the terms "conservative" and "liberal" are abused and misused by most Americans

[code1211]

Republicans/conservatives behave no better when they hold all the power. "Our way or the highway" isn't a new mantra, ya know. By 2002, the neocons had hijacked the GOP to the point veteran Republicans didn't even recognize the party anymore. Now they're trying to hijack the social agenda, which of course they COULD have done in the 8 years they were in power, because Mr. Bush was never a heavy user of his veto power, although he threatened plenty in order to advance HIS agenda. In fact, he never vetoed a spending bill. Not once.

Before neocons, and the even newer movement of pro-business/anti-middle class conservatives, managed to turn "liberalism" into a synonym for welfare abuse, it was a noble political philosophy based on the idea that citizens should be called upon to look beyond their own self-interests and work for a common interest. The American way. Imagine that.

Absolutely, the motivating factor behind the passion of the Tea Party is politicans not being held accountable, and folding up their principals once taking federal office.

And that is why I believe the Tea Party is a positive influence, they aren't going to allow someone to be two-faced and get away with it.

We will see because in 2012 at the very least I see the Republicans, with Tea Party support, retaking the Senate. A Republican majority in both houses, with Tea Party libertarian conservatives, I believe is what is needed to reign in this federal power grab.

I actually have little problem with the goals of the Tea Party movement. But I don't think the majority of them understand that the government can't simply start dismantling existing programs and literally throwing people on the streets or kick kids out of heavily subsidized schools that are the only place they can get an education, for example. To do everything the TP hails (and rails) must take a gradual approach, and in many cases (such as education), alternative policies put in place so that people don't start rapidly falling through the cracks. The results would be MORE people needing government (welfare) assistance, so there would be little to gain using drastic tactics.

Gradual is the key. The first step, however, must be a pretty dramatic one to undo what has been done in the last two years. Federal government spending has risen in each of the last two years to a point that is 10% of GDP higher than in 2008. This is insanity.

After that intial shock, a return to 2008 spending levels, then a growth rate that is 1% under the average of the last 50 years is enough to bring the budget into balance pretty quickly.

This is pretty much what Clinto did without the initial actual cuts. However, the Big 0 has been such an increcibly piss poor manager of the budget that we are in sheep dip right now.

This clown will go down in history as the First Black President and the Worst President of any color in history. Nancy and harry didn't do him any favors, but he didn't do anything to reign them in, either.

 

[whitehall]

"Republitards"? Do you want to make a point or engage in hate speech? You can't even get a liberal to call himself a liberal. How are you going to get radical democrats to admit that they are socialists? Obama appointed a communist with no experience other than leading an arson and looting rampage to his "green jobs board". In case you didn't notice there are no green jobs or many other jobs for that matter. Obama refered to the US Chamber of Commerce as a sinister tool of the republican party. It would be refreshing if we could choose between republicans and socialists next election but lefties seem to want to camouflage their agenda until they get into office.

 

[Harry Dresden]

There s a such thing as left libertarianism

Left-libertarianism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Libertarian socialism is the anti-state version of socialism; some also call versions of it "left libertarianism." In a broad sense, people who may share with "traditional socialism a distrust of the market, of private investment, and of the achievement ethic, and a commitment to expansion of the welfare state" might sometimes be described as “left-libertarians.”[2] More narrowly, some social anarchists and libertarian socialists, including Murray Bookchin,[3] are sometimes characterized as “left-libertarian.”,[4] and Noam Chomsky, who identifies as a “libertarian socialist,” applies the “left-libertarian” label to himself.[5]
Most left-libertarians in this sense are anarchists, and frequently claim to reject self-ownership, at least when it is understood to underwrite capitalism,[6] along with property rights, in favor of alternate rights of possession and stewardship which are understood as protecting personal autonomy while rejecting putative rights which they see as permitting the economic elite to control the lives of others. They support rights to individual possessions and the rights of occupancy over one’s dwelling, but reject commercial propertarianism and do not consider the re-appropriation of such wealth to be an act of theft but rather an act of liberation (see individual reclamation). Many reject arrangements that allow for hierarchy or begrudgingly consensual subordination. Similarly, many reject the non-aggression principle to the extent that it treats assaults on private property as assaults on individual liberty.​

I stand corrected. Apparently, they are vastly confused people.

You're such a partisan hack that it isn't even funny any more.

Bass....since you never seem to bad mouth Lefties UNLESS it has to do with Homosexuality or Abortion.....your probably in the Hacky family yourself....

 

[code1211]

And one implies action while the other implies wishful thinking.

Could you expand on that?

Conservatives espouse "pursuit of happiness" but are usually all talk and no action. Liberals set about making sure the opportunities exist.

I am a Conservative. I do espouse the Pursuit of happiness as something that should be protected by government.

Providing the opportunity? That is not the job of government. The government only need remove the impediments. Providing the opportunity implies, and in truth demands, that the opportunities be defined before being provided. Removing the impediments means that the opportunities are defined by circumstance, timing, talent and ability.

It's the difference between the Bolshoi Ballet and the 60's Rock and Roll. One was almost perfect and was the result of a planned and rigidly structured program while the other was a chaotic and hectic mish mash of diverse and disparate influences across cultures, races and musical styles.

I think an argument can be made for the virtues of either result. I just happen to like the process of the Rock and Roll method. Could a planned opportunity government system have produced The Beatles, the Stones, Bob Dylan, MoTown and Cream?

Perhaps, but not likely. Only those who think they are smarter than the rest could possibly think this.

 

[Harry Dresden]

unless you happen to be a Right Wing Conservative Christian....then its happiness as long as its Ok'd by them.....

I'm one of those Right Wing Conservative Christians... and I accept that other people are free to choose not to live according to my principles. Damn, we Christians can be tricky.... we don't all think alike.

Boxes.... best not to use them for people.

I'm sorry but your type has hijacked the Republican Party by trying to force their religious fundamentalism into politics.

seeing what you say about Gays....i would think you would be right in there with those people....

 

[Steelplate]

Gradual is the key. The first step, however, must be a pretty dramatic one to undo what has been done in the last two years. Federal government spending has risen in each of the last two years to a point that is 10% of GDP higher than in 2008. This is insanity.

After that intial shock, a return to 2008 spending levels, then a growth rate that is 1% under the average of the last 50 years is enough to bring the budget into balance pretty quickly.

This is pretty much what Clinto did without the initial actual cuts. However, the Big 0 has been such an increcibly piss poor manager of the budget that we are in sheep dip right now.

This clown will go down in history as the First Black President and the Worst President of any color in history. Nancy and harry didn't do him any favors, but he didn't do anything to reign them in, either.

Dude... you really aren't paying attention. WHY OH WHY do you guys think that deficit spending began with Obama? Unfreakinbelievable. This is not about the Health Care Plan, this is not about the stimulus. Obama DID those things...

A. Because he ran on that platform and promised it(Health Care).
B. Because the situation was so fucked up, that he had to do something to get the economy rolling(Stimulus). There wasn't a choice and even if McCain would have won... they probably would have done something eerily similar.

The truth is... is that 30 Years of "Trickle Down" Economics have failed this country. We let the big business and banking community get Too Big to Fail. THAT'S why Regulation is needed. To knock those fuckers down a peg or two and let new business rise up to meet the challenge(without the Nation Crippling effect of just "letting them fail" and seeing what happens).

But the big thing with you guys... is(and always will be) taxes. You know, I've given the annual budgets of the TANF system($22B)... no one gave a shit. I've talked about a Single Payer system... no one cares if it'll save money over the current clusterfuck... It's Socialism!!!!!

You guys believe EVERY Piece of Propaganda that comes from the same people that RELY on the status quo(and fight for even more breaks) to keep their huge profits maximized. Let me clue you in on something... It really don't matter to them if your parents die of starvation so they can get the medications that keeps them alive.

Why do you think GOVERNMENT is so Corrupt.... and Big Business is so Pure? I mean, it's scary how consistent and hard line you guys are. That speaks volumes to me of brainwashing. I mean... I don't think government is perfect... far from it. But I don't kneel down and kiss the feet of the people that would destroy you and take your home to make them another $50K in profits. You can vote out corruption in government. You can't do nothing about the people that control our economy.... and you think they are the cat's meow.

 

[Bass v 2.0]

I'm one of those Right Wing Conservative Christians... and I accept that other people are free to choose not to live according to my principles. Damn, we Christians can be tricky.... we don't all think alike.

Boxes.... best not to use them for people.

I'm sorry but your type has hijacked the Republican Party by trying to force their religious fundamentalism into politics.

seeing what you say about Gays....i would think you would be right in there with those people....

I believe what I believe about gays on the religious side, but to me they do have and should have the rights to work where they want, live where they want and not be physically assaulted or demeaned and I believe spiritually is where they need to make a change, thats about all, i don't believe in forcing my beliefs on them and I reject have their beliefs forced on me.

 

[Bass v 2.0]

Libertarian socialism is the anti-state version of socialism; some also call versions of it "left libertarianism." In a broad sense, people who may share with "traditional socialism a distrust of the market, of private investment, and of the achievement ethic, and a commitment to expansion of the welfare state" might sometimes be described as “left-libertarians.”[2] More narrowly, some social anarchists and libertarian socialists, including Murray Bookchin,[3] are sometimes characterized as “left-libertarian.”,[4] and Noam Chomsky, who identifies as a “libertarian socialist,” applies the “left-libertarian” label to himself.[5]
Most left-libertarians in this sense are anarchists, and frequently claim to reject self-ownership, at least when it is understood to underwrite capitalism,[6] along with property rights, in favor of alternate rights of possession and stewardship which are understood as protecting personal autonomy while rejecting putative rights which they see as permitting the economic elite to control the lives of others. They support rights to individual possessions and the rights of occupancy over one’s dwelling, but reject commercial propertarianism and do not consider the re-appropriation of such wealth to be an act of theft but rather an act of liberation (see individual reclamation). Many reject arrangements that allow for hierarchy or begrudgingly consensual subordination. Similarly, many reject the non-aggression principle to the extent that it treats assaults on private property as assaults on individual liberty.​

I stand corrected. Apparently, they are vastly confused people.

You're such a partisan hack that it isn't even funny any more.

Bass....since you never seem to bad mouth Lefties UNLESS it has to do with Homosexuality or Abortion.....your probably in the Hacky family yourself....

Its not about bad mouthing and I have criticized Democrats for always thinking the way to fix things is to dump money on it without having a clear plan to lead and inspire people to eventually do for themselves, the rightwingers get badmouthed by me because their ideas and penchant for playing the blame game is extreme.

 

[Harry Dresden]

You're such a partisan hack that it isn't even funny any more.

Bass....since you never seem to bad mouth Lefties UNLESS it has to do with Homosexuality or Abortion.....your probably in the Hacky family yourself....

Its not about bad mouthing and I have criticized Democrats for always thinking the way to fix things is to dump money on it without having a clear plan to lead and inspire people to eventually do for themselves, the rightwingers get badmouthed by me because their ideas and penchant for playing the blame game is extreme.

please Bass dont tell me that the Democrats dont play the blame game any more than the Republicans.....and some of their ideas are just as Extreme....

 

[MaggieMae]

Liberal = nosey and intrusive butinskies who are trying to save the world for people to live in a manner that they promote.

Conservatives = deliberately independant people who strive to allow people to pursue their own happiness.

You can do it like this and it still works:

Conservatives = nosey and intrusive butinskies who are trying to save the world for people to live in a manner that they promote.

Whoa, that really describes conservatives well, with regard to abortion, school prayer, and gay and lesbian issues.

Liberal = deliberately independant people who strive to allow people to pursue their own happiness.

Indeed: the right to choice in the context of privacy with regard to abortion, wanting schools to obey the Constitution, and allowing gays and lesbians to pursue their own happiness, unrestricted by legal restrictions.

Sorry. It's my definition and, therefore, I get to define it. Whatever your pet goal for me may be, if your goal is to impose it on me due to the fact that you are smarter than me and I, in your world view, need your guidance, then you are a Liberal.

If you are a nosey buttinski you are a Liberal. I don't care if you are trying to save my soul or reform my sexual preferance or have me abort a baby or make me stop wearing Birkenstocks.

Republicans can be Liberals and Democrats can be Conservatives. Simply by being a member of a poitical party, a person has become a Liberal. If you are trying to convert another to your way of thinking, you are a Liberal. Isn't this the purpose of a Political Party?

As it happens, most political causes are Liberal because they seek to impose behaviors on those who don't particualrly care about them. By definition, Conservatives just want all of you to leave those Conservatives in your number the hell alone.

This includes demanding that I pay for things that others do that I don't support. Why is it a Federal prioity that Indiana give Planned Parenthood money in violation of Indiana Law? Things like this are not a part of the Enumerated Powers and yet they are legal due to the fact that we are no longer a nation of Laws but are now a nation of political parties.

We have slept through the quiet expansion of the Federal Government into our homes undoing the long history of our legal system all the way back to the Magna Carta.

We are frogs in boiling water.

I wonder when people are going to stop entirely blaming the federal government for expansion of "social" plans and looking to the states to blame as well? For example, people sometimes move from one state to another because the welfare benefits are better in a different state. How is that the federal government's fault? They set guidelines, put into law usually by BOTH Democrats AND Republicans, and if the states expand on those laws, then they are the ones who should be blamed for overreach. Ironically, that's precisely what happened with the economic crisis when states suddenly realized THEY were over-spending.

 

[code1211]

You can do it like this and it still works:

Conservatives = nosey and intrusive butinskies who are trying to save the world for people to live in a manner that they promote.

Whoa, that really describes conservatives well, with regard to abortion, school prayer, and gay and lesbian issues.

Liberal = deliberately independant people who strive to allow people to pursue their own happiness.

Indeed: the right to choice in the context of privacy with regard to abortion, wanting schools to obey the Constitution, and allowing gays and lesbians to pursue their own happiness, unrestricted by legal restrictions.

Sorry. It's my definition and, therefore, I get to define it. Whatever your pet goal for me may be, if your goal is to impose it on me due to the fact that you are smarter than me and I, in your world view, need your guidance, then you are a Liberal.

If you are a nosey buttinski you are a Liberal. I don't care if you are trying to save my soul or reform my sexual preferance or have me abort a baby or make me stop wearing Birkenstocks.

Republicans can be Liberals and Democrats can be Conservatives. Simply by being a member of a poitical party, a person has become a Liberal. If you are trying to convert another to your way of thinking, you are a Liberal. Isn't this the purpose of a Political Party?

As it happens, most political causes are Liberal because they seek to impose behaviors on those who don't particualrly care about them. By definition, Conservatives just want all of you to leave those Conservatives in your number the hell alone.

This includes demanding that I pay for things that others do that I don't support. Why is it a Federal prioity that Indiana give Planned Parenthood money in violation of Indiana Law? Things like this are not a part of the Enumerated Powers and yet they are legal due to the fact that we are no longer a nation of Laws but are now a nation of political parties.

We have slept through the quiet expansion of the Federal Government into our homes undoing the long history of our legal system all the way back to the Magna Carta.

We are frogs in boiling water.

I wonder when people are going to stop entirely blaming the federal government for expansion of "social" plans and looking to the states to blame as well? For example, people sometimes move from one state to another because the welfare benefits are better in a different state. How is that the federal government's fault? They set guidelines, put into law usually by BOTH Democrats AND Republicans, and if the states expand on those laws, then they are the ones who should be blamed for overreach. Ironically, that's precisely what happened with the economic crisis when states suddenly realized THEY were over-spending.

In my case, I live in Indiana, the state budget is in balance and the property taxes were rolled back after a public outcry. The taxation here and the spending are in a rough balance and the State of Indiana has the third fastest improving economy in the Union.

The Country in which I live is a different story. Bloated spending by misguided people with ill directed allegiances to poorly informed constituancies driven by averice and greed.

So, yes, it is the Federal Government's fault. If it is their actions that are causing the problems, the problems are their fault. I really don't see another way to interpret this.

I don't blame a particualr party. Both parties are at fault in this. We have not had a Conservative government in place at the Federal level since the budget was in balance as a matter of course.

 

[MaggieMae]

Sorry. It's my definition and, therefore, I get to define it. Whatever your pet goal for me may be, if your goal is to impose it on me due to the fact that you are smarter than me and I, in your world view, need your guidance, then you are a Liberal.

If you are a nosey buttinski you are a Liberal. I don't care if you are trying to save my soul or reform my sexual preferance or have me abort a baby or make me stop wearing Birkenstocks.

Republicans can be Liberals and Democrats can be Conservatives. Simply by being a member of a poitical party, a person has become a Liberal. If you are trying to convert another to your way of thinking, you are a Liberal. Isn't this the purpose of a Political Party?

As it happens, most political causes are Liberal because they seek to impose behaviors on those who don't particualrly care about them. By definition, Conservatives just want all of you to leave those Conservatives in your number the hell alone.

This includes demanding that I pay for things that others do that I don't support. Why is it a Federal prioity that Indiana give Planned Parenthood money in violation of Indiana Law? Things like this are not a part of the Enumerated Powers and yet they are legal due to the fact that we are no longer a nation of Laws but are now a nation of political parties.

We have slept through the quiet expansion of the Federal Government into our homes undoing the long history of our legal system all the way back to the Magna Carta.

We are frogs in boiling water.

I wonder when people are going to stop entirely blaming the federal government for expansion of "social" plans and looking to the states to blame as well? For example, people sometimes move from one state to another because the welfare benefits are better in a different state. How is that the federal government's fault? They set guidelines, put into law usually by BOTH Democrats AND Republicans, and if the states expand on those laws, then they are the ones who should be blamed for overreach. Ironically, that's precisely what happened with the economic crisis when states suddenly realized THEY were over-spending.

In my case, I live in Indiana, the state budget is in balance and the property taxes were rolled back after a public outcry. The taxation here and the spending are in a rough balance and the State of Indiana has the third fastest improving economy in the Union.

The Country in which I live is a different story. Bloated spending by misguided people with ill directed allegiances to poorly informed constituancies driven by averice and greed.

So, yes, it is the Federal Government's fault. If it is their actions that are causing the problems, the problems are their fault. I really don't see another way to interpret this.

I don't blame a particualr party. Both parties are at fault in this. We have not had a Conservative government in place at the Federal level since the budget was in balance as a matter of course.

All in all, most states are pulling themselves out of the rut.

BEA News Release (GDP by State)

But the states also have to stop relying so much on the federal government to bail them out when they too overreach. That's basically all I was saying.

 

[uscitizen]

I am a party of one.
A true independent (not the party) thinker.