What are Liberals trying to Liberalize?

[Mr.Nick]

So do I. Though my thoughts it will do what is right diminish daily.

Though we may disagree with how to reach the goal, we agree ON the goal.

So how much bullshit is this whole left-right battle?

Disagreeing on reaching the goals has always been the left/right thing. Which eventually just morphed into who is gonna spend us into oblivion on what policies and services each side believes is the best, rather than putting the country first.

I'm sure we seriously disagree on how to achieve these goals. But if nothing more, you actually answered the question.

It's more like the right/right...

Libertarians/classical liberals are the only ones truly on the left... Republicans and progressives are both on the right...

Ironically republicans are by definition classical liberals..

Shits out of order.......

"Progress" created a society of idiots. I mean we're only labeling authoritarians "liberals."

If modern liberals are truly "liberal" then I'm Gandhi.

I blame whole language....

 

[Foxfyre]

Maybe I hit you with too many questions the first time around. let me try it this way:

The concept of big government creep was first discernable in the Teddy Roosevelt administration and began then as a tiny, seemingly inconsequential snowball that was started rolling slowly down hill. It steadily gained size and momentum from that point as subsequent Presidents added to it, but for decades it remained small enough to not be seen as a problem.

Finally in the 1960's, Lyndon Johnson's "Great Society" gave the snowball a huge shove and it was noticable. But within the phenomenon of the Vietnam War inspired anti-cultural revolution of the sixties, it was the elephant in the room that was not mentioned in polite company.

The anti-cultural revolution, driven by drugs and booze, inspired large numbers of people to zone out, drop out, and reject, even despise, the great American institutions and values that made us the greatest nation the world has ever known. God, church, marriage, personal responsibility and accountability, all by various degrees were rejected, minimalized, marginalized, and rejected as essential to a stable society and were replaced by an anti-establishment 'me first' mentality. And modern American liberalism was born.

In time these anti-culture rebels would return to the mainstream. But their way of thinking and attitude had been mostly changed forever,

And now those anti-cultural revolutionaries of the 60's control our largest corporations, Wall Street, most of the media, most of public education, and most of all aspects of our government from the federal level down to city hall. The public servant largely no longer exists--cannot be elected in most places actually--and has largely been replaced by the professional politician whose No. 1 goal is to get elected and/or stay in office and use the people's money to increase his/her power, prestige, influence, and personal wealth.

And because the culture and education and the media has so long been largely controlled by this same group, too many of our people have been indoctrinated instead of educated. They have been conditioned to believe that if government doesn't do 'good', then no good will be done. They have been taught and honestly believe that most of America was a horrible place before government forced it to be better,. They are incapable of seeing the elephant in the room which is that aspect of government that is destructive, demeaning, and counter productive.

They honestly think they mean well. They honestly believe that the government is more benevolent and honorable than anything the private sector will do. They honestly don't see how modern liberalism has become more restrictive and more authoritarian and more freedom destroying than anything that existed before.

We won't be able to just use the ballot box to begin correcting the damage that has been done. It has to be all of us who can still see clearly and think critically who will have to change hearts and minds.

What is represented by the tiny snowball, exactly? What idea, act, trend.....are you identifying as giving birth to the concept of "big government creep"? Were there voices at the time who gave this name to the concept? Was there any opposition? If so, from whom?

You have begun your treatise with this analogy. I assume that you think it is important. I have asked for some further information and you have thus far refused to provide it.

Thanks.

Teddy Roosevelt, a student of Brook Adams, was the first president to be proactive in consolidating power in the office of the President. In many ways he was a reformer pushing some necessary regulation, but also a lot of excessive regulation that put more and more power into the hands of the Presidency and his power to exercise bureaucrativc oversight. For example, many thoughtful historians put the demise of the American railroad squarely on his head as he pushed regulation that strangled the ability of the railroads to grow and change with the times. Therefore our railroad system remained mired in a stagnant morass of red tape and never became the essential transporation innovation that many countries have seen.

Roosevelt was the first to seriously begin taking self governance away from the people and consolidating it in the federal government.

NOTE TO THE OP: Roosevelt was the first figurehead of modern progressiveism/liberalism that seeks to liberate us from the responsibility to govern outselves and restore the European model of a monarchy or other authoritarian government.

Thomas E. Woods Jr. PhD, another modern historian that I have read and admire writes of Teddy Roosevelt:

Roosevelt. . . .Philosophically he was the consummate Progressive, determined to bring efficiency and coordinated intelligence to bear against the trusts, against despoilers of the natural environment, and against international disorder. He was, as one historian put it, "the first great president-reformer of the modern industrial era."[1] He therefore had little patience with federalism and indeed with most of the constitutional impediments that stood between him and the construction of a new American state. Politically he was a committed nationalist. He thus could barely bring himself to speak of Thomas Jefferson, whom he loathed; and as late as the 1880s he was still condemning Jefferson Davis as a traitor. . . .

Now then. I won't respond to your demands again unless YOU articulate a rebuttal that defends your assertion that my point of view is bullshit. (That side bet I offered is looking more and more like a sure thing for me.)

 

[Foxfyre]

Would any "liberal" answer any of the questions I have proposed? Or do you only have ad hominems, red herrings, and appeal to emotion (which by the way when you use, you basically are forfeiting the debate)?

I challenge any liberal to write something coherent and understandable on the relation of the definition of the term "liberal" and the practice of the modern liberal in the United States today in defense of the idea that they are one and the same. Defend your ideology.

A debate on what the term liberal means and how it's applied to modern day politics?

Why? It's mostly subjective anyway.

Liberalism isn't subjective - the word has a meaning. That's why we have words like authoritarian, totalitarian, anarchy etc....

"Liberalism" as it has been practiced in the USA since the 1960's is, however, defined much differently than most of European 'liberalism' or the liberalism of our Founders. In one of your subsequent posts you pointed out how the inconsistencies in the language have blurred the realities, and that certainly has been an issue.

In America those on the left/liberals/progressives mostly promote an all powerful central government that will order society to be the way that the leftists/liberals/progressives think think it should be. At the extreme. liberty to them is defined as freedom from any want as the all powerful and benevolent government will provide for all who need it.

Those on the right/conservatives/classical liberals want the federal government to secure and protect our rights and then leave us alone to form whatever society we wish to have and govern ourselves which is their definition of liberty. To them liberty is freedom to achieve whatever we aspire to and to order their lives and community as is practically and aesthetically satisfying to them short of trampling on somebody else's unalienable rights.

 

[Vidi]

Though we may disagree with how to reach the goal, we agree ON the goal.

So how much bullshit is this whole left-right battle?

Disagreeing on reaching the goals has always been the left/right thing. Which eventually just morphed into who is gonna spend us into oblivion on what policies and services each side believes is the best, rather than putting the country first.

I'm sure we seriously disagree on how to achieve these goals. But if nothing more, you actually answered the question.

It's more like the right/right...

Libertarians/classical liberals are the only ones truly on the left... Republicans and progressives are both on the right...

Ironically republicans are by definition classical liberals..

Shits out of order.......

"Progress" created a society of idiots. I mean we're only labeling authoritarians "liberals."

If modern liberals are truly "liberal" then I'm Gandhi.

I blame whole language....

On this we can agree, our language is no longer in sync with our reality.


ETA: also, I've had more time to think about your OWS talking point comment. I guess you're probably correct that some of my views are in line with them. But, I felt that some of my views were in line with the Tea Party as well.

Seems to me that both sides, just as we in this thread, recognize and agree on the problems, but disagree on the solutions.

Part of it, I believe is our natural instinct to defend "our side".

Until we, the voters, are willing to honestly and objectively judge each issue individually and each politician individually instead of holding the party line, the name calling juvenile politics will continue.

 

[Foxfyre]

Disagreeing on reaching the goals has always been the left/right thing. Which eventually just morphed into who is gonna spend us into oblivion on what policies and services each side believes is the best, rather than putting the country first.

I'm sure we seriously disagree on how to achieve these goals. But if nothing more, you actually answered the question.

It's more like the right/right...

Libertarians/classical liberals are the only ones truly on the left... Republicans and progressives are both on the right...

Ironically republicans are by definition classical liberals..

Shits out of order.......

"Progress" created a society of idiots. I mean we're only labeling authoritarians "liberals."

If modern liberals are truly "liberal" then I'm Gandhi.

I blame whole language....

On this we can agree, our language is no longer in sync with our reality.


ETA: also, I've had more time to think about your OWS talking point comment. I guess you're probably correct that some of my views are in line with them. But, I felt that some of my views were in line with the Tea Party as well.

Seems to me that both sides, just as we in this thread, recognize and agree on the problems, but disagree on the solutions.

Part of it, I believe is our natural instinct to defend "our side".

Until we, the voters, are willing to honestly and objectively judge each issue individually and each politician individually instead of holding the party line, the name calling juvenile politics will continue.

I think it isn't even an issue of the party line. I don't have a problem with folks who defend one party or the other even though they don't agree 100% with all the positions promoted by the party they identify with. In a democratic republic, we have to pick sides and join in collective efforts to accomplish much of anything as a nation.

Where I see the problem is in the indoctrination of people that is actually a form of brain washing. Rather than teach people to think critically and understand WHY a given principle or action is better or worse than another, they are taught sound bites--propaganda statements to be dutifully recited on cue, and are conditioned to reject any challenge to the 'position of the day/week/year' or whatever.

When challenged to articulate a rationale for why they hold a particular point of view, however, very very few can or will do so. Sometimes they are ashamed or embarrassed to admit their personal motives but more often than not they simply don't know why they believe what they believe and therefore cannot articulate a basis for it. So, they build straw men, throw in red herrings, and/or utilize other ad hominem or personally insulting means to divert attention from the fact that they don't know how to support their convictions.

 

[peach174]

There is too many in both parties that think the the Federal Government has no restraint.
The Tea Party is trying to change the Repubs back to our constitution, but I don't see the Dems doing anything to change their party and try to get back to a more balanced representation.

 

[Foxfyre]

There is too many in both parties that think the the Federal Government has no restraint.
The Tea Party is trying to change the Repubs back to our constitution, but I don't see the Dems doing anything to change their party and try to get back to a more balanced representation.

That's the thing. The Democrats early on ridiculed, maligned, attacked, and attempted to marginalize the Tea Party movement. No fertile soil to be had there.

The GOP was also skeptical but was more open to the concepts, so the Tea Party focused their efforts on mostly infiltrating the GOP as much as possible and reforming it from within to further the Tea Party goals.

But there is also resistance among GOP professional politicians who are in it to use their position (and the people's money) to increase their own power, prestige, influence, and personal wealth. They won't give that up any more easily than the Democrats will.

So, the Tea Party will just have to continue to focus on promoting those who hold, breathe, speak, and practice Tea Party principles and hope they can infuse the government with enough such people to make a difference.

Liberty for most conservatives, classical liberals, Tea Partiers, 9/12ers, and other like minded reformers is having our rights secured and then determining and being in charge of our own destiny rather than the government doing that for us.

Such liberty has become a foreign concept to most leftists/liberals/progressives.

 

[LoneLaugher]

It's more like the right/right...

Libertarians/classical liberals are the only ones truly on the left... Republicans and progressives are both on the right...

Ironically republicans are by definition classical liberals..

Shits out of order.......

"Progress" created a society of idiots. I mean we're only labeling authoritarians "liberals."

If modern liberals are truly "liberal" then I'm Gandhi.

I blame whole language....

On this we can agree, our language is no longer in sync with our reality.


ETA: also, I've had more time to think about your OWS talking point comment. I guess you're probably correct that some of my views are in line with them. But, I felt that some of my views were in line with the Tea Party as well.

Seems to me that both sides, just as we in this thread, recognize and agree on the problems, but disagree on the solutions.

Part of it, I believe is our natural instinct to defend "our side".

Until we, the voters, are willing to honestly and objectively judge each issue individually and each politician individually instead of holding the party line, the name calling juvenile politics will continue.

I think it isn't even an issue of the party line. I don't have a problem with folks who defend one party or the other even though they don't agree 100% with all the positions promoted by the party they identify with. In a democratic republic, we have to pick sides and join in collective efforts to accomplish much of anything as a nation.

Where I see the problem is in the indoctrination of people that is actually a form of brain washing. Rather than teach people to think critically and understand WHY a given principle or action is better or worse than another, they are taught sound bites--propaganda statements to be dutifully recited on cue, and are conditioned to reject any challenge to the 'position of the day/week/year' or whatever.

When challenged to articulate a rationale for why they hold a particular point of view, however, very very few can or will do so. Sometimes they are ashamed or embarrassed to admit their personal motives but more often than not they simply don't know why they believe what they believe and therefore cannot articulate a basis for it. So, they build straw men, throw in red herrings, and/or utilize other ad hominem or personally insulting means to divert attention from the fact that they don't know how to support their convictions.

That is why your comments are bullshit.

 

[Foxfyre]

On this we can agree, our language is no longer in sync with our reality.


ETA: also, I've had more time to think about your OWS talking point comment. I guess you're probably correct that some of my views are in line with them. But, I felt that some of my views were in line with the Tea Party as well.

Seems to me that both sides, just as we in this thread, recognize and agree on the problems, but disagree on the solutions.

Part of it, I believe is our natural instinct to defend "our side".

Until we, the voters, are willing to honestly and objectively judge each issue individually and each politician individually instead of holding the party line, the name calling juvenile politics will continue.

I think it isn't even an issue of the party line. I don't have a problem with folks who defend one party or the other even though they don't agree 100% with all the positions promoted by the party they identify with. In a democratic republic, we have to pick sides and join in collective efforts to accomplish much of anything as a nation.

Where I see the problem is in the indoctrination of people that is actually a form of brain washing. Rather than teach people to think critically and understand WHY a given principle or action is better or worse than another, they are taught sound bites--propaganda statements to be dutifully recited on cue, and are conditioned to reject any challenge to the 'position of the day/week/year' or whatever.

When challenged to articulate a rationale for why they hold a particular point of view, however, very very few can or will do so. Sometimes they are ashamed or embarrassed to admit their personal motives but more often than not they simply don't know why they believe what they believe and therefore cannot articulate a basis for it. So, they build straw men, throw in red herrings, and/or utilize other ad hominem or personally insulting means to divert attention from the fact that they don't know how to support their convictions.

That is why your comments are bullshit.

Proving once again that I am absolutely right about the clueless on the Left. Learning how to spell "bullshit" is just about all you've got.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Enough.

 

[Vidi]

It's more like the right/right...

Libertarians/classical liberals are the only ones truly on the left... Republicans and progressives are both on the right...

Ironically republicans are by definition classical liberals..

Shits out of order.......

"Progress" created a society of idiots. I mean we're only labeling authoritarians "liberals."

If modern liberals are truly "liberal" then I'm Gandhi.

I blame whole language....

On this we can agree, our language is no longer in sync with our reality.


ETA: also, I've had more time to think about your OWS talking point comment. I guess you're probably correct that some of my views are in line with them. But, I felt that some of my views were in line with the Tea Party as well.

Seems to me that both sides, just as we in this thread, recognize and agree on the problems, but disagree on the solutions.

Part of it, I believe is our natural instinct to defend "our side".

Until we, the voters, are willing to honestly and objectively judge each issue individually and each politician individually instead of holding the party line, the name calling juvenile politics will continue.

I think it isn't even an issue of the party line. I don't have a problem with folks who defend one party or the other even though they don't agree 100% with all the positions promoted by the party they identify with. In a democratic republic, we have to pick sides and join in collective efforts to accomplish much of anything as a nation.

Where I see the problem is in the indoctrination of people that is actually a form of brain washing. Rather than teach people to think critically and understand WHY a given principle or action is better or worse than another, they are taught sound bites--propaganda statements to be dutifully recited on cue, and are conditioned to reject any challenge to the 'position of the day/week/year' or whatever.

When challenged to articulate a rationale for why they hold a particular point of view, however, very very few can or will do so. Sometimes they are ashamed or embarrassed to admit their personal motives but more often than not they simply don't know why they believe what they believe and therefore cannot articulate a basis for it. So, they build straw men, throw in red herrings, and/or utilize other ad hominem or personally insulting means to divert attention from the fact that they don't know how to support their convictions.

I agree completely,but...

The mark of a true Free Thinker is someone who can identify someone who is brainwashed BUT advocating a position the free thinker agrees with.


Unless the Free Thinkers are willing to identify and more importantly correct the errors of the brainwashed of their OWN side, then they may as well be one of the sheep.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

As we can see from the evidence provided by conservatives in this thread (as well as many other sources), the fundamental conflict between rightists and liberals is the latter’s rejection of dogma and adherence to pragmatism.

Indeed, the basic authoritarianism of conservatives and their innate need to adhere blindly to rightist dogma make it impossible for them to understand the liberal mind open to ideas regardless their political origin.

For example, in addition to being a violation of the Constitutional right to privacy, liberals oppose laws banning abortion because such measures simply won’t work – regardless one’s perception of the morality of the issue. If one seriously wishes to end abortion, the most useless ‘solution’ would be to outlaw it.

Liberals oppose most things authoritarian conservatives advocate because they either won’t work (such as voter ID laws), there’s no objective factual evidence in support of what conservatives advocate (applicants for public assistance are ‘drug abusers&#8217, and is often in violation of the Constitution (denying same-sex couples equal access to marriage laws).

The rightist position on immigration is yet another example of how authoritarian conservatives get it wrong, particularly with regard to undocumented aliens who came to the US legally but lost their legal status subsequently through no fault of their own. Pragmatic liberals know there is no way legally or morally to force such persons back to their ‘birth countries,’ and the pragmatic and productive thing to do is allow them to attend college and/or serve in the military to become productive members of a society that is already their home.

What is the authoritarian conservative’s ‘solution’ for these undocumented aliens? Keep them out of school, ignorant and unemployable, drive them underground where they’ll likely become a burden on society and eventual criminals.

Good plan, conservatives.

And last but certainly not least, is the fallacy that is conservative fiscal dogma: their pathetic and inane dream to recreate an 18th Century economic structure in a 21 Century First World Industrialized Super Power.

It would be laughable if not for the fact that they are serious with regard to this naïve, unrealistic, and reactionary goal.

The sheer idiocy of conservatism, and its authoritarianism anathema to basic American principles, will prove its ultimate undoing – the trick is to limit the damage until that happy day arrives.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

As we can see from the evidence provided by conservatives in this thread (as well as many other sources), the fundamental conflict between rightists and liberals is the latter’s rejection of dogma and adherence to pragmatism.

Which is fundamental of keeping a cohesive society in some regards. First and foremost, economics. Which is where I find myself in absolute and complete disagreement on 100% of the time with my neoliberal friends and the far left on here..

 

[LoneLaugher]

As we can see from the evidence provided by conservatives in this thread (as well as many other sources), the fundamental conflict between rightists and liberals is the latter’s rejection of dogma and adherence to pragmatism.

Indeed, the basic authoritarianism of conservatives and their innate need to adhere blindly to rightist dogma make it impossible for them to understand the liberal mind open to ideas regardless their political origin.

For example, in addition to being a violation of the Constitutional right to privacy, liberals oppose laws banning abortion because such measures simply won’t work – regardless one’s perception of the morality of the issue. If one seriously wishes to end abortion, the most useless ‘solution’ would be to outlaw it.

Liberals oppose most things authoritarian conservatives advocate because they either won’t work (such as voter ID laws), there’s no objective factual evidence in support of what conservatives advocate (applicants for public assistance are ‘drug abusers’), and is often in violation of the Constitution (denying same-sex couples equal access to marriage laws).

The rightist position on immigration is yet another example of how authoritarian conservatives get it wrong, particularly with regard to undocumented aliens who came to the US legally but lost their legal status subsequently through no fault of their own. Pragmatic liberals know there is no way legally or morally to force such persons back to their ‘birth countries,’ and the pragmatic and productive thing to do is allow them to attend college and/or serve in the military to become productive members of a society that is already their home.

What is the authoritarian conservative’s ‘solution’ for these undocumented aliens? Keep them out of school, ignorant and unemployable, drive them underground where they’ll likely become a burden on society and eventual criminals.

Good plan, conservatives.

And last but certainly not least, is the fallacy that is conservative fiscal dogma: their pathetic and inane dream to recreate an 18th Century economic structure in a 21 Century First World Industrialized Super Power.

It would be laughable if not for the fact that they are serious with regard to this naïve, unrealistic, and reactionary goal.

The sheer idiocy of conservatism, and its authoritarianism anathema to basic American principles, will prove its ultimate undoing – the trick is to limit the damage until that happy day arrives.

Now......THAT......is something that might earn a speaker's fee. Well done.

 

[regent]

As there are various type of Christian demoninations there are various types of liberalism. I can name perhaps ten or twelve types, and there are probably more. But as in Christianity there are core beliefs to liberalism and one must start with those core beliefs, and from those core beliefs the other types begin to fall into place.
Jefferson had already started moving away from one type of liberalism, classical, by 1776. To add to the confusion people often define liberalism by that which individual liberals seem to believe. But many liberals are not totally liberal, they may have some conservative traits. Another problem with definitions is that liberals change their means to achieve liberalism, and often the means are mistakenly defined as liberalism. For example, in 1776 liberals feared governments, but when liberals became the government that fear eroded and government was seen differently, now often as a tool to be used to carry out liberalism. The size and power of government was a means to an end, and not a part of liberalism.

 

[Vidi]

As we can see from the evidence provided by conservatives in this thread (as well as many other sources), the fundamental conflict between rightists and liberals is the latter’s rejection of dogma and adherence to pragmatism.

Indeed, the basic authoritarianism of conservatives and their innate need to adhere blindly to rightist dogma make it impossible for them to understand the liberal mind open to ideas regardless their political origin.

For example, in addition to being a violation of the Constitutional right to privacy, liberals oppose laws banning abortion because such measures simply won’t work – regardless one’s perception of the morality of the issue. If one seriously wishes to end abortion, the most useless ‘solution’ would be to outlaw it.

Liberals oppose most things authoritarian conservatives advocate because they either won’t work (such as voter ID laws), there’s no objective factual evidence in support of what conservatives advocate (applicants for public assistance are ‘drug abusers’), and is often in violation of the Constitution (denying same-sex couples equal access to marriage laws).

The rightist position on immigration is yet another example of how authoritarian conservatives get it wrong, particularly with regard to undocumented aliens who came to the US legally but lost their legal status subsequently through no fault of their own. Pragmatic liberals know there is no way legally or morally to force such persons back to their ‘birth countries,’ and the pragmatic and productive thing to do is allow them to attend college and/or serve in the military to become productive members of a society that is already their home.

What is the authoritarian conservative’s ‘solution’ for these undocumented aliens? Keep them out of school, ignorant and unemployable, drive them underground where they’ll likely become a burden on society and eventual criminals.

Good plan, conservatives.

And last but certainly not least, is the fallacy that is conservative fiscal dogma: their pathetic and inane dream to recreate an 18th Century economic structure in a 21 Century First World Industrialized Super Power.

It would be laughable if not for the fact that they are serious with regard to this naïve, unrealistic, and reactionary goal.

The sheer idiocy of conservatism, and its authoritarianism anathema to basic American principles, will prove its ultimate undoing – the trick is to limit the damage until that happy day arrives.

Im with you on everything but the illegal immigrant portion. If youd had your social security number compromised and dealth with the IRS like I did for nearly two years of financial hell, you might feel differently on the subject as well.

Overall, good post though.

 

[freedombecki]

What are Liberals trying to Liberalize?

The tiny, closed in minds in indoctrinated extremist Republicans. Obviously. I thought everyone knew.

Let's unspin that statement you made...

"The broad-minded, well-trained Republicans who have firm beliefs that cannot be easily shaken by our best efforts at spin and obfuscation..."

You're welcome, Mr. Dean.

 

[Foxfyre]

As we can see from the evidence provided by conservatives in this thread (as well as many other sources), the fundamental conflict between rightists and liberals is the latter’s rejection of dogma and adherence to pragmatism.

Indeed, the basic authoritarianism of conservatives and their innate need to adhere blindly to rightist dogma make it impossible for them to understand the liberal mind open to ideas regardless their political origin.

For example, in addition to being a violation of the Constitutional right to privacy, liberals oppose laws banning abortion because such measures simply won’t work – regardless one’s perception of the morality of the issue. If one seriously wishes to end abortion, the most useless ‘solution’ would be to outlaw it.

Liberals oppose most things authoritarian conservatives advocate because they either won’t work (such as voter ID laws), there’s no objective factual evidence in support of what conservatives advocate (applicants for public assistance are ‘drug abusers’), and is often in violation of the Constitution (denying same-sex couples equal access to marriage laws).

The rightist position on immigration is yet another example of how authoritarian conservatives get it wrong, particularly with regard to undocumented aliens who came to the US legally but lost their legal status subsequently through no fault of their own. Pragmatic liberals know there is no way legally or morally to force such persons back to their ‘birth countries,’ and the pragmatic and productive thing to do is allow them to attend college and/or serve in the military to become productive members of a society that is already their home.

What is the authoritarian conservative’s ‘solution’ for these undocumented aliens? Keep them out of school, ignorant and unemployable, drive them underground where they’ll likely become a burden on society and eventual criminals.

Good plan, conservatives.

And last but certainly not least, is the fallacy that is conservative fiscal dogma: their pathetic and inane dream to recreate an 18th Century economic structure in a 21 Century First World Industrialized Super Power.

It would be laughable if not for the fact that they are serious with regard to this naïve, unrealistic, and reactionary goal.

The sheer idiocy of conservatism, and its authoritarianism anathema to basic American principles, will prove its ultimate undoing – the trick is to limit the damage until that happy day arrives.

Im with you on everything but the illegal immigrant portion. If youd had your social security number compromised and dealth with the IRS like I did for nearly two years of financial hell, you might feel differently on the subject as well.

Overall, good post though.

A post that is certainly debatable and any debater worth his/her salt would have that so riddled with fact check bullet holes that there wouldn't be much purpose in continuing the debate. Almost every point mentioned from which group clings to dogma to immigration laws to Voter I.D. to gay marriage is mischaracterized and misrepresented complete with ad hominem, straw men, red herrings, and other distortions of the actual point of view of conservatism.

It was at least coherant and competently expressed so I'll give him that. But it goes back to that frustration with arguing with liberals. It was all focused on attacking conservativism/conservatives, characterizing them as the 'impractical/stupid/dogmatic/ignorant/idiotic/etc.' guys without any supporting basis for why liberalism is better.

 

[LoneLaugher]

As we can see from the evidence provided by conservatives in this thread (as well as many other sources), the fundamental conflict between rightists and liberals is the latter’s rejection of dogma and adherence to pragmatism.

Indeed, the basic authoritarianism of conservatives and their innate need to adhere blindly to rightist dogma make it impossible for them to understand the liberal mind open to ideas regardless their political origin.

For example, in addition to being a violation of the Constitutional right to privacy, liberals oppose laws banning abortion because such measures simply won’t work – regardless one’s perception of the morality of the issue. If one seriously wishes to end abortion, the most useless ‘solution’ would be to outlaw it.

Liberals oppose most things authoritarian conservatives advocate because they either won’t work (such as voter ID laws), there’s no objective factual evidence in support of what conservatives advocate (applicants for public assistance are ‘drug abusers’), and is often in violation of the Constitution (denying same-sex couples equal access to marriage laws).

The rightist position on immigration is yet another example of how authoritarian conservatives get it wrong, particularly with regard to undocumented aliens who came to the US legally but lost their legal status subsequently through no fault of their own. Pragmatic liberals know there is no way legally or morally to force such persons back to their ‘birth countries,’ and the pragmatic and productive thing to do is allow them to attend college and/or serve in the military to become productive members of a society that is already their home.

What is the authoritarian conservative’s ‘solution’ for these undocumented aliens? Keep them out of school, ignorant and unemployable, drive them underground where they’ll likely become a burden on society and eventual criminals.

Good plan, conservatives.

And last but certainly not least, is the fallacy that is conservative fiscal dogma: their pathetic and inane dream to recreate an 18th Century economic structure in a 21 Century First World Industrialized Super Power.

It would be laughable if not for the fact that they are serious with regard to this naïve, unrealistic, and reactionary goal.

The sheer idiocy of conservatism, and its authoritarianism anathema to basic American principles, will prove its ultimate undoing – the trick is to limit the damage until that happy day arrives.

Im with you on everything but the illegal immigrant portion. If youd had your social security number compromised and dealth with the IRS like I did for nearly two years of financial hell, you might feel differently on the subject as well.

Overall, good post though.

A post that is certainly debatable and any debater worth his/her salt would have that so riddled with fact check bullet holes that there wouldn't be much purpose in continuing the debate. Almost every point mentioned from which group clings to dogma to immigration laws to Voter I.D. to gay marriage is mischaricterized and misrepresented complete with ad-hominem, straw men, red herrings, and other distortions of the actual point of view of conservatism.

It was at least coherent and competently expressed so I'll give him that. But it goes back to that frustration with arguing with liberals. It was all focused on attacking conservativism/conservatives, characterizing them as the 'impractical/stupid/dogmatic/ignorant/idiotic/etc.' guys without any supporting basis for why liberalism is better.

But, you don't feel like it................right?

 

[Foxfyre]

Im with you on everything but the illegal immigrant portion. If youd had your social security number compromised and dealth with the IRS like I did for nearly two years of financial hell, you might feel differently on the subject as well.

Overall, good post though.

A post that is certainly debatable and any debater worth his/her salt would have that so riddled with fact check bullet holes that there wouldn't be much purpose in continuing the debate. Almost every point mentioned from which group clings to dogma to immigration laws to Voter I.D. to gay marriage is mischaricterized and misrepresented complete with ad-hominem, straw men, red herrings, and other distortions of the actual point of view of conservatism.

It was at least coherent and competently expressed so I'll give him that. But it goes back to that frustration with arguing with liberals. It was all focused on attacking conservativism/conservatives, characterizing them as the 'impractical/stupid/dogmatic/ignorant/idiotic/etc.' guys without any supporting basis for why liberalism is better.

But, you don't feel like it................right?

But I did feel like it so I did. I pointed out that it was nothing more than what we usually get from liberals which is attacking anybody or anything conservative and/or misrepresenting and mischaracterizing most conservative convictions or what most conservatives want. It does not address what liberals want to liberalize.

Maybe you could try again and articulate a reasoned opinion of something liberals want to liberalize that you think is not now liberal? Can you do that without even mentioning a conservative or a conservative viewpoint?