[djohnson]

Where are all of the Republicans here? All I hear are left wing, liberal view points. How about some good old conservative ideals? I wish this country would go back to its roots...otherwise we will be certainly destroyed. There is to much liberalism going on in this country. If you agree, speak up!

Oh and liberals, you can speak up to, I rarely take offense to things said in cyberspace.....

[Big Booger]

What roots? Salem?

Liberalism is the only thing foreigners like about America. Without you might as well fight the Crusades until everyone dies.

[nonhuman]

Originally posted by Big Booger:
What roots? Salem?

Liberalism is the only thing foreigners like about America. Without you might as well fight the Crusades until everyone dies.

I thought it was the freedom that foreigners liked about America. If all they wanted was liberalism they could move to Europe.

[daimoni]

(dp)

[daimoni]

Originally posted by djohnson:
Where are all of the Republicans here? All I hear are left wing, liberal view points. How about some good old conservative ideals? I wish this country would go back to its roots...otherwise we will be certainly destroyed. There is to much liberalism going on in this country. If you agree, speak up!

It sounds like you've been a little too liberal with the Coors Lite. Sleep it off. Come back after you've had a shower.

Oh, and take your pants with you this time.

[djohnson]

Seeing as how I never have drank alcohol in my life... I fail to see how I am drunk? Now why would I take my pants off??? I just wanted to hear from fellow Republicans

[NYCFarmboy]

Originally posted by djohnson:
Now why would I take my pants off??? I just wanted to hear from fellow Republicans

Need I say more?

[Big Booger]

Originally posted by nonhuman:
I thought it was the freedom that foreigners liked about America. If all they wanted was liberalism they could move to Europe.

You know what the word 'liberal' means, right?

I can never figure out you Conservatives. One minute it's crusade against WMD, next its burn the forests, then its another war, next its watch Jesus get whipped, then its tax breaks for billionaires, then its another war, then its setting up another puppet jihad king, then its oil, then its another war, then its creationism for kids, then its the freedom but only to step back in time to when there was less freedom, then its the complete lack of education that results in Cons not knowing that 'Liberal' means 'Freedom'.

[djohnson]

Originally posted by NYCFarmboy:
Need I say more?

[nonhuman]

Originally posted by Big Booger:
You know what the word 'liberal' means, right?

I can never figure out you Conservatives. One minute it's crusade against WMD, next its burn the forests, then its another war, next its watch Jesus get whipped, then its tax breaks for billionaires, then its another war, then its setting up another puppet jihad king, then its oil, then its another war, then its creationism for kids, then its the freedom but only to step back in time to when there was less freedom, then its the complete lack of education that results in Cons not knowing that 'Liberal' means 'Freedom'.

I do know what 'liberal' means, do you? It has several definitions (None of which are 'Freedom', by the way. Crazy thing about language development: words do not always mean the same thing as their roots.). When talking about politics, it generally refers to the way people interpret the role of government. In this context, a 'liberal' will tend towards an more expansive regulatory government, while a conservative will tend towards a smaller government with social regulation and the like occurring in the private sector. Obviously, this view doesn't mesh perfectly with the commonly held idea that Democrat = liberal and Republican = conservative. I'll leave it to you to think of why that might be.

Now I'm curious why it is that you think I must be a conservative and why you think I therefore must be a Republican. All I said was that I thought what people liked about America was the freedom. And that if all they wanted was liberalism they could go to Europe. I did not say that liberalism precludes freedom, I just said that Europe is liberal (more liberal than America in most things) and therefore should make a perfectly acceptable home for someone seeking liberalism. If people choose to live in America over Europe, it must be something other than liberalism that is attracting them.

Now here's a question for you. Are Libertarians liberal or conservative? They believe in liberty (freedom) and the conservative ideal of a small government. So which are they? Answer that, and you'll know what I am.

And for the record, I support none of those things that you seem to assume I must because I must be conservative since I said something that doesn't equate liberalism with freedom. In fact I'm a peacenik, hippy, Buddhist, Libertarian who supported the liberation of Iraq (if not the mis-management of said liberation) for the humanitarian good that it will hopefully do if you want labels to apply to me.

[Big Booger]

Leftwing = Personal liberty
Rightwing = Political, business and religious freedom to exploit the masses, through force if necassary.

That's the way I see freedom defined by the two.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by nonhuman:
When talking about politics, it generally refers to the way people interpret the role of government. In this context, a 'liberal' will tend towards an more expansive regulatory government, while a conservative will tend towards a smaller government with social regulation and the like occurring in the private sector.

This is the Big Lie of conservatives over the past several decades. Liberals want weaker gov't than conservatives - less laws about abortion, more rights for the accused, no bedroom laws, etc. Liberals are civil libertarians. In terms of tax collection, which is the main criticism of liberals, in my view, liberals only want the bare minimum to ensure basic human rights as in our declaration of independence. I'm talking about health care, care of the elderly, etc. And in my view, the guarantee of basic human rights promotes freedom, it doesn't decrease it, despite the tendency for some to equate any of that with fascism or whatever other nonsense they come up with.

Sure there are some bona fide left-wingers in the US, and a few socialists, and they would differ from liberals, in that they may have a basic distrust of free markets. But not liberals. At least, if you're going to be allowed to define conservatism as small gov't when conservatives in the real world don't believe in small gov't, I should be able to define liberalism the way I want, too.

I just can't understand why libertarians identify so much more with conservatives in the US than liberals, when the reality of the political situation in the US today demands the opposite, IMO.

[edit the post above mine put it much more succinctly than me. ]

[Big Booger]

Originally posted by BRussell:
This is the Big Lie of conservatives over the past several decades. Liberals want weaker gov't than conservatives - less laws about abortion, more rights for the accused, no bedroom laws, etc. Liberals are civil libertarians. In terms of tax collection, which is the main criticism of liberals, in my view, liberals only want the bare minimum to ensure basic human rights as in our declaration of independence. I'm talking about health care, care of the elderly, etc. And in my view, the guarantee of basic human rights promotes freedom, it doesn't decrease it, despite the tendency for some to equate any of that with fascism or whatever other nonsense they come up with.

Sure there are some bona fide left-wingers in the US, and a few socialists, and they would differ from liberals, in that they may have a basic distrust of free markets. But not liberals. At least, if you're going to be allowed to define conservatism as small gov't when conservatives in the real world don't believe in small gov't, I should be able to define liberalism the way I want, too.

I just can't understand why libertarians identify so much more with conservatives in the US than liberals, when the reality of the political situation in the US today demands the opposite, IMO.

[edit the post above mine put it much more succinctly than me. ]

Thats a real good post. Sharp and accurate. Don't forget to dismiss the other big lie 'Liberal media'. If only it was liberal all the way.

[theolein]

Originally posted by djohnson:
Seeing as how I never have drank alcohol in my life... I fail to see how I am drunk? Now why would I take my pants off??? I just wanted to hear from fellow Republicans

Tell me, is there some connection between being a Republican and braindeath?

[voodoo]

Originally posted by djohnson:
Where are all of the Republicans here? All I hear are left wing, liberal view points. How about some good old conservative ideals? I wish this country would go back to its roots...otherwise we will be certainly destroyed. There is to much liberalism going on in this country. If you agree, speak up!

Oh and liberals, you can speak up to, I rarely take offense to things said in cyberspace.....

I'm a conservative. Your president is not. He's a zarking liberal with his spending, increasing the size of the government, increasing federal influence, spending most of his time on foreign meddling and having no sense of traditional American values! He's pro gun, pro life and such things but so are a lot of democrats. Ask Lieberman.

[voodoo]

Originally posted by nonhuman:
I thought it was the freedom that foreigners liked about America. If all they wanted was liberalism they could move to Europe.

Europe isn't liberal. It is very conservative. Just not the way most Americans mean it.

Conserve the status quo. That kind of conservative.

[deedar]

Originally posted by theolein:
Tell me, is there some connection between being a Republican and braindeath?

Many of us think so.

[finboy]

Originally posted by djohnson:
Where are all of the Republicans here? All I hear are left wing, liberal view points. How about some good old conservative ideals? I wish this country would go back to its roots...otherwise we will be certainly destroyed. There is to much liberalism going on in this country. If you agree, speak up!

What a great idea! Sign me up.

Talking about conservative "ideals" here is a waste of everyone's time. But it would be fun to WATCH, having been down that road plenty of times in the past. If you aren't just baiting, have at it.

[finboy]

Originally posted by Big Booger:
Leftwing = Personal liberty
Rightwing = Political, business and religious freedom to exploit the masses, through force if necassary.

That's the way I see freedom defined by the two.

No, that's what you've been TOLD to think about the two. Don't feel too bad, though -- you certainly aren't alone.

[Big Booger]

Originally posted by finboy:
No, that's what you've been TOLD to think about the two. Don't feel too bad, though -- you certainly aren't alone.

I came to that conclusion from observatng their actions.

[ghost_flash]

Originally posted by finboy:
What a great idea! Sign me up.

Talking about conservative "ideals" here is a waste of everyone's time. But it would be fun to WATCH, having been down that road plenty of times in the past. If you aren't just baiting, have at it.

Well, I'm A-political, but I do find it irritating to watch some in here who claim to be liberal, have such a cavaleir and mean attitude for those that would disagree with them. The religious bashing gets quite old. I'd like to see you make fun of Jews like you do Catholics. If you hate "Religion" then hate'm all. Hypocrits and liars, the lot of you.

[Big Booger]

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
Well, I'm A-political, but I do find it irritating to watch some in here who claim to be liberal, have such a cavaleir and mean attitude for those that would disagree with them. The religious bashing gets quite old. I'd like to see you make fun of Jews like you do Catholics. If you hate "Religion" then hate'm all. Hypocrits and liars, the lot of you.

You see what you want to. I'm reading several threads that criticise reincarnation belief, Judaism texts, Christian texts and Muslim texts. You can only ignore that if you got a persecution complex.

[ghost_flash]

Originally posted by Big Booger:
You see what you want to. I'm reading several threads that criticise reincarnation belief, Judaism texts, Christian texts and Muslim texts. You can only ignore that if you got a persecution complex.

I hate to break it to your huge ego, but you are not required reading for me. I don't go around looking for your threads to read. You just aren't that interesting, and have an angry, hate-filled, constant argumentative attitude towards anyone that might disagree with yhou. So, you rail against anything that has a belief system. You don't beleive in anything but your own oppinions. Fascinating. pffffffffffft. See you in the next life.

[nonhuman]

Originally posted by BRussell:
This is the Big Lie of conservatives over the past several decades. Liberals want weaker gov't than conservatives - less laws about abortion, more rights for the accused, no bedroom laws, etc. Liberals are civil libertarians. In terms of tax collection, which is the main criticism of liberals, in my view, liberals only want the bare minimum to ensure basic human rights as in our declaration of independence. I'm talking about health care, care of the elderly, etc. And in my view, the guarantee of basic human rights promotes freedom, it doesn't decrease it, despite the tendency for some to equate any of that with fascism or whatever other nonsense they come up with.

Sure there are some bona fide left-wingers in the US, and a few socialists, and they would differ from liberals, in that they may have a basic distrust of free markets. But not liberals. At least, if you're going to be allowed to define conservatism as small gov't when conservatives in the real world don't believe in small gov't, I should be able to define liberalism the way I want, too.

I just can't understand why libertarians identify so much more with conservatives in the US than liberals, when the reality of the political situation in the US today demands the opposite, IMO.

[edit the post above mine put it much more succinctly than me. ]

Um, did you read the next sentance in the paragraph?

[nonhuman]

Originally posted by voodoo:
I'm a conservative. Your president is not. He's a zarking liberal with his spending, increasing the size of the government, increasing federal influence, spending most of his time on foreign meddling and having no sense of traditional American values! He's pro gun, pro life and such things but so are a lot of democrats. Ask Lieberman.

That's where I was going. Many people would say that Bush is conservative, ultra-conservative even. We need to establish a common definition of both liberal and conservative (as pointed out by your later post) before we can meaninfully discuss who is liberal and who is conservative.

There are two main ways that I've heard conservative used. One is pulling for smaller government, and the other is pulling for traditional social values. I'm a conservative under the former, but not the later definition.

[osiris]

IMO I believe the bottom line is this:

Liberals are less likely to kill someone for financial/personal gain, particularly on the international level.

whereas

Most republicans will do anything for financial/personal gain, including the exploitation of lesser beings and/or the death of many, especially on the international level. And do so without conscious.

Curiously, they will do all these things (and more) in the name of their bastardized god. god bless this. god bless that, god save this.... what a load of hypocritical BS artists, I must say.

I do have a few republicans as good friends; in their hearts they're not wholly evil, or even nasty people, just incredibly confused lost souls who want their slice of American pie at any cost or extreme measure.


whatever

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by djohnson:
Where are all of the Republicans here? All I hear are left wing, liberal view points. How about some good old conservative ideals?

You may want to make sure you are thick-skinned enough to hang in here, because you will undoubtedly be attacked, smeared, and demonized for having opinions and positions that differ from the other 90% of loungers here who are liberal. And Instead of developing and pushing for well-planned solutions, they will spend the majority of their time running to all corners of the internet to find hack-job blog posts and articles that helps them paint Bush, Cheney, Republican congressmen, senators, and justices, and anyone else with a sense of morality as dumb, stupid, ignorant, intolerant, bigoted, and just plain evil.

[osiris]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
dumb, stupid, ignorant, intolerant, bigoted, and just plain evil.

Okay, maybe not dumb.

[ghost_flash]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
You may want to make sure you are thick-skinned enough to hang in here, because you will undoubtedly be attacked, smeared, and demonized for having opinions and positions that differ from the other 90% of loungers here who are liberal. And Instead of developing and pushing for well-planned solutions, they will spend the majority of their time running to all corners of the internet to find hack-job blog posts and articles that helps them paint Bush, Cheney, Republican congressmen, senators, and justices, and anyone else with a sense of morality as dumb, stupid, ignorant, intolerant, bigoted, and just plain evil.

Bingo.

[Millennium]

Stereotypical Democrats are idealistic to a fault.
Stereotypical Republicans are pragmatic to a fault.

In the end, that's really what the stereotypes come down to. Democrats' heart is in the right place, but they constantly chase unsustainable, impossible dreams which are not only doomed to eventual failure, but will drag down everyone else in the process of failing. Meanwhile, Republicans would know how to run a nation smoothly, if only they weren't so afraid to take risks. They're afraid to try anything new, however good it may seem, because they can't be sure it will work.

That's the difference in a nutshell. Or rather, it's how each side tends to see the other (and, for that matter, how I see both of them).

[roger_ramjet]

Originally posted by Millennium:
Stereotypical Democrats are idealistic to a fault.
Stereotypical Republicans are pragmatic to a fault.

In the end, that's really what the stereotypes come down to. Democrats' heart is in the right place...

Like when Dems call Bush Hitler? Or when they so cavalierly label conservatives as racist?

... Meanwhile, Republicans would know how to run a nation smoothly, if only they weren't so afraid to take risks. They're afraid to try anything new, however good it may seem, because they can't be sure it will work...

The education establishment in this country is liberal and Democrat. Attempts at education reform mostly come from the right and are resisted by the left. Reform of Social Security is another project that will come from conservatives but will be resisted tooth and nail by the Dems. This admin's foreign policy is nothing if not new and risky.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by roger_ramjet:
Like when Dems call Bush Hitler? Or when they so cavalierly label conservatives as racist?

You speak of action; I speak of intent. The accusations seem to be more knee-jerk reactions to resistance than anything else.

The education establishment in this country is liberal and Democrat. Attempts at education reform mostly come from the right and are resisted by the left.

Most of the attempts at education reform seem intent on undoing earlier liberal reforms. Most would call that conservative, though technically the term is reactionary (but no one wants to be labeled with the connotations of that word).

Reform of Social Security is another project that will come from conservatives but will be resisted tooth and nail by the Dems.

Again, the reforms of Social Security seem mostly aimed at undoing things done to it which were, at the time, quite liberal. Technically reactionary, though again no one wants to be associated with the connotations. Some would say -myself included- that the spirit of these reforms is "correcting the mistakes of the past", and frankly I think there is some truth to that, but it does seem to go further.

This admin's foreign policy is nothing if not new and risky.

Risky, maybe; considering the relative strength of the US military I'm not sure it's all that risky.

New, definitely not. This has been tried before, usually with a fair amount of success. It has always come at a price, of course, but it seems they've decided to pay that.

[roger_ramjet]

Originally posted by Millennium:
You speak of action; I speak of intent. The accusations seem to be more knee-jerk reactions to resistance than anything else.

Most of the attempts at education reform seem intent on undoing earlier liberal reforms...

Undoing what earlier reforms?

Again, the reforms of Social Security seem mostly aimed at undoing things done to it which were, at the time, quite liberal...

Again, undoing what? How does giving people new options undo the old system? Nobody would be forced to participate in private accounts.

Risky, maybe; considering the relative strength of the US military I'm not sure it's all that risky.

Definitely politically risky for Bush. Wars are unpredictable. We may have superior firepower but we are taking and will continue to take casualties. That's never a good thing.

New, definitely not. This has been tried before, usually with a fair amount of success. It has always come at a price, of course, but it seems they've decided to pay that.

The closest analogy would be post-war Japan. But the establishment of a liberal political order there was advanced as a discrete good in and of itself. It wasn't an attempt to reshape the political culture of Asia as a whole.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
You may want to make sure you are thick-skinned enough to hang in here, because you will undoubtedly be attacked, smeared, and demonized for having opinions and positions that differ from the other 90% of loungers here who are liberal. And Instead of developing and pushing for well-planned solutions, they will spend the majority of their time running to all corners of the internet to find hack-job blog posts and articles that helps them paint Bush, Cheney, Republican congressmen, senators, and justices, and anyone else with a sense of morality as dumb, stupid, ignorant, intolerant, bigoted, and just plain evil.

ahhhh, and the air was thick with irony. Or maybe just thick. or maybe just deep. maybe it wasn't air. Maybe get out your hip waders.

[thunderous_funker]

The US has dabbled in "regime change" through military force in, by some estimates, 75 countries since 1945.

How on earth is the current policy something new?

[roger_ramjet]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
The US has dabbled in "regime change" through military force in, by some estimates, 75 countries since 1945.

How on earth is the current policy something new?

Well, there you have it. Our Iraq policy is obviously not the consequence of some kind of neo-con conspiracy. It's business as usual. Glad we cleared that up.

[voodoo]

Originally posted by roger_ramjet:
Well, there you have it. Our Iraq policy is obviously not the consequence of some kind of neo-con conspiracy. It's business as usual. Glad we cleared that up.

... neocons didn't invent regime changing. That has nothing to do with neocons using the age old trick of regime changing however.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by roger_ramjet:
Well, there you have it. Our Iraq policy is obviously not the consequence of some kind of neo-con conspiracy. It's business as usual. Glad we cleared that up.

Heidi Fleiss did not invent prostitution, but that doesn't mean she wasn't a call girl.

[roger_ramjet]

Originally posted by voodoo:
... neocons didn't invent regime changing. That has nothing to do with neocons using the age old trick of regime changing however.

Age old trick? So you're saying they're using this "trick" to do what exactly? Implement a new policy or continue an old one?

[finboy]

Originally posted by roger_ramjet:
How does giving people new options undo the old system? Nobody would be forced to participate in private accounts.

I guess that giving people Social Security alternatives "undermines" the traditional notion of Social Security. That's what the argument sounds like to me.

Kinda like the argument that gay marriage "undermines" traditional marriage. Both arguments are probably fallacious.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by roger_ramjet:
Age old trick? So you're saying they're using this "trick" to do what exactly? Implement a new policy or continue an old one?

roger, roger...we've been through this countless times.

For a primer on the neocon objectives, Look here , and I've gone to the trouble to make this pdf comparison between the neocon or PNAC manifesto, and Bush's latest SOTU speech.

but, in a nutshell, the neocons feel that in the past the US has been acting as firemen, putting out sporadic small fires as they occurred. What the neocons want to do instead, is to burn the whole world in a "controlled burn", and then remake it in our own political image. Their view is that by being a "global leader" and coercing or forcing other nations to "get with the program or else", that this will eliminate the need to put out small sporadic fires in the future.
Instead of waiting for each fire to start and then dealing with the individual situation, they feel it better to go after the world with a cookie cutter and reshape (or "regime change") areas that simply aren't getting with the program.

The biggest problem with this agenda is its naivete. It assumes that we will be able to simply go into someone else's yard, burn it down, and plant the marigolds we prefer.....without the current owner getting revenge.

Hegemony, pure and simple, is the neocon agenda. this is different than the previous policies in that it leads ultimately to changing the US from being the world's policeman to becoming the world's judge, jury and executioner. It intends to set us up as the absolute power over the entire globe (hence the "global leadership").

Although the US has done things in the past we shouldn't be proud of at all, at least it was on a case by case basis. NOW the current administration, under influence of the neocon cabal, wants to essentially rule the world. We really didn't like that so much when a certain german watercolourist wanted to the do a similar thing, now did we?

[finboy]

Careful, there, you'll get accused of being a conspiracy theorist!

(Actually, that might be what you're shooting for, huh?)

[Big Booger]

From that site:

-we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;

-we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad


---------

I dont get it. They contradict each other. If a nation with valuable resources wants economic freedom from US interests and is a democracy (or any other system) then what right has a democracy to interfere if they believe in political and economic freedom?

The coup d'etat against Chavez was supported by the White House. It didn't work. What right was there in deposing an elected leader? South America has had this happen more than a few times. In the case of Mendez thousands of people died or vanished and the White House looked the other way.

Free Trade. Ahem.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by finboy:
Careful, there, you'll get accused of being a conspiracy theorist!

(Actually, that might be what you're shooting for, huh?)

not all conspiracy theories are untrue. And besides, this one isn't mine, I'm not the first person to point this out.
I'm just repeating what is already publicly available: the PNAC's own website, the SOTU speech. Unless of course you want to label Bush's state of the union speech as a theoretical event that didn't actually happen.



But thanks for the ad hominem personal attack...at least that's how I know I've posted at macNN ---if a republican attacks me personally.

"Gee...have I posted? lemme check....oh yeah, here's my obligatory personal attack".

[roger_ramjet]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
roger, roger...we've been through this countless times.

Lerk, Lerk... yes we have and you STILL have your head up your butt.

[voodoo]

Originally posted by roger_ramjet:
Lerk, Lerk... yes we have and you STILL have your head up your butt.

I can see your cranium is well rammed up your colon as well..

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by roger_ramjet:
Lerk, Lerk... yes we have and you STILL have your head up your butt.

"Gee...have I posted? lemme check....oh yeah, here's my obligatory personal attack".

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by roger_ramjet:
Age old trick? So you're saying they're using this "trick" to do what exactly? Implement a new policy or continue an old one?

Do "neo-Nazis" implement new policies or just continue old ones?

You seem to simultaneously imply that they do not exist, and that they are the same thing as the 1930s variety.

The opposite is true.

-s*

[roger_ramjet]

Originally posted by voodoo:
I can see your cranium is well rammed up your colon as well..

How about you try answering my question?

[roger_ramjet]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
Do "neo-Nazis" implement new policies or just continue old ones?

Not the question. Try again.