Define liberals and conservatives

[CrotchetyGeezer]

Conservative

A conservative is someone who rises above his personal self-interest and promotes moral and economic values to all. A conservative is willing to learn and advocate the insights of economics and the logic of the Bible for the benefit of all.

More formally, a conservative typically adheres to principles of personal responsibility, moral values, and limited government, agreeing with George Washington's Farewell Address that "religion and morality are indispensable supports" to political prosperity.

Former President Ronald Reagan said, "The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom."

Specifically, conservatives seek or support:

* Limited government and balanced budgets
* Capitalism and free markets
* Classroom prayer
* Respect for human life and prohibition of abortion
* Abstinence education
* Traditional marriage, not same-sex marriage
* The concept of retribution for crimes, including the death penalty for heinous murders proven beyond a reasonable doubt
* Family values, including traditional relationships and division of labor within the household
* Respect for differences between men and women, boys and girls
* Laws against pornography
* The Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms
* Economic allocative efficiency (as opposed to popular equity)
* Parental control of education (parental rights)
* Private medical care and retirement plans
* Canceling failed social support programs
* No world government
* Enforcement of current laws regarding immigration
* Respect for our military ... past and present
* Rejection of junk science such as evolution and global warming
* Minimal taxation
* Federalism (Separation of powers among the National, State and Local governments)
* Favoring states' rights over federal power, while accepting the Constitutional role of the federal government
* A strong national defense
* An Originalist interpretation of the Constitution
* A dedication to the truth, and an ability to seek it

Liberal

A liberal is someone who favors censorship of Christianity plus increased government spending and power, as in ObamaCare. Increasingly, liberals side with the homosexual agenda, including supporting homosexual "marriage". Many liberals favor a welfare state where people receive endless entitlements without working. Liberals are often anti-Christian, or otherwise disagree with moral or social principles held by many American Christians. The liberal ideology has worsened over the years and degenerated into economically delusional views and intolerant ideology. Some liberals simply support, in knee-jerk fashion, the opposite of conservative principles without having any meaningful values of their own.

Polling data has consistently shown that a decreasingly large percentage of Americans identify as conservative, rather than as liberal, currently by 38% to 21%. Younger people and those with higher levels of education are more likely to identify as liberal.

The decline in liberal principles can be illustrated by how Franklin Delano Roosevelt opposed and condemned public sector unions, stating that the idea of collective bargaining can't be transferred from the private to the public sector, as that would result in the government being unable to carry out its duties. Yet today, decades later, Democrats and liberals are in lock-step with public sector unions, as they "donate" money to the reelection campaign in exchange for more taxpayer money in their wallets and fluffed up pensions.

A liberal generally supports many of the following political positions and practices:

* Spending money on government programs (the significant economic problems in the Eurozone due to government debt will no doubt increasingly discredit this aspect of liberal ideology and make things more difficult for advocates of liberal economic ideologies)
* Government's ability to solve economic problems
* The belief that terrorism is not a huge threat, and that the main reason for Muslim extremists' hostility towards America is because of bad foreign policy
* Taxpayer-funded and/or legalized abortion
* Censorship of teacher-led prayer in classrooms and school/state-sponsored religious events
* Support for gun control
* Affirmative action
* Opposition to government regulation or restriction of obscenity, pornography and violence in video games as a First Amendment right
* Government-funded medical care, such as ObamaCare
* Taxpayer funded and government controlled public education
* Insisting that men and women be placed in the same jobs in the military
* Legalized same-sex marriage and homosexual adoption
* Tax and spend
* Support for economic sector regulations
* Support and spreading of political correctness
* Support of non-syndicalist labor unions
* Encouraging promiscuity through sexual education (the teaching of safe sex) rather than teaching abstinence from premarital sex
* A "living Constitution" that is reinterpreted as liberals prefer, rather than how it is thought to have been intended
* Government programs to rehabilitate criminals
* Abolition of the death penalty
* Environmentalism
* Globalism
* Support for the constitutionally mandated separation of church and state
* Opposition to full private property rights
* Reinstating the Fairness Doctrine
* In 2005, it was reported by CBS News that liberals were most likely supporters of the theory of evolution
* Opposition to domestic wire-tapping as authorized in the Patriot Act
* Opposition of the War on Terrorism
* Withholds support to the War on Terrorism
* Tolerance of different ideas and lifestyles (just as long as those with different ideas and lifestyles identify themselves as liberal or to the left of the political spectrum)
* Do not support a laissez-faire capitalist economy and support regulation of business

Liberals currently use two clauses to try and expand their power: the Commerce Clause and the General Welfare Clause. The general welfare clause mentions "promoting the general welfare". This to a liberal means taxing the rich at increased rates and redistributing that money. The commerce clause, on the other hand, says that Congress has the power to regulate trade with foreign nations, between the states and with the indian tribes. Since the days of FDR this clause has been interpreted very loosely and has resulted in the federal government expanding its power. The latest example is The Affordable Care Act (ACA), better known as ObamaCare. In the ACA, the liberals justify the individual mandate by saying it regulates commerce between the states.

Current dictionaries describe the liberal ideology by pretending that a liberal is "a person who favors a political philosophy of progress and reform and the protection of civil liberties" or "a person who favors an economic theory of laissez-faire and self-regulating markets," or "open-minded or tolerant, especially free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc." or "favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, especially as guaranteed by law and secured by government protection of civil liberties.

liberal

Open-minded, tolerant. Just as long as one's ideology resembles or closely resembles theirs. Additionally, they are open-minded and tolerant to the point of absurd. If you want to stick your schtick in a monkey? Cool. If you want to throw shit through an airplane's propeller blades and call it art? Cool. And, their open-mindedness and tolerance gets more and more loose as each decade passes. Soon, at this rate, one might surmise that child molestation will be a-okay with them within the next decade or two and, if you want to whip your chubby out and do some random broad right in the middle of a restaurant, for instance, they'll cheer you on. In the not too distant future, if leftist policies become rampant, one may be able to -- like a dog -- just jump some random broad walking down the street of whom one wants to have sex with and go to town.

Generous. With other peoples' money, things, etc.

Not bound by tradition, rules, laws, manners, etc., etc., etc.

Supports the killing of an unborn child, advocates the saving of Jeffrey Dahmer, Charles Manson, Ted Bundy, John Wayne Gacy, etc., etc., etc.

Blames America first.

Can read a book and retain information long enough to pass a test in order to graduate high school or college but, are really quite stupid and have the common sense of a bucket of shit.

Revise history to suit their needs by instituting linguistic gymnastics to twist logic and turn around an event 360 degrees from what it actually was.

Drug addled malcontents.

Can't fight their own battles and are generally cowards on their own unless they're with a group of their conservative friends, in which case, they will open their big mouths and mouth off and start a fight and, then, run away and let their conservative friends fight the fight for them of which they started. And, then, in the absence of their conservative friends, will strut around like a world-class heavyweight champ, proclaiming he/she kicked the asses of those he/she was mouthing off to and allege his/her conservative friends just stood and watched or, even ran away.

Think spit balls, protest signs, bellicose loud yelling and other such non-harmful activity is intimidating.

And more.

Sweet jebus, you must be one paranoid mofo. That post is just nuts. Really.

Dispute it...if you can.

 

[Grandma]

Quote: Originally Posted by CrotchetyGeezer
Prove this.

As you wish...

A conservative is someone who rises above his personal self-interest and promotes moral and economic values to all. A conservative is willing to learn and advocate the insights of economics and the logic of the Bible for the benefit of all.

The "conservatives" that say this are one and all trying to be celebrities in the political groupie circles. If you would have said "a conservative believes a Bible-based moral system and (unspecified) economics will benefit all" it would have passed muster.

More formally, a conservative typically adheres to principles of personal responsibility, moral values, and limited government, agreeing with George Washington's Farewell Address that "religion and morality are indispensable supports" to political prosperity.

"More formally?" Omit that. "Limited government" is a catch phrase, but it's never been defined, so it's fallen into being utterly meaningless, as has the ad nauseum claims to be exclusively channeling the Founding Fathers.

Former President Ronald Reagan said, "The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom."

Okay, he did say that I guess.

Specifically, conservatives seek or support:

* Limited government and balanced budgets

Moden republicans are the ones that expand government control and increase debt

* Capitalism and free markets

Democrats are also capitalists, and "free market" to the right often means turning regulations around to enable the elimination of competition.

* Classroom prayer
* Respect for human life and prohibition of abortion
* Abstinence education
* Traditional marriage, not same-sex marriage

Direct violations of separation of church and state. Abstinence education has been proven to be a waste of taxpayer money 100% of the time.

* The concept of retribution for crimes, including the death penalty for heinous murders proven beyond a reasonable doubt

Not exclusive to conservatives.

* Family values, including traditional relationships and division of labor within the household
* Respect for differences between men and women, boys and girls

I've been told by guys that being a professional keyboardist is a man's job, that having a vegetable garden is a man's job, that being a professional cook is a man's job, that being a chauffeur is a man's job, that working on cars is a man's job, that cooking for the family is a woman's job, that changing dirty diapers is a woman's job, that shopping for groceries or the kids' school cothes is a woman's job... all by men who weren't as good at those things as I am.

Anyone that is so misogynystic is a threat to society. It's not conservatism, it's repression. And extremist.

* Laws against pornography

Again, not a strictly conservtive trait, depending on one's definition of pornography.

* The Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms

Again, not eclusive to conservatives.

* Economic allocative efficiency (as opposed to popular equity)

Not sure exactly where you're headed with this one.

* Parental control of education (parental rights)

Again, not sure exactly where you're going with this. One parent can't control an entire school district according to his wishes, however parents are free to send their kids to public, private, or parochial schools, or to have their kids home schooled. So this doesn't really fall into a political belief system

* Private medical care and retirement plans

Actually conservatives are the ones that initiated public health care.

* Canceling failed social support programs

And again, not an exlusively conservative position.

* No world government

Umm... there is no "world government." That's not conservative, it's tinfoil hat.

* Enforcement of current laws regarding immigration

No, conservatives and liberals alike have been calling for and making changes to the immigration laws.

* Respect for our military ... past and present

Once again, the groupie celebrity tries to claim exclusiveness.

* Rejection of junk science such as evolution and global warming

Again, not a conservative trait, but tinfoil hat.

* Minimal taxation

No, not conservative, that's libertarian. Okay, in a way the libertarians are conservatives, but they aren't mainstream

* Federalism (Separation of powers among the National, State and Local governments)

For the most part all demographics believe in this, however in practice there are overlaps, as in interstate highways that go through states, and sometimes large cities.

* Favoring states' rights over federal power, while accepting the Constitutional role of the federal government

That's more to the far right than regular conservative.

* A strong national defense

Again, again, again, this is not exclusive to conservatives.

* An Originalist interpretation of the Constitution[/

*

And yet again, repition of a talking point aimed at the far right, not regular conservatives.

* A dedication to the truth, and an ability to seek it

And again, the I CAN HAZ SPESHUL groupie nonsense.

Liberal

A liberal is someone who favors censorship of Christianity

Not exactly. Liberals are oppsed to censorship generally, however, we don't like having christianity, "rammed down our throats" (as those on the far right like to say,) to the exclusion of all other religions, atheism, and agnosticism.

plus increased government spending and power, as in ObamaCare.

Not sure what this is all about... Umm, if there's inflation, cost of living increases, utility bills go up, stuff lie that, yeah, spending has to increase. You don't want to avoid paying the electric bill at the FBI building, do you? Power? Liberals aren't really into power trips, we're hippies, remember. Now if some entity is spinning out of control and harshing the country, then yeah, the man has to step in and sock it to them. Obamacare? To liberals it's not an excuse to spend money, nor is it a power trip, to us it's about getting people insurance so we don't get stuck paying for their emergency room visits.

Increasingly, liberals side with the homosexual agenda, including supporting homosexual "marriage".

It's called equal rights. The Constitution guarantees them.

Many liberals favor a welfare state where people receive endless entitlements without working.

A completely dishonest statement. No liberal wants that.

Liberals are often anti-Christian, or otherwise disagree with moral or social principles held by many American Christians.

Again, the Constitution that you claim to know so well actually promotes freedom of religion and freedom of expression. Generally the disagreements are with fundamentalist extremism.

The liberal ideology has worsened over the years and degenerated into economically delusional views and intolerant ideology. Some liberals simply support, in knee-jerk fashion, the opposite of conservative principles without having any meaningful values of their own.

A very vague comment, and untrue. Liberals are often accused of being too tolerant. You can't have it both ways. Liberals, centrists, and non-extremist conservatives think through and study principles and come to conclusions independent of the other groups. To suggest liberals have no meaningful values is a socially retarded attempt at insulting us. Fail.

Polling data has consistently shown that a decreasingly large percentage of Americans identify as conservative, rather than as liberal, currently by 38% to 21%. Younger people and those with higher levels of education are more likely to identify as liberal.

Well, I must say I like this poll, but as the election polls taught us, well most of us, polls can't be trusted, can they?

The decline in liberal principles can be illustrated by how Franklin Delano Roosevelt opposed and condemned public sector unions, stating that the idea of collective bargaining can't be transferred from the private to the public sector, as that would result in the government being unable to carry out its duties. Yet today, decades later, Democrats and liberals are in lock-step with public sector unions, as they "donate" money to the reelection campaign in exchange for more taxpayer money in their wallets and fluffed up pensions.

As opposed to billionaire corporate campaign donors that steal their hardworking employees' pension plans to fatten their offshore bank accounts?

A liberal generally supports many of the following political positions and practices:

* Spending money on government programs (the significant economic problems in the Eurozone due to government debt will no doubt increasingly discredit this aspect of liberal ideology and make things more difficult for advocates of liberal economic ideologies)

The EU problem comes from austerity measures. Please study your material before posting. As for spending money on government programs, once again your post is a bit confusing. The government's House's primary function is spending money. The "strong military" that you claim ony conservatives like, has to eat. They don't get guns and tanks for free. Without government spending there would be very few operating universities in the country, and wouldn't that be embarrassing, considering how well-educated other industrialized countries are? Or are you suggesting that we allow all poor and retired people to die withut benefit of a death panel?

* Government's ability to solve economic problems

And conservatives think some other entity will solve those problems? I doubt it.

* The belief that terrorism is not a huge threat, and that the main reason for Muslim extremists' hostility towards America is because of bad foreign policy

Terrorism is NOT a "huge" threat, you're right there, but as you go on to imply that muslims are responsible for all terrorism you plunge headfirst into fail.

* Taxpayer-funded and/or legalized abortion

As opposed to government crawling up a woman's vagina with a fascist agenda that uses the god's name in vain, yes.

* Censorship of teacher-led prayer in classrooms and school/state-sponsored religious events

Separation of church and state. I thought you liked the Constitution.

* Support for gun control

True dat. We don't like crazies owning unregistered assault rifles. Keep in mind that's gun control, not gun repeal. Liberals don't mind guns, actually.

* Affirmative action

Hmmm... we don't actually like it. Not really. The problem is that the only alternative leads to extreme discrimination in the workplace. So do we choose a flawed plan, or absolute evil? We have to go with the flawed plan.

* Opposition to government regulation or restriction of obscenity, pornography and violence in video games as a First Amendment right

Okay, one minute you're for smaller government and individual rights, the next you're wanting the government to regulate video games, even though you don't like commerce laws and you think parents' rights to educate their kids supercedes the government's rights. Because you're afraid someone will see cartoon tits?

W. T. F.

* Government-funded medical care, such as ObamaCare

In that all other industrialized countries have it and it costs half as much as private insurance, hellz yeah.

* Taxpayer funded and government controlled public education

As opposed to... what? Fundamentalist, sexually repressive homeschooling? Absolutely.

* Insisting that men and women be placed in the same jobs in the military

Yeah, we on the left have a real problem with wanting people to have equal rights. Silly us.

* Legalized same-sex marriage and homosexual adoption

There's that pesky Constitution again, equal rights, freedom of and from religion...

* Tax and spend

No liberal supports a blind spending spree. I await your apology for having typed that.

* Support for economic sector regulations

Yes. Deregulation has failed every time it was tried.

* Support and spreading of political correctness

Ooh, this is a toughie. PC comes from both sides and all points in between, so it's not exclusive to liberals. Also PC isn't always PC, sometimes it's a changing of terms to make a situation seem less bad, like "economic downturn" instead of "recession." That's a conservative PC term, btw. At any rate, properly contexted PC leads to better manners, and good manners never go out of style.

* Support of non-syndicalist labor unions

Absolutely. Liberals don't like working in unsafe conditions at substandard wages.

* Encouraging promiscuity through sexual education (the teaching of safe sex) rather than teaching abstinence from premarital sex

Safe sex doesn't encourage promiiscuity, your statement is a lie. Abstinence programs NEVER WORK.

* A "living Constitution" that is reinterpreted as liberals prefer, rather than how it is thought to have been intended

Untrue. Liberals, however, go with college-educated Consitutional scholars' determinations instead of dogma put out by weird old hillbillies with teabags stapled to their hats.

* Government programs to rehabilitate criminals. Abolition of the death penalty

Yes we like rehabilitation, most programs are fully to moderately successful. A rehabilitated criminal becomes a useful citizen, working and paying taxes instead of sitting in a cell paid for by taxes. Your problem with this is... what? Liberals don't like the death penalty, but most actually approve of it in extreme cases, like serial killers.

* Environmentalism

Is cutting down pollution a problem?

* Globalism

This is politically universal, not just liberal. From raw materials to the checkout counter, much of what we buy comes from/goes through 4 or more countries. Get used to it.

* Support for the constitutionally mandated separation of church and state

Um, yeah, it's the Constitution.

* Opposition to full private property rights

What?

* Reinstating the Fairness Doctrine

Again, this is supported by groups on all sides. So is Equal Time.

* In 2005, it was reported by CBS News that liberals were most likely supporters of the theory of evolution

Yeah. We don't do the "Magic Sky Fairy created a test tube baby then cloned him" thing.

* Opposition to domestic wire-tapping as authorized in the Patriot Act

Right. Not without at least probable cause, if not a warrant. Oh, by the way, ask the Admins here how often the alphabets' IP show up n the guest tracker here. Yep, they monitor messageboards too. I've been having a ball with that on my site.

* Opposition of the War on Terrorism. Withholds support to the War on Terrorism

What the fuck are you talking about?

* Tolerance of different ideas and lifestyles (just as long as those with different ideas and lifestyles identify themselves as liberal or to the left of the political spectrum)

No, actually we tolerate anyone that doesn't make every attempt to force their own rigid, repressive, regressive, ideology with shallow values and unattainable goals on us. Hope that clears things up for you.

* Do not support a laissez-faire capitalist economy and support regulation of business

Yeah, we like to NOT DO WHAT CRASHED THE ECONOMY IN '08.

Liberals currently use two clauses to try and expand their power: the Commerce Clause and the General Welfare Clause. The general welfare clause mentions "promoting the general welfare". This to a liberal means taxing the rich at increased rates and redistributing that money. The commerce clause, on the other hand, says that Congress has the power to regulate trade with foreign nations, between the states and with the indian tribes. Since the days of FDR this clause has been interpreted very loosely and has resulted in the federal government expanding its power. The latest example is The Affordable Care Act (ACA), better known as ObamaCare. In the ACA, the liberals justify the individual mandate by saying it regulates commerce between the states.

I already said we don't do the power trip. We don't need to. We're already way cooler than you'll ever be. In what reality do you join together taxes, Indians, the ACA, trade, and the Constitution as a liberal power trip?

Current dictionaries describe the liberal ideology by pretending that a liberal is "a person who favors a political philosophy of progress and reform and the protection of civil liberties" or "a person who favors an economic theory of laissez-faire and self-regulating markets," or "open-minded or tolerant, especially free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc." or "favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, especially as guaranteed by law and secured by government protection of civil liberties.

Okay.

liberal

Open-minded, tolerant. Just as long as one's ideology resembles or closely resembles theirs. LieAdditionally, they are open-minded and tolerant to the point of absurd. If you want to stick your schtick in a monkey? Cool.Lie If you want to throw shit through an airplane's propeller blades and call it art? Cool. LieAnd, their open-mindedness and tolerance gets more and more loose as each decade passes. Soon, at this rate, one might surmise that child molestation will be a-okay with them within the next decade or two and, if you want to whip your chubby out and do some random broad right in the middle of a restaurant, for instance, they'll cheer you on. Tinfoil straitjacket lieIn the not too distant future, if leftist policies become rampant, one may be able to -- like a dog -- just jump some random broad walking down the street of whom one wants to have sex with and go to town.

Generous. With other peoples' money, things, etc.

Not bound by tradition, rules, laws, manners, etc., etc., etc.

Supports the killing of an unborn child, advocates the saving of Jeffrey Dahmer, Charles Manson, Ted Bundy, John Wayne Gacy, etc., etc., etc.

Blames America first.

Can read a book and retain information long enough to pass a test in order to graduate high school or college but, are really quite stupid and have the common sense of a bucket of shit.

Revise history to suit their needs by instituting linguistic gymnastics to twist logic and turn around an event 360 degrees from what it actually was.
Drug addled malcontents.

Can't fight their own battles and are generally cowards on their own unless they're with a group of their conservative friends, in which case, they will open their big mouths and mouth off and start a fight and, then, run away and let their conservative friends fight the fight for them of which they started. And, then, in the absence of their conservative friends, will strut around like a world-class heavyweight champ, proclaiming he/she kicked the asses of those he/she was mouthing off to and allege his/her conservative friends just stood and watched or, even ran away.

Think spit balls, protest signs, bellicose loud yelling and other such non-harmful activity is intimidating.

And more.[/B][/COLOR][/FONT]

Sweet jebus, you must be one paranoid mofo. That post is just nuts. Really.

Dispute it...if you can.

Your fingers were foaming at the mouth as you typed those last few ever more bizarre lies, weren't they? Your post has nothing do do with right/left ideology, instead it's you trying to convince the rest of this site's members that your woman-hating, homophobic, anti-intellectual, pseudo-religious, sexually repressive post is valid in order to give yourself a sense of power over those who won the election and of the party members, all of whom are one hell of a lot cooler than you'll ever be. Post fail.

 

[Immanuel]

Considering how much vitriol gets thrown around on this board towards these two words and labels, I thought it would be fascinating to hear peoples' definitions for both words. Please explain to the board what your perception of a liberal and a conservative is.

Liberals = the wind that pushes the ship (this country) forward.

Conservatives = the sea anchor that keeps the ship stable and afloat.

Immie

Only problem is, liberals are pushing this country forward, in the wrong direction. To, the dark side. The best portrayal of leftists' moving forward is depicted in a movie called Mad Max, where the guy is having sexual relations with a mannequin.

Well, I do agree this country is going in the wrong direction, but then I would ask you whether it is liberals (as I am going to define them here as being the normal everyday citizens of this great nation) or is it politicians and politics in general (regardless of political persuasion) that is pushing this country in the wrong direction?

I happen to think that it is politics (and corruption within politics) that is to blame, not one viewpoint of the other. I will give some examples of some fine liberal ideas that have been corrupted by politics... Social Security, Affirmative Action, Welfare, Unemployment Insurance. The list can go on and on.

The problem is not liberalism or conservatism. The problem is the corruption that we have allowed to seep into our national leadership over the years. Unfortunately, I am of the mind that it is too late to do anything about it.

Immie

 

[slackjawed]

Liberals and conservatives in the modern United States are separated only by which set of lies they choose to believe.

Both are sheep, both follow a 'party line', both attack the other side in hypocritical ways.


Both are the intended product of a corrupt leadership that benefits from creating a divided electorate.

Think about it, conservatives and liberals are both simply tools........

 

[emilynghiem]

There's either a Democrat or Republican in the white house. I voted for Obama. This doesn't mean I forgive his assault on civil liberties. I just think Republicans would be worse on civil liberties and generally worse for the country. Just my opinon, maybe I'm wrong. I could take the another road like some and don't vote for anybody or vote for some third party candidate that doesn't have a chance of winning, but I don't.
In your statement about punishing the rich. How are they being punished by liberals?

Hi Jason: Thank you for your reply.
1. Two responses, first to your question.
It is just as wrong to judge the poor as a class for all the problems such as crime and welfare abuses tied to poverty, as it is to judge the rich as a class for abuses of tax breaks and deregulation by large corporations that profit off taxpayers, even destroying the environment or abusing workers creating more expensive problems for us to fix while they benefit.

The point should be to go after both the poor who *commit crimes* as the rich who *abuse* corporations to profit while not being held financially responsible for damages or debts. It should be based on what you did right or wrong, not based on what class or affiliation you are.

So it is wrong to "penalize the rich" by expecting them to pay more and more of their wealth to govt "just because they make more money". It should be based on whether a corporation OWES money for malfeasance, fraud, or other debts or damages at taxpayers expense.
Just like it is wrong to blame all crime on the poor, instead of holding the ones who do commit crimes responsible for restitution to pay back the costs to victims and society.

The mentality of automatically excusing the poor and blaming the rich, is just as damaging as pushing the mentality that the rich are all trickling down and creating jobs and it is the poor who are robbing them. Both are wrong and blaming people as a class for being either rich or poor "as the reason" for blaming one while excusing the other. It should be based on whether you have committed crime, corruption, abuses or violations and owe restitution to society.

NOT based on assumption by your class, which is HARMFUL in promoting divisive stereotypes.

0. On a personal note, I had the same argument with a liberal friend of mine who said basically the same thing, that he did not trust the GOP but more the Democrat Party for defending his civil liberties. I will say the same thing to you that I said to him, that we should enforce our civil liberties directly under the Constitution, and not rely on Party or Govt to do this for us. And in my experience of personally enforcing, upholding and even PAYING MYSELF for programs that enforce Constitutional principles directly, I find the Republicans more responsive to Constitutional enforcement while the Democrats keep pushing for electing Party leaders to get their representation that way, instead of using the Constitution directly. So I have a real problem with that. I am a member of the Democrat Party who actively works with members, district and leaders, but it's like beating my head against a wall when it comes to Constitutional enforcement and ethics being the standard of governance. With Republicans and conservatives who put the Constitution first, I don't have this issue. I can even defend my prochoice stance based on the Constitution with a Republican/conservative, and they will respect it because of Constitutional principles. But when it comes to equally defending the right of prolife people to protect their views under the Constitution, I get nowhere with liberal Democrats; they just don't base their views on the Constitution, but argue "in reaction" to the "opposition" which is purely a political stance. So as I told my friend who made a similar argument as you do, even though I am prochoice liberal, even if the Democrats or the Greens may represent my ideas more, that is NOT what the Office of President is FOR. The President needs to be following the CONSTITUTION in making decisions about national security, foreign relations, and interstate commerce and issues, and does NOT need to be biased or distracted by these other issues that people and parties need to resolve directly ourselves OUTSIDE of govt, and quit abusing elections and govt to push these agenda.

So I supported Romney as more focused on "rule of law"; and since I vote in Texas, which already goes to the GOP, then I voted for Jill Stein of the Green Party which promotes proportional representation by party and independent currency, which I believe will solve problems with partisan differences by sharing responsibility and not competing to dominate.

 

[Pheonixops]

Just to throw it out there.....


liberal: The world owes you everything....and life is free.

conservative: The world owes you nothing... and pay for the life you want.

Wrong again. I don't want what you have. If we have to pay for a pizza, I think that we should all pay an equal amount for that pizza, regardless of our income.

Yeah, but the only problem is, you also want us all to have the same pizza. If you've got cheese pizza? Everyone else is supposed to have cheese pizza, so we all pay an equal amount for that pizza. If I want pepperoni pizza, that's just too damn bad because you want me to have cheese pizza, so we can all pay an equal amount for that pizza. I don't like cheese pizza. I want a better pizza. So, you're going to have to pay less for that cheese pizza and, I'm going to have to pay more for my pepperoni pizza. And, if you want my pizza, you're going to have to pay more as well. You don't get my pizza at the cheese pizza's price because you think we should all pay an equal amount for the pizza.

I don't want you to have the same pizza. The example about the pizza I gave, was comparing it to a flat tax instead of the graduated tax. The rest of your post is totally inaccurate and doesn't apply to my sentiments at all. See, I don't care if you want a sausage pizza or want to marry a person of the same gender as you. That's YOUR choice, not mine.

 

[there4eyeM]

Taxing the rich according to the amount they have benefited from the collective structure that all contribute to could be called a tax on increased social and political influence (just to be honest).

Compare it, for example, to a pizza. One group gets 80% of it and the other the rest, but there are far fewer in that 80% group and the whole pizza would not be there if it weren't for the remaining 20% group that is composed of far more individuals. Wouldn't the individuals in the 80% group pay more each than the other group's members?

 

[jwoodie]

Taxing the rich according to the amount they have benefited Thfrom the collective structure that all contribute to could be called a tax on increased social and political influence (just to be honest).

Compare it, for example, to a pizza. One group gets 80% of it and the other the rest, but there are far fewer in that 80% group and the whole pizza would not be there if it weren't for the remaining 20% group that is composed of far more individuals. Wouldn't the individuals in the 80% group pay more each than the other group's members?

Who made the pizza? Your analysis is based on a mercantilist understanding of economics, i.e., that there is a fixed amount of assets to be distributed among people. This led to the downfall of Spain, the world's richest country, which believed it was all about gold. In today's economy, ideas and the ability to implement them are the world's most valuable commodities.

 

[there4eyeM]

Any one year's GDP is fixed; i.e., one pizza.

 

[Pheonixops]

Any one year's GDP is fixed; i.e., one pizza.

If the four of us go in on a pizza and each get two slices, why should the people who make more money pay more for their two slices than the people who make less money? Everyone is going to get two slices.

 

[there4eyeM]

Read the post.

 

[Pheonixops]

Read the post.

I did read it and that's why I am asking you that question.

 

[there4eyeM]

Read the post.

I did read it and that's why I am asking you that question.

"Taxing the rich according to the amount they have benefited from the collective structure that all contribute to could be called a tax on increased social and political influence (just to be honest).

Compare it, for example, to a pizza. One group gets 80% of it and the other the rest, but there are far fewer in that 80% group and the whole pizza would not be there if it weren't for the remaining 20% group that is composed of far more individuals. Wouldn't the individuals in the 80% group pay more each than the other group's members?"

The few get a lot. The many get little. Each single person in the small group the receives the 80% would normally pay more than each individual in the large group that gets little.

 

[Pheonixops]

Read the post.

I did read it and that's why I am asking you that question.

"Taxing the rich according to the amount they have benefited from the collective structure that all contribute to could be called a tax on increased social and political influence (just to be honest).

Compare it, for example, to a pizza. One group gets 80% of it and the other the rest, but there are far fewer in that 80% group and the whole pizza would not be there if it weren't for the remaining 20% group that is composed of far more individuals. Wouldn't the individuals in the 80% group pay more each than the other group's members?"

The few get a lot. The many get little. Each single person in the small group the receives the 80% would normally pay more than each individual in the large group that gets little.

Let's take it to this level. You and I both start separate businesses selling potatoes, my potatoes and service providing them is not as good as yours. Therefore because you made more money than me, you have to be taxed at a 50% rate and I am taxed at 25% rate. Is that "fair"?

 

[ecinicola]

To begin with the liberals have become unamerican's. While the consevatives are for the american people and the liberals aren't. But unfortunately not one of the politicians on both sides is doing nothing for us. The republicans try but then cave in. No politician in washington right now is working for the people and just working for what they want.

 

[Pheonixops]

To begin with the liberals have become unamerican's. While the consevatives are for the american people and the liberals aren't. But unfortunately not one of the politicians on both sides is doing nothing for us. The republicans try but then cave in. No politician in washington right now is working for the people and just working for what they want.

With all due respect, that was a stupid fucking post. Neither ideology has a premium on "pro-American" or "un-American". This country was started by Liberals, the Constitution is a Liberal document and not a conservative one. The opposition to the Founders of this Country were the Tories and they were the conservatives of the time.
The proponents of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties were the Liberals, the opposition to that were the conservative bastards of the time (both democrat and republican), the proponents of Women's Suffrage were the Liberals of the time, the opposition were the conservatives of the time, the opposition to slavery, the Black Codes, and Jim Crow were the Liberals the opposition were the conservatives. You can keep your conservatism.

 

[there4eyeM]

I did read it and that's why I am asking you that question.

"Taxing the rich according to the amount they have benefited from the collective structure that all contribute to could be called a tax on increased social and political influence (just to be honest).

Compare it, for example, to a pizza. One group gets 80% of it and the other the rest, but there are far fewer in that 80% group and the whole pizza would not be there if it weren't for the remaining 20% group that is composed of far more individuals. Wouldn't the individuals in the 80% group pay more each than the other group's members?"

The few get a lot. The many get little. Each single person in the small group the receives the 80% would normally pay more than each individual in the large group that gets little.

Let's take it to this level. You and I both start separate businesses selling potatoes, my potatoes and service providing them is not as good as yours. Therefore because you made more money than me, you have to be taxed at a 50% rate and I am taxed at 25% rate. Is that "fair"?

I'm afraid you missed the point.

 

[CrotchetyGeezer]

A conservative is someone who rises above his personal self-interest and promotes moral and economic values to all. A conservative is willing to learn and advocate the insights of economics and the logic of the Bible for the benefit of all.

The "conservatives" that say this are one and all trying to be celebrities in the political groupie circles. If you would have said "a conservative believes a Bible-based moral system and (unspecified) economics will benefit all" it would have passed muster.

You make no sense here. If a "conservative is willing to learn and advocate the insights of economics and the logic of the Bible for the benefit of all, this is to presume the conservative "believes a Bible-based moral system and (unspecified) economics will benefit all". Otherwise, they wouldn't be willing to learn and advocate the insights of economics and the logic of the Bible for the benefit of all. DUH!

More formally, a conservative typically adheres to principles of personal responsibility, moral values, and limited government, agreeing with George Washington's Farewell Address that "religion and morality are indispensable supports" to political prosperity.

"More formally?" Omit that. "Limited government" is a catch phrase, but it's never been defined, so it's fallen into being utterly meaningless, as has the ad nauseum claims to be exclusively channeling the Founding Fathers.

It's never been defined? You sure you want to stick with that story? And, what's utterly meaningless is any leftist/liberal claim that ANY leftist/liberal channels ANY Founding Father. Not only is it "utterly meaningless", it's absurd.

Specifically, conservatives seek or support:

* Limited government and balanced budgets

Moden republicans are the ones that expand government control and increase debt

Not hardly.

U.S. Federal Government Size, as Measured by Spending, by President/Political Party » truthful politics

* Capitalism and free markets

Democrats are also capitalists, and "free market" to the right often means turning regulations around to enable the elimination of competition.

Democrats are "capitalists" my ass! And, insofar as your comment about the "free market" to the right often meaning "turning regulations around to enable the elimination of competition" goes? I guess you don't know much about Ma Belle...huh?

* Classroom prayer
* Respect for human life and prohibition of abortion
* Abstinence education
* Traditional marriage, not same-sex marriage

Direct violations of separation of church and state. Abstinence education has been proven to be a waste of taxpayer money 100% of the time.

First, there is no violation of church and state because classroom prayer does not in any way shape or form represent Congress making a law with respect to an establishment of a religion. Second, I think you misunderstand the meaning of "Abstinence education". One doesn't need to be taught in school, to be educated. It's the parent's/parents' job to educate his/her/their children about sex and, conservatives promote that parents teach their children abstinence. That you presume conservatives are somehow implying abstinence should be taught in the schools is an error on your part. And, schools shouldn't be teaching safe sex practices...either. And, in doing so, teaching kids that somehow, it's okay for them to be having sex. It's not the schools' jobs to be teaching kids about sex. It's the parent's/parents' job.

* The concept of retribution for crimes, including the death penalty for heinous murders proven beyond a reasonable doubt

Not exclusive to conservatives.

Sure it is. And, if you agree with the above, in that instance, you're promoting conservative principles. If you disagree with the above, you're promoting leftist/liberal principles.

* Family values, including traditional relationships and division of labor within the household
* Respect for differences between men and women, boys and girls

I've been told by guys that being a professional keyboardist is a man's job, that having a vegetable garden is a man's job, that being a professional cook is a man's job, that being a chauffeur is a man's job, that working on cars is a man's job, that cooking for the family is a woman's job, that changing dirty diapers is a woman's job, that shopping for groceries or the kids' school cothes is a woman's job... all by men who weren't as good at those things as I am.

Anyone that is so misogynystic is a threat to society. It's not conservatism, it's repression. And extremist.

And? What, you automatically presume that, somehow, these "guys" who are telling you these things are conservatives? Further, how recently have you been told this by "guys"? Was this more like, back in the olden days? Or, more recently? And, being a conservative, I would disagree with many of those things it is you allege you've been told by "guys". For instance, I think planting any kind of a garden a woman would be better at. I'm a brown thumb and I'd kill everything. I think a woman would be a better cook. I'd burn everything. Unless, it's Macaroni & Cheese or Top Ramen.

* Laws against pornography

Again, not a strictly conservtive trait, depending on one's definition of pornography.

Again, sure it's strictly a conservative trait. And, if you agree with the above, in this instance, you harbor a conservative trait.

* The Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms

Again, not eclusive to conservatives.

Again, sure it's exclusive to conservatives.

* Economic allocative efficiency (as opposed to popular equity)

Not sure exactly where you're headed with this one.

Economic allocative efficiency

Definition: Allocative efficiency occurs when there is an optimal distribution of goods and services. This involves taking into account consumer's preferences.

A more precise definition of allocative efficiency is at an output level where the price equals the Marginal Cost (MC) of production. This is because the price that consumer's are willing to pay is equivalent to the marginal utility that they get. Therefore the optimal distribution is achieved when the marginal utility of the good equals the marginal cost.

* Firms in Perfect competition are said to produce at an allocatively efficient level.

* Monopolies can increase price above the marginal cost of production and are Allocatively inefficient.

And, I'm not particularly sure what they mean by "popular equity", unless they mean "common equity", which is:

A measure of equity which only takes into account the common stockholders, and disregards the preferred stockholders. It is equal to shareholders' equity minus preferred equity.

* Parental control of education (parental rights)

Again, not sure exactly where you're going with this. One parent can't control an entire school district according to his wishes, however parents are free to send their kids to public, private, or parochial schools, or to have their kids home schooled. So this doesn't really fall into a political belief system

Sure one parent can control an entire school system according to his/her wishes. If, that one parent is willing to persuade other parents to be on his/her side. And, you're clearly clueless about some leftists' attempts to interfere with one's capacity to privately teach their children or teach their children in a school supported by any religious organization. So, yes, it does fall into a political belief system.

* Private medical care and retirement plans

Actually conservatives are the ones that initiated public health care.

Really? Got something to back up this claim?

* Canceling failed social support programs

And again, not an exlusively conservative position.

Who said it was exclusively a conservative position? Did I say it was exclusively a conservative position? And, besides, as I've said above. If you support the above, maybe you're supporting a conservative principle and, just don't realize it. Or, more like, just don't want to admit it.

* No world government

Umm... there is no "world government." That's not conservative, it's tinfoil hat.

No one said there IS currently a "world government." And, no, it's not "tinfoil hat". When people advocate giving the UN untold power, as many leftists/liberals do, the possibility of a world government becomes more a possibility.

* Enforcement of current laws regarding immigration

No, conservatives and liberals alike have been calling for and making changes to the immigration laws.

BS!

* Respect for our military . . . past and present

Once again, the groupie celebrity tries to claim exclusiveness.

Once again, a leftist makes pretenses.

* Rejection of junk science such as evolution and global warming

Again, not a conservative trait, but tinfoil hat.

Sure it's a conservative trait.

* Minimal taxation

No, not conservative, that's libertarian. Okay, in a way the libertarians are conservatives, but they aren't mainstream

Oh brother, you are so confused it isn't even funny.

* Federalism (Separation of powers among the National, State and Local governments)

For the most part all demographics believe in this, however in practice there are overlaps, as in interstate highways that go through states, and sometimes large cities.

For the most part nothing.

* Favoring states' rights over federal power, while accepting the Constitutional role of the federal government

That's more to the far right than regular conservative.

What's a "regular conservative"?

* A strong national defense

Again, again, again, this is not exclusive to conservatives.

Sure it is.

* An Originalist interpretation of the Constitution

And yet again, repition of a talking point aimed at the far right, not regular conservatives.

And yet again, what's a "regular conservative"?

* A dedication to the truth, and an ability to seek it

And again, the I CAN HAZ SPESHUL groupie nonsense.

Not nonsense at all. And, that you clearly have an aversion to truth and an inability to seek it, this shows you're a liberal/leftist.

Liberal

A liberal is someone who favors censorship of Christianity

Not exactly. Liberals are oppsed to censorship generally, however, we don't like having christianity, "rammed down our throats" (as those on the far right like to say,) to the exclusion of all other religions, atheism, and agnosticism.

No one is trying to ram "christianity" down your throats. Morality and decency maybe? But, Christians aren't necessarily the arbiters of morality and decency...right? Or, are you implying it's only Christians who are moral and decent?

plus increased government spending and power, as in ObamaCare.

Not sure what this is all about... Umm, if there's inflation, cost of living increases, utility bills go up, stuff lie that, yeah, spending has to increase. You don't want to avoid paying the electric bill at the FBI building, do you? Power? Liberals aren't really into power trips, we're hippies, remember. Now if some entity is spinning out of control and harshing the country, then yeah, the man has to step in and sock it to them. Obamacare? To liberals it's not an excuse to spend money, nor is it a power trip, to us it's about getting people insurance so we don't get stuck paying for their emergency room visits.

You are getting stuck paying for their emergency room visits...goof. At least, that is, presuming you pay taxes.

Increasingly, liberals side with the homosexual agenda, including supporting homosexual "marriage".

It's called equal rights. The Constitution guarantees them.

You don't have a Constitutional "right" to marry...dip, whether you're a heterosexual OR a homosexual. There is no where in the United States Constitution which states you have a "right to marry".

Many liberals favor a welfare state where people receive endless entitlements without working.

A completely dishonest statement.

No liberal wants that.

Every liberal wants that.

Liberals are often anti-Christian, or otherwise disagree with moral or social principles held by many American Christians

Again, the Constitution that you claim to know so well actually promotes freedom of religion and freedom of expression. Generally the disagreements are with fundamentalist extremism.

Yes, freedom of religion and freedom of expression, unless you're a Christian. Then, leftists decide one doesn't have a right to freedom of religion and freedom of expression.

The liberal ideology has worsened over the years and degenerated into economically delusional views and intolerant ideology. Some liberals simply support, in knee-jerk fashion, the opposite of conservative principles without having any meaningful values of their own.

A very vague comment, and untrue. Liberals are often accused of being too tolerant. You can't have it both ways. Liberals, centrists, and non-extremist conservatives think through and study principles and come to conclusions independent of the other groups. To suggest liberals have no meaningful values is a socially retarded attempt at insulting us. Fail.

You don't have any meaningful values, if you're a liberal/leftist. And, no, I don't accuse ANY liberal of being too tolerant, at least insofar as to their opposition to conservatives go. Indeed, they are tolerant of many things -- albeit many absolutely sick and disgusting things -- but, when it comes to liberals/leftists being "tolerant" of conservative ideals and principles...forget about it. It's not sick and disgusting enough to be tolerant of it.

Polling data has consistently shown that a decreasingly large percentage of Americans identify as conservative, rather than as liberal, currently at 38% to 21%. Younger people and those with higher levels of education are more likely to identify as liberal.

Well, I must say I like this poll, but as the election polls taught us, well most of us, polls can't be trusted, can they?

Oh, I will agree with you on this one.

The decline in liberal principles can be illustrated by how Franklin Delano Roosevelt opposed and condemned public sector unions, stating that the idea of collective bargaining can't be transferred from the private to the public sector, as that would result in the government being unable to carry out its duties. Yet today, decades later, Democrats and liberals are in lock-step with public sector unions, as they "donate" money to the reelection campaign in exchange for more taxpayer money in their wallets and fluffed up pensions.

As opposed to billionaire corporate campaign donors that steal their hardworking employees' pension plans to fatten their offshore bank accounts?

Elaborate further on what specific incident it is you're referring to and, elaborate on how it is you presume this has anything to do with conservatives. Making broad statements without clarification of what you're talking about doesn't do squat in substantiating your claim.

A liberal generally supports many of the following political positions and practices:

* Spending money on government programs (the significant economic problems in the Eurozone due to government debt will no doubt increasingly discredit this aspect of liberal ideology and make things more difficult for advocates of liberal economic ideologies)

The EU problem comes from austerity measures. Please study your material before posting.

Yeah? And? Do you know what the austerity measures are all about?

As for spending money on government programs, once again your post is a bit confusing. The government's House's primary function is spending money. The "strong military" that you claim ony conservatives like, has to eat. They don't get guns and tanks for free. Without government spending there would be very few operating universities in the country, and wouldn't that be embarrassing, considering how well-educated other industrialized countries are? Or are you suggesting that we allow all poor and retired people to die withut benefit of a death panel?

Seems you're a bit confused here. Seems you presume conservatives somehow oppose ALL government spending. Which, is not the case. It's more a matter of opposing government spending which isn't necessary or isn't working.

* Government's ability to solve economic problems

And conservatives think some other entity will solve those problems? I doubt it.

And leftists think the government will solve all the problems? I doubt it.

* The belief that terrorism is not a huge threat, and that the main reason for Muslim extremists' hostility towards America is because of bad foreign policy

Terrorism is NOT a "huge" threat, you're right there, but as you go on to imply that muslims are responsible for all terrorism you plunge headfirst into fail.

Who else, in the last 40 years, has been most responsible for terrorism? Oh...wait, that's right...Muslims. Hmmmm.

* Taxpayer-funded and/or legalized abortion

As opposed to government crawling up a woman's vagina with a fascist agenda that uses the god's name in vain, yes.

What's God's name got to do with it? Murder is murder. You suggesting that if one were to get in a car accident due to drunk driving and kills a woman's unborn child, that individual shouldn't be held responsible for the murder of that unborn child? That's what's going to happen if you say it's okay for a woman to purposefully kill her unborn child. How can you hold another responsible for killing a woman's unborn child, if it's okay for a woman to purposefully kill her unborn child? If we allow leftists to get to define when it is life begins, there would be all kinds of complications regarding the law and holding others responsible for their reckless behavior. Then, a woman could be seven months pregnant and a drunk driver could get in a car accident with her and kill her unborn child and he/she wouldn't face any ramifications whatsoever for the death of that unborn child. I mean, how could they? If the law defines life as beginning at birth or shortly before birth, then the drunk driver who hit the woman would simply use that as a defense. Oh, but how could I have killed her child when her child wasn't even alive? So, you see, it's a little more complicated than just a simple matter of "religion" or "God's name"...moron! Further, why would anyone in their right mind want to crawl up a liberal/leftist woman's "vagina"? Why not just be safe and drive a truck in? Less chance of getting icky on ya'.

* Censorship of teacher-led prayer in classrooms and school/state-sponsored religious events

Separation of church and state. I thought you liked the Constitution.

You don't know squat about the Constitution.

* Support for gun control

True dat. We don't like crazies owning unregistered assault rifles. Keep in mind that's gun control, not gun repeal. Liberals don't mind guns, actually.

Yeah, give me some more crap about how liberals allegedly "don't mind guns". And, gun control is the mechanism for which gun repeal will gradually come to pass if it's allowed to continue and, you know it.

* Affirmative action

Hmmm... we don't actually like it. Not really. The problem is that the only alternative leads to extreme discrimination in the workplace. So do we choose a flawed plan, or absolute evil? We have to go with the flawed plan.

Uh huh...give me some more of your crap.

* Opposition to government regulation or restriction of obscenity, pornography and violence in video games as a First Amendment right

Okay, one minute you're for smaller government and individual rights, the next you're wanting the government to regulate video games, even though you don't like commerce laws and you think parents' rights to educate their kids supercedes the government's rights. Because you're afraid someone will see cartoon tits?

Again, seems you're somewhat confused over the term "government". Seems you don't understand that conservatives' greatest concern is federal government control, rather than state and local government control. Further, seems you don't understand that conservatives want smaller federal government control, as opposed to NO federal government control. And, you want to elaborate a little further on "parents' rights to educate their kids supercedes the government's rights. Because you're afraid someone will see cartoon tits"? Can you explain how cartoon tits is in any way related to parents' rights to educate their kids? You educated your kids...with cartoon tits?

W. T. F.

W. T. F. is right! Who the hell educates their kids with cartoon tits?

* Government-funded medical care, such as ObamaCare

In that all other industrialized countries have it and it costs half as much as private insurance, hellz yeah.

And, that it's paid for by others' tax dollars, "hellz yeah"...right?

* Taxpayer funded and government controlled public education

As opposed to... what? Fundamentalist, sexually repressive homeschooling? Absolutely.

Yeah, I knew you'd show your true colors before the end of your crap got done.

But, but, but...didn't you just type this earlier.

"however parents are free to send their kids to public, private, or parochial schools"

Yeah, they're free to send their kids to private or parochial schools alright, of which, you will label "Fundamentalist, sexually repressive homeschooling". You're a hypocrite...huh?

* Insisting that men and women be placed in the same jobs in the military

Yeah, we on the left have a real problem with wanting people to have equal rights. Silly us.

So you'll have no problem when women are placed on the front line with a rifle, right alongside the men, trudging through the mud and dodging bullets? Cool. I can't wait...either.

* Legalized same-sex marriage and homosexual adoption

There's that pesky Constitution again, equal rights, freedom of and from religion...

There is no "freedom from" religion...clown. Except, of course, only in a Congressional legal establishment sense.

* Tax and spend

No liberal supports a blind spending spree. I await your apology for having typed that.

Well, true, not necessarily a "blind" spending spree. Just a "blind" spending spree on those things of which liberals/leftists support. And, I'm not apologizing for squat. I don't apologize to liberals/leftists. They're not worthy.

* Support for economic sector regulations

Yes. Deregulation has failed every time it was tried.

Really? Want to back up this claim? You might want to educate yourself a little bit on an issue I cite above. It concerns a telephone company.

* Support and spreading of political correctness

Ooh, this is a toughie. PC comes from both sides and all points in between, so it's not exclusive to liberals. Also PC isn't always PC, sometimes it's a changing of terms to make a situation seem less bad, like "economic downturn" instead of "recession." That's a conservative PC term, btw. At any rate, properly contexted PC leads to better manners, and good manners never go out of style.

What does a leftist know about "manners"? And, prove "economic downturn" is even an alleged PC term for "recession" and, prove it's a conservative PC term. And, that you deem being politically correct is a changing of terms to "make a situation seem less bad"? LOL!

* Support of non-syndicalist labor unions

Absolutely. Liberals don't like working in unsafe conditions at substandard wages.

Liberals generally don't like "working", in the first place. But, you don't need a labor union to work in safe conditions at good wages. My brother works at a company of which has no union and it's one of the safest places there is to work and, it pays good salaries of which are consistent with average salaries for the type of work performed and, is in line with the cost of living of my state.

* Encouraging promiscuity through sexual education (the teaching of safe sex) rather than teaching abstinence from premarital sex

Safe sex doesn't encourage promiiscuity, your statement is a lie. Abstinence programs NEVER WORK.

Sure it encourages promiscuity. Why do you think so many teenagers are getting pregnant? And, substantiate your claim that abstinence programs never work. See, the fact is, what NEVER works is encouraging young women to open their legs and encouraging young men to let their tallywackers do their thinking for them.

* A "living Constitution" that is reinterpreted as liberals prefer, rather than how it is thought to have been intended

Untrue. Liberals, however, go with college-educated Consitutional scholars' determinations instead of dogma put out by weird old hillbillies with teabags stapled to their hats.

No, liberals go with college-educated LIBERAL Constitutional scholars' interpretations. And, as far as your "dogma put out by weird old hillbillies with teabags stapled to their hats" comment isn't even worth addressing. It only goes to demonstrate on how utterly brainless you are.

* Government programs to rehabilitate criminals. Abolition of the death penalty

Yes we like rehabilitation, most programs are fully to moderately successful. A rehabilitated criminal becomes a useful citizen, working and paying taxes instead of sitting in a cell paid for by taxes.

The federal government shouldn't be paying for programs to rehabilitate criminals. And, the ratio of criminals who actually become "a useful citizen, working and paying taxes instead of sitting in a cell paid for by taxes" as opposed to those who don't? Yeah, those rehabilitation programs are a pure and simple waste of taxpayer dollars. Criminals should be paying for their own rehabilitation programs through work they perform while incarcerated. And, they should start being required to do exceptionally more work. For instance, in my state, the sides of the highways are a mess. Used to see criminals all the time cleaning up the side of the highways. Very seldom see that anymore. They must be too busy, due to liberal/leftist policies, watching cable TV and lifting weights...instead.

Your problem with this is... what? Liberals don't like the death penalty, but most actually approve of it in extreme cases, like serial killers.

Prove your "most of them" claim.

* Environmentalism

Is cutting down pollution a problem?

If "environmentalism" was simply a matter of "cutting down pollution"? No, it wouldn't necessarily be a problem at all. But, we all know that isn't the entire crux of "environmentalism" now...don't we? And, we also know liberals'/leftists' definitions of "pollution" are in some instances quite absurd...don't we? Like, for instance, labeling CO2 as "pollution". Yeah, CO2 is "pollution" like oxygen and water are "pollution".

* Globalism

This is politically universal, not just liberal. From raw materials to the checkout counter, much of what we buy comes from/goes through 4 or more countries. Get used to it.

Don't confuse globalization with "globalism".

* Support for the constitutionally mandated separation of church and state

Um, yeah, it's the Constitution.

Only when it's convenient for you...though. When it comes to you and your collective infringing upon one's "free exercise thereof", however, that's an entirely different matter altogether.

* Opposition to full private property rights

What?

Need an example?

WHY DO VIRGINIA DEMOCRATS OPPOSE PROPERTY RIGHTS? | Citizen Tom

* Reinstating the Fairness Doctrine

Again, this is supported by groups on all sides. So is Equal Time.

This is supported by groups on all sides? Excuse me? Uhmmmm, no...it's not. Show me one conservative who advocates the "Fairness Doctrine".

* In 2005, it was reported by CBS News that liberals were most likely supporters of the theory of evolution

Yeah. We don't do the "Magic Sky Fairy created a test tube baby then cloned him" thing.

Yeah you do. Only, in your case, the "Magic Sky Fairy" is some colossal accident of which created the soup necessary to create life.

* Opposition of the War on Terrorism. Withholds support to the War on Terrorism

What the fuck are you talking about?

You don't know?

* Tolerance of different ideas and lifestyles (just as long as those with different ideas and lifestyles identify themselves as liberal or to the left of the political spectrum)

No, actually we tolerate anyone that doesn't make every attempt to force their own rigid, repressive, regressive, ideology with shallow values and unattainable goals on us. Hope that clears things up for you.

Like I said, "just as long as those with different ideas and lifestyles identify themselves as liberal or to the left of the political spectrum". If one doesn't identify themselves as liberal or to the left of the political spectrum, then one is making "every attempt to force their own [alleged] rigid, [allegedly] repressive, [allegedly] regressive, ideology with [alleged] shallow values and [alleged] unattainable goals on [you]".

* Do not support a laissez-faire capitalist economy and support regulation of business

Yeah, we like to NOT DO WHAT CRASHED THE ECONOMY IN '08.

Then, that would indicate you did not like what the Democrats who controlled the House and Senate in 2007 did.

Liberals currently use two clauses to try and expand their power: the Commerce Clause and the General Welfare Clause. The general welfare clause mentions "promoting the general welfare". This to a liberal means taxing the rich at increased rates and redistributing that money. The commerce clause, on the other hand, says that Congress has the power to regulate trade with foreign nations, between the states and with the indian tribes. Since the days of FDR this clause has been interpreted very loosely and has resulted in the federal government expanding its power. The latest example is The Affordable Care Act (ACA), better known as ObamaCare. In the ACA, the liberals justify the individual mandate by saying it regulates commerce between the states.

I already said we don't do the power trip. We don't need to. We're already way cooler than you'll ever be. In what reality do you join together taxes, Indians, the ACA, trade, and the Constitution as a liberal power trip?

Sure you do power trips. And, that you presume you're "way cooler" than I'll ever be? Yeah, but your coolness doesn't get you very far in the brain department now...does it? And, in what reality do I join together taxes, Indians, the ACA, trade and the Constitution as a liberal power trip? Well, I would say that "reality" is leftists'/liberals' policies with respect to taxes, Indians, the ACA, trade and the Constitution. For instance, liberals/leftists citing the Commerce Clause to ram ObamaCare down Americans' throats, was a power trip. And, your punk-in-chief's contradictory statements on this matter are an entirely different discussion.

Your fingers were foaming at the mouth as you typed those last few ever more bizarre lies, weren't they?

My fingers have a mouth? Is that something you see on your fingers, when you're high?

Your post has nothing do do with right/left ideology, instead it's you trying to convince the rest of this site's members that your woman-hating, homophobic, anti-intellectual, pseudo-religious, sexually repressive post is valid in order to give yourself a sense of power over those who won the election and of the party members, all of whom are one hell of a lot cooler than you'll ever be. Post fail.

On the contrary, I'm merely pointing out what you are. And, that you get so frustrated as to label my post a "woman-hating, homophobic, anti-intellectual, pseudo-religious, sexually repressive" post? This only goes to demonstrate you have an exceptionally guilty conscience and that's your only recourse. You can't dispute it and prove it wrong so, your only option is to get frustrated and demonstrate your true leftist colors. And, again, your coolness might make you feel all warm and cozy? But, it gets you no where in the brain department. But, I can just picture you now. A leftist version of Chester Cheetah, "It's not easy, being sleazy." And, sleazy leftists generally are...indeed. But hey...they're "cool". Bet you even wear your sunglasses at night too...huh?

 

[CrotchetyGeezer]

Liberals = the wind that pushes the ship (this country) forward.

Conservatives = the sea anchor that keeps the ship stable and afloat.

Immie

Only problem is, liberals are pushing this country forward, in the wrong direction. To, the dark side. The best portrayal of leftists' moving forward is depicted in a movie called Mad Max, where the guy is having sexual relations with a mannequin.

Well, I do agree this country is going in the wrong direction, but then I would ask you whether it is liberals (as I am going to define them here as being the normal everyday citizens of this great nation) or is it politicians and politics in general (regardless of political persuasion) that is pushing this country in the wrong direction?

I happen to think that it is politics (and corruption within politics) that is to blame, not one viewpoint of the other. I will give some examples of some fine liberal ideas that have been corrupted by politics... Social Security, Affirmative Action, Welfare, Unemployment Insurance. The list can go on and on.

The problem is not liberalism or conservatism. The problem is the corruption that we have allowed to seep into our national leadership over the years. Unfortunately, I am of the mind that it is too late to do anything about it.

Immie

Ah, but on the contrary, a politician can't do anything unless we elect them in. And, human beings have been defining themselves as belonging to one group or another since the dawn of time. They define themselves based on whether the individual they're supporting represents their principles and values for the most part or, entirely. Anyone who implies that they're somehow being brainwashed by some particular politician doesn't have very much confidence in themselves that they're capable of making their own decisions. Now, true, a politician can SAY he/she supports this, this and this and not necessarily REALLY support it and one might feel compelled to vote for the individual because he/she believes that politician believes this, this and this but, one has to be able to understand how realistic it is that said politician may actually be able to get it done on the basis of a multitude of differing factors. But, even if I know said politician isn't going to be able to do this, this and this, I feel confident enough in myself to judge a person's character and determine if that individual really represents my principles and values like he/she says he/she does.

Now, insofar as liberalism as a philosophy? I agree with you for the most part. Some of the philosophies of liberalism are good and many of them started out good. But, as with most anything else, they're taken to the limit and they go too far. Liberalism as a philosophy is in a lot of instances good ideas, LiberALS (the human beings pretending to practice liberalism as a philosophy), I will agree, is part of the problem. And, don't get me wrong, many conservaTIVES pretending to practice conserv-atism, are also part of the problem. There are so many conservaTIVES these days, who pretend to practice conserv-atism, it's absurd.

And, lastly, as to whether or not I believe it's too late, I guess I'm somewhat of an optimist and I still have some hope.

 

[CrotchetyGeezer]

Liberals and conservatives in the modern United States are separated only by which set of lies they choose to believe.

Both are sheep, both follow a 'party line', both attack the other side in hypocritical ways.


Both are the intended product of a corrupt leadership that benefits from creating a divided electorate.

Think about it, conservatives and liberals are both simply tools........

Yeah, and I'll bet you're above all that. (rolling eyes)