The Liberal vs. The Conservative

[MaggieMae]

And the left are intolerant, hate filled fear mongers who without solutions that actually solve anything have to resort to preaching this sort of crap to get people to vote for them.

But you still hate anything not white with a euro background.

Go fig.

You like blacks and women just fine as long as they shut up and advocate your white bread liberal New England elitist policies. You only hate them when they leave the Democratic party plantation. When a woman dare to step out and speak her mind rather then yours then your liberal women whores take the lead in attacking them. If a black dare speak out against your view your black liberal slaves do it. I leave them free to run their own lives. I only object when they try to run mine. You object when they run away from you. The hatred is from you.

My my my, all that nasty stuff from someone who just wrote in Post #34, this:
"Keep talking so people can see where the intolerance is in this country. You sir, have a serious issue. You can't debate points because liberalism is illogical and your policies don't work. They are emotional, emotions like hatred"

Paste in big letters on your fridge:
TODAY I SHALL NOT BE A HYPOCRITE

 

[code1211]

There is no conflict between a real liberal and conservative. I liberal believes in helping others. A conservative believes in personal responsibility. Neither of those admirable objectives is achieved by government. The American Left abdicates their personable responsibility for charity to others. As the American Right abdicates their personable responsibility for morality to others. They are both the same, they both fail. Only those who believe in personal charity hand in hand with personal morality have a clue.

You are wrong. Conservatives believe in helping those that they choose to help in ways that they choose help them. This is part of personnal responsibility.

I have no idea what the statement about the right abdicating the responsibility for morality has to do with anything either in your post or anywhere else. Doesn't personal responsibility imply a closely held moralality?

 

[code1211]

Conservatuives are more fear driven due to that enlarged portion of their brain. they cannot help it.
The are also more like the Siths in that they tend to deal in absolutes.

Care to give an example?

 

[code1211]

A liberal is a champion of the downtrodded. This usually comes from experience with the government and had them help them when they were down and out on their luck, they want to have those programs around so when others are down on their luck, they will have somewhere to go.

A conservative wants to believe that someone is poor because they don't work hard or are losers. They want to ensure no one has any help whatsoever and uses religion as a backdrop to control people's lives. But anyone who is smart enough to understand that without government programs, chaos would erupt. You would be a democrat. We don't have a lot of smart people in this country.

I am a Conservative and that is not what I believe.

 

[MaggieMae]

There is no conflict between a real liberal and conservative. I liberal believes in helping others. A conservative believes in personal responsibility. Neither of those admirable objectives is achieved by government. The American Left abdicates their personable responsibility for charity to others. As the American Right abdicates their personable responsibility for morality to others. They are both the same, they both fail. Only those who believe in personal charity hand in hand with personal morality have a clue.

And...in the absence of those principles to any measurable degree, what happens?

The American people are overwhelmingly charitable. But think about it. I'm saying an immoral government can come from a moral population. Empirical evidence of the poor results of government spending shows that is in fact happening. You're saying a moral government that helps people can come from an immoral population. That...is impossible.

I'm not saying anything of the kind. I'm simply trying to point out that helping the less fortunate is an overwhelming task that can hardly depend on individual kindness alone. What part of that don't you get? Would you or any private charity be prepared to PAY FOR kidney dialysis for someone who couldn't afford it even though you might "morally" like to?? Such an example shows how surreal your world really must be.

 

[code1211]

One problem is the label itself. "Liberal" isn't exclusive to Democrat, nor "Conservative" to GOP.

"Liberals" today are more of the modern liberal, not the classical liberal. .

"Classical Liberal" is a made up term used by Conservatives to latch themselves on to "some" liberal values without having to dive into the Liberal ocean.

"Classical" Liberals implies there is never growth in the mindset. That's not Liberal in any sense of the word. Liberals are constantly growing. They are open to new ideas and adapt them if those are ideas are deemed worthy.

Conservatives are steeped in Tradition..and do not grow.

That's the difference.

I am a Conservtive and I am constantly looking for better ways to accomplish things and constantly seeing my opinions evolve as I run into other, better data and info.

 

[MaggieMae]

This is the justification the Democratic party uses for their socialistic policies. But if you look at the actual results of the policy it tells a very different story. I have no doubt you wanted this to happen when you voted for them. But you are responsible for the fact that it's harming both the country and the people these policies were intended to help and you look the other way and continue to vote for it

Then let's turn poor health among people who can't afford medical assistance, monthy food allocations for people who are unemployed (or too poor), housing assistance for the millions who would otherwise be on the streets, etc., over to organized charities and well-intentioned more affluent individuals and see how long such righteous intentions last.

It's not that the government social programs haven't overreached; they have. The problem is how to fix it, not to deny people and suddenly set them free to survive at the whim of do-gooders.

To help people, you're advocating a government that's spent trillions fighting poverty without denting poverty rates and created an economically crippling massive welfare state that fosters dependency. I'm advocating the population and charities of the greatest, most generous population in the world. You're also advocating a solution that we in fact know isn't working. Yes, I stand by that.

So is your goal to gather together all those presumed charitable people? Because I think you'll be sadly disappointed to find the crowd will be rather thin.

[I feel like I just had this argument with Foxfyre. I don't feel like repeating it all over again for a like-minded moralistic, albeit unrealistic person.]

Read the debate here:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/151893-civics-lesson-101-the-war-on-poverty.html

 

[code1211]

Watch lot's of TV do ya?

The nice thing about being a liberal is that you get to be defined by your goal and not your actual plan. If you are for government indoctrination and control of education you are "pro-education" no matter how poor the actual results are. If you are for appeasement you are "pro-peace" even though appeasement hasn't ever worked in combating evil governments. And if you are close minded sheep who all believe the same thing on every issue you are "liberal."

Liberalism, it beats thinking...

That's another conservative chestnut. Public schools are now government indoctrination.

Better to learn in church or at home.



Sorta like home dentristry.

Leaves ya toothless.

Indoctrination or not, the public schools are graduating a less and less competitive class annually. As long as the test scores of our high school graduates continue to plummet in relation to other countries, the system is not working.

The troubling part of the equation is that parochial schools in Indianapolis graduate students with higher test scores and do so at half the cost per student.

Whatever the reason, the public schools are failing in all areas except increasing funding.

 

[MaggieMae]

I'd say the main issue is only progressive liberals have had any representation in the political world for many years.

If we all made an honest list of what it means to be conservative and liberal, then applied policy that we have seen against that list the conservative side would have extremely little support with that policy.

Of course "conservative" ideas are blamed over all others despite the lack of near anything being conservative policy. War, pro life, religion and so on have NOTHING to do with being conservative... even if it did, you could find vast amounts of liberals who support all of those ideas.

I'm not trying to blame liberals here, just defending "my side," conservative... I doubt many politicians really represent a true liberal. Like the media pushes a religious right, I also see the media push a politically ignorant left.

Good post. I don't agree with everything you say, but it's a good attempt at bridging views. one thing I don't agree with is that I think a true liberal and a true conservative are actually the same. And they would both logically be politically libertarian because that is the only way they are free to pursue their own affective strategies rather then ineffective government driven solutions, as you point out.

He didn't say they were "the same." Re-read it. The point was that some of both is required. But the right/left media pundits have made it into a war where one side has to be ALL right and NEVER wrong, and vice-versa.

 

[MaggieMae]

Before "New" Republicans (today's "conservatives") managed to turn liberalism into a synonym for welfare abuse, sexual deviance and even lack of patriotism, it was a noble political philosophy based simply on the premise that citizens should be called upon to look beyond their own self-interests and work for a common interest. Now that moral code is called American SOCIALISM, which is bull

Actually Democrats did that when they continued to blindly advocate government solutions to all our problems, even when they devolved into welfare abuse, sexual deviance and even lack of patriotism.

Thanks for proving my point. Now explain how you KNOW that to be true.

 

[MaggieMae]

What are some of the Primary problems between Liberals and Conservatives today? What are Key differences and beliefs between the 2 groups and how are these issues addressed and taken?

What are negatives and positives of Liberals and Conservatives and how they deal with issues? Which group in your opinion seems to make better sense and more credible decisions when dealing with issues and Why?

Liberals want to assertively correct all wrongs by implementing grand schemes and gearing spending to match costs assuming that increasing taxes will enable the continuation of all programs created. Liberals want to increase public taxation to levels above spending.

Conservatives want to reserve the implementation of any program to only those areas of the society in which Private Enterprise is incapable of or unwilling to make the investment to implement the critically needed programs. Conservatives want to reduce public spending to levels that are within the collections of tax revenues.

California is governed by Liberals and bankrupt.

Indiana is governed by Conservatives and fiscally secure.

The problem with increasing taxation to levels greater than spending is that it is like trying to pour liquid into a cup with no bottom to fill it. Not matter how much you pour in, with no bottom, you will never fill it. If, on the other hand, you have a cup with a defined amount of liquid and budget your use of that liquid to fit your needs, you will be successful.

The word budget is a difficult one for the Congress to get its hands around. They haven't approved one for years. It's been longer since they actually balnced one.

Don't be confused by debates between Democrats and Republicans. Both of these weasel herds are Liberal in their spending.

As someone has already mentioned, it's a matter of spending priorities. Conservatives shrug at the billions used to subsidize already off-the-charts profits by Big Oil; don't care that Medicare ADVANTAGE is subsidized from Medicare STANDARD funding and given to the insurance companies who cover the Medicare Advantage claims. They hide from the fact that while the economy was tanking, many of the major employers were raking in profits even as they laid off their workers. Workers whose incomes had remained stagnant, and in many cases benefits nonexistent over the last ten years. Conservatives HATE IT when the words "corporate" welfare is pointed out to them.

 

[MaggieMae]

There is no conflict between a real liberal and conservative. I liberal believes in helping others. A conservative believes in personal responsibility. Neither of those admirable objectives is achieved by government. The American Left abdicates their personable responsibility for charity to others. As the American Right abdicates their personable responsibility for morality to others. They are both the same, they both fail. Only those who believe in personal charity hand in hand with personal morality have a clue.

You are wrong. Conservatives believe in helping those that they choose to help in ways that they choose help them. This is part of personnal responsibility.

I have no idea what the statement about the right abdicating the responsibility for morality has to do with anything either in your post or anywhere else. Doesn't personal responsibility imply a closely held moralality?

Funny that the implication is always that ONLY conservatives help out at a personal level. Why is that? When I do volunteer work, the people I'm working with could be Republican, Democrat, Communist. Nobody asks. Nobody cares. It's a red herring constantly tossed about by self-righteous conservatives hoping that less intelligent folks will actually believe it.

 

[code1211]

Watch lot's of TV do ya?

The nice thing about being a liberal is that you get to be defined by your goal and not your actual plan. If you are for government indoctrination and control of education you are "pro-education" no matter how poor the actual results are. If you are for appeasement you are "pro-peace" even though appeasement hasn't ever worked in combating evil governments. And if you are close minded sheep who all believe the same thing on every issue you are "liberal."

Liberalism, it beats thinking...

At least we have plans. Conservatives are all talk and no action. They KNOW what needs to be done, making EDUCATION a top priority for example, yet they talk about abolishing the Department of Education. They KNOW that the biggest cost added to Medicare was the unfunded prescription drug mandate they put in place, but continue to blame liberals for the Medicare program in general. I could go on, but I'm sure others will select other examples which I hope you will ponder.

It's truly amusing to see such a hypocritical statement such as accusing liberals of being closed-minded sheep. Did you miss the last decade somehow? Or how about just the last six months when the true "liberals" in Washington refused to support extension of the tax cuts. Or their fury when health care became a proposal to control insurance costs rather than universal care. That was nearly two years ago.

You've got some homework waiting, if you're truly interested in becoming a player here.

I am a Conservative and I believe that Society as a whole has the responsibility to care for the very old, the very young and the infirm. In other words, those who cannot care for themselves. As an able bodied citizen, i accept that i have that responsibility and accept that the government is a good way to parcel out the cash to make the care available as needed.

Helping those who need help in as efficient a methos as possible is a good thing. Equalizing outcomes absent a consideration for effort expended is wholly another.

That said, the Department of Education, on a national level, is responsible for 7% of the education dollar for K-12 public education. None of that cash goes to Private school education which is overwhlmingly religiously based. These private schools are graduating students that have higher test scores, lower crime tendencies and subsequently higher incomes.

What advantage, exactly, is the US Department of education affording its students?

 

[MaggieMae]

One problem is the label itself. "Liberal" isn't exclusive to Democrat, nor "Conservative" to GOP.

"Liberals" today are more of the modern liberal, not the classical liberal. .

"Classical Liberal" is a made up term used by Conservatives to latch themselves on to "some" liberal values without having to dive into the Liberal ocean.

"Classical" Liberals implies there is never growth in the mindset. That's not Liberal in any sense of the word. Liberals are constantly growing. They are open to new ideas and adapt them if those are ideas are deemed worthy.

Conservatives are steeped in Tradition..and do not grow.

That's the difference.

I am a Conservtive and I am constantly looking for better ways to accomplish things and constantly seeing my opinions evolve as I run into other, better data and info.

Obviously there are clear-thinking and fair-minded people from both "sides." But people like Kaz, NOLO, and others I know you're familiar with, believe that anyone left of far-right are evil and they get lumped into the evil "liberal" box. And they continually say so.

 

[MaggieMae]

The nice thing about being a liberal is that you get to be defined by your goal and not your actual plan. If you are for government indoctrination and control of education you are "pro-education" no matter how poor the actual results are. If you are for appeasement you are "pro-peace" even though appeasement hasn't ever worked in combating evil governments. And if you are close minded sheep who all believe the same thing on every issue you are "liberal."

Liberalism, it beats thinking...

That's another conservative chestnut. Public schools are now government indoctrination.

Better to learn in church or at home.



Sorta like home dentristry.

Leaves ya toothless.

Indoctrination or not, the public schools are graduating a less and less competitive class annually. As long as the test scores of our high school graduates continue to plummet in relation to other countries, the system is not working.

The troubling part of the equation is that parochial schools in Indianapolis graduate students with higher test scores and do so at half the cost per student.

Whatever the reason, the public schools are failing in all areas except increasing funding.

The federal funding doesn't change that much. You need to look to state funding, via property tax usually, AND school boards who make unrealistic demands.

 

[code1211]

What are some of the Primary problems between Liberals and Conservatives today? What are Key differences and beliefs between the 2 groups and how are these issues addressed and taken?

What are negatives and positives of Liberals and Conservatives and how they deal with issues? Which group in your opinion seems to make better sense and more credible decisions when dealing with issues and Why?

Liberals want to assertively correct all wrongs by implementing grand schemes and gearing spending to match costs assuming that increasing taxes will enable the continuation of all programs created. Liberals want to increase public taxation to levels above spending.

Conservatives want to reserve the implementation of any program to only those areas of the society in which Private Enterprise is incapable of or unwilling to make the investment to implement the critically needed programs. Conservatives want to reduce public spending to levels that are within the collections of tax revenues.

California is governed by Liberals and bankrupt.

Indiana is governed by Conservatives and fiscally secure.

The problem with increasing taxation to levels greater than spending is that it is like trying to pour liquid into a cup with no bottom to fill it. Not matter how much you pour in, with no bottom, you will never fill it. If, on the other hand, you have a cup with a defined amount of liquid and budget your use of that liquid to fit your needs, you will be successful.

The word budget is a difficult one for the Congress to get its hands around. They haven't approved one for years. It's been longer since they actually balnced one.

Don't be confused by debates between Democrats and Republicans. Both of these weasel herds are Liberal in their spending.

As someone has already mentioned, it's a matter of spending priorities. Conservatives shrug at the billions used to subsidize already off-the-charts profits by Big Oil; don't care that Medicare ADVANTAGE is subsidized from Medicare STANDARD funding and given to the insurance companies who cover the Medicare Advantage claims. They hide from the fact that while the economy was tanking, many of the major employers were raking in profits even as they laid off their workers. Workers whose incomes had remained stagnant, and in many cases benefits nonexistent over the last ten years. Conservatives HATE IT when the words "corporate" welfare is pointed out to them.

I think you may be confusing the term Republican with the term Conservative. With luck, that difference will be amply demonstrated by Paul Ryan and the boys quite soon.

I'm not sure what you mean by the term "corporate welfare". I hear and read it bandied about often, but don't know exactly what it means in general or in specific to you.

 

[code1211]

There is no conflict between a real liberal and conservative. I liberal believes in helping others. A conservative believes in personal responsibility. Neither of those admirable objectives is achieved by government. The American Left abdicates their personable responsibility for charity to others. As the American Right abdicates their personable responsibility for morality to others. They are both the same, they both fail. Only those who believe in personal charity hand in hand with personal morality have a clue.

You are wrong. Conservatives believe in helping those that they choose to help in ways that they choose help them. This is part of personnal responsibility.

I have no idea what the statement about the right abdicating the responsibility for morality has to do with anything either in your post or anywhere else. Doesn't personal responsibility imply a closely held moralality?

Funny that the implication is always that ONLY conservatives help out at a personal level. Why is that? When I do volunteer work, the people I'm working with could be Republican, Democrat, Communist. Nobody asks. Nobody cares. It's a red herring constantly tossed about by self-righteous conservatives hoping that less intelligent folks will actually believe it.

I didn't mean to imply that only Conservatives are helpful or charitable. Many people are charitable in their giving of time and treasure. This is obviously not a trait defined by political affiliation.

While I do donate to the United Way, I get greater satisfaction in donating to Alzheimers research and to MADD due to personnal considerations. That's just me. In a way, though, that giving is selfish in that the United Way benefits mostly my own community and the others are things that I am compelled to participate in from personnal experiences.

On a general level, I dislike my money being used for things that i find to be wasteful, unproductive, hurtful or dishonest. If even one tax dollar is used in ways that fit those categories, I feel abused. Too many tax dollars find their way into those categories.

 

[code1211]

That's another conservative chestnut. Public schools are now government indoctrination.

Better to learn in church or at home.



Sorta like home dentristry.

Leaves ya toothless.

Indoctrination or not, the public schools are graduating a less and less competitive class annually. As long as the test scores of our high school graduates continue to plummet in relation to other countries, the system is not working.

The troubling part of the equation is that parochial schools in Indianapolis graduate students with higher test scores and do so at half the cost per student.

Whatever the reason, the public schools are failing in all areas except increasing funding.

The federal funding doesn't change that much. You need to look to state funding, via property tax usually, AND school boards who make unrealistic demands.

You're right, of course.

The need for education to prepare children to participate in society ranges beyond accpting all forms of people and realtionships. There are hard lessons that life will teach to those who cannot read and write.

In discussions on this board, I've found myself coming around to the notion that there needs to be a second education system that separates those who need the remedial teaching. That remedial may be for lack of achievement or disruption to the rest of the "society" in the school.

In Indiana, the Governor changed the method to pay for education from local property taxes to a state pool and then redistribute state wide. Homes in the neighborhood peopled by the Pacers and the Colts yield higher taxes than those in the inner city. He chose to not bus the students but to instead "bus" the cash.

Kind of a smart guy in that respect. This was a new idea from a Conservative for those keeping score at home.

 

[JBeukema]

Liberalism is an ideology (or set of related ideologies). Conservatism is no ideology and refers to nothing at all, really.

At the very least, that runs into an existential problem. "No ideology" is itself an ideology.

That's like claiming Having 'no phone number' is a phone number

As a practical matter, it is pretty silly to suggest that conservatives believe in nothing at all

I see you don't know the meaning of words.

There is no such ideology a 'conservatism'. 'Conservatism' means nothing more or less than (A) support of the status quo or (B) a desire to return to the status quo ante.

By definition, the word applies to the KKK, the Tories, and hippies who reject technology. It can refer to an overall longing for the past or be applied specifically to a given subject or area.

 

[JBeukema]

A liberal is a champion of the downtrodded.

So they like to pretend. Bourgeois liberals (see: Liberals of the Classical Doctrine) have always failed to live up to their rhetoric.

We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all White male landed gentry may purchase for themselves equality and certain unalienable rights- life, liberty, and the pursuit and keeping of chattel
​