Calling All Liberals.

[EBSB52 0]

Quote

Quote

Seems to me they haven't changed all that much since the sixties.

I'd take issue with that.

Contrast:

"I have a dream that my four children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."

with current pushes for affirmative action (i.e. judgment by color of skin).

If color of skin is the primary criterion of minority, then please axplain South African Apartheid considering the whote people represented only a scant few by number. Point is, contemporary minority status is defined by class rather than color.

Also, the current conservative US Sup Ct recently upheld that U of Michigan suit about Affirmative Action in admissions, so it is both the liberals and cons that support AA, hence class is the issue with AA not race.

We can also talk about this Bush movement for Mexican immigration, which is about cheap labor, hence class, not love of Mexican Nationals by Bush.

[EBSB52 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

That's kind of what I was trying to get at; whether or not folks identify with the original intent and definition of Liberalism. The definition of Liberalism and the real-world policies that are thought to be liberal seem to be, to me, worlds apart.

I don't see the differences you do. Today's "liberal" seems to fit very well with the definition given by Billvon IMO.

I see the difference very clearly. A liberal by the definition that billvon quoted, when confronted with a problem such as poverty, might look for new solutions to the problem that could benefit society as a whole. In reality, liberals are likely to tax the taxpayers to pay for programs that often perpetuate the problem, or pass legislation like affirmative action.

linz

Again, the very conservative US SUp Ct has rubber stamped AA for now and made language in there to support it for 25 years to come. Please don't make this a flaming liberal issue as is commonly thought.

As for social ills and paying for it, yes, they will pass the burdon onto tax payers. But the cons will deficit spend and pass billions onto corps like Haliburton, so corporate welfare is the same as conventional welfare.

[EBSB52 0]

Quote

Quote

A liberal by the definition that billvon quoted, when confronted with a problem such as poverty, might look for new solutions to the problem that could benefit society as a whole. In reality, liberals are likely to tax the taxpayers to pay for programs that often perpetuate the problem, or pass legislation like affirmative action.

I don't see that at all. We don't have unemployment insurance in this country for the benefit of unemployed individuals, we have UI for the benefit of those who still have their jobs, because if you begin taking money out of the economy, the effects, including unemployment, are going to be exponential.

Personally, I favor certain social programs, because I understand that the money they cost will be made back in the long run with a more productive society that is better qualified to participate in an international economy in the future. I don't see liberal solutions perpetuating problems.

I like the dichotomy to run like this:

Supply side economys (trickle down) give money to corps to do the rightthing with it. Hoover invented this form of economic strategy and it worked well for him. Then Reagan tried a scaled down version fo it and it workd for the shortrun, but his deficit spending has played hell on us since.

Consumer side economics, which is what you ellude to with your rationale for UI, is where the gov gives money to people in need, who will then immediatley spend it to survive.


All I say is this, look at the 8 years of Clinton and the economy, and then look at the 12 years before and 4 years after and we will see which form works for the masses and which works for the few.

[3ringheathen 0]

I'm opting not to vote in the poll.

Bill's post sums it up nicely, particularly the examples at the bottom.

In my opinion, liberals *tend* to have more pragmatic approaches to issues, and conservatives *tend* to be more short sighted.

There are, of course, exceptions.
-Josh

If you have time to panic, you have time to do something more productive. -Me*
*Ron has accused me of plagiarizing this quote. He attributes it to Douglas Adams.

[Lindsey 0]

Quote

I favor certain social programs, because I understand that the money they cost will be made back in the long run with a more productive society that is better qualified to participate in an international economy in the future. I don't see liberal solutions perpetuating problems.

I also favor certain social programs, and I'm a Democrat. BUT I can't help but see how many of our programs DO hurt society as a whole and the individuals they're intended to help. When we have people who are the 5th generation living on welfare, THAT's a problem. People grow up knowing nothing else, and since people can subsist on what our social programs offer, it takes a strong person to escape the cycle. Society as a whole would be a lot better off, imho, if this large chunk of society were more productive.

linz

--
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

When we have people who are the 5th generation living on welfare, THAT's a problem.

I agree. But solutions I would favor would offer oppurtunities for jobs and careers that would pay much better than assistance. That involves education. If people are only able to learn how to survive while poor, that is what their life will be. Education can break that cycle. More poverty won't.

While I've never been on welfare, and don't know the particulars, I don't think it is realistic to expect someone to go from limited assistance to underemployment. One leaves you just as broke as the other, but with less family time. Who wins?

If we only offer a Band-Aid(R) solution, the problem isn't going to go away. If we don't address the underlying problem causing the poverty, such solutions will be ineffective, and only wastes the money that is being spent.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[Gawain 0]

Quote

But what it really comes down to is what you do, as seen through the above definition.

Power shortage? A conservative will lobby to reduce emissions controls so more power plants can be built. A liberal will put in a solar power system.

Expensive gas? A conservative will push for more government support of drilling and reduction in regulations on refineries. A liberal will buy a diesel or a hybrid.

Gay marriage? A conservative will try to define marriage so as to exclude some people. A liberal will want everyone to have the same rights.

Bill, your experience, and action is, alas, not indicative of most liberals. Ask a Kennedy how many hybrids they own, and how often they fly on private jets. Your party does not represent you.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[Zenister 0]

and has not for quite some time..

Tom is correct.. a 'classical Liberal' would be more at home with the Libertarian party. The Democrats are not significantly different from the Republicans in that they have no interest in changing the status quo that keeps them (as part of the governmental machinery) in power

the problem is that many confuse 'definition' with 'label'

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[Lindsey 0]

Quote

If we only offer a Band-Aid(R) solution, the problem isn't going to go away. If we don't address the underlying problem causing the poverty, such solutions will be ineffective, and only wastes the money that is being spent.

That's exactly my point.

linz

--
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

Quote

But today, they represent crappy things, like baby killing, gay marriage, and calling handicapped people "handicapable"

How's that crappy?

They are all just trends in the wrong direction. I don't want to write a thesis on each topic, so I substitute "crappy" as a general descriptor of my opinion.

. . =(_8^(1)

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

That's exactly my point.

The answer is not to stop assistance, but to give that assistance in a more productive manner. If that costs slightly more in the short term, so be it. In the long term it will be a good investment, by addressing the underlying problem, and not just the symptom.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[Tink1717 2]

None of the above.

Skydivers don't knock on Death's door. They ring the bell and runaway... It really pisses him off.
-The World Famous Tink. (I never heard of you either!!)
AA #2069 ASA#33 POPS#8808 Swooo 1717

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

Gay marriage? A conservative will try to define marriage so as to exclude some people. A liberal will want everyone to have the same rights.

Oh please. Conservatives are not "trying to define marriage".

Instead, they are merely trying to prevent gays from RE-defining a term that's had a particular definition for hundreds of years. In essence, the gay rights people (99% liberal) are trying to promote acceptance of homosexual marriage by shoving a new definition of the word down the throats of society. The same thing happened (successfully) with the word "gay", and the non-sensical word "homophobe".

. . =(_8^(1)

[Lindsey 0]

Right. That's what I meant when I said, "...might look for new solutions to the problem that could benefit society as a whole." Most solutions that will make any impact will cost money. Most that are effective require real problem-solving efforts and relatively thorough understanding of the dynamics underlying the problems to be solved.

Unfortunately our usual solutions DO cost money, but most are not effective at addressing those underlying problems for one reason or another. I tend to think it's because adequate problem-solving efforts are not made.

linz

--
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail

[EBSB52 0]

Quote

Quote

In Reply To
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Classical Liberalism is often referred to as Libertarianism in the modern context.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Wait, I've never head that and look at them as polar opposites.

I think Tom's reference is dead on.

Becaussssse?????

[EBSB52 0]

Quote

Quote

I favor certain social programs, because I understand that the money they cost will be made back in the long run with a more productive society that is better qualified to participate in an international economy in the future. I don't see liberal solutions perpetuating problems.

I also favor certain social programs, and I'm a Democrat. BUT I can't help but see how many of our programs DO hurt society as a whole and the individuals they're intended to help. When we have people who are the 5th generation living on welfare, THAT's a problem. People grow up knowing nothing else, and since people can subsist on what our social programs offer, it takes a strong person to escape the cycle. Society as a whole would be a lot better off, imho, if this large chunk of society were more productive.

linz

And then when it comes to war, we draft all the rich kids....er, I mean the poor kids on welfare. So even though there is a certain, "sponge" affect, these poor welfare recipients do contribute. Also, money given to the poor almost immediatley recirculates to the economy, so that does so immediate good. The amoun of money given to welfare recipients pales in comparison to the 300 million X 100 B-1 Bombers, which are worthless. How much were the B-2's, like 1 billion or so? Corporate welfare is much worse than social welfare. One example is that when social welfare programs are more prolific, property and physical crimes seem to be less frequent/lower rate.

[EBSB52 0]

Quote

Quote

When we have people who are the 5th generation living on welfare, THAT's a problem.

I agree. But solutions I would favor would offer oppurtunities for jobs and careers that would pay much better than assistance. That involves education. If people are only able to learn how to survive while poor, that is what their life will be. Education can break that cycle. More poverty won't.

While I've never been on welfare, and don't know the particulars, I don't think it is realistic to expect someone to go from limited assistance to underemployment. One leaves you just as broke as the other, but with less family time. Who wins?

If we only offer a Band-Aid(R) solution, the problem isn't going to go away. If we don't address the underlying problem causing the poverty, such solutions will be ineffective, and only wastes the money that is being spent.

I agree, but it seems oppressing these people that are not intelligent enough to educate themselves out of poverty until they commit crimes and are sent to prison is the MO of the right. And then cutting all/most prison education programs is the next step. And then the right wonders why the cycle continues. In reality they don't wonder, they just feel that every man for yourself is the correct method.

And now education in AZ has increased to 150% of what it was 4 years ago with Bush in office. So the cycle not only continues, but exacerbates.

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

And then when it comes to war, we draft all the rich kids....

Which country are you from?

. . =(_8^(1)

[EBSB52 0]

Quote

Quote

But what it really comes down to is what you do, as seen through the above definition.

Power shortage? A conservative will lobby to reduce emissions controls so more power plants can be built. A liberal will put in a solar power system.

Expensive gas? A conservative will push for more government support of drilling and reduction in regulations on refineries. A liberal will buy a diesel or a hybrid.

Gay marriage? A conservative will try to define marriage so as to exclude some people. A liberal will want everyone to have the same rights.

Bill, your experience, and action is, alas, not indicative of most liberals. Ask a Kennedy how many hybrids they own, and how often they fly on private jets. Your party does not represent you.

Their habits and privelidges are those of the elite, but their legislation is that of what helps the poor far more than what the cons do to stomp out the hopes and dreams of the poor. Ted Kennedy can drive all the SUV's he wants, but his objecting to the Overtime Bill to the bitter end is what personally helps me. So I don't need my representatives to emmulate me or vice versa, but I do need them to keep the corporations at bay, which the Dems do some of. And when compared to the Repubs, they do far more.

[EBSB52 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

But today, they represent crappy things, like baby killing, gay marriage, and calling handicapped people "handicapable"

How's that crappy?

They are all just trends in the wrong direction. I don't want to write a thesis on each topic, so I substitute "crappy" as a general descriptor of my opinion.

How about supporting them a little then?

[EBSB52 0]

Quote

Quote

Gay marriage? A conservative will try to define marriage so as to exclude some people. A liberal will want everyone to have the same rights.

Oh please. Conservatives are not "trying to define marriage".

Instead, they are merely trying to prevent gays from RE-defining a term that's had a particular definition for hundreds of years. In essence, the gay rights people (99% liberal) are trying to promote acceptance of homosexual marriage by shoving a new definition of the word down the throats of society. The same thing happened (successfully) with the word "gay", and the non-sensical word "homophobe".

ou mean like, "All men are created equal?" Wasn't that said before African slavery? If so, good thing someone redefined it. And then it was redefined in the 1920's to incklude, "all women." Remember, these definitions were made by people that thought it was ok to own other people.

the gay rights people (99% liberal)

I wouldn't be so sure, but if so, does that indict all liberals as 'gay lovers?'

are trying to promote acceptance of homosexual marriage by shoving a new definition of the word down the throats of society.

Careful with that metaphor

Actually 'life and let live' ideologies are less intrusive than prohibitive ones, so I don't see that claim being valid.

The same thing happened (successfully) with the word "gay", and the non-sensical word "homophobe".


Were you more comfortable with, "queer faggot only deserving of death?" Titles are semantic, so what's the biggie? The definition of homophobe is clear English.

Homo = Homosexual
Phobe = fear

It would be correct to coin the word, "heterophobe" if a group of people had a fear for heterosexual people. Would that anger the gay community? I think all this homophobia is really about hate for some people's sexual orientation, whichbaffles me.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Could you please edit so that each option is shown in its enirety? Perhaps explaining the difference between the two in your post?

Pretty clear to me.

Yesterday, liberals were a good thing. They brought about great changes like civil rights and fair labor laws.

They still do, who do you think opposed Bush's Overtime Bill/Law? Who backs labor unions and who destroys them? I fail to see your point here in regard to, "civil rights and fair labor laws."

But today, they represent crappy things, like baby killing, gay marriage, and calling handicapped people "handicapable".

"baby killing" - as in abortion rights, as opposed to loss of control of one's body? It must be one way or the other.

"gay marriage" - as in the right to convert benefits and asets to another person the individual claims as their life partner? Seems pretty harmless to me.

"handicappable" - as in what? Not sure what this means; expanding the definition of who is handicapped?

I all fairness to one line of your post.......Unions are destroying the Unions. I was in one for 15 years and I am dam glad to be out

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

ou mean like, "All men are created equal?" Wasn't that said before African slavery? If so, good thing someone redefined it. And then it was redefined in the 1920's to incklude, "all women." Remember, these definitions were made by people that thought it was ok to own other people.

None of this has anything to do with gay "marriage". I don't disagree with providing them equal legal rights, but call it something besides "marriage" -- "Civil Union" sounds good. This topic has been beat to death in these forums.

Quote

are trying to promote acceptance of homosexual marriage by shoving a new definition of the word down the throats of society.

Careful with that metaphor

[EBSB52 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Could you please edit so that each option is shown in its enirety? Perhaps explaining the difference between the two in your post?

Pretty clear to me.

Yesterday, liberals were a good thing. They brought about great changes like civil rights and fair labor laws.

They still do, who do you think opposed Bush's Overtime Bill/Law? Who backs labor unions and who destroys them? I fail to see your point here in regard to, "civil rights and fair labor laws."

But today, they represent crappy things, like baby killing, gay marriage, and calling handicapped people "handicapable".

"baby killing" - as in abortion rights, as opposed to loss of control of one's body? It must be one way or the other.

"gay marriage" - as in the right to convert benefits and asets to another person the individual claims as their life partner? Seems pretty harmless to me.

"handicappable" - as in what? Not sure what this means; expanding the definition of who is handicapped?

I all fairness to one line of your post.......Unions are destroying the Unions. I was in one for 15 years and I am dam glad to be out

I see that as spin for many reasons, one of which is the grouping together of all unions. I have been in several during my life, and have found them from useless to very useful, but not destructive to the worker or to the concept of unions.

Unions are the enemy of corporate America, so they are hated by the rich. As for unions destroying unions, I can see a few ways that you might mean that, so tell me why you think that. Unions move for rights, equality, seniority, and prevention of the exportation of work overseas, please tell me how that ruins unions.

[Frenchy68 0]

Quote

They are all just trends in the wrong direction. I don't want to write a thesis on each topic, so I substitute "crappy" as a general descriptor of my opinion.

I gathered that much. But you are mistaken about the "direction thanggy...

"For once you have tasted Absinthe you will walk the earth with your eyes turned towards the gutter, for there you have been and there you will long to return."