China: Elderly women to be 're-educated' for Olympic protest

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

while we might not imprison a lot of old ladies for applying for permits,

So how many old ladys have we imprisoned in the last year for applying for a permit? Quit acting like we are NAZIS!!!!!! If you dont like America then please move and make it a better place! I will buy your ticket! Ignorant liberals just bash this great country when all they should be doing is moving since they dont like anything we do!

Yea, the ~10 trillion dollar debt, virtually al the doing of the right, is just a talking point.

We.... liberals? Uh, you act as tho "we" as in conservatives is the norm, and liberals are the exception. Get real and see that Dems were in control about as much as the Repubs in the 20th century. As well, liberalism has been shown to be a good thing. The Revolutionary War, Emancipation Proclaimation, Civil Rights Era are examples of liberalism.......

[warpedskydiver 0]

The emancipation Proclamation was about Liberalism?

WOW I did not know that.

And here I was thinking it was because Lincoln was a conservative, and read the Constitution, and the Decalration of Independance, and adhered to it words, to the letter.

[billvon 3,120]

> The emancipation Proclamation was about Liberalism?

Yes, by definition. The conservative approach would have been to stick with tradition and what has worked in the past. The liberal/progressive approach would involve changing what has happened in the past.

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

The applicable definitions of 'liberal' -

1. favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.
. . .
4. favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, esp. as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.
5. favoring or permitting freedom of action, esp. with respect to matters of personal belief or expression: a liberal policy toward dissident artists and writers.
. . .
7. free from prejudice or bigotry; tolerant: a liberal attitude toward foreigners.
8. open-minded or tolerant, esp. free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc.

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

Applicable definitons of 'conservative' -

1. disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.
. . .
4. (often initial capital letter) of or pertaining to the Conservative party.
. . .
9. a supporter of conservative political policies.

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

Needless to say, these are not sufficient definitions of the democratic or republican parties either now or in 1860.

[JohnDeere 0]

Quote

Yea, the ~10 trillion dollar debt, virtually al the doing of the right, is just a talking point.

We.... liberals? Uh, you act as tho "we" as in conservatives is the norm, and liberals are the exception.

Try cominting on what i was talking about

Quote

Get real and see that Dems were in control about as much as the Repubs in the 20th century.

So your point would be what??? You act like you are bragging???

Quote

As well, liberalism has been shown to be a good thing. The Revolutionary War, Emancipation Proclaimation, Civil Rights Era are examples of liberalism.......

Yea Ok

Nothing opens like a Deere!

You ignorant fool! Checks are for workers!

[JohnDeere 0]

Quote

The liberal/progressive approach would involve changing what has happened in the past.

So just becuase a conservative did something correct, he is a liberal OK Suuuuure keep drinking the koolaid

Nothing opens like a Deere!

You ignorant fool! Checks are for workers!

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=3657852
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5457607
http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v00.n771.a03.html
http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2008/06/06/usdom19035.htm
http://members.tripod.com/~ronmull/racism.html
http://www.prisonpolicy.org/articles/alternet102503.html
http://members.aol.com/digasa/stats57.htm

I guess I could go on, but the fact is the US absolutely has a problem here.

And I guess I don't think I really need to go into the entire races of people that were wiped off the face of the planet just to form the US.

I dunno . . . just being too vague I guess.

You were being a few things that can't be described here.

To order to make your lame argument, you now want to introduce the 19th Century? I'll raise your 140 year history for the (in comparison) extremely recent Cultural Revolution.

I made it through the first two links, the only ones from respectable sources. The first says more blacks are in prison than in college. The second suggests the sentences for *convicted* blacks are more severe.

Were you ever going to get around to proving your bullshit claim that these criminals were being jailed merely for being black?

It's simple. There's no defending China here. Any faults of the US has no relevance, nor similar scale. In this country, we debate whether or not one needs a permit to demonstrate. There's no debate on whether or not applying for a permit (or actually demonstrating) gets you thrown on the chain gang.

Every day I take the bus to work, we drive past the Chinese embassy. Every day there's at least a handful of Falun Gong protesters sitting in front. They can do that here. There they get jailed or shot. How long could Cindy Sheehan have camped out in front of the Imperial Palace?

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

How about the warrantless wiretaps and the subsequent immunization of telecom companies? We are no bastion of liberty, so clean your windows first, then cast stones at theirss.

Hush - the adults are talking.

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

The emancipation Proclamation was about Liberalism?

Classical liberalism, yes.

Quote

And here I was thinking it was because Lincoln was a conservative, and read the Constitution, and the Decalration of Independance, and adhered to it words, to the letter.

Liberals of the 1800s opposed slavery and were part of the early Republican Party. At the time the Democrats were the conservative party.

The Southern rural Democrats of the 1800s supported slavery - they were the (staunch) conservatives (maintaining tradition) of the time. The Northern Democrats tended to support States rights, which was something of a 'cop-out,' as northern States had outlawed slavery by the early 1800s. (I would argue that economics were just as much a motivator as normatives {i.e., “ethics/morals”}. Northern industry was not dependent on slave labor, and workers in the north didn't want competition from the South/competition from freed slaves).

When it was founded the Republican Party most strongly resembled a liberalist political philosophy & a fairly radical one at that! Liberalism as tending to be concerned with equality and civil, political, and personal liberties and more willing to challenge traditional assumptions or ways of doing things. (In contrast to being supportive of long-standing institutions and favoring slow, prudent change, if any change at all.)

When the Republican Party was founded back in the 1850s, it wasn’t just anti-slavery. The slogan of the first Republican Presidential nominee was “Free soil, free labor, free speech, free men.” Early Republican activists were pro-universal education, pro-technology, supported growth of cities and institutions (federal, i.e., the progenitor of the Federal Reserve & the first income tax; state; and private for progressive growth), supported universal suffrage (i.e., women), also opposed polygamy and alcohol, supported what were early experiments in early rights of workers, e.g., see Lincoln’s Speech on Free Labor vs. Slave Labor (full test available through the "Lincoln Log”) sounds almost ... (& I don my asbestos underwear here) Marxist. Obviously Lincoln was not a Marxist ... and not just because of the whole time dilation issue. He was, however, a radical Republican! (He also was the only US President thus far to have been granted a patent.)

Originally the Democratic Party was the party of the anti-federalists (anti-“Big government”), pro-States rights, rural, and strict interpretationalists of the Constitution (constructivists) in opposition to the pro-federalists, pro-interpretationalist, urban, progressives (Federalists).

Things change, eh?

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

How about the warrantless wiretaps and the subsequent immunization of telecom companies? We are no bastion of liberty, so clean your windows first, then cast stones at theirss.

Hush - the adults are talking.

Uh, I bet I'm quite a bit older and more educated than are you, junior. Why not address it? Here it is again for you:

How about the warrantless wiretaps and the subsequent immunization of telecom companies? We are no bastion of liberty, so clean your windows first, then cast stones at theirs.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

The emancipation Proclamation was about Liberalism?

WOW I did not know that.

And here I was thinking it was because Lincoln was a conservative, and read the Constitution, and the Decalration of Independance, and adhered to it words, to the letter.

Here, I'll walk thru the process for you:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/liberalism

lib·er·al·ism

1. the quality or state of being liberal, as in behavior or attitude.
2. a political or social philosophy advocating the freedom of the individual, parliamentary systems of government, nonviolent modification of political, social, or economic institutions to assure unrestricted development in all spheres of human endeavor, and governmental guarantees of individual rights and civil liberties.
3. (sometimes initial capital letter) the principles and practices of a liberal party in politics.
4. a movement in modern Protestantism that emphasizes freedom from tradition and authority, the adjustment of religious beliefs to scientific conceptions, and the development of spiritual capacities.


Here's my emphasis:

...and governmental guarantees of individual rights and civil liberties.


So, The Emancipation Proclaimation wasn't about liberalism? OK, whatever works for ya.


Really the Civil War had more to do with unification of the entire country than anything, slavery was just a symbol. As for Lincoln being a conservative, therfore was more able to adhere to the US Const - irrelevant. Interpretation of a vaguely written document is non-partisan.

The point I was making is that emancipation from slavery is about a liberal concept, emancipation from any tyranical authority is liberal; don't care if you don't like the definition.....dictionary must be a liberal conspiracy.

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

Ignorant liberals just bash this great country when all they should be doing is moving since they dont like anything we do!

Well, then stop doing it.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

The emancipation Proclamation was about Liberalism?

Classical liberalism, yes.

Quote

And here I was thinking it was because Lincoln was a conservative, and read the Constitution, and the Decalration of Independance, and adhered to it words, to the letter.

Liberals of the 1800s opposed slavery and were part of the early Republican Party. At the time the Democrats were the conservative party.

The Southern rural Democrats of the 1800s supported slavery - they were the (staunch) conservatives (maintaining tradition) of the time. The Northern Democrats tended to support States rights, which was something of a 'cop-out,' as northern States had outlawed slavery by the early 1800s. (I would argue that economics were just as much a motivator as normatives {i.e., “ethics/morals”}. Northern industry was not dependent on slave labor, and workers in the north didn't want competition from the South/competition from freed slaves).

When it was founded the Republican Party most strongly resembled a liberalist political philosophy & a fairly radical one at that! Liberalism as tending to be concerned with equality and civil, political, and personal liberties and more willing to challenge traditional assumptions or ways of doing things. (In contrast to being supportive of long-standing institutions and favoring slow, prudent change, if any change at all.)

When the Republican Party was founded back in the 1850s, it wasn’t just anti-slavery. The slogan of the first Republican Presidential nominee was “Free soil, free labor, free speech, free men.” Early Republican activists were pro-universal education, pro-technology, supported growth of cities and institutions (federal, i.e., the progenitor of the Federal Reserve & the first income tax; state; and private for progressive growth), supported universal suffrage (i.e., women), also opposed polygamy and alcohol, supported what were early experiments in early rights of workers, e.g., see Lincoln’s Speech on Free Labor vs. Slave Labor (full test available through the "Lincoln Log”) sounds almost ... (& I don my asbestos underwear here) Marxist. Obviously Lincoln was not a Marxist ... and not just because of the whole time dilation issue. He was, however, a radical Republican! (He also was the only US President thus far to have been granted a patent.)

Originally the Democratic Party was the party of the anti-federalists (anti-“Big government”), pro-States rights, rural, and strict interpretationalists of the Constitution (constructivists) in opposition to the pro-federalists, pro-interpretationalist, urban, progressives (Federalists).

Things change, eh?

VR/Marg

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Liberals of the 1800s opposed slavery and were part of the early Republican Party. At the time the Democrats were the conservative party.


Thank you. Absolutely correct.


I don't think most on here have the capacity to understand how political parties change sides over decades/centuries. Traditionally, the Southerners hated big city slickers and other than whites, as well hated a centralized government. As we entered the 20th century and after the Great Depression when FDR brought in social programs, Southerners adhered to these programs yet still hated minorities and big city slickers. The 1964 Civil Rights Act as signed by Pres Johnson drove away these Yellow Dog Democrats from the Dem Party and only 2 Dems have been elected president since: Carter and Clinton, both from the South.

This describes the Democratic Party progression. I believe the sides changed, that is the Republicans went from the good guys to the bad around the trun of the century. I would have to do more research to get a better answer, but that seems like a good ballpark. Considering other than all US presidents have been Republicans from Lincoln untill 1913 Wilson, except for Grover Cleveland who seved twice, the Republican Party morphed somewhere in there and the Great Depression was preceded by 2 terms of Republicans after Wilson left office.

Moral of the story: the Republican Party IS the problem today and the voters will adjust for that.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Uh, I bet I'm quite a bit older and more educated than are you, junior.

How about the warrantless wiretaps and the subsequent immunization of telecom companies?

Everyone thinks they're a better than average driver, and the worst ones are least likely to notice.

If you want a thread about privacy violations, open your own thread. It isn't germane to this topic. Be sure to include information about how China controls its ISPs.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Uh, I bet I'm quite a bit older and more educated than are you, junior.

How about the warrantless wiretaps and the subsequent immunization of telecom companies?

Everyone thinks they're a better than average driver, and the worst ones are least likely to notice.

If you want a thread about privacy violations, open your own thread. It isn't germane to this topic. Be sure to include information about how China controls its ISPs.

Shhhhhh, the educated people are speaking (in retalition for your remark a couple posts up).

Thread title:

China: Elderly women to be 're-educated' for Olympic protest

The dialogue was about the suck factor of China, several people reminded that side of the discussion that the US has a suck factor, now, in good American fashion you want to suppress the mention of an area of US suckyness (Bush word). Tough shit. My remark is in line with this thread.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Be sure to include information about how China controls its ISPs.


Since you agree that my interjection is in line with this thread by your answering of my point, the US controls ISP's thru free monitoring via immunized telecom companies. You can jump up and down, try to remove my assertions from the thread, hang US flags around your desk and sing the Pledge of Allegiance, but the fact is that the US engages in some of the same tactics that China does. Let's face it, to find worse countries, we need to go to Asia, to find better ones we go to Europe. America isn't the worst in the world, just not the best.

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

Thank you. Absolutely correct.

You're welcome ... I try.

Quote

I don't think most on here have the capacity to understand how political parties change sides over decades/centuries.

I'm not sure if what you meant to convey with the above statement. As written, I disagree.
All here have the capacity and the ability to do so. Some may not want to do so. A few may not care. There are a number who are iconoclastically stubborn, a few intellectual provocateurs, some variable minority of jerks, but all have the capacity.

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

All here have the capacity and the ability to do so. Some may not want to do so. A few may not care. There are a number who are iconoclastically stubborn, a few intellectual provocateurs, some variable minority of jerks, but all have the capacity.

The parties could help if they were forced to come up with new names. Given that we started with the Democratic-Republican party in the 18th Century...

[billvon 3,120]

>So just becuase a conservative did something correct, he is a liberal . . .

You have completely missed the point here.

Both conservatives and liberals do things that are correct. Both conservatives and liberals do things that are wrong. Republicans can do things that are liberal and democrats can do things that are conservative.

Sticking with coal power is a conservative thing to do, because it's what we've always done, it works OK and many see no reason to change it. A democrat might even support that position - that does not make it a liberal position.

Freeing slaves is a liberal thing to do, because it breaks with tradition, causes a significant change in society, and grants additional rights to a class of people who previously didn't have any. A republican could do it; that does not make it conservative. (Indeed, a republican DID do it.)

The definitions of "conservative" and "liberal" don't change much, but the definitions of "democrat" and "republican" do. And since many people cannot see the difference, they assume that the definitions of conservative and liberal get dragged along with the definitions of the political parties. This leads to a lot of misunderstandings, as evinced by your reply.

[quade 4]

Quote

The parties could help if they were forced to come up with new names. Given that we started with the Democratic-Republican party in the 18th Century...

Considering illiteracy rates, we should probably stay away from words and just use the color system already in place; Red vs Blue

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Thank you. Absolutely correct.

You're welcome ... I try.

Quote

I don't think most on here have the capacity to understand how political parties change sides over decades/centuries.

I'm not sure if what you meant to convey with the above statement. As written, I disagree.
All here have the capacity and the ability to do so. Some may not want to do so. A few may not care. There are a number who are iconoclastically stubborn, a few intellectual provocateurs, some variable minority of jerks, but all have the capacity.

VR/Marg

It seems some don't have the capacity to critically think. Perhaps they are just fooling me by intentionally misunderstanding semi-complex concepts or historical events that are essentially undisputed, but I see some inability to comprehend in here.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

All here have the capacity and the ability to do so. Some may not want to do so. A few may not care. There are a number who are iconoclastically stubborn, a few intellectual provocateurs, some variable minority of jerks, but all have the capacity.

The parties could help if they were forced to come up with new names. Given that we started with the Democratic-Republican party in the 18th Century...

The ideologies would be the same, just a new name. We need to depart from this concept that corporate America is here to help us....quite a pathetic principal embraced by what we now call the Republican Party.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

>So just becuase a conservative did something correct, he is a liberal . . .

You have completely missed the point here.

Both conservatives and liberals do things that are correct. Both conservatives and liberals do things that are wrong. Republicans can do things that are liberal and democrats can do things that are conservative.

Sticking with coal power is a conservative thing to do, because it's what we've always done, it works OK and many see no reason to change it. A democrat might even support that position - that does not make it a liberal position.

Freeing slaves is a liberal thing to do, because it breaks with tradition, causes a significant change in society, and grants additional rights to a class of people who previously didn't have any. A republican could do it; that does not make it conservative. (Indeed, a republican DID do it.)

The definitions of "conservative" and "liberal" don't change much, but the definitions of "democrat" and "republican" do. And since many people cannot see the difference, they assume that the definitions of conservative and liberal get dragged along with the definitions of the political parties. This leads to a lot of misunderstandings, as evinced by your reply.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>A republican could do it; that does not make it conservative. (Indeed, a republican DID do it.)


Right, because the Republicans were the liberals in the 1860's..... a concept that most can't understand.

[billvon 3,120]

>Right, because the Republicans were the liberals in the 1860's . . .

The republicans were more liberal in the 1860's than they are today - but again, the republican (or democratic) party were not defined by those terms.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

>Right, because the Republicans were the liberals in the 1860's . . .

The republicans were more liberal in the 1860's than they are today - but again, the republican (or democratic) party were not defined by those terms.

Right, just stating that based upon today's terms. Revolution, dissention are liberal things to do and either some on here refuse to believe that or simply cannot comprehend change.

[ltdiver 3]

Quote

Quote

The parties could help if they were forced to come up with new names. Given that we started with the Democratic-Republican party in the 18th Century...

Considering illiteracy rates, we should probably stay away from words and just use the color system already in place; Red vs Blue

Or we could label them with animals...oh wait, we've already done that!

ltdiver

Don't tell me the sky's the limit when there are footprints on the moon

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

The parties could help if they were forced to come up with new names. Given that we started with the Democratic-Republican party in the 18th Century...

Considering illiteracy rates, we should probably stay away from words and just use the color system already in place; Red vs Blue

Or we could label them with animals...oh wait, we've already done that!

ltdiver

Maybe for the Republicans, we can use Giranimals to match their cloths, we could do the same for politicians.