'Liberal' means: I'm not one of THEM

[Guest]

difference between liberalism and conservatism.

Liberalism: We accept your views as long as we get your support to further the agenda of those in power. The agenda is not important, only power is important.

Conservatism: We accept your support as long as you support the clear ideals set forth by conservatism.

Lastly, it is liberals that have already demonstrated to the public that you are free to do all that liberals allow you to do. If liberals do not like your speech, you should be fired. If liberals do not like your posessions (guns, tobacco) you are not allowed to have them. If liberals do not like your income, they take it.

Conservatives want to treat all people equally. True equality, not the phony liberal pablum that passes for equality.

 

[lavender]

 

[bored1]

What about limousine liberals?

 

[Starfish]

Generalizations will get you no where. Being unregistered helps alot too.

Thanks for nothing.

 

[Weevil]

Conservatives want to treat all people equally. True equality, not the phony liberal pablum that passes for equality.

Provided, of course, that you aren't female, black, native, arab, jewish, muslim or under 21.

Or if you're mentally challenged, mentally ill, sick, poor or on drugs.

But hey, if you're a rich, white, old christian man then we're all about treating you like anybody else. After all we're more similar than you think


- Phoney McJackass national spokesman for Moron Conservative Voices for America.

 

[Unclebill]

Originally posted by lavender
This is the biggest fucking bullshit post I've ever seen on this board. That says a lot.

So does your response. I note you didn't offer to refute anything offered, however you declare it bullshit if I may quote you.

Originally posted by Weevil
Provided, of course, that you aren't female, black, native, arab, jewish, muslim or under 21.

Or if you're mentally challenged, mentally ill, sick, poor or on drugs.

But hey, if you're a rich, white, old christian man then we're all about treating you like anybody else. After all we're more similar than you think


- Phoney McJackass national spokesman for Moron Conservative Voices for America.

I notice you make several declarations but offer no facts to substantiate them. Very typical of the liberal mentality.

On the subject of equality, who advocates preferential treatment for certain groups; conservatives or liberals?

Who advocates special rights for certain groups; conservatives or liberals?

Who is perpetually attentive to skin pigmentation, ethnic origin, sexual preference, etc.; conservatives or liberals?

Who is inclined to advocate the restriction of thought and speech (political correctness, hate crimes, etc.); conservatives or liberals?

 

[KillerMuffin]

That's because it is a load of bullshit. Bullshit doesn't require refutation, it only requires removal. There was nothing to refute but a bunch of conservative propoganda and blind assumptions of a political view that's both jaundiced and incorrect.

From a conservative, me, "That's a load of bullshit."

 

[Sparky Kronkite]

Nope, not right, quite.....

It means......

I'm not one of those.....

Greedy, white, assholes.

 

[Guest]

Separating liberals from conservatives

A liberal is one who will give you the shirt off of someone else's back.
A conservative is
someone who doesn't want anything done for the first time.

Liberals don't care what you do as long as it's mandatory.
Leonard Peikoff described
liberalism as "A cry from one heart to another, bypassing any intermediary,
such as the brain."

Tom Wolfe defines a liberal as a conservative who's been arrested.

Then there are neo-conservatives: former liberals who are now conservatives.

And neo-liberals: former liberals who are still liberal. I like Irving Kristol's
explanation: "A neo-conservative is a liberal who's been mugged by reality.
A neo-liberal is a liberal who's been mugged
by reality but has refused to press charges."

A classical liberal -- in the tradition of Locke, Hume, Burke and Adam Smith.
Back then, "liberal" connoted individual liberty.

Earlier this century, no less a Democrat than Woodrow Wilson observed that,
"The history of liberalism is the history of man's efforts to restrain
the growth of government."
This was before Franklin D. Roosevelt and the New Deal.

Obviously, the definition has changed. Today's liberals have so sullied the term
that even they shy away from it, preferring euphemisms like "progressive."
(By that they mean "progress" on the road to socialism.)

Conservatives believe in individual freedom and responsibility.

Liberals believe in sacrificing individual freedom for socially desirable outcomes.
Liberals believe that one of government's primary roles is social engineering.

Conservatives believe in limited government.

Liberals believe in intrusive government when required to achieve societal needs.
Conservatives believe in free markets. Liberals believe in government controls and
central planning.

Conservatives believe that some problems have no solution, that they can only be mitigated
at best. Liberals believe that most every problem has a government solution.

Conservatives are concerned about the production of wealth. Liberals are concerned about
the redistribution of it.

Conservatives believe in equality of opportunity. Liberals believe in equality of outcome.

Conservatives are nationalists. Liberals hope for world government.

Conservatives believe in peace through strength. Liberals believe in peace through
cooperation and good will.

 

[seXieleXie]

On the subject of equality, who advocates preferential treatment for certain groups; conservatives or liberals?

depends on which groups we're talking about. who thinks white christian men should have preferential treatment? hmm... not liberals...

Who advocates special rights for certain groups; conservatives or liberals?

like the special rights straight people have? like the special rights men have? hmm.... not liberals

Who is perpetually attentive to skin pigmentation, ethnic origin, sexual preference, etc.; conservatives or liberals?

perhaps you might phrase this "who ignores the unjust inequality between whites and people of color, straight people and members of the lgbtq community, etc; conservatives or liberals?

 

[Guest]

Here is an interesting, and in my opinion, accurate description of Liberalism by colu

Liberalism is a pessimistic faith because it never sees the potential in Man, just his flaws. Rather than focusing on ways to free people so they can elevate themselves, liberalism instead concentrates on ways to subsidize people in their current misery. Liberalism is embarrassed by success and prosperity because independent and free people do not need liberals --and above all, liberals need to be needed. Otherwise, they'd have to find real work instead of careers in politics, entertainment, class warfare (the only kind of war in which they believe) and, yes (and here I might be guilty of self-incrimination), column writing."

 

[seXieleXie]

What is conservatism? Is it not the adherence to the old and tried against the new and untried? ~Abraham Lincoln

A liberal is a man or a woman or a child who looks forward to a better day, a more tranquil night, and a bright, infinite future. ~Leonard Bernstein, The New York Times, 30 October 1988

Liberalism is trust of the people tempered by prudence. Conservatism is distrust of the people tempered by fear. ~William E. Gladstone, 1866

The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. ~John Kenneth Galbraith

A conservative is a man with two perfectly good legs who, however, has never learned how to walk forward. ~Franklin D. Roosevelt, radio speech, 26 October 1939

In this world of sin and sorrow there is always something to be thankful for; as for me, I rejoice that I am not a Republican. ~H.L. Mencken

A conservative is a man who just sits and thinks, mostly sits. ~Woodrow Wilson

Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives. ~John Stuard Mill

I'm not a leftist; I'm where the righteous ought to be. ~M.M. Coady

The primary difference between the Democrats and the Republicans is that the Democrats allow the poor to be corrupt, too. ~Oscar Levant

 

[Weevil]

I notice you make several declarations but offer no facts to substantiate them. Very typical of the liberal mentality.

On the subject of equality, who advocates preferential treatment for certain groups; conservatives or liberals?

Who advocates special rights for certain groups; conservatives or liberals?

Who is perpetually attentive to skin pigmentation, ethnic origin, sexual preference, etc.; conservatives or liberals?

Who is inclined to advocate the restriction of thought and speech (political correctness, hate crimes, etc.); conservatives or liberals?

Alright Bill, the answer is Conservative to all of them.

Who advocates special rights for certain groups? Conservatives feel that only straight people should be allowed to adopt children. Or be married. That is the definition of what you're asking.

The same answer applies to special treatment.

Who is perpetually attentive to the injustices that people base on skin pigmentation, ethnic origin and Sexual preference? Well that might be liberals, you're right.

The fourth is the biggest crock of shit I've ever heard. Giuliani wanted to ban a painting. Is the PTC liberal or conservative? Was McCarthy a republican or a democrat?

 

[Sparky Kronkite]

You're all full of it......

overly full of it.

You have over complicated, over philosophised and over politicalised - a very simple concept.

One tends toward giveing - the other tends to hoard.

To get more detailed than that is to get bogged in those very details - details as different as the individual, as snowflakes.

Nobody who might even describe themselves with either word - carries a laundry list of how to act and what to do.

One of the many reasons people on this planet have problems is because of people who want to - need to - over complicate and over analyze. And then once they think they 'might' have an answer - they want to fit the entire over complicated mess into a tidy little box and leave it alone.

Chumps all. There are no rules. You only think there are.

 

[Unclebill]

Well, here I guess I must concede the media bias point. I found this article which makes your point all too well. So with my sincerest apology, I bow to your wisdom.
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/elder030102.asp

Congratulations. You recite the propaganda very fluently.

Originally posted by weevil
Alright Bill, the answer is Conservative to all of them.

Who advocates special rights for certain groups? Conservatives feel that only straight people should be allowed to adopt children. Or be married. That is the definition of what you're asking.

What they are advocating is what evidence indicates is the best environment for child rearing; married heterosexual parents. Yet this is what you condemn? Currently, liberal adoption activists are so rigid in their racist profiling that they demand a child remain in foster care rather than allow them adopted into a home of a different racial makeup. This you champion? The idiotic notion that Caucasian parents can't properly rear a black child? That the child is better off with no home (foster care) than in one of the wrong color?

Originally posted by weevil
The same answer applies to special treatment.

Why then is their objective different laws and different standards for select groups designed to provide political privilege and benefit for their constituencies despite the Constitutional mandate of equal treatment for all? The difference between our positions is that I oppose the differentiation that exists and you advocate more of it.

Originally posted by weevil
Who is perpetually attentive to the injustices that people base on skin pigmentation, ethnic origin and Sexual preference? Well that might be liberals, you're right.

Attentive to injustice? Offering to punish me and my contemporaries for the injustices of the past in which we had no part is your sense of justice? I'm impressed. Ignoring the existence of similar atrocities throughout the world today while condemning America where these atrocities were remedied more than a century ago is truly impressive.

What the liberals offer is an attitude that is condescending, patronizing and insulting to anyone with a reasoned perspective.

The government handout program the liberals design blatantly project that, as a minority you are incapable of making it on your own. Without the liberals' largess to lower standards, you can't get into a college. Without their sensitivity to force quotas, you can't get a job. In short, if you're a minority of some description or another, you're not competent to take care of yourself, to achieve and succeed in life without their charity.

When the demonstrated results of these magnificent humanitarian efforts is the destruction of the families and the overall denigration of their ability to succeed, I'm truly impressed that you point to this as something positive. It speaks volumes of your knowledge of reality and the effects on real people of the liberal Utopian promises unfulfilled.

Originally posted by weevil
The fourth is the biggest crock of shit I've ever heard. Giuliani wanted to ban a painting. Is the PTC liberal or conservative? Was McCarthy a republican or a democrat?

Guiliani wants to ban a painting and campaign reform seeks to ban advertisements which criticize an incumbent politician. Does this clarify your position adequately? Perhaps my insight is impaired but for some silly reason, the latter motive bothers me far more than the former. I find it interesting that you see it differently.

Let's ignore that it is only because the painting was to be displayed in a public facility which he and I are forced to support financially. Let's ignore the fact that those who pay the bill are permitted no part in the decision making process relating to what grade of crap is displayed in the name of art. We MUST ignore that forcing me to pay for what I do not want violates my rights because that is not germane in the liberal mentality, those who tell me how much they value rights and freedom. Unless of course it's the individual, then the concept of rights are dismissed as trivially irrelevant because they are inconvenient to that arbitrary, undefined collectivist god, the greater good.

 

[Weevil]

That Wacky Uncle Bill said:

"What they are advocating is what evidence indicates is the best environment for child rearing; married heterosexual parents. Yet this is what you condemn?"

And this is that great chasm we may never cross Bill. You seem to think special rights for one group of Americans(Non gay) is just fine if the evidence warrants it. Which sounds a lot like what Affirmative Action advocates say.

Looks like I finally have won you over.

 

[Weevil]

Guiliani wants to ban a painting and campaign reform seeks to ban advertisements which criticize an incumbent politician. Does this clarify your position adequately? Perhaps my insight is impaired but for some silly reason,

That silly reason is called a juvenile inability to admit when you're dead wrong. If you need further proof of it, look above to the comment you made about the media.

Ignoring the fact that you only looked at one of the three examples I made, ignoring the fact that you seem to really, really enjoy running asses over elbows into debates with an "I haven't looked at the evidence but I'm sure I'm right and the evidence will back me up" stance and ignoring the fact that how much campaign finance reform limits free speech could be debated you still manage to be wrong.

Who is the most vocal proponent of campaign finance reform? John McCain. Are both of the sponsors of the House campaign finance bill democrats? Might be a bit of news to Chris Shays. Campaign finance reform, good or ill, is something that happens to be non-partisan.

Jeez, Bill. You used to put more thought into this.

 

[Unclebill]

First, let me note that I corrected the link above regarding my concession on your media bias point.

And as to winning me over, I'm a bit mystified. Can you elucidate?

Originally posted by Weevil
That Wacky Uncle Bill said:

"What they are advocating is what evidence indicates is the best environment for child rearing; married heterosexual parents. Yet this is what you condemn?"

And this is that great chasm we may never cross Bill. You seem to think special rights for one group of Americans(Non gay) is just fine if the evidence warrants it. Which sounds a lot like what Affirmative Action advocates say.

Looks like I finally have won you over.

Why do you have such reluctance to be honest about what I've always advocated; the removal of government trying to create the political privilege for select groups who seek to impose their beliefs on everyone else at gunpoint? Is it because you believe that your views are the only ones right and thus you MUST force them on me and everyone else? I willingly offer mine in a forum of freedom; why aren't you willing to offer yours in the same fashion?

It is you who advocate political privilege, the lie you hide under the guise of special rights. If it's a right, why doesn't it apply to me? and to everyone?

It's difficult to engage in a reasoned discussion when your argument changes, when you evade the point and when you turn around and accuse me of your beliefs. For you to say I've EVER advocate Special Rights for anyone is an absolute lie. Can't you offer something other than a blatant lie to bolster your position? Why do you choose to lie about the one thing against which I rail most frequently and consistently?

For that is precisely what you do here. I merely pointed out that the most objective evidence to date is that children are best served in a home with two parents, married heterosexual.

The reason? Part of it is because, and I know this may come as a huge surprise, men and women are different. In child rearing, each gender brings very unique attributes which influence the development, maturation and formative environment for the child.

Two parents of the same gender do not provide that balance and diversity which creates a more likely balanced developmental result as the child grows to maturity.

Marriage in and of itself creates a legal obligation which is potentially more of a bond which will keep the adults together and thus provide an enduring stability in which the child grows and learns some important life lessons.

However, as is typical, you distort my position. I have never said that homosexuals should not be allowed to adopt. I simply offered that the married heterosexual home environment is the BEST for the child and adoption is about providing a stable home environment for a child, that which is in the child's best interest, at least from my and the conservative point of view.

I understand that for the liberal point of view, everything is about political power and about rewarding its advocates and supporters at the expense of someone else. That has been demonstrated clearly and consistently for decades. It is the means of sustaining political viability of the ideology it desires to force itself upon people behind the facade of respect for and protection of rights and freedom while in fact, it is precisely the opposite, it is the use of government to force compliance upon those who have the temerity to dissent.

And I find it particularly unconscionable to use a child as the payoff in the arena of political pandering and favor peddling. And that is precisely what the adoption rights smokescreen is all about, another special right for the supporters of the liberal ideology.

 

[Purple Haze]

Adoption rights smokescreen?

Yeah, you're right Bill. Homosexuals don't really want adoption rights, they're just pushing their ill-conceived agenda to hopefully take more of your money.

What a brilliant scheme.

 

[Thumper]

I don't know why

I am even answering this. But I am...

This generalization is, as lavender so aptly put it, a crock of shit.

It is the same tired, old, repeat after me dittohead description that has been thrown out time after time after time. Why is what I want to know. It is how they perceive liberals. They like to think they know what a liberal motive is or what a liberal stands for.

Who are you trying to convince? Yourselves I am thinking. The conservatives have done little in the past decade to actually come up with a solution to anything so to justify the lack of initiative they attack. But I think it goes a bit deeper than that. I think they actually do it to get a better definition of themselves. They demonize the liberal/democrat to make themselves seem better. They are not.

Lexie...great quotes!

 

[seXieleXie]

Re: I don't know why

Lexie...great quotes!

i was starting to think i posted in invisible ink

 

[Weevil]

It is you who advocate political privilege, the lie you hide under the guise of special rights. If it's a right, why doesn't it apply to me? and to everyone?


And I find it particularly unconscionable to use a child as the payoff in the arena of political pandering and favor peddling. And that is precisely what the adoption rights smokescreen is all about, another special right for the supporters of the liberal ideology.

See Bill, this is what I suppose you and me aren't going to agree on. I'm a reasonably successful, married, heterosexual man. I can adopt a kid almost anywhere out there. I could move to any state in the union and because my wife and I are a heterosexual couple we could adopt. I could adopt even if I was single. Ignoring the fact that I'm also an emotionally immature individual from a household without two parents myself, I could adopt with ease. I can also get married anywhere I want.

But can a homosexual? No. I can do things that other people can't. Groups of other people. Not based on something redeeming about myself, but that the reigning orthodoxy believes that there is something lacking in the group denied the rights I have.

So striving for gay rights(and previously women's rights and civil rights) is about equality. If a homosexual is allowed to adopt in any of the 50 states then he doesn't have special rights, he has equal rights. Same with marriage.

So the liberal quest for these rights is about treating all citizens equally. The conservative fight against them is about giving all us hetero folk rights above other people. Or, if you prefer, Special rights. Which is as distressing as it was when only some of us were allowed to sit at the front of the bus.

 

[Guest]

United States liberals often combine a devotion to personal liberty with an antipathy

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberalism/

 

[Unclebill]

Originally posted by Purple Haze
Adoption rights smokescreen?

Yeah, you're right Bill. Homosexuals don't really want adoption rights, they're just pushing their ill-conceived agenda to hopefully take more of your money.

What a brilliant scheme.

Apparently you miss the points entirely. Adoption rights, like all other special rights are a smokescreen. Rights are universal, i. e., they apply to everyone equally. Rights apply not to a guarantee to any end result, but to one's choices and actions.

It is the right of anyone to apply as an adoptive parent.

The purpose of adoption is to provide a family environment for a child. I would hope that those screening adoption applicants would be primarily considering the best interest of the child. Part of that is the suitability of the applicant. For example, a child molester should not be permitted to adopt IMNTBHO.

But I believe that the first and foremost consideration should be the welfare of the child.

And I did not offer anything that I can see prompted your comment about homosexuals trying to take my money.

I have seen enough of the liberal politician mentality and the results of their endeavors to understand that their motivation is the exercise of political power over the lives and property of others. And they routinely seek to legislate political favor for those who support them with votes and public advocacy to advance their political goals.

That is how they attract, retain and reward certain of their supporters.

Originally posted by Thumper
. . . The conservatives have done little in the past decade to actually come up with a solution to anything so to justify the lack of initiative they attack. . . .

The conservatives have at least some sense that the government solution is typically the least effective, the most expensive and the unintended consequences which result from legislated solutions are virtually guaranteed perpetuity because laws so seldom get repealed they are virtually permanent problems created in the attempt to solve one problem.

America's history is littered with problems resulting from the intrusion of government yet all you seek is more of the same. No wonder you like the liberal ideology.