Where do libs come from?

[Said1]

Excellant point--oppostion is vital in defining one's self. Look how much everyone has learned here by debating another viewpoint. Eastern philosophy has so much to offer the world. The ying yang concept and compassion are beautiful !

Quick, say something stupid so I can flame you.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

You haven't said it directly, but your beliefs indicate it.

Actually, I directly said that conservatives today are closer to classical liberals. Conservatives believe in the individuals. Neoliberals(what you are), or just plain modern day "liberals", villify individual rights. Like I said, Modern day liberalism is just socialism.

 

[Mr. P]

Excellant point--oppostion is vital in defining one's self. Look how much everyone has learned here by debating another viewpoint. Eastern philosophy has so much to offer the world. The ying yang concept and compassion are beautiful !

Yeah BUT.... The problem is, as pointed out on another thread, many of the opposing view
refuse to discuss...No discuss = No compromise = No resolution =constant opposition.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Healthy debate is good. But libs refuse to draw conclusions (because they know their conclusions are mostly wrong), and instead just revert to the "everything is too complex to make a decision" crap.

 

[dmp]

Healthy debate is good. But libs refuse to draw conclusions (because they know their conclusions are mostly wrong), and instead just revert to the "everything is too complex to make a decision" crap.

It's about strength of resolve...character. Libs know little of those things.

 

[shadrack]

Actually, I directly said that conservatives today are closer to classical liberals. Conservatives believe in the individuals. Neoliberals(what you are), or just plain modern day "liberals", villify individual rights. Like I said, Modern day liberalism is just socialism.

Government is harmful to real justice inherent in the free development of society, the natural inclination when unfettered by law or regulation, living according to the principles and practices of self-interest.

Doesn't that sum up your beliefs?

Neocons today use this warped concept of your so-called "classical liberalism" as a way to implement their Tory principles. Don't you believe it is the right of the powerful and wealthy to determine the direction of our nation? They've "earned it", after all, in a free, individual-centered, system.

 

[Said1]

Don't you believe it is the right of the powerful and wealthy to determine the direction of our nation? They've "earned it", after all, in a free, individual-centered, system.

Is this your idea of sarcasm?

 

[shadrack]

Is this your idea of sarcasm?

Am I intending to wound or ridicule? No. I'm trying to understand neocon beliefs. I'm searching for clarity because liberalism and conservatism are contrary forms of thinking and neocons seem to be very liberal conservatives.

 

[theim]

Modern-Day Conservatives beleive in limiting Government in almost every aspect of our lives. We believe in the Individal, and each Individual is to be given the tools to become successful. Government is to provide those tools, nothing more. By "tools" I do not mean setting up quotas for minorities, or income redistribution. I mean low taxes so workers can enjoy the fruits of their labors, and accountability for public schools so children aren't stuck in failing institutions, etc. We believe nobody ever became successful relying on government handouts. We believe that the rich should not be punished with higher taxes just for the crime of being rich when there are poor people around. We believe in the freedom to be whatever religion you want.

Modern-Day Liberals see things differently. Modern-Day Liberals are what were once called Socialists and Communists 50 years ago. They support dependence on the Government. They see the people of the nation as unwashed masses who do not know what's right for them, so government must step in and take care of them. They support income redistribution. They punish success and give the money to people who have not done as much. This lowers competition, and thusly slows progress into the future by removing incentive. They beleive success is to be punished, so since success is no longer a desirable goal, there can be a whole class of people dependent on Nanny Government. Modern Day Liberals warp the constitution to attempt to ban the major religion of the country (Christianity, again look at the similarities to Communism) because the very mention of the word "Jesus" in a public place or the phrase "Merry Christmas" at school might "Hurt somebody's feeeeeeelings".

Modern Day Conservatives are what was classical liberalism. You don't beleive me? Look at the statesmen of 200 years ago. Look at Thomas Jefferson. If Thomas Jefferson were a politician today, he would be mocked and ridiculed by Liberals. He would be called a Jack-booted Nazi who wants to create a theocracy because he beleived in God, and God was written into public documents and inscribed on public monuments and uttered in public, government meetings while he was president.

Modern-Day liberals are more comparable to one Vladimir Illyich Lenin than Thomas Jefferson.

 

[Shattered]

Yeah BUT.... The problem is, as pointed out on another thread, many of the opposing view
refuse to discuss...No discuss = No compromise = No resolution =constant opposition.

...which in turn means this board will never cease to exist. You know you'll never be able to change anyone elses beliefs to your own, but the battle itself is where the fun lies...

Personally, I came here because of the *lack* of constant name-calling, belittling, insulting, etc, and I was disappointed to see it...

 

[CSM]

...which in turn means this board will never cease to exist. You know you'll never be able to change anyone elses beliefs to your own, but the battle itself is where the fun lies...

Personally, I came here because of the *lack* of constant name-calling, belittling, insulting, etc, and I was disappointed to see it...

If one is careful who one chooses to debate, much of the infantile tete a tete can be avoided somewhat. I dont respond (in general) to posts that resort to name calling.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Yeah BUT.... The problem is, as pointed out on another thread, many of the opposing view
refuse to discuss...No discuss = No compromise = No resolution =constant opposition.

And this constant opposition is primarily achieved by brainless carping about "definitions". However, liberals will not actually settle on a definite definition because they like to constantly change definitions according to their current needs because they are relativists. I've come to the conclusion it is better to ignore them until they actually have something real to say. Like that will happen - they're more likely to spend hours trying to define what is "real". Hopeless. :coffee3:

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Government is harmful to real justice inherent in the free development of society, the natural inclination when unfettered by law or regulation, living according to the principles and practices of self-interest.

Doesn't that sum up your beliefs?

No. Quit making stuff up.

Neocons today use this warped concept of your so-called "classical liberalism" as a way to implement their Tory principles. Don't you believe it is the right of the powerful and wealthy to determine the direction of our nation? They've "earned it", after all, in a free, individual-centered, system.

I know it's not the right of liberals to determine the path of our society, based solely on their ability to demonize and stir envy.

 

[shadrack]

Modern-Day Conservatives beleive in limiting Government in almost every aspect of our lives. We believe in the Individal, and each Individual is to be given the tools to become successful. Government is to provide those tools, nothing more. By "tools" I do not mean setting up quotas for minorities, or income redistribution. I mean low taxes so workers can enjoy the fruits of their labors, and accountability for public schools so children aren't stuck in failing institutions, etc. We believe nobody ever became successful relying on government handouts. We believe that the rich should not be punished with higher taxes just for the crime of being rich when there are poor people around. We believe in the freedom to be whatever religion you want.

Modern-Day Liberals see things differently. Modern-Day Liberals are what were once called Socialists and Communists 50 years ago. They support dependence on the Government. They see the people of the nation as unwashed masses who do not know what's right for them, so government must step in and take care of them. They support income redistribution. They punish success and give the money to people who have not done as much. This lowers competition, and thusly slows progress into the future by removing incentive. They beleive success is to be punished, so since success is no longer a desirable goal, there can be a whole class of people dependent on Nanny Government. Modern Day Liberals warp the constitution to attempt to ban the major religion of the country (Christianity, again look at the similarities to Communism) because the very mention of the word "Jesus" in a public place or the phrase "Merry Christmas" at school might "Hurt somebody's feeeeeeelings".

Modern Day Conservatives are what was classical liberalism. You don't beleive me? Look at the statesmen of 200 years ago. Look at Thomas Jefferson. If Thomas Jefferson were a politician today, he would be mocked and ridiculed by Liberals. He would be called a Jack-booted Nazi who wants to create a theocracy because he beleived in God, and God was written into public documents and inscribed on public monuments and uttered in public, government meetings while he was president.

Modern-Day liberals are more comparable to one Vladimir Illyich Lenin than Thomas Jefferson.

Well, I've got a few disagreements.

What "tools" are you refering to. Libertarians don't believe in positive rights, only negative rights such as to not be abused in some way. They believe the only use of force, public or private, is to protect these rights.

Jefferson was, on occasion, accused of being atheist because his views on the role of religion in society. "What does religion have to do with picking a president?", is a question Jefferson might make of voters today. These are cultural concerns, not political or economic ones.

Jefferson also desired a broad middle class and was very skeptical of the rich, businessmen, and corporations, seeing them as aristocrats with desire to tyrannize people. Jefferson was very critical of the growth of corporations. Jefferson also thought that to act in self-interest was contrary to the virtues of civil society.

Classical liberalism advocated an isolationist, non-interventionist, foreign policy.

Oh, and if liberals, today, are Bolsheviks, wouldn't that mean classical liberalists are Mensheviks. Is being Leninist a proper analogy to make of "liberals"? I'm sure you don't find fascist analogies too pleasant.

 

[Mariner]

I don't see the point of your brand of name-calling. Why not discuss actual ideas, rather than putting down the people who hold them? In my religion (Hinduism) holding onto that kind of rage and hatred it bad for your soul.

Someone above said that liberals now are as far left as socialists or Communists in the early 20th century. I disagree. I'm a fairly good example of a Cambridge, Mass., liberal, but I am strongly against commmunism (it works within families but not in larger units) and I feel that much of Europe has gone overboard in social programs (I have lived in Europe and have first-hand experience). I believe in benign government that provides a level playing field for all, and in a safety net that will catch us when we are in truly dire straits. To me, both liberalism and conservativism can be taken too far. I am unsurprised that the best government function seems to happen when both forces are in tension, e.g. Clinton against a Republican Congress or Massachusetts, where the liberal legislature is balanced by a moderate Republican governor. I enjoy debating the merits of various ideas, but I don't see any reason to call my opponents names.

Mariner.

 

[Mariner]

stick myself in his face, I might as well do so all at once.

Mariner.

 

[softwaremama]

I would think it's created by hippie parents, I saw this Nanny show on Fox last night. Thier kds walked all over the parents and got what they wanted, they come from houses like this. Then they feel they can walk all over the US cause they think it's better for us.

Yes! Lots of TV shows star kids who are "smarter" than the parents. This attitude must be the breeding ground for libs--like those disgusting pods in the Aliens movie, nursed by a gigantic She-Clintonista in a dark, gooey, protoplasmic environment.

 

[Deornwulf]

Some of you may not like this but America has made the most economic progress in times when the Administration was Democrat and the Legislative Branch in a Republican Majority.

I have nothing against Classical Liberals but disagree with some of the tenets of the Libertarian Party. I believe that government is a necessary part of society when it truly serves at the will of the people. Taxes are a necessary part of the expenses of having centralization of certain needed services.

Intervention has become a necessary part of Foreign Affairs since the actions of the few are having such an impact on the actions of the many. The world is not an orderly place by itself but desires to have order which is why at times an individual or culture has been able to rise up and give order to the world. A country must decided to either give order to the world or be ordered by the country that chooses in its place.

The major problem with the tenets of Classical Liberalism is its failure to clearly define where the rights of one individual end and the rights of another individual begin. Too many of their ideals rely on an inherent goodness in mankind that simply does not exist.

As far as those who are classified as Liberals today, the problem is that their perceived platform is one of larger government, heavy taxation, groupthink, wealth distribution, and many other extreme socialistic ideals.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

As far as those who are classified as Liberals today, the problem is that their perceived platform is one of larger government, heavy taxation, groupthink, wealth distribution, and many other extreme socialistic ideals.

That is also their actual platform, it's not merely a perception. And yes, their ideas are problematic.

And also, I don't know any conservatives who are anarchists; all of us that I know of here believe there is a need for government, taxation, and centralization of some functions.

 

[manu1959]

Some of you may not like this but America has made the most economic progress in times when the Administration was Democrat and the Legislative Branch in a Republican Majority.

when exactly do believe this occured and why do you think it occured?