|
Author
|
Topic: itt someone explains what a liberal is.
|
Tghost
Farting Nudist
Member # 1418
Member Rated:
|
posted 02-23-2004 11:15 PM
Seriously now..every debate here that even remotely could be about politics talks about liberals. And it seems these mythical "liberals" are some sort of absolutely pervasive organisation of evilly socialist pro-everything hippies.
So, are they mythical or do they really exist?
From: Auckland, New Zealand | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Random Loser
Farting Nudist
Member # 1538
Member Rated:
|
posted 02-23-2004 11:19 PM
They exist, make sure you leave your closet door open a crack with the light on when you go to bed...
From: Uni of Virginny | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Atma
Farting Nudist
Member # 689
Member Rated:
|
posted 02-23-2004 11:27 PM
Sonu asked me that too...
[22:31] Ophinu: What is "Liberal" in the world of politics?
[22:31] Ophinu: As you quite know, I don't have a clue about politics
[22:32] DragonAtma: A democrat who's not centrist, I think
[22:32] Ophinu: Don't have a clue about politics (centrist?)
[22:32] DragonAtma: lol
[22:32] DragonAtma: they call the demorcrats left
[22:32] DragonAtma: the reublicans right
[22:33] DragonAtma: centrist = democratic (or republican) who's close to tyhe center
[22:33] Ophinu: And what's the difference between Democrat and Republican (again)?
[22:33] DragonAtma: democrats = higher taxes but higher spending, and focuses on helping low-income people
[22:33] DragonAtma: republican = low tax but low spending, and focuses on rich people
[22:34] Ophinu: Aha
[22:34] DragonAtma: democrats have more donors, but the rpublican donoirs are richer (duh?)
[22:34] Ophinu: Then what's a Green, Independent, (I know communist!), and um... some other party that I should care about.
[22:34] DragonAtma: Dubya = low taxes, high spending, and therefore large deficit
[22:35] DragonAtma: independent basically covers any candidate who doesn't have a party backing them
[22:35] Ophinu: Makes sense.
[22:35] Ophinu: So...
[22:35] Ophinu: Bush is a Republican Centrist?
[22:35] DragonAtma: green = side party who's a combo of republicans and rdemocrats (kinda)
[22:35] DragonAtma: lol
[22:35] DragonAtma: Bush ois a very conservatice (far right) republican
[22:35] Ophinu: Like Ralph Nader?
[22:35] DragonAtma: yah, nader = green... exept they don't wnat him as their candidate
[22:36] Ophinu: Ralph Nader is a funny name
[22:36] DragonAtma: Basically, the greens think the democrats and republicans are too similar
[22:36] DragonAtma: Also, republicans think "liberal" is an epithet, and democrats think the same about "conservative"
[22:36] Ophinu: So, they want to be the people who say, "SEND THE CHEAP AIDS DRUGS TO AFRICA AND LET THEM GROW PIGEON WINGS AND POPULATE IN CANADA!"?
[22:36] DragonAtma: Only if they got stoned.
[22:37] DragonAtma: Northeast US (pennsylvania and further northeast) = democratic
[22:37] DragonAtma: soiutheast (texas to virginia, or so) = republican
[22:37] DragonAtma: the west tends to be republican, aside from califronia, which is democratic
[22:37] DragonAtma: And the midwest is the battlegrounds (or something)
[22:39] DragonAtma: also, the smarter and/or better educated people tend to be dmeocratic
[22:39] DragonAtma: while dumber and/or less educated tend to be republican
[22:39] DragonAtma: And the christian fanatics overwhelminglky tend to be republicans
[22:39] DragonAtma: while the democrats tend tobe more secular
- - - - -
"My name is Atma...
I am pure energy... and as ancient as the cosmos.
Forgotten in the river of time...
I've had an eternity to ponder the meaning of things...
And now I have an answer..."
From: Cinnabar Isle, Long Island, NY | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
ceoalex316
Time for the flaming leprosy party
Member # 338
|
posted 02-23-2004 11:48 PM
I thought that you are liberal on an issue if you want it to change and conservative if you want it to stay the way it is.
From: NYC | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
Charmeleon42
Date Rapist
Member # 1066
Member Rated:
|
posted 02-24-2004 12:17 AM
IMO, a Liberal is a person who wants to proactively change things in the name of the greater good or in the name of compassion. What they want to change and what they want to change it to is defined predominantly by morals or ideals.
This is why liberals are, for example, against war - because war kills people. Take Iraq. There are conservatives who are against the Iraq war obviously, but usually for different reasons. Liberals tend to oppose it, like I said, for moralistic reasons. "No Blood for Oil" - with this they make a plea that is based on the distaste for human death and suffering (which is moralistic), as well as contrasting this with Oil, which implies industry and corporation. This liberal-fueled slogan uses no facts in it's attempt to sway opinion; only emotions and morals. Liberals would want to see, and argue to no end, for a peaceful solution to conflicts, because of obvious moral advantages and the "greater good."
Char42's Opinion Note: Sadly, they do so blindly, and disregard facts when said 'peaceful solutions' fail miserably. coffcoff.
Conservatives, on the other hand, prefer stability and security over radical change. They also base their opinions (and arguments) based predominantly off of facts. Morals come in to play a great deal, but they stick with the "stability and security" clause, as they are generally traditional morals.
For instance, same-sex marriage. Conservatives who oppose same-sex marriage base the argument against doing so because of the technical definition of marriage, 'between a man and a woman'. This is using fact based arguments. They oppose changing the definition of marriage and allowing homosexuals to marry because that isn't "stability", and "traditional" morals.
And it seems these mythical "liberals" are some sort of absolutely pervasive organisation of evilly socialist pro-everything hippies.
Well, let me talk from a conservative standpoint, and tell you some things that are wrong about liberals.
In one issue, Liberals and the Democratic party want to tax the upper class and the corporations more. They want a piece of that money, and... there's a lot of it to be chunked away from, right? Idealistically, the government would be able to get more money from Bill Gates and Wal-Mart, and do good stuff with it. The middle and lower class also tend to enjoy the idea of "sticking it to the man", or in the this case, the rich, and would like to see their stereotyped "fat wallets" drain a bit for the 'common good'. (Note that this will get Democratic candidates votes from the middle and lower class constituents.)
The problem is that this is dangerous to the economy. The Democrats have this idealistic view on taxation, but they dont look at the facts on what that could do. The facts are: if you tax, for instance, Wal-Mart, out of profitability, would they make new jobs? Would they open new stores? Or would they turn into another KMart, and start closing stores - which would hurt the economy greatly by driving up unemployment. If you tax Wal-Mart out of profitability, they wouldn't be able to do things like this.
Additionally, if you tax rich people too much, suddenly they aren't rich anymore. Who do you think goes on the expensive cruises and stuff? People work for those companies that run those cruises. If you tax rich people too much, they stop feeling secure about how rich they are, and start, you know, spending less? If the government started taking a larger cut out of your paycheck, you might think about cutting down on your monetary binges, right? We're both people - they think that way too. Once the rich people don't want to spend that much money anymore, well that expensive cruise line can kiss their customers goodbye - and they employees could kiss their jobs goodbye too. That or lower rates. Which lowers profits. Which lowers funding for employees. Either way, people lose.
This is just an example...
From: Mountain Dew Land | Registered: Oct 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
gruco
I am Ian Garvey's lovechild.
Member # 1645
Member Rated:
|
posted 02-24-2004 01:05 AM
Even though I should be going to sleep Char, I can't help but argue with you about eveything ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Liberals tend to oppose it, like I said, for moralistic reasons.
Hm. Far and away the most frequent reasons I see are utilitarian. Certainly you can agree that there is a very real tanglible cost of this war. And there are a lot of other prolems out there lead to several deaths a year. Auto safety, eating disorders, and poverty are three examples that can benefit from improved spending a save lives.
The utilitarian argument applies most frequently to the millitary. Surely you've heard complaints that the problem in Iraq was a huge opportunity cost that kept us from fully pursuing the real enemy in Afghanistan/Pakistan? That's not a practical position?
Conservatives use emotional arguments too, ya know. How many times have we heard that Sadaam was a madman, without the phrase adequately substantiated with recent evidence?
This liberal-fueled slogan uses no facts
Not many four word catch phrases do...
Conservatives, on the other hand, prefer stability and security over radical change.
Okay, well, that's an interesting comparison. Liberals don't propose change that is purely radical however, nor do they oppose security, so a more meaningful comparison might be between stability and gradual (or the word liberals love, progressive) change.
The problem is that this is dangerous to the economy. The Democrats have this idealistic view on taxation, but they dont look at the facts on what that could do.
Careful. Saying the progressive taxes do damage to "the economy" opens a big can of worms. Certainly it causes problems with basic microeconomic efficiency theory. But keep in mind microeconomics has some ridiculously absurd assumtions that ignore the existence of altruism, pressupose "perfect" rationality and information systems, and sometimes comes to such obviously unrealistic conclusions such as that people don't tip.
There's a lot of empirical evidence that suggests wealth redistribution helps the economy, because of the higher propensity to spend in lower income groups, and higher marginal productivity from people slightly above the poverty threshold than in extreme wealth.
Furthermore, is GDP the only factor worth looking at? Would you rather have a 6% growth and higher literacy, lower crime, etc., or 5% and higher literacy, lower crime, etc.?
The facts are: if you tax, for instance, Wal-Mart, out of profitability, would they make new jobs? Would they open new stores?
You had to choose Wal-Mart, didn't you? A company notorious for worker exploitation (at home and abroad), predatory pricing, and disturbing small business. Fighting Wal-Mart would be great for the economy! It would lead to more small businesses, which are better (and higer quality) job providers, and are more numerous, creating a more competitive environment.
Additionally, if you tax rich people too much, suddenly they aren't rich anymore.
Okay, so what you're saying is that you have no idea how the federal income tax system works.
Asshole counter-generalization of the day -
Liberals don't use facts when making arguments, they just rely on emotions.
Republicans turn complex issues into easy answers that everyone wants to hear. Which is much better.
[ 02-24-2004, 01:08 AM: Message edited by: gruco ]
From: Clock Town | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
White Cat
Nobody knows why I'm an admin.
Member # 42
Member Rated:
|
posted 02-24-2004 02:22 AM
Something I meant to post in the "Do liberals have the moral high ground?" thread (which gruco touched on here) is that neither side has a monopoly on being moralistic or utilitarian. Liberals tend to be moralistic on economic issues ("The rich don't need all that money, so let's give it to the poor!"), while conservatives are moralistic on social issues ("Drugs are bad, so let's make heavy penalties to deter people from using them!").
To take this a step further, the traditional left/liberal vs. right/conservative political spectrum is woefully inadequate. A better one uses two axes: one for economic policies and one for social policies.
Liberals support high personal freedoms and low economic freedoms, which conservatives support high economic freedoms and low personal freedoms.
If you want to make it really complicated you can throw in a third axis (political freedoms), but that lies outisde of the liberal/conservative debate.
- - - - -
"Anybody gone into Whole Foods lately and see what they charge for arugula?"
-- Barack Obama, campaigning in Iowa
From: Calgary | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ikuse
Farting Nudist
Member # 3037
Member Rated:
|
posted 02-24-2004 04:10 AM
According to that website I'm a Libertarian of the highest degree...
From: In my pants. | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Charmeleon42
Date Rapist
Member # 1066
Member Rated:
|
posted 02-24-2004 05:39 AM
Okay, so what you're saying is that you have no idea how the federal income tax system works.
Well naturally the rich people pay higher taxes anyway. But the Democrats want them to pay even more. It may be just a campaign promise to rally the middle and lower class troops towards 'sticking it to the man', but these are things they say they are interested in.
I'm not saying that they're not actually rich anymore, but the people will look at their new tax rates and think "I'm not as rich as I was yesterday", and start buying less. That's the problem. It's not moving from Albertson's to the Dollar store or anything, but they certainly might not want to, say, invest in anything. As if there's anything else to do with your money when you have 6-digit incomes.
You had to choose Wal-Mart, didn't you?
>_<
Furthermore, is GDP the only factor worth looking at?
In my mind I'm thinking more of unemployment. If you have a job, then your life is good; if you don't, your life will suck until you get one. I guess it boils down to that though...
There's a lot of empirical evidence that suggests wealth redistribution helps the economy...
And I'm kind of saying something equivilent to giving a man a fish, or teaching a man to fish.
Lowering taxes for the poor will give them... oh, I dunno, a thousand dollars more? I'm not sure how much people pay in taxes, but I think a thousand is a generous assumption. That thousand will be used for buying things, and since there's more people that are middle/lower class than upper class, then you have a lot of these thousands of dollars being spent. Then again, this is the Democratic model, which involves increases taxes for the rich and big business. Depending how rich you are, that could take great amounts of money from their annual inflow - which could stifle investment and cause jobs.
Then again, if you lower taxes for the businesses, they can invest more and make more jobs. The 'common' folk wont have an extra thousand dollars to play around with, but percentages of the country will find themselves with new jobs. Will those new jobs (and perhaps even raises for those who have jobs) make more change in the GDP, or will the extra tax breaks? It's hard to tell.
...so a more meaningful comparison might be between stability and gradual (or the word liberals love, progressive) change.
I suppose.
Certainly you can agree that there is a very real tanglible cost of this war. -Cost things-
Yes. But even then, liberals who argue for utilitarian reasons still fit in with my definition - they are trying to go in the name of the "greater good" and progressive change.
From: Mountain Dew Land | Registered: Oct 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tghost
Farting Nudist
Member # 1418
Member Rated:
|
posted 02-24-2004 06:57 AM
Okay, so liberals want personal freedoms and economic checks and balances..but let's get a definition on progressive .. Is it the pro-everything thing the myth of liberals gets slammed for?
- - - - -
My brain went on vacation and left my pancreas in charge
From: Auckland, New Zealand | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dweedle
My hands and feet are mangos
Member # 1209
Member Rated:
|
posted 02-24-2004 09:15 AM
Char you need to actually do some research before you post in a political thread because you obviously don't know shit
- - - - -
the only way to get pass this will be to commit suicune
From: second of all, Quagmire's not really a bad guy! | Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wintermute
My custom title sucks.
Member # 5
Member Rated:
|
posted 02-24-2004 09:24 AM
Date Rapist: Conservatives, on the other hand, prefer stability and security over radical change.
So why would conservatives support the Iraq invasion, again? That's (1) a radical change that has resulted in (2) measurable instability, and (3) no measurable security.
From: Winnipeg, Manitoba | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
cfalcon
OLDNBLD
Member # 19
Member Rated:
|
posted 02-24-2004 02:16 PM
I thought that you are liberal on an issue if you want it to change and conservative if you want it to stay the way it is.
The term has changed much over the years, but it never meant this.
From: 39°45' N, 104°52' W | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
Charmeleon42
Date Rapist
Member # 1066
Member Rated:
|
posted 02-24-2004 05:18 PM
Char you need to actually do some research before you post in a political thread because you obviously don't know shit
It's easy for you to type that, but it's much harder for you to be right. Especially when you dont explain yourself.
So why would conservatives support the Iraq invasion, again? That's (1) a radical change that has resulted in (2) measurable instability, and (3) no measurable security.
It has to do with security and morals. Security because of WMD's and morality because we want to do something good over there.
For the security, before the war started, there was great evidence of illegal weapons, and Saddam wasn't giving any signs of trying to prove the otherwise. He was a dangerous man who we can all agree had dangerous ideas and dangerous goals, and there was a very real possibility he had these things. Even worse, there was a very real possibility that his hatred for us could lead him to sell said weapons to terrorists who would be in a better position to use them on us.
Liberals were skeptical. The didn't want to take action unless they knew for sure. Conservatives, on the other hand, realized that Saddam would not (and has not for 10 years) cooperate, and there is no way to know for sure if they are or not - however, it would be dangerous to sit there waiting for an answer while these possible weapons could be lauched in some fashion.
That is why Bush said things in his speechs like:
"If we know Saddam Hussein has dangerous weapons today... does it make any sense for the world to wait to confront him as he grows even stronger and develops even more dangerous weapons?.... Knowing these realities, America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud."
Note that there are no definites that he talks about. This is all possibility. The thing is, when it comes to human life, you as a government do not fuck around. You take it seriously. It may be a small threat, but it's still a threat.
Now, I can clearly see that there are no WMD's there to be found. But... then why is it that IMO, we were still justified to go in there? Mainly, because Saddam failed to make it clear that he did not have them. He failed to present documents that would have got himself out of this mess. I think of it in an analogy like this: Say a cop is walking the mean streets of LA, and suddenly a young male comes out of an alleyway and points a gun at the cop. The officer, reacting to save his life, shoots the man. Upon closer inspection of the body, the gun turned out to be fake. An airsoft gun or something, without the orange crap. It was not a real gun, and yet the young man brandished it in the same fashion as one.
Was the cop wrong in shooting the man in defense? I say no. If the cop were to sit there in the line of fire against every criminal, and take time to visually confirm if a gun is real or not, then that police officer would be dead. It's the same sort of thing.
Moral reasons involve reconstruction and humanitarian things, but we can all agree that those are morally positive things that both liberals and conservatives agree on. The right just seems more willing to do it in Iraq, while the left wants to do it here. I'm not the best to talk about what conservatives want for morals, since I'm sort of split socially when it comes to ideology. I may be pro-war and republican, but I'm also pro-choice and in favor of gay marriage. I would kind of like to see both here and there get better. Although I lean right on this issue because Iraq simply will not get better without us. The UN would have never done shit, and our money goes directly into improving their standard of living from shit to hit. What can we do directly in America to improve standard of living? I live fine right now, but they are relatively not.
[ 02-24-2004, 05:22 PM: Message edited by: Charmeleon42 ]
From: Mountain Dew Land | Registered: Oct 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wintermute
My custom title sucks.
Member # 5
Member Rated:
|
posted 02-24-2004 05:55 PM
Liberals were skeptical. The didn't want to take action unless they knew for sure.
Until we had the facts, you might say.
there are no definites that he talks about. This is all possibility.
"Knowing these realities..."
Although I lean right on this issue because Iraq simply will not get better without us.
So, how is that leaning right?
The UN would have never done shit
The American people would never have done shit either, on that basis. If Bush had proposed invading Iraq for humanitarian reasons, he would have gotten absolutely nowhere. He had to exploit 9/11 and pump fear into the country about outcomes for which there were no good evidence.
Anyway, you didn't read my question that closely. Bickering about whether it WAS a good idea to invade is separate from asking why conservatives should support the invasion now. It sounds to me like the war is essentially a liberal agenda now! It was a radical, destabilizing change, done for moral reasons, in the absence of any supporting facts! Wow, I'm coming to a whole new understanding of politics here.
and our money goes directly into improving their standard of living from shit to hit.
Have you heard of "news?" It informs you of stuff.
Try typing "iraq reconstruction contracts" into Google News, and do 30 minutes of reading.
What can we do directly in America to improve standard of living?
This one speaks for itself.
From: Winnipeg, Manitoba | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
Psybro
Half Psyduck. Half Slowbro. All cop.
Member # 290
Member Rated:
|
posted 02-24-2004 05:59 PM
'The Liberal desires that every man and woman, and every natural and spontaneous group, such as nations, churches, or trade organisations, should be free to make the most and best of their own powers in their own way, so far as this is compatible with the exercise of the same freedom by others.'
'The primary purpose for which the state exists is to secure and preserve peace, justice and the reality of liberty for its citizens.'
-Ramsay Muir, 1933
From: Sheffield, South Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
White Cat
Nobody knows why I'm an admin.
Member # 42
Member Rated:
|
posted 02-24-2004 07:33 PM
Psybro, that's a "classical liberal", which nowadays would be called a libertarian.
From: Calgary | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
gruco
I am Ian Garvey's lovechild.
Member # 1645
Member Rated:
|
posted 02-24-2004 07:37 PM
Char, what you're describing is supply-side economics, which is a pretty widely discredited theory. I know it makes sense when you first look at it, but there are a number of flaws.
The idea of the diminishing marginal value of money is one of the biggest ones. The basic theory says that the first 1000 bucks someone gets is a really big deal, the next 1000 less so, and continually less over time. The result is that taxing extremely high income has an extremely low behavioral impact. This also ties into the idea of propensity to spend, which is high at low income levels, and low at high income levels. The result being that middle/low income actually work as better economic "investors" than high income, who tend to use their money as savings. Furthermore, taxation allows for important R&D and infastructure investments that are literally impossible to perform by anyone other than the government.
Also consider where a lot of the "investment" from wealthy/high income people are going - stock speculation. The really doesn't stimulate the economy, unless you're an investment banker or high ranking corporate officer hoping for a big bonus.
It might help to think about it this way - If you're a company building tennis balls, and aren't selling any, will it help you if you get more money? If you get more money, you can build another factory, hire more people, and still not sell any tennis balls. If the public gets the money, however, then they can afford to buy your tennis balls, increasing demand, and your improved revenues can then be adequately reinvested in building another factory, hiring more people, etc.
Also this and this.
[ 02-24-2004, 07:39 PM: Message edited by: gruco ]
From: Clock Town | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sonuis
Sonius
Member # 1508
Member Rated:
|
posted 02-24-2004 08:06 PM
I actually never saw this topic beforehand. RD taught me more though, since I obviously don't have a clue about politics. Plus, RD taught me about Constitutionalist. They're funny.
Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
IceHawk78
NOBODY IMPORTANT
Member # 1699
Member Rated:
|
posted 02-24-2004 08:39 PM
quote:
but the people will look at their new tax rates and think "I'm not as rich as I was yesterday", and start buying less. That's the problem.
Nope. That's completely wrong. Mind you, I'm mainly talking about people who have earned their wealth as opposed to people who just inherit money and get rich that way, but the reason these people get rich is because they know how to manage their money. Otherwise, they wouldn't be in the upper tax brackets in the first place. If someone is making a million dollars per year (I dunno if this would constitute "rich" so just change the number to the correct one), they aren't making it just by working hard at their company. They know how to "make their money make money for them". Cliché, I know, but true. So, if the government begins to tax them at, say, and extra 5% on the interest they are making, they aren't *losing* any more money - they simplay aren't making as much or as quickly. They also realize that even though their income simply isn't coming in as quickly, they are still making more money because of that crazy "compound interest" stuff.
quote:
I think of it in an analogy like this: Say a cop is walking the mean streets of LA, and suddenly a young male comes out of an alleyway and points a gun at the cop. The officer, reacting to save his life, shoots the man. Upon closer inspection of the body, the gun turned out to be fake. An airsoft gun or something, without the orange crap. It was not a real gun, and yet the young man brandished it in the same fashion as one.
Funny you should mention this. Ever heard of Cincinnati, Ohio? This happened. Almost exactly as you described, although without any sort of weapon at all. It ended up coming down to police brutality. Mind you, I'll admit that it was also extremely heavily racially charged, which played another major part in it. But yeah, the police officer who shot the unarmed man (he had about 5 or 6 traffic misdemeanors) when he ran into the alley. The guy whot got shot (and killed) would have gone to jail, which is why he was running away (bad move on his part, obviously) but the police officer still got charged for his actions.
From: Ohio | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mr. K
Racist
Member # 2
Member Rated:
|
posted 02-24-2004 08:47 PM
Char: The right just seems more willing to do it in Iraq, while the left wants to do it here.
So...Iraqi citizens are more important to you than American citizens? Welfare for Iraqis, but not Americans?
Just asking if that's your position.
- - - - -
newbalance is my favorite shoe because they combine style and comfort in an affordable package suitable for people of all ages.
From: Cinnabar Island | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dweedle
My hands and feet are mangos
Member # 1209
Member Rated:
|
posted 02-24-2004 09:43 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Charmeleon42:
Char you need to actually do some research before you post in a political thread because you obviously don't know shit
It's easy for you to type that, but it's much harder for you to be right. Especially when you dont explain yourself.
I don't even need to explain myself, just look at your posts
they're shit
- - - - -
the only way to get pass this will be to commit suicune
From: second of all, Quagmire's not really a bad guy! | Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
BigCheese
Farting Nudist
Member # 1479
Member Rated:
|
posted 02-24-2004 11:46 PM
I don't like conservatives, and I don't like liberals. Although I tend to lean towards liberals, I personally think that someone can do what they want, just so long as it doesn't interfere with the freedom of another human. I think Thomas Hill Green's theory of liberalism is that theory. I know that's a liberal point of view, so whatever. I hate politics. ![[Trash Bear]](graemlins/trashbear.gif)
Basically... someone can smoke pot in their basement, but they shouldn't get in there car while really high and risk the lives of others.
I think gay's should be aloud to get married, they just shouldn't ask for more benefits and crap just because they are gay, nor do I think other people's insurance (health or whatnot) should go up if gay's have the right to be married.
I think that evolution should be taught as well as creation, and teachers shouldn't get in trouble for simply talking about God in school.
I don't even know if this is the point of the topic, I just felt like saying that. ![[That Guy]](graemlins/thatguy.gif)
- - - - -
I have a nice butt!
From: The land of milk and honey...and cheese | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
cfalcon
OLDNBLD
Member # 19
Member Rated:
|
posted 02-25-2004 03:54 AM
White Cat, I have to say this: the debate in the "high moral ground" thread was about, well, the high moral ground. Not about freedom. I would say that I have the "high moral ground" if I was backing a policy that, say, banned cars. There's a lot to be said: with cars illegal, no one dies of drunk driving, no one dies in a horrible accident that's no one's fault, we pollute less, we don't put most of our value into cars, etc., etc. Lots of good high nosed reasons to ban cars.
Of course, as a Libertarian, I'm utterly opposed to such a measure.
That's why I think the liberals have the "high moral ground", and why I don't think it has much to do with freedom. I still think that liberty is worth it, I think it's the right way to do things practically and on principle- but if the liberal stands up and says, hey, let's have the government feed the starving... it's pretty hard to call him immoral.
I mean, I can do it though. He is taking my money at gunpoint to feed the poor, after all.
From: 39°45' N, 104°52' W | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
Psybro
Half Psyduck. Half Slowbro. All cop.
Member # 290
Member Rated:
|
posted 02-25-2004 12:50 PM
quote:
Originally posted by White Cat:
Psybro, that's a "classical liberal", which nowadays would be called a libertarian.
Maybe in North America where 'liberal' is just a way of saying 'socialist' without implying communism half the time.
There is a difference because libertarians believe the state has an obligation to allow people to better themselves as they wish. A liberal believes it is also the government's place to level the playing field by enforcing equality of opportunity.
It involves some socialist tenets at an economic level, but has more of a commitment to decentralised, socially liberal government.
[ 02-25-2004, 12:57 PM: Message edited by: Psybro ]
From: Sheffield, South Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
Charmeleon42
Date Rapist
Member # 1066
Member Rated:
|
posted 02-25-2004 06:50 PM
I don't even need to explain myself, just look at your posts
Thanks for the troll. kbai
"Knowing these realities..."
Well, there certainly was a real threat that they had these weapons. Take the word of the CIA or not, but at the time they had fairly damning evidence. A quick google search yields this, which makes note of their failure to cooperate with things that otherwise wouldn't have made them appear to be hiding something.
Sure, the CIA was wrong, somehow. That's what the investigation is for. Personally, I still think that it's a matter of Iraq not giving their side of the story for ten years. Take my words as you will.
Anyway, you didn't read my question that closely...
Well, I answered why they "[supported] the Iraq invasion". Maybe I just got the tense wrong.
Right now? It's matter of that we did the right thing, and that's why conservatives still support us being there. The US couldn't just leave Iraq sitting there without a leader, so that anyone can come and grab power with an iron fist. Doing would involve getting a new self-ruled government set up, as well as obligatory humanitarian needs, because you cant just fix with the government when the people are simmering in their screwed up state. Conservatives came in with knowing that we would be in that country for a long time. But it had to be done. They came out of the alley with the gun, pointed it, and we had to take action to this threat, be the gun real or not.
I suppose it is rather happy-tree-hug-flower-love to be pouring more humanitarian aid into this one country than we could imagine... but I guess you could always read this again for a right wing spin on things.
Have you heard of "news?" It informs you of stuff.
Well, we seem to be building and rehabilitaing dilapidated stuff that would have otherwise sucked in ways unseen in the states. I'm not sure what I'm missing.
It might help to think about it this way... If the public gets the money, however, then they can afford to buy your tennis balls...
Well that's certainly something to think about. I can easily imagine how masses of people can have great influences.
Ever heard of Cincinnati, Ohio? This happened. Almost exactly as you described, although without any sort of weapon at all.
The reason I'm even making this analogy is because of the weapon. The weapon is the most important part.
So...Iraqi citizens are more important to you than American citizens?
I want to see both people helped. The thing is that we cant just take out Iraq's leader and leave. Helping the people goes hand in hand with putting in a new government. Humanitarian stuff.
As for our citizens... the main reason times are crappy now is the economy. The government isn't the economy as much as business and time is. I say time because depressions come and go through out history. It's like low tide and high tide, and we're just at a low tide. It'll eventually pass, and the government can help somewhat, but not a whole lot.
I would most certainly like to see American people helped. I don't know what we could do though, besides stepping into socialism and communism. Also because I haven't meditated about it that much...
[ 02-25-2004, 06:52 PM: Message edited by: Charmeleon42 ]
From: Mountain Dew Land | Registered: Oct 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
White Cat
Nobody knows why I'm an admin.
Member # 42
Member Rated:
|
posted 02-26-2004 01:17 AM
ceoalex: I thought that you are liberal on an issue if you want it to change and conservative if you want it to stay the way it is.
That's part of a lesser-used, one-dimensional axis.
Progressive: Want things to change to something that hasn't been done before
Conservative: Want things to stay the way they currently are
Regressive: Want things to go back to the way they used to be
Frankly, I think this axis is pretty much useless, because defining things as "how they used to be" vs. "how they haven't been yet" doesn't really tell you much.
gruco: Char, what you're describing is supply-side economics, which is a pretty widely discredited theory.
You're right, it is widely discredited... among left-wing economists. (Much like how demand-side economics is widely discredited among right-wing economists.)
cfalcon: White Cat, I have to say this: the debate in the "high moral ground" thread was about, well, the high moral ground. Not about freedom.
My point is that liberals take the moral high ground by taxing the rich to feed the poor, while conservatives take the moral high ground by trying to stamp out drugs. Of course, just because your motives are moral doesn't mean the outcome is good...
Psybro: Maybe in North America where 'liberal' is just a way of saying 'socialist' without implying communism half the time.
Ah right, I forgot the "liberal" means the same thing in Britain that "libertarian" does in North America.
There is a difference because libertarians believe the state has an obligation to allow people to better themselves as they wish. A liberal believes it is also the government's place to level the playing field by enforcing equality of opportunity.
But that puts you back to left-wing/American liberal on the diagram I posted, not libertarian/British liberal.
Also what you describe is equal outcome, not equal opportunity.
- - - - -
"Anybody gone into Whole Foods lately and see what they charge for arugula?"
-- Barack Obama, campaigning in Iowa
From: Calgary | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
Psybro
Half Psyduck. Half Slowbro. All cop.
Member # 290
Member Rated:
|
posted 02-26-2004 12:13 PM
quote:
Originally posted by White Cat:
Also what you describe is equal outcome, not equal opportunity.
Not neccessarily. What the leader of the British Liberal Democrats (who I take to be the authority on modern British liberalism) proposes is that without socialised health and education, equality of opportunity is not possible. Thus there must be progressive taxation which allows these two services to be funded to a level that provides equally good healthcare and teaching to people of all social backgrounds and incomes.
Once those two basic provisions are accounted for, there should be minimal further government interference in people's individual economic freedoms, at least in theory.
[ 02-26-2004, 12:14 PM: Message edited by: Psybro ]
From: Sheffield, South Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
gruco
I am Ian Garvey's lovechild.
Member # 1645
Member Rated:
|
posted 02-26-2004 04:43 PM
You're right, it is widely discredited... among left-wing economists.
Could you elaborate on what you consider a left wing economist? And do you think they are the only serious critics of the idea?
From: Clock Town | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
White Cat
Nobody knows why I'm an admin.
Member # 42
Member Rated:
|
posted 02-27-2004 02:22 AM
Nice work editing out my second sentence. ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
If you want to post actual arguments why you believe that supply-side economics doesn't work (which you did), that's fine. However, your attempt to equate it with cosmic ether and ink blot tests are just plain false. Economists are still heavily divided on the supply-side issue (as I said, the right-wing ones are fer it, and the left-wing ones are agin' it), and so your claim that it's "heavily discredited" is bogus.
My position: Take the best of both worlds and cut taxes for everyone, rich and poor! ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
- - - - -
"Anybody gone into Whole Foods lately and see what they charge for arugula?"
-- Barack Obama, campaigning in Iowa
From: Calgary | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
gruco
I am Ian Garvey's lovechild.
Member # 1645
Member Rated:
|
posted 02-27-2004 09:48 AM
When Reagan's own budget director admits that the theory was a Trojan Horse to pass tax cuts for the rich, that kinda takes one of the legs out right there.
I wouldn't call him a left winger.
[ 02-27-2004, 10:05 AM: Message edited by: gruco ]
From: Clock Town | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
IceHawk78
NOBODY IMPORTANT
Member # 1699
Member Rated:
|
posted 02-27-2004 03:41 PM
quote:
Ever heard of Cincinnati, Ohio? This happened. Almost exactly as you described, although without any sort of weapon at all.
The reason I'm even making this analogy is because of the weapon. The weapon is the most important part.
Yes, but you see, the cop claimed that he thought the man was armed. That was his arguement for having shot him as he ran into the dark alley, was that he had all these convictions (the bunch of triffic misdemeanors) and he claimed that he thought he saw the guy carrying a weapon. But he wasn't. Funny, it's kinda like Iraq, eh?
"But we thought they had WMDs, so we decided to make sure..." ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
From: Ohio | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
White Cat
Nobody knows why I'm an admin.
Member # 42
Member Rated:
|
posted 02-29-2004 04:12 AM
gruco, I'll ignore the fact that you didn't provide any evidence that the event you described actually occurred, or the possiblity that you horribly twisted his words, or that you didn't even give the guy's name so I could look it up myself, and simply point out that Reagan's motives for implementing supply-side economics have absolutely no bearing on whether supply-side economics work.
And you're still missing my entire point about how your claim that supply-side has been "widely discredited" is wrong.
- - - - -
"Anybody gone into Whole Foods lately and see what they charge for arugula?"
-- Barack Obama, campaigning in Iowa
From: Calgary | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic