The Liberal vs. The Conservative

[rdean]

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.

It only seems that way because the left is made up of those right wing "targets".

The Republican Party is 90% white. They are hostile to minorities. When those minorities fight back, the right says, "Look, see how hostile they are". Well yea. Everyone has a right to defend.

The Republican Party - 90% white, mostly Christian with a smattering of blacks and Hispanics.

The Democratic Party, while a majority is white, barely, included in those whites are people not welcome in the Republican Party, gays, feminists, college professors, scientists and so on. Then include the blacks, Muslims, Hindu, Hispanics, atheists and so on.

There is the difference between the two parties.

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. Like what you preach. Read your posts.

Uh, where do you see "intolerance" in a perfectly accurate description of both parties?

 

[rdean]

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.

Liberal women whores?

 

[rdean]

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.

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.

I always find it intriguing that conservatives generally believe that this country is so great that it has some God-given responsibility to direct the rest of the world in the same way by way of "helping" (at a huge cost) to "democratize" other countries. To accomplish that, we dole out foreign aid and make sure via hands-on nation-building that those citizens have good health and good educational opportunities, but it's never a top priority for our own citizens.

What is especially hilarious in a "black humor" sort of way, is the last country the right tried to "democratize" has now embraced radical right wing Islam. They have enslaved their women, killed every gay they could find (except the right here might see that as a "silver lining) and their Christian population has mysteriously declined by an estimated "million", yet, many right wingers on this very board see Iraq as a fantastic success. They ones that don't feel Iraqis are simply "ungrateful".

 

[rdean]

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.

sexual deviance and even lack of patriotism?

Yet you insist you aren't a "conservative" or a "Republican".

 

[rdean]

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?

Government help is Bad.

Churches are Good.

Gays are Bad.

Marriage is only good if it's between a man and a woman.

Iraq want's liberty and that means democracy.

I guess I could go on for another hour. Republicans and conservatives, nearly to a man, deal in absolutes. They rarely see "shades of gray".

 

[rdean]

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.

Tell that to the Republican leadership.

Andre Bauer - feed the poor and they'll breed.

 

[MarcATL]

What is especially hilarious in a "black humor" sort of way, is the last country the right tried to "democratize" has now embraced radical right wing Islam. They have enslaved their women, killed every gay they could find (except the right here might see that as a "silver lining) and their Christian population has mysteriously declined by an estimated "million", yet, many right wingers on this very board see Iraq as a fantastic success. They ones that don't feel Iraqis are simply "ungrateful".

Isn't it MINDBLOWING how these reactionaries can rationalize ANYTHING away?

 

[rdean]

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.

It's a mistake to see the solution as "higher test scores". A truly successful result would be "discovery and invention".

 

[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. 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

There should be no attempt to balance civil liberties for all and civil liberties for some, period. What's most difficult to balance is the lines between civil liberties for all and protecting the population as a whole.

 

[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. 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.

Interesting that both you and SOLO took the lists so personally, when the two postings represented two sets of generalities. I'm not a "lib" or a "lefty" either, but I get it that those terms are intended to lump together anyone who isn't a "con" or a "rightie." Republican "whack job" is another story. I suppose that term applies to any Republican who expresses interest in cooperating with Democrats, which is ignorant.

 

[MaggieMae]

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

The current crop?

 

[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.

sexual deviance and even lack of patriotism?

Yet you insist you aren't a "conservative" or a "Republican".

I'm convinced kaz is one of those newbies to the political scene, not having a clue of anything that has gone on prior to 2009.

 

[kaz]

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

Can you show me the quote where I misrepresented your views?

 

[kaz]

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.

sexual deviance and even lack of patriotism?

Yet you insist you aren't a "conservative" or a "Republican".

I was screwing with him. You should have noticed I used his words and considered that possibility. The welfare abuse was accurate. The sexual deviance I didn't really get but he said that. My issue with patriotism is how the Democrats have been willing to murder American troops for political gain. I love America, but I'm not really a flag waiver. But Obama for example running on how America is murdering Iraqis and responsible for everything bad in the Middle East, then continues the Bush policies to the letter is in my view pathetic. And I say that as someone who thinks not only that we shouldn't be in the wars but in the Middle East at all.

 

[kaz]

I'm convinced kaz is one of those newbies to the political scene, not having a clue of anything that has gone on prior to 2009.

If you were aware of your surroundings or had a clue then you wouldn't be a liberal, so I wouldn't expect otherwise.

BTW, in answer to your question in your other post, most politicians are lawyers. Again awareness is an issue.

Also, you are such a great example of why liberals aren't worth debating seriously. You pat yourself on the back for being open minded and considering other viewpoints. But when I tell you that I'm a libertarian and I'm against the wars and all permanent overseas military presence, I'm pro-choice, for legalization of all drugs, I think prostitution should be legal, I think gambling should be legal. You call me a "conservative" or a "Republican." That from you, the self declared believer in diversity. And you're typical of liberals, I know very few liberals who get that any of those things make me not a Republican. Republicans actually sometimes call me a liberal. But most of them actually don't have a problem grasping that I'm not one of them and I'm not a liberal. Republicans are apparently almost all smarter then you are as well as more tolerant of diversity.

 

[MarcATL]

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

The current crop?

Are you suggesting that they were always that way?

 

[logical4u]

IMHO, the lefties cannot (or will not) define themselves. They will resort to insults if you ask them to explain where they stand, or if they stand for anything at all. They will tell you all day long about anything and everything they disagree with or can see a need for improvement. That can be helpful if everything is going well and you have resources for "investment". When you are concerned about food & shelter (that means individual property rights, including being able to defend said property), that kind of criticism/suggestion can get old, and it distracts from the goals of security.
The lefties use social ills to gain power. They will tell you that giving up resources (for the good of _____); it is really them stealing power. Often they will divide the population into "groups" and "pit" them against each other to vote each others' rights away. Example: "the filthy rich" that make over $250,000 a year, are pitted against those that do not. The implication: they are taking money that should be yours. In reality, they might be running a small business that has costs that eat into that income, risks and worries that, those that do not make that much, simply don't want to deal with. It is a great responsibility, they may have several employees that they pay and try to give benefits (to keep the good employees).
Lefties will claim a "group" does not have equal rights when they are looking to give "additional" rights (take rights from all those that do not belong to that group). Lefties will claim their "intellect" is superior to those that are concerned about physical problems, without ever mentioning wisdom.
Lefties will use selective facts to try to discredit beliefs they disagree with, but will provide no evidence/facts that what they "propose" actually works (or has ever worked).
If you want to have a discussion about a leftie's beliefs, you will be called names, responded to in a condescending manner, and your questions will never be answered.
Conservatives believe that each individual should have rights, and those rights should be protected equally by the law. Conservatives believe that each person is responsible for their own action (their are exceptions for age and illness). Conservatives believe that their chose charity, not the govenment should decide who is helped. Conservatives believe in upholding the laws (traffic laws are some times stretched, a little), and that every person in the country should be held to the same standards (if some one broke the law to get here, they are choosing to select the laws they want to follow, and I would like that privelage too, I wouldn't pay taxes if I could choose with law I didn't want to follow). Our country is extremely special and our borders should be secure. If you want to come to this country for "freedom", do not come here and try to change it to "your group's" advantage. We have learned (most of us the hard way) that the tradditional ways: work hard, improve yourself, save and invest are the ONLY way to become content and successful. The lefties will tell us we are wrong, but to date, they have not given testimony/witness that anything else works.
You get to pick what you want to be. Have fun.

 

[MaggieMae]

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

The current crop?

Are you suggesting that they were always that way?

As far back as 1974 when Jude Wanniski and Arthur Laffer introduced, and the Republicans adopted, the "supply side" theory of economics.

Before then

...economies are driven by demand. People with good jobs have money in their pockets, and want to use it to buy things. The job of the business community is to either determine or drive that demand to their particular goods, and when they're successful at meeting the demand then factories get built, more people become employed to make more products, and those newly-employed people have a paycheck that further increases demand.

Wanniski decided to turn the classical world of economics – which had operated on this simple demand-driven equation for seven thousand years – on its head. In 1974 he invented a new phrase – "supply side economics" – and suggested that the reason economies grew wasn't because people had money and wanted to buy things with it but, instead, because things were available for sale, thus tantalizing people to part with their money. The more things there were, the faster the economy would grow.

At the same time, Arthur Laffer was taking that equation a step further. Not only was supply-side a rational concept, Laffer suggested, but as taxes went down, revenue to the government would go up!

Neither concept made any sense – and time has proven both to be colossal idiocies – but together they offered the Republican Party a way out of the wilderness.

Ronald Reagan was the first national Republican politician to suggest that he could cut taxes on rich people and businesses, that those tax cuts would cause them to take their surplus money and build factories or import large quantities of cheap stuff from low-labor countries, and that the more stuff there was supplying the economy the faster it would grow. George Herbert Walker Bush – like most Republicans of the time – was horrified. Ronald Reagan was suggesting "Voodoo Economics," said Bush in the primary campaign, and Wanniski's supply-side and Laffer's tax-cut theories would throw the nation into such deep debt that we'd ultimately crash into another Republican Great Depression.

Much more:
Two Santa Clauses or How The Republican Party Has Conned America for Thirty Years | CommonDreams.org

 

[MaggieMae]

IMHO, the lefties cannot (or will not) define themselves. They will resort to insults if you ask them to explain where they stand, or if they stand for anything at all. They will tell you all day long about anything and everything they disagree with or can see a need for improvement. That can be helpful if everything is going well and you have resources for "investment". When you are concerned about food & shelter (that means individual property rights, including being able to defend said property), that kind of criticism/suggestion can get old, and it distracts from the goals of security.
The lefties use social ills to gain power. They will tell you that giving up resources (for the good of _____); it is really them stealing power. Often they will divide the population into "groups" and "pit" them against each other to vote each others' rights away. Example: "the filthy rich" that make over $250,000 a year, are pitted against those that do not. The implication: they are taking money that should be yours. In reality, they might be running a small business that has costs that eat into that income, risks and worries that, those that do not make that much, simply don't want to deal with. It is a great responsibility, they may have several employees that they pay and try to give benefits (to keep the good employees).
Lefties will claim a "group" does not have equal rights when they are looking to give "additional" rights (take rights from all those that do not belong to that group). Lefties will claim their "intellect" is superior to those that are concerned about physical problems, without ever mentioning wisdom.
Lefties will use selective facts to try to discredit beliefs they disagree with, but will provide no evidence/facts that what they "propose" actually works (or has ever worked).
If you want to have a discussion about a leftie's beliefs, you will be called names, responded to in a condescending manner, and your questions will never be answered.
Conservatives believe that each individual should have rights, and those rights should be protected equally by the law. Conservatives believe that each person is responsible for their own action (their are exceptions for age and illness). Conservatives believe that their chose charity, not the govenment should decide who is helped. Conservatives believe in upholding the laws (traffic laws are some times stretched, a little), and that every person in the country should be held to the same standards (if some one broke the law to get here, they are choosing to select the laws they want to follow, and I would like that privelage too, I wouldn't pay taxes if I could choose with law I didn't want to follow). Our country is extremely special and our borders should be secure. If you want to come to this country for "freedom", do not come here and try to change it to "your group's" advantage. We have learned (most of us the hard way) that the tradditional ways: work hard, improve yourself, save and invest are the ONLY way to become content and successful. The lefties will tell us we are wrong, but to date, they have not given testimony/witness that anything else works.
You get to pick what you want to be. Have fun.

Incredibly, you seem to have formed a whole bunch of opinions about "lefties" in spite of the fact that "[they] cannot (or will not) define themselves." Imagine that.

Of course if you had actually absorbed some of the many posts right here in this thread by so-called "lefties," you would see many definitions. That's the biggest problem with "righties." Reading comprehension, if they bother to read at all.

 

[kaz]

Incredibly, you seem to have formed a whole bunch of opinions about "lefties" in spite of the fact that "[they] cannot (or will not) define themselves." Imagine that.

Of course if you had actually absorbed some of the many posts right here in this thread by so-called "lefties," you would see many definitions. That's the biggest problem with "righties." Reading comprehension, if they bother to read at all.

As I said and you ignored because you're an ignorant, useless bitch:

I'm convinced kaz is one of those newbies to the political scene, not having a clue of anything that has gone on prior to 2009.

If you were aware of your surroundings or had a clue then you wouldn't be a liberal, so I wouldn't expect otherwise.

BTW, in answer to your question in your other post, most politicians are lawyers. Again awareness is an issue.

Also, you are such a great example of why liberals aren't worth debating seriously. You pat yourself on the back for being open minded and considering other viewpoints. But when I tell you that I'm a libertarian and I'm against the wars and all permanent overseas military presence, I'm pro-choice, for legalization of all drugs, I think prostitution should be legal, I think gambling should be legal. You call me a "conservative" or a "Republican." That from you, the self declared believer in diversity. And you're typical of liberals, I know very few liberals who get that any of those things make me not a Republican. Republicans actually sometimes call me a liberal. But most of them actually don't have a problem grasping that I'm not one of them and I'm not a liberal. Republicans are apparently almost all smarter then you are as well as more tolerant of diversity.