Student of Ideologies - Hello!

[PoliticalChic]

PC, you do not speak for liberals and what they believe...but your mindless diatribe speaks volumes about YOU, your huge insecurities, your inability to live in a free society and your overwhelming FEAR...

The flip side of "your liberal world" is YOUR world rife with secrecy, oppression, suppression and regression...

Thomas Jefferson and Harry Truman knew your type PC...they warned about you...

Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty.
Thomas Jefferson

Those who want the Government to regulate matters of the mind and spirit are like men who are so afraid of being murdered that they commit suicide to avoid assassination.
President Harry S. Truman

It would be flattering to think that "Thomas Jefferson and Harry Truman knew [my] type..." but as I read your post, Shakespeare comes to mind: "The Devil can quote scriptures for his purpose."

But don't let it go to your head, I'm not saying that your degree of confusion is comparable to Satan's evil.

Rather, you seem to lack the interest in actually confronting my oh-so-specific points. No doubt your experience in the public schools has left you with a sense of being entitled to a second, and even a third chance to get it right.

So be it. Have another go. To make it easier for you, I've tried to reduce my verbiage.

Item #1 Would you like to argue the point that Democrat administrations have reduced our military and intell defenses?

Item #2 Do you deny that sans the CRA and GRE's, Democrat creations, the current financial crisis would not have happened?

Item #3 Would you argue that under Democrat auspices the rich and successful are not taxed to provide for, in many cases, those who choose not to embark on business ventures, show ambition, or take risks?

Item #4 Are you ready to claim that Democrats do not invest in big government, vast regulation, and statutes that give rise to the appellation 'nanny state'?

Item #5 Have you not noted that every Republican is always cast as being dumb, and real ninnys like President Carter are referred to as " the smartest president he ever met..." (Walter Cronkite)

Item #6 Being a liberal means requiring no proof for a statement, as in "taking guns away from lawful citizens is tantamount to solving the crime problem." Have you read John Lott's well documented "More Guns, Less Crime"?

Item #7 speaks for itself, as do the others, actually. The Church Committee, Biden, Leahy, Torricelli, etc. all fought to limit, hamstring, and obviate our attempts to remain ahead of our enemies. The 'Can't We All Just Get Along' wing of the Congress, and all Democrat liberals.

Unlike your last feeble attempt, you will lose points for every item you leave out.

Summer School beckons.

This is really quite funny PC...thank you...ALL you're doing is PROVING my point: "The basic difference between liberals and conservatives: liberals believe people are basically good, conservatives believe people are basically evil...thus, conservatism is based of FEAR...the strongest human emotion..."

How funny that you CAN understand how the events on 911 galvanized and mobilized OUR nation against an "enemy" ...

BUT you CAN'T even fathom that subversive activities America engaged in could have the SAME effect on others...HOW is that being a thinking person PC, where is the logic and cognitive thought? Instead, you speak from total emotion...FEAR

How funny that you CAN accuse Democrats of creating big government, because they try to help our citizens, follow the basic laws of civics and the tenets of wise men like Abraham Lincoln: "The legitimate object of Government is to do for a community of people whatever they need to have done but cannot do at all, or cannot so well do, for themselves in their separate and individual capacities. But in all that people can individually do as well for themselves, Government ought not to interfere."

BUT, you CAN'T see that big military, big surveillance programs and a big prison system IS big government that is very expensive, intrusive, and an oppressive NANNY state...HOW is that being a thinking person PC, where is the logic and cognitive thought? Instead, you speak from total emotion...FEAR

Most of your numbered points have been debunked by me in previous posts...do we have to go through them every single time we talk PC??? BTW, how DID Georges Clemenceau's need to severely punish Germany work out in the Treaty of Versailles, has something changed since the last time I destroyed your contention?

You either need to quell your overwhelming FEAR and educate yourself on the courage required to live in a free and open society and KEEP it that way, OR you should move to a country that has a dictator that will make you FEEL warm, fuzzy and secure...

Those who give up essential liberties for temporary safety deserve neither.
Benjamin Franklin

If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.
James Madison

America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter, and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.
Abraham Lincoln

Error #1 "...basic difference between liberals and conservatives: liberals believe people are basically good, conservatives believe people are basically evil..."
Correct Response: Conservatives view people as both good and bad, and for this reason believe on restraints on power, as in checks and balances, while liberals see power as a force for good, as long as the power is in their hands.

Error #2 "...911 galvanized and mobilized OUR nation against an "enemy" ...
This implies that the 19 hijackers may not have been our enemies. Typical 'head in the sand' liberal.

Error #3 "...subversive activities America engaged in ..."
Points off for both attaching the cliched ideas of 'Blame America First'ers' combined with lack of emumeration of these vague activities.

Extra credit for "...being a thinking person PC..."

Error #4 Loss of points for "...you speak from total emotion...FEAR." Claimed, but not supported by evidence. Actually, the contrary is true. Rather than fear differences, Conservatives believe in the principle of variety, while liberal perspectives result in a narrowing uniformity. Conservatives believe in choice of healthcare, education, religion, and various other areas. Under conservative principles, there will be differences in class, material condition and other inequalities. Equality will be of opportunity, not necessarily of result. The only uniformity will be before the law. Society will not be perfect.

Error #5 You will receive part credit for admitting that liberals believe in overwheming incrases in the size of government, as implied in "...How funny that you CAN accuse Democrats of creating big government, because they try to help our citizens,..."

Error #6 In "...follow the basic laws of civics and the tenets of wise men like Abraham Lincoln..." you have made the logical error of attempting to imply, laughably, the ideas of one great Republican President as the traits of the myriad government functionaries. Note how deftily my previous post fits here: "At the heart of the philosophy is the view that the supposedly unique wisdom of government officials should be trusted to plan the lives of the people."

Questionable statement, and probable error #7 " ...big military, big surveillance programs and a big prison system.." As usual, a liberal who would like to reduce the military, not realizing that without the judicious use of United States, and their military, the world would sink into chaos. 'Big Surveillance programs..." is poorly explained, nor documented, unless you are including 'EasyPass." And, of course, the throw-in 'Big Prison System...' which begs the question, implying that we throw political opponents and innocent folks into prison.
While not costing you any points, the use of the phrase is most telling as to the mind set of our leftist colleagues.

Error #8 "...Clemenceau's need to severely punish Germany work out in the Treaty of Versailles..." has, of course, nothing to do with the point that you could not deal with, that a tenet of liberals is that is that people are good, and will behave in the best interests of society. Marx: "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs." Proven false by history. Idolization of this fallacy goes back at least to Rousseau, and the concept of the 'noble savage,' a favorite left-wingers.

Error #8a "... I destroyed your contention..." A face-saving figment of your fetid imagination.

Error #9 "...educate yourself ..." Projection.

Error #10 and the winner in the category of unintentional humor: "...you should move to a country that has a dictator ..." Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, among a host of, what, well known Conservatives? While you have strongly held believes, they are not grounded in erudition, as statements such as these show that you have the most cursory understanding of the aims and goals of your brand of liberalism. It is the liberal who loves the people but hates individuals. It is the Conservative who fights for individual rights, school choice, gun rights, etc. while on college campuses we find speech codes, and indocrination.

Sorry. Summer School.

But, I do have to congratulate your ability to pack so many errors into such a short space.

 

[MaggieMae]

At least the manner in which I refuted your seven points show that they are all indeed debatable, and not set in stone per the rules of right-wing ideology regarding each issue and therefore indisputable. If you wish to debate each and every one, you will need to start a new thread for each, because you tend to quote everything in your repertoire to back up your claims, and I could do the same in separate threads, but for the sake of expediency (and readability), you and I would be the only ones even reading any of it here.

Maggie, long time no see.

Item #1 Would you like to argue the point that Democrat administrations have reduced our military and intell defenses?

We continue to have the strongest and most powerful weapons on earth. There is no fixed analysis on how good (or how bad) our intelligence agencies perform because the intracacies are not public knowledge to begin with.

Item #2 Do you deny that sans the CRA and GRE's, Democrat creations, the current financial crisis would not have happened?

Yes, denied. Federal Reserve Board data show that:

•More than 84 percent of the subprime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending institutions.
•Private firms made nearly 83 percent of the subprime loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers that year.
•Only one of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006 was directly subject to the housing law that’s being lambasted by conservative critics.
That law would be the aforementioned Community Reinvestment Act (CRA).

While Fannie and Freddie were a small part of the problem, the mortgage failure actually happened as Fannie and Freddie were reducing their holdings of subprime mortgages by a factor of 2, from 48% to 24% between 2004 and 2006. In fact, in 2005 and 2006, private investment banks stopped using Fannie and Freddie for 2/3rds of all the mortgages they initiated, preferring instead to package them into questionable mortgage-backed securities.

Item #3 Would you argue that under Democrat auspices the rich and successful are not taxed to provide for, in many cases, those who choose not to embark on business ventures, show ambition, or take risks?

Income tax bracketing began in 1917. Other than that, you'll need to show which programs where the wealthy have been specifically taxed in order to support a program solely for slackers or the poor.

Item #4 Are you ready to claim that Democrats do not invest in big government, vast regulation, and statutes that give rise to the appellation 'nanny state'?

Democrats believe that any public necessity to sustain the citizenry in general (i.e., financial institutions, transportation infrastructure, food, housing, utilities) should be regulated. The "nanny state" is a lame exaggeration and has become a worn-out catch phrase. Republicans don't try to diminish necessary 'welfare' programs that sustain life either.

Item #5 Have you not noted that every Republican is always cast as being dumb, and real ninnys like President Carter are referred to as " the smartest president he ever met..." (Walter Cronkite)

Oh that's a crock. When a Republican says something dumb, it's rightfully called dumb. When a liberal says something dumb, s/he's usually called even worse (or perhaps you should re-read some of your own posts).

Item #6 Being a liberal means requiring no proof for a statement, as in "taking guns away from lawful citizens is tantamount to solving the crime problem." Have you read John Lott's well documented "More Guns, Less Crime"?

Another crock. I for one post link after link after link to support most of what I say on this board and many others do too. That said, why is it so awful for a lib to make a generalized opinion like you put in quotes? You mean you do not ever offer a simple statement unless it's one from one of your tomes? And no, I for one have enough reading material to last me another lifetime, and I don't intend to read all of your supporting data in addition to my own less radical conservative publications. John Lott isn't part of that pile yet.

Item #7 speaks for itself, as do the others, actually. The Church Committee, Biden, Leahy, Torricelli, etc. all fought to limit, hamstring, and obviate our attempts to remain ahead of our enemies. The 'Can't We All Just Get Along' wing of the Congress, and all Democrat liberals.

Well that's a whole 'nuther topic completely. Quite simply, the "new" enemy (terrorism) is a method and it's not as easy "staying ahead" of something that's intangible.


Rather than a whirl, your response to #1 is a tap dance. You did not respond to the question.

And the response to #2 is equally flawed. Rather than 2006, let's beging with 1938 for the GRE's. Since economics is less than a science, we don't know the time frame for catastrophic results of a given policy. Except for he current one. 70 years. Without the GRE's, the Democrat party, and the CRA, the imposition of strictly fiduciary principles would have obviated the meltdown.

Item #3 "which programs where the wealthy have been specifically taxed in order to support a program solely for slackers or the poor". Which programs are not funded by taxation? Or does it depend on what the meaning of the word 'is' is. You said slackers, not I. Taxation itself is the question. Democrats believe in higher, even confiscatory taxation. Repubs, lower taxes. Later, for what is a fair level. Tough argument for you in the light of the current administration.

Answer #4 is another example of tap dancing.

#5 You are usually more honest than this. Many studies indicate that Democrats get far better and slanted press than Repubs.

#6 I am generally the solipsist around her, but you seem to think this is the Maggie-thread. This thread is about liberals in general, not specifically about you. If the shoe doesn't fit, don't try to wear it. My statement #6 is accurate.

It's clear why you don't want to face #7.

 

[Bfgrn]

It would be flattering to think that "Thomas Jefferson and Harry Truman knew [my] type..." but as I read your post, Shakespeare comes to mind: "The Devil can quote scriptures for his purpose."

But don't let it go to your head, I'm not saying that your degree of confusion is comparable to Satan's evil.

Rather, you seem to lack the interest in actually confronting my oh-so-specific points. No doubt your experience in the public schools has left you with a sense of being entitled to a second, and even a third chance to get it right.

So be it. Have another go. To make it easier for you, I've tried to reduce my verbiage.

Item #1 Would you like to argue the point that Democrat administrations have reduced our military and intell defenses?

Item #2 Do you deny that sans the CRA and GRE's, Democrat creations, the current financial crisis would not have happened?

Item #3 Would you argue that under Democrat auspices the rich and successful are not taxed to provide for, in many cases, those who choose not to embark on business ventures, show ambition, or take risks?

Item #4 Are you ready to claim that Democrats do not invest in big government, vast regulation, and statutes that give rise to the appellation 'nanny state'?

Item #5 Have you not noted that every Republican is always cast as being dumb, and real ninnys like President Carter are referred to as " the smartest president he ever met..." (Walter Cronkite)

Item #6 Being a liberal means requiring no proof for a statement, as in "taking guns away from lawful citizens is tantamount to solving the crime problem." Have you read John Lott's well documented "More Guns, Less Crime"?

Item #7 speaks for itself, as do the others, actually. The Church Committee, Biden, Leahy, Torricelli, etc. all fought to limit, hamstring, and obviate our attempts to remain ahead of our enemies. The 'Can't We All Just Get Along' wing of the Congress, and all Democrat liberals.

Unlike your last feeble attempt, you will lose points for every item you leave out.

Summer School beckons.

This is really quite funny PC...thank you...ALL you're doing is PROVING my point: "The basic difference between liberals and conservatives: liberals believe people are basically good, conservatives believe people are basically evil...thus, conservatism is based of FEAR...the strongest human emotion..."

How funny that you CAN understand how the events on 911 galvanized and mobilized OUR nation against an "enemy" ...

BUT you CAN'T even fathom that subversive activities America engaged in could have the SAME effect on others...HOW is that being a thinking person PC, where is the logic and cognitive thought? Instead, you speak from total emotion...FEAR

How funny that you CAN accuse Democrats of creating big government, because they try to help our citizens, follow the basic laws of civics and the tenets of wise men like Abraham Lincoln: "The legitimate object of Government is to do for a community of people whatever they need to have done but cannot do at all, or cannot so well do, for themselves in their separate and individual capacities. But in all that people can individually do as well for themselves, Government ought not to interfere."

BUT, you CAN'T see that big military, big surveillance programs and a big prison system IS big government that is very expensive, intrusive, and an oppressive NANNY state...HOW is that being a thinking person PC, where is the logic and cognitive thought? Instead, you speak from total emotion...FEAR

Most of your numbered points have been debunked by me in previous posts...do we have to go through them every single time we talk PC??? BTW, how DID Georges Clemenceau's need to severely punish Germany work out in the Treaty of Versailles, has something changed since the last time I destroyed your contention?

You either need to quell your overwhelming FEAR and educate yourself on the courage required to live in a free and open society and KEEP it that way, OR you should move to a country that has a dictator that will make you FEEL warm, fuzzy and secure...

Those who give up essential liberties for temporary safety deserve neither.
Benjamin Franklin

If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.
James Madison

America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter, and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.
Abraham Lincoln

Error #1 "...basic difference between liberals and conservatives: liberals believe people are basically good, conservatives believe people are basically evil..."
Correct Response: Conservatives view people as both good and bad, and for this reason believe on restraints on power, as in checks and balances, while liberals see power as a force for good, as long as the power is in their hands.

Error #2 "...911 galvanized and mobilized OUR nation against an "enemy" ...
This implies that the 19 hijackers may not have been our enemies. Typical 'head in the sand' liberal.

Error #3 "...subversive activities America engaged in ..."
Points off for both attaching the cliched ideas of 'Blame America First'ers' combined with lack of emumeration of these vague activities.

Extra credit for "...being a thinking person PC..."

Error #4 Loss of points for "...you speak from total emotion...FEAR." Claimed, but not supported by evidence. Actually, the contrary is true. Rather than fear differences, Conservatives believe in the principle of variety, while liberal perspectives result in a narrowing uniformity. Conservatives believe in choice of healthcare, education, religion, and various other areas. Under conservative principles, there will be differences in class, material condition and other inequalities. Equality will be of opportunity, not necessarily of result. The only uniformity will be before the law. Society will not be perfect.

Error #5 You will receive part credit for admitting that liberals believe in overwheming incrases in the size of government, as implied in "...How funny that you CAN accuse Democrats of creating big government, because they try to help our citizens,..."

Error #6 In "...follow the basic laws of civics and the tenets of wise men like Abraham Lincoln..." you have made the logical error of attempting to imply, laughably, the ideas of one great Republican President as the traits of the myriad government functionaries. Note how deftily my previous post fits here: "At the heart of the philosophy is the view that the supposedly unique wisdom of government officials should be trusted to plan the lives of the people."

Questionable statement, and probable error #7 " ...big military, big surveillance programs and a big prison system.." As usual, a liberal who would like to reduce the military, not realizing that without the judicious use of United States, and their military, the world would sink into chaos. 'Big Surveillance programs..." is poorly explained, nor documented, unless you are including 'EasyPass." And, of course, the throw-in 'Big Prison System...' which begs the question, implying that we throw political opponents and innocent folks into prison.
While not costing you any points, the use of the phrase is most telling as to the mind set of our leftist colleagues.

Error #8 "...Clemenceau's need to severely punish Germany work out in the Treaty of Versailles..." has, of course, nothing to do with the point that you could not deal with, that a tenet of liberals is that is that people are good, and will behave in the best interests of society. Marx: "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs." Proven false by history. Idolization of this fallacy goes back at least to Rousseau, and the concept of the 'noble savage,' a favorite left-wingers.

Error #8a "... I destroyed your contention..." A face-saving figment of your fetid imagination.

Error #9 "...educate yourself ..." Projection.

Error #10 and the winner in the category of unintentional humor: "...you should move to a country that has a dictator ..." Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, among a host of, what, well known Conservatives? While you have strongly held believes, they are not grounded in erudition, as statements such as these show that you have the most cursory understanding of the aims and goals of your brand of liberalism. It is the liberal who loves the people but hates individuals. It is the Conservative who fights for individual rights, school choice, gun rights, etc. while on college campuses we find speech codes, and indocrination.

Sorry. Summer School.

But, I do have to congratulate your ability to pack so many errors into such a short space.

I will grant you just one advantage...you can type...but that being said, your post is devoid of any intelligent points. And you are REALLY missing the point...

You began your tirade here: "It should be remembered that when Woodrow Wilson asked Georges Clemenceau, prime minister of France, “Don’t you believe that all men are brothers,” Clemenceau replied “Yes- Cain and Abel.” "

YES PC, you are correct...it SHOULD be remembered, WHY should it be remembered? Because Wilson was right and Clemenceau was WRONG...DEAD wrong!

Clemenceau's aim was to impose policies meant to cripple Germany militarily, politically, and economically. Wilson wanted wanted to come to a fair and reasonable deal to ensure the success of future trading opportunities, favorably collect on the European debt, and hoped to avoid future wars.

It was Clemenceau's punitive measures written into the Treaty of Versailles that LED to the rise of the Nazis in Germany and World War II!!!

So PC, you started your tirade by walking right into the path of an oncoming car...BUT, her comes the 18 wheel semi bearing down on you..."Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, among a host of, what, well known Conservatives?"...YES...they ARE PC...Conservatism is based on latitude, longitude and date of birth...THINK about it...

I'm sure you've seen the signature I use:
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.
John Kenneth Galbraith

Well, here's a great definition OF WHAT selfishness really is...it is your affliction PC and the affliction of your right wing hero George Clemenceau...

"Selfishness is not living as one wishes to live; it is asking others to live as one wishes to live."
Oscar Wilde


'Blame America First'ers'

I will re post a thread I started a few weeks ago...please read it...


Hope for Iraq

Here's my choice for Prime Minister of Iraq in the upcoming elections...

Abd al-Karim Qasim

Proposes a Constitution for Iraq proclaiming the equality of all Iraqi citizens under the law, granting freedom without regard to race, nationality, language or religion. The government will free political prisoners and grant amnesty to the Kurds who participated in the Kurdish uprisings. The Kurds will be welcomed by the regime.

Qasim will work to improve the position of ordinary people in Iraq and increase the size of the middle class. He will start by building 35,000 residential units to house the poor and lower middle classes.

Qasim will also rewrite the constitution to encourage women’s participation in the society.

 

[PoliticalChic]

At least the manner in which I refuted your seven points show that they are all indeed debatable, and not set in stone per the rules of right-wing ideology regarding each issue and therefore indisputable. If you wish to debate each and every one, you will need to start a new thread for each, because you tend to quote everything in your repertoire to back up your claims, and I could do the same in separate threads, but for the sake of expediency (and readability), you and I would be the only ones even reading any of it here.

Maggie, long time no see.

Item #1 Would you like to argue the point that Democrat administrations have reduced our military and intell defenses?

We continue to have the strongest and most powerful weapons on earth. There is no fixed analysis on how good (or how bad) our intelligence agencies perform because the intracacies are not public knowledge to begin with.

Item #2 Do you deny that sans the CRA and GRE's, Democrat creations, the current financial crisis would not have happened?

Yes, denied. Federal Reserve Board data show that:

•More than 84 percent of the subprime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending institutions.
•Private firms made nearly 83 percent of the subprime loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers that year.
•Only one of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006 was directly subject to the housing law that’s being lambasted by conservative critics.
That law would be the aforementioned Community Reinvestment Act (CRA).

While Fannie and Freddie were a small part of the problem, the mortgage failure actually happened as Fannie and Freddie were reducing their holdings of subprime mortgages by a factor of 2, from 48% to 24% between 2004 and 2006. In fact, in 2005 and 2006, private investment banks stopped using Fannie and Freddie for 2/3rds of all the mortgages they initiated, preferring instead to package them into questionable mortgage-backed securities.

Item #3 Would you argue that under Democrat auspices the rich and successful are not taxed to provide for, in many cases, those who choose not to embark on business ventures, show ambition, or take risks?

Income tax bracketing began in 1917. Other than that, you'll need to show which programs where the wealthy have been specifically taxed in order to support a program solely for slackers or the poor.

Item #4 Are you ready to claim that Democrats do not invest in big government, vast regulation, and statutes that give rise to the appellation 'nanny state'?

Democrats believe that any public necessity to sustain the citizenry in general (i.e., financial institutions, transportation infrastructure, food, housing, utilities) should be regulated. The "nanny state" is a lame exaggeration and has become a worn-out catch phrase. Republicans don't try to diminish necessary 'welfare' programs that sustain life either.

Item #5 Have you not noted that every Republican is always cast as being dumb, and real ninnys like President Carter are referred to as " the smartest president he ever met..." (Walter Cronkite)

Oh that's a crock. When a Republican says something dumb, it's rightfully called dumb. When a liberal says something dumb, s/he's usually called even worse (or perhaps you should re-read some of your own posts).

Item #6 Being a liberal means requiring no proof for a statement, as in "taking guns away from lawful citizens is tantamount to solving the crime problem." Have you read John Lott's well documented "More Guns, Less Crime"?

Another crock. I for one post link after link after link to support most of what I say on this board and many others do too. That said, why is it so awful for a lib to make a generalized opinion like you put in quotes? You mean you do not ever offer a simple statement unless it's one from one of your tomes? And no, I for one have enough reading material to last me another lifetime, and I don't intend to read all of your supporting data in addition to my own less radical conservative publications. John Lott isn't part of that pile yet.

Item #7 speaks for itself, as do the others, actually. The Church Committee, Biden, Leahy, Torricelli, etc. all fought to limit, hamstring, and obviate our attempts to remain ahead of our enemies. The 'Can't We All Just Get Along' wing of the Congress, and all Democrat liberals.

Well that's a whole 'nuther topic completely. Quite simply, the "new" enemy (terrorism) is a method and it's not as easy "staying ahead" of something that's intangible.


Rather than a whirl, your response to #1 is a tap dance. You did not respond to the question.

And the response to #2 is equally flawed. Rather than 2006, let's beging with 1938 for the GRE's. Since economics is less than a science, we don't know the time frame for catastrophic results of a given policy. Except for he current one. 70 years. Without the GRE's, the Democrat party, and the CRA, the imposition of strictly fiduciary principles would have obviated the meltdown.

Item #3 "which programs where the wealthy have been specifically taxed in order to support a program solely for slackers or the poor". Which programs are not funded by taxation? Or does it depend on what the meaning of the word 'is' is. You said slackers, not I. Taxation itself is the question. Democrats believe in higher, even confiscatory taxation. Repubs, lower taxes. Later, for what is a fair level. Tough argument for you in the light of the current administration.

Answer #4 is another example of tap dancing.

#5 You are usually more honest than this. Many studies indicate that Democrats get far better and slanted press than Repubs.

#6 I am generally the solipsist around her, but you seem to think this is the Maggie-thread. This thread is about liberals in general, not specifically about you. If the shoe doesn't fit, don't try to wear it. My statement #6 is accurate.

It's clear why you don't want to face #7.

"At least the manner in which I refuted your seven points show that they are all indeed debatable,..."

No problem. It's the debate that I love.

Best wishes.

 

[PoliticalChic]

This is really quite funny PC...thank you...ALL you're doing is PROVING my point: "The basic difference between liberals and conservatives: liberals believe people are basically good, conservatives believe people are basically evil...thus, conservatism is based of FEAR...the strongest human emotion..."

How funny that you CAN understand how the events on 911 galvanized and mobilized OUR nation against an "enemy" ...

BUT you CAN'T even fathom that subversive activities America engaged in could have the SAME effect on others...HOW is that being a thinking person PC, where is the logic and cognitive thought? Instead, you speak from total emotion...FEAR

How funny that you CAN accuse Democrats of creating big government, because they try to help our citizens, follow the basic laws of civics and the tenets of wise men like Abraham Lincoln: "The legitimate object of Government is to do for a community of people whatever they need to have done but cannot do at all, or cannot so well do, for themselves in their separate and individual capacities. But in all that people can individually do as well for themselves, Government ought not to interfere."

BUT, you CAN'T see that big military, big surveillance programs and a big prison system IS big government that is very expensive, intrusive, and an oppressive NANNY state...HOW is that being a thinking person PC, where is the logic and cognitive thought? Instead, you speak from total emotion...FEAR

Most of your numbered points have been debunked by me in previous posts...do we have to go through them every single time we talk PC??? BTW, how DID Georges Clemenceau's need to severely punish Germany work out in the Treaty of Versailles, has something changed since the last time I destroyed your contention?

You either need to quell your overwhelming FEAR and educate yourself on the courage required to live in a free and open society and KEEP it that way, OR you should move to a country that has a dictator that will make you FEEL warm, fuzzy and secure...

Those who give up essential liberties for temporary safety deserve neither.
Benjamin Franklin

If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.
James Madison

America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter, and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.
Abraham Lincoln

Error #1 "...basic difference between liberals and conservatives: liberals believe people are basically good, conservatives believe people are basically evil..."
Correct Response: Conservatives view people as both good and bad, and for this reason believe on restraints on power, as in checks and balances, while liberals see power as a force for good, as long as the power is in their hands.

Error #2 "...911 galvanized and mobilized OUR nation against an "enemy" ...
This implies that the 19 hijackers may not have been our enemies. Typical 'head in the sand' liberal.

Error #3 "...subversive activities America engaged in ..."
Points off for both attaching the cliched ideas of 'Blame America First'ers' combined with lack of emumeration of these vague activities.

Extra credit for "...being a thinking person PC..."

Error #4 Loss of points for "...you speak from total emotion...FEAR." Claimed, but not supported by evidence. Actually, the contrary is true. Rather than fear differences, Conservatives believe in the principle of variety, while liberal perspectives result in a narrowing uniformity. Conservatives believe in choice of healthcare, education, religion, and various other areas. Under conservative principles, there will be differences in class, material condition and other inequalities. Equality will be of opportunity, not necessarily of result. The only uniformity will be before the law. Society will not be perfect.

Error #5 You will receive part credit for admitting that liberals believe in overwheming incrases in the size of government, as implied in "...How funny that you CAN accuse Democrats of creating big government, because they try to help our citizens,..."

Error #6 In "...follow the basic laws of civics and the tenets of wise men like Abraham Lincoln..." you have made the logical error of attempting to imply, laughably, the ideas of one great Republican President as the traits of the myriad government functionaries. Note how deftily my previous post fits here: "At the heart of the philosophy is the view that the supposedly unique wisdom of government officials should be trusted to plan the lives of the people."

Questionable statement, and probable error #7 " ...big military, big surveillance programs and a big prison system.." As usual, a liberal who would like to reduce the military, not realizing that without the judicious use of United States, and their military, the world would sink into chaos. 'Big Surveillance programs..." is poorly explained, nor documented, unless you are including 'EasyPass." And, of course, the throw-in 'Big Prison System...' which begs the question, implying that we throw political opponents and innocent folks into prison.
While not costing you any points, the use of the phrase is most telling as to the mind set of our leftist colleagues.

Error #8 "...Clemenceau's need to severely punish Germany work out in the Treaty of Versailles..." has, of course, nothing to do with the point that you could not deal with, that a tenet of liberals is that is that people are good, and will behave in the best interests of society. Marx: "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs." Proven false by history. Idolization of this fallacy goes back at least to Rousseau, and the concept of the 'noble savage,' a favorite left-wingers.

Error #8a "... I destroyed your contention..." A face-saving figment of your fetid imagination.

Error #9 "...educate yourself ..." Projection.

Error #10 and the winner in the category of unintentional humor: "...you should move to a country that has a dictator ..." Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, among a host of, what, well known Conservatives? While you have strongly held believes, they are not grounded in erudition, as statements such as these show that you have the most cursory understanding of the aims and goals of your brand of liberalism. It is the liberal who loves the people but hates individuals. It is the Conservative who fights for individual rights, school choice, gun rights, etc. while on college campuses we find speech codes, and indocrination.

Sorry. Summer School.

But, I do have to congratulate your ability to pack so many errors into such a short space.

I will grant you just one advantage...you can type...but that being said, your post is devoid of any intelligent points. And you are REALLY missing the point...

You began your tirade here: "It should be remembered that when Woodrow Wilson asked Georges Clemenceau, prime minister of France, “Don’t you believe that all men are brothers,” Clemenceau replied “Yes- Cain and Abel.” "

YES PC, you are correct...it SHOULD be remembered, WHY should it be remembered? Because Wilson was right and Clemenceau was WRONG...DEAD wrong!

Clemenceau's aim was to impose policies meant to cripple Germany militarily, politically, and economically. Wilson wanted wanted to come to a fair and reasonable deal to ensure the success of future trading opportunities, favorably collect on the European debt, and hoped to avoid future wars.

It was Clemenceau's punitive measures written into the Treaty of Versailles that LED to the rise of the Nazis in Germany and World War II!!!

So PC, you started your tirade by walking right into the path of an oncoming car...BUT, her comes the 18 wheel semi bearing down on you..."Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, among a host of, what, well known Conservatives?"...YES...they ARE PC...Conservatism is based on latitude, longitude and date of birth...THINK about it...

I'm sure you've seen the signature I use:
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.
John Kenneth Galbraith

Well, here's a great definition OF WHAT selfishness really is...it is your affliction PC and the affliction of your right wing hero George Clemenceau...

"Selfishness is not living as one wishes to live; it is asking others to live as one wishes to live."
Oscar Wilde


'Blame America First'ers'

I will re post a thread I started a few weeks ago...please read it...


Hope for Iraq

Here's my choice for Prime Minister of Iraq in the upcoming elections...

Abd al-Karim Qasim

Proposes a Constitution for Iraq proclaiming the equality of all Iraqi citizens under the law, granting freedom without regard to race, nationality, language or religion. The government will free political prisoners and grant amnesty to the Kurds who participated in the Kurdish uprisings. The Kurds will be welcomed by the regime.

Qasim will work to improve the position of ordinary people in Iraq and increase the size of the middle class. He will start by building 35,000 residential units to house the poor and lower middle classes.

Qasim will also rewrite the constitution to encourage women’s participation in the society.

Here is the gold nugget: "This is really quite funny PC...thank you...ALL you're doing is PROVING my point: "The basic difference between liberals and conservatives: liberals believe people are basically good, conservatives believe people are basically evil...thus, conservatism is based of FEAR...the strongest human emotion..."

Your child-like misreading of human nature is almost endearing.

Unless you are over seven years old.

An is this the hill you wish to die on? "So PC, you started your tirade by walking right into the path of an oncoming car...BUT, her comes the 18 wheel semi bearing down on you..."Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, among a host of, what, well known Conservatives?"...YES...they ARE PC...Conservatism is based on latitude, longitude and date of birth...THINK about it..."

Now you have done it.

I must now embark on the definitive explanation of liberal-fellow travelers.

Watch this space for future developments.

 

[Bfgrn]

Error #1 "...basic difference between liberals and conservatives: liberals believe people are basically good, conservatives believe people are basically evil..."
Correct Response: Conservatives view people as both good and bad, and for this reason believe on restraints on power, as in checks and balances, while liberals see power as a force for good, as long as the power is in their hands.

Error #2 "...911 galvanized and mobilized OUR nation against an "enemy" ...
This implies that the 19 hijackers may not have been our enemies. Typical 'head in the sand' liberal.

Error #3 "...subversive activities America engaged in ..."
Points off for both attaching the cliched ideas of 'Blame America First'ers' combined with lack of emumeration of these vague activities.

Extra credit for "...being a thinking person PC..."

Error #4 Loss of points for "...you speak from total emotion...FEAR." Claimed, but not supported by evidence. Actually, the contrary is true. Rather than fear differences, Conservatives believe in the principle of variety, while liberal perspectives result in a narrowing uniformity. Conservatives believe in choice of healthcare, education, religion, and various other areas. Under conservative principles, there will be differences in class, material condition and other inequalities. Equality will be of opportunity, not necessarily of result. The only uniformity will be before the law. Society will not be perfect.

Error #5 You will receive part credit for admitting that liberals believe in overwheming incrases in the size of government, as implied in "...How funny that you CAN accuse Democrats of creating big government, because they try to help our citizens,..."

Error #6 In "...follow the basic laws of civics and the tenets of wise men like Abraham Lincoln..." you have made the logical error of attempting to imply, laughably, the ideas of one great Republican President as the traits of the myriad government functionaries. Note how deftily my previous post fits here: "At the heart of the philosophy is the view that the supposedly unique wisdom of government officials should be trusted to plan the lives of the people."

Questionable statement, and probable error #7 " ...big military, big surveillance programs and a big prison system.." As usual, a liberal who would like to reduce the military, not realizing that without the judicious use of United States, and their military, the world would sink into chaos. 'Big Surveillance programs..." is poorly explained, nor documented, unless you are including 'EasyPass." And, of course, the throw-in 'Big Prison System...' which begs the question, implying that we throw political opponents and innocent folks into prison.
While not costing you any points, the use of the phrase is most telling as to the mind set of our leftist colleagues.

Error #8 "...Clemenceau's need to severely punish Germany work out in the Treaty of Versailles..." has, of course, nothing to do with the point that you could not deal with, that a tenet of liberals is that is that people are good, and will behave in the best interests of society. Marx: "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs." Proven false by history. Idolization of this fallacy goes back at least to Rousseau, and the concept of the 'noble savage,' a favorite left-wingers.

Error #8a "... I destroyed your contention..." A face-saving figment of your fetid imagination.

Error #9 "...educate yourself ..." Projection.

Error #10 and the winner in the category of unintentional humor: "...you should move to a country that has a dictator ..." Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, among a host of, what, well known Conservatives? While you have strongly held believes, they are not grounded in erudition, as statements such as these show that you have the most cursory understanding of the aims and goals of your brand of liberalism. It is the liberal who loves the people but hates individuals. It is the Conservative who fights for individual rights, school choice, gun rights, etc. while on college campuses we find speech codes, and indocrination.

Sorry. Summer School.

But, I do have to congratulate your ability to pack so many errors into such a short space.

I will grant you just one advantage...you can type...but that being said, your post is devoid of any intelligent points. And you are REALLY missing the point...

You began your tirade here: "It should be remembered that when Woodrow Wilson asked Georges Clemenceau, prime minister of France, “Don’t you believe that all men are brothers,” Clemenceau replied “Yes- Cain and Abel.” "

YES PC, you are correct...it SHOULD be remembered, WHY should it be remembered? Because Wilson was right and Clemenceau was WRONG...DEAD wrong!

Clemenceau's aim was to impose policies meant to cripple Germany militarily, politically, and economically. Wilson wanted wanted to come to a fair and reasonable deal to ensure the success of future trading opportunities, favorably collect on the European debt, and hoped to avoid future wars.

It was Clemenceau's punitive measures written into the Treaty of Versailles that LED to the rise of the Nazis in Germany and World War II!!!

So PC, you started your tirade by walking right into the path of an oncoming car...BUT, her comes the 18 wheel semi bearing down on you..."Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, among a host of, what, well known Conservatives?"...YES...they ARE PC...Conservatism is based on latitude, longitude and date of birth...THINK about it...

I'm sure you've seen the signature I use:
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.
John Kenneth Galbraith

Well, here's a great definition OF WHAT selfishness really is...it is your affliction PC and the affliction of your right wing hero George Clemenceau...

"Selfishness is not living as one wishes to live; it is asking others to live as one wishes to live."
Oscar Wilde


'Blame America First'ers'

I will re post a thread I started a few weeks ago...please read it...


Hope for Iraq

Here's my choice for Prime Minister of Iraq in the upcoming elections...

Abd al-Karim Qasim

Proposes a Constitution for Iraq proclaiming the equality of all Iraqi citizens under the law, granting freedom without regard to race, nationality, language or religion. The government will free political prisoners and grant amnesty to the Kurds who participated in the Kurdish uprisings. The Kurds will be welcomed by the regime.

Qasim will work to improve the position of ordinary people in Iraq and increase the size of the middle class. He will start by building 35,000 residential units to house the poor and lower middle classes.

Qasim will also rewrite the constitution to encourage women’s participation in the society.

Here is the gold nugget: "This is really quite funny PC...thank you...ALL you're doing is PROVING my point: "The basic difference between liberals and conservatives: liberals believe people are basically good, conservatives believe people are basically evil...thus, conservatism is based of FEAR...the strongest human emotion..."

Your child-like misreading of human nature is almost endearing.

Unless you are over seven years old.

An is this the hill you wish to die on? "So PC, you started your tirade by walking right into the path of an oncoming car...BUT, her comes the 18 wheel semi bearing down on you..."Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, among a host of, what, well known Conservatives?"...YES...they ARE PC...Conservatism is based on latitude, longitude and date of birth...THINK about it..."

Now you have done it.

I must now embark on the definitive explanation of liberal-fellow travelers.

Watch this space for future developments.

Ahhhhh, your right wing parochial mind just can't grasp this truism...SO...let's THINK about it PC... Do you believe Stalin was a staunch follower of the Jefferson, Madison, the US Constitution, a free market economy and a democratic ideology? It THAT what Stalin wanted to "conserve" for Russia???

Joseph Stalin
Shortly after leaving the Seminary, he discovered the writings of Vladimir Lenin and decided to become a Marxist revolutionary.

Conservatism is based on latitude, longitude and date of birth...I guess you really didn't THINK about it PC...you reacted with emotion...LOL

 

[PoliticalChic]

I will grant you just one advantage...you can type...but that being said, your post is devoid of any intelligent points. And you are REALLY missing the point...

You began your tirade here: "It should be remembered that when Woodrow Wilson asked Georges Clemenceau, prime minister of France, “Don’t you believe that all men are brothers,” Clemenceau replied “Yes- Cain and Abel.” "

YES PC, you are correct...it SHOULD be remembered, WHY should it be remembered? Because Wilson was right and Clemenceau was WRONG...DEAD wrong!

Clemenceau's aim was to impose policies meant to cripple Germany militarily, politically, and economically. Wilson wanted wanted to come to a fair and reasonable deal to ensure the success of future trading opportunities, favorably collect on the European debt, and hoped to avoid future wars.

It was Clemenceau's punitive measures written into the Treaty of Versailles that LED to the rise of the Nazis in Germany and World War II!!!

So PC, you started your tirade by walking right into the path of an oncoming car...BUT, her comes the 18 wheel semi bearing down on you..."Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, among a host of, what, well known Conservatives?"...YES...they ARE PC...Conservatism is based on latitude, longitude and date of birth...THINK about it...

I'm sure you've seen the signature I use:
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.
John Kenneth Galbraith

Well, here's a great definition OF WHAT selfishness really is...it is your affliction PC and the affliction of your right wing hero George Clemenceau...

"Selfishness is not living as one wishes to live; it is asking others to live as one wishes to live."
Oscar Wilde


'Blame America First'ers'

I will re post a thread I started a few weeks ago...please read it...


Hope for Iraq

Here's my choice for Prime Minister of Iraq in the upcoming elections...

Abd al-Karim Qasim

Proposes a Constitution for Iraq proclaiming the equality of all Iraqi citizens under the law, granting freedom without regard to race, nationality, language or religion. The government will free political prisoners and grant amnesty to the Kurds who participated in the Kurdish uprisings. The Kurds will be welcomed by the regime.

Qasim will work to improve the position of ordinary people in Iraq and increase the size of the middle class. He will start by building 35,000 residential units to house the poor and lower middle classes.

Qasim will also rewrite the constitution to encourage women’s participation in the society.

Here is the gold nugget: "This is really quite funny PC...thank you...ALL you're doing is PROVING my point: "The basic difference between liberals and conservatives: liberals believe people are basically good, conservatives believe people are basically evil...thus, conservatism is based of FEAR...the strongest human emotion..."

Your child-like misreading of human nature is almost endearing.

Unless you are over seven years old.

An is this the hill you wish to die on? "So PC, you started your tirade by walking right into the path of an oncoming car...BUT, her comes the 18 wheel semi bearing down on you..."Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, among a host of, what, well known Conservatives?"...YES...they ARE PC...Conservatism is based on latitude, longitude and date of birth...THINK about it..."

Now you have done it.

I must now embark on the definitive explanation of liberal-fellow travelers.

Watch this space for future developments.

Ahhhhh, your right wing parochial mind just can't grasp this truism...SO...let's THINK about it PC... Do you believe Stalin was a staunch follower of the Jefferson, Madison, the US Constitution, a free market economy and a democratic ideology? It THAT what Stalin wanted to "conserve" for Russia???

Joseph Stalin
Shortly after leaving the Seminary, he discovered the writings of Vladimir Lenin and decided to become a Marxist revolutionary.

Conservatism is based on latitude, longitude and date of birth...I guess you really didn't THINK about it PC...you reacted with emotion...LOL

From mid-19th century, 'left' would increasingly refer to various forms of socialism and communism. Particularly influential was the publication of the Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels in 1848, which asserted that the history of all hitherto existing human society is the history of class struggle. It predicted that a proletarian revolution would eventually overthrow bourgeois society, and by abolishing private property create a classless, stateless, and post-monetary society. The International Workingmen's Association (1864-76), sometimes called the First International, brought together delegates from many different countries, and from many different left-wing groups and trade union organizations. Some of Marx's contemporaries espoused similar ideas, but differed in their views of how to reach to a classless and stateless society. Following the split between those associated with Marx and Mikhail Bakunin at the First International, the anarchists formed the International Workers Association.[7]

The Second International (1888-1916) was eventually divided by the question of supporting or opposing the First World War. Those who opposed the war, such as Lenin and Rosa Luxemburg, saw themselves as further to the left (see Zimmerwald Left). Out of this conflict the socialist movement divided into Social Democrats and Communists, the latter being seen as further to the Left. In the 1960s with the political upheavals of the Sino-Soviet split and May 1968 in France, thinkers of the 'New Left' viewed themselves as being more critical of Marxist and Marxist-Leninist discourse (labelled the 'Old Left'). Left-libertarian Roderick Long describes left-wing politics as including "concerns for worker empowerment, worry about plutocracy, concerns about feminism and various kinds of social equality.[8]

In more recent times in the United States, sometimes left-wing and right-wing have been used as synonyms for Democrat and Republican, or as synonyms for American liberalism and American conservatism.[9][10][11][12]

Left-wing politics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So, who does your research for you, Mr. Kotter's class?

Which is it, are you more embarrassed, or more confused?

 

[Bfgrn]

Here is the gold nugget: "This is really quite funny PC...thank you...ALL you're doing is PROVING my point: "The basic difference between liberals and conservatives: liberals believe people are basically good, conservatives believe people are basically evil...thus, conservatism is based of FEAR...the strongest human emotion..."

Your child-like misreading of human nature is almost endearing.

Unless you are over seven years old.

An is this the hill you wish to die on? "So PC, you started your tirade by walking right into the path of an oncoming car...BUT, her comes the 18 wheel semi bearing down on you..."Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, among a host of, what, well known Conservatives?"...YES...they ARE PC...Conservatism is based on latitude, longitude and date of birth...THINK about it..."

Now you have done it.

I must now embark on the definitive explanation of liberal-fellow travelers.

Watch this space for future developments.

Ahhhhh, your right wing parochial mind just can't grasp this truism...SO...let's THINK about it PC... Do you believe Stalin was a staunch follower of the Jefferson, Madison, the US Constitution, a free market economy and a democratic ideology? It THAT what Stalin wanted to "conserve" for Russia???

Joseph Stalin
Shortly after leaving the Seminary, he discovered the writings of Vladimir Lenin and decided to become a Marxist revolutionary.

Conservatism is based on latitude, longitude and date of birth...I guess you really didn't THINK about it PC...you reacted with emotion...LOL

From mid-19th century, 'left' would increasingly refer to various forms of socialism and communism. Particularly influential was the publication of the Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels in 1848, which asserted that the history of all hitherto existing human society is the history of class struggle. It predicted that a proletarian revolution would eventually overthrow bourgeois society, and by abolishing private property create a classless, stateless, and post-monetary society. The International Workingmen's Association (1864-76), sometimes called the First International, brought together delegates from many different countries, and from many different left-wing groups and trade union organizations. Some of Marx's contemporaries espoused similar ideas, but differed in their views of how to reach to a classless and stateless society. Following the split between those associated with Marx and Mikhail Bakunin at the First International, the anarchists formed the International Workers Association.[7]

The Second International (1888-1916) was eventually divided by the question of supporting or opposing the First World War. Those who opposed the war, such as Lenin and Rosa Luxemburg, saw themselves as further to the left (see Zimmerwald Left). Out of this conflict the socialist movement divided into Social Democrats and Communists, the latter being seen as further to the Left. In the 1960s with the political upheavals of the Sino-Soviet split and May 1968 in France, thinkers of the 'New Left' viewed themselves as being more critical of Marxist and Marxist-Leninist discourse (labelled the 'Old Left'). Left-libertarian Roderick Long describes left-wing politics as including "concerns for worker empowerment, worry about plutocracy, concerns about feminism and various kinds of social equality.[8]

In more recent times in the United States, sometimes left-wing and right-wing have been used as synonyms for Democrat and Republican, or as synonyms for American liberalism and American conservatism.[9][10][11][12]

Left-wing politics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So, who does your research for you, Mr. Kotter's class?

Which is it, are you more embarrassed, or more confused?

Herein lies your problem PC...confusion... we are talking liberal - conservative...

Liberalism has its roots in the Age of Enlightenment and rejects many foundational assumptions that dominated most earlier theories of government, such as the Divine Right of Kings, hereditary status, established religion, and economic protectionism. Instead, its founded on the assumption of the equal dignity and worth of individuals.

The first modern liberal state was the United States of America, founded on the principle that "all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to insure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

Liberalism in its broadest sense is arguably the dominant ideology of the Western World, where mainstream political debate is held largely within the realm of accepted liberal principles such as government by consent, rationalism, freedom of speech etc, and these principles being accepted and prized by parties across the political spectrum.

In the United States, "liberalism" is most often used in the sense of social liberalism, which supports some regulation of business and other economic interventionism which they believe to be in the public interest.

Social liberalism, a reformulation of classical liberalism, rests on the view that unrestrained capitalism is a hindrance to true freedom. Instead of the negative freedom of classical liberalism, social liberals offered positive freedom that would allow individuals to prosper with public assistance in health, education and welfare. This later included government intervention in the economy to provide full employment and protection of human rights. These policies were widely adopted and implemented in European and Western democracies, particularly following the Second World War. Social liberal ideas and parties tend to be considered centrist or center-left.
wiki

Here's a real conundrum for you PC... After the fall of the Soviet Union Russian conservatives, uneasy with the liberalization of Soviet society under Mikhail S. Gorbachev, seized on the country's experiment in more democratic elections as a chance to fight for a return to more authoritarian ways...

Nikita F. Zherbin, head of the Leningrad chapter of Pamyat, delighted in the fact that Mr. Korotich had been forced off the ballot in Moscow's Sverdlovsk region, and described this as the first successful step in the conservative campaign to use the elections as a vehicle for its political ideas. 'I Am a Stalinist'

''We brought our case to the people, and the outcome speaks for us,'' said Mr. Zherbin, whose group regards the liberalization of Soviet society as a conspiracy by Jews, Masons and Westernizers.
http://www.nytimes.com/1989/02/27/world/soviet-conservatives-try-to-turn-back-the-clock-on-gorbachev-s-policies.html

Pamyat
Pamyat (Russian: Память; English translation: Memory) is a Russian ultra-nationalist organization identifying itself as the "People's National-patriotic Orthodox Christian movement." It has been accused of racism, xenophobia, and antisemitism.
wiki

NOW, let's talk about Stalin, Pol Pot and Mao; WHAT we are talking about is authoritarians, AND, while not all conservatives are authoritarians; all highly authoritarian personalities are political conservatives. - Robert Altmeyer - leading researcher on the authoritarian personality...

 

[PoliticalChic]

Ahhhhh, your right wing parochial mind just can't grasp this truism...SO...let's THINK about it PC... Do you believe Stalin was a staunch follower of the Jefferson, Madison, the US Constitution, a free market economy and a democratic ideology? It THAT what Stalin wanted to "conserve" for Russia???

Joseph Stalin
Shortly after leaving the Seminary, he discovered the writings of Vladimir Lenin and decided to become a Marxist revolutionary.

Conservatism is based on latitude, longitude and date of birth...I guess you really didn't THINK about it PC...you reacted with emotion...LOL

From mid-19th century, 'left' would increasingly refer to various forms of socialism and communism. Particularly influential was the publication of the Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels in 1848, which asserted that the history of all hitherto existing human society is the history of class struggle. It predicted that a proletarian revolution would eventually overthrow bourgeois society, and by abolishing private property create a classless, stateless, and post-monetary society. The International Workingmen's Association (1864-76), sometimes called the First International, brought together delegates from many different countries, and from many different left-wing groups and trade union organizations. Some of Marx's contemporaries espoused similar ideas, but differed in their views of how to reach to a classless and stateless society. Following the split between those associated with Marx and Mikhail Bakunin at the First International, the anarchists formed the International Workers Association.[7]

The Second International (1888-1916) was eventually divided by the question of supporting or opposing the First World War. Those who opposed the war, such as Lenin and Rosa Luxemburg, saw themselves as further to the left (see Zimmerwald Left). Out of this conflict the socialist movement divided into Social Democrats and Communists, the latter being seen as further to the Left. In the 1960s with the political upheavals of the Sino-Soviet split and May 1968 in France, thinkers of the 'New Left' viewed themselves as being more critical of Marxist and Marxist-Leninist discourse (labelled the 'Old Left'). Left-libertarian Roderick Long describes left-wing politics as including "concerns for worker empowerment, worry about plutocracy, concerns about feminism and various kinds of social equality.[8]

In more recent times in the United States, sometimes left-wing and right-wing have been used as synonyms for Democrat and Republican, or as synonyms for American liberalism and American conservatism.[9][10][11][12]

Left-wing politics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So, who does your research for you, Mr. Kotter's class?

Which is it, are you more embarrassed, or more confused?

Herein lies your problem PC...confusion... we are talking liberal - conservative...

Liberalism has its roots in the Age of Enlightenment and rejects many foundational assumptions that dominated most earlier theories of government, such as the Divine Right of Kings, hereditary status, established religion, and economic protectionism. Instead, its founded on the assumption of the equal dignity and worth of individuals.

The first modern liberal state was the United States of America, founded on the principle that "all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to insure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

Liberalism in its broadest sense is arguably the dominant ideology of the Western World, where mainstream political debate is held largely within the realm of accepted liberal principles such as government by consent, rationalism, freedom of speech etc, and these principles being accepted and prized by parties across the political spectrum.

In the United States, "liberalism" is most often used in the sense of social liberalism, which supports some regulation of business and other economic interventionism which they believe to be in the public interest.

Social liberalism, a reformulation of classical liberalism, rests on the view that unrestrained capitalism is a hindrance to true freedom. Instead of the negative freedom of classical liberalism, social liberals offered positive freedom that would allow individuals to prosper with public assistance in health, education and welfare. This later included government intervention in the economy to provide full employment and protection of human rights. These policies were widely adopted and implemented in European and Western democracies, particularly following the Second World War. Social liberal ideas and parties tend to be considered centrist or center-left.
wiki

Here's a real conundrum for you PC... After the fall of the Soviet Union Russian conservatives, uneasy with the liberalization of Soviet society under Mikhail S. Gorbachev, seized on the country's experiment in more democratic elections as a chance to fight for a return to more authoritarian ways...

Nikita F. Zherbin, head of the Leningrad chapter of Pamyat, delighted in the fact that Mr. Korotich had been forced off the ballot in Moscow's Sverdlovsk region, and described this as the first successful step in the conservative campaign to use the elections as a vehicle for its political ideas. 'I Am a Stalinist'

''We brought our case to the people, and the outcome speaks for us,'' said Mr. Zherbin, whose group regards the liberalization of Soviet society as a conspiracy by Jews, Masons and Westernizers.
http://www.nytimes.com/1989/02/27/world/soviet-conservatives-try-to-turn-back-the-clock-on-gorbachev-s-policies.html

Pamyat
Pamyat (Russian: Память; English translation: Memory) is a Russian ultra-nationalist organization identifying itself as the "People's National-patriotic Orthodox Christian movement." It has been accused of racism, xenophobia, and antisemitism.
wiki

NOW, let's talk about Stalin, Pol Pot and Mao; WHAT we are talking about is authoritarians, AND, while not all conservatives are authoritarians; all highly authoritarian personalities are political conservatives. - Robert Altmeyer - leading researcher on the authoritarian personality...

So, you would like to have the ability to write your own definitions for commonly accepted terminology?

Try to remember these suggestions, or have a crib-sheet by the computer:
1. Post should be, for the most part, in English
2. Us vocabulary as it is defined in the dictionary
3. Show some modicum of being conversant with the subject being discussed.

Your insistence that groups such as Communists, Socialists, etc. are Conservatives, requires the following tutorial:

There are many stations along the political spectrum. As a starting point in illuminating the left, we begin at the center, and move to the social democrats, then the liberals, and then the fellow travelers or true believers. One difficulty is that the terms can be squished back and forth, and frequently, to underscore our disagreements, we combine liberal and true believer.

But what is important, and undeniable in truth, that the extreme left includes socialists, nazis, communists, islaofascists and all other totalist ideologies. Members of these groups are the homicidal sociopaths whose goal of an earthly utopia requires the elimination of what is currently, washing it away with the blood of masses, milllions, especially those who are content with the world as it exists. Such inhuman maniacs are far from the majority wherever they exist, how do they obtain power out of proportion to their numbers?

And that brings us to the liberals and fellow travelers. This is the much larger group of folks who through ignorance, desire for an identity, or psychological disorder, sympathize with the beliefs of a particular organization, but do not belong to that organization.
Let’s remember that in the mildest incarnation, the social democrats are usually good folks, but misguided. They claim to stand for the underprivileged, oppressed, the ignorant and the less successful. Most often they rely on the news media and school system to give them their views, as opposed to life experience and contemplation. They view government as the limitless patriarch, who will always do the right thing in terms of funding programs ‘for the children,’ or ‘hope and change’, and the only bulwark against the greedy malicious rich folk, and can reliably be convince that government is the answer, no matter the question. In short, the personification of the proposition “the road to Hell is paved with good intentions.”

Who is the fellow traveler-liberal? Here is a constellation of traits.

1. As Eric Hoffer wrote in “The True Believer,” “… the frustrated favor radical change.” Those common folks who are happy with their circumstances and do not see themselves as victims pose a serious threat. They must be re-educated, or humiliated, or eliminated.

2. In support of totalist ideologies, he fully recognizes the necessity of violence. When made aware of the hideous slaughter perpetrated by these ideologies, he will first deny the truth, then come up with an explanation of the mayhem, and, finally, justify it.

3. [Paul Hollander] is best known for his now-classic book Political Pilgrims, which examined the phenomenon of twentieth-century Western intellectuals who allowed themselves to be seduced and duped by radical revolutionary regimes of the most patent despotism and brutality.( Between Experience and Reflection by Theodore Dalrymple, City Journal 27 April 2009) We see that leftist intellectuals have claimed to be the moral arbiters of our society, and yet gravitate toward support of genocidal movements, as in support for Communist China, North Vietnam, Saddam, and Stalin.

4. His basic maxim is that he stands up for victims of capitalism and American ‘imperialism.’ He tries to see himself as a victim of these offenses, but, unfortunately, in many cases, the believer is often one of privilege and material luxury, and this exacerbates the guilt which the turns into a hatred for the society that so rewarded him. He admires any his own society fears or disapproves of. As in Bill Ayers, Michael Moore and the Hollywood elite.

5. Hating what he sees, he admires the Rousseau ‘noble savage,’ imagining a better, purer, less corrupt society, and enamoring any methods that will bring this world to that, as long as the methods are violent and bloody. Che Guevara.

6. Anathema to American traditions such as the sanctity of the individual, the liberals view big all-inclusive government as consistent with their devotion to the collective and the state. As a reformed totalist himself, George Orwell showed the results of government attempts at dehumanization in 1984. And Bill
Ayers Weather Underground forced group sex to break up personal relationships and “smash monogamy.”

Now, fold your paper, number one to ten, no erasing and no crossing out.

 

[Bfgrn]

From mid-19th century, 'left' would increasingly refer to various forms of socialism and communism. Particularly influential was the publication of the Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels in 1848, which asserted that the history of all hitherto existing human society is the history of class struggle. It predicted that a proletarian revolution would eventually overthrow bourgeois society, and by abolishing private property create a classless, stateless, and post-monetary society. The International Workingmen's Association (1864-76), sometimes called the First International, brought together delegates from many different countries, and from many different left-wing groups and trade union organizations. Some of Marx's contemporaries espoused similar ideas, but differed in their views of how to reach to a classless and stateless society. Following the split between those associated with Marx and Mikhail Bakunin at the First International, the anarchists formed the International Workers Association.[7]

The Second International (1888-1916) was eventually divided by the question of supporting or opposing the First World War. Those who opposed the war, such as Lenin and Rosa Luxemburg, saw themselves as further to the left (see Zimmerwald Left). Out of this conflict the socialist movement divided into Social Democrats and Communists, the latter being seen as further to the Left. In the 1960s with the political upheavals of the Sino-Soviet split and May 1968 in France, thinkers of the 'New Left' viewed themselves as being more critical of Marxist and Marxist-Leninist discourse (labelled the 'Old Left'). Left-libertarian Roderick Long describes left-wing politics as including "concerns for worker empowerment, worry about plutocracy, concerns about feminism and various kinds of social equality.[8]

In more recent times in the United States, sometimes left-wing and right-wing have been used as synonyms for Democrat and Republican, or as synonyms for American liberalism and American conservatism.[9][10][11][12]

Left-wing politics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So, who does your research for you, Mr. Kotter's class?

Which is it, are you more embarrassed, or more confused?

Herein lies your problem PC...confusion... we are talking liberal - conservative...

Liberalism has its roots in the Age of Enlightenment and rejects many foundational assumptions that dominated most earlier theories of government, such as the Divine Right of Kings, hereditary status, established religion, and economic protectionism. Instead, its founded on the assumption of the equal dignity and worth of individuals.

The first modern liberal state was the United States of America, founded on the principle that "all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to insure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

Liberalism in its broadest sense is arguably the dominant ideology of the Western World, where mainstream political debate is held largely within the realm of accepted liberal principles such as government by consent, rationalism, freedom of speech etc, and these principles being accepted and prized by parties across the political spectrum.

In the United States, "liberalism" is most often used in the sense of social liberalism, which supports some regulation of business and other economic interventionism which they believe to be in the public interest.

Social liberalism, a reformulation of classical liberalism, rests on the view that unrestrained capitalism is a hindrance to true freedom. Instead of the negative freedom of classical liberalism, social liberals offered positive freedom that would allow individuals to prosper with public assistance in health, education and welfare. This later included government intervention in the economy to provide full employment and protection of human rights. These policies were widely adopted and implemented in European and Western democracies, particularly following the Second World War. Social liberal ideas and parties tend to be considered centrist or center-left.
wiki

Here's a real conundrum for you PC... After the fall of the Soviet Union Russian conservatives, uneasy with the liberalization of Soviet society under Mikhail S. Gorbachev, seized on the country's experiment in more democratic elections as a chance to fight for a return to more authoritarian ways...

Nikita F. Zherbin, head of the Leningrad chapter of Pamyat, delighted in the fact that Mr. Korotich had been forced off the ballot in Moscow's Sverdlovsk region, and described this as the first successful step in the conservative campaign to use the elections as a vehicle for its political ideas. 'I Am a Stalinist'

''We brought our case to the people, and the outcome speaks for us,'' said Mr. Zherbin, whose group regards the liberalization of Soviet society as a conspiracy by Jews, Masons and Westernizers.
http://www.nytimes.com/1989/02/27/world/soviet-conservatives-try-to-turn-back-the-clock-on-gorbachev-s-policies.html

Pamyat
Pamyat (Russian: Память; English translation: Memory) is a Russian ultra-nationalist organization identifying itself as the "People's National-patriotic Orthodox Christian movement." It has been accused of racism, xenophobia, and antisemitism.
wiki

NOW, let's talk about Stalin, Pol Pot and Mao; WHAT we are talking about is authoritarians, AND, while not all conservatives are authoritarians; all highly authoritarian personalities are political conservatives. - Robert Altmeyer - leading researcher on the authoritarian personality...

So, you would like to have the ability to write your own definitions for commonly accepted terminology?

Try to remember these suggestions, or have a crib-sheet by the computer:
1. Post should be, for the most part, in English
2. Us vocabulary as it is defined in the dictionary
3. Show some modicum of being conversant with the subject being discussed.

Your insistence that groups such as Communists, Socialists, etc. are Conservatives, requires the following tutorial:

There are many stations along the political spectrum. As a starting point in illuminating the left, we begin at the center, and move to the social democrats, then the liberals, and then the fellow travelers or true believers. One difficulty is that the terms can be squished back and forth, and frequently, to underscore our disagreements, we combine liberal and true believer.

But what is important, and undeniable in truth, that the extreme left includes socialists, nazis, communists, islaofascists and all other totalist ideologies. Members of these groups are the homicidal sociopaths whose goal of an earthly utopia requires the elimination of what is currently, washing it away with the blood of masses, milllions, especially those who are content with the world as it exists. Such inhuman maniacs are far from the majority wherever they exist, how do they obtain power out of proportion to their numbers?

And that brings us to the liberals and fellow travelers. This is the much larger group of folks who through ignorance, desire for an identity, or psychological disorder, sympathize with the beliefs of a particular organization, but do not belong to that organization.
Let’s remember that in the mildest incarnation, the social democrats are usually good folks, but misguided. They claim to stand for the underprivileged, oppressed, the ignorant and the less successful. Most often they rely on the news media and school system to give them their views, as opposed to life experience and contemplation. They view government as the limitless patriarch, who will always do the right thing in terms of funding programs ‘for the children,’ or ‘hope and change’, and the only bulwark against the greedy malicious rich folk, and can reliably be convince that government is the answer, no matter the question. In short, the personification of the proposition “the road to Hell is paved with good intentions.”

Who is the fellow traveler-liberal? Here is a constellation of traits.

1. As Eric Hoffer wrote in “The True Believer,” “… the frustrated favor radical change.” Those common folks who are happy with their circumstances and do not see themselves as victims pose a serious threat. They must be re-educated, or humiliated, or eliminated.

2. In support of totalist ideologies, he fully recognizes the necessity of violence. When made aware of the hideous slaughter perpetrated by these ideologies, he will first deny the truth, then come up with an explanation of the mayhem, and, finally, justify it.

3. [Paul Hollander] is best known for his now-classic book Political Pilgrims, which examined the phenomenon of twentieth-century Western intellectuals who allowed themselves to be seduced and duped by radical revolutionary regimes of the most patent despotism and brutality.( Between Experience and Reflection by Theodore Dalrymple, City Journal 27 April 2009) We see that leftist intellectuals have claimed to be the moral arbiters of our society, and yet gravitate toward support of genocidal movements, as in support for Communist China, North Vietnam, Saddam, and Stalin.

4. His basic maxim is that he stands up for victims of capitalism and American ‘imperialism.’ He tries to see himself as a victim of these offenses, but, unfortunately, in many cases, the believer is often one of privilege and material luxury, and this exacerbates the guilt which the turns into a hatred for the society that so rewarded him. He admires any his own society fears or disapproves of. As in Bill Ayers, Michael Moore and the Hollywood elite.

5. Hating what he sees, he admires the Rousseau ‘noble savage,’ imagining a better, purer, less corrupt society, and enamoring any methods that will bring this world to that, as long as the methods are violent and bloody. Che Guevara.

6. Anathema to American traditions such as the sanctity of the individual, the liberals view big all-inclusive government as consistent with their devotion to the collective and the state. As a reformed totalist himself, George Orwell showed the results of government attempts at dehumanization in 1984. And Bill
Ayers Weather Underground forced group sex to break up personal relationships and “smash monogamy.”

Now, fold your paper, number one to ten, no erasing and no crossing out.

WHAT I said is: "While not all conservatives are authoritarians; all highly authoritarian personalities are political conservatives." Are you saying Stalin, Pol Pot and Mao are not authoritarian personalities PC???

You have no understanding at all of the authoritarian personality...maybe 1% of the left could be described as authoritarian...the FAR left...Authoritarianism is overwhelmingly a conservative trait...But, don't ever let REALITY disturb your dogma...

Don't consider even recent history PC...like the War in Iraq and the use of torture by America... yea, liberals were all FOR war, killing and torture!

You claim: "Conservatives believe in the principle of variety, while liberal perspectives result in a narrowing uniformity. Conservatives believe in choice of healthcare, education, religion, and various other areas." Are you kidding PC? If that's the case, then conservatives have no political party in America... unless you're willing to denounce all your principles and conform to Grover Norquist's "purity purge" of the GOP, support the corporate run death care system and denounce all religions except the "Christian nation"...

The liberal...called a peacenik, peace monger, weakling, naive and appeaser...BUT we are really just the militants, the ultra nationalists and the war mongers...

Truly UNbelievable PC... you are a joke...

 

[midcan5]

PoliticalChic,

Conservatism as I noted above is basically, maybe wholly, reactionary. There are no specific accomplishment one can point to as conservative. There are lots of slowdowns but nothing consensus positive. You can see this from Burke onward, he didn't like the French Revolution but if one can show me what he accomplished, do so. A short list of reactionary conservative opposition to progress is listed here: A Short History of Conservative Obstruction to Progress | Conceptual Guerilla And I have asked this question several times on-line and have yet to get a good answer. See my: What is a conservative? – Political Pass

Do this easy thought experiment. Place yourself in a cave with a conservative and a liberal. One will argue that change is not possible, that leaving the cave will be dangerous, that raising crops is not possible and will ruin hunting; the other will say let's try it, I think it can work, this cave is dark and dingy, I like the sun, and we can do better. One can then extrapolate to any historic time and use our two people. Slavery - suffrage - equal rights - welfare - better working conditions - labor laws - minimum wage - social security, you name them and you know who will move forward and who will stand still. Albert Hirschman who I url-ed above calls this reactionary tactic by three thesis tags: Perversity, futility, and jeopardy. Or 'it will make things worse, it won't work, or it will ruin existing structure. That is conservatism in nutshell today and maybe always. And the only area in which I see conservative allow change is in corporate power, at that altar conservatives worship - to the detriment of America's working class and often to the detriment of the world.

Forgive me for not responding to this one point by point, but it's been a long day- just took the kids to Central Park Victorian Gardens. Highly recommend.

No need for forgiveness, kids come first. But asking people in America if they are liberal or conservative is like asking people if they are good or bad. One thing that conservative think tank education and rhetoric has accomplished is the making of that word into 'bad.' Even liberals have switched to progressive, sad, as they forget the long line of liberal accomplishments, a few noted in my thought experiment.

But I am returning to this thread because no conservative answered my query. They never do, so give it a shot.


"The peculiar internal tension of liberal constitutions is that they constrain power even as they authorize it—that is, they attempt to curb the despotic power and ambitions of individual rulers and officials and, by doing so, to permit stronger systemic capacities." Paul Starr in Freedom's Power

 

[editec]

God, I haven't read The Naked Ape since the early 70s

Fabulous read.

It was one of those books which made me the kind of liberal I am today.

Aother I read roughly during the same period that also had an enormous impact on my POV was Phillip Slater's The Pursuit of Loneliness.

 

[American Horse]

.....But asking people in America if they are liberal or conservative is like asking people if they are good or bad.

One thing that conservative think tank education and rhetoric has accomplished is the making of that word into 'bad.' Even liberals have switched to progressive, sad, as they forget the long line of liberal accomplishments, a few noted in my thought experiment.

I agree here, but certain "hierarchical liberals" (my phrase) lent that bad reputation to the Liberal philosophy by their deeds.

My definition of liberal and conservative origins (as outlined in post #3 in this thread) I realize, is primitive and naïve, maybe even seems irrelevant, but explains the core beliefs of both sides. History gives us a long view, uncluttered by bias. I’m not proud of the original act of my "proto-conservatives" in a “political context.” as I said above:

“….historically begins in ancient Rome with the beginning of political parties, or factions, the two proto-political "parties", Optimates and Populares. The Optimates were sternly conservative, above all protecting their status and authority, and the Populares were bent on expanding their freedoms at the expense of that status and authority, while still defending most traditions, adding some of their own, ... institutions, as much as they existed.”​

Theirs was a republic where elections could be swayed by the worse kind of persuasion – I.e. clients by their patrons, servants by their masters, employees by their employers, renter by the landlord – and it was a very course persuasion to say the least, but there it was; conservatism versus liberalism in a political system.

And at the beginning of the conservative/liberal schism, it was the conservative Romans who contributed the Rule of Law, and their system of laws (The " Law of Persons, ... Law of Property, Law of Procedure, Law of Nations, Law of the Sea, Case law", and finally they codified their laws), passing them on to the states of Europe – that was their belief, that their republican system was established to deny any one man a monarchy, but to establish a legal system, and regardless how flawed it was in the beginning, it was a representative system under the rule of law (and not men) that would represent the people of the new Roman Republic in their need for self governance.

This was a very great and early “conservative accomplishment”, in its own way much like its American descendant when it came, the first, and best of its kind in modernity, and it was demanded and created by conservatives - based exclusively on the Roman antecedant.

The flaw in both liberal and conservative governance can be simply put in just one sentence: They both have a tendency to overreach, each needing the other to maintain balance.

But in American politics conservative regimes are limited in their scope and ability to overreach by a critical media, and liberals, to the contrary are enabled to overreach…by a complicit media, causing a kind of “dysfunction” in the way it operates, evolving almost into a megalomania when viewed on the world stage. This, in the end, leads it back to the “conservatism” as some here would incorrectly label Pol Pot, or Stalin, or Hitler, etal; “authoritarians” all; they are liberals run amok.

But I am returning to this thread because no conservative answered my query. They never do, so give it a shot.

And in turn I am returning to this thread to respond to your original thought experiment…. So, moving forward from my “origins” described above, if we leap forward from that point (which is after the long lapse of any meaningful political thought because of the “West’s” fall into feudalism during the long middle ages) to the late 18th century, it was the conservatives who, along with their liberal colleagues established (as BFGRM said) The first modern liberal state…. the United States of America…...

"The peculiar internal tension of liberal constitutions is that they constrain power even as they authorize it—that is, they attempt to curb the despotic power and ambitions of individual rulers and officials and, by doing so, to permit stronger systemic capacities." Paul Starr in Freedom's Power

In this case I have no argument with the word "liberal" as it applies to constitutions, (though I think you're confused in your application, and are taking liberties because) The first constitution, that of the Romans did exactly that, and it was created by conservatives to curb despotic power. It was liberal in that every citizen was represented, after a crude fashion.

Within a few years the next actions by the first true liberals (and it was a reaction) was the “plebeian revolt. ” (later the "Agrarian revolt") The plebs (the lower classes including the business class) went on strike during a crisis of survival of the state. They used that weak moment to gain the leverage to cause change in their constitution.

My own opinion is that they both need each other to exist; there can be no liberals without conservatives and vice versa.

- - - -

BTW — 3 things:: Caesar was a "Populares" and was assassinated just as he was on the verge of radically changing the Republic; and forever.

Another accomplishment: the conservative Romans contributed massively to the art of architecture; they owned it for 1,500 years. And their architecture was almost exclusively "institutional". The next big change in architecture came with the building of the cathedrals of Europe which began with the Roman model, and those too were "institutional" buildings.

It's interesting that you give so much credit to "conservative think tank education" to defame liberalism, when the liberal side controls education on all levels so completely.

 

[American Horse]

God, I haven't read The Naked Ape since the early 70s

Fabulous read.

It was one of those books which made me the kind of liberal I am today.

Aother I read roughly during the same period that also had an enormous impact on my POV was Phillip Slater's The Pursuit of Loneliness.

It’s curious (also in a funny sort of way) that you would be influenced in that way by TNA. I began a thread a few weeks back asking for just that kind of influence. To take another look at that go HERE. Yours was the very type of influence I was asking for in my thread. I was going to follow up with some description of why Hoffer/TTB as a mid-life influence, but the interest wasn't there.

The Naked Ape was recommended to me by a very liberal friend on the occasion of a lunch on my 40th birthday (1981 and I paid for lunch); but my conservative tendencies were reinforced by it. We discussed books at that luncheon, and I recommended Eric Hoffer's True believer, and she recommended a book on The Life of Mohammed-and-Islam (she was Lebanese but she made a point of saying that “Lebanese is not Arab;” she was also Orthodox Christian by "faith". We later traded our books to read.

When next we met having dutifully read both her recommended books, I thought we could discuss. I had read both the N.A. and her book on Islam. Sorry to say she hadn't read The True Believer, saying “it’s just all intuitively obvious, and common sense”, so... she needn't bother.

 

[midcan5]

.....
Another accomplishment: the conservative Romans contributed massively to the art of architecture; they owned it for 1,500 years. And their architecture was almost exclusively "institutional". The next big change in architecture came with the building of the cathedrals of Europe which began with the Roman model, and those too were "institutional" buildings.

It's interesting that you give so much credit to "conservative think tank education" to defame liberalism, when the liberal side controls education on all levels so completely.

A few comments. I would need to know what the bads were - the only bad deeds were the sixties, a time when drugs, war, and love entered the American world a little too strongly. One wonders why we never hear of the mood of a nation at certain times. Birth control and drugs got America just a bit too nutty and that created a backlash. I don't label youthful hedonists necessarily liberals.

Hierarchy and liberal don't blend so I am unsure of your usage. AH wrote, "I agree here, but certain "hierarchical liberals" (my phrase) lent that bad reputation to the Liberal philosophy by their deeds."

I can't go with your primitive or classical interpretation. Life for most people prior to the idea of the individual was turmoil and death. And even the 17th 18th century weren't' great fun. That a few of the elites in the classic period are labeled as liberal or conservative is a tough stretch considering all the history in between. But I am open if there is a book that demonstrates this aspect.

I personally see media as mostly conservative, especially today. Corporate ownership does not allow free thinking or investigations into the tough issues that face the average America.

AM wrote, "And at the beginning of the conservative/liberal schism, it was the conservative Romans who contributed the Rule of Law, and their system of laws." reference please and I not sure what that schism was or means?

I'm not sure what overreaching means, did LBJ overreach? Or Lincoln? Or FDR? Maybe but that is necessary sometimes.

Authoritarians are neither conservative or liberal but if forced, Hitler is yours, the other jackasses did try what is closer to the left. In the end they are radicals, and evil can come in all ideologies, even religions.

Education is in the home and sometimes through peers, liberal education for me is another myth, I know too many children in the upper classes to think their liberal teachers - it they are liberal - had any impact on their ideological leanings. Our children tend to be liberal - maybe it is genetic too.

Your conservative reply was a stretch for me but since most can't or don't answer, very good. I just can't make the jump from Rome - I actually read the unabridged decline and fall years ago - through the church, the dark ages, medieval time, enlightenment, empire, to modern times. The ideas just didn't make sense until a framework existed in which they could make sense. Now they are too divisive.


"The beginning of thought is in disagreement - not only with others but also with ourselves." Eric Hoffer

[ I also wrote an reply to your other query, I'll post in your influence thread after I reread. ]

 

[midcan5]

It’s curious (also in a funny sort of way) that you would be influenced in that way by TNA. I began a thread a few weeks back asking for just that kind of influence. To take another look at that go HERE. Yours was the very type of influence I was asking for in my thread. I was going to follow up with some description of why Hoffer/TTB as a mid-life influence, but the interest wasn't there.

Closed?

 

[American Horse]

It’s curious (also in a funny sort of way) that you would be influenced in that way by TNA. I began a thread a few weeks back asking for just that kind of influence. To take another look at that go HERE. Yours was the very type of influence I was asking for in my thread. I was going to follow up with some description of why Hoffer/TTB as a mid-life influence, but the interest wasn't there.

Closed?

No, Click HERE. then drop to post #2 of mine and answer there. Meanwhile I'll think about your comments above so that I can answer fully.

When I said hierarchical, I meant those liberals operating within the hierarchy of liberalism, versus the minor players.

 

[midcan5]

When I said hierarchical, I meant those liberals operating within the hierarchy of liberalism, versus the minor players.

AH, I was looking over some of Quentin Skinner's writing, you may find him interesting as he ties Roman republicanism to Britain's development of liberalism. See this:

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Liberty-before-Liberalism-Quentin-Skinner/dp/0521638763/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1247953101&sr=8-4]Amazon.com: Liberty before Liberalism: Quentin Skinner: Books[/ame]


Also since you forced me to go back and read early stuff I was surprised - well not really - that conservatives spoke of democracy the same way they now speak of socialism. You know mob rule, collapse of civilization, and all that good stuff. lol

 

[American Horse]

When I said hierarchical, I meant those liberals operating within the hierarchy of liberalism, versus the minor players.

AH, I was looking over some of Quentin Skinner's writing, you may find him interesting as he ties Roman republicanism to Britain's development of liberalism. See this:

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Liberty-before-Liberalism-Quentin-Skinner/dp/0521638763/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1247953101&sr=8-4]Amazon.com: Liberty before Liberalism: Quentin Skinner: Books[/ame]


Also since you forced me to go back and read early stuff I was surprised - well not really - that conservatives spoke of democracy the same way they now speak of socialism. You know mob rule, collapse of civilization, and all that good stuff. lol

I notice you tend to give a group one voice, as when you called the Romans a society of elites. Actually there were many more Plebs than Pats and they advanced their society or civilization in the only rational way, by steps. They did it with politics and political parties, within the "rule of law". This was the case for almost a half millenium, until the rule of law failed to match the personalities. The Greeks, on the other hand, formed their democracy around heroic personalities, and things tended to chaotic cycles.

Ours is a republic. The first great republic, the Roman Republic, the one we modelled ourselves after in almost every formative detail provides a good example of how things work but can fly out of control, or can change radically because of personalities.

I've written a couple of thousand words in reply as I said and I'm looking it over deciding what is really worth saying about things that are so firmly in place in your mind already.

Thanks, by the way, for the book suggestion, I'm reading first pages of...