are liberals REALLY liberal?

[Liberty]

i think most liberals see their ideology as one based on emotion...things like kindness, and tolerant, and open minded...while they see conservatives as the opposite. They don't care much for economics or logical discussion because they are ALWAYS defeated in debate. No one can trump the likes of hazlitt or sowell when it comes to economic understanding.

So, libs...do you really think this?
Let's see: http://www.prageru.com/test

 

[Foxfyre]

I don't know if modern American liberalism is based on emotion as much as a world view of compassion or virtue coupled with a desire for central power to fix whatever needs fixing. In order to have that central power, the Founders' principles of unalienable rights and self governance have to be denigrated, discredited, and squelched.

That is why the Tea Party have been labeled wingnuts, idiots, uneducated, racist, and more recently the phrase to use in leftwing talking points seems to be 'terrorist'. The Tea Party wants to decentralize some of the Federal government and put the people back in charge of their own destinies. That is anathema to the modern liberal point of view.

That is an excellent questionnaire to identify ideology however. No leading questions at all and very straight forward and honest. The only one I had trouble with was on the foreign wars thing and would have preferred an either/or definition but otherwise no criicism of how the questions are phrased. They should be equally acceptable to those on the left and right.

 

[Modbert]

From the looks of it, the questions are simply broad generalizations which ask someone to agree or disagree with them. Not a very good test.

 

[Luissa]

i think most liberals see their ideology as one based on emotion...things like kindness, and tolerant, and open minded...while they see conservatives as the opposite. They don't care much for economics or logical discussion because they are ALWAYS defeated in debate. No one can trump the likes of hazlitt or sowell when it comes to economic understanding.

So, libs...do you really think this?
Let's see: http://www.prageru.com/test

Being tolerant is one thing, believing the government should not be able to tell you who you can marry and what you should do with your body is another.

 

[IndependntLogic]

I don't know if modern American liberalism is based on emotion as much as a world view of compassion or virtue coupled with a desire for central power to fix whatever needs fixing. In order to have that central power, the Founders' principles of unalienable rights and self governance have to be denigrated, discredited, and squelched.

That is why the Tea Party have been labeled wingnuts, idiots, uneducated, racist, and more recently the phrase to use in leftwing talking points seems to be 'terrorist'. The Tea Party wants to decentralize some of the Federal government and put the people back in charge of their own destinies. That is anathema to the modern liberal point of view.

That is an excellent questionnaire to identify ideology however. No leading questions at all and very straight forward and honest. The only one I had trouble with was on the foreign wars thing and would have preferred an either/or definition but otherwise no criicism of how the questions are phrased. They should be equally acceptable to those on the left and right.

My score was: You’re a conservative with perhaps a couple of liberal views.

Probably because I don't really give a rip if gays marry and I believe abortion is entirely appropriate in the case of rape or incest.

I think the Tea Party is misunderstood or labeled for reasons, other than those you suggest. I have posted a question here and on other boards about what your specific solutions etc... would be for our country's problems, what you want etc...
I also asked why so many people would absolutely refute things that are obvious to everyone else - like Michelle Bachmann lied quite a bit or was wrong about the whole FF's abolished slavery thing. Why not just say "Okay well, she's not our only candidate" or "Well everyone makes mistakes" or whatever?
The responses were overwhelmingly filled with anger and accusations that I was some kind of "secret agent liberal" (what? am I gonna come getcha???).

So other than some catchy bumper sticker slogans, it seems that 90% of the TP seems to know only a few things:

Obama sucks (I agree with this)
Obama is to blame for all problems in the universe (I obviously don't agree)
All Tea Party candidates are always right about everything

So the fact that only 10% actually seems able to address specific issues etc... makes it difficult to understand or appreciate the TP and their positions.

 

[Warrior102]

Modern American Liberalism (i.e. the Pelosi/Reid's) are NOT JFK Liberalism.

The whole concept of Liberalism has evolved dramatically since the early 60s - it's something completely different today.

No freaking way. JFK today would be a Conservative.

Can you imagine a war hero/"guy with balls" like JFK being proud to be on the same playing field with nut-less Harry Reid? How about Waxman, Kucinich, or some of these other modern-day Liberals.

One would have to be completely insane to imagine JFK taking these assholes seriously.

Imagine these words of a 1960s-era Liberal, coming out of Obama's (today's Liberal) mouth -

A young man who does not have what it takes to perform military service is not likely to have what it takes to make a living. Today's military rejects include tomorrow's hard-core unemployed.

And so, my fellow Americans, ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country.

Communism has never come to power in a country that was not disrupted by war or corruption, or both. (this should scorch a few Liberal asses here)

Do not pray for easy lives. Pray to be stronger men.

I am not the Catholic candidate for President. I am the Democratic Party's candidate for President, who happens also to be a Catholic.

I look forward to a great future for America - a future in which our country will match its military strength with our moral restraint, its wealth with our wisdom, its power with our purpose.

Israel was not created in order to disappear - Israel will endure and flourish. It is the child of hope and the home of the brave. It can neither be broken by adversity nor demoralized by success. It carries the shield of democracy and it honors the sword of freedom.

Mothers all want their sons to grow up to be president, but they don't want them to become politicians in the process.

The ignorance of one voter in a democracy impairs the security of all. (How many of you asswipes voted for Obama?)

JFK - OUTSTANDING 2010s-era Conservative.

I am sure this will en-flame the usual douchebags.

 

[Luissa]

I like this one better.
The Political Compass - Test

Most tests I take, I score to left and towards the libertarian or anachronism side, depending on the wording of the results.

 

[Luissa]

That test seemed like it wants to get a mailing list for some sort of political reason. LOL

 

[onomatopoeia]

Lots of loaded questions in that quiz.

 

[The Gadfly]

I don't know if modern American liberalism is based on emotion as much as a world view of compassion or virtue coupled with a desire for central power to fix whatever needs fixing. In order to have that central power, the Founders' principles of unalienable rights and self governance have to be denigrated, discredited, and squelched.

That is why the Tea Party have been labeled wingnuts, idiots, uneducated, racist, and more recently the phrase to use in leftwing talking points seems to be 'terrorist'. The Tea Party wants to decentralize some of the Federal government and put the people back in charge of their own destinies. That is anathema to the modern liberal point of view.

That is an excellent questionnaire to identify ideology however. No leading questions at all and very straight forward and honest. The only one I had trouble with was on the foreign wars thing and would have preferred an either/or definition but otherwise no criicism of how the questions are phrased. They should be equally acceptable to those on the left and right.

Bingo! Modern "Liberalism" (as distinguished from the classical variety), is, first and foremost, statist in its approach. It believes in the primacy of the state (well, so long as "virtuous" liberals control the state), under what might be termed "the guardianship of the elite" (which, naturally, means themselves). This is a philosophy that is arrogant and presumptuous, and naive, all at once; it actually not only believes it can alter fundamental human nature; it believes that it alone can do so, with an all-knowing, all powerful government as its tool of choice. If this sounds like a quasi-religion that sees the state as a sort of "god" , it is because that is pretty close to what it actually is, or at least, would like to be; god-like, with a monopoly on knowledge, all virtue and power, "benignly" ruling over the unwashed, unlettered, uncaring masses (that would be the rest of us). If this sounds like Karl Marx's version of "the dictatorship of the proletariat", well, that was the inspiration for it; these are the spiritual heirs of the "New Left" of the sixties, a lot that was and mostly remains Marxist to the core in its belief system. I suspect the old style liberals of the thirties, forties and fifties would be horrified, at the notion that this group has co-opted "liberalism" for itself. This used to be the lunatic fringe, hovering on the margins of power, until it actually managed to obtain some; it always has been a shrill, strident, minority which preferred demonizing its opponents to debating them, hence its love of canard (like "Nazi", "racist", "extremist" and now, "terrorist"). Why riot in the street (didn't work anyway) when you can stand on the sidelines and throw emotionally loaded words instead of Molotov cocktails?

I find it ironic that they style themselves as the "intellectual elite". No matter how many degrees you have, or where you got them, if you haven't the common sense to get out of the rain, all you are is an educated fool. I've met quite a few (they can often be found roaming the Ivy-covered halls of academia) with a jumble of letters behind their names, and a jumble of half-baked ideas in an otherwise oblivious mind. It is a sorry thing to behold.

 

[Foxfyre]

I don't know if modern American liberalism is based on emotion as much as a world view of compassion or virtue coupled with a desire for central power to fix whatever needs fixing. In order to have that central power, the Founders' principles of unalienable rights and self governance have to be denigrated, discredited, and squelched.

That is why the Tea Party have been labeled wingnuts, idiots, uneducated, racist, and more recently the phrase to use in leftwing talking points seems to be 'terrorist'. The Tea Party wants to decentralize some of the Federal government and put the people back in charge of their own destinies. That is anathema to the modern liberal point of view.

That is an excellent questionnaire to identify ideology however. No leading questions at all and very straight forward and honest. The only one I had trouble with was on the foreign wars thing and would have preferred an either/or definition but otherwise no criicism of how the questions are phrased. They should be equally acceptable to those on the left and right.

My score was: You’re a conservative with perhaps a couple of liberal views.

Probably because I don't really give a rip if gays marry and I believe abortion is entirely appropriate in the case of rape or incest.

I think the Tea Party is misunderstood or labeled for reasons, other than those you suggest. I have posted a question here and on other boards about what your specific solutions etc... would be for our country's problems, what you want etc...
I also asked why so many people would absolutely refute things that are obvious to everyone else - like Michelle Bachmann lied quite a bit or was wrong about the whole FF's abolished slavery thing. Why not just say "Okay well, she's not our only candidate" or "Well everyone makes mistakes" or whatever?
The responses were overwhelmingly filled with anger and accusations that I was some kind of "secret agent liberal" (what? am I gonna come getcha???).

So other than some catchy bumper sticker slogans, it seems that 90% of the TP seems to know only a few things:

Obama sucks (I agree with this)
Obama is to blame for all problems in the universe (I obviously don't agree)
All Tea Party candidates are always right about everything

So the fact that only 10% actually seems able to address specific issues etc... makes it difficult to understand or appreciate the TP and their positions.

The question was not, however, whether gays should marry but whether the definition of marriage should be one man and one woman. Two separate things in my opinion. But few people are 100% anything so a couple of liberal views does not a modern American liberal make. We probably all have a couple of 'liberal' notions in our repertoire I think.

Nor was the question whether rape or incest was a justification for abortion but whether there should be any reason for abortion to be illegal. As that would include partial birth abortion of a full term healthy baby, for me that one was a no brainer. At the same time I would vigorously oppose outlawing all abortion for any reason.

My example of the Tea Party was not to exalt any particular figure or even the Tea Party itself, but rather was to illustrate how any movement that advances unalienable rights of the indiividual and self governance will be in the crosshairs for destruction among the hardline left. Of course there is nobody in the Tea Party that is going to bat 1000% on every single subject. But whether you embrace the overall Tea Party concept or scour it for flaws in order to diminish and/or destry it could easily define whether a person is a modern American conservative or liberal.

(P.S. The Tea Party DOES 'know' or more accurately promote only a few things: Smaller more efficient, effective government; restoration of constitutional integrity, and emphasis on indiividual liberties. It has little or no interest in any controversial social issues.)

 

[IndependntLogic]

I don't know if modern American liberalism is based on emotion as much as a world view of compassion or virtue coupled with a desire for central power to fix whatever needs fixing. In order to have that central power, the Founders' principles of unalienable rights and self governance have to be denigrated, discredited, and squelched.

That is why the Tea Party have been labeled wingnuts, idiots, uneducated, racist, and more recently the phrase to use in leftwing talking points seems to be 'terrorist'. The Tea Party wants to decentralize some of the Federal government and put the people back in charge of their own destinies. That is anathema to the modern liberal point of view.

That is an excellent questionnaire to identify ideology however. No leading questions at all and very straight forward and honest. The only one I had trouble with was on the foreign wars thing and would have preferred an either/or definition but otherwise no criicism of how the questions are phrased. They should be equally acceptable to those on the left and right.

My score was: You’re a conservative with perhaps a couple of liberal views.

Probably because I don't really give a rip if gays marry and I believe abortion is entirely appropriate in the case of rape or incest.

I think the Tea Party is misunderstood or labeled for reasons, other than those you suggest. I have posted a question here and on other boards about what your specific solutions etc... would be for our country's problems, what you want etc...
I also asked why so many people would absolutely refute things that are obvious to everyone else - like Michelle Bachmann lied quite a bit or was wrong about the whole FF's abolished slavery thing. Why not just say "Okay well, she's not our only candidate" or "Well everyone makes mistakes" or whatever?
The responses were overwhelmingly filled with anger and accusations that I was some kind of "secret agent liberal" (what? am I gonna come getcha???).

So other than some catchy bumper sticker slogans, it seems that 90% of the TP seems to know only a few things:

Obama sucks (I agree with this)
Obama is to blame for all problems in the universe (I obviously don't agree)
All Tea Party candidates are always right about everything

So the fact that only 10% actually seems able to address specific issues etc... makes it difficult to understand or appreciate the TP and their positions.

The question was not, however, whether gays should marry but whether the definition of marriage should be one man and one woman. Two separate things in my opinion. But few people are 100% anything so a couple of liberal views does not a modern American liberal make. We probably all have a couple of 'liberal' notions in our repertoire I think.

Nor was the question whether rape or incest was a justification for abortion but whether there should be any reason for abortion to be illegal. As that would include partial birth abortion of a full term healthy baby, for me that one was a no brainer. At the same time I would vigorously oppose outlawing all abortion for any reason.

My example of the Tea Party was not to exalt any particular figure or even the Tea Party itself, but rather was to illustrate how any movement that advances unalienable rights of the indiividual and self governance will be in the crosshairs for destruction among the hardline left. Of course there is nobody in the Tea Party that is going to bat 1000% on every single subject. But whether you embrace the overall Tea Party concept or scour it for flaws in order to diminish and/or destry it could easily define whether a person is a modern American conservative or liberal.

(P.S. The Tea Party DOES 'know' or more accurately promote only a few things: Smaller more efficient, effective government; restoration of constitutional integrity, and emphasis on indiividual liberties. It has little or no interest in any controversial social issues.)

Wow. Just wow. A reasonable and thoughtful answer sans insults or labels! I tend to be the same way - until someone fires the first salvo anyway.
Okay well it seems we probably agree on several things but although I am constantly butting heads with Libs on issues like union absue of power, entitlement abuses, gun ownership, that's it's not still all Bush's fault etc... I butt just a many heads with Conservs on other issues, one of which you named specifically.

Lately it seems there is a slogan-like mantra of returning to what the Constitution actually meant. Many even claim it needs to be taken literally and there is no need for interpretation - as long as everyone agrees with their interpretation.
I debated this with a few fellows who got quite acrimonious and then proved the USC didn't need to be interpreted by using the 2nd amendment as an example. They were all Libertarians / TP's / ConservaRepub. They all agreed on less gun laws, the right to bear arms etc..
So I asked why I should be able to you know, walk around downtown with an RPG or even own a nuke. Those are after all, arms.
All three of them gave me different reasons as to why owning guns, machine guns etc... was fine but owning this other stuff was not guaranteed in the Constitution.
So here was three guys who agreed with each other. And even then, they had radically different interpretations as to why the USC didn't need to be interpreted. Of course, after thier initial post and realizing they were unintentionally proving my point, they began to spin their post along the lines of "Oh, um AND what that other guy said!" but the cat was out of the bag. Not that ever of them would ever admit there might be any correct view but one that agreed with theirs.

So to me and a lot of non-TP / Libertarian ConservaRepubs, this talk of Returning to "Constitutional Integrity" translates to this: Going to the interpretation of the Consitution that we like best.

 

[Greenbeard]

No freaking way. JFK today would be a Conservative.

Given JFK's policy agenda (economic stimulus, including extension of unemployment benefits, increase in the minimum wage, and public works; huge investments in education, from infrastructure to student loans; numerous social programs, including school lunches, increases in Social Security benefits, expansions of AFDC eligibility, the original food stamp program, the unsuccessful Medicare bill; and new environmental laws, like the original Clean Air Act) that's a pretty bold statement. The rationale seems to be that his speeches were bold. Agreed, he gave great speeches.

 

[Foxfyre]

My score was: You’re a conservative with perhaps a couple of liberal views.

Probably because I don't really give a rip if gays marry and I believe abortion is entirely appropriate in the case of rape or incest.

I think the Tea Party is misunderstood or labeled for reasons, other than those you suggest. I have posted a question here and on other boards about what your specific solutions etc... would be for our country's problems, what you want etc...
I also asked why so many people would absolutely refute things that are obvious to everyone else - like Michelle Bachmann lied quite a bit or was wrong about the whole FF's abolished slavery thing. Why not just say "Okay well, she's not our only candidate" or "Well everyone makes mistakes" or whatever?
The responses were overwhelmingly filled with anger and accusations that I was some kind of "secret agent liberal" (what? am I gonna come getcha???).

So other than some catchy bumper sticker slogans, it seems that 90% of the TP seems to know only a few things:

Obama sucks (I agree with this)
Obama is to blame for all problems in the universe (I obviously don't agree)
All Tea Party candidates are always right about everything

So the fact that only 10% actually seems able to address specific issues etc... makes it difficult to understand or appreciate the TP and their positions.

The question was not, however, whether gays should marry but whether the definition of marriage should be one man and one woman. Two separate things in my opinion. But few people are 100% anything so a couple of liberal views does not a modern American liberal make. We probably all have a couple of 'liberal' notions in our repertoire I think.

Nor was the question whether rape or incest was a justification for abortion but whether there should be any reason for abortion to be illegal. As that would include partial birth abortion of a full term healthy baby, for me that one was a no brainer. At the same time I would vigorously oppose outlawing all abortion for any reason.

My example of the Tea Party was not to exalt any particular figure or even the Tea Party itself, but rather was to illustrate how any movement that advances unalienable rights of the indiividual and self governance will be in the crosshairs for destruction among the hardline left. Of course there is nobody in the Tea Party that is going to bat 1000% on every single subject. But whether you embrace the overall Tea Party concept or scour it for flaws in order to diminish and/or destry it could easily define whether a person is a modern American conservative or liberal.

(P.S. The Tea Party DOES 'know' or more accurately promote only a few things: Smaller more efficient, effective government; restoration of constitutional integrity, and emphasis on indiividual liberties. It has little or no interest in any controversial social issues.)

Wow. Just wow. A reasonable and thoughtful answer sans insults or labels! I tend to be the same way - until someone fires the first salvo anyway.
Okay well it seems we probably agree on several things but although I am constantly butting heads with Libs on issues like union absue of power, entitlement abuses, gun ownership, that's it's not still all Bush's fault etc... I butt just a many heads with Conservs on other issues, one of which you named specifically.

Lately it seems there is a slogan-like mantra of returning to what the Constitution actually meant. Many even claim it needs to be taken literally and there is no need for interpretation - as long as everyone agrees with their interpretation.
I debated this with a few fellows who got quite acrimonious and then proved the USC didn't need to be interpreted by using the 2nd amendment as an example. They were all Libertarians / TP's / ConservaRepub. They all agreed on less gun laws, the right to bear arms etc..
So I asked why I should be able to you know, walk around downtown with an RPG or even own a nuke. Those are after all, arms.
All three of them gave me different reasons as to why owning guns, machine guns etc... was fine but owning this other stuff was not guaranteed in the Constitution.
So here was three guys who agreed with each other. And even then, they had radically different interpretations as to why the USC didn't need to be interpreted. Of course, after thier initial post and realizing they were unintentionally proving my point, they began to spin their post along the lines of "Oh, um AND what that other guy said!" but the cat was out of the bag. Not that ever of them would ever admit there might be any correct view but one that agreed with theirs.

So to me and a lot of non-TP / Libertarian ConservaRepubs, this talk of Returning to "Constitutional Integrity" translates to this: Going to the interpretation of the Consitution that we like best.

But it isn't the specific issues that really defines conservative and liberal I think. Of course conservatives don't agree on everything and certainly can have vigorous debate and opposing views on solutions and even definitions.

For instance you say:

So to me and a lot of non-TP / Libertarian ConservaRepubs, this talk of Returning to "Constitutional Integrity" translates to this: Going to the interpretation of the Consitution that we like best.

And for me, a TP-er, Constitutional integrity is original intent as the Founders understood it and explained it. If the interpretation does not translate to a government that secures, defends, and protects our unalienable rights, liberties, and ability for self governance, then in my view the interpretation is wrong.

The most important component that really stands out for me in distinguishing between modern American conservatives and liberals, however, is that I think most conservatives can articulate and defend a concept without having to drag any person or group into that concept either to defend it or condemn it.

Liberals on message boards who can and will do that seem to be in really short supply.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Today's so called liberals do not believe in liberty at all.

They believe in "fairness" which has nothing to do with liberty.

 

[IndependntLogic]

The question was not, however, whether gays should marry but whether the definition of marriage should be one man and one woman. Two separate things in my opinion. But few people are 100% anything so a couple of liberal views does not a modern American liberal make. We probably all have a couple of 'liberal' notions in our repertoire I think.

Nor was the question whether rape or incest was a justification for abortion but whether there should be any reason for abortion to be illegal. As that would include partial birth abortion of a full term healthy baby, for me that one was a no brainer. At the same time I would vigorously oppose outlawing all abortion for any reason.

My example of the Tea Party was not to exalt any particular figure or even the Tea Party itself, but rather was to illustrate how any movement that advances unalienable rights of the indiividual and self governance will be in the crosshairs for destruction among the hardline left. Of course there is nobody in the Tea Party that is going to bat 1000% on every single subject. But whether you embrace the overall Tea Party concept or scour it for flaws in order to diminish and/or destry it could easily define whether a person is a modern American conservative or liberal.

(P.S. The Tea Party DOES 'know' or more accurately promote only a few things: Smaller more efficient, effective government; restoration of constitutional integrity, and emphasis on indiividual liberties. It has little or no interest in any controversial social issues.)

Wow. Just wow. A reasonable and thoughtful answer sans insults or labels! I tend to be the same way - until someone fires the first salvo anyway.
Okay well it seems we probably agree on several things but although I am constantly butting heads with Libs on issues like union absue of power, entitlement abuses, gun ownership, that's it's not still all Bush's fault etc... I butt just a many heads with Conservs on other issues, one of which you named specifically.

Lately it seems there is a slogan-like mantra of returning to what the Constitution actually meant. Many even claim it needs to be taken literally and there is no need for interpretation - as long as everyone agrees with their interpretation.
I debated this with a few fellows who got quite acrimonious and then proved the USC didn't need to be interpreted by using the 2nd amendment as an example. They were all Libertarians / TP's / ConservaRepub. They all agreed on less gun laws, the right to bear arms etc..
So I asked why I should be able to you know, walk around downtown with an RPG or even own a nuke. Those are after all, arms.
All three of them gave me different reasons as to why owning guns, machine guns etc... was fine but owning this other stuff was not guaranteed in the Constitution.
So here was three guys who agreed with each other. And even then, they had radically different interpretations as to why the USC didn't need to be interpreted. Of course, after thier initial post and realizing they were unintentionally proving my point, they began to spin their post along the lines of "Oh, um AND what that other guy said!" but the cat was out of the bag. Not that ever of them would ever admit there might be any correct view but one that agreed with theirs.

So to me and a lot of non-TP / Libertarian ConservaRepubs, this talk of Returning to "Constitutional Integrity" translates to this: Going to the interpretation of the Consitution that we like best.

But it isn't the specific issues that really defines conservative and liberal I think. Of course conservatives don't agree on everything and certainly can have vigorous debate and opposing views on solutions and even definitions.

For instance you say:

So to me and a lot of non-TP / Libertarian ConservaRepubs, this talk of Returning to "Constitutional Integrity" translates to this: Going to the interpretation of the Consitution that we like best.

And for me, a TP-er, Constitutional integrity is original intent as the Founders understood it and explained it. If the interpretation does not translate to a government that secures, defends, and protects our unalienable rights, liberties, and ability for self governance, then in my view the interpretation is wrong.

The most important component that really stands out for me in distinguishing between modern American conservatives and liberals, however, is that I think most conservatives can articulate and defend a concept without having to drag any person or group into that concept either to defend it or condemn it.

Liberals on message boards who can and will do that seem to be in really short supply.

Okay I can understand and appreciate that view but even then, it seems that most TPers want a "a government that secures, defends, and protects our unalienable rights, liberties, and ability for self governance" as they define them.

For example: I would consider safe air and water an inalienable right. So I consider it wrong for a corporation like Ford to pollute the River Rouge and Lake Erie (I'm from Detroit) to the point that the FEDERAL government had to step in (local MI government were in the pockets of the Big 3 and so did nothing) and declare national disasters. So yes, I would leave the EPA federal.

So I don't see taking away all powers not specifically defined by the USC, as the panacea that Libertarians and TP's do.

Another example would be the NRC. I'm all for nuke power (which pisses off many of my LibDem friends) but would I leave the regulation of a power plant to a grand total of two senators and a few congressmen - or a state legislature that has been bought and paid for by the biggest employer in the state? Hell no. That's just stupid to me.

Yes I would get rid of DHS, REB and a host of other wasteful agencies but I am nowhere near sharing the interpretation that many members of these groups do.

I think a lot of this comes from having lived in countries with very little government - centralized or otherwise. There's a reason I've always come home to the good ol' US of A!

 

[IndependntLogic]

Modern American Liberalism (i.e. the Pelosi/Reid's) are NOT JFK Liberalism.

The whole concept of Liberalism has evolved dramatically since the early 60s - it's something completely different today.

No freaking way. JFK today would be a Conservative.

Can you imagine a war hero/"guy with balls" like JFK being proud to be on the same playing field with nut-less Harry Reid? How about Waxman, Kucinich, or some of these other modern-day Liberals.

One would have to be completely insane to imagine JFK taking these assholes seriously.

Imagine these words of a 1960s-era Liberal, coming out of Obama's (today's Liberal) mouth -

A young man who does not have what it takes to perform military service is not likely to have what it takes to make a living. Today's military rejects include tomorrow's hard-core unemployed.

And so, my fellow Americans, ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country.

Communism has never come to power in a country that was not disrupted by war or corruption, or both. (this should scorch a few Liberal asses here)

Do not pray for easy lives. Pray to be stronger men.

I am not the Catholic candidate for President. I am the Democratic Party's candidate for President, who happens also to be a Catholic.

I look forward to a great future for America - a future in which our country will match its military strength with our moral restraint, its wealth with our wisdom, its power with our purpose.

Israel was not created in order to disappear - Israel will endure and flourish. It is the child of hope and the home of the brave. It can neither be broken by adversity nor demoralized by success. It carries the shield of democracy and it honors the sword of freedom.

Mothers all want their sons to grow up to be president, but they don't want them to become politicians in the process.

The ignorance of one voter in a democracy impairs the security of all. (How many of you asswipes voted for Obama?)

JFK - OUTSTANDING 2010s-era Conservative.

I am sure this will en-flame the usual douchebags.

I think the Libs would love him and the Conservs would hate him with a passion.

 

[Foxfyre]

Wow. Just wow. A reasonable and thoughtful answer sans insults or labels! I tend to be the same way - until someone fires the first salvo anyway.
Okay well it seems we probably agree on several things but although I am constantly butting heads with Libs on issues like union absue of power, entitlement abuses, gun ownership, that's it's not still all Bush's fault etc... I butt just a many heads with Conservs on other issues, one of which you named specifically.

Lately it seems there is a slogan-like mantra of returning to what the Constitution actually meant. Many even claim it needs to be taken literally and there is no need for interpretation - as long as everyone agrees with their interpretation.
I debated this with a few fellows who got quite acrimonious and then proved the USC didn't need to be interpreted by using the 2nd amendment as an example. They were all Libertarians / TP's / ConservaRepub. They all agreed on less gun laws, the right to bear arms etc..
So I asked why I should be able to you know, walk around downtown with an RPG or even own a nuke. Those are after all, arms.
All three of them gave me different reasons as to why owning guns, machine guns etc... was fine but owning this other stuff was not guaranteed in the Constitution.
So here was three guys who agreed with each other. And even then, they had radically different interpretations as to why the USC didn't need to be interpreted. Of course, after thier initial post and realizing they were unintentionally proving my point, they began to spin their post along the lines of "Oh, um AND what that other guy said!" but the cat was out of the bag. Not that ever of them would ever admit there might be any correct view but one that agreed with theirs.

So to me and a lot of non-TP / Libertarian ConservaRepubs, this talk of Returning to "Constitutional Integrity" translates to this: Going to the interpretation of the Consitution that we like best.

But it isn't the specific issues that really defines conservative and liberal I think. Of course conservatives don't agree on everything and certainly can have vigorous debate and opposing views on solutions and even definitions.

For instance you say:

So to me and a lot of non-TP / Libertarian ConservaRepubs, this talk of Returning to "Constitutional Integrity" translates to this: Going to the interpretation of the Consitution that we like best.

And for me, a TP-er, Constitutional integrity is original intent as the Founders understood it and explained it. If the interpretation does not translate to a government that secures, defends, and protects our unalienable rights, liberties, and ability for self governance, then in my view the interpretation is wrong.

The most important component that really stands out for me in distinguishing between modern American conservatives and liberals, however, is that I think most conservatives can articulate and defend a concept without having to drag any person or group into that concept either to defend it or condemn it.

Liberals on message boards who can and will do that seem to be in really short supply.

Okay I can understand and appreciate that view but even then, it seems that most TPers want a "a government that secures, defends, and protects our unalienable rights, liberties, and ability for self governance" as they define them.

For example: I would consider safe air and water an inalienable right. So I consider it wrong for a corporation like Ford to pollute the River Rouge and Lake Erie (I'm from Detroit) to the point that the FEDERAL government had to step in (local MI government were in the pockets of the Big 3 and so did nothing) and declare national disasters. So yes, I would leave the EPA federal.

So I don't see taking away all powers not specifically defined by the USC, as the panacea that Libertarians and TP's do.

Another example would be the NRC. I'm all for nuke power (which pisses off many of my LibDem friends) but would I leave the regulation of a power plant to a grand total of two senators and a few congressmen - or a state legislature that has been bought and paid for by the biggest employer in the state? Hell no. That's just stupid to me.

Yes I would get rid of DHS, REB and a host of other wasteful agencies but I am nowhere near sharing the interpretation that many members of these groups do.

I think a lot of this comes from having lived in countries with very little government - centralized or otherwise. There's a reason I've always come home to the good ol' US of A!

There is no unalienable right to pollute the air that another must breathe. I think you would be hard put to find a TPer who would think that there is. There is no unalienable right to contaminate somebody else's space with radiation or to put another at unreasonable risk for contamination with radiation. So yes, there is room for federal regulatory standards for air and water the states must share.

Do you honestly believe that somebody elected to high office is somehow more noble, honest, less able to be bought, and more immune to his own self interests? I would rather keep my friends close and enemies closer. The local guys may be scoundrels but they can do far less damage than can somebody using the full force and effect of the federal government to do their schemes.

However, because a nuclear accident can have serious consequences for people outside any given state as well as in it, I can see reasonable federal regulatory standards as a valid function of the federal government.

Smaller, more efficient, more effective government does not translate into shutting everything down or assigning nothing to the federal government. It translates into the federal government doing what the Constitution mandates it to do, to do what states cannot do to promote life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and leaving to the states and local communities to govern themselves in everything else. When we had that system, the USA was the most prosperous, innovative, productive, and free nation on Earth. If we don't pay attention to that concept, we will lose it.

 

[IndependntLogic]

But it isn't the specific issues that really defines conservative and liberal I think. Of course conservatives don't agree on everything and certainly can have vigorous debate and opposing views on solutions and even definitions.

For instance you say:


And for me, a TP-er, Constitutional integrity is original intent as the Founders understood it and explained it. If the interpretation does not translate to a government that secures, defends, and protects our unalienable rights, liberties, and ability for self governance, then in my view the interpretation is wrong.

The most important component that really stands out for me in distinguishing between modern American conservatives and liberals, however, is that I think most conservatives can articulate and defend a concept without having to drag any person or group into that concept either to defend it or condemn it.

Liberals on message boards who can and will do that seem to be in really short supply.

Okay I can understand and appreciate that view but even then, it seems that most TPers want a "a government that secures, defends, and protects our unalienable rights, liberties, and ability for self governance" as they define them.

For example: I would consider safe air and water an inalienable right. So I consider it wrong for a corporation like Ford to pollute the River Rouge and Lake Erie (I'm from Detroit) to the point that the FEDERAL government had to step in (local MI government were in the pockets of the Big 3 and so did nothing) and declare national disasters. So yes, I would leave the EPA federal.

So I don't see taking away all powers not specifically defined by the USC, as the panacea that Libertarians and TP's do.

Another example would be the NRC. I'm all for nuke power (which pisses off many of my LibDem friends) but would I leave the regulation of a power plant to a grand total of two senators and a few congressmen - or a state legislature that has been bought and paid for by the biggest employer in the state? Hell no. That's just stupid to me.

Yes I would get rid of DHS, REB and a host of other wasteful agencies but I am nowhere near sharing the interpretation that many members of these groups do.

I think a lot of this comes from having lived in countries with very little government - centralized or otherwise. There's a reason I've always come home to the good ol' US of A!

There is no unalienable right to pollute the air that another must breathe. I think you would be hard put to find a TPer who would think that there is. There is no unalienable right to contaminate somebody else's space with radiation or to put another at unreasonable risk for contamination with radiation. So yes, there is room for federal regulatory standards for air and water the states must share.

Do you honestly believe that somebody elected to high office is somehow more noble, honest, less able to be bought, and more immune to his own self interests? I would rather keep my friends close and enemies closer. The local guys may be scoundrels but they can do far less damage than can somebody using the full force and effect of the federal government to do their schemes.

However, because a nuclear accident can have serious consequences for people outside any given state as well as in it, I can see reasonable federal regulatory standards as a valid function of the federal government.

Smaller, more efficient, more effective government does not translate into shutting everything down or assigning nothing to the federal government. It translates into the federal government doing what the Constitution mandates it to do, to do what states cannot do to promote life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and leaving to the states and local communities to govern themselves in everything else. When we had that system, the USA was the most prosperous, innovative, productive, and free nation on Earth. If we don't pay attention to that concept, we will lose it.

Well, if more Libertarians and TPers thought like you, I think they would have a lot more credibility with Independents (but probably still not Liberals).
The thing that frustrates me with Libs and even more so with Conservs, is the dichotomous "either / or" thinking.
I'll give you an example. I own a business and we're doing well. We're hiring in Vegas - hwere no one is. So some Right Wing Whackjob makes this post that EVERY person in this country who wants a job could have one tomorrow.
While I agree that there are certainly a lot of people who are abusing this NINETY NINE weeks thing (unreal!), I told him about a guy who applied with us. No degree. Former casino chip-counter (whatever the hell that is). Fifty years old. No computer skills. No other experience. Okay, there's the exception to the rule, say I.
Mr. Whackjob? Nah. If it doesn't fit neatly into the Conservative Propaganda, it doesn't exist.

I see that on both sides but definitely more with the Conservs. I've been called a Conserv and even a NeoCon all of a few times by the Libs. But disagree with Conservs on one single point - or even agree with thm but dare to say there might be exceptions to the rule? The Whackjob Wagon gets rolling and they instantly label you a "Lefty" or just plain insult you. All discussion and debate is over. You are now officially "one of them!". That kind of whackjobbery makes it tough to appreciate anyone's positions.

 

[Moonglow]

i think most liberals see their ideology as one based on emotion...things like kindness, and tolerant, and open minded...while they see conservatives as the opposite. They don't care much for economics or logical discussion because they are ALWAYS defeated in debate. No one can trump the likes of hazlitt or sowell when it comes to economic understanding.

So, libs...do you really think this?
Let's see: http://www.prageru.com/test

I am so liberal I let my wife date other men.