Defining conservative vs liberal in america today

[DiamondDave]

Our society will always have some population in need of permanent support, foxfyre. Not just children (who age out), but mentally ill people, the developmentally disabled, infirm elderly, etc.

How do you feel it is best to address their needs?

Wards of the state... and generally wards of the state are also not voters (mentally ill persons, children, prisoners, etc)

 

[DiamondDave]

Our society will always have some population in need of permanent support, foxfyre. Not just children (who age out), but mentally ill people, the developmentally disabled, infirm elderly, etc.

How do you feel it is best to address their needs?

Liberals want to find ways for them to become productive members of society. At the very least, help them to live their lives with integrity and dignity.

Conservatives say, "Let the fuckers starve".

Handouts make someone productive???

Ehhh.. wrong answer

 

[DiamondDave]

Are you aiming to be the lowest common denominator?

You strike me as a smart guy, rdean. I just think you can do better.

That is a big strike.. a major whiff... you may be the only one that is struck with the thought that rdean is a smart guy

 

[California Girl]

Our society will always have some population in need of permanent support, foxfyre. Not just children (who age out), but mentally ill people, the developmentally disabled, infirm elderly, etc.

How do you feel it is best to address their needs?

We will always have those who, for one reason or another, cannot help themselves. Those people should be helped by the rest of us. Personally, I think the best way is at a local or state level. The federal government should be responsible only for ensuring that the laws exist to protect those people but the solutions have got to be local. Local people know best how to spend local money.

 

[Modbert]

but please, can we keep the trollisms and food fights to a mininum? We don't have to agree with each other's point of view, but we don't have to denigrate each other in order to say that.

Wait, you want to keep the trolling to a minimum in a troll thread where you smear Liberals.

I think my irony meter just exploded again.

 

[Modbert]

And this is different than opposing making things such as murder or incestuous marriage legal, how?

So if you as a liberal are against making incestuous marriage or murder legal, does that make you an 'intermeddler'?

Comparing Gay Marriage to Incestuous marriage, awesome dishonesty. More trolling from the right in what is clearly a troll thread.

 

[Modbert]

And then there is Maddie's comment re how much of their massive wealth does a Bill Gates or a Warren Buffett or a George Soros et al actually earn?

Bill Gates and Warren Buffet have demanded that they pay more in taxes. Buffett is also giving away 99% of his wealth when he dies.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QLD0p1QpcI8]YouTube - TAXES: Warren Buffett - Rich Taxed Too Little, Poor Too Much[/ame]

 

[Foxfyre]

Our society will always have some population in need of permanent support, foxfyre. Not just children (who age out), but mentally ill people, the developmentally disabled, infirm elderly, etc.

How do you feel it is best to address their needs?

We will always have those who, for one reason or another, cannot help themselves. Those people should be helped by the rest of us. Personally, I think the best way is at a local or state level. The federal government should be responsible only for ensuring that the laws exist to protect those people but the solutions have got to be local. Local people know best how to spend local money.

Further, if the Federal Government sticks to its Constitutionally mandated responsibility to provide the common defense among the few other specifically designated duties and otherwise restricts its activity to such laws and regulation as necessary to prevent us from infringing on the rights of others, it won't need but a relatively small portion of the trillions of dollars it now takes in.

The money the people will then not be required to send to the federal government won't be depleted by layers of federal bureaucracy and will go further to use for the benefit of the helpless or those who need a hand up.

From time to time Mr. Foxfyre and I are made aware of an out-of-work family that is short of money to pay the mortgage or utility bills or can't afford to send the kids to camp. We know that we can write out a check designated to be given anonymously to that family and our church will see that the family receives every penny. When the same money is funneled through the Federal government, layers of bureaucracy take their cut and maybe 1/3 or 1/4 of it will get to somebody who actually needs.

It is a conservative concept that the Federal government will never do anything as efficiently, effectively, or economically as it can be done by the private sector. (Disclaimer: that is not the same thing as saying there are no proper roles for the Federal government.)

 

[NYcarbineer]

Liberals move America forward.

Conservatives stand in the way,

and get run over.

 

[Foxfyre]

but please, can we keep the trollisms and food fights to a mininum? We don't have to agree with each other's point of view, but we don't have to denigrate each other in order to say that.

Wait, you want to keep the trolling to a minimum in a troll thread where you smear Liberals.

I think my irony meter just exploded again.

Okay, I'll bite. When and where did I 'smear' liberals? I invited everybody to critique the statements in the OP and tried to make them as honest and accurate as possible. I don't think you can find any one of them that is not accurate, but if you can go for it.

So far the only one who has even attempted that is Mani and I appreciated that a lot. Madelyn who probably tilts more left of center than right hasn't complained about the definitions but has made some serious arguments to defend some of them.

So far nobody has said liberals are bad or any other negative adjective. So how does it smear liberals to accurately describe what liberals believe? Or if you think the OP got it wrong, which one is wrong?

 

[Foxfyre]

Liberals move America forward.

Conservatives stand in the way,

and get run over.

So that you won't be seen as a troll, please provide a specific example to illustrate your point of view.

 

[Modbert]

Okay, I'll bite. When and where did I 'smear' liberals? I invited everybody to critique the statements in the OP and tried to make them as honest and accurate as possible. I don't think you can find any one of them that is not accurate, but if you can go for it.

So far the only one who has even attempted that is Mani and I appreciated that a lot. Madelyn who probably tilts more left of center than right hasn't complained about the definitions but has made some serious arguments to defend some of them.

So far nobody has said liberals are bad or any other negative adjective. So how does it smear liberals to accurately describe what liberals believe? Or if you think the OP got it wrong, which one is wrong?

Mani made the argument pretty well about why your OP was bullshit. On top of that, you seem to think that all Liberals or Conservatives adhere to their ideology as if it were scripture of some sort. That is rarely ever the case, and those who do are usually seen as more extreme than their other whatever.

You never came out and said Liberals were bad, however you had your definitions do the job for you. I'll give you one simple example.

American Liberals are more tolerant of and prefer more government control to regulate the activities and choices of the people.

American Conservatives are less tolerant of and prefer as little government control as reasonable to regulate the activities and choices of the people.

It was American Conservatives who ramped up the War on Drugs and have made it what it is today. It is perhaps one of the biggest intrusions of government into the private lives of American citizens. Yet, using your definition, you'd call them Liberals. However, I doubt you are about to call Ronald Reagan a Liberal. Various American Conservatives have been for banning Gambling, Prostitution, Abortion, Homosexuality, Islam and other various social activities. However, once again, under your narrow and ill-defined definition, they would be Liberals.

However, Liberals are not generally for banning any of those things.

Notice I use the word generally?

Barry Goldwater, the definition of the modern day Conservative wanted the Government to stay out of enforcing laws concerning Abortion. Now, does that make you perhaps or others Liberals because you feel otherwise?

Going off just social issues, I'm perhaps one of the most Libertarian members of this board. However, on economic issues I vary and would probably be called a Liberal.

Hence, your definitions and this thread is a fail.

 

[Foxfyre]

Okay, I'll bite. When and where did I 'smear' liberals? I invited everybody to critique the statements in the OP and tried to make them as honest and accurate as possible. I don't think you can find any one of them that is not accurate, but if you can go for it.

So far the only one who has even attempted that is Mani and I appreciated that a lot. Madelyn who probably tilts more left of center than right hasn't complained about the definitions but has made some serious arguments to defend some of them.

So far nobody has said liberals are bad or any other negative adjective. So how does it smear liberals to accurately describe what liberals believe? Or if you think the OP got it wrong, which one is wrong?

Mani made the argument pretty well about why your OP was bullshit. On top of that, you seem to think that all Liberals or Conservatives adhere to their ideology as if it were scripture of some sort. That is rarely ever the case, and those who do are usually seen as more extreme than their other whatever.

Mani has yet to respond to my rebuttal to that post, so it has yet to be proved to be bullshit. I'm sure you, a liberal, agree that it is bullshit, but you have yet to provide a rebuttal to any one of those points. Contrary to whatever illusions of grandeur you may have, your simply stating something is not true is not sufficient to make it untrue.

You never came out and said Liberals were bad, however you had your definitions do the job for you. I'll give you one simple example.

American Liberals are more tolerant of and prefer more government control to regulate the activities and choices of the people.

American Conservatives are less tolerant of and prefer as little government control as reasonable to regulate the activities and choices of the people.

It was American Conservatives who ramped up the War on Drugs and have made it what it is today. It is perhaps one of the biggest intrusions of government into the private lives of American citizens. Yet, using your definition, you'd call them Liberals. However, I doubt you are about to call Ronald Reagan a Liberal. Various American Conservatives have been for banning Gambling, Prostitution, Abortion, Homosexuality, Islam and other various social activities. However, once again, under your narrow and ill-defined definition, they would be Liberals.

However, Liberals are not generally for banning any of those things.

Notice I use the word generally?

Notice that the definitions use the terms 'more' and 'less' which to literate Americans do not generally translate as absolutes? But you apparently interpreted the statements as absolutes. Not very careful there bucko.

I will say categorically that it is not a conservative principle for the Federal government to ban nor allow any human activity that should be reserved for the people themselves to decide. In the matter of drugs, there is a gray area because so many are imported from other countries and control of any imports is obviously a necessary Federal function. I disagree that the issue of drugs or any of the other social issues you listed are in themselves 'conservative' or 'liberal', however. I know many conservatives who want drugs legalized or decriminalized and I know many liberals who do not. Ditto on the other issues.

So to condemn conservatives on those issues is a straw man.

Barry Goldwater, the definition of the modern day Conservative wanted the Government to stay out of enforcing laws concerning Abortion. Now, does that make you perhaps or others Liberals because you feel otherwise?

It would be a conservative point of view that the Federal government should stay out of the issue of abortion. It is a liberal point of view that would want the Federal government to govern that issue.

Going off just social issues, I'm perhaps one of the most Libertarian members of this board. However, on economic issues I vary and would probably be called a Liberal.

Hence, your definitions and this thread is a fail.

I don't recall considering how you define yourself at all at any point in this thread. So how you regard yourself certainly does not make the thread a fail.

So let's go back to the two statements you chose to address:

American Liberals are more tolerant of and prefer more government control to regulate the activities and choices of the people.

American Conservatives are less tolerant of and prefer as little government control as reasonable to regulate the activities and choices of the people.

My interpretation of those two sentences is:

Conservatives are much more likely to want the Federal government to address the Constitutional responsibilities assigned to it and for the Federal government to secure the rights of the people, and then otherwise leave the people alone to form whatever society they wish to have.

Liberals are much more likely to want the Federal government to enact restrictions protecting endangered species, even on private property, to enact fuel standards, to order content of school curriculum, to enforce so-called 'hate crimes', to require more of the wealthy in order to provide for the less fortunate, etc.

Would you agree or disagree?

 

[Modbert]

Mani has yet to respond to my rebuttal to that post, so it has yet to be proved to be bullshit. I'm sure you, a liberal, agree that it is bullshit, but you have yet to provide a rebuttal to any one of those points. Contrary to whatever illusions of grandeur you may have, your simply stating something is not true is not sufficient to make it untrue.

Notice that the definitions use the terms 'more' and 'less' which to literate Americans do not generally translate as absolutes? But you apparently interpreted the statements as absolutes. Not very careful there bucko.

I will say categorically that it is not a conservative principle for the Federal government to ban nor allow any human activity that should be reserved for the people themselves to decide. In the matter of drugs, there is a gray area because so many are imported from other countries and control of any imports is obviously a necessary Federal function. I disagree that the issue of drugs or any of the other social issues you listed are in themselves 'conservative' or 'liberal', however. I know many conservatives who want drugs legalized or decriminalized and I know many liberals who do not. Ditto on the other issues.

So to condemn conservatives on those issues is a straw man.

It would be a conservative point of view that the Federal government should stay out of the issue of abortion. It is a liberal point of view that would want the Federal government to govern that issue.

I don't recall considering how you define yourself at all at any point in this thread. So how you regard yourself certainly does not make the thread a fail.

So let's go back to the two statements you chose to address:

My interpretation of those two sentences is:

Conservatives are much more likely to want the Federal government to address the Constitutional responsibilities assigned to it and for the Federal government to secure the rights of the people, and then otherwise leave the people alone to form whatever society they wish to have.

Liberals are much more likely to want the Federal government to enact restrictions protecting endangered species, even on private property, to enact fuel standards, to order content of school curriculum, to enforce so-called 'hate crimes', to require more of the wealthy in order to provide for the less fortunate, etc.

Would you agree or disagree?

Couldn't keep up the act for more than a post, huh?

What I bolded further proves my point. You know your definitions are BS, yet you use them anyway. You are most definitely dealing with absolutes when you try to define what each ideology believes as a whole. Just because you use the words less or more doesn't excuse the fact your definitions are BS. Especially when one can make the argument that American Conservatives are more tolerant of government enforcement on social issues.

You say this:

I will say categorically that it is not a conservative principle for the Federal government to ban nor allow any human activity that should be reserved for the people themselves to decide.

Except it has been the Conservative POV for the last thirty years to ban human activity that should be reserved for the people themselves to decide on the issue of drug use. You want to say it's not a Conservative principle, except it has become one.

You want to excuse your ideology for it's blatant hypocrisy, it's okay, but least be honest about it. You seemed to miss my whole point about generally believing in something or not believing in something. Social issues are most definitely one of the core things that would make one a Liberal or a Conservative. It's how we define it (whether we like it or not) in the modern day era.

At this point in the debate, you're floundering by trying to say my argument is a straw man when we both know it isn't. I clearly pointed out the hypocrisy of the "Conservatives are less tolerant of government control" when that is not the case on those issues.

I disagree with your interpretations because once again they are generalizations in which you use to smear Liberals. You can try and say you're not, but you're clearly framing your argument in such a manner. You continue to try and paint yourself as a non-partisan as when it comes to ideology, however you failed miserably in your very first post and made it apparent that you had a agenda going into the thread.

For example, when defining Conservatives, I could say "Conservatives are less tolerant of others because they as a majority would not vote for a Homosexual or an Atheist on the basis of them being a Homosexual or Atheist." That is what you're doing in this thread.

Personally, more and more I dislike labels because all they do is try to simplify issues that are not simple. Using your logic, any so called Conservative on this board who wants the government to enforce any sort of laws on Abortion is open season to call them Liberals when they would clearly not be. To say they are exhibiting Liberal behavior would also be inaccurate since Liberals are generally for women to have a right to have abortions. That is why your definitions and your thread fail.

 

[Foxfyre]

No Modbert, I believe the definitions are pretty much correct and I am prepared to defend any one of them. You will have a very difficult time making a case that it has been the Conservative POV that has dictated drug use. As I said I know many conservatives who want drugs legalized or decriminalized. I know many liberals who don't.

So if is that issue that you want addressed, then focus on the thesis of the thread please and address HOW a conservative would want it addressed and HOW a liberal would want it addressed. In my opinion I think most conservatives would want the states or local governments to decide what substances are or are not legal unless it is something related to the nation security such as certain nuclear materials. In my opinion, I think most liberals would want the Federal government to be the entity to legalize or ban drugs.

Who is or is not tolerant of whomever or whatever is not relevant to this discussion. It is how we address our prejudices, tolerances, intolerances, etc. etc. etc., that determines whether one is conservative or liberal. I can assure you that liberal are no more tolerant than conservatives--everybody has some issues that they consider acceptable or commendable and some issues they consider unacceptable or despicable.

But who gets to decide what is tolerable or despicable? The Federal government? Or the people themselves via more local governments? Do you think conservatives or liberals are more likely to allow the local community to decide such things for themselves?

THAT is what determines who is conservative and who is liberal on that particular issue.

 

[Modbert]

No Modbert, I believe the definitions are pretty much correct and I am prepared to defend any one of them. You will have a very difficult time making a case that it has been the Conservative POV that has dictated drug use. As I said I know many conservatives who want drugs legalized or decriminalized. I know many liberals who don't.

So if is that issue that you want addressed, then focus on the thesis of the thread please and address HOW a conservative would want it addressed and HOW a liberal would want it addressed. In my opinion I think most conservatives would want the states or local governments to decide what substances are or are not legal unless it is something related to the nation security such as certain nuclear materials. In my opinion, I think most liberals would want the Federal government to be the entity to legalize or ban drugs.

Who is or is not tolerant of whomever or whatever is not relevant to this discussion. It is how we address our prejudices, tolerances, intolerances, etc. etc. etc., that determines whether one is conservative or liberal. I can assure you that liberal are no more tolerant than conservatives--everybody has some issues that they consider acceptable or commendable and some issues they consider unacceptable or despicable.

But who gets to decide what is tolerable or despicable? The Federal government? Or the people themselves via more local governments? Do you think conservatives or liberals are more likely to allow the local community to decide such things for themselves?

THAT is what determines who is conservative and who is liberal on that particular issue.

You're completely missing the point or you're being intentionally dishonest. You say you know many Conservatives who want drugs legalized, and some Liberals who don't. If that is your argument to refute my point, then pretty much every single point you've made in this thread has been refuted and my point is proven.

You say this thread is how a Conservative or Liberal would address things, however you clearly have made your own point invalid the very last sentence prior.

This is doublethink right here:

As I said I know many conservatives who want drugs legalized or decriminalized. I know many liberals who don't.

So if is that issue that you want addressed, then focus on the thesis of the thread please and address HOW a conservative would want it addressed and HOW a liberal would want it addressed.

If you can't see that, I feel sorry for you. You think Conservatives as a whole want local governments to decide what is legal and not legal, except we both know the flaws of such a ideology in many cases. For example, Civil Rights. If we had left such a thing up to many local communities, several areas of the south past the 70's and even into today would be having Jim Crow laws still.

You want to say tolerance is irrelevant to the issue when it's not. Tolerance in many different ways plays into how we deal with issues today. You say Liberals are no more tolerant than Conservatives, why is that?

Using your own logic of what a ideology generally believes or does not believe, Conservatives would be less tolerant.

Some Americans Reluctant to Vote for Mormon, 72-Year-Old Presidential Candidates

Only 36% of Conservatives according to Gallup would support a Homosexual candidate for office with the knowledge that person is an Homosexual. Only 29% of Conservatives according to Gallup would support a Atheist candidate for office with the knowledge that person is an Atheist. In 2010, 18% of Conservatives according to Gallup would not vote for a woman on the basis that person is of the female gender disregarding that person's positions.

You have been hoisted by your own petard. You have destroyed your very own arguments in trying to refute mine. I understand you seem to have this utopian view as a Conservative that if all laws were left up to the local governments, things would be better. However, the major flaws of such logic are readily apparent. Especially when people's views who are deciding laws in the local government begin to clash with the Constitution itself that they so claimed to protect and want to honor.

 

[Foxfyre]

Modbert do you normally have this much difficulty in understanding the thesis of a thread? What most conservatives or most liberals do or do not approve of or what sort of person most conservatives or most liberals would vote for is totally irrelevent to anything related to the thesis of this thread.

The thesis of this thread is HOW issues on which we disagree should be addressed and at what level of society such things should be decided.

When you say things like this:

". . .You think Conservatives as a whole want local governments to decide what is legal and not legal, except we both know the flaws of such a ideology in many cases. For example, Civil Rights. If we had left such a thing up to many local communities, several areas of the south past the 70's and even into today would be having Jim Crow laws still.

You want to say tolerance is irrelevant to the issue when it's not. Tolerance in many different ways plays into how we deal with issues today. You say Liberals are no more tolerant than Conservatives, why is that?". . .

you are not only dishonestly misrepresenting what I have said but you are also using a juvenile indefensible ad hominem argument that most novice formal debaters would know to avoid.

Tolerance is absolutely irrelevent to the thesis of the OP as it relates to any specific social issue. Tolerance is pertinent only to the degree that a person is able to allow government have authority or let the people decide.

Ask yourself: are you more comfortable with the Federal government deciding whether recreational use of drugs is legal or illegal? Or are you more comfortable with the local community deciding whether recreational use of drugs is legal or illegal?

Based on the defining statements in the OP, the way you would answer that would determine whether you are conserative or liberal on that issue.

 

[Madeline]

Our society will always have some population in need of permanent support, foxfyre. Not just children (who age out), but mentally ill people, the developmentally disabled, infirm elderly, etc.

How do you feel it is best to address their needs?

We will always have those who, for one reason or another, cannot help themselves. Those people should be helped by the rest of us. Personally, I think the best way is at a local or state level. The federal government should be responsible only for ensuring that the laws exist to protect those people but the solutions have got to be local. Local people know best how to spend local money.

There are at least two arguments against nonfederal services, CG. I'm curious to see your response to them and to hear why you favor local services.

One....economies of scale. Some services require such massive investment (e.g., hospitals, Medicare, etc.) that diversification of such services and their costs to a state or local level is not financially feasible.

Two...if states and localities control spending, spending levels will vary. People in wealthier states will get more, and people in poorer states may be dealt with unfairly or induced to relocate.

I realize such arguments prolly cannot be made to apply to every social service, BTW. I'm not against decentralizing much of what the feds now provide. Of course, the REAL reason that decentralization is so hard is that whoever controls the budget controls the power....and no one wants to give that up.

 

[Modbert]

Modbert do you normally have this much difficulty in understanding the thesis of a thread? What most conservatives or most liberals do or do not approve of or what sort of person most conservatives or most liberals would vote for is totally irrelevent to anything related to the thesis of this thread.

The thesis of this thread is HOW issues on which we disagree should be addressed and at what level of society such things should be decided.

When you say things like this:

you are not only dishonestly misrepresenting what I have said but you are also using a juvenile indefensible ad hominem argument that most novice formal debaters would know to avoid.

Tolerance is absolutely irrelevent to the thesis of the OP as it relates to any specific social issue. Tolerance is pertinent only to the degree that a person is able to allow government have authority or let the people decide.

Ask yourself: are you more comfortable with the Federal government deciding whether recreational use of drugs is legal or illegal? Or are you more comfortable with the local community deciding whether recreational use of drugs is legal or illegal?

Based on the defining statements in the OP, the way you would answer that would determine whether you are conserative or liberal on that issue.

o if is that issue that you want addressed, then focus on the thesis of the thread please and address HOW a conservative would want it addressed and HOW a liberal would want it addressed.

What I bolded and what I quoted from one of your previous posts are two different things. Either you made this thread as a comparison for Liberals or Conservatives or to debate the merits of how issues should be decided.

I'm not misrepresenting anything you said. You seem to want to group all Liberals or Conservatives based on what the majority of that ideology believe, I was merely using your flawed logic. You then continue your use of flawed logic by saying that any sort of action is either completely Liberal or completely Conservative.

I already pointed out the flaws with your utopian ideal for how our government shall be run. Local governments in many ways would hinder freedom, not let it flourish. You seem to have avoided what happens when actions are taken by those who supposedly cherish the Constitution and yet they are going against it.

You seem to adhere to the theory that as long as it's the local community being the oppressor, it's okay. I disagree. I'm not comfortable to leaving up something to either the local or federal government that should be left up to the user.

 

[Madeline]

The dispute between Modbert and foxfyre is what usually happens to me and my fellow Republicans. I want smaller government, less waste and better-designed social programs. I oppose corporate welfare, undue military action, and needless nanny laws.

BUT....

I want a clean environment. I want less dependence on fossil fuels. I want the rights and dignities of others respected. I want abortion rights protected. I want drugs decriminalized and the death penalty ended.

When I hear things like "we need to return to a position of support for the nuclear family, so that they can take care of granny" and I know....

I'm not gonna get what I want.

Conservatives (usually) are far too willing to deny others their rights. Liberals seem to think money grows on trees and behaving in a fiscally sound manner is an option.

Neither POV is any too comfy.