Let's get our terminology straight

[musicman]

Please define the terms, "conservative", "moderate", and "liberal" as you understand them. Be as elaborate or succint as you like. If you'd like to get into subgroups such as "neocon", "radical reactionary", or "commie bastard", by all means, do so.

The only thing I ask is that we leave ol' Dan Webster out of this. He's not that much help in this context, anyhow. I'm looking for YOUR take, as we tend to bandy these terms about quite a bit on this board.

Thanks.

 

[Joz]

Here goes:

*Conservative: Someone who's beliefs are grounded in the Bible. Belives in truth, justice & the American way; The Founding Fathers, The Constitution.
*Liberal: People who believe in everything & nothing. Nothing they believe has foundation. They claim alligence but that's not their way. Hollywood falls into this category.
*Neo-Con: I guess that refers to a new conservative. They believe in the conservative way but they seem to want to denounce religion & God. They feel they've come all this way on their own. I don't understand this way of thinking.
* Commie Bastard: Would be someone who believes in the communist way of life/ruling.
*Radical Reactionary-Moderate.....I have no idea.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

This could be fun

conservatives - those right in every sense

moderates - the confused ones

liberals - the melodramatic scumsucking losers

neocons - the new improved conservatives

radical reactionarys - moonbats

commie bastards - red diaper doper babies

 

[theim]

Conservative: Believes government is a necessary evil. It's purpose is to protect the country and keep it together. Nationalist. Needs of home country supercede desires of "global community". Global consensus is desired, but not required, before significant military action.

Liberal: Believes in government as a tool to better society. It's purpose is to protect the country and keep it together, but also to provide for the poor and not-so-well-off. Favors income redistribution -- taxing the rich and giving this to the poor. Globalist. Needs of home country must be weighed nearly equally with desires of "global community". Significant military action usually requires approval of allies.

Moderate: A mix of conservative and liberal ideas.

Commie Bastard: a Socialist or a Communist.

Neoconservative: Non-existant. This is a sub-group of conservatives that liberals routinly cite to demean conservatives for being too religious, militaristic, etc; so they can spout off as much hate and vitriol as they like and still get votes by saying "Oh conservatives, we weren't making fun of you , we were insulting those NeoCons. Vote for us!". Supposedly, the Neo-Cons seek to create an ultra-Christian USA through use of shady backroom dealings. But as I said before, they do not exist. You will never meet a self-described NeoCon, as the term is commonly spoken with the tone one uses for the word "fascist".

 

[musicman]

These are great responses! Keep 'em coming, please.

Now, I'm going to throw a little gasoline onto the fire. I think it's fair to say that the people who post on this board run the gamut of political thought, although a solid majority are conservatives like myself. I respect each person's right to his or her own viewpoint, disagree though I may. And, I know that there are folks who would honestly classify themselves as moderates. Fine.

But, I have to say that I've got a hell of a lot more respect for an outright, unapologetic liberal than for those who call themselves something else, but are, in reality, "stealth liberals" - wolves in sheep's clothing - disingenuous propogandists. When you proclaim your beliefs openly and honestly, you might have to slug it out all day. But, at the end of the day, at least you can retire with honor.

 

[sagegirl]

Please define the terms, "conservative", "moderate", and "liberal" as you understand them. Be as elaborate or succint as you like. If you'd like to get into subgroups such as "neocon", "radical reactionary", or "commie bastard", by all means, do so.

The only thing I ask is that we leave ol' Dan Webster out of this. He's not that much help in this context, anyhow. I'm looking for YOUR take, as we tend to bandy these terms about quite a bit on this board.

Thanks.

I will give my interpretation of these words.....regardless of the labels and the bias they stir up....
conservative: someone who tends to think something thru before acting...
moderate: more trusting,they believe that all will be well , because they themselves are honorable and believe for a lot of different reasons that others will be honorable too.
liberal: lacks discipline, a willingness to be affected by outside influences without much consideration.

 

[musicman]

I will give my interpretation of these words.....regardless of the labels and the bias they stir up....
conservative: someone who tends to think something thru before acting...
moderate: more trusting,they believe that all will be well , because they themselves are honorable and believe for a lot of different reasons that others will be honorable too.
liberal: lacks discipline, a willingness to be affected by outside influences without much consideration.

Thanks for your input, sagegirl. Those are probably pretty good general definitions. Do you have any thoughts on those same terms as they apply to the political arena?

 

[Avatar4321]

Conservative - Someone who loves freedom and wants to protect the Constitution from being destroyed. Someone who believes in traditional values. Someone who things children are supposed to be nutured and taught and not murdered.

Liberal - Someone who wants to liberate society from the Constitution. Someone who thinks that society would be free in either Anarchy or a socialist government.

Moderate - Someone who is uniformed about the issues.

Neocons - Imaginary foes of those on the left. or another word for Jews.

radical reactionary - Environmentalist wacko Feminazi

commie bastards - John Kerry's campaign contributers

 

[theim]

These are great responses! Keep 'em coming, please.

Now, I'm going to throw a little gasoline onto the fire. I think it's fair to say that the people who post on this board run the gamut of political thought, although a solid majority are conservatives like myself. I respect each person's right to his or her own viewpoint, disagree though I may. And, I know that there are folks who would honestly classify themselves as moderates. Fine.

But, I have to say that I've got a hell of a lot more respect for an outright, unapologetic liberal than for those who call themselves something else, but are, in reality, "stealth liberals" - wolves in sheep's clothing - disingenuous propogandists. When you proclaim your beliefs openly and honestly, you might have to slug it out all day. But, at the end of the day, at least you can retire with honor.

You know that just bugs the hell outta me too. I mean if some of these organizations like the ACLU would just come out and say they are liberal oriented it wouldn't bug me half as much. But they actually get people to believe they are non-partisan. Its like the "Fair and Balanced Film Society" at my brother's high school. It's a political film club so to speak. Obviously supposed to be fair and balanced. The movies they've shown so far? Uncovered: The War In Iraq , Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism, Fahrenheit 9/11, and Bush Family Fortunes. That kind of crap just burns me up.

 

[musicman]

You know that just bugs the hell outta me too. I mean if some of these organizations like the ACLU would just come out and say they are liberal oriented it wouldn't bug me half as much. But they actually get people to believe they are non-partisan. Its like the "Fair and Balanced Film Society" at my brother's high school. It's a political film club so to speak. Obviously supposed to be fair and balanced. The movies they've shown so far? Uncovered: The War In Iraq , Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism, Fahrenheit 9/11, and Bush Family Fortunes. That kind of crap just burns me up.

"Fair and Balanced Film Society"....LMAO! The establishment knows when it's being hurt. Terms like "fair and balanced" out them for the intellectually dishonest creeps they are - so they try to co-opt it. What could illustrate this better than the fact that Bill Maher's network TV show was called, "Politically Incorrect"? They can't have all this awkward, inconvenient TRUTH gushing out!

From the liberal handbook: When you're getting your ass kicked by the facts, dilute, deflect, misdirect!

 

[sagegirl]

Thanks for your input, sagegirl. Those are probably pretty good general definitions. Do you have any thoughts on those same terms as they apply to the political arena?

I dont really feel any person or philosophy exactly fits any of these categories

But the labels persist so here goes

Conservatives tend to be self confident and righteous. The term seems contrdictory to me, a conservative will allow deficit spending, but that would not be fiscally conservative, generally they are for "less (big) government" but deregulation has resulted in large federal interventions in the form of oversight and administration, and has created bigger state government, good or bad. Conservatives tend to favor the exploitation of our natural resources, once again not conserving, but using, they tend to disregard our impact on the enviornment, by either disclaiming scientific evidence or holding a strong belief that it will clean itself up. I think they also tend to consider themselves more strictly in accordance with "gods will" and accountable to god more than individual persuasions.

Moderates tend to straddle the fence and probably cross the line on alot of issues. They are more likely to change their minds. I think they favor more enviornmental friendly concepts and more individual responsibility. I think they are more likely to be concerned about the effects of debt on future generations, and I think they expect solutions from our elected officials.

Liberals really want their way. They want to have personal freedom but in many instances they dont back that up with personal responsibility. They want to save the enviornment, and favor stricter government control over the use of natural resources. Again the juxtaposition of more/less government in our daily lives. I think they tend more to be visionaries and dreamers, distaining, somewhat, the follies of our past and look for options in our choices for the future. They tend to be defensive cuz of bad PR.

Neo-cons too have a vision for the future and do want a new world order. They believe in a world concept and believe the US has the best answer to all the problems that exist today, thusly they are not open to debate, and tend to act impulsively (because they KNOW they are right) they want to get on with it already.

 

[Joz]

So, is a 'moderate' the same as an 'independant'?

And a 'radical reactionary'? Is that necessarily a bad thing. I mean to stand up for what you believe. Or is it that they take it to the extreme and will not hear any reasoning on the subject that's being debated?

 

[musicman]

I could have been more specific about the subgroups. Basically, I was just tossing a few out there, by way of an invitation to wander wherever you'd like.

If I remember the graph I was shown in sophomore Social Studies, it moved from left to right, something like this:

Radical, progressive, liberal, moderate, conservative, reactionary, and radical reactionary. The extremists are on either side of the spectrum. I would put, say, Timothy McVeigh solidly in the "radical reactionary" category.

All of which illustrates MY take on the political spectrum, which may or may not hold with yours. But, of course, there's no right or wrong here. I'm interested in YOUR take.

 

[musicman]

Sagegirl:

Those are very interesting observations. Thank you. I would say that true conservatives find much of President Bush's policy baffling, to say the least. They'll be watching the Republican party very closely in the coming years. However, in the President's defense, 9/11 forced us ALL into a different world. The war on terror MUST be fought aggressively, and that necessitates a huge role for the Federal Government. National defense does, after all, constitute one of it's specifically enumerated constitutional areas of authority. So I'd say the President, to a degree, gets a pass on that one. But, make no mistake - this conservative, for one, regards some of his ideas with true alarm.

As to liberals, I'd say that the bad PR they're getting is a comparitive drop in the bucket, factoring in the huge volume of information available out there. It's just that, A), they've enjoyed monopolistic control over the flow of that information for so long, and, B), their attempts to block out any unflattering sounds are so shrill and hysterical, that the unfiltered PR that DOES get out is looked upon as a treasured rarity. People who have been subjected to the Old Media propoganda for thirty years begin, after a while, to regard it as just so much noise. But, when a bit of unvarnished truth manages to penetrate the din, their ears perk up. Look at the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, who were probably outspent by George Soros 50 to 1.

 

[Merlin1047]

But, I have to say that I've got a hell of a lot more respect for an outright, unapologetic liberal than for those who call themselves something else, but are, in reality, "stealth liberals" - wolves in sheep's clothing - disingenuous propogandists.

aaah MM - I believe you have that analogy reversed. "Stealth liberals" should not be described as "wolves in sheep's clothing" as they are nothing of the sort.

A wolf is an intelligent social animal. Wolves are fierce predators who do whatever they must to assure that the pack thrives. It is inaccurate to ascribe these traits to liberals.

Liberals are pathetic, bleating, herd animals who lack the courage of the very few convictions they may possess. When confronted with a threat, they bolt and run and start yelling "every man for himself".

So in my view, liberals should not be called wolves in sheep's clothing. They should instead be called sheep in wolf's clothing.

I would have given you a more serious answer, but Theim beat me to it. Anything I would have to say would only echo that post.

 

[5stringJeff]

Here goes:

Conservative: someone who believes that government is a necessary evil (that was said before). This person believes that government at all levels should only serve those functions which individuals cannot fill themselves. At the federal government, this means national defense, trade equity, and little else. At the state and local level, everything else, liek criminal law, property law, schools, fire.police, etc. Conservatives want fewer taxes and less government in general.

Liberal: someone who believes that a larger government will protect the rights of individuals. In general, liberals believe in a larger government in order to establish a minumum of rights for all members of society, e.g. health care, minimum wage, social security. Most liberals believe that those who have large incomes should pay more (percentage-wise) in taxes because they have more to give. Liberals generally believe that people are good by nature and base their social policy on this.

Moderates: someone who picks a hodgepodge of stands on individual issues because they have no over-riding political philosophy.

 

[musicman]

Here goes:

Conservative: someone who believes that government is a necessary evil (that was said before). This person believes that government at all levels should only serve those functions which individuals cannot fill themselves. At the federal government, this means national defense, trade equity, and little else. At the state and local level, everything else, liek criminal law, property law, schools, fire.police, etc. Conservatives want fewer taxes and less government in general.

Liberal: someone who believes that a larger government will protect the rights of individuals. In general, liberals believe in a larger government in order to establish a minumum of rights for all members of society, e.g. health care, minimum wage, social security. Most liberals believe that those who have large incomes should pay more (percentage-wise) in taxes because they have more to give. Liberals generally believe that people are good by nature and base their social policy on this.

Moderates: someone who picks a hodgepodge of stands on individual issues because they have no over-riding political philosophy.

Well said, Jeff. I'd have to say that I'm pretty solidly in agreement with you.

I'm paraphrasing here, but it seems I recall one of the founding fathers saying that representative government will last exactly as long as it takes people to figure out that they can vote themselves money. Liberalism is the antithesis of everything this country was built on.

 

[fubar]

Moderates/Independants: Some one with no idea that a political party has a basic doctrine, Or that Democrat & republican doctrine differ radically.

This enables them to choose a candidate based on a personality contest and Public image. I'm trying to find a polite way to say 'ignorant'...........


Libertarians: (me). temporary semi-anarchist who believes the US Constitution and Declaration are as important as the Ten Commandments for our culture and country. We need to torch the government with a forest fire that will leave the foundations and pillars intact. Personal freedom, capitalism, property rights, The Bill of Rights.

Wnem was the last time the Dept of Interior or Education did anything that mattered to you ? Or for that matter how many of us even want our Social Security checks when we are of age ?

 

[musicman]

Yeah, but - hell, fubar - then we wouldn't have any National Endowment for the Arts; no environmentalist wackos telling us that the sky is falling; my God - before we knew it, we could actually have communities determining matters of their day-to-day existence for themselves!

What is you, man - some kind of radical?

 

[Bonnie]

Please define the terms, "conservative", "moderate", and "liberal" as you understand them. Be as elaborate or succint as you like. If you'd like to get into subgroups such as "neocon", "radical reactionary", or "commie bastard", by all means, do so.

The only thing I ask is that we leave ol' Dan Webster out of this. He's not that much help in this context, anyhow. I'm looking for YOUR take, as we tend to bandy these terms about quite a bit on this board.

Thanks.

Conservative: One who is principled in thought and action, who beleives in limited governement, and who has faith in a higher power than governement and what's in, doens't beleive morality or religion changes with the whims of those who define morality down to suit their moral inequities, who Does believe in universal truth.

Liberal: One who claims to be tolerant and open minded of all those around them as along you agree with them. One who believes anything goes so long as it doesn't hurt anyone else which is false, because almost everything we do in life has an effect on others. One who believes governement is the answer to all problems even abortion, but claims they don't want big government??? One who defines morality as feeding the needy, but killing the unborn is okay as long as you feed the hungry, and you must feed the hungry through government because all those religious wackos are greedy and could never be depended upon to feed the hungry through CHARITY or heaven forbid Churches!!! One who defines all Christians as religious zealots whose sole mission in life is to kill the good time of everyone else.

Neo-Con, a false label of right winged Hawkish facists given to Liberals who broke away form the Democrats to espouse a more aggressive foreign policy abroad and domestic policy at home. They felt the Democrats were getting too liberal!!!

Moderate : Someone who won't take a real stand on anyting for fear of being ostracised by those who would call them closed minded. Maybe some actually see the merit in seeing both sides of a discussion and that's admirable. They often pick and choose a little from each side of the spectrum and adopt those points of view as their own. I beleive this mindset has their heart in the right place, but is afraid of being judgemental, so they sometimes don't take a strong point of view fearing it's just wrong to do so.