Define liberals and conservatives

[Contumacious]

Taxing the rich according to the amount they have benefited from the collective structure that all contribute to could be called a tax on increased social and political influence (just to be honest).

Compare it, for example, to a pizza. One group gets 80% of it and the other the rest, but there are far fewer in that 80% group and the whole pizza would not be there if it weren't for the remaining 20% group that is composed of far more individuals. Wouldn't the individuals in the 80% group pay more each than the other group's members?

I think what people are complaining about is lack of accountability of fraud/abuse/overspending on welfare, where instead of reducing the waste the proposal is to increase taxes. And then the talk was for higher % tax on the rich (instead of already considering that the same % taken out of higher salaries is already a larger amount). And overall, the complaint that the people being affected by this increased tax do not feel REPRESENTED by the policies of this administration.

Why not allow large businesses, investors and owners to direct how they pay taxes into programs that would TEACH people to become financially independent and PAY BACK any welfare, student loans or business loans, so it isn't an endless system of HANDOUTS that are unsustainable and will keep growing larger govt bureaucracy and debts?

Maybe if the money invested in govt could be guaranteed to grow and REDUCE the debts and dependency, people might be willing to contribute either by taxes, donations or loans.

Not gonna happen, wouldn't be prudent.

The PARASITES ****VOTE**** early and often and they are presently the majority.

. So welfare/warfare state politicians are going to pander to them until the system collapses.

.

 

[Pheonixops]

That description reads more libertarian than liberal.

They both have the same roots. What's the difference between a Classical Liberal and a Libertarian?

Your definition of a "classic liberal" is not the definition most people give to modern day, self-identified "liberals". Perhaps we might agree that your "classic liberal" is identified as modern "libertarian" by me, and others like me. Funny, but every thing you mentioned in your post, except the taxes, I fully agree with. I actually identify myself as an independent, though. Oh, and I'm not sure which recent decision made by CO you are referring to, though.

Who is your example of a self identified Liberal today? I hear a lot of people calling themselves Progressives but not so much Liberals. I may be wrong.

This sort of gives a good comparison.
What Kind of Libertarian Are You? - 10 Different Types of Libertarianism
I'm going to check this series out later:
Schools of Thought in Classical Liberalism, Part 1: Introduction | LearnLiberty

 

[emilynghiem]

That description reads more libertarian than liberal.

They both have the same roots. What's the difference between a Classical Liberal and a Libertarian?

Your definition of a "classic liberal" is not the definition most people give to modern day, self-identified "liberals". Perhaps we might agree that your "classic liberal" is identified as modern "libertarian" by me, and others like me. Funny, but every thing you mentioned in your post, except the taxes, I fully agree with. I actually identify myself as an independent, though. Oh, and I'm not sure which recent decision made by CO you are referring to, though.

Hi Phoenix Hi Gallant:
Thumbs up to Phoenix for the idea of replacing welfare handouts with some kind of program for paying back. I believe this can be done by integrating student loans and internships with work-study type programs, and register people similar to school with "credits" they need to work off or pay off in order to graduate. I believe this can change the prison and immigration system, so that people who "owe" time/labor/financial restitution can pay back into the system and cover immigrants or children who did not break laws but need help to be sponsored until they can also work off or pay off costs of education or services they use.

Gallant, the difference between my liberal Democrat friends and Libertarian friends when they talk about civil liberties is the CONSTITUTION. The Democrats depend on their party to enforce the principles they believe in. The Libertarians, Republicans and Tea Party people I know draw authority from the Constitution and Bill of Rights. I find Christians in general tend to understand this concept of having direct relationship and authority by embodying the law.
The people who DON'T have this same connection and empowerment "directly" tend to be dependent on the authority of others representing similar in order to feel protected.

I really believe this difference should be acknowledged and dealt with accordingly, instead of parties exploiting voters and dividing them against each other in groups over it.

 

[gallantwarrior]

They both have the same roots. What's the difference between a Classical Liberal and a Libertarian?

Your definition of a "classic liberal" is not the definition most people give to modern day, self-identified "liberals". Perhaps we might agree that your "classic liberal" is identified as modern "libertarian" by me, and others like me. Funny, but every thing you mentioned in your post, except the taxes, I fully agree with. I actually identify myself as an independent, though. Oh, and I'm not sure which recent decision made by CO you are referring to, though.

Who is your example of a self identified Liberal today? I hear a lot of people calling themselves Progressives but not so much Liberals. I may be wrong.

This sort of gives a good comparison.
What Kind of Libertarian Are You? - 10 Different Types of Libertarianism
I'm going to check this series out later:
Schools of Thought in Classical Liberalism, Part 1: Introduction | LearnLiberty

OK, I will grant that 'progressive' has been used recently by those who used to call themselves 'liberals'. As another poster observed, definitions are evolving all the time, particularly if a unpleasant connotation becomes attached a particular definition.

 

[aSeattleConserv]

Considering how much vitriol gets thrown around on this board towards these two words and labels, I thought it would be fascinating to hear peoples' definitions for both words. Please explain to the board what your perception of a liberal and a conservative is.

Has this one been used? (I haven't looked at all of the posts in this thread to see if it has):

"A conservative is a liberal that's been mugged."

On a serious note (well, I was being kind of serious): a true conservative uses a Biblical foundation to back his worldview.

 

[gallantwarrior]

They both have the same roots. What's the difference between a Classical Liberal and a Libertarian?

Your definition of a "classic liberal" is not the definition most people give to modern day, self-identified "liberals". Perhaps we might agree that your "classic liberal" is identified as modern "libertarian" by me, and others like me. Funny, but every thing you mentioned in your post, except the taxes, I fully agree with. I actually identify myself as an independent, though. Oh, and I'm not sure which recent decision made by CO you are referring to, though.

Hi Phoenix Hi Gallant:
Thumbs up to Phoenix for the idea of replacing welfare handouts with some kind of program for paying back. I believe this can be done by integrating student loans and internships with work-study type programs, and register people similar to school with "credits" they need to work off or pay off in order to graduate. I believe this can change the prison and immigration system, so that people who "owe" time/labor/financial restitution can pay back into the system and cover immigrants or children who did not break laws but need help to be sponsored until they can also work off or pay off costs of education or services they use.

Gallant, the difference between my liberal Democrat friends and Libertarian friends when they talk about civil liberties is the CONSTITUTION. The Democrats depend on their party to enforce the principles they believe in. The Libertarians, Republicans and Tea Party people I know draw authority from the Constitution and Bill of Rights. I find Christians in general tend to understand this concept of having direct relationship and authority by embodying the law.
The people who DON'T have this same connection and empowerment "directly" tend to be dependent on the authority of others representing similar in order to feel protected.

I really believe this difference should be acknowledged and dealt with accordingly, instead of parties exploiting voters and dividing them against each other in groups over it.

Emily,
I agree with your assessment regarding the different approaches using the Constitution as a basis for philosophy vs. party principles. I personally tend to be more 'liberal' about many 'social' issues. I view personal choices as inherent to individual freedom. I do not like the way some groups try to use the force government to force their personal choices on other people. I am very much lassez faire, do unto others when it comes to social choices made by individuals.
I am very 'conservative' when it comes to economic issues. Again, personal choice should guide each individual but individuals should also be responsible for the results of their choices. Responsibility includes suffering the consequences of poor choices, as well as good ones. In my opinion, libs/progressives rely too heavily on government to relieve the suffering of those who made poor choices. That extends to individuals as well as businesses and institutions. No one and nothing is "too big to fail".

 

[JoeB131]

Considering how much vitriol gets thrown around on this board towards these two words and labels, I thought it would be fascinating to hear peoples' definitions for both words. Please explain to the board what your perception of a liberal and a conservative is.

I think when RomneyCare was a "Free Market Solution" and ObamaCare became " An evil SOcialist Plot to take our freedom!", the meanings of the words became largely meaningless.

I think of myself as a pragmatist. I go with what works. If it ain't broke, I don't fix it.

 

[Contumacious]

Considering how much vitriol gets thrown around on this board towards these two words and labels, I thought it would be fascinating to hear peoples' definitions for both words. Please explain to the board what your perception of a liberal and a conservative is.

I think when RomneyCare was a "Free Market Solution" and ObamaCare became " An evil SOcialist Plot to take our freedom!", the meanings of the words became largely meaningless.

I think of myself as a pragmatist. I go with what works. If it ain't broke, I don't fix it.

HUH?

Romney Care and Obama Care are BOTH socialist schemes.

.

 

[CrotchetyGeezer]

Good fuking God you crotchety ole geezer. Do you think you are doing the Lords work here. Kiss my ass.
Diaherra of the fingers is what you suffer from. That and the lack of any common sense. You're pretty impressed with your bad assed self, that's fo sure. Another ignorant Rethug wanting the world his way.
Based on his interpretation of the Bible from what I read. You a closet Taliban?

LOL! You got a stick shoved up your ass...didn't you?

 

[CrotchetyGeezer]

And, if their politics are of the left? They could just fuck off.[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT][/B]

if i had that philosophy i would've missed knowing two very fine women. whom i consider to be and call friends. i choose not to limit myself that way. better to stand on the common ground that is solid than the divisive shaky ground of political ideology...

and..i am precisely the same here as i am in real life..but a majority are not.

I would not consider a leftist woman a "very fine" woman of whom I'd call my friend. But, you can call them whatever you want to call them.

 

[CrotchetyGeezer]

With all due respect, that was a stupid fucking post. Neither ideology has a premium on "pro-American" or "un-American". This country was started by Liberals, the Constitution is a Liberal document and not a conservative one. The opposition to the Founders of this Country were the Tories and they were the conservatives of the time.
The proponents of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties were the Liberals, the opposition to that were the conservative bastards of the time (both democrat and republican), the proponents of Women's Suffrage were the Liberals of the time, the opposition were the conservatives of the time, the opposition to slavery, the Black Codes, and Jim Crow were the Liberals the proponents were the conservatives. You can keep your conservatism.

LOL! Revisionist history at its best...folks.

LOL, you can't even refute it because the facts are not on your side!

I've refuted it several times on several threads on this board and I'm not going to be accused of spamming and repeating myself. I've refuted the allegations with respect to leftists somehow allegedly being the champions of blacks quite a few times now.

But here, rather than type the whole thing again, I'll just make it easy and it will be less spamming of the boards.

http://russp.us/racism.htm

 

[CrotchetyGeezer]

Let's take it to this level. You and I both start separate businesses selling potatoes, my potatoes and service providing them is not as good as yours. Therefore because you made more money than me, you have to be taxed at a 50% rate and I am taxed at 25% rate. Is that "fair"?

First, define "fair". I'm frankly getting so sick and tired of hearing that word "fair" I could puke. What the fuck is "fair" and, since when has anything in life been "fair"?

Second, if the guy selling the better potatoes and service providing than you and is making more money than you? No, it wouldn't be "fair" that the guy selling the better potatoes and better services is being taxed at a 50% rate while you're being taxed at a 25% rate. You should both be charged the same rate and pay according to how much it was you earned. However, if the guy selling the better potatoes and better services had to buy trucks, better irrigation systems, had to buy environmental devices of which you didn't have to buy, etc., etc., etc.? Then, he should be given a break on his taxes due to these purchases. And, if you have to buy all these things, you should get a break as well. If he has to buy trucks, which are part of the reason for which is services are better than yours, because you're still driving your worn out trucks of which you got ten years ago, he should be a break on his taxes for those new trucks. My brother works as a maintenance man and he has to buy his own tools for his job. He gets a tax break on those tools of which he has to buy. Now, however, the janitor doesn't require the same kind of tools my brother does and most of his supplies and tools are provided by the company. Should my brother NOT get those tax breaks it is he gets for buying his own tools, because the janitor doesn't get tax breaks for buying his tools and, the same kind of tools? The janitor doesn't have to take money out of his paycheck to buy tools which are required for him to do his job. My brother, however, does. So, he should get a tax break.

So you actually agree with me regarding the flat tax on net income.

I'd agree with you on a flat tax rate. Meaning, when someone does their taxes, they're charged the same percentage rate as someone else. And then, of course, as I would presume is clear in the rest of my comment, deductions as is appropriate.

 

[koshergrl]

Yes, the conservatives of the past may have been Tories..but the ideology of the founding fathers was most closely aligned with Conservative ideology today; Jefferson would have been appalled at the nonsense that today's progressive loons spout.

 

[Pheonixops]

LOL! Revisionist history at its best...folks.

LOL, you can't even refute it because the facts are not on your side!

I've refuted it several times on several threads on this board and I'm not going to be accused of spamming and repeating myself. I've refuted the allegations with respect to leftists somehow allegedly being the champions of blacks quite a few times now.

But here, rather than type the whole thing again, I'll just make it easy and it will be less spamming of the boards.

http://russp.us/racism.htm

That's a true cop out from you. You can try to refute my post point by point with facts without "spamming". Here:

"With all due respect, that was a stupid fucking post. Neither ideology has a premium on "pro-American" or "un-American". This country was started by Liberals, the Constitution is a Liberal document and not a conservative one. The opposition to the Founders of this Country were the Tories and they were the conservatives of the time.
The proponents of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties were the Liberals, the opposition to that were the conservative bastards of the time (both democrat and republican), the proponents of Women's Suffrage were the Liberals of the time, the opposition were the conservatives of the time, the opposition to slavery, the Black Codes, and Jim Crow were the Liberals the proponents were the conservatives. You can keep your conservatism."

 

[Pheonixops]

Yes, the conservatives of the past may have been Tories..but the ideology of the founding fathers was most closely aligned with Conservative ideology today; Jefferson would have been appalled at the nonsense that today's progressive loons spout.

Do you think that the Founding Fathers would agree with the civil liberties record of the conservatives? Do you think that the Founding Fathers would agree with the foreign policy of the conservatives? How about the tax policy of the conservatives? You bring up Jefferson, do you agree with the following statements made by him?

I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever.
Thomas Jefferson
Read more at Thomas Jefferson Quotes - BrainyQuote

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
Thomas Jefferson
Read more at Thomas Jefferson Quotes - BrainyQuote
"
I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial by strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country.
Thomas Jefferson
Read more at Thomas Jefferson Quotes - BrainyQuote

I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies.
Thomas Jefferson
Read more at Thomas Jefferson Quotes - BrainyQuote

Experience demands that man is the only animal which devours his own kind, for I can apply no milder term to the general prey of the rich on the poor.
Thomas Jefferson
Read more at Thomas Jefferson Quotes - BrainyQuote

A Bill of Rights is what the people are entitled to against every government, and what no just government should refuse, or rest on inference.
Thomas Jefferson
Read more at Thomas Jefferson Quotes - BrainyQuote

Commerce with all nations, alliance with none, should be our motto.
Thomas Jefferson
Read more at Thomas Jefferson Quotes Page 2 - BrainyQuote

No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms.
Thomas Jefferson
Read more at Thomas Jefferson Quotes Page 3 - BrainyQuote

Merchants have no country. The mere spot they stand on does not constitute so strong an attachment as that from which they draw their gains.
Thomas Jefferson
Read more at Thomas Jefferson Quotes Page 3 - BrainyQuote

Are these suddenly "conservative principles"? What conservatives are following the above?

 

[CrotchetyGeezer]

LOL, you can't even refute it because the facts are not on your side!

I've refuted it several times on several threads on this board and I'm not going to be accused of spamming and repeating myself. I've refuted the allegations with respect to leftists somehow allegedly being the champions of blacks quite a few times now.

But here, rather than type the whole thing again, I'll just make it easy and it will be less spamming of the boards.

http://russp.us/racism.htm

That's a true cop out from you. You can try to refute my post point by point with facts without "spamming". Here:

I did refute your post concerning blacks without spamming...here.

"With all due respect, that was a stupid fucking post. Neither ideology has a premium on "pro-American" or "un-American". This country was started by Liberals, the Constitution is a Liberal document and not a conservative one. The opposition to the Founders of this Country were the Tories and they were the conservatives of the time.
The proponents of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties were the Liberals, the opposition to that were the conservative bastards of the time (both democrat and republican), the proponents of Women's Suffrage were the Liberals of the time, the opposition were the conservatives of the time, the opposition to slavery, the Black Codes, and Jim Crow were the Liberals the proponents were the conservatives. You can keep your conservatism."

Just repeating your talking points per verbatim over and over and over and over and over and over and over again doesn't substantiate your case and make it true. Your summation that the country was started by liberals and the Constitution is a liberal document is your fantasy and, nothing more. And, your summation that the proponents of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties were the liberals, is your fantasy, nothing more. Now, insofar as your allegations concerning women, that I will have to research a little more. But, since you're getting so much else wrong, I can only presume you're most likely wrong in this case, as well.

 

[Pheonixops]

I've refuted it several times on several threads on this board and I'm not going to be accused of spamming and repeating myself. I've refuted the allegations with respect to leftists somehow allegedly being the champions of blacks quite a few times now.

But here, rather than type the whole thing again, I'll just make it easy and it will be less spamming of the boards.

http://russp.us/racism.htm

That's a true cop out from you. You can try to refute my post point by point with facts without "spamming". Here:

I did refute your post concerning blacks without spamming...here.

"With all due respect, that was a stupid fucking post. Neither ideology has a premium on "pro-American" or "un-American". This country was started by Liberals, the Constitution is a Liberal document and not a conservative one. The opposition to the Founders of this Country were the Tories and they were the conservatives of the time.
The proponents of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties were the Liberals, the opposition to that were the conservative bastards of the time (both democrat and republican), the proponents of Women's Suffrage were the Liberals of the time, the opposition were the conservatives of the time, the opposition to slavery, the Black Codes, and Jim Crow were the Liberals the proponents were the conservatives. You can keep your conservatism."

Just repeating your talking points per verbatim over and over and over and over and over and over and over again doesn't substantiate your case and make it true. Your summation that the country was started by liberals and the Constitution is a liberal document is your fantasy and, nothing more. And, your summation that the proponents of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties were the liberals, is your fantasy, nothing more. Now, insofar as your allegations concerning women, that I will have to research a little more. But, since you're getting so much else wrong, I can only presume you're most likely wrong in this case, as well.

Those aren't talking points, they are FACTS. Those aren't fantasies, they are FACTS.

 

[BallsBrunswick]

Yes, the conservatives of the past may have been Tories..but the ideology of the founding fathers was most closely aligned with Conservative ideology today; Jefferson would have been appalled at the nonsense that today's progressive loons spout.

Hahaha, bullshit. Jefferson was one of the most fiery radicals in history. He'd be the anti-christ to the Republican Party if he was around today.

 

[JoeB131]

Considering how much vitriol gets thrown around on this board towards these two words and labels, I thought it would be fascinating to hear peoples' definitions for both words. Please explain to the board what your perception of a liberal and a conservative is.

I think when RomneyCare was a "Free Market Solution" and ObamaCare became " An evil SOcialist Plot to take our freedom!", the meanings of the words became largely meaningless.

I think of myself as a pragmatist. I go with what works. If it ain't broke, I don't fix it.

HUH?

Romney Care and Obama Care are BOTH socialist schemes.

.

You miss my point. There were conservatives who insisted exactly what I said. The Heritage Foundation before it even became ROmneyCare offered it as an alternative to HillaryCare.

I personally find the term "Socialist" to be ridiculous in this scheme.

Even Private Insurance is "Socialist". Either you are one of the poor chumps who pays in and doesn't get sick, or you are the chump who gets really sick and other people are paying your way.

 

[CrotchetyGeezer]

That's a true cop out from you. You can try to refute my post point by point with facts without "spamming". Here:

I did refute your post concerning blacks without spamming...here.

"With all due respect, that was a stupid fucking post. Neither ideology has a premium on "pro-American" or "un-American". This country was started by Liberals, the Constitution is a Liberal document and not a conservative one. The opposition to the Founders of this Country were the Tories and they were the conservatives of the time.
The proponents of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties were the Liberals, the opposition to that were the conservative bastards of the time (both democrat and republican), the proponents of Women's Suffrage were the Liberals of the time, the opposition were the conservatives of the time, the opposition to slavery, the Black Codes, and Jim Crow were the Liberals the proponents were the conservatives. You can keep your conservatism."

Just repeating your talking points per verbatim over and over and over and over and over and over and over again doesn't substantiate your case and make it true. Your summation that the country was started by liberals and the Constitution is a liberal document is your fantasy and, nothing more. And, your summation that the proponents of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties were the liberals, is your fantasy, nothing more. Now, insofar as your allegations concerning women, that I will have to research a little more. But, since you're getting so much else wrong, I can only presume you're most likely wrong in this case, as well.

Those aren't talking points, they are FACTS. Those aren't fantasies, they are FACTS.

Only "FACTS" dreamed up in your delusional imagination.