong. Taxes will only be 15%"
Liberal: "Screw whomever you want. Taxes will be 50%"

So being morally resposible means you have to side with the folks who make sure you have the most money.

Got it.

[mactastic]

The Chinese holding government debt does not impinge your freedom. What they hold is dollars. All they can do with dollars is trade with us, and each of us is free to take their money or walk away. Dollars are not bullets.

Yes it does impinge on my freedom. I am not free to refuse to pay taxes for the debts incurred under a war I do not agree with, am I? And just who holds much of those T-Bills the government is using to finance the debt? They're not from the USA.

[broken_keyboard]

Yes it does impinge on my freedom. I am not free to refuse to pay taxes for the debts incurred under a war I do not agree with, am I? And just who holds much of those T-Bills the government is using to finance the debt? They're not from the USA.

Well, yes taxes impinge - everyone knows that. But whether the debt is held locally or overseas doesn't make any difference. I don't see how at least...

[broken_keyboard]

So being morally resposible means you have to side with the folks who make sure you have the most money.

Got it.

It took me a while to figure out what you meant here...
Do you actually think money is evil? Why?

[wordmunger]

Liberals are typically less religious and believe we are evolved apes. Conservatives are just the opposite, they think our bodies are a temporary shell only, and we have an eternal soul.
This has nothing to do with the liberal/conservative distinction. Conservatives have brainwashed radical Christians to believe they are the true Christian party.

Both are power lusters in the area they care about. Since Conservatives think your body is unimportant, they are quite happy to give you economic freedom. As long as they control your morality (soul).
This is actually the opposite of what conservatism is about.

Liberals don't care about your morality - you are just a lowly souless animal anyway. All that is real is this world, and that is what they want to control through their higher taxes.
Liberals say the government shouldn't impose a religious ideology on the people. They are in support of religious freedom. However, they do say that the government is the best way to control other things, such as health care, public roads, national defense, and other things that serve the group as a whole. This does cost money, but it can be more efficient than doing the same things with private industry.

Your final quote is correct, with some edits

The evidence comes from the things they say:
Conservative: "Don't be gay, it is wrong. I'll say that as long as you'll vote for me, but don't expect me to do much about it. Taxes will only be 15% if you're among the wealthiest Americans. Otherwise, it's business as usual."
Liberal: "Screw whomever you want. But use safe sex and contraception. Taxes will be 50% if you're among the wealthiest Americans. Otherwise, it's business as usual."

[IJ Reilly]

There is nothing better. Reality is the ultimate standard, the ultimate proof.

But it's not reality, it's relativism. It's the argument that a word, which has a meaning that has served perfectly well for centuries, now suddenly means something different because it's politically expedient for it to be altered. It's nothing more than feel-good etymology.

[auxplage]

There are four sections in case anyone cares:

You can be socially conservative or liberal.
You can be economically conservative or liberal.

The Republican party today is generally socially conservative and economically conservative. There are variations. Giuliani is socially moderate and economically conservative for example. The Republican party has LOTS of variation in it today if you take your eyes off the hardcore conservatives. McCain and Schwarzenegger follow the Giuliani trend.

The Democratic party today is generally socially liberal and economically liberal.

The Libertarian Party today IS socially liberal and economically conservative.

I, myself, am a Libertarian because it grants the most freedom. I am a liberal but ONLY in a personal freedom way.

Here is a good little quiz to find your political philosophy:
http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html

[Xtremehkr]

Yes, though defining what I consider to be Liberal is up to me, not anyone else. As what constitutes being liberal changes with the times.

[zimv20]

The Republican party today is generally [...] economically conservative. [...] The Democratic party today is generally [...] economically liberal.

given the Clinton era balanced budgets, surpluses and paying down the national debt, and given the Bush era deficit budgets, growing national debt (w/ a GOP-controlled congress, even), how can that statement even be considered remotely accurate?

[Xtremehkr]

given the Clinton era balanced budgets, surpluses and paying down the national debt, and given the Bush era deficit budgets, growing national debt (w/ a GOP-controlled congress, even), how can that statement even be considered remotely accurate?

Which do you prefer?

Tax and spend, which adds little to the national debt while ultimately benefitting all, if done properly.

Or borrowing and spending, which immediately benefits those in place to take advantage of the borrowed resources. Whether it succeeds or not does not change the fact that everyone will share the burden of debt accrued.

[~loserman~]

having a national healthcare plan isn't the same as free healthcare. it's more an effort to provide affordable healthcare to those currently uninsured, while providing an insurance safety net when people are between jobs, an employer drops coverage, et. al.

also, the self-employed get screwed on premiums. i'm paying $400/mo., but when i was last employed, it was costing the company about 1/3 that to insure me. and, no, i don't have better coverage now.

There are companies that offer group plans for Self-Employed people. Check around you might find one near you... and it might decrease your premiums by as much as 50%

[zimv20]

There are companies that offer group plans for Self-Employed people. Check around you might find one near you... and it might decrease your premiums by as much as 50%
w/o getting into it too much, i don't have many options wrt health insurance. i'm on a state plan right now, and if that folds i'll be uninsured (and uninsurable). i've looked into some self-employed plans w/o any luck. thanks for the thought, though.

[zimv20]

Which do you prefer?

Tax and spend, which adds little to the national debt while ultimately benefitting all, if done properly.

Or borrowing and spending, which immediately benefits those in place to take advantage of the borrowed resources. Whether it succeeds or not does not change the fact that everyone will share the burden of debt accrued.
is this a trick question?

[~loserman~]

Quote:
Originally Posted by auxplage
The Republican party today is generally [...] economically conservative. [...] The Democratic party today is generally [...] economically liberal. [/QUOTE]

For Accuracy:
Change this to the Republican party USED TO BE economically conservative.
(I miss those days)


given the Clinton era balanced budgets, surpluses and paying down the national debt, and given the Bush era deficit budgets, growing national debt (w/ a GOP-controlled congress, even), how can that statement even be considered remotely accurate?

Many factors added to why the budgets were " balanced" during the Clinton years.
Not the least of which was the over-inflated Stock Market providing huge revenues due to capital gains.
Although the same fat-cats who were running these Companies eventually brought us whole scale fraud and major collapses because of trying to maintain their bloated "cooked books" that they were reporting during those years.
I happened to work at a multi-billion dollar company that was doing the same CRAP that Enron, Worldcom and many others were doing during the Clinton Years. OH how we were driving the economy while bilking our investors out of billions of dollars in hopes of those ever climbing stock prices. It all had to tumble sooner or later... It couldn't sustain itself and we had to get caught with our hands in the cookie jar.

This is not a defense of Bush & Company's irresponsible fiscal policy but Clinton's Administration would have spent us silly if they could have.

[vwcruisn]

Most of the civilized world provides a college education at a reasonable cost, but here the average student graduates with $40,000-$80,000 in debt.


totally. i just graduated with 78k in college loans. i am now making 15 an hour with no benfits... over 10 years ill be paying 800+ a year. I think I am more poor now then Iwas in school. :(

[Sayhey]

There is nothing better. Reality is the ultimate standard, the ultimate proof.

Could you give an example of this reality? By economic freedom do you mean a view that paying taxes is a form economic slavery? "Economic freedom" is a nice sounding phrase, but if it means the reality of unregulated capitalism then we have a difference of opinion of what the word "freedom" means.

[broken_keyboard]

Conservatives have brainwashed radical Christians to believe they are the true Christian party.

I wish the Repubs were just paying lip service, then they could be the non-religious free market party I want. However I suspect Christians are taking them over just as socialists did with the Dems in the 80s.

Liberals say the government shouldn't impose a religious ideology on the people. They are in support of religious freedom. However, they do say that the government is the best way to control other things, such as health care, public roads, national defense, and other things that serve the group as a whole. This does cost money, but it can be more efficient than doing the same things with private industry.

Wow, "government" and "efficient" are two words you don't often hear together. :) In any event, trading freedom for efficiency is a bad deal.

[Sayhey]

However I suspect Christians are taking them over just as socialists did with the Dems in the 80s.

keyboard, you've got to get out of your secret moon base and stop reading the John Birch Society flyers. Socialists want to nationalize US industries -- when did such a goal ever become the goal of the Democratic Party? I know, I know, you think the Clinton Health Care plan was "socialist." Not even close. You obviously don't have a clue about who socialists are or what socialism is about. It is only one of the "scary" words used to paint opponents as crazy. If you want a real discussion - get real.

[zimv20]

Many factors added to why the budgets were " balanced" during the Clinton years.
Not the least of which was the over-inflated Stock Market providing huge revenues due to capital gains.

let's not discount higher tax revenues and lower gov't spending. think of how ****ed we be if clinton's fiscal policies were like bush's.

[skunk]

He must mean socialites.

[Sayhey]

He must mean socialites.

That would explain both his ridiculous assertion about Socialists and the Democratic Party and his screen name.

[mactastic]

Yeah, I'd like to see some proof of Socialists taking over the Dems in the '80s. Got any links proving that? Or is it something we'll just have to take on faith?

'Cause I sure don't remember any Socialists in leadership positions in the Democratic party back then.

[GeeYouEye]

Yes. A classical liberal. But since liberalism has been gradually co-opted by the Socialists, Communists, and statists starting about the 1910's, I guess that means I'm a libertarian instead.

[skunk]

These political classifications are all but meaningless. What on earth is the connection between liberals, communists and statists? And what does the term socialist actually mean to you?

[Peterkro]

Its also disturbing how rightwing nutters have stolen the term libertarian in the US.

[quagmire]

The question is though what party does the best job of making sure the other party look bad. I say republicans. They played the fear card in this past election. They played the fear of what would happen if a Democrat would get in. Would a similar thing happen when Clinton was in office. During the Terry Shiavo conflict, while driving up to my cousins house, I was listening to a radio station and was talking about the issue. They were talking about of course the democrats view of the issue, let life be, don't intrude on a family issue. A caller said, " Those liberals are fools," and continued to rant on saying how we should reinsert the tube. I see myself as Democrat. I wouldn't want the government to interfere with my family and our issues. Boy, the beliefs of the party's have changed IMO. If a remember correctly, republicans were supporting a small government, low taxes, etc and democrats supported big government. Today, those roles switched besides the taxes belief. IMHO.

[skunk]

Its also disturbing how rightwing nutters have stolen the term libertarian in the US.I think the US libertarian manifesto can be summed up as : "Screw you, Jack." Refreshingly unadorned selfishness.

[IJ Reilly]

I think the US libertarian manifesto can be summed up as : "Screw you, Jack." Refreshingly unadorned selfishness.

Or more accurately, "I'll screw you before you screw me."

Jack.

[broken_keyboard]

Or more accurately, "I'll screw you before you screw me."

On the contrary. It is the various socialist ideologies that spend their time arguing who gets screwed in the name of whom.

The Libertarians start by saying "No screwing please," and go from there.

[IJ Reilly]

Not so I've noticed, and I've known plenty of professed libertarians, both capital and small "L". They're fine so long as you get it in writing and don't turn your back.

[skunk]

The Libertarians start by saying "No screwing please," and go from there.I think you're confusing them with Librarians.

[IJ Reilly]

I think you're confusing them with Librarians.

Bada-boomp! :D

[Peterkro]

On the contrary. It is the various socialist ideologies that spend their time arguing who gets screwed in the name of whom.

The Libertarians start by saying "No screwing please," and go from there.
The 200 year old libertarian/socialist movement must confuse you.

[Sayhey]

On the contrary. It is the various socialist ideologies that spend their time arguing who gets screwed in the name of whom.

The Libertarians start by saying "No screwing please," and go from there.

The modern Libertarian movement tries to sell a fantasy world of Ayn Rand, but refuses to acknowledge the reality of world when their "grand" ideas of unregulated capitalism were in full force. "No screwing please" - hardly. You want to know what the reality of a world controlled by Libertarian fantasies would look like? Read Oliver Twist. I'm not interested in a world where the vast majority has to plead "More please, sir" in order try to appease our hunger.

[IJ Reilly]

In fairness, I have met a few libertarians who don't worship at the alter of St. Ayn. Very few. But I don't discount the possibility.

Oddly enough, Rand had no kind words for libertarians. It's not like she really had kind words for anybody, but she reserved one of her best put-down for them, whom she called "the hippies of the right."

It's funny because it's true.

[xsedrinam]

In fairness, I have met a few libertarians who don't worship at the alter of St. Ayn. Very few. But I don't discount the possibility.

Oddly enough, Rand had no kind words for libertarians. It's not like she really had kind words for anybody, but she reserved one of her best put-down for them, whom she called "the hippies of the right."

It's funny because it's true.

And when asked if they remember the mantra, "don't trust anyone over 30"?; that usually brings a sheepish grin.
X

[Sayhey]

"the hippies of the right."

Thank you, IJ, that made my day! I hadn't heard that one before, and you're right it's quite true.

I know there are variations within modern Libertarianism, and I realize I may have painted them with too broad a brush -- but just barely.

[broken_keyboard]

The modern Libertarian movement tries to sell a fantasy world of Ayn Rand, but refuses to acknowledge the reality of world when their "grand" ideas of unregulated capitalism were in full force. "No screwing please" - hardly. You want to know what the reality of a world controlled by Libertarian fantasies would look like? Read Oliver Twist. I'm not interested in a world where the vast majority has to plead "More please, sir" in order try to appease our hunger.

I am not a libertarian myself. My understanding of their position though, is that freedom is the highest value (hence the name), and everything else is subordinate to that. That's all I meant when I said they "start with no screwing please."

[IJ Reilly]

I am not a libertarian myself. My understanding of their position though, is that freedom is the highest value (hence the name), and everything else is subordinate to that. That's all I meant when I said they "start with no screwing please."

But you see, nobody gets to claim an exclusive priority on those values for themselves, though many may try. The most important distinction libertarianism deserves from other political philosophies is the belief that all human problems can be solved in, and only by virtue of a completely unregulated marketplace. According to orthodox libertarianism, any problem that isn't solved that way wasn't really a problem in first place (convenient logic, no?). The other reason I think libertarians deserve the label "hippies of the right" is because in reality markets will never be completely free, so there's no danger of their beloved theories ever being put to the test, allowing them to preach their inherently unrealistic ideas with complete impunity.

[broken_keyboard]

The other reason I think libertarians deserve the label "hippies of the right" is because in reality markets will never be completely free, so there's no danger of their beloved theories ever being put to the test, allowing them to preach their inherently unrealistic ideas with complete impunity.

Maybe she called them "hippies" because anyone who holds freedom as the highest value by definition doesn't want the freedom as a means to some other end.

Therefore they want freedom to... do nothing = hippies

[IJ Reilly]

Maybe she called them "hippies" because anyone who holds freedom as the highest value by definition doesn't want the freedom as a means to some other end.

Therefore they want freedom to... do nothing = hippies

Nice theory, but no, I don't think so.

Power to the markets, man.

[solvs]

The word "hippy" doesn't seem to have much meaning anymore. TV.com (which used to be TV Tome) is filled with people who call anyone who posts a complaint about the site or compares it to TV Tome a hippy. Guess that means people who stir up trouble, or complain about something that bothers them, but don't actually do anything to change things. Though mostly because they are powerless to do so.

Guess that makes a lot of us here hippies. Better than being a terrorist, but I guess it's still unpatriotic. Everyone knows a true patriot does whatever the government says without complaint while only the communists and socialist liberal hippies try to change things for the better. :rolleyes:

[zimv20]

from the wikipedia page on hippies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippie):

Such criticism included the views that the goverment was paternalistic, corporate industry was greedy and domineering, traditional morals were askew, and war was inhumane.
gee, half of those are supposed to be the tenets of the Republican party.

[IJ Reilly]

The word "hippy" doesn't seem to have much meaning anymore.

The word may have lost some of its original meaning, but in the past I think it generally referred to people who take their anti-establishment views to an extreme; dewy-eyed anarchists.

[MontyZ]

Conservatives are just the opposite, they think our bodies are a temporary shell only, and we have an eternal soul.
Yea, temporary AND empty shell. Neo-Conservatives (all Bush supporters) are totally devoid of compassion or humanity on the inside. No feeling or conscious. They appear to be full of hatred with a bloodlust for revenge against everyone not exactly like themselves.

[skunk]

No feeling or conscious.No conscience either... ;)

[mactastic]

Yea, temporary AND empty shell. Neo-Conservatives (all Bush supporters) are totally devoid of compassion or humanity on the inside. No feeling or conscious. They appear to be full of hatred with a bloodlust for revenge against everyone not exactly like themselves.
Thanks for today's rhetorically over-the-top statement.

I take it you know many Bush-supporters personally?

[skunk]

Thanks for today's rhetorically over-the-top statement.He's only doing it so that you don't have to. ;)

[mactastic]

He's only doing it so that you don't have to. ;)
I'm sure I've had my fair share...
:p

[IJ Reilly]

No conscience either... ;)

Thanks for adding to the confucian.

[solvs]

Thanks for adding to the confucian.
What does this have to do with Confucius?

[IJ Reilly]

What does this have to do with Confucius?

I just like to bring it up now and Zen.

[Sayhey]

Where are the pun police when you need them? :confused:

[jelloshotsrule]

Where are the pun police when you need them? :confused:

oh whoops. i'm here.

what's the PUNishment for bad puns again? 8 bullets at close range? :eek:

[Sayhey]

oh whoops. i'm here.

what's the PUNishment for bad puns again? 8 bullets at close range? :eek:

I don't know, Jello, but I think you should definitely round up the usual suspects!

[skunk]

oh whoops. i'm here.

what's the PUNishment for bad puns again? 8 bullets at close range? :eek:A regular punslinger.

[IJ Reilly]

A regular punslinger.

In these parts, they call me sickspun reilly.

[xsedrinam]

I don't know, Jello, but I think you should definitely round up the usual suspects!

You'll need a posse if it's at all posse bull.
X

[Sayhey]

You'll need a posse if it's at all posse bull.
X

In these parts, they call me sickspun reilly.

Those are so bad they hurt! ;)

[Agathon]

This thread is funny.

1. If you think that Liberals are Communists, then you are a wackjob. I'm a communist and it is considered deeply insulting to be referred to as a "liberal". The policies of the Democratic Party have nothing to do with Communism of any meaningful sort. Only a madman could believe that they did.

2. The point of publicly funded healthcare is not really equality or helping the poor. Rather countries like Canada, Australia and New Zealand have public healthcare because it's cheaper and more efficient than private insurance plans. Take a look at what the US pays as a percentage of GDP on healthcare and then compare it to what Canadians pay as a percentage of GDP. Canadians pay far less as a percentage of GDP, yet every single Canadian has health insurance and Canadians, who live much like Americans, are on average healthier than Americans. Meanwhile Americans pour billions into an inefficient system that leaves almost half of them without any decent coverage.

3. Taxation is not evil. It is just that portion of our income we spend collectively rather than individually. Why do we do this? Because the things we spend them on are especially prone to market failures, and these can only be rectified by removing them from the market mechanism. The portion of our incomes that we spend collectively can go up or down depending on emerging circumstances that mitigate market failures or produce new ones. NB: this is why you pay taxes to fund the police. Private markets completely fail to produce the standard of policing that people want.

4. Why is it that these "liberal countries" like Canada and Sweden have comparable or better standards of living than the US while being nowhere near as rich? The main reason is that they are simply better organized and more efficient.

[zen.state]

I would call myself a liberal but I have always thought of myself more as left winger. liberal and left wing are no longer the same thing in some ways. some liberals have right ideology just as some conservatives have left ideology.

the current crop of conservatives in power makes me want to run screaming to anything liberal.

[zen.state]

4. Why is it that these "liberal countries" like Canada and Sweden have comparable or better standards of living than the US while being nowhere near as rich? The main reason is that they are simply better organized and more efficient.

per capita Canadians have more money. much more. there are far less poor and homeless. Canada's poor would rank around lower middle class by US standards.

Canada is a G7 nation like the US and has about 1/10 the people. Last I checked Canada's pop. was about 33 million.

[Agathon]

Think again

http://www.studentsoftheworld.info/infopays/rank/PNBH2.html

http://www.finfacts.com/biz10/globalworldincomepercapita.htm

The US is just a very badly organized society. Canadians are not rich... far from it.

Americans tend to choose freedom over efficiency. Canadians, Brits, New Zealanders, Australians are generally more willing to forgo a free market in some areas of the economy in order to realize an efficiency gain.

Hence, these countries get a lot more bang for their buck standard of living wise.

[Xtremehkr]

I think that without agreed upon definitions, there can be little real consensus.

Maybe a thread entitled, what do you think being liberal entails?

Or maybe, how did the current nomenclature of political positions come about? and what defines those positions?

[pubwvj]

Let's see,

Quote:
liberal
adj 1: showing or characterized by broad-mindedness; "a broad political stance"; "generous and broad sympathies"; "a liberal newspaper"; "tolerant of his opponent's opinions" [syn: broad, large-minded, tolerant] 2: having political or social views favoring reform and progress 3: tolerant of change; not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or tradition [ant: conservative]

Kind of makes you wonder why anyone would be proud to call themself a conservative.

Wow, that is so bogus. Liberals, or at least those who call themselves liberal, are extremely intolerant of any view but their own. They are no better than the raving conservatives on the other side. Both are fanatics in their own special ways.

I hate fanatics. :)

[Xtremehkr]

Wow, that is so bogus. Liberals, or at least those who call themselves liberal, are extremely intolerant of any view but their own. They are no better than the raving conservatives on the other side. Both are fanatics in their own special ways.

I hate fanatics. :)

Who are some of these people you speak of?

[solvs]

the current crop of conservatives in power makes me want to run screaming to anything liberal.
You've just echoed the opinion of 90% of the people that voted for Kerry in the last election.

[zimv20]

I hate fanatics. :)
you mean like this guy? (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=1625636#post1625636)

[zen.state]

Think again

http://www.studentsoftheworld.info/infopays/rank/PNBH2.html

http://www.finfacts.com/biz10/globalworldincomepercapita.htm

The US is just a very badly organized society. Canadians are not rich... far from it.

Americans tend to choose freedom over efficiency. Canadians, Brits, New Zealanders, Australians are generally more willing to forgo a free market in some areas of the economy in order to realize an efficiency gain.

Hence, these countries get a lot more bang for their buck standard of living wise.

ok, you've got me there.. but canada IS a G7 nation.

[IJ Reilly]

Wow, that is so bogus.

The dictionary is bogus?

[xsedrinam]

The dictionary is bogus?

:) I'd like to add a couple of newer terms to the dictionary:
"Conserverals" and "Liberatives", just to keep it post modern and not so black and white. A "conserveral" would be to the left of the crowd that's just to the left of the right, and a "Liberative" would be just left of dead center of a "conserveral". Common ground, at last.
X

[Trowaman]

I just want to add something about the Democratic party here really quick

It is now split in two camps really, Liberal and Progressive.

Difference?
In my opinion . . .

Liberals (Hillary/Biden/Pelosi) are more likely to take and idea and run crazy with it and wave it as is with no back up proof. More idealists and no realism to what they say. Examples, guns are bad you should not have one, how dare you take away abortion rights, u shall not cut another tree. It could also include the DLC people who are trying to appease the RNC and hope we will be viewed more moderate for trust.

Progressives however are the Chairman Dean/Sen. Reid/Gen. Wesley Clark crowd. They have a more rounded ideology and approach things as a "we make our stand here." No appeasement, no wimpy arguments, we know where we are and stand there. Example, we like meat, we need to kill to get meat, hunting is healthy in moderation and you should own a gun to do so or to show off your heritage. OR Abortion is bad, and the best way we can reduce the number of abortions is through education, not simply outlawing which leads to illegal abortions and girls going to jail for breaking the law.

The blogs you may have heard about (Daily Kos, MyDD, etc) all seem to fall more in progressive ideology and it is slowly forming to be the standard of the democratic party with candidates in several upcoming senate races falling more into progressive ideology instead of liberal. Montana, Arizona, Ohio, Missouri.

This also echoes to me why Hillary is a dangerous democratic choice for 2006. Liberal, not progressive.

[pubwvj]

The dictionary is bogus?

The dictionary is written by people.
Or did you think it was handed down by a god?

[IJ Reilly]

The dictionary is written by people.
Or did you think it was handed down by a god?

And those people are wrong whenever they fail to verify your prejudices. Or do I misunderstand your argument?

It's always amusing to hear people on the Right make such impassioned pleas for relativism.

[zimv20]

The dictionary is written by people.

just like the bible. or did you think it was handed down by a god?

[pubwvj]

just like the bible. or did you think it was handed down by a god?

I couldn't care less. This dicussion isn't about some religious text, which is exactly my point - the dictionary is written by people and has their interpetations. Not only that but the dictionary changes from year to year. Not only that but there are many dictionaries and they don't all agree. Dictionaries are constantly updating the definitions and words in the dictionary. Or were you under the impression that the dictionary was carved in stone and unchanging?

[pubwvj]

And those people are wrong whenever they fail to verify your prejudices. Or do I misunderstand your argument?

It's always amusing to hear people on the Right make such impassioned pleas for relativism.

Ha, ha! Very funny. Apparently you have a a hard time reading. I'm neither right nor left. Just correct. :)

[xsedrinam]

I couldn't care less. This dicussion isn't about some religious text, which is exactly my point - the dictionary is written by people and has their interpetations. Not only that but the dictionary changes from year to year. Not only that but there are many dictionaries and they don't all agree. Dictionaries are constantly updating the definitions and words in the dictionary. Or were you under the impression that the dictionary was carved in stone and unchanging?
Now you've done it. Pissed off both Webster's grave and Moses, wherever he is, in one felled swoop. You're making a good illustration of post modernism [absense of meaning]. Maybe meaning is not in words, but rather in people.
X

[skunk]

Pissed off both Webster's grave and Moses, wherever he is, in one felled swoop.If you check in Webster's, you'll find it's "one fell swoop".
;)

[xsedrinam]

If you check in Webster's, you'll find it's "one fell swoop".
;)
LOL! :D I stand corrected and properly shat upon.
X

[IJ Reilly]

Now you've done it. Pissed off both Webster's grave and Moses, wherever he is, in one felled swoop. You're making a good illustration of post modernism [absense of meaning]. Maybe meaning is not in words, but rather in people.
X

AKA, deconstructionism, that invention of the leftist academic establishment 50 year ago and now embraced fully by the Right whenever reality proves to be an inconvenient companion to their ideology. Isn't it too ironic?

[xsedrinam]

AKA, deconstructionism, that invention of the leftist academic establishment 50 year ago and now embraced fully by the Right whenever reality proves to be an inconvenient companion to their ideology. Isn't it too ironic?
So true. If I've heard "paradigm shift" once over the past 5 years, I've heard it a thousand times, a good percentage of which hasn't been worth a pair of nickels when used to conveniently negate history or haze over perception of reality. To me, that's "irony standing at the altar of matrimony with pathetic", which is making for some interesting offspring.
X

[IJ Reilly]

So true. If I've heard "paradigm shift" once over the past 5 years, I've heard it a thousand times, a good percentage of which hasn't been worth a pair of nickels when used to conveniently negate history or haze over perception of reality. To me, that's "irony standing at the altar of matrimony with pathetic", which is making for some interesting offspring.
X

It's a function of the arrogance of power. At some point, the radically powerful begin to think they are entitled to claim a hegemony over everything, including history, culture, ideas, thought and expression. Anything that stands between them and complete control is by definition wrong or unworthy. Deconstruction is a great tool for the radically powerful -- it permits the reduction of everything to sets of vague uncertainties. By this means, good can be made bad and bad can be made good. Remaining powerful requires this sort of manipulation of reality. It leaves people confused and prepared to accept any reality you might want them to accept.

[xsedrinam]

It's a function of the arrogance of power. At some point, the radically powerful begin to think they are entitled to claim a hegemony over everything, including history, culture, ideas, thought and expression. Anything that stands between them and complete control is by definition wrong or unworthy. Deconstruction is a great tool for the radically powerful -- it permits the reduction of everything to sets of vague uncertainties. By this means, good can be made bad and bad can be made good. Remaining powerful requires this sort of manipulation of reality. It leaves people confused and prepared to accept any reality you might want them to accept.
All which make me curious as to the "moorings" or "true north" of any individual, "liberal" or "conservative". Admitting we all have blind spots and prejudices is, to me, an honest admission. "Assumed privilege" which must be propped up by manipulation either covert or otherwise in order to self propagate and self protect ought to be an arch enemy of both camps. I don't necessarily see that being fleshed out by either side, but that could be me projecting my own film on the screen.
X