The Liberal vs. The Conservative

[Sallow]

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?

There is nothing wrong with having liberal and or conservative opinions, most Americans have elements of both, the problem is when people go to the extremes with both. It doesn't help that people use fallacious reasoning to label someone as either conservative or liberal.

That sounds nice. But name two Democrats who actually have actually different views on any relevant issue. I mean that they actually fight for different sides.

Senator Reid vs. Senator Nelson.

Senators Defeat Abortion Amendment in Health Care Bill - ABC News

That was easy..next.

 

[kaz]

There is nothing wrong with having liberal and or conservative opinions, most Americans have elements of both, the problem is when people go to the extremes with both. It doesn't help that people use fallacious reasoning to label someone as either conservative or liberal.

That sounds nice. But name two Democrats who actually have actually different views on any relevant issue. I mean that they actually fight for different sides.

Senator Reid vs. Senator Nelson.

Senators Defeat Abortion Amendment in Health Care Bill - ABC News

That was easy..next.

This is exactly my point. They quibbled over a detail and then Nelson voted for it anyway. He comes from a red State and stamped his feet over one point in a massive bill, then went along with it. This is exactly my point. I want two Democrats on different sides of an issue. Not two Democrats who argue over one plank of a bill then vote for it regardless of winning or losing that one point.

 

[MaggieMae]

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.

Subsidies and allowable tax writeoffs which allow mega corporations such as Exxon-Mobil and General Electric to "owe" zero in corporate income taxes last year, for starters.

 

[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...

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.

Your plan is to let lawyers solve your problems, my plan is to let you solve your problems. As for what conservatives think, you need to debate that with them. But yes, looking at what lawyers are doing and wanting more of that is "sheep."

 

[JBeukema]

I know you're new, but you might want to read some of my threads/posts before you make a fool of yourself.

Wow, not knowing your views makes me a fool? How do you get your head through doorways?

Trying to run with a caricature of the left you got from some talking head when it doesn't fit makes you look like a fool

 

[MaggieMae]

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.

Ouch, I'm a conservative. You've sent more then one kid crying from the playground, didn't you? You keep nailing me with that when I told you I was a libertarian. I actually told you that so you understood my views better. I don't care if you call me a conservative. I already know liberals are ignorant because otherwise they wouldn't be liberals so your calling me a conservative is really a non event. But yeah, I oppose the wars as well as our military's presence in the middle east, I oppose morality laws, oppose the war on drugs. Calling me a conservative is really hitting my insecurities, not. It did give you a chance to flaunt your ignorance though. Not liberal = conservative. A brainiac you are...

I believe my quoted material was in response to something CODE posted, not you, butinsky.

 

[MaggieMae]

Liberalism isn't really intellectually based, it is emotive. Example: poverty is addressed by giving people money, and that makes you feel better, you've given them something.

Never mind you haven't solved anything, only made yourself feel better.

You've described more a socialist example than a Liberal one.

Liberalism takes a laizze-fair approach- the poor starve because they need to so the better can succeed in the free market and make everything better. It's like economic eugenics.

I agree with you, but in today's political environment can you actually name any major Democrat who is liberal but not socialist?

Since you're so sure, why don't YOU name them.

 

[MaggieMae]

In fact, thats a perfect analogy for liberalism. Cancer.

Some forms of ideological cancer have not grown to lethal or dangerous levels. Like Denmark. Norway. They are fairly benign. But the malignant forms of ideological left wing cancer grows into a ruthless, lethal tumor of government: China, Russia, Cuba, Venezuela, Nat'l Socialist Party of Germany, North Korea. Thats a deadly, advanced and continuously growing form of liberal ideology.

Me? I'd rather just not have cancer at all!

And the USA is so far apart from the Socialist countries you list that it's sickening how little some of you actually know.

 

[MaggieMae]

I do not think "socialists" means what you think it means.

Socialism originally referred to a stage of socioeconomic development following capitalism and preceding communism. It then came to mean any of a number of systems which might emerge during that period and share its defining traits. It then came to mean advocacy of such systems, especially when they are advocated as the ends rather than as a step towards communism. Today it stands as a blanket term encompassing everything from libertarian socialism to democratic socialism to anarcho-socialism.


Learn to read.

What I mean is that just because someone is ok or supports some socialist views does not make them a socialist. There is a point where you become more of 1 thing than anything else I guess would be a way of putting it... that is when someone steps over from being lets a say a free market capitalist supporter to a socialist.

Thanks, I can read btw...

Like it or not, capitalism necessarily encompasses socialism during the cycle.

Capitalism in a nutshell:

On the upside ~~

-Markets create products
-consumers demand product
-jobs are created by demand
-demand grows to full employment
-employees become important; demand more capital

On the downside ~~

-Full employment leads to inflation
-increased costs for business
-inflation leads to downturn in buying
-inflation leads to cutbacks in employment

Enter "socialist" remedies ~~

-loss of employment leads to welfare
-Government spends to keep up
-Government creates jobs and business incentives
-deficits are created
-taxes raised on higher incomes

Results ~~

-Economy levels out
-demand grows again
-and around we go

 

[MaggieMae]

I do not think "socialists" means what you think it means.

Socialism originally referred to a stage of socioeconomic development following capitalism and preceding communism. It then came to mean any of a number of systems which might emerge during that period and share its defining traits. It then came to mean advocacy of such systems, especially when they are advocated as the ends rather than as a step towards communism. Today it stands as a blanket term encompassing everything from libertarian socialism to democratic socialism to anarcho-socialism.


Learn to read.

Why are you such a condescending dick?

Why are you such a dick? I've never seen anything posted by you that wasn't an insult.

 

[MaggieMae]

I agree, but if Government steps in the way and allows some people to get off then... Is that free market or Government?

Actually, the list of lawmakers is quite extensive. Since this one only goes to 2008, it should be noted that Tom DeLay just recently was sentence to 3 years in prison for corruption and voter fraud.

http://washingtonindependent.com/377/members-of-congress-charged-with-a-crime-1798-2008

You can't single out lawmakers that were instrumental in raiding Social Security, since things like that were not exactly "criminal" in nature.

 

[MaggieMae]

Privatized fire was tried some time ago. Read a history book to see why New York and the rest of the nation gave up that stupidity.

I'm reminded of the scene in Gangs of New York where the two different firemen groups arrive at a fire at the same time, and end up fighting each other while the houses burns.

That was how it was done 100 or so years ago.

The employment of private comapnies to do public work has come a long way since that time. In my neighborhood, garbage is picked up by private companies contracted to the city to do public work.

Ambulance companies are privately owned and contracted to hospitals or communities. It happens all the time.

In some cases this is a fit and others not so much. It does happen and the use of private companies to do public work is expanding, not shrinking.

So who pays the contractors? The municipality. Where does the municipality get its money? The taxpayer.

 

[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?

There is nothing wrong with having liberal and or conservative opinions, most Americans have elements of both, the problem is when people go to the extremes with both. It doesn't help that people use fallacious reasoning to label someone as either conservative or liberal.

That sounds nice. But name two Democrats who actually have actually different views on any relevant issue. I mean that they actually fight for different sides. So not that some want to leave Iraq now and some in a year. Not that some want "healthcare reform" to go further faster then others. Actual, bonafide disagreement between any two Democrats. Should be easy if what you say is true.

You reeeeealy need to pay more attention before you blurt out stuff, kaz. You do know that Harry Reid IS a true "liberal" and DOES butt heads with Obama a LOT. You do know that Harry Reid is the Democratic Senate Leader. I hope.

“I think it’s absolutely wrong and the public should understand that the president has enough power; he should back off and let us do what we do,” Reid told NBC News on Wednesday.

Read more: Harry Reid keeps up earmark clash with President Obama - Jennifer Epstein - POLITICO.com

 

[MaggieMae]

There is nothing wrong with having liberal and or conservative opinions, most Americans have elements of both, the problem is when people go to the extremes with both. It doesn't help that people use fallacious reasoning to label someone as either conservative or liberal.

That sounds nice. But name two Democrats who actually have actually different views on any relevant issue. I mean that they actually fight for different sides.

Senator Reid vs. Senator Nelson.

Senators Defeat Abortion Amendment in Health Care Bill - ABC News

That was easy..next.

Okay --

Welch and 53 House Democrats oppose Obama tax deal

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Socialism originally referred to a stage of socioeconomic development following capitalism and preceding communism. It then came to mean any of a number of systems which might emerge during that period and share its defining traits. It then came to mean advocacy of such systems, especially when they are advocated as the ends rather than as a step towards communism. Today it stands as a blanket term encompassing everything from libertarian socialism to democratic socialism to anarcho-socialism.


Learn to read.

Why are you such a condescending dick?

Why are you such a dick? I've never seen anything posted by you that wasn't an insult.

 

[rikules]

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. In fact, the modern liberal is the exact opposite of the classic liberal. Todays modern liberal believes in working towards absolute equality, which can only be achieved through force of government. Thus, they support countless laws to shape humanity and society into what they feel is more fair and equal. They believe in the idea that some subgroups are not succeeding because of ingrained oppression, and it's the gov'ts job to fix that. Again, they can be Dem, GOP, or independent, but tend to flock to the D.

"Conservatives" believe in more freedom, but thus, more risk, in society. That the government should stay as "hands off" as possible, and let the pieces fall where they may. Small gov't, only the basics: Police, fire, military, EMS, roads. Little much else. They believe in morality based closer to religion than social acceptance, although sometimes don't follow it themselves (at least politicians anyway).

So it's basically which direction you think society should go. More freedom and let people end up where they end up? Or more laws to shape society into what the governing body feels it should look like. Neither is really a good idea. But I prefer more freedom because I'm independent and capable, and will thrive without gov't. Thus, I'm a conservative. If I was helpless, scared, or angry at the world, I'd be a liberal so I could get handouts, protection and revenge.

once again you delude yourself with the claim that conservatives believe more in freedom.

that's just nonsense.


conservatives believe in laws against pot
conservatives believe in denying gays the freedom to marry'
conservatives believe in regulations to limit or eliminate divorce
conservaatives oppose (the freedom to have) sex until married
cons oppose a womans right to choose
cons oppose the rights of gays to join the military, adopt babies
cons believe in imposing/indoctrinating ALL children with their religious beliefs


and SOME cons would ban evolution and atheism
enforce the christian 10 commandments
deny rights to non christians
criminalize homosexuality and...socialist beliefs?
atheism?


both sides would limit our freedoms

just different freedoms

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

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. In fact, the modern liberal is the exact opposite of the classic liberal. Todays modern liberal believes in working towards absolute equality, which can only be achieved through force of government. Thus, they support countless laws to shape humanity and society into what they feel is more fair and equal. They believe in the idea that some subgroups are not succeeding because of ingrained oppression, and it's the gov'ts job to fix that. Again, they can be Dem, GOP, or independent, but tend to flock to the D.

"Conservatives" believe in more freedom, but thus, more risk, in society. That the government should stay as "hands off" as possible, and let the pieces fall where they may. Small gov't, only the basics: Police, fire, military, EMS, roads. Little much else. They believe in morality based closer to religion than social acceptance, although sometimes don't follow it themselves (at least politicians anyway).

So it's basically which direction you think society should go. More freedom and let people end up where they end up? Or more laws to shape society into what the governing body feels it should look like. Neither is really a good idea. But I prefer more freedom because I'm independent and capable, and will thrive without gov't. Thus, I'm a conservative. If I was helpless, scared, or angry at the world, I'd be a liberal so I could get handouts, protection and revenge.

once again you delude yourself with the claim that conservatives believe more in freedom.

that's just nonsense.


conservatives believe in laws against pot
conservatives believe in denying gays the freedom to marry'
conservatives believe in regulations to limit or eliminate divorce
conservaatives oppose (the freedom to have) sex until married
cons oppose a womans right to choose
cons oppose the rights of gays to join the military, adopt babies
cons believe in imposing/indoctrinating ALL children with their religious beliefs


and SOME cons would ban evolution and atheism
enforce the christian 10 commandments
deny rights to non christians
criminalize homosexuality and...socialist beliefs?
atheism?


both sides would limit our freedoms

just different freedoms

Wow. I didn't know I believed in all of that! Thanks!!!!!

 

[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. In fact, the modern liberal is the exact opposite of the classic liberal. Todays modern liberal believes in working towards absolute equality, which can only be achieved through force of government. Thus, they support countless laws to shape humanity and society into what they feel is more fair and equal. They believe in the idea that some subgroups are not succeeding because of ingrained oppression, and it's the gov'ts job to fix that. Again, they can be Dem, GOP, or independent, but tend to flock to the D.

"Conservatives" believe in more freedom, but thus, more risk, in society. That the government should stay as "hands off" as possible, and let the pieces fall where they may. Small gov't, only the basics: Police, fire, military, EMS, roads. Little much else. They believe in morality based closer to religion than social acceptance, although sometimes don't follow it themselves (at least politicians anyway).

So it's basically which direction you think society should go. More freedom and let people end up where they end up? Or more laws to shape society into what the governing body feels it should look like. Neither is really a good idea. But I prefer more freedom because I'm independent and capable, and will thrive without gov't. Thus, I'm a conservative. If I was helpless, scared, or angry at the world, I'd be a liberal so I could get handouts, protection and revenge.

once again you delude yourself with the claim that conservatives believe more in freedom.

that's just nonsense.


conservatives believe in laws against pot
conservatives believe in denying gays the freedom to marry'
conservatives believe in regulations to limit or eliminate divorce
conservaatives oppose (the freedom to have) sex until married
cons oppose a womans right to choose
cons oppose the rights of gays to join the military, adopt babies
cons believe in imposing/indoctrinating ALL children with their religious beliefs


and SOME cons would ban evolution and atheism
enforce the christian 10 commandments
deny rights to non christians
criminalize homosexuality and...socialist beliefs?
atheism?


both sides would limit our freedoms

just different freedoms

I am a Conservative and I don't really care if your sexual preferances involve dead chickens and cottage cheese or if you prefer to have male, female, multiple or inter species spouses as long as you don't harm others in your pursuits or demand that i pay for for your predlictions.

You are confusing Conservatives with the Republican coalition of whack jobs.

 

[MarcATL]

Why are you such a condescending dick?

Why are you such a dick? I've never seen anything posted by you that wasn't an insult.

They don't like it when its done to them you see. Cognitive dissonance I believe is the term for it.

On that note, the current crop of Conservatives seem to believe in privatizing the gains and socializing the losses.

See TARP

 

[rdean]

Liberalism isn't really intellectually based, it is emotive. Example: poverty is addressed by giving people money, and that makes you feel better, you've given them something.

Never mind you haven't solved anything, only made yourself feel better.

Gawd you people are truly "simple minded".

Just because right wingers have such bizarre and strange mystical beliefs, you can't assume everyone does.

This is a clear example of why right wing policies "fail". See Iraq. See the economy. To them, problems are simple and solutions are equally simple. They break everything down into a "base language" called "simpleton".

Unfortunately, the "real" world is complex. Not "simple".

Dude, you're funny. The irony that your post is about simple right wingers, and your post contains only sweeping statements and no solutions for anything. Just like your party.

And again the irony, I'm not a right winger, I'm a libertarian. I oppose the wars and I oppose government social control just like government economic control.

And you call us "simple minded." So funny...

And you are "double funny" dude. Didn't you say:

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.

So many solutions. Too numerous to count.