Conservative versus Liberal

[midcan5]

The more I read through that list the more the empty assumptions grew. Conservatives should speak for themselves rather than constantly have to tell another what they think and how they should think. A liberal speaks below.

'What it means to be a liberal'

"For most of the past four decades, liberals have been in retreat. Since the election of Richard Nixon in 1968, Republicans have controlled the White House 70 percent of the time and Republican presidents have made 86 percent of the U.S. Supreme Court appointments. In many quarters, the word "liberal" has become a pejorative. Part of the problem is that liberals have failed to define themselves and to state clearly what they believe. As a liberal, I find that appalling.

In that light, I thought it might be interesting to try to articulate 10 propositions that seem to me to define "liberal" today. Undoubtedly, not all liberals embrace all of these propositions, and many conservatives embrace at least some of them.

Moreover, because 10 is a small number, the list is not exhaustive. And because these propositions will in some instances conflict, the "liberal" position on a specific issue may not always be predictable. My goal, however, is not to end discussion, but to invite debate.

1. Liberals believe individuals should doubt their own truths and consider fairly and open-mindedly the truths of others. This is at the very heart of liberalism. Liberals understand, as Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes once observed, that "time has upset many fighting faiths." Liberals are skeptical of censorship and celebrate free and open debate....

Geoffrey R. Stone, a law professor at the University of Chicago, is the author of "Perilous Times: Free Speech in Wartime."
What it means to be a liberal - Chicago Tribune

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Conservatism is what made this country great while liberalism is destroying it. The down trodden and takers should not be deciding what our future should be.

This country was founded by Liberals and every major initiative was progressed by the Liberals of the day. Without Liberals, Abolition, Worker Rights, Womens Rights, Civil Rights, Environmental Protections and Gay Rights would still be opposed by Conservatives

Liberalism is dead. That word stems from liberty adn your illk could giove a fuck abotu individual liberty. You're a hive mind drone.

 

[emilynghiem]

Conservative vs. Liberal Beliefs | Student News Daily

That is a pretty fair representation of the liberal and conservative viewpoints on many important issues without being too burdened with strawmen.

.

actually, yes.. .and no...

on the abortion issue... we want roe v wade to be enforced. nothing more, nothing less. that is not limitless abortion for limitless time... late term is only appropriate and only occurs in extraordinary circumstances.

The real issue in Roe v Wade was there was no protection or consideration of "due process" for the woman who could have mitigating circumstances, which could not be determined without violating her privacy. The problem was criminalizing the woman, and in general penalizing or holding women more responsible than men who also caused the situation.

If you took abortion out of the criminal realm of murder, and instead addressed:
the abuses CAUSING rape, relationship abuse, incest and abortion issues
as "health and safety" violations, where the "abuse" is policed as the common factor
in all such cases, then at least you could police the men equally as the women
However it is clear such a preventative level is so private and personal, it is out of state jurisdiction
(except where abuses have already crossed the line into criminal offenses or threats to public safety, where it does become
a state matter, and this level of violation DOES need to be consistently policed as well)

But it is on the PREVENTATIVE level it would have to be addressed so as not to unfairly target the women only.

So preventing rape, relationship abuse (especially BEFORE it becomes abuse of sex), etc. is the common factor to be addressed to prevent unwanted sex, unwanted pregnancy, unwanted children, unwanted abortion.

These issues clearly need to be addressed OUTSIDE of govt, intead of waiting for
it to become a public health cost or abortion issue and then screaming for govt
either to intervene or not to intervene.

If states did implement a "health and safety code" for issues of abortion or drug legalization where addiction is a health violation instead of criminalizing an internal problem,
I believe that would have to be optional, where people by district or community could choose to "opt in" and write their own ordinances they agree to live by, so they don't impose a burden on others for problems caused by their choices or standards of behavior.

I believe this could be done successfully, where problems are addressed locally and voluntarily, in order to KEEP THESE OUT OF GOVT and KEEP GOVT OUT of these problems!

 

[occupied]

Yeah, sure. When the foolish citizens want free this and that and we can't afford it, we should give it to them anyway. Lest they revolt! it's the reason why our founders knew that govt. had to be extremely limited. Or this would be the consequence. We're already living under totalitarian rule. As it was put by John Locke:

"Whenever the legislators endeavour to take away and destroy the property of the peopl, or to reduce them to slavery under arbitrary power, they put themselves into a state of war with the people, who are thereupon absolved from any further obedience, adn are left to the common refuge which God hath provided for all men against force and violence."


Numb skull.

In the absence is widespread prosperity you either have to feed the hungry, lock them up or kill them in wars or in the streets. Guess I know what your solution to poverty is. Conservatives seem to love income inequality and will not do a damned thing to mitigate it so that only leaves the option of using force to keep the rabble in line.

in the absence of what? Tyranny? Jeebus.

The reality is there is no solution to income inequality. No matter how much you steal to provide, you only create a larger amount of needy. The war on poverty should prove that and remove any doubt. it's a failure. the best thing to do is allow a free market to reign where anyone can participate on the fruits of their labor free from coercion. That's as good as it gets. You can't mitigate income inequality. Never will be able to mitigate it and the idea that anyone can is proposterous.

A massive wealth gap is another story. That gap we have is the result of government intervention and favoritism. Not capitalism or any other organic human social construct. Only the artificial means of central planner "do-gooders" that fuck shit up and blame it on others.

You have an awful lot of certain statements there that do not bear out when you look at other "socialist"counties but one thing that has been true since the beginning of time, allowing too many poor people to exist in your country will be the end of it. You can blame it all on whatever you like but dealing with the poor has only ever had two solutions, kill them or feed them or they will bring your kingdom down. There are also long term solutions to the problem but that to involves central planning and spending money on "moochers", leaving it to the free market is like leaving it to God to work out.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Leftism in a nutshell.

Three men are lost in the woods and it starts snowing, off in the distance they see three cabins. Slowly each makes his way to a different cabin.

Conservatism.

The first man finds a locked gate, he rings the bell and a voice asks what he wants. He tells the voice his plight and promises that if the man inside helps him, he will pay him back with interest once the snow clears and he can contact civilization. He is let inside, and the next day makes good on his word.

Libertarianism in a Nutshell

The next man makes his way toward the next cabin, but stops and shoots two rabbits. He continues to the next house, rings the bell and tells the man that he will trade a rabbit for shelter and the use of a stove to cook his own rabbit. Both agree and benefit from the trade.

Leftism in a Nutshell

The third man goes to the final cabin and plops in the snow. A woman comes out to see what the issue is. The man declares that he is a victim of the snow and the woman carries him on her back into the cabin. She then travels to the first cabin and robs both the cabin owner and the first man at gun point, taking the loot back to give to third man. She writes to the local newspaper which runs a series of stories on how brave and noble she is, and how heartless the first two cabins are. The snow breaks the next day, but the man refuses to leave, and instead sues the woman for permanent residence and a daily stipend, to be funded by robbing the man in the second cabin. George Clooney makes a movie about how brave the third man is.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

In the absence is widespread prosperity you either have to feed the hungry, lock them up or kill them in wars or in the streets. Guess I know what your solution to poverty is. Conservatives seem to love income inequality and will not do a damned thing to mitigate it so that only leaves the option of using force to keep the rabble in line.

in the absence of what? Tyranny? Jeebus.

The reality is there is no solution to income inequality. No matter how much you steal to provide, you only create a larger amount of needy. The war on poverty should prove that and remove any doubt. it's a failure. the best thing to do is allow a free market to reign where anyone can participate on the fruits of their labor free from coercion. That's as good as it gets. You can't mitigate income inequality. Never will be able to mitigate it and the idea that anyone can is proposterous.

A massive wealth gap is another story. That gap we have is the result of government intervention and favoritism. Not capitalism or any other organic human social construct. Only the artificial means of central planner "do-gooders" that fuck shit up and blame it on others.

You have an awful lot of certain statements there that do not bear out when you look at other "socialist"counties but one thing that has been true since the beginning of time, allowing too many poor people to exist in your country will be the end of it. You can blame it all on whatever you like but dealing with the poor has only ever had two solutions, kill them or feed them or they will bring your kingdom down. There are also long term solutions to the problem but that to involves central planning and spending money on "moochers", leaving it to the free market is like leaving it to God to work out.

You obviously don't know a fucking thing about history. Name one empire, one country, one fuedal domain that fell due to the poor. Name one kingdom. There is no one smart enough to centrally plan the lives of everyone else. that includes theft by force and wealth redistribution. it ALWAYS ends badly. But LOLberals hate humans. They think we're all stupid and need to have other LOLberals tell us what is best and how to live our lives. LOLberals are fucking retards.

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear Midcan:
1. RE: A vote for Romney/Ryan is a vote against the fundamental idea of America, the right of the individual to lead their life privately without the government interfering.

How do federal mandates requiring people to buy insurance or else be fined and penalized
demonstrate freedom of choice to fund or provide health care in alternative natural ways?
How is this NOT govt interference (mixed with corporate insurance interests).

2. As for your parables below,
You forgot to mention that the Liberals will expect "someone else" to foot the bill for the
accommodation and meal. The Conservatives will complain this is being billed to them as punishment for earning more. And the Greens would argue if you set up sustainable housing and gardens, you wouldn't have this problem would you?

Conservatism in a Nutshell

A man is lost in the woods and it starts snowing, off in the distance he sees a cabin. Slowly he makes his way only to find a locked gate, he rings the bell and a voice asks what he wants. He tells the voice his plight and is told by the voice that there is a church down the road and that they will pray for him.

Libertarianism in a Nutshell

The snow continues and growing more tired and cold, the man sees another cabin, struggling he barely makes it, he knocks and finally opens the door to warm himself. There is a full kettle of hot soup, he helps himself. Soon out of a back room comes a man, he scolds the man and tells him to leave as this is private property. The man stumbles out the door.

Liberalism in a Nutshell

Nearly exhausted the man sees a third cabin. Slowly he makes his way, opens the door and warms himself. There is soup in a kettle and he helps himself. From a back room a woman enters, she sits down next to him and they talk. He sleeps the night on the floor and the next morning goes on his way.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/50872-use-this-handy-parable-to-understand-politics.html
http://www.usmessageboard.com/writing/50779-end-of-democracy.html
http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/88682-a-conservative-wakes-up.html
http://www.usmessageboard.com/the-f...-be-a-liberal-if-post1936599.html#post1936599


"Liberals demand that the social order should in principle be capable of explaining itself at the tribunal of each person's understanding." Jeremy Waldron

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Libertarians aren't watermelons. See Van Jones for that. He's a LOLberal though.

 

[occupied]

in the absence of what? Tyranny? Jeebus.

The reality is there is no solution to income inequality. No matter how much you steal to provide, you only create a larger amount of needy. The war on poverty should prove that and remove any doubt. it's a failure. the best thing to do is allow a free market to reign where anyone can participate on the fruits of their labor free from coercion. That's as good as it gets. You can't mitigate income inequality. Never will be able to mitigate it and the idea that anyone can is proposterous.

A massive wealth gap is another story. That gap we have is the result of government intervention and favoritism. Not capitalism or any other organic human social construct. Only the artificial means of central planner "do-gooders" that fuck shit up and blame it on others.

You have an awful lot of certain statements there that do not bear out when you look at other "socialist"counties but one thing that has been true since the beginning of time, allowing too many poor people to exist in your country will be the end of it. You can blame it all on whatever you like but dealing with the poor has only ever had two solutions, kill them or feed them or they will bring your kingdom down. There are also long term solutions to the problem but that to involves central planning and spending money on "moochers", leaving it to the free market is like leaving it to God to work out.

You obviously don't know a fucking thing about history. Name one empire, one country, one fuedal domain that fell due to the poor. Name one kingdom. There is no one smart enough to centrally plan the lives of everyone else. that includes theft by force and wealth redistribution. it ALWAYS ends badly. But LOLberals hate humans. They think we're all stupid and need to have other LOLberals tell us what is best and how to live our lives. LOLberals are fucking retards.

The french Monarchy is the most famous example, but history is filled with populist uprisings where greedy unresponsive governments have been toppled, we are seeing it around the middle east where the obscenely rich dictators have let their subjects languish in poverty and tyranny for too long. But they earned that vast wealth and the people are just way out of line from your perspective.

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear Midcan: As a progressive liberal Democrat myself, I agree with the principles you put forth, about defending free thought and free choice, and questioning and checking the given institutions and established policies. However, the reforms needed must take place within the given institutions, with respect to, and with agreement with others if we are going to live up to the standard of equal inclusion of diverse views, including opposing views.

Working diplomatically with people, especially of opposing views, requires acknowledging the good points where we agree, and not just dismantling or rejecting the whole. Especially, if we are going to ask others to question and rethink, we should be EQUALLY open to question and rethink our positions as well! And that is where the current liberal politics has gone too far, as to go to the very extremes that were originally being questioned.

I believe the best approach is to take the best points and solutions from ALL the various angles, and applying these where they are most effective. I believe that fulfills the purpose of being liberal minded, to be open to all ideas and input, while not threatening the views of any person or party, but equally acknowledging and accommodating them all as valuable in serving a good purpose.

The more I read through that list the more the empty assumptions grew. Conservatives should speak for themselves rather than constantly have to tell another what they think and how they should think. A liberal speaks below.

'What it means to be a liberal'

"For most of the past four decades, liberals have been in retreat. Since the election of Richard Nixon in 1968, Republicans have controlled the White House 70 percent of the time and Republican presidents have made 86 percent of the U.S. Supreme Court appointments. In many quarters, the word "liberal" has become a pejorative. Part of the problem is that liberals have failed to define themselves and to state clearly what they believe. As a liberal, I find that appalling.

In that light, I thought it might be interesting to try to articulate 10 propositions that seem to me to define "liberal" today. Undoubtedly, not all liberals embrace all of these propositions, and many conservatives embrace at least some of them.

Moreover, because 10 is a small number, the list is not exhaustive. And because these propositions will in some instances conflict, the "liberal" position on a specific issue may not always be predictable. My goal, however, is not to end discussion, but to invite debate.

1. Liberals believe individuals should doubt their own truths and consider fairly and open-mindedly the truths of others. This is at the very heart of liberalism. Liberals understand, as Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes once observed, that "time has upset many fighting faiths." Liberals are skeptical of censorship and celebrate free and open debate....

Geoffrey R. Stone, a law professor at the University of Chicago, is the author of "Perilous Times: Free Speech in Wartime."
What it means to be a liberal - Chicago Tribune

 

[TakeAStepBack]

There is a giant difference between uprisings, which throughout history and even in your example, cross income barriers. It was not the poor that caused that. And you said it yourself, I'm glad I didn't have to. In every instance of an uprising, it is against an authoritarian government that is squashing teh people, not just the poor, not just the middle. All the people.

And it has been that way since day one. The government is the one that needs to be checked, or they will favorite a few and themselves adn leave everyone else to rot under mandatory arbitrary legislation. Like we see here. It's the govt., the same one that created the war on poverty, that is fuckign this country up. Not the rich.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

You bleeding heart LOLberals need to start using logic and skip the emotional "poor" arguments. Learn soem history and economics and start seeing it properly. Jeebus.

it's like arguing with a little girl over tea time with you turds.

 

[regent]

Believe it or not political scientists, historians, and other social scientists have attempted to give definitions to the terms liberal and conservative, and even a number of small booklets on political ideologies have been published with these definitions. It seems posters, however, would rather create their own definitions, and throw in some opinions and do a little name-calling in the process. These boards, at times, do not lend themselves to any enlightenment.

 

[occupied]

There is a giant difference between uprisings, which throughout history and even in your example, cross income barriers. It was not the poor that caused that. And you said it yourself, I'm glad I didn't have to. In every instance of an uprising, it is against an authoritarian government that is squashing teh people, not just the poor, not just the middle. All the people.

And it has been that way since day one. The government is the one that needs to be checked, or they will favorite a few and themselves adn leave everyone else to rot under mandatory arbitrary legislation. Like we see here. It's the govt., the same one that created the war on poverty, that is fuckign this country up. Not the rich.

As I said earlier, there are only two ways to stay in power with large numbers of poor people in your country, feed them or kill them but the second choice does not last forever. authoritarianism is the end result of any prolonged concentration of wealth and there is apparently no free market way to reverse it. Not only are they averse to giving up wealth but they actively fight to keep their continuing share of the wealth, even if the 1% have 90% of the wealth they still want that remaining 10% and will have it unless something like a popular government stands in the way.

 

[OKTexas]

Conservatism is what made this country great while liberalism is destroying it. The down trodden and takers should not be deciding what our future should be.

This country was founded by Liberals and every major initiative was progressed by the Liberals of the day. Without Liberals, Abolition, Worker Rights, Womens Rights, Civil Rights, Environmental Protections and Gay Rights would still be opposed by Conservatives

Thanks for the laugh, you really are clueless.

 

[occupied]

Conservatism is what made this country great while liberalism is destroying it. The down trodden and takers should not be deciding what our future should be.

This country was founded by Liberals and every major initiative was progressed by the Liberals of the day. Without Liberals, Abolition, Worker Rights, Womens Rights, Civil Rights, Environmental Protections and Gay Rights would still be opposed by Conservatives

Thanks for the laugh, you really are clueless.

The person you find so humorous is correct. All of those were/are progressive causes and were opposed by conservatives of either party, for much of our history the progressive-conservative dichotomy was not so clearly divided by party.

 

[g5000]

It has been part of the camouflage of leftist movements in this country, helped by the muddleheadedness of many who really believe in liberty, that "liberal" has come to mean the advocacy of almost every kind of government control. I am still puzzled why those in the United States who truly believe in liberty should not only have allowed the left to appropriate this almost indispensable term but should even have assisted by beginning to use it themselves as a term of opprobrium.

This seems to be particularly regrettable because of the consequent tendency of many true liberals to describe themselves as conservatives.

It is true, of course, that in the struggle against the believers in the all-powerful state the true liberal must sometimes make common cause with the conservative, and in some circumstances, as in contemporary Britain, he has hardly any other way of actively working for his ideals.

But true liberalism is still distinct from conservatism, and there is danger in the two being confused.

Conservatism, though a necessary element in any stable society, is not a social program; in its paternalistic, nationalistic, and power-adoring tendencies it is often closer to socialism than true liberalism; and with its traditionalistic, anti-intellectual, and often mystical propensities it will never, except in short periods of disillusionment, appeal to the young and all those others who believe that some changes are desirable if this world is to become a better place.

A conservative movement, by its very nature, is bound to be a defender of established privilege and to lean on the power of government for the protection of privilege. The essence of the liberal position, however, is the denial of all privilege, if privilege is understood in its proper and original meaning of the state granting and protecting rights to some which are not available on equal terms to others.

Friedrich von Hayek, from his 1956 preface to his book Road to Serfdom, addressing his readers in America.

I'd say he totally nailed the kind of self-proclaimed conservatives we see on the American political landscape today. Power-adoring protectors of privilege. Thus Homeland Security, the PATRIOT Act, DOMA, anti-Muslim and anti-gay protectionist rhetoric, and a myriad of other such reactionary behaviors.

.

 

[uscitizen]

Conservative versus Liberal

Sigh, absolutist "thinking" process is so limiting.

 

[regent]

Conservatism is what made this country great while liberalism is destroying it. The down trodden and takers should not be deciding what our future should be.

This country was founded by Liberals and every major initiative was progressed by the Liberals of the day. Without Liberals, Abolition, Worker Rights, Womens Rights, Civil Rights, Environmental Protections and Gay Rights would still be opposed by Conservatives

Thanks for the laugh, you really are clueless.

"For the framers of the Constitution were the most liberal thinkers of all the ages and the charter they produced out of their liberal revolution has never been and is not now surpassed in liberal thought."
General Douglas MacArthur
Even old Doug knew whence the Constitution came from. The Constitution came from the Age of Reason and enlightenment.

 

[Uncensored2008]

"For the framers of the Constitution were the most liberal thinkers of all the ages and the charter they produced out of their liberal revolution has never been and is not now surpassed in liberal thought."
General Douglas MacArthur
Even old Doug knew whence the Constitution came from. The Constitution came from the Age of Reason and enlightenment.

I doubt there is a single liberal in the democratic party. It's long since been completely subverted by leftists.

Leftists are not liberals.

I am a liberal - you are a leftist. I draw from Jefferson, you draw from Rousseau. I seek liberty for the individual, you seek authority for the state.