Is there a truly unbias news program on TV?

[jillian]

So you mean to say that Conservatives oppose Socialism. Well, yeah! Socialism is a failed policy and would destroy the very freedom that was the core beliefs that begot the Constitution.

The problem is you are confusing liberalism/conservatism with capitalism/socialism....

they exist on different spectrums and aren't necessarily related. You need to understand that before you go posting on this subject. You sound silly talking about the destruction of the "core beliefs that begot the Constitution".

The people who wrote the Constitution were out and out radicals. They overthrew a government and if they had lost, would have been hung as traitors. This entire concept that they were someone "conservative" is absurd.

They also weren't 'capitalists" per se since industrialization hadn't occurred. They'd have looked at you blankly if you used such concepts. They were aristocracy. And, hint to what they were thinkng: they made sure there were inheritance taxes because they wanted to cut short the inherited aristocracy concepts taken from Europe.... something the current reactionary right would never agree with.

Conservative = A desire to maintain the status quo

Liberal = A desire for evolutionary societal change

...nothing more, nothing less.

 

[Jeepers]

There you go with generalizations again. I have NEVER voted against funding a school program here in Michigan, But feel free to just keep lumping all conservatives in as "right *****"

Thank for your recomendation chuck...

 

[stivex]

The problem is you are confusing liberalism/conservatism with capitalism/socialism....

they exist on different spectrums and aren't necessarily related. You need to understand that before you go posting on this subject.

I understand far more than you think I do apparently. I am still fairly new to this MB, so I understand I have to earn that. I will work on that.

Conservative = A desire to maintain the status quo

Liberal = A desire for evolutionary societal change

...nothing more, nothing less.

It is not quite that simple nowadays. Yet, I can work with your definition.

The Conservative status quo you speak of is the Constitution and the idea of Federalism. Small government (less regulation for example) as was the intent of our Founders. The ability of the power of people to change and even revolt against the government if they so choose. A large and powerful government that has people dependent of it for their vary survival is unconceivable to the Conservative. People have the right and freedom to pursue happiness and not have it handed to you. People have to earn stuff. The representative government should reflect and act on the will of the people and not dictate to the people.

The evolutionary change of the Liberal is eerily similar to the socialist agenda. Notice I am not advocating quite to the level of Communism, btw. This takes the line "promote the general Welfare" from the Constitution and forms the belief that it is the role of government to provide people with essentials of life. The basic difference in "levels" of Liberalism is what those essentials are. Not all Liberals are for full-on Socialism, for example. Yet, Liberals want the government to be the primary provider of these essentials.

There are non-Conservative Republicans and non-Liberal Democrats, btw. However, the majority of Democrats are liberals (Obama, Clinton, edwards, Pelosi, Reid, etc). The majority of Republicans used to be Conservative (Reagan, F. Thompson, Romney, Gingrich, etc). That is up for debate now, though. Republicans have been transitioning to a larger-government style as of late (Bush, Cheney, McCain). So, the riff in the Republican party that you have been reading about exists. More reason why the term neocon doesn't apply to all Republicans. I am not even sure it applies to half currently.

In the interest of time, I am going to stop this right now. Feel free to comment. I could talk this stuff all day. We haven't even gotten into Libertarians, or gotten into the different kinds of Conservatives (social, economical, etc) and Liberals (social, economical, etc.)

 

[Alpha1]

Perhaps truth has a liberal bias.

Or perhaps you're hallucinating....

 

[Paulie]

The term neocon is just what the left has decided to try and offend the right with. The prefix, neo, simply means new. So, I guess being called a "New conservative" is somehow supposed to be derogatory in some weird leftist kind of way.

Right. "new".

As in, old liberals trying to make a new name for conservatism. I mean, that's pretty much what they are.

 

[Alpha1]

The problem is you are confusing liberalism/conservatism with capitalism/socialism....

they exist on different spectrums and aren't necessarily related. You need to understand that before you go posting on this subject. You sound silly talking about the destruction of the "core beliefs that begot the Constitution".

The people who wrote the Constitution were out and out radicals. They overthrew a government and if they had lost, would have been hung as traitors. This entire concept that they were someone "conservative" is absurd.
Your dictionary definitions of liberal and conservative and trying to apply those definitions to US politics is whats absurd...
generally.....
liberals support socialistic political and economic ideaideas, that is just a fact ....just as conservatives support capitalistic political and economic ideas...

They also weren't 'capitalists" per se since industrialization hadn't occurred. They'd have looked at you blankly if you used such concepts. They were aristocracy. And, hint to what they were thinkng: they made sure there were inheritance taxes because they wanted to cut short the inherited aristocracy concepts taken from Europe.... something the current reactionary right would never agree with.

Conservative = A desire to maintain the status quo

Liberal = A desire for evolutionary societal change

...nothing more, nothing less.

And your crap about inheritance taxes shows your ignorance of the ideals of the founding fathers....for example...

As Thomas Jefferson once wrote regarding the "general Welfare" clause:

To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his father has acquired too much, in order to spare to others who (or whose fathers) have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, "to guarantee to everyone a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it."


Does that, by any stretch of the imagination agree with your concept of what those "radicals" thought....I think not, not even close....

So maybe its you...that need to understand more before you go posting on a subject.

 

[CharlestonChad]

The term neocon is just what the left has decided to try and offend the right with. The prefix, neo, simply means new. So, I guess being called a "New conservative" is somehow supposed to be derogatory in some weird leftist kind of way.

It is derogatory if you recognize that bush is a neocon. A new conservative set of ideals that involves nation building, deficit spending, corporate welfare, terrorist fear mongering, ect... You get the drift.

 

[Charles_Main]

The term neocon is just what the left has decided to try and offend the right with. The prefix, neo, simply means new. So, I guess being called a "New conservative" is somehow supposed to be derogatory in some weird leftist kind of way.

Yeah, hardly has the same ring to is as Left Wing Loon either

 

[editec]

And your crap about inheritance taxes shows your ignorance of the ideals of the founding fathers....for example...

As Thomas Jefferson once wrote regarding the "general Welfare" clause:

To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his father has acquired too much, in order to spare to others who (or whose fathers) have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, "to guarantee to everyone a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it."

What a surprise.

A man who was a bankrupt his entire life (and who died as such) who lived a life of luxury by the sweat of other's industry nevertheless thinks that the " I got mine get yours" philosophy is best.

Who'da thunk it, eh?

I admire TJ, of course, but he was and lived a bundle of contradictions, folks.

tommie and Georgie got their fortunes the old fashiioned way, you know...they married into them,

Franklin is the Floundering Father you libertarians should most admire.

He came from nothing and made every damned cent (and he ended up quite well off, ya' know) by his genius and his industry.

And for those of you with a liberal bent, he was also the most generous of all the floundering Fathers, too.

He gave the patent for both the Franklin stove and the lightening rods to the commonweal (of the WORLD) when he could have made a vast fortune with either.

Throw in public FREE libraries, civic FREE firefighting, public hospitals and grants to various educational foundations (still alive and teaching today) and there's one hell of a patron that capitalists libertarians AND social liberals can admire.

My hero, to be honest.

 

[Charles_Main]

It is derogatory if you recognize that bush is a neocon. A new conservative set of ideals that involves nation building, deficit spending, corporate welfare, terrorist fear mongering, ect... You get the drift.

Yeah, only you guys use it to describe any Conservative, Not just Bush!

 

[jillian]

What a surprise.

A man who was a bankrupt his entire life (and who died as such) who lived a life of luxury by the sweat of other's industry nevertheless thinks that the " I got mine get yours" philosophy is best.

Who'da thunk it, eh?

I admire TJ, of course, but he was and lived a bundle of contradictions, folks.

tommie and Georgie got their fortunes the old fashiioned way, you know...they married into them,

Franklin is the Floundering Father you libertarians should most admire.

He came from nothing and made every damned cent (and he ended up quite well off, ya' know) by his genius and his industry.

And for those of you with a liberal bent, he was also the most generous of all the floundering Fathers, too.

He gave the patent for both the Franklin stove and the lightening rods to the commonweal (of the WORLD) when he could have made a vast fortune with either.

Throw in public FREE libraries, civic FREE firefighting, public hospitals and grants to various educational foundations (still alive and teaching today) and there's one hell of a patron that capitalists libertarians AND social liberals can admire.

My hero, to be honest.

I've always had a fondness for Franklin the philanderer, myself. ;o)

I always marvel at people who pick and choose the words of someone in one context, but ignore what was actually enacted -- as if every opinion of Jefferson or any of the others was somhow enforceable legislation. Anyway, I'll see TJ and raise him a Thomas Paine and a DeToqueville:

In two works, The Rights of Man (1791) and Agrarian Justice (1797), Paine argues for the adoption of an inheritance tax in England to balance out the unfair distribution of “landed property.” For Paine it is common sense that God gave “the Earth as an inheritance” to all of God’s children. Therefore, he proposed an inheritance tax to create a national fund that (1) would give the sum of 15 pounds sterling to everyone turning 21 years old as a compensation for the loss of their “natural inheritance,” and (2) would give a sum of 10 pounds a year to every person over the age of 50 as an early version of Social Security.

Paine viewed democracy as a sensible middle ground between aristocracy and socialism. He was not an enemy of private property (far from it), but a fierce critic of inherited privilege. In the Rights of Man he justifies the inheritance tax as being a derivative of the existing luxury tax. As he says, “an overgrown estate is a luxury at all times, and as such is the proper object of taxation.”

Alexis de Toqueville

“It was estate law that made equality take its last step.”

Toqueville, a French aristocrat, published in 1835 and 1840 what is perhaps (after the Federalist papers) the greatest tribute to democracy in American political literature. It is definitely the most quoted. In Democracy in America, Toqueville argues that an “equality of conditions” (equality of opportunity) permeates our American spirit, laws, and customs. The heart of the American experiment entails a rejection of inherited privilege. Indeed he observes that Americans “will put up with poverty, servitude, and barbarism, but they will not endure aristocracy.”

According to Toqueville, the secret of our democratic success lies in a few simple facts: (1) the courageous action of the American Revolution, (2) the wisdom of the Constitution (with its checks and balances), and, interestingly enough (3) American estate law. “It was estate law that made equality take its last step. I am astonished that ancient and modern political writers have not attributed to estate laws a greater influence on the course of human affairs.”

Fact: There was a reason they believed in inheritance taxes and enacted them.

http://www.responsiblewealth.org/tax_fairness/Estate_Tax/Estate_Tax_History_Grote.html

 

[CharlestonChad]

Yeah, only you guys use it to describe any Conservative, Not just Bush!

I thought you were a crusader against generalizations? And here you are saying the liberals call all conservatives neocons like bush.

You are amassing a wealth of hypocrisy on this forum.

 

[SkyWater]

I don't watch much TV but the only show I know that has a Democrat and a Republican is Hannity and Colmes on Fox...

Is there another show like this on TV? If so what channel?

Thanks.

Colmes is a token target and both are liberals. Hannity looks like a GQ kinda guy and Colmes looks like a stickman and rather mousy. It's simply a set-up to pretend to give information. FN overall is ridiculously steeped in agendas and since R Murdoch admitted FN tried to set the agenda for Iraq it's pretty hard to claim FN is balanced.

All msm is pro-government but PBS has been the most accurate from what I've seen. It's format isn't all jerry glittery springer splashy like Fox or CNN but it's a reliable source and unlike other outlets it does not walk lockstep.

 

[Charles_Main]

I thought you were a crusader against generalizations? And here you are saying the liberals call all conservatives neocons like bush.

You are amassing a wealth of hypocrisy on this forum.

How does "You guys" translate into "All liberals"? Who is generalizing again?

When I said you guys, I was speaking about you guys who throw around the Neo_con label. Not all Liberals.

Reading is fundamental Chad.

 

[Paulie]

The problem is you are confusing liberalism/conservatism with capitalism/socialism....

they exist on different spectrums and aren't necessarily related. You need to understand that before you go posting on this subject. You sound silly talking about the destruction of the "core beliefs that begot the Constitution".

The people who wrote the Constitution were out and out radicals. They overthrew a government and if they had lost, would have been hung as traitors. This entire concept that they were someone "conservative" is absurd.

They also weren't 'capitalists" per se since industrialization hadn't occurred. They'd have looked at you blankly if you used such concepts. They were aristocracy. And, hint to what they were thinkng: they made sure there were inheritance taxes because they wanted to cut short the inherited aristocracy concepts taken from Europe.... something the current reactionary right would never agree with.

Conservative = A desire to maintain the status quo

Liberal = A desire for evolutionary societal change

...nothing more, nothing less.

The definitions of liberal and conservative have changed just a wee bit since the 1700's. There doesn't have to be industrialization for there to be capitalism, either. I'm not sure where you're getting that idea. Any exchange of goods or services is capitalism.

I agree that the founders were liberal, in the sense that they bucked the status quo. But from there on out, THEIR ideas for the US as we now know it became the conservative status quo. In that sense, RINO's of today are nowhere NEAR conservatives. And that's also the best way to point out how Ron Paul, for instance, is. He sticks to the ORIGINAL status quo for this country.

 

[CharlestonChad]

How does "You guys" translate into "All liberals"? Who is generalizing again?

When I said you guys, I was speaking about you guys who throw around the Neo_con label. Not all Liberals.

Reading is fundamental Chad.

Reading is fundamental <insert comma> Chad.

 

[Charles_Main]

Reading is fundamental <insert comma> Chad.

Is that the best you could come up with, Pointing out a typo? To cover for your own lack of reading comprehension?

 

[CharlestonChad]

Is that the best you could come up with, Pointing out a typo? To cover for your own lack of reading comprehension?

Nah. I mock you because you get so angry about it. I don't really care if you bash my reading comp. I'm not the one coming on a forum to make as many vague generalizations as possible and then getting angry when people take notice. I admit what I am, and what I'm not. You seem to be confused as to your own political identity.

 

[Charles_Main]

Nah. I mock you because you get so angry about it. I don't really care if you bash my reading comp. I'm not the one coming on a forum to make as many vague generalizations as possible and then getting angry when people take notice. I admit what I am, and what I'm not. You seem to be confused as to your own political identity.

I rather have a confused political identity, than be blindly partisan, and unwilling to point out the faults of my chosen party, like some people in here.

Oh and before you cry generalization, please Note I said SOME PEOPLE not ALL, kinda like what I said YOU GUYS, and NOT ALL LIBERALS.

or do you not remember saying this

And here you are saying the liberals call all conservatives neocons like bush.

In response to me, when I did not say one word about liberals, and only referred to YOU GUYS who throw around the NEO-CON label.

My mistake may be having faith that you might actually get the difference sooner or later.

 

[Paulie]

You seem to be confused as to your own political identity.

Says the guy who switched from Ron Paul to Barack Obama.