Values: Conservative vs. Liberal

[Buddahaid]

Let's find out what our viewers define as conservative values and liberal values. I'm betting there's not as wide of a gap as some of us think.

But first, we must define what the values are. Can it be boiled down to a few categories? Or is the devil in the details?

Religious?

Family?

Country?

Personal?

Life?

EDIT: Here's the text and a link to where it's from for some points.

http://www.classroomhelp.com/lessons/cdv/cdv_definition.html


Return to the Core Democratic Home Page. (http://www.classroomhelp.com/lessons/cdv/index.html)

Core Democratic Values


This section is divided into two parts the Fundamental Beliefs (Often referred to as the Core Democratic Values of Elementary Students.) and the Constitutional Principals (http://www.classroomhelp.com/lessons/cdv/cdv_definition.html#Anchor-Constitutiona-42383).
Fundamental Beliefs

Life: A person's right to life can't be violated except if your life or the lives of others is threatened.
Liberty: This includes personal freedom, political freedom, and economic freedom. This is the freedom for people to gather in groups. They have their own beliefs, ideas and opinions. People also have the right to express their opinions in public.


Personal Freedom - the right to think and act without government control.
Political Freedom - the right to participate in political process.
Economic Freedom - the right to buy, sell and trade private property and the right to employment without the government interfering.

The Pursuit of Happiness: As long as you don't interfere with others you have the right to seek happiness in your own way.
Common Good: Working together for the welfare of the community or the benefit of all.
Justice: All people should be treated fairly in both the benefits and the obligations of society. No individual or group should be favored over another person or group.
Equality: Everyone has the right to Political, Legal, Social and Economic Equality. Everyone has the right to the same treatment regardless of race, sex, religion, heritage, or economic status.
Diversity: The differences in culture, dress, language, heritage and religion are not just tolerated, but celebrated as a strength.
Truth: They should expect and demand that the government not lie to them and the government should disclose information to the people. The government and its people should not lie.
Popular Sovereignty: The power of the government comes from the people. The people are the ultimate authority over the government.
Patriotism: The people or citizens show a love and devotion for their country and the values. They can show this by words or by actions.
Constitutional Principles

Rule of Law: Both the people and the government must obey all laws.
Separation of Powers: The executive, legislative and judicial branches of the government should be separate institutions so no one branch has all of the power.
Representative Government: People have the right to elect others to represent them in the government.
Checks and Balances: The powers of the three branches of government, executive, legislative and judicial, should be balanced. No one branch should be dominate. Each branch should have powers to check the actions of the other branches.
Individual Rights: Each individual has the fundamental right to life, liberty, economic freedom and the pursuit of happiness. These rights are outlined in the Bill of Rights and the government should protect these rights and not place undo restrictions upon them.
Freedom of Religion: The right to practice any or no religion without persecution by the government.
Federalism: The states and the federal government share power as outlined by the Constitution.
Civilian Control of the Military: The people control the military to preserve democracy.



This page was last modified on Sunday, January 25, 2004

[Aramike]

This is kind of why I don't call myself a conservative even though the majority of my views ARE conservative. I believe in families, accountability, limited government, etc. But I'm also an agnostic and a staunch believer in science. I believe that the abortion debate is filled with people on both sides who are full of it (pro-life and pro-choice are completely misleading descriptors).

I could go on but my point is that in general it should be fairly difficult to fit everyone neatly into one of two broad political views.

But I will make a generalization: conservatives tend to buy more completely into the entire package, while liberalism is saddled with more of the single-issue crowd, and is more likely to have divergent views within the group. For example, PETA is clearly a liberal organization as is the Meatpacking Union. Or how about Greenpeace and the UAW? Or how about the gay/lesbian community and the African-American demographic, which is decidely anti-gay?

The American Democratic Party consists of very strange bedfellows. This is why I sometimes muse that the Republican Party is about principles (although I don't agree with all of them) and the Democratic Party is about not having principles.

[Buddahaid]

I see the first thing to clear up is does conservative mean Republican, and liberal mean Democrat. I don't think so, but you almost always here the two pairs together, as conservative Republicans this, and liberal Democrats that. I feel that serves no purpose but to polarize the public into party lines regardless of the issue at hand.

Interesting. You're saying, in general, that if one felt strongly enough that homosexuality was a sin, they would more likely buy the whole package and be a Republican. Even if, as was brought out last week, a Republican county in CA uses nearly twice the per capita state funds than more Democratic counties. These people seem to be liberal Republicans, but hold those principals.

Buddahaid

[Platapus]

I see the first thing to clear up is does conservative mean Republican, and liberal mean Democrat. I don't think so, but you almost always here the two pairs together, as conservative Republicans this, and liberal Democrats that.

I think you are correct here. People of both/either political party can be Conservative, Moderate, or Liberal.

I also believe that those three terms can not be absolute but are alway relative.

A person can't be "a conservative", but they can be more conservative than "someone else".

But then people have the right to call themselves what ever makes them feel comfortable. :D

What I hate is when people try to nullify someone's opinion by labeling them.

"Oh well he is just a Conservative, that's why he thinks like that"
or

"What else can you expect from a Liberal"

Instead of truly trying to understand their opinion.

Anytime we apply labels we are hindering communication and understanding between people of different opinions.

[Aramike]

What I hate is when people try to nullify someone's opinion by labeling them.

"Oh well he is just a Conservative, that's why he thinks like that"
or

"What else can you expect from a Liberal"

Instead of truly trying to understand their opinion.

Anytime we apply labels we are hindering communication and understanding between people of different opinions. I agree with this. If one has sound reasoning than such ad hominem statements are unnecessary.

[Aramike]

Interesting. You're saying, in general, that if one felt strongly enough that homosexuality was a sin, they would more likely buy the whole package and be a Republican. Even if, as was brought out last week, a Republican county in CA uses nearly twice the per capita state funds than more Democratic counties. These people seem to be liberal Republicans, but hold those principals.Actually, I'm saying the opposite; that the single issue voter more often emerges in the Democratic Party.

[Skybird]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lupNzpcpDRk

Need to say more?

[CastleBravo]

Anyone who responds to the substance of this post is feeding the monster.

[Buddahaid]

Anyone who responds to the substance of this post is feeding the monster.

How so? The monster is without substance when brought out into the light of reason.

Buddahaid

[Buddahaid]

Actually, I'm saying the opposite; that the single issue voter more often emerges in the Democratic Party.

I'll have to give that one some thought as it seems I usually see it otherwise. Maybe we all have our political beer goggles on.

Buddahaid

[CastleBravo]

http://birdhouse.org/blog/images/silly_hans.jpg

[Aramike]

I'll have to give that one some thought as it seems I usually see it otherwise. Maybe we all have our political beer goggles on.

BuddahaidThat's why I consider myself an independent - to avoid the political beer goggles.

The reasoning for my finding the democrats to be more of a divergent group is that the party represents such a diversity of interests, but many of which are at odds with other interests the party represents.

Conservatism doesn't have that same divergence.

By the way, I don't think there is anything wrong with that - I just think it is what it is.

[Buddahaid]

http://birdhouse.org/blog/images/silly_hans.jpg

Do you have a point to make? Is this gay bashing? For the record I'm not and never will be if that matters to you. Seems I found a one topic Republican voter already.

And your words seem prophetic now as the only one feeding the monster seems to be you. If you can't argue a position with words, then leave it to others, or correct my misunderstanding this picture post.

Buddahaid

[CastleBravo]

It has nothing to do with being gay. It has everything to do with being silly. That is why this topic is so toxic. You started with a benign number of topics, and proceeded to entered a number of liberal/progressive talking points.

[Buddahaid]

OK :haha:. Then please bring up conservative non-progressive talking points. If the topic is silly why is so much energy wasted, by so many people, arguing about it in political races, media outlets, rallies, churches, etc. I'm hoping to show people share more ground than not by asking for viewpoints from both camps. Or, do you feel it's silly to try as people would rather fight over differences anyway. Just seems a lot of topics get derailed over just these types of issues and maybe they could be argued here instead.


Buddahaid

Edited after rereading the previous post.

[CastleBravo]

OK :haha:. Then please bring up conservative non-progressive talking points. If the topic is silly why is so much energy wasted, by so many people, arguing about it in political races, media outlets, rallies, churches, etc. I'm hoping to show people share more ground than not by asking for viewpoints from both camps. Or, do you feel it's silly to try as people would rather fight over differences anyway. Just seems a lot of topics get derailed over just these types of issues and maybe they could be argued here instead.


Buddahaid

Edited after rereading the previous post.

No. I will not feed your toxic animal.

[Buddahaid]

Point taken. I guess it will only serve to further polarize SUBSIM members in the long run, and I'll let it die on its own.

Let sleeping dogs lie. :zzz:

Buddahaid

EDIT: Rather a shame really, as it says a lot about how much humanity still needs to grow if we can't even agree to talk out differences.

[Kapt Z]

Silence is more polarizing than any discussion.:nope:

[Thomen]

EDIT: Rather a shame really, as it says a lot about how much humanity still needs to grow if we can't even agree to talk out differences.

For what it is worth:
Aslong as you are willing not to be bothered by certain individuals, you will find that you can talk about anything (as long as Neal plays along, that is). Unfortunately, there are those who seem to be so unsecure about themselves and their political views, that instead of staying out of a discussion, they will try to derail it just to make themself or their view of politic appear to be superior. ;)

As a foreigner living in this country, I am certainly very interested in the fundamentals of both sides. Preferably untainted by the media and bloger sphere.

[Rilder]

Having political parties is pretty stupid, why should we have to align ourselves to some arbitrary group. Rebublicans = Idiots, Democrats = Morons in my eyes and no party except maybe the Pirate Party deserves my vote.

[CaptainHaplo]

Core Democratic Values

Life: A person's right to life can't be violated except if your life or the lives of others is threatened.

"Liberal" and "Conservative" differ here - primarily on the issues of abortion and the death penalty.

The mainstream "Conservative" stance on abortion is that life is sacred, and so abortions should not occur unless there is an imminent danger to the life of the mother, or other extreme rationale.

The mainstream "Liberal" stance states that because abortion is "before birth", it is ok to kill an unborn child, even when they could have survived outside the womb, all on the "choice" of the woman pregnant. Instead of adhering to the idea listed above, liberalist try to redefine what "Life" is.

Liberty: This includes personal freedom, political freedom, and economic freedom. This is the freedom for people to gather in groups. They have their own beliefs, ideas and opinions. People also have the right to express their opinions in public.

"Conservative" - people have the right to express their opinions in public - as long as such expression does not harm or infringe the rights of others. Cases in point would be anti-war demonstrations during the Bush administration - they were frequent and had no issues - EXPECT when they crossed certain lines - such as interfering in the funerals of servicemen and woment who had come home to be laid to rest. Such interference was a harm to the family members, and even then there was some leeway given.

"Liberal" views on liberty and the free expression of ideas, beliefs and opinions can be seen via the demonstrated double standards such people and groups routinely display. For example - christian churches being excluded from "holiday parades" due to their overt religiousity, yet no fuss is put up when muslim prayer calls are broadcast over public loudspeakers at the town square in some towns in the US. Free expression of ideas? Sure, you can do that - as long as those ideas agree with liberal thoughts. Doubt me? Then why do we have such things as the refusal to discuss global warming on the basis of scientific facts? Why do we still have liberal legislators pushing the "Fairness Act" in regards to talk radio?

Personal Freedom - the right to think and act without government control.
Political Freedom - the right to participate in political process.
Economic Freedom - the right to buy, sell and trade private property and the right to employment without the government interfering.
Political Freedom - your allowed to vote - but if your in a group that might vote in a way that isn't in support of the liberal agenda - for example - most military ballots - will be challenged in court in an attempt to disenfranchise you. If your voting in certain precincts, but might vote in a way that isnt't in line with certain groups, you may end up with a black panther watching to make sure you vote the way you "OUGHT" to. If your a member of a union - sure you get to vote - even as you watch your union dues go to support a candidate that may disagree with what your views are - because you don't get a say in where that money goes.

Economic Freedom - buy, sell and trade private property without government interference? Ever heard of taxes - sales tax, death tax, inheritance tax, etc etc. Both sides have their hand in that cookie jar, though one side likes that cookie more than the other. No government interference in business? Again - both sides can't keep their hands out of business - see both the Bush and Obama "economic stimulus (AKA we know own that)" packages.... And what happens if your in the medical field - and now your run by the government? Seems conservitive ideals are against that - liberals are for it....

The Pursuit of Happiness: As long as you don't interfere with others you have the right to seek happiness in your own way.

Conservative - key word is PURSUIT - you can seek it - but its not guaranteed to you. Also - as long as you don't harm others to get it.

Liberalist - If you seek it and it doesn't fall into your lap - then the government should provide it for you - via welfare, government healthcare, or other social program. The fact that it takes away from the money of others that they earned is really not a harm to them, because if they become destitute, then they can go on the government nipple to.

Common Good: Working together for the welfare of the community or the benefit of all.

Conservative - Its important to remember that this is a RIGHT - not a RESPONSIBILITY. If an individual chooses to not do so, they also should have that right, as well as the repercussions within their own community.

Liberalist - This is a responsibility - and should be controlled by the government. If you work harder than your neighbor - and can afford more than he can, you should have that extra taken away - via taxes, fees, or whatever other terms are appropriate, because you have the duty to help your fellow, regardless of whether you want to or not. This isn't really causing you any harm because you can afford it - and if you can't - then either work harder so you can support those who won't do it themsleves, or stop working and begin to feed of the government nipple...

Justice: All people should be treated fairly in both the benefits and the obligations of society. No individual or group should be favored over another person or group.

Conservative - People should be dealt with purely on the basis of merit. An ideal perhaps, but one worth striving for. The cream should rise to the top.

Liberalist - All people should be treated "fairly". Fairly means that everyone is the same. No one group should be favored - unless they are a minority. If they are a minority (defined as anyone not a white male), then favoritism should be shown, via things such as quota's, regardless of merit, because sometime in the past that person's ancestor may have been discriminated against. While some would claim this is discrimination against white men, they got all the breaks for centuries, they owe it to society to take a backseat. *The exception is all the old white liberal guys in power - because they are enlightened leaders of the cause.*

Equality: Everyone has the right to Political, Legal, Social and Economic Equality. Everyone has the right to the same treatment regardless of race, sex, religion, heritage, or economic status.

Conservative and Liberal both screw this us - check ballot access. In most areas, if your not a member of the "big two" - you have no political equality, as your not allowed to run without jumping through a number of difficult (and expensive) hoops to even get on the ballot.

Legal - both sides agree on this.

Social and Economic Equality - here is the big one.
Conservitism - you have the right to ATTAIN - solely by your own efforts - social and economic equality.
Liberalism - You have the right to be equal to everyone else. If a rich person makes $16k a month, $14k of it should be taken, and redistributed to 7 other people, so everyone has $2k a month. That is equality.

Diversity: The differences in culture, dress, language, heritage and religion are not just tolerated, but celebrated as a strength.

Conservativism - Culture, heritage and religion - yes. Dress - is a personal freedom as long as it is within socially accepted standards for the location in question. Multi-lingualism is a credit to those who partake, but as a government, there should be a "standard" language so that there is uniformity and fairness in services. In the US, historically the "national" language is English, as our founding documents are written in that language. Thus, the official language of government and its people should be English.

Liberalist - If you can't embrace that which is different than you are, you must be a member of the kkk or other wacko group that hates anyone that isn't exactly like they are. All cultures (Except for conservative American) should be celebrated. All heritages - latin, french, amerindian, african, eskimo, etc - should be celebrated. The only exception is if your white - then you should shut up and celebrate everyone elses - but don't dare ask for a "white" history month.... All religions - no matter how lacking in any foundation or proven fraudulent - such as scientology - should be celebrated. The only exception is christianity, which should be disallowed to partake in any social setting and instead repressed at every opportunity. This is not only because it supports moral and ethical thoughts that are against liberalist thinking, but also because it is the religion of choice by most evil whites.

Truth: They should expect and demand that the government not lie to them and the government should disclose information to the people. The government and its people should not lie.

Again both sides get this wrong - and examples on both sides abound where the faith has been broken. The though process for both sides seems to indicate that this works under the guise of "what they don't know we won't get in trouble for."

Popular Sovereignty: The power of the government comes from the people. The people are the ultimate authority over the government.

Conservative - While this is the case, the people's role in government should be via representative in nature, so that 51% do not rule 49%. Otherwise, mob rule would be present. Voter referendums and such should be binding on the representatives, as well as the voters should make their will known to their legislators.

Liberalist - The most votes wins. Plain and simply. Allow the mob to rule, because whatever way society goes must be the right way. The only time this isn't the case is when society moves contrary to liberal thought, at which time the court must be used to overturn the will of the people, or the political leadership must refuse to listen to the voters, thus protecting those voters from their own lack of nuance or ignorance.

Patriotism: The people or citizens show a love and devotion for their country and the values. They can show this by words or by actions.

Conservatist thought - That love and devotion is for the country and the values it has demonstrated over the past 230+ years of existence.

Liberalist thought - the love and devotion is for the country as it SHOULD be - in other words - as defined by modern liberal thought. The old values of personal responsibility, leadership, hard work can get you ahead, etc - should be cast aside so that a liberal utopia can be established. Things like the military, a responsible, informed and armed society - should be disgraced and done away with as impediments to that liberal paradise.

Constitutional Principles

Rule of Law: Both the people and the government must obey all laws.

Both sides give lip service to this - both ignore it when such laws are an impediment to their agenda's.

Separation of Powers: The executive, legislative and judicial branches of the government should be separate institutions so no one branch has all of the power.

Representative Government: People have the right to elect others to represent them in the government.

Checks and Balances: The powers of the three branches of government, executive, legislative and judicial, should be balanced. No one branch should be dominate. Each branch should have powers to check the actions of the other branches.


These are combined because they all can be addressed together.
Conservative thought - All three branches should provide stability to the others, with the Executive being the "lead" on where to go, the Legislative being the will of the people made manifest, and the Judiciary poised to balance questions of law in the path that is taken.
Liberalist though - The Executive should look forward and set a goal, the Legislative should push through that goal provided it is in line with liberal agendas, and the judiciary should be used to protect any liberal thought that cannot survive a review of the people.

Individual Rights: Each individual has the fundamental right to life, liberty, economic freedom and the pursuit of happiness. These rights are outlined in the Bill of Rights and the government should protect these rights and not place undo restrictions upon them.

Conservative - Agreed in full. True conservatism dictates that the states should take a more active role in the government of their own citizenry.

Liberalist - The rights of the Federal Government into the lives of people should not be limited. After all, the Government knows whats best. You don't just have the right to happiness, you have the right to expect the government to give it to you. That may require that some of the other rights be put aside, like your right to own a gun, but really - you don't need one of those anyway now do you? If we take them all away from the people who have more than you do, we can tax them so they have the same as you, and if they have those nasty guns they might try to stop us.

Freedom of Religion: The right to practice any or no religion without persecution by the government.

Conservatist - This right exists as long as the relgiion is question and its practice harms no other, and does not infringe upon the rights of others to practice (or not) their own religion. The government has the duty to protect this right of its people.

Liberalist - The writers made a mistake when they wrote this. They meant freedom FROM religion - especially the christian one. All other religions are great, and tolerating them shows how multi-culti-nuanced one is. Tolerance of christianity however should be outlawed. It should be repressed and restrained in any and all ways. Sure all those other religions have lots of moral thoughts and stuff too, but if we can get rid of christianity, then the biggest of the players is gone and the rest will be pushed away with relative ease.

Federalism: The states and the federal government share power as outlined by the Constitution.

Both sides have lost even the pretense of giving this one lip service in todays political climate.

Civilian Control of the Military: The people control the military to preserve democracy.

Conservative - the military answers to the government - which should answer to the people.

Liberalist - The military is evil, because its violent and we would be much better off if everyone sat around a campfire and sang coom-bye-ahhh (but without the "my lord" part as that implies religion - YECH!) We really should get rid of all the military - think how much money we could spend on social programs. And if we didn't have big bad weapons, the world would see how peace loving and friendly we really are, and they would love us again and we could all share a big group hug and live happily ever after. We don't need a military because all the "bad guys" just need to not feel so threatened by us to start being nice and good. They have only been "bad" because of us.

************************************************** ******
This is in many ways generalizations, but also generally true.
************************************************** ******

[Buddahaid]

Thanks for your views! Maybe I look harder at the fringe of conservatives and see where they stray from the core values, but your assessment of liberals seems to envelope all the more extreme aspects and lump them together into a composite liberal who would be a communist in my book. And I can't really argue that any of your views on liberals are wrong, I just think most liberals are more centrist overall, at least those who I know.

Buddahaid

[Thomen]

Thanks for your views! Maybe I look harder at the fringe of conservatives and see where they stray from the core values, but your assessment of liberals seems to envelope all the more extreme aspects and lump them together into a composite liberal who would be a communist in my book. And I can't really argue that any of your views on liberals are wrong, I just think most liberals are more centrist overall, at least those who I know.

Buddahaid

My wife sses herself as a Fiscal Conservative and my Stepdaugthers boyfriends Mother sees herself a big Democrat. If you listen to both, either independently or when they actually do talk politics it is rather.. uh.. surprising. Both say the same damn thing and acknowledge almost the same core values. The only difference they seriously have is in the area of man-made Global Warming and where they make the mark on the ballot.

[CaptainHaplo]

Buddahaid - I think both sides have their extremes. Unfortunately, the extremes on both sides are the most "vocal". This is why the "silent majority" truly is much more "centrist" than either side realized.

What we need is to get that majority to stop being silent - and we could get this country away from either extreme.

I laugh alot when I hear that term - "centrist" - mainly because the extremes on both sides like to point it out as "moderate" or undecided - when it simply is nothing more than those who look at things with realistic common sense.

I admit my views are more critical of the "liberal" part of the equation, but that is mainly because I disagree so vehemently with the extreme parts of it that are pushed so hard. There are a number of conservative extremes that I also disagree with, but as they are not really major issues facing the country at the moment, there isn't much reason to spend time worrying over them, in my view.

[Buddahaid]

Buddahaid - I think both sides have their extremes. Unfortunately, the extremes on both sides are the most "vocal". This is why the "silent majority" truly is much more "centrist" than either side realized.

What we need is to get that majority to stop being silent - and we could get this country away from either extreme.

I laugh alot when I hear that term - "centrist" - mainly because the extremes on both sides like to point it out as "moderate" or undecided - when it simply is nothing more than those who look at things with realistic common sense.

I admit my views are more critical of the "liberal" part of the equation, but that is mainly because I disagree so vehemently with the extreme parts of it that are pushed so hard. There are a number of conservative extremes that I also disagree with, but as they are not really major issues facing the country at the moment, there isn't much reason to spend time worrying over them, in my view.

I was mulling this over while painting a door frame, and stuck on the life/religion views. Conservatives, who are by and large Christians, will place the beginning of life at conception, and wish this view to be the law of the land. Interesting as Christianity, at least the Latin Catholic type, has always put more emphasis on the afterlife as being of prime importance, and your time on earth of little value save as far as earning points for the good. This is the whole basis behind being a monk and living an austere existence. Anyway, not all religions share that view, and as such enacting that view into law does appear on the surface, to be enforcing one religion above others. Tough one which brings up another issue regarding abortion clinic killings. I can't figure out why some individuals feel compelled to take God's wrath into their own hands as if He can't manage it Himself. If they were to be true believers, than all sinners will be handed their due in the afterlife. So, it seems they must have an inner conflict with their leap of faith.

Buddahaid

[CaptainHaplo]

I for one have never advocated the "life begins at conception" thought. Scientifically there are measurables that can be looked at by any reasonable person to be part of "life" - for example - if you have a heartbeat - or if you have brain actiivty. If a person who is alive suddenly ceases to have brain activity - or a heartbeat - they are clinicaly "dead". Thus - whats wrong with using the reverse to be define life?

Probably another discussion for another thread, but things like the "morning after" pill - I fail to see why there is such a debate about it. Any embryo takes time to develop.

Of course, a number of the extremists on the religious side would disagree vehemently.

[AngusJS]

************************************************** ******
This is in many ways generalizations, but also generally true.
************************************************** ******
Or not.

So liberals hate the military, are against free speech, welcome government control in personal affairs, and are communists in all but name. :o

Here's one difference between conservatives and liberals. Conservatives apparently believe their own propaganda. I don't know how many times Democrats have been called terrorist-lovers, traitors, Marxists, etc. over the past 8 years... not just by the Republican base, but by Republican politicians as well.

I just don't hear the same reality-free vitriol coming from liberals.

[Buddahaid]

Or not.

So liberals hate the military, are against free speech, welcome government control in personal affairs, and are communists in all but name. :o

Here's one difference between conservatives and liberals. Conservatives apparently believe their own propaganda. I don't know how many times Democrats have been called terrorist-lovers, traitors, Marxists, etc. over the past 8 years... not just by the Republican base, but by Republican politicians who should know better.

I just don't hear the same reality-free vitriol coming from liberals.


[/left]

Hmmm. My calling the CaptainHaplo's composite of liberal extreme behavior a communist would seem to fit, just as calling a composite of extreme conservative behavior a fascist would seem to fit in my view. This is not saying because you have a liberal or conservative leaning, you are one or the other. And I think both do pretty well at the propaganda game after their own fashion.

If this thread boils down to a name calling war, the purpose will be lost. Let's try to keep the tone less inflammatory or I can see that CastlBravo's opinion may yet prevail. The original post from CaptainHaplo was in the right direction from a conservative stance. We need a similar response from a liberal stance for balance.

Buddahaid

[CaptainHaplo]

Angus - I pointed out that the layout I gave is what is prevalently put out as liberalist thought. However, I also made note that it is the EXTREMIST on BOTH sides that have created the picture and views of the general person. Not every person who considers themselves to be "left" or liberal is a bad person, or any of the things described above. However, the items above are the "face" of liberalism today - as it is demonstrated by those who call themselves "liberals" or "progressives" in power today. I know not every liberal is like this - which is why I made the note about generalization. However, if you choose to take offense, thats your choice.

This discussion - and your reaction to it - is a perfect example of why we should ALL get rid of the labels and the letters beside names - and deal with ISSUES on a individual basis.

And to Buddahaid, I commend your actions in trying tofind that common ground that does exist in the common person today, regardless of "left or right". By pointing out the extremes, we can find the areas we concur on - and build a commonality from that. :up:

[Max2147]

Core Democratic Values

Life: A person's right to life can't be violated except if your life or the lives of others is threatened.

"Liberal" and "Conservative" differ here - primarily on the issues of abortion and the death penalty.

The mainstream "Conservative" stance on abortion is that life is sacred, and so abortions should not occur unless there is an imminent danger to the life of the mother, or other extreme rationale.

The mainstream "Liberal" stance states that because abortion is "before birth", it is ok to kill an unborn child, even when they could have survived outside the womb, all on the "choice" of the woman pregnant. Instead of adhering to the idea listed above, liberalist try to redefine what "Life" is.

Liberty: This includes personal freedom, political freedom, and economic freedom. This is the freedom for people to gather in groups. They have their own beliefs, ideas and opinions. People also have the right to express their opinions in public.

"Conservative" - people have the right to express their opinions in public - as long as such expression does not harm or infringe the rights of others. Cases in point would be anti-war demonstrations during the Bush administration - they were frequent and had no issues - EXPECT when they crossed certain lines - such as interfering in the funerals of servicemen and woment who had come home to be laid to rest. Such interference was a harm to the family members, and even then there was some leeway given.

"Liberal" views on liberty and the free expression of ideas, beliefs and opinions can be seen via the demonstrated double standards such people and groups routinely display. For example - christian churches being excluded from "holiday parades" due to their overt religiousity, yet no fuss is put up when muslim prayer calls are broadcast over public loudspeakers at the town square in some towns in the US. Free expression of ideas? Sure, you can do that - as long as those ideas agree with liberal thoughts. Doubt me? Then why do we have such things as the refusal to discuss global warming on the basis of scientific facts? Why do we still have liberal legislators pushing the "Fairness Act" in regards to talk radio?

Personal Freedom - the right to think and act without government control.
Political Freedom - the right to participate in political process.
Economic Freedom - the right to buy, sell and trade private property and the right to employment without the government interfering.

Political Freedom - your allowed to vote - but if your in a group that might vote in a way that isn't in support of the liberal agenda - for example - most military ballots - will be challenged in court in an attempt to disenfranchise you. If your voting in certain precincts, but might vote in a way that isnt't in line with certain groups, you may end up with a black panther watching to make sure you vote the way you "OUGHT" to. If your a member of a union - sure you get to vote - even as you watch your union dues go to support a candidate that may disagree with what your views are - because you don't get a say in where that money goes.

Economic Freedom - buy, sell and trade private property without government interference? Ever heard of taxes - sales tax, death tax, inheritance tax, etc etc. Both sides have their hand in that cookie jar, though one side likes that cookie more than the other. No government interference in business? Again - both sides can't keep their hands out of business - see both the Bush and Obama "economic stimulus (AKA we know own that)" packages.... And what happens if your in the medical field - and now your run by the government? Seems conservitive ideals are against that - liberals are for it....

The Pursuit of Happiness: As long as you don't interfere with others you have the right to seek happiness in your own way.

Conservative - key word is PURSUIT - you can seek it - but its not guaranteed to you. Also - as long as you don't harm others to get it.

Liberalist - If you seek it and it doesn't fall into your lap - then the government should provide it for you - via welfare, government healthcare, or other social program. The fact that it takes away from the money of others that they earned is really not a harm to them, because if they become destitute, then they can go on the government nipple to.

Common Good: Working together for the welfare of the community or the benefit of all.

Conservative - Its important to remember that this is a RIGHT - not a RESPONSIBILITY. If an individual chooses to not do so, they also should have that right, as well as the repercussions within their own community.

Liberalist - This is a responsibility - and should be controlled by the government. If you work harder than your neighbor - and can afford more than he can, you should have that extra taken away - via taxes, fees, or whatever other terms are appropriate, because you have the duty to help your fellow, regardless of whether you want to or not. This isn't really causing you any harm because you can afford it - and if you can't - then either work harder so you can support those who won't do it themsleves, or stop working and begin to feed of the government nipple...

Justice: All people should be treated fairly in both the benefits and the obligations of society. No individual or group should be favored over another person or group.

Conservative - People should be dealt with purely on the basis of merit. An ideal perhaps, but one worth striving for. The cream should rise to the top.

Liberalist - All people should be treated "fairly". Fairly means that everyone is the same. No one group should be favored - unless they are a minority. If they are a minority (defined as anyone not a white male), then favoritism should be shown, via things such as quota's, regardless of merit, because sometime in the past that person's ancestor may have been discriminated against. While some would claim this is discrimination against white men, they got all the breaks for centuries, they owe it to society to take a backseat. *The exception is all the old white liberal guys in power - because they are enlightened leaders of the cause.*

Equality: Everyone has the right to Political, Legal, Social and Economic Equality. Everyone has the right to the same treatment regardless of race, sex, religion, heritage, or economic status.

Conservative and Liberal both screw this us - check ballot access. In most areas, if your not a member of the "big two" - you have no political equality, as your not allowed to run without jumping through a number of difficult (and expensive) hoops to even get on the ballot.

Legal - both sides agree on this.

Social and Economic Equality - here is the big one.
Conservitism - you have the right to ATTAIN - solely by your own efforts - social and economic equality.
Liberalism - You have the right to be equal to everyone else. If a rich person makes $16k a month, $14k of it should be taken, and redistributed to 7 other people, so everyone has $2k a month. That is equality.

Diversity: The differences in culture, dress, language, heritage and religion are not just tolerated, but celebrated as a strength.

Conservativism - Culture, heritage and religion - yes. Dress - is a personal freedom as long as it is within socially accepted standards for the location in question. Multi-lingualism is a credit to those who partake, but as a government, there should be a "standard" language so that there is uniformity and fairness in services. In the US, historically the "national" language is English, as our founding documents are written in that language. Thus, the official language of government and its people should be English.

Liberalist - If you can't embrace that which is different than you are, you must be a member of the kkk or other wacko group that hates anyone that isn't exactly like they are. All cultures (Except for conservative American) should be celebrated. All heritages - latin, french, amerindian, african, eskimo, etc - should be celebrated. The only exception is if your white - then you should shut up and celebrate everyone elses - but don't dare ask for a "white" history month.... All religions - no matter how lacking in any foundation or proven fraudulent - such as scientology - should be celebrated. The only exception is christianity, which should be disallowed to partake in any social setting and instead repressed at every opportunity. This is not only because it supports moral and ethical thoughts that are against liberalist thinking, but also because it is the religion of choice by most evil whites.

Truth: They should expect and demand that the government not lie to them and the government should disclose information to the people. The government and its people should not lie.

Again both sides get this wrong - and examples on both sides abound where the faith has been broken. The though process for both sides seems to indicate that this works under the guise of "what they don't know we won't get in trouble for."

Popular Sovereignty: The power of the government comes from the people. The people are the ultimate authority over the government.

Conservative - While this is the case, the people's role in government should be via representative in nature, so that 51% do not rule 49%. Otherwise, mob rule would be present. Voter referendums and such should be binding on the representatives, as well as the voters should make their will known to their legislators.

Liberalist - The most votes wins. Plain and simply. Allow the mob to rule, because whatever way society goes must be the right way. The only time this isn't the case is when society moves contrary to liberal thought, at which time the court must be used to overturn the will of the people, or the political leadership must refuse to listen to the voters, thus protecting those voters from their own lack of nuance or ignorance.

Patriotism: The people or citizens show a love and devotion for their country and the values. They can show this by words or by actions.

Conservatist thought - That love and devotion is for the country and the values it has demonstrated over the past 230+ years of existence.

Liberalist thought - the love and devotion is for the country as it SHOULD be - in other words - as defined by modern liberal thought. The old values of personal responsibility, leadership, hard work can get you ahead, etc - should be cast aside so that a liberal utopia can be established. Things like the military, a responsible, informed and armed society - should be disgraced and done away with as impediments to that liberal paradise.

Constitutional Principles

Rule of Law: Both the people and the government must obey all laws.

Both sides give lip service to this - both ignore it when such laws are an impediment to their agenda's.

Separation of Powers: The executive, legislative and judicial branches of the government should be separate institutions so no one branch has all of the power.

Representative Government: People have the right to elect others to represent them in the government.

Checks and Balances: The powers of the three branches of government, executive, legislative and judicial, should be balanced. No one branch should be dominate. Each branch should have powers to check the actions of the other branches.


These are combined because they all can be addressed together.
Conservative thought - All three branches should provide stability to the others, with the Executive being the "lead" on where to go, the Legislative being the will of the people made manifest, and the Judiciary poised to balance questions of law in the path that is taken.
Liberalist though - The Executive should look forward and set a goal, the Legislative should push through that goal provided it is in line with liberal agendas, and the judiciary should be used to protect any liberal thought that cannot survive a review of the people.

Individual Rights: Each individual has the fundamental right to life, liberty, economic freedom and the pursuit of happiness. These rights are outlined in the Bill of Rights and the government should protect these rights and not place undo restrictions upon them.

Conservative - Agreed in full. True conservatism dictates that the states should take a more active role in the government of their own citizenry.

Liberalist - The rights of the Federal Government into the lives of people should not be limited. After all, the Government knows whats best. You don't just have the right to happiness, you have the right to expect the government to give it to you. That may require that some of the other rights be put aside, like your right to own a gun, but really - you don't need one of those anyway now do you? If we take them all away from the people who have more than you do, we can tax them so they have the same as you, and if they have those nasty guns they might try to stop us.

Freedom of Religion: The right to practice any or no religion without persecution by the government.

Conservatist - This right exists as long as the relgiion is question and its practice harms no other, and does not infringe upon the rights of others to practice (or not) their own religion. The government has the duty to protect this right of its people.

Liberalist - The writers made a mistake when they wrote this. They meant freedom FROM religion - especially the christian one. All other religions are great, and tolerating them shows how multi-culti-nuanced one is. Tolerance of christianity however should be outlawed. It should be repressed and restrained in any and all ways. Sure all those other religions have lots of moral thoughts and stuff too, but if we can get rid of christianity, then the biggest of the players is gone and the rest will be pushed away with relative ease.

Federalism: The states and the federal government share power as outlined by the Constitution.

Both sides have lost even the pretense of giving this one lip service in todays political climate.

Civilian Control of the Military: The people control the military to preserve democracy.

Conservative - the military answers to the government - which should answer to the people.

Liberalist - The military is evil, because its violent and we would be much better off if everyone sat around a campfire and sang coom-bye-ahhh (but without the "my lord" part as that implies religion - YECH!) We really should get rid of all the military - think how much money we could spend on social programs. And if we didn't have big bad weapons, the world would see how peace loving and friendly we really are, and they would love us again and we could all share a big group hug and live happily ever after. We don't need a military because all the "bad guys" just need to not feel so threatened by us to start being nice and good. They have only been "bad" because of us.

************************************************** ******
This is in many ways generalizations, but also generally true.
************************************************** ******




That's some very crafty writing there. The way you wrote it, I'd be a hardcore conservative, when in reality I'm anything but.

[Skybird]

I wonder what Kissinger would have to say on this thread polarising "liberal" versus "conservative" - which is the initial thinking error here that dooms this thinking to be uncomplete, dogmatic and misleading from the very beginning.

I refuse to think in such conceptions and feeding polarisation for the sake of polarisation itself. Let'S pick up what works for the good of the single man as well as for the good of the community (but the first not exploiting his freedom at the cost of the latter), and leave out what doesn't work for that in a world that is tried to be perceived as realistic and objective as possible. Designing a policy on the basis of an ideology's morals only, is questionable, and often does more bad than good. This is the very big mistake especially American conservatives often make - not to adress reality like it is, but serving their ideologic mental image of how according to their morals reality should be in theory, and then trying to deal with it on the basis of this image instead of reality as it is. This is what Kissinger says in the interview when comparing Obama and Bush.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,druck-634400,00.html


(...)

SPIEGEL: In Paris we saw the clash of two foreign policy principles: the idealism embodied by Wilson who encountered a kind of realpolitik embodied by the Europeans which was above all based on the law of the strongest. Can you explain the failure of the American approach?


Kissinger: The American view was that peace is the normal condition among states. To ensure lasting peace, an international system must be organized on the basis of domestic institutions everywhere, which reflect the will of the people, and that will of the people is considered always to be against war. Unfortunately, there is no historic evidence that this is true.

(...)

SPIEGEL: Despite the failure of Versailles, this Wilsonian idea is remarkably prevalent. Is our affinity to the ideals of democracy perhaps naïve?

Kissinger: The belief in democracy as a universal remedy regularly reappears in American foreign policy. Its most recent appearance came with the so-called neocons in the Bush administration. Actually, Obama is much closer to a realistic policy on this issue than Bush was.

(...)

Kissinger: Cynics treat values as equivalent and instrumental. Statesmen base practical decisions on moral convictions. It is always easy to divide the world into idealists and power-oriented people. The idealists are presumed to be the noble people, and the power-oriented people are the ones that cause all the world's trouble. But I believe more suffering has been caused by prophets than by statesmen. For me, a sensible definition of realpolitik is to say there are objective circumstances without which foreign policy cannot be conducted. To try to deal with the fate of nations without looking at the circumstances with which they have to deal is escapism. The art of good foreign policy is to understand and to take into consideration the values of a society, to realize them at the outer limit of the possible.

SPIEGEL: What if values cannot be taken into consideration because they are inhuman or too expansive?

Kissinger: In that case, resistance is needed. In Iran, for example, you need to ask the question of whether you have to have a regime change before you can conceive a set of circumstances where each side maintaining its values comes to some understanding.

(...)

Kissinger: I see two possibilities. We will either come to an understanding with Iran, or we will clash. As a democratic society we cannot justify the clash to our own people unless we can show that we have made a serious effort to avoid it. By that, I don't mean that we have to make every concession they demand, but we are obligated to put forward ideas the American people can support.The upheaval in Teheran must run its course before these possibilities can be explored.

(...)

SPIEGEL: So you are calling for a kind of realistic idealism?

Kissinger: Exactly. There is no realism without an element of idealism. The idea of abstract power only exists for academics, not in real life.

SPIEGEL: Do you think it was helpful for Obama to deliver a speech to the Islamic world in Cairo? Or has he created a lot of illusions about what politics can deliver?

Kissinger: Obama is like a chess player who is playing simultaneous chess and has opened his game with an unusual opening. Now he's got to play his hand as he plays his various counterparts. We haven't gotten beyond the opening game move yet. I have no quarrel with the opening move.

SPIEGEL: But is what we have seen so far from him truly realpolitik?

Kissinger: It is also too early to say that. If what he wants to do is convey to the Islamic world that America has an open attitude to dialogue and is not determined on physical confrontation as its only strategy, then it can play a very useful role. If it were to be continued on the belief that every crisis can be managed by a philosophical speech, then he will run into Wilsonian problems.

(...)

SPIEGEL: Do concepts like "good" and "evil" make sense in the context of foreign policy?

Kissinger: Yes, but generally in gradations. Rarely in absolutes. I think there are kinds of evil that need to be condemned and destroyed, and one should not apologize for that. But one should not use the existence of evil as an excuse for those who think that they represent good to insist on an unlimited right to impose their definition of their values.

(...)

SPIEGEL: Would you go so far as to say what we are seeing is end of major wars?

Kissinger: I believe that Obama has a unique chance to conduct a peaceful American foreign policy. I do not see any conflicts between suchmajor countries, China, Russia, India, and the U.S., which will justify a military solution. Therefore, there is an opportunity for a diplomatic effort. Moreover, the economic crisis does not permit countries to devote a historic percentage of their resources to military conflict. I am structurally more optimistic than a couple of years ago.

SPIEGEL: The situation in Iran doesn't make you fearful?

Kissinger: Fear is not a good motivation for statesmanship. It could be that some kind of at least local conflict will happen, but it does not have to happen. Iran is a relatively weak and small country that has inherent limits to its capabilities. The relationship of China with the rest of the world is a lot more important in historic terms than the Iranian issues by themselves.

[CaptainHaplo]

Max2147 - I think thats the point of this. Its not so much "crafty writing" (though I appreciate the compliment), but in reality Buddahaid is trying to get people to see that we are often more in agreement than we realize. We have allowed the extremes on BOTH sides to create this "divide" when, working together, we could all be much more effective in solving issues.

True, the biggest disagreements would be on HOW to handle problems - but once we recognize that we really see the same problems, working toward common solutions is much easier. That is why BOTH sides spew hate and vitriol and paint the "other side" as all a bunch of wacko extremists. When in reality its not about "sides" - it should be about solutions.

Only by getting past the "conservative" or "liberal" bias and looking at things by issues - without prejudging someone else who may have a different opinion, will we be able to work together to solve the issues our society faces. This is why I am independant - because to me, I would rather talk issues than call someone "names".

Someone please put up a "liberal" answer - so we can see how truly center the most of us are, and how the parties have divided us.

[Max2147]

Max2147 - I think thats the point of this. Its not so much "crafty writing" (though I appreciate the compliment), but in reality Buddahaid is trying to get people to see that we are often more in agreement than we realize. We have allowed the extremes on BOTH sides to create this "divide" when, working together, we could all be much more effective in solving issues.

True, the biggest disagreements would be on HOW to handle problems - but once we recognize that we really see the same problems, working toward common solutions is much easier. That is why BOTH sides spew hate and vitriol and paint the "other side" as all a bunch of wacko extremists. When in reality its not about "sides" - it should be about solutions.

Only by getting past the "conservative" or "liberal" bias and looking at things by issues - without prejudging someone else who may have a different opinion, will we be able to work together to solve the issues our society faces. This is why I am independant - because to me, I would rather talk issues than call someone "names".

Someone please put up a "liberal" answer - so we can see how truly center the most of us are, and how the parties have divided us.
The way I saw it, you gave a mainstream answer as the conservative position, then gave a radical leftist answer as the liberal position. In other words, you were basically saying conservatives = good guys while you were slandering the liberals.

I was writing my own list last night, but I got too tired. I'll probably finish it up today.

[Buddahaid]

I wonder what Kissinger would have to say on this thread polarising "liberal" versus "conservative" - which is the initial thinking error here that dooms this thinking to be uncomplete, dogmatic and misleading from the very beginning.

I refuse to think in such conceptions and feeding polarisation for the sake of polarisation itself. Let'S pick up what works for the good of the single man as well as for the good of the community (but the first not exploiting his freedom at the cost of the latter), and leave out what doesn't work for that in a world that is tried to be perceived as realistic and objective as possible. Designing a policy on the basis of an ideology's morals only, is questionable, and often does more bad than good. This is the very big mistake especially American conservatives often make - not to adress reality like it is, but serving their ideologic mental image of how according to their morals reality should be in theory, and then trying to deal with it on the basis of this image instead of reality as it is. This is what Kissinger says in the interview when comparing Obama and Bush.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,druck-634400,00.html

I may be misunderstanding your post. I'm looking for the bits that work we can all stand beside together, as well as those that polarize, and hoping to find a general overlap of ideals that is greater than the remainder. Where to start is up to who responds and in what manner. While I admit I'm focusing on US political stances, the ideals are applicable almost everywhere even if the details differ. After this thread has died out it may be useful to consider the points of conflict on a one by one basis.

Neal, feel free to kill this (as if I need to say that) whenever it gets out of control, but I'll try to mediate and keep things civil.

Buddahaid

[CastleBravo]

Social and Economic Equality - here is the big one.
Conservitism - you have the right to ATTAIN - solely by your own efforts - social and economic equality.
Liberalism - You have the right to be equal to everyone else. If a rich person makes $16k a month, $14k of it should be taken, and redistributed to 7 other people, so everyone has $2k a month. That is equality.


That isn't equality, that is stealing. If I were to go to a bank and ask for the same thing what would you call it? The bank has more money than me and I should, by your example be entitled to part of those funds.

Liberals do not believe in private property...that is what you are saying.

I told you this could turn bad.

[Buddahaid]

That isn't equality, that is stealing. If I were to go to a bank and ask for the same thing what would you call it? The bank has more money than me and I should, by your example be entitled to part of those funds.

Liberals do not believe in private property...that is what you are saying.

I told you this could turn bad.

I'll repeat.
Neal, feel free to kill this (as if I need to say that) whenever it gets out of control, but I'll try to mediate and keep things civil.

Buddahaid

[CastleBravo]

Life: A person's right to life can't be violated except if your life or the lives of others is threatened.
Liberty: This includes personal freedom, political freedom, and economic freedom. This is the freedom for people to gather in groups. They have their own beliefs, ideas and opinions. People also have the right to express their opinions in public.


Personal Freedom - the right to think and act without government control.
Political Freedom - the right to participate in political process.
Economic Freedom - the right to buy, sell and trade private property and the right to employment without the government interfering.


Why is one's right to life more important than another's? If it is it isn't a right. It is called murder.
Personal freedom does not extend to the death of another.
Economic freedom is always dependent on the more mature. If you have no right access to economic freedom you must take that into account.

[Buddahaid]

I read that as allowing for self defense cases or police shootouts. In a self defense situation, it often is ruled as a murder, or manslaughter, when carried past having control of the situation, as in after having wounded and disarmed the assailant, putting another shot to the head or wherever.

I'm not sure I understand what your meaning is on economic freedom.

Anyway, glad you've decided to talk. On my way home now.

Buddahaid

[CaptainHaplo]

Max - I admit I gave mainstream vs fringe answers. The liberalism that is pushed today is pushed by the fringe left. And yes - there are conservative fringe views - but they are not what is put forth in the public, like the extreme liberal views are. Thats the difference.

I look forward to your list - not because I want to differ with it - but because I think in listing what I suspect is mainstream "liberal" thought, we will find that both sides are alot more "center" than fringe.

[Max2147]

The fringe left is hardly in control of liberalism. If you look at the last two Democratic presidents, Clinton was a centrist and Obama is a pragmatist who people think is a lot more liberal than he actually is.

[Skybird]

Why are you Americans so obsessed with this kind of dualistic thinking? Republicans versus Democrats? Conservative versus Liberal? american versus Socuialist? what sense is there in calling yourself this or that when you are not in order yourself, and do not rest in yourself, no matter how you call the state you are in?

I fail to see what you will reach when thinking in such conceptions. Aren't there better standards by which to decide on your deeds and actions, and whom you call friend and whom not?

This is by Marc Aurel, from the "Meditations", book IV. There are so many other quotes possible. If you do not know it, get a copy and read it. It is, imo, one jewel of world literature.


Men seek retreats for themselves, houses in the country, sea-shores, and mountains; and thou too art wont to desire such things very much. But this is altogether a mark of the most common sort of men, for it is in thy power whenever thou shalt choose to retire into thyself. For nowhere either with more quiet or more freedom from trouble does a man retire than into his own soul, particularly when he has within him such thoughts that by looking into them he is immediately in perfect tranquility; and I affirm that tranquility is nothing else than the good ordering of the mind. Constantly then give to thyself this retreat, and renew thyself; and let thy principles be brief and fundamental, which, as soon as thou shalt recur to them, will be sufficient to cleanse the soul completely, and to send thee back free from all discontent with the things to which thou returnest. For with what art thou discontented? With the badness of men? Recall to thy mind this conclusion, that rational animals exist for one another, and that to endure is a part of justice, and that men do wrong involuntarily; and consider how many already, after mutual enmity, suspicion, hatred, and fighting, have been stretched dead, reduced to ashes; and be quiet at last.- But perhaps thou art dissatisfied with that which is assigned to thee out of the universe.- Recall to thy recollection this alternative; either there is providence or atoms, fortuitous concurrence of things; or remember the arguments by which it has been proved that the world is a kind of political community, and be quiet at last.- But perhaps corporeal things will still fasten upon thee.- Consider then further that the mind mingles not with the breath, whether moving gently or violently, when it has once drawn itself apart and discovered its own power, and think also of all that thou hast heard and assented to about pain and pleasure, and be quiet at last.- But perhaps the desire of the thing called fame will torment thee.- See how soon everything is forgotten, and look at the chaos of infinite time on each side of the present, and the emptiness of applause, and the changeableness and want of judgement in those who pretend to give praise, and the narrowness of the space within which it is circumscribed, and be quiet at last. For the whole earth is a point, and how small a nook in it is this thy dwelling, and how few are there in it, and what kind of people are they who will praise thee.

This then remains: Remember to retire into this little territory of thy own, and above all do not distract or strain thyself, but be free, and look at things as a man, as a human being, as a citizen, as a mortal. But among the things readiest to thy hand to which thou shalt turn, let there be these, which are two. One is that things do not touch the soul, for they are external and remain immovable; but our perturbations come only from the opinion which is within. The other is that all these things, which thou seest, change immediately and will no longer be; and constantly bear in mind how many of these changes thou hast already witnessed. The universe is transformation: life is opinion.


Step beyond dualism. Stop thinking in such dualistic terms. Simply refuse to do so. You will learn quickly that you live in a much wider world then. there is no peace possible in the world were people do not understand this, and do not break through to such an attidue of mind. It is much more importan than even the most consequent definitions of "Liberal" versus "Conservative". Stop wasting your time.

[Buddahaid]

I don't for a minute believe this is an American disease. It is an almost universal symptom of two party systems, and entirely in line with human thought processes of comparing oneself to others, and viewing those who are different as potential threats. That's human nature and is likely the single most important aspect in driving us to the thinking, problem solving beings we are today. In my opinion.

Skybird you would seem a learned person, who reads and can think deep. By that I mean keep ones mind focused on a subject and think it through. I would hope, no, expect you to see the discord as unproductive wasted energy. The problem to me is that far to many people, at least here in the US, don't read at all, barely get through an education, and form their alliances based on sound bites and hyperbole. Just choose sides by whatever slogans strike a chord, and go with it as if it were a football team. I would like to blame TV as the largest contributer to the problem, but it also existed before it's advent. People used to find their entertainment in actually talking with their families and reading books.

I also don't think this applies to the people on this forum, at least to any great degree.

Buddahaid

[CastleBravo]

The fringe left is hardly in control of liberalism. If you look at the last two Democratic presidents, Clinton was a centrist and Obama is a pragmatist who people think is a lot more liberal than he actually is.

That is only true when you keep moving the bar to the left. And based on his policies to date Mr. Obama is the most far left president this nation has ever seen.

Remember the stimulus package was direly urgent to ward off 8% unemployment.......that didn't work. GM and the financial institutions beholden to tzars who don't report to anyone but BHO? Sounds leftist to me and anyother thinking person.

[Buddahaid]

Remember the stimulus package was direly urgent to ward off 8% unemployment.......that didn't work. GM and the financial institutions beholden to tzars who don't report to anyone but BHO? Sounds leftist to me and anyother thinking person.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Economic_Stimulus_Act_of_2008

Rationale

As 2008 began, economic indicators suggested an increased risk of recession. Federal Reserve (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve_System) Chairman Ben Bernanke (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Bernanke) testified before Congress that quick action was needed to stimulate the economy through targeted government spending and tax incentives.[10] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Economic_Stimulus_Act_of_2008#cite_n ote-9) Congress moved rapidly to pass such legislation. In passing the legislation, lawmakers aimed to stimulate spending by businesses and consumers during 2008. They hoped that the targeted individual tax rebates would boost consumer spending and that targeted tax incentives would boost business spending.
Lawmakers raised the limits on conforming mortgages eligible for government insurance and GSE purchase in response to the subprime mortgage crisis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subprime_mortgage_crisis). This crisis had resulted in a widespread credit crunch (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credit_crunch) by late 2007. The credit crunch led to a reluctance by lenders to issue so-called jumbo mortgages (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jumbo_mortgages) for the purchase of houses that exceeded the FHA and GSE limits. The United States housing bubble (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_housing_bubble) had pushed house prices above those limits in many areas of the country. As interest rates rose for jumbo mortgages, fewer buyers could afford them, and house prices were being forced down toward the limits for conforming mortgages. By raising those limits, lawmakers hoped to slow or halt the decline in house prices, which threatened the financial well-being of homeowners, banks and other financial entities holding jumbo mortgages.
The FHA loan limits also went up with the stimulus package on March 6. The loan limit package is called "FHA Forward."[11] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Economic_Stimulus_Act_of_2008#cite_n ote-fhalimits-10)


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Recovery_and_Reinvestment_Act_of_2009

Assessments by economists
[/URL]
Economists such as [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Feldstein"]Martin Feldstein (http://www.recovery.gov/), Daron Acemoglu (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daron_Acemoglu), National Economic Council director Larry Summers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Summers), and Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Memorial_Prize_in_Economic_Sciences) winners Joseph Stiglitz (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stiglitz)[33] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Recovery_and_Reinvestment_Act_of_2009#cit e_note-32) and Paul Krugman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Krugman)[34] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Recovery_and_Reinvestment_Act_of_2009#cit e_note-33) favor large economic stimulus to counter the economic downturn. While in favor of a stimulus package, Feldstein expressed concern over the act as written, saying it needs revision to address consumer spending and unemployment more directly.[35] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Recovery_and_Reinvestment_Act_of_2009#cit e_note-34) Other economists, including John Lott (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lott),[36] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Recovery_and_Reinvestment_Act_of_2009#cit e_note-35) Robert Barro (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Barro) and Nobel Prize-winners Robert Lucas, Jr. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Lucas,_Jr.),[37] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Recovery_and_Reinvestment_Act_of_2009#cit e_note-36) Vernon L. Smith (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vernon_L._Smith), Edward C. Prescott (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_C._Prescott) and James M. Buchanan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_M._Buchanan) have been more critical of the government spending.
On January 28, 2009, a full page advertisement with the names of approximately 200 economists who are against President Obama's plan appeared in The New York Times (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_York_Times) and The Wall Street Journal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wall_Street_Journal). The funding for this advertisement came from the Cato Institute (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cato_Institute). The ad stated ... we the undersigned do not believe that more government spending is a way to improve economic performance. More government spending by Hoover and Roosevelt did not pull the United States economy out of the Great Depression in the 1930s... To improve the economy, policymakers should focus on reforms that remove impediments to work, savings, investment, and production. Lower tax rates and a reduction in the burden of government are the best ways of using fiscal policy to boost growth."[38] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Recovery_and_Reinvestment_Act_of_2009#cit e_note-37)[39] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Recovery_and_Reinvestment_Act_of_2009#cit e_note-38)
On March 11, 2009, The Wall Street Journal published a forecasting survey of 49 economists about the bill's impact in regards to the Obama administration. President Obama and United States Secretary of the Treasury (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Secretary_of_the_Treasury) Timothy F. Geithner (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_F._Geithner) received failing grades, in the opinion of these economists, for their handling of the economic crisis and stimulus plan. Critics were divided over the bill, with 43% saying $500 billion more would be needed, while others were "skeptical of the need for stimulus at all."[40] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Recovery_and_Reinvestment_Act_of_2009#cit e_note-39)

Just for reference.

Buddahaid

[CastleBravo]

Why is it the left is always wrong? Based on your post even the economists on the left blew it.:damn::damn::damn:

[Max2147]

That is only true when you keep moving the bar to the left. And based on his policies to date Mr. Obama is the most far left president this nation has ever seen.

Remember the stimulus package was direly urgent to ward off 8% unemployment.......that didn't work. GM and the financial institutions beholden to tzars who don't report to anyone but BHO? Sounds leftist to me and anyother thinking person.
I think handouts to big business are a fairly right-wing thing to do.

I think both sides have a tendency to tag anything they don't like as typical of the other side. Any action can be painted in multiple ways, as CastleBravo and I just did with the GM issue.

[CastleBravo]

I think handouts to big business are a fairly right-wing thing to do.

I think both sides have a tendency to tag anything they don't like as typical of the other side. Any action can be painted in multiple ways, as CastleBravo and I just did with the GM issue.

Allowing bankruptcy wouild have been the thing to do. Government ownership if a leftist idea. You changed the tag I didn't. Please, don't put words in my mouth.

[Aramike]

I think handouts to big business are a fairly right-wing thing to do.

I think both sides have a tendency to tag anything they don't like as typical of the other side. Any action can be painted in multiple ways, as CastleBravo and I just did with the GM issue.Hand outs are NEVER right wing, regardless of who receives them.

[Skybird]

I don't for a minute believe this is an American disease. It is an almost universal symptom of two party systems, and entirely in line with human thought processes of comparing oneself to others, and viewing those who are different as potential threats. That's human nature and is likely the single most important aspect in driving us to the thinking, problem solving beings we are today. In my opinion.


Probably correct. My point is - man has the ability to go beyond this: if only he wants that.

We are driven by natural drives and instincts, and our minds are heavily confused and our emotions make us highly irrational. But we can realise our drives and instincts and emotions and the way our minds work, we can learn about them - and by that raise ourselves above them, no longer being their blind and obedient vasalls only.

If you want to learn about others and the world - realise yourself.

[Buddahaid]

Why is it the left is always wrong? Based on your post even the economists on the left blew it.:damn::damn::damn:

There was no similar Rational section in the 2009 stimulus. The assessment was closest. You would need to read both links for a better comparison. Point being the economic stimulus started during the Bush administration and who's to say what McCain would have done.

My initial reaction would be to allow for bankruptcy in the auto industry as well, my reservations are due to how much those industries contribute to military production in desperate times.

The banking fallout has plenty of blame to throw around, including every citizen who runs up credit debt to live beyond their means, trusting to better times ahead for salvation. It's all in the name of greed and that has little to do with left or right.

Buddahaid

[Shearwater]

Core Democratic Values
[...]

************************************************** ******
This is in many ways generalizations, but also generally true.
************************************************** ******




No it is not. Rather leaning towards the Conservative spectrum.
That's fine, don't get me wrong. Just do not pretend to be objective when you actually want to make a point.

Apart from that, for me the whole discussion boils down to a very simple principle: Respect each others' opinions. The moment when a perspective different to one's own is disrespected, or, even worse, ridiculed, is the very moment when a free society begins to falter.

[CaptainHaplo]

I stand by what I wrote. I notice there isn't a "liberal" answer posted yet.
I also stand by the fact that right now - liberalism IS being led by the most fringe of its members.

Show me a "moderate" democrat in a leadership role. And no - the current president is not moderate, as his leadership (and obvious lack thereof at certain times) has demonstrated.

That does NOT make all "liberals" bad, communists or anything else. But the discussion can't be had when you won't label a progressive liberal (and that term should scare alot of liberal folks if you look at its historical roots) different than a moderate liberal. Just as we can't have the discussion without those who lean conservative being unwilling to call out those in their own ranks who are too fringe.

A perfect example is those who advocate violence against abortion doctors. They are insane nuts who can't even keep their own theological reasonings for their actions in contrast with what they claim to believe.

[Platapus]

I guess it would depend on how one defines "Moderate".

What may be moderate to one may not be moderate to another.

[Buddahaid]

A perfect example is those who advocate violence against abortion doctors. They are insane nuts who can't even keep their own theological reasonings for their actions in contrast with what they claim to believe.

I always see them as Bible thumping licensed conservative nuts. :D Maybe I don't look deep enough in my disdain.

Buddahaid

[Max2147]

Bill Clinton was a moderate. I remember the Republican reaction to the 1996 election was something along the line of "Clinton won because he sounded like a Republican."

Obama's a lot more moderate than people think. He sells himself as a liberal, but he's a pragmatist at heart.

[CaptainHaplo]

Buddahaid - there is no doubt they try to use the bible as a shield for their actions - but the mainstream conservatives know they are wrong, fringe and are nuts. The fact they can't see that their actions violate what they claim is their beliefs show that they lack some level of sanity.

Fringe conservative - absolutely. But given approval by mainstream conservatives? Not at all. I do admit there is not enough speaking out against them within the same circles - again the "silent majority. Danged shame if ya ask me.:nope:

[Aramike]

Bill Clinton was a moderate. I remember the Republican reaction to the 1996 election was something along the line of "Clinton won because he sounded like a Republican."

Obama's a lot more moderate than people think. He sells himself as a liberal, but he's a pragmatist at heart.I agree that Clinton was a moderate, but where on Earth do you get the idea that Obama is? Pretty much every single policy he has backed to this point has been out-and-out leftist.

I know you're trying to sell this concept that liberalism is somehow "pragmatism" but it is not. Liberalism is liberalism. There was nothing pragmatic about the Obama stimulus (wouldn't it have been more pragmatic to actually read it?). There was nothing pragmatic about the GM/Chrysler takeover. There's nothing pragmatic about nationalized healthcare (something I actually agree with, but in a different form). Even after the Iranian elections the White House wasn't pragmatic regarding taking a stance - they waited until they were forced to condemn the violence because the networks picked it up.

Just because you agree with an issue doesn't make it pragmatic.