Debate Now Liberalism and Conservatism

[Mertex]

I don't have to argue. Plenty of bad things have been around a long time.

The concept of social safety nets is one thing...social security is something else. If you'd let go of your pre-concieved notions you'd find that social security really helped those who DIDN'T need it more than it helped those who DID.

But if you want to argue social security, be my guess. I would not get rid of it. I would sure move it around though. And I would never consider taking it from those who have already paid into the system.

Please keep claiming to have debunked something. It shows people what you really know (and don't).

As for the military...it's there. As the constitution says...that is their job. Does it run "well". That is a subject for debate. But I can't see anyone arguing for anyone else running it well or not.

BTW: If we are going to keep this up, why don't you start a thread on it.

Otherwise, you can get back on topic.

Conservatives may do what you claim they do.

What conservatives do may or may not produce the results you prognosticate (with little or no evidence).

But you are arguing. You claimed that the government can't run anything well, and I debunked your comment.

And, it was part of the topic....you ventured into other areas but still didn't disprove that government programs have been around for a long time, through Dem and Rep Presidents and have remained....so, they couldn't be so bad as you claim.

And, if you want to continue in circles, why don't you start another thread....I'm not the one trying to back paddle about what I said.

 

[peach174]

Real incidents aren't Facts?

Really?


Fact Definition
n. noun

• 1. Knowledge or information based on real occurrences.

oc·cur·rence
(ə-kûr′əns)
n.
1. The action, fact, or instance of occurring: The occurrence of snow is rare in these parts.
2. Something that takes place; an event or incident:

Exactly
Derideo_TE doesn't seem to think so.

T

Real incidents aren't Facts?

Really?


Fact Definition
n. noun

• 1. Knowledge or information based on real occurrences.

oc·cur·rence
(ə-kûr′əns)
n.
1. The action, fact, or instance of occurring: The occurrence of snow is rare in these parts.
2. Something that takes place; an event or incident:

Exactly
Derideo_TE doesn't seem to think so.

I think he said "anecdote" - you said "real incident". An anecdote is a short story about an incident, not the incident itself.

anecdote-
a short and amusing or interesting story about a real incident or person.

Geez, I would draw a picture for you, but you still wouldn't get it. A picture of a watermelon is not a real watermelon....get it?

And explaining what actually happened to you with the New Health Care Act is real .......get it?

 

[Derideo_Te]

Really?


Fact Definition
n. noun

• 1. Knowledge or information based on real occurrences.

oc·cur·rence
(ə-kûr′əns)
n.
1. The action, fact, or instance of occurring: The occurrence of snow is rare in these parts.
2. Something that takes place; an event or incident:

Exactly
Derideo_TE doesn't seem to think so.

T

Really?


Fact Definition
n. noun

• 1. Knowledge or information based on real occurrences.

oc·cur·rence
(ə-kûr′əns)
n.
1. The action, fact, or instance of occurring: The occurrence of snow is rare in these parts.
2. Something that takes place; an event or incident:

Exactly
Derideo_TE doesn't seem to think so.

I think he said "anecdote" - you said "real incident". An anecdote is a short story about an incident, not the incident itself.

anecdote-
a short and amusing or interesting story about a real incident or person.

Geez, I would draw a picture for you, but you still wouldn't get it. A picture of a watermelon is not a real watermelon....get it?

And explaining what actually happened to you with the New Health Care Act is real .......get it?

It is hearsay!

You could claim to be an olympic athlete. That is not a fact because you say it is. It is nothing but hearsay because it cannot be factually corroborated by an independent credible source.

Get it?

Hearsay Define Hearsay at Dictionary.com

hearsay
[heer-sey]
noun
1.
unverified, unofficial information gained or acquired from another and not part of one's direct knowledge:
I pay no attention to hearsay.
2.
an item of idle or unverified information or gossip; rumor:
a malicious hearsay.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Let's be honest, it's not "liberalism vs conservatism", it's "socialism vs capitalism". "Liberal" was always a code word for "socialist".

I disagree - one can be liberal and support capitalism. Liberals may impose more regulation, but they don't necessarily want socialism.

I think they want capitalism for themselves and socialism for everyone else. And isn't that the way most, if not all socialist systems work? The ones running things live in luxury and the rest of the population is poor.

Liberals veer towards socialism as a means to address economic inequalities and injustices, not for personal enrichment. What happens though, is that system that looks good on paper, or maybe works in small situations lends itself to abuse in practice. Capitalism is no different where "abuse" is defined as sweatshops and the underpaid labor and abusive practices lead to the enrichment of a very few.

But which is worse when it comes to liberty, equality, and justice:

A government with the power to force people to accept and enforce its definition of such things? (And conversely given power to change that defintiion or take away liberty, equality, and justice?) This of course is always presented as for the general good.

Or unscrupulous people who operate sweat shops or underpay their people, but the people have a choice in whether they work for such employers or not; i.e. the people decide how it is going to be?

IMO it is this is the basic difference in point of view that does define modern day liberalism and conservatism.

The way I see it, is that there must be some form of "general good" in order to have equality and justice and real liberty.

Greg Brown has a song I love, and part of the lyrics go: "ain't no road a good road until it's free to everyone,
we're walkin' daddy father holy ghost & son"

A government can have the power. Or private entities can have that power. But regardless of who it is - there will always be stronger and more ruthless people who have power over weaker people. What is the best way of ensuring that the most people can have some degree of liberty, equality and justice?

To use the sweatshop meme as an example - DO people really have a choice?
If there are no other jobs around?
If it's a company town?
If there are dependents to think of?
If the only other jobs are even worse?
If the choice is between starvation and life?

In situations like that, "choice" becomes a farce and liberty, equality and justice belong to those who can pay for it. In many ways it still does - which criminals get off, which criminals get the death penalty?

The government provides a valuable and necessary counterbalance to the excesses of the "individual" by providing for the "general good".

Conservatism believes it protects people's right to "choice" - but it really only protects choices of those with enough power to be heard.

Liberalism seeks to give everyone the right to choose - even if it means some of those choices might be limited so those with weaker voices will be heard.

I think we have a great example of how here of how things get confused and conflated.

Conservatism is an ideal. It gives nothing. Neither does liberalism.

The "practicing" pols of the day are the ones who create the situations described above. They are part of an established system.

They do nothing according the values of either ideology.

From what I can tell,

Liberalism advocates for greater change based on an ideal. It is willing to "experiment". It appears to appeal to a set of common goals (often referred to as the greater good). However, how those goals are achieved is up in the air. In the case of the founding fathers, they threw out the existing government. I don't know that liberalism is as interested in outcomes as some claim.

Conservatism advocates slower changes and changes in a direction that push decision making down to the individual. It espouses decentralization and also is more harsh in allow individuals or groups to suffer the results of their choices. It appears to focus more on process than production.

In practice, this rarely shows up in a pure sense. It is always watered down and mixed with other things.

I don't agree with Foxfyre comment about "liberals veering towards socialism". A true liberal will look at all options and decide which one best achieves their goals. Here liberalism gets the blame for people posing as liberals who want to push their agenda on people.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Chuck Schumer is a liberal or conservative ?

Ted Kennedy was a liberal or conservative ?

George Bush was a liberal or conservative ?

 

[Mertex]

Really?


Fact Definition
n. noun

• 1. Knowledge or information based on real occurrences.

oc·cur·rence
(ə-kûr′əns)
n.
1. The action, fact, or instance of occurring: The occurrence of snow is rare in these parts.
2. Something that takes place; an event or incident:

Exactly
Derideo_TE doesn't seem to think so.

T

Really?


Fact Definition
n. noun

• 1. Knowledge or information based on real occurrences.

oc·cur·rence
(ə-kûr′əns)
n.
1. The action, fact, or instance of occurring: The occurrence of snow is rare in these parts.
2. Something that takes place; an event or incident:

Exactly
Derideo_TE doesn't seem to think so.

I think he said "anecdote" - you said "real incident". An anecdote is a short story about an incident, not the incident itself.

anecdote-
a short and amusing or interesting story about a real incident or person.

Geez, I would draw a picture for you, but you still wouldn't get it. A picture of a watermelon is not a real watermelon....get it?

And explaining what actually happened to you with the New Health Care Act is real .......get it?

People on the right have been telling stories about what happened to them.....most of them have not checked out to be true. Opponents of Obamacare (which are mostly right-wing) are going to elaborate on the negative and even lie about what is happening to them, even if they are experiencing a much better situation, they'd rather pay more or even not have health care insurance than to admit that Obamacare is better than what they had before.

Also, facts are based on actual occurrences that are documented, not on what one person says happened to them without anything to back their story up. Get it?

At the root of every debunked, cancelled plan, Obamacare "horror story" is usually a person who isn't as informed as he or she would like to believe. Usually that person is a journalist. Last week Maggie Mahar at HealthInsurance.org debunked yet another horror story, but she didn't blame the misguided former policy holders so much as the journalist who wrote the story. "It appeared that no one at the Star-Telegram even attempted to run a background check on the sources, or fact check their stories," Mahar wrote. "I couldn’t help but wonder: 'Why?'"
Lessons from the Obamacare Horror Stories - The Wire

The subject of the latest debunked Obamacare horror story is finally talking, and of course it's to Fox News. Julie Boonstra is a Michigan resident with leukemia, and she appeared in an Americans For Prosperity ad against Democratic Senate candidate Rep. Gary Peters, saying that Obamacare made her cancer treatment unaffordable because of out of pocket spending. Subsequent fact checking, though, found that her monthly premium payments were essentially cut in half, and the limits the law imposes on out of pocket expenses means that at worse, she'd break even between those costs and her premium saving. The ad also implied she lost access to her doctor, though fact checking determined that her doctor is included in the plan she picked on the exchange.

So with no real basis to the story she presented in the ad, how does Boonstra respond? The only way she can, the way Republicans always go, playing the victim.
Woman in debunked Obamacare horror story finally speaks ... to Fox News

Another Obamacare horror story debunked - latimes

How To Spot A Fake Obamacare Horror Story ThinkProgress

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Isn't this thread about conservatism an liberalism ?