NationStates Jolt Archive

As a Liberal, I find I disagree with damn near *anything* a Conservative says. You name the issue: War, poverty, drug laws, religion, feminism, abortion, welfare, the environment, handgun control, the death penalty, law and order, censorship, violence-in-entertainment...Conservatives are consistently on the wrong side!

The basis to much Conservative ideology seems to be that humans are inherently evil and untrustworthy - that we need constant "fear-of-god" and "fear-of-authority" to keep us in line. They also seem to feel that people are somehow better off if we have to constantly compete and fight for resources and turf.

In Canada, Western Europe and other places where education standards are high, Conservatism is becoming extinct - increasingly just a regional oddity.

Conservatives' arguments usually seem poorly thought-out, poorly researched, and poorly expressed. Many of them can barely even spell or construct a proper sentence. I also pick up on a lot of fear and hostility from Conservatives, mainly towards those who try to improve the world through Liberalism.

We Liberals wish nothing more than to for Conservatives to see the light. To quote John Lennon, "we hope some day you'll join us".

:lol:


You are hilarious.

The basis to much Conservative ideology seems to be that humans are inherently evil and untrustworthy

this part is wrong

The basis to conservative ideology is that people are generally good, but that unbalanced power corrupts... this is the basis for the arguement of keeping the government small and managable by the people...

The basis to much Conservative ideology seems to be that humans are inherently evil and untrustworthy

this part is wrong

The basis to conservative ideology is that people are generally good, but that unbalanced power corrupts... this is the basis for the arguement of keeping the government small and managable by the people...


Sounds right.

In both this thread and the liberal thread, those who claim to be conservative have produced nothing remotely resembling a coherent argument defending their belief structure, while simultaneously deriding the liberals who have provided an argument. I mean--poke holes in our beliefs if you wish--at least we've got our ideas out there to be poked at.

These discussions don't have to be flame-fests you know. There are plenty of issues on which people of differing beliefs can have reasonable discussions even if they disagree completely. It just takes intelligent discussion and a willingness to approach the subject without rancor. Can we try that? Please?

Actually, I feel that progressivism often leads to cynicism and discontent simply by its virtue. Liberals want to move forward towards "the new tomorrow", and as a result are less content with the present. Conservatives, on the other hand, prefer to keep social issues the same, or even reach back into their "former glory", hence conservatives are in fact more content with society than liberals are.

What a glorious way to state how close minded the Liberal Thinker really is. The very first sentence of this thread shows the totalitarian attitude associated behind the so called "liberal". The first sentence is copied here to show proof behind the claim:


As a Liberal, I find I disagree with damn near *anything* a Conservative says.


If you were truely liberal, in your thinking, you would be open to all suggestions, no matter where they originate.

Actually, I feel that progressivism often leads to cynicism and discontent simply by its virtue. Liberals want to move forward towards "the new tomorrow", and as a result are less content with the present. Conservatives, on the other hand, prefer to keep social issues the same, or even reach back into their "former glory", hence conservatives are in fact more content with society than liberals are.


I am a Conservative and I hate society and want to improve it.

Actually, I feel that progressivism often leads to cynicism and discontent simply by its virtue. Liberals want to move forward towards "the new tomorrow", and as a result are less content with the present. Conservatives, on the other hand, prefer to keep social issues the same, or even reach back into their "former glory", hence conservatives are in fact more content with society than liberals are.I'll go along with some of your first point, but I disagree with the second--my experience with conservatism is that they're never satisfied with the present either. They're constantly hearkening back to some halcyon time that never really existed. They're always talking about the "good old days" that, to be quite honest, weren't all that good by comparison. Given a choice, I'll take the dissatisfaction of not acheiving as much improvement as I'd hoped for over wishing for some dream period that never was. I'll take that any day.

conservatives deserve death. :evil:

they are evil, malicious thingamabobbers... like bush.

conservatives deserve death. :evil:

they are evil, malicious thingamabobbers... like bush.



You are hurting yourself more than you are helping yourself. Just because people disagree with you doesn't make them evil, do you understand?

What a glorious way to state how close minded the Liberal Thinker really is. The very first sentence of this thread shows the totalitarian attitude associated behind the so called "liberal". The first sentence is copied here to show proof behind the claim:


As a Liberal, I find I disagree with damn near *anything* a Conservative says.


If you were truely liberal, in your thinking, you would be open to all suggestions, no matter where they originate.You have no idea what it means to be "open" to ideas. I can examine opposing ideas dispassionately and dismiss them as either undesirable or unworkable and yet still be open to them as possibilities. And Garaj Mahal didn't say he (she?) automatically disagreed with anything a conservative said--just that that's what has happened in the past. I'd say that suggests an openness to future experience where he/she might agree.

Speaking for myself, I'll say that I have agreed with conservatives on numerous occasions and will do so in the future. That doesn't change the fact that I tend to disagree with them far more often than not.

As a Liberal, I find I disagree with damn near *anything* a Conservative says. You name the issue: War, poverty, drug laws, religion, feminism, abortion, welfare, the environment, handgun control, the death penalty, law and order, censorship, violence-in-entertainment...Conservatives are consistently on the wrong side!

The basis to much Conservative ideology seems to be that humans are inherently evil and untrustworthy - that we need constant "fear-of-god" and "fear-of-authority" to keep us in line. They also seem to feel that people are somehow better off if we have to constantly compete and fight for resources and turf.

In Canada, Western Europe and other places where education standards are high, Conservatism is becoming extinct - increasingly just a regional oddity.

Conservatives' arguments usually seem poorly thought-out, poorly researched, and poorly expressed. Many of them can barely even spell or construct a proper sentence. I also pick up on a lot of fear and hostility from Conservatives, mainly towards those who try to improve the world through Liberalism.

We Liberals wish nothing more than to for Conservatives to see the light. To quote John Lennon, "we hope some day you'll join us".



Maybe you should just pick up an econ textbook and read...or come down to America and meet some actual conservatives..i'll be suprised if you still think we're wrong.. 8)

It just takes intelligent discussion and a willingness to approach the subject without rancor. Can we try that? Please?

I thought that was what I was doing...

People are generally good, if not for a few bastards there would be no need for government at all: thus, the role of the gov't to provide Justice and secure the Nation from any threat to liberty...

The government that governs least, governs best.

Guns are the teeth of liberty.

The government should be bound by the shakles of the constituion.

It doesn't make a difference to me if you pray to no god or eight gods.

Socialism hinders progress and attacks liberty.

The Middle-Class is the basis of democracy, without a strong Middle-Class there can be no America!

When it comes to liberty there can be no compromises, give me liberty of give me death!

conservatives deserve death. :evil:

they are evil, malicious thingamabobbers... like bush.



You are hurting yourself more than you are helping yourself. Just because people disagree with you doesn't make them evil, do you understand?

dude, im joking. i couldnt care less about someones political stance, as long as they're a good person.

Maybe you should just...come down to America and meet some actual conservatives..i'll be suprised if you still think we're wrong.. 8)

I've been to America several times - my wife's from there and I got married there. America's alright, but the Conservative mentality infecting it just sends a sickly chill through me every time I experience it firsthand. (Having my car shot randomly for no reason sure made me homesick for gool 'ol sane Canadian gun control too.)

I suggest you visit Canada and see how much better things are here for average working people because our society is mostly Liberal. Take some time to talk to a few of the thousands of Americans who've chosen to move here and have no plans go back.

Look. You're just attacking conservatives. We all have our beliefs, and none are right or wrong. I have some things like...what kids see on tv...that make me more conservative. The stickler is; under a ultra-liberal government conservatives have their say, but not under an ulta-conservative can liberals have their say. However, posts like these just prove maybe liberals are still closed-minded. I'll listen to a conservative, maybe even agree with them. To brand them as evil and condemn them to death is just stupid. Maybe if you wanted serious answers you would make a SERIOUS post. Next time don't troll.

Sure life for some can be better in Canada... question is ..would you really go to Canada if you wanted the best of oppurtunities?

Guessing from the number of people who line up to immigrate to America, I would say- no.

conservatives deserve death. :evil:

they are evil, malicious thingamabobbers... like bush.Ah, the true Liberal mindset, at last, being stated.

What a glorious way to state how close minded the Liberal Thinker really is. The very first sentence of this thread shows the totalitarian attitude associated behind the so called "liberal". The first sentence is copied here to show proof behind the claim:


As a Liberal, I find I disagree with damn near *anything* a Conservative says.


If you were truely liberal, in your thinking, you would be open to all suggestions, no matter where they originate.You have no idea what it means to be "open" to ideas. I can examine opposing ideas dispassionately and dismiss them as either undesirable or unworkable and yet still be open to them as possibilities. And Garaj Mahal didn't say he (she?) automatically disagreed with anything a conservative said--just that that's what has happened in the past. I'd say that suggests an openness to future experience where he/she might agree.

Speaking for myself, I'll say that I have agreed with conservatives on numerous occasions and will do so in the future. That doesn't change the fact that I tend to disagree with them far more often than not.On the contrary, I disagree with your analysis of Garaj Mahal's statement. I feel it shows an unwillingness to agree with conservative thought, based solely on the fact that it is conservative. The fact that he/she has not mentioned even one conservative idea, that he/she agrees with would tend to support my view.

First of all, anytime you want to debate, most of us conservatives are open to it. Not kidding...I love it. And this?...

In Canada, Western Europe and other places where education standards are high, Conservatism is becoming extinct - increasingly just a regional oddity.

Good job on that point. Look at the university systems in places like France and Britain and compare them to those of the United States and try to say that with a straight face. Maybe you should do a bit more research (if you want some, I'll send you some), because the college systems there are in horrible shape.

Maybe you should just...come down to America and meet some actual conservatives..i'll be suprised if you still think we're wrong.. 8)

I've been to America several times - my wife's from there and I got married there. America's alright, but the Conservative mentality infecting it just sends a sickly chill through me every time I experience it firsthand. (Having my car shot randomly for no reason sure made me homesick for gool 'ol sane Canadian gun control too.)

I suggest you visit Canada and see how much better things are here for average working people because our society is mostly Liberal. Take some time to talk to a few of the thousands of Americans who've chosen to move here and have no plans go back.The thousands of Americans who have moved to Canada are mainly made up of draft dodgers (from the Nam era) and people fleeing from criminal prosecution. Real nice group of folks. And Canada welcomes these people.

Maybe you should just...come down to America and meet some actual conservatives..i'll be suprised if you still think we're wrong.. 8)

I've been to America several times - my wife's from there and I got married there. America's alright, but the Conservative mentality infecting it just sends a sickly chill through me every time I experience it firsthand. (Having my car shot randomly for no reason sure made me homesick for gool 'ol sane Canadian gun control too.)

I suggest you visit Canada and see how much better things are here for average working people because our society is mostly Liberal. Take some time to talk to a few of the thousands of Americans who've chosen to move here and have no plans go back.The thousands of Americans who have moved to Canada are mainly made up of draft dodgers (from the Nam era) and people fleeing from criminal prosecution. Real nice group of folks. And Canada welcomes these people.

Well I'm sure after reading this extract of bigoted nationalism they'll be all the more glad they moved.

Please stop it with this stupid binary political model. It does not exist outside of the mass media.

The thousands of Americans who have moved to Canada are mainly made up of draft dodgers (from the Nam era) and people fleeing from criminal prosecution. Real nice group of folks. And Canada welcomes these people.More personal attacks--and inaccurate ones at that. What's the matter? Lacking in ideas of your own so you have to resort to ad hominem attacks?

If you have real issues with liberalism, then address them specifically. I've made an argument on the previous page that points out the, I believe inexorable march toward greater liberalism through history--no one has touched that, but you've got time to call Canada a haven for draft-dodgers and criminals. I'm impressed.

First of all, anytime you want to debate, most of us conservatives are open to it. Not kidding...I love it. And this?...

In Canada, Western Europe and other places where education standards are high, Conservatism is becoming extinct - increasingly just a regional oddity.

Good job on that point. Look at the university systems in places like France and Britain and compare them to those of the United States and try to say that with a straight face. Maybe you should do a bit more research (if you want some, I'll send you some), because the college systems there are in horrible shape.

I don't know about the EU or Britain, but I know Australia is what Americans would consider a 'liberal' country, we have free (mostly) heatlhcare, subsidised medicenes and good social welfare.

Another 'liberal' aspect to our society is the availabilty/affordabilty of higher education. We have a system called "HECS' which means I don't pay a cent for university untill I graduate and get a decent job, then I start paying it back with taxes ect. on an incramental scale (ie. the more I earn, the more I pay) untill my debt is repaid. The government also set fees so no matter what uni I go to the rate remains the same. It's called equality. How much my parents earn have nothing to do with 'if I can afford to go to university'. And no, our 'college system' isn't in terrible shape.

The thousands of Americans who have moved to Canada are mainly made up of draft dodgers (from the Nam era) and people fleeing from criminal prosecution. Real nice group of folks. And Canada welcomes these people.More personal attacks--and inaccurate ones at that. What's the matter? Lacking in ideas of your own so you have to resort to ad hominem attacks?

If you have real issues with liberalism, then address them specifically. I've made an argument on the previous page that points out the, I believe inexorable march toward greater liberalism through history--no one has touched that, but you've got time to call Canada a haven for draft-dodgers and criminals. I'm impressed.Maybe if you opened you eyes you would see that that was in response to the idiotic claim that Americans are leaving by the thousands to go to Canada. Wild claims get wild response. If accurate claims are made they get accurate response. Unlike the liberal form of debate taken here.

As for your claim that America is marching towards greater liberalism:

This is the problem with that statement:
Greater.
The word is used in total bias form.
The term can just as easy be used in the statement:
The American people elected the person representing the Greater polical party in the last presidential election.
You made a wide suppositition and expected a response? Really weak debating.

If you have real issues with liberalism, then address them specifically. I've made an argument on the previous page that points out the, I believe inexorable march toward greater liberalism through history--no one has touched that, but you've got time to call Canada a haven for draft-dodgers and criminals. I'm impressed.[/quote]Maybe if you opened you eyes you would see that that was in response to the idiotic claim that Americans are leaving by the thousands to go to Canada. Wild claims get wild response. If accurate claims are made they get accurate response. Unlike the liberal form of debate taken here.


Does that mean then that if someone makes a bad point, in order to prove that he is wrong, you make a bad point yourself??? Sounds like an odd way to debate to me, I thought the idea was to have the better argument.

What makes us tick? I dunno, morals, ethics, a sense of decency, and a hope that maybe, just maybe, terrorists killing innocent people might actually be a bad thing. Whoda thunk it? Liberals seem to be ignoring obvious problems like terrorism, and desperately clinging to the days when the biggest issues were medicare laws. Liberals are striving to create a world in which responsibility, compassion, and Christianity do not exist. They believe morality infringes on freedom, as does responsibility. Whereas a liberal would abandon a plan of action that seemed to be unpopular, President Bush defended his actions in Iraq, even when liberals were protesting a free Iraq. Flame me if you want. Being a liberal, chances are you'll be offended by anything. :lol:

Sure life for some can be better in Canada... question is ..would you really go to Canada if you wanted the best of oppurtunities?

Guessing from the number of people who line up to immigrate to America, I would say- no.

Got some news for you: every year Canada accepts several thousand immigrants from around the world, and is forced to turn down several thousand more. These folks are lining up to here for the same reasons they do for going to America - lots and lots of opportunity for a better life. And many of them actually make Canada their first choice over America. Is that hard to believe?

Just in case you really have no idea about the Canadian economy, did you know that 3 or 4 years ago General Motors actually built more vehicles in Canada than they did in the U.S.? I haven't checked if that is still true this year, but I point it out so you might know that we are a leading G7 industrial nation with plenty of opportunity too. Also, who is by far the largest trading partner the U.S. has? Answer - Canada. And we are successful without turning to Conservatism.

Take some time to talk to a few of the thousands of Americans who've chosen to move here and have no plans go back.The thousands of Americans who have moved to Canada are mainly made up of draft dodgers (from the Nam era) and people fleeing from criminal prosecution. Real nice group of folks. And Canada welcomes these people.

Here, read the stats (from your own gov't) of the numbers of Americans moving to Canada during 1975-95. Notice this is the period *after* Viet Nam. Don't try saying they're criminals either because those would not show up on statistics. No, they are people moving here for very reasons obviously. Big jump after Reagan got in - I wonder if they stopped keeping stats after Dubya got in and why?

year US to Canada

1975 18,912
1976 16,236
1977 12,237
1978 9,441
1979 9,122
1980 9,367
1981 10,025
1982 9,071
1983 7,097
1984 6,660
1985 6,538
1986 7,072
1987 7,707
1988 6,479
1989 6,790
1990 5,817
1991 5,997
1992 6,737
1993 7,396
1994 5,876
1995 4,853

Amer to Can: American citizens landed in Canada (permanent residence). Source: US Immigration and Naturalization Service

Take some time to talk to a few of the thousands of Americans who've chosen to move here and have no plans go back.The thousands of Americans who have moved to Canada are mainly made up of draft dodgers (from the Nam era) and people fleeing from criminal prosecution. Real nice group of folks. And Canada welcomes these people.

Here, read the stats (from your own gov't) of the numbers of Americans moving to Canada during 1975-95. Notice this is the period *after* Viet Nam. Don't try saying they're criminals either because those would not show up on statistics. No, they are people moving here for very reasons obviously. Big jump after Reagan got in - I wonder if they stopped keeping stats after Dubya got in and why?

year US to Canada

1975 18,912
1976 16,236
1977 12,237
1978 9,441
1979 9,122
1980 9,367
1981 10,025
1982 9,071
1983 7,097
1984 6,660
1985 6,538
1986 7,072
1987 7,707
1988 6,479
1989 6,790
1990 5,817
1991 5,997
1992 6,737
1993 7,396
1994 5,876
1995 4,853

Amer to Can: American citizens landed in Canada (permanent residence). Source: US Immigration and Naturalization Service

Why try to confuse a conservative with facts.

You know what will happen - your source, if possible will be discredited (could be tricky this time), or you will be personally attacked, often simply for being " biased".

What I always find amusing is how US Conservatives like to hark back to the "wisdom of the founding fathers", conveniently forgetting or ignoring the fact that these same people were the radical liberals of their time, espousing dangerous ideas like democracy, and republicanism (quite a few of which were borrowed from or heavily influenced by France).

Big jump after Reagan got in - I wonder if they stopped keeping stats after Dubya got in and why?
Of course, overall Reagan's total at the end of his term ended up being three thousand less than Comrade Carter's. The difference between 1980 and 1981 is about seven hundred, while the difference between '92 and '93 is just under 700, does that mean people were fleeing Clinton? No, year-to-year statistics are pretty insiginficant unless there's a *huge* jump for some reason - which under, say, five thousand dosen't signify. The most noticible trend, however, is the long term decline even though America has gotten steadily more conservative since the 60's and 70's.

What I always find amusing is how US Conservatives like to hark back to the "wisdom of the founding fathers", conveniently forgetting or ignoring the fact that these same people were the radical liberals of their time, espousing dangerous ideas like democracy, and republicanism (quite a few of which were borrowed from or heavily influenced by France).
It depends on what your definition of liberal and conservative is. The definition has changed somewhat over the past two hundred years - if it means people that want change and reform, then the Republicans might edge out the Democrats in this. Moreover, these ideas weren't radical or dangerous at he time, either. Most colonies had some form of elected assembly, and when King George tried to increase Parliment's and the Home Island's control across the pond, there was what someone could say a reactionary backlash.

In Canada, Western Europe and other places where education standards are high, Conservatism is becoming extinct - increasingly just a regional oddity.

Good job on that point. Look at the university systems in places like France and Britain and compare them to those of the United States and try to say that with a straight face. Maybe you should do a bit more research (if you want some, I'll send you some), because the college systems there are in horrible shape.

No doubt school infrastructure in the U.S. might be amongst the best-funded in the world.

But I was referring to the studies published which show that, year-after-year, students' scholastic scores in Western Europe & Canada are moving farther and farther ahead of U.S. students' scores. Funding infrastucture is one thing, but if you're cutting like mad in all other areas of the education system - like with teachers - you'll have the bad results you're currently seeing. One of those bad results is the problem of rising Conservatism which inevitably accompanies ignorance and poor schooling.

In Canada, Western Europe and other places where education standards are high, Conservatism is becoming extinct - increasingly just a regional oddity.

Good job on that point. Look at the university systems in places like France and Britain and compare them to those of the United States and try to say that with a straight face. Maybe you should do a bit more research (if you want some, I'll send you some), because the college systems there are in horrible shape.

No doubt school infrastructure in the U.S. might be amongst the best-funded in the world.

But I was referring to the studies published which show that, year-after-year, students' scholastic scores in Western Europe & Canada are moving farther and farther ahead of U.S. students' scores. Funding infrastucture is one thing, but if you're cutting like mad in all other areas of the education system - like with teachers - you'll have the bad results you're currently seeing. One of those bad results is the problem of rising Conservatism which inevitably accompanies ignorance and poor schooling.So in essence your saying that conservatism rises from stupid people and that only idiots are conservative.

Could it be rather that some people are more realists than others.

Big jump after Reagan got in - I wonder if they stopped keeping stats after Dubya got in and why?
Of course, overall Reagan's total at the end of his term ended up being three thousand less than Comrade Carter's. The difference between 1980 and 1981 is about seven hundred, while the difference between '92 and '93 is just under 700, does that mean people were fleeing Clinton? No, year-to-year statistics are pretty insiginficant unless there's a *huge* jump for some reason - which under, say, five thousand dosen't signify. The most noticible trend, however, is the long term decline even though America has gotten steadily more conservative since the 60's and 70's.

What I always find amusing is how US Conservatives like to hark back to the "wisdom of the founding fathers", conveniently forgetting or ignoring the fact that these same people were the radical liberals of their time, espousing dangerous ideas like democracy, and republicanism (quite a few of which were borrowed from or heavily influenced by France).
It depends on what your definition of liberal and conservative is. The definition has changed somewhat over the past two hundred years - if it means people that want change and reform, then the Republicans might edge out the Democrats in this. Moreover, these ideas weren't radical or dangerous at he time, either. Most colonies had some form of elected assembly, and when King George tried to increase Parliment's and the Home Island's control across the pond, there was what someone could say a reactionary backlash.

Elected assembly not radical? Were there lots of elected assemblies creating law in England in the 1700s? I think not. The colonies being seperated from England allowed them to generate their own ideas of government etc, that were radically different from those that existed in their countries of origen. And "reactionary backlash" isn't a valid excuse for the Revolutionary war. King George's attempt to increase control was "reactionary backlash" resulting from the colonists gaining more independence. The Revolutionary war deffinetely radical; revolutionary and radical are pratically synonyms!

If you have real issues with liberalism, then address them specifically. I've made an argument on the previous page that points out the, I believe inexorable march toward greater liberalism through history--no one has touched that, but you've got time to call Canada a haven for draft-dodgers and criminals. I'm impressed.Maybe if you opened you eyes you would see that that was in response to the idiotic claim that Americans are leaving by the thousands to go to Canada. Wild claims get wild response. If accurate claims are made they get accurate response. Unlike the liberal form of debate taken here.


Does that mean then that if someone makes a bad point, in order to prove that he is wrong, you make a bad point yourself??? Sounds like an odd way to debate to me, I thought the idea was to have the better argument.[/quote]Ever hear of a thing called sarcastic irony? Very effective tool against unfounded claims.

The thousands of Americans who have moved to Canada are mainly made up of draft dodgers (from the Nam era) and people fleeing from criminal prosecution. Real nice group of folks. And Canada welcomes these people.More personal attacks--and inaccurate ones at that. What's the matter? Lacking in ideas of your own so you have to resort to ad hominem attacks?

If you have real issues with liberalism, then address them specifically. I've made an argument on the previous page that points out the, I believe inexorable march toward greater liberalism through history--no one has touched that, but you've got time to call Canada a haven for draft-dodgers and criminals. I'm impressed.Maybe if you opened you eyes you would see that that was in response to the idiotic claim that Americans are leaving by the thousands to go to Canada. Wild claims get wild response. If accurate claims are made they get accurate response. Unlike the liberal form of debate taken here.

As for your claim that America is marching towards greater liberalism:

This is the problem with that statement:
Greater.
The word is used in total bias form.
The term can just as easy be used in the statement:
The American people elected the person representing the Greater polical party in the last presidential election.
You made a wide suppositition and expected a response? Really weak debating.It doesn't take a genius to see that the word "greater" has no bias in the sense that I used it--it means "larger in amount or number." And in that sense, humans have been moving toward greater liberalism throughout history. Consider how human rights have evolved over the course of the last thousand years and you will see a consistent movement, across most cultures, toward more liberal points of view.

The problem with having a closed mind, Jay, is that it refuses to consider any possiblity outside its limited point of view. You made the leap to bias inmy statement when there was none there--check yourself before you make unwarranted suppositions next time.

I suggest you visit Canada and see how much better things are here for average working people because our society is mostly Liberal. Take some time to talk to a few of the thousands of Americans who've chosen to move here and have no plans go back.

Hmmm and what is Canada's current unemployment rate? :lol:

It is also funny and perhaps to Garaj's horror that here in Australia Liberals are conservatives! The global Liberal philosophy is based upon the supreme importance of the individual in society.

Can I ask therefore, in light of this, how liberals in America support big government and collectivism (unions etc) when it goes against their founding principle?

Take some time to talk to a few of the thousands of Americans who've chosen to move here and have no plans go back.The thousands of Americans who have moved to Canada are mainly made up of draft dodgers (from the Nam era) and people fleeing from criminal prosecution. Real nice group of folks. And Canada welcomes these people.

Here, read the stats (from your own gov't) of the numbers of Americans moving to Canada during 1975-95. Notice this is the period *after* Viet Nam. Don't try saying they're criminals either because those would not show up on statistics. No, they are people moving here for very reasons obviously. Big jump after Reagan got in - I wonder if they stopped keeping stats after Dubya got in and why?

year US to Canada

1975 18,912
1976 16,236
1977 12,237
1978 9,441
1979 9,122
1980 9,367
1981 10,025
1982 9,071
1983 7,097
1984 6,660
1985 6,538
1986 7,072
1987 7,707
1988 6,479
1989 6,790
1990 5,817
1991 5,997
1992 6,737
1993 7,396
1994 5,876
1995 4,853

Amer to Can: American citizens landed in Canada (permanent residence). Source: US Immigration and Naturalization Service

After doing a quick search here is a site to show you what is wrong with your number theory:
http://www.bmo.com/economic/special/bdrain.htm
For those of you who do not like to follow links I will supply an overview for you. These are stats from the Bank of Montreal. This study shows that the best and brighest of Canadians were immigrating to the US, between 1982 and 1996, in such numbers it was referred to as the Brain Drain. This is the most current date that was given in the article. So I guess it could be said that if the smartest people in Canada were coming to the US, then the Liberal System they are so proud of must not make sense enough to keep their most educated people from leaving for a better more Conservative System.

Why try to confuse a conservative with facts.

You know what will happen - your source, if possible will be discredited (could be tricky this time), or you will be personally attacked, often simply for being " biased".
Sorry to disappoint you. The source was not discredited, no personal attack, and never state the obvious, such as calling someone bias, in a clearly bias thread. However, I will be very interested to see how many of those very tactics will be used to refute my reply to his post.

Well I don't know for sure about the USA (please if you want to answer this, don't base everything on the current president, but the last 30 years) but in Australia everytime conservatives (real conservatives, not the pseudo type) are in government unemployment is down, the economy is strong and incomes are up.

Everything the left are in government we have massive levels of unemployment, high inflation, poorer standards of living and lots and lots of debt accumulation.

Then conservatives come back in and fix it up. But the problem (yes I admit) with conservative (most not all) governments in general is that they become complacent and overconfident. Then they get thrown out and the left get back in. Back to square one and really its frustrating.

Interesting to note however, that Australia has had more conservative governments (and longer runs) than the left (the largest was during the Menzies era 1949-1966 and the current government 1996 - present).

The basis to much Conservative ideology seems to be that humans are inherently evil and untrustworthy

this part is wrong

The basis to conservative ideology is that people are generally good, but that unbalanced power corrupts... this is the basis for the arguement of keeping the government small and managable by the people...Partialy correct, the idea that humans are inheritly evil is a Classical Liberal ideal, one which even Classical Liberals no longer believe. Though it is shared by many members of the Conservative community. Conservatives do support checks in society, this may be seen as resulting from an irrational fear of "human evil".

No doubt school infrastructure in the U.S. might be amongst the best-funded in the world.

But I was referring to the studies published which show that, year-after-year, students' scholastic scores in Western Europe & Canada are moving farther and farther ahead of U.S. students' scores. Funding infrastucture is one thing, but if you're cutting like mad in all other areas of the education system - like with teachers - you'll have the bad results you're currently seeing. One of those bad results is the problem of rising Conservatism which inevitably accompanies ignorance and poor schooling.Imagine this being claimed from the Liberal side. I remember a State of the Union address where President George W. Bush called for testing of teachers to check their proficiency to teach, and there were actually Boo's heard coming from the left of the aisle. Liberals need to make up their mind. Do you want teachers, who know how to teach, in the classrooms or do you want to claim that US students aren't learning on a world class level and that it is the president's fault?

It doesn't take a genius to see that the word "greater" has no bias in the sense that I used it--it means "larger in amount or number." And in that sense, humans have been moving toward greater liberalism throughout history. Consider how human rights have evolved over the course of the last thousand years and you will see a consistent movement, across most cultures, toward more liberal points of view.

The problem with having a closed mind, Jay, is that it refuses to consider any possiblity outside its limited point of view. You made the leap to bias inmy statement when there was none there--check yourself before you make unwarranted suppositions next time.If you happen to check you will see that most "human rights" have been enacted under a conservative government. So called "civil rights" are the calling card of Liverals. Maybe I deserved your last comment. I did come across very closed minded. It was meant as a satirical comment but I failed. Just went with the normal feeling that comes from seeing the words "greater" and "Liberal" appearing too close together in the same sentence.

Well I don't know for sure about the USA (please if you want to answer this, don't base everything on the current president, but the last 30 years) but in Australia everytime conservatives (real conservatives, not the pseudo type) are in government unemployment is down, the economy is strong and incomes are up.

Everything the left are in government we have massive levels of unemployment, high inflation, poorer standards of living and lots and lots of debt accumulation.

Then conservatives come back in and fix it up. But the problem (yes I admit) with conservative (most not all) governments in general is that they become complacent and overconfident. Then they get thrown out and the left get back in. Back to square one and really its frustrating.

Interesting to note however, that Australia has had more conservative governments (and longer runs) than the left (the largest was during the Menzies era 1949-1966 and the current government 1996 - present).Pretty similar here in the US. US Liberals screw it up, Conservative fix it again. Comfort sets in Liberals talk their way in for another slamming.

It doesn't take a genius to see that the word "greater" has no bias in the sense that I used it--it means "larger in amount or number." And in that sense, humans have been moving toward greater liberalism throughout history. Consider how human rights have evolved over the course of the last thousand years and you will see a consistent movement, across most cultures, toward more liberal points of view.

The problem with having a closed mind, Jay, is that it refuses to consider any possiblity outside its limited point of view. You made the leap to bias inmy statement when there was none there--check yourself before you make unwarranted suppositions next time.If you happen to check you will see that most "human rights" have been enacted under a conservative government. So called "civil rights" are the calling card of Liverals. Maybe I deserved your last comment. I did come across very closed minded. It was meant as a satirical comment but I failed. Just went with the normal feeling that comes from seeing the words "greater" and "Liberal" appearing too close together in the same sentence.Interesting claim. My understanding of the term Human rights is that it pertains to inalienable rights of humans world-wide, while Civil rights refers to rights within a political system or a nation. Please explain your claim within these terms or correct my misunderstanding.

In Canada, Western Europe and other places where education standards are high, Conservatism is becoming extinct - increasingly just a regional oddity.

Remember that it was those American conservative regional oddities that allowed, for nearly a century now, those liberals in canada and western europe to exist long enough to develop modern liberal ideals. Those horrible evil American Corporations efforts' won the wars that makes your statement possible. Those same "evil" corporations made it possible keep The Cold War cold when liberals failed to deal with the Soviet Union properly. Conservative did an especialy good job saving those nations where conservatism is becoming extinct in World War 2. England and Russia were sunk without American intervention. That war could not have been won without the over-demonized conservative military-industrial complex. Roosevelt, an incredible liberal, did exactly what liberals should do when the shit hits the fan, he let conservatives run the war.

In reference to the educational critisism. Our educatino system and that of western europe's is different. Lets look at germany for an example. after elementry school there students take a high stakes test and get ther performance examined. The top 30-40% or so get sent to college prep schools, gymnasium. The rest of the kids get sent to technical schools that amount to trade schools, and are taught career trades. In contrast ALL american children get sent to the same public schools unless they choose to go private. The educational dispairity is made by only comparing the Top 30-40% of european students against 100% of american students. Of course there is a dispairty. we are comparing special education students here with college bound children in europe. If the top 30%-40% of american students are compared to the Top European students, we end up almost identical.

It really is amazing how "liberal" and "conservative" have flip-flopped over the cource of history, and neither party could be called truely one way or the other.

Originally, conservative ment that you wanted the government to be as small as humanly possible, while strictly conforming to the constitution, (which was only expected to last about 50 years at the time, kinda funny when you think about it). They believed in non-involvement in business and personal lives, and believed that any rights not given to the states or national government would be held by the people. Jefferson would have been considred a conservative, as would the slave states of the civil war, and democrats up till Wilson.

Liberal ment that you wanted the government to be big, powerful, and in your face. Lots of taxes (mostly tarrifs) and government oversight of both businesses and private citizens. They belived in a loose reading of the constitution, granting the powers to do anything they deemed necessary. Any rights not given to the states, ment the federal government had it. Washington and Adams would be considered Liberals, as would the majority of Union states in the civil war, as would the Republicans up until the time of Hoover.

Nowadays, both parties are neither conservative or liberal, and we only have a perverse mixture of the two as competing special interests define the parties.

What makes us tick? Frustration, mostly, with a helping of disappointment and a strong distrust of concentration of power.

One of the main reasons for this, is the change from what is Classically called "Liberal", and what is now the Media "Liberal."

Oh, and to reply to one comment on page one of this topic:

In an Ultra-Liberal society, the Conservative is just as likely to be silenced by violence, as the Lib in an ultraconservative society.
The Purges and Gulags of the Soviet Union, or the Killing Fields outside Phnom Penh are ample proof of this, thankyewverymuch. Too much of anything, too much concentrated authority on either the right, or the left, is horrible for children and other living things.

It doesn't take a genius to see that the word "greater" has no bias in the sense that I used it--it means "larger in amount or number." And in that sense, humans have been moving toward greater liberalism throughout history. Consider how human rights have evolved over the course of the last thousand years and you will see a consistent movement, across most cultures, toward more liberal points of view.

The problem with having a closed mind, Jay, is that it refuses to consider any possiblity outside its limited point of view. You made the leap to bias inmy statement when there was none there--check yourself before you make unwarranted suppositions next time.If you happen to check you will see that most "human rights" have been enacted under a conservative government. So called "civil rights" are the calling card of Liverals. Maybe I deserved your last comment. I did come across very closed minded. It was meant as a satirical comment but I failed. Just went with the normal feeling that comes from seeing the words "greater" and "Liberal" appearing too close together in the same sentence.Interesting claim. My understanding of the term Human rights is that it pertains to inalienable rights of humans world-wide, while Civil rights refers to rights within a political system or a nation. Please explain your claim within these terms or correct my misunderstanding.Human rights, in your definition is correct. Civil rights, as commonly used, reflect rights to special interest groups i.e. Gay marriage.

Interesting claim. My understanding of the term Human rights is that it pertains to inalienable rights of humans world-wide, while Civil rights refers to rights within a political system or a nation. Please explain your claim within these terms or correct my misunderstanding.Human rights, in your definition is correct. Civil rights, as commonly used, reflect rights to special interest groups i.e. Gay marriage.Uh, civil rights have nothing to do with special interests, unless you think equality is a special interest. Human rights refers to the basic right to exist in peace, violations of these rights include genocide (or ethnic cleansing), torture, imprisonment (for political or non criminal reasons), slavery and forced migration. Civil rights refer to the rights within a political system. Violations of these rights include inequal treatment under laws, exclusion from government processes or services, and basically anything that excludes or limits a group or person based solely on their race, religion, sex (or sexual preference) or political inclination. Usually the term Human rights is used when talking about atrocities commited in areas of political instability or about human conditions globally. Civil rights is the term used when discussing atrocities and inequalities within ones own country.

It doesn't take a genius to see that the word "greater" has no bias in the sense that I used it--it means "larger in amount or number." And in that sense, humans have been moving toward greater liberalism throughout history. Consider how human rights have evolved over the course of the last thousand years and you will see a consistent movement, across most cultures, toward more liberal points of view.

The problem with having a closed mind, Jay, is that it refuses to consider any possiblity outside its limited point of view. You made the leap to bias inmy statement when there was none there--check yourself before you make unwarranted suppositions next time.If you happen to check you will see that most "human rights" have been enacted under a conservative government. So called "civil rights" are the calling card of Liverals. Maybe I deserved your last comment. I did come across very closed minded. It was meant as a satirical comment but I failed. Just went with the normal feeling that comes from seeing the words "greater" and "Liberal" appearing too close together in the same sentence.Even assuming you're correct--and I dispute that, but for the sake of this discussion, I'll let it go--that doesn't change the fact that the overall movement has been toward more liberal views over time. It doesn't matter what label a government puts upon itself--what matters are the results, and the results speak for themselves. Human society is becoming more liberal as time goes on--it's been happening for the last 6,000 years and there's no reason to think it will stop anytime soon.

What makes a conservative tick? The desire to take down liberals!!!

It doesn't take a genius to see that the word "greater" has no bias in the sense that I used it--it means "larger in amount or number." And in that sense, humans have been moving toward greater liberalism throughout history. Consider how human rights have evolved over the course of the last thousand years and you will see a consistent movement, across most cultures, toward more liberal points of view.

The problem with having a closed mind, Jay, is that it refuses to consider any possiblity outside its limited point of view. You made the leap to bias inmy statement when there was none there--check yourself before you make unwarranted suppositions next time.If you happen to check you will see that most "human rights" have been enacted under a conservative government. So called "civil rights" are the calling card of Liverals. Maybe I deserved your last comment. I did come across very closed minded. It was meant as a satirical comment but I failed. Just went with the normal feeling that comes from seeing the words "greater" and "Liberal" appearing too close together in the same sentence.Interesting claim. My understanding of the term Human rights is that it pertains to inalienable rights of humans world-wide, while Civil rights refers to rights within a political system or a nation. Please explain your claim within these terms or correct my misunderstanding.Human rights, in your definition is correct. Civil rights, as commonly used, reflect rights to special interest groups i.e. Gay marriage.So 'civil rights' are a bad idea becuase they are an extension of human rights to groups that you don't consider human. The right for YOU to marry is a HUMAN right whily MY right to matty is not. What you call 'special interest groups' are in this case are folks who are only asking for the rights that YOU enjoy.

In an Ultra-Liberal society, the Conservative is just as likely to be silenced by violence, as the Lib in an ultraconservative society. The Purges and Gulags of the Soviet Union, or the Killing Fields outside Phnom Penh are ample proof of this, thankyewverymuch. Too much of anything, too much concentrated authority on either the right, or the left, is horrible for children and other living things.

The totalitarian regimes of Stalin and Pol Pot had nothing whatsoever to do with Liberalism and were the very opposite of it in fact - and I think you know that very well. To make such a spurious connection is pure mischief.

The only places on earth that might be called "Ultra Liberal" are places like Scandinavia and Holland - and these are also the free-est countries on earth, not places where even Conservatives would ever be threatened.

In an Ultra-Liberal society, the Conservative is just as likely to be silenced by violence, as the Lib in an ultraconservative society. The Purges and Gulags of the Soviet Union, or the Killing Fields outside Phnom Penh are ample proof of this, thankyewverymuch. Too much of anything, too much concentrated authority on either the right, or the left, is horrible for children and other living things.

The totalitarian regimes of Stalin and Pol Pot had nothing whatsoever to do with Liberalism and were the very opposite of it in fact - and I think you know that very well. To make such a spurious connection is pure mischief.

The only places on earth that might be called "Ultra Liberal" are places like Scandinavia and Holland - and these are also the free-est countries on earth, not places where even Conservatives would ever be threatened.Klown's errors arise from the same basic misconception that yours do. You both seem to share a strange beleif in the mass-media construct of a universal binary political model. The conception of there bing two political poles and that all and any ideological variations are but degrees of extremity on this poles is ridiculous. Anarchism is not just a more extreme degree of Stalinism whichin turn is not just a more extreme version of the American Democratic Party. These are three different ideological perspectives and not just different variations of so-called 'leftism.'

The same can well be said of secular Liberterians and fundamentalist reactionaries.

In an Ultra-Liberal society, the Conservative is just as likely to be silenced by violence, as the Lib in an ultraconservative society. The Purges and Gulags of the Soviet Union, or the Killing Fields outside Phnom Penh are ample proof of this, thankyewverymuch. Too much of anything, too much concentrated authority on either the right, or the left, is horrible for children and other living things.

The totalitarian regimes of Stalin and Pol Pot had nothing whatsoever to do with Liberalism and were the very opposite of it in fact - and I think you know that very well. To make such a spurious connection is pure mischief.

The only places on earth that might be called "Ultra Liberal" are places like Scandinavia and Holland - and these are also the free-est countries on earth, not places where even Conservatives would ever be threatened.

MMMnnnn... no.



Fanaticism is Fanaticism, Stalin was a leftist Fanatic, so was Pol-Pot, Mao Tse Tung, etc. While you don't want to admit that Fanatics on the Left can be, and usually are, just as vicious, closed-minded, and bloody handed as the worst examples of Nazi Skinhead, I'm sorry for you-you're the sort of person who tends to be unable to see the train until it hits everyone. Domestically in the United States, we had the Black Panther Party, Weather Underground, SLA (Simbionese Liberation Army), While Europe has the Bregada Rosse, German Red Brigades, Action-Directe, etc. etc.

People are People, dude, dangerous people are able to be attracted to both the left, and the right-and if you can't accept that, well... I'm sorry.

Holland, Sweden, and Denmark aren't Leftist, or even Ultra Leftist, they're Scandanavian. To lump them in with any single political "Side" without examining the whole of their cultures is to stereotype them.

Well, you're talking about "Leftism" and I'm talking about "Liberalism" - two different things mostly. Sometimes they overlap a bit (especially in the imagination of the Right); but true Leftists aren't really Liberals and vice-versa.

Fanaticism is Fanaticism, Stalin was a leftist Fanatic, so was Pol-Pot, Mao Tse Tung, etc. While you don't want to admit that Fanatics on the Left can be, and usually are, just as vicious, closed-minded, and bloody handed as the worst examples of Nazi Skinhead, I'm sorry for you-you're the sort of person who tends to be unable to see the train until it hits everyone. Domestically in the United States, we had the Black Panther Party, Weather Underground, SLA (Simbionese Liberation Army), While Europe has the Bregada Rosse, German Red Brigades, Action-Directe, etc. etc.

No disagreement from me that these are examples of dangerous, *Leftist* political forces - and there clearly never was.

What I disagree with is your insistence on saying extremism of either Left or Right can be in any way connected to Liberalism. The very meaning of political Liberalism is to be non-extreme and centrist in nature. Fanatics of every political extreme hate Liberals precisely because we represent the pragmatic and rational Centre. So I guess that to be "Ultra-Liberal" (your term) is to be extremely devoted to a pragmatic & rational political Centre.

And I still maintain that the three Scandinavian countries and Holland (which isn't Scandinavian) have gotten much closer to that political Centre than any other nations have. That's just an observation based on how they do things and is not - as you wrongly claim - some sort of prejudgement of their national character.

Well, you're talking about "Leftism" and I'm talking about "Liberalism" - two different things mostly. Sometimes they overlap a bit (especially in the imagination of the Right); but true Leftists aren't really Liberals and vice-versa.No, actually YOU are talking about 'leftism.' Stalin could be called a leftist, but he was most certainly an athoreterian leftist rather than a liberal one.

Well, you're talking about "Leftism" and I'm talking about "Liberalism" - two different things mostly. Sometimes they overlap a bit (especially in the imagination of the Right); but true Leftists aren't really Liberals and vice-versa.No, actually YOU are talking about 'leftism.' Stalin could be called a leftist, but he was most certainly an athoreterian leftist rather than a liberal one.

That's right - you're saying the very same thing I have been all along! Nuevo Kowloon was calling authoritarian Leftists like Stalin & Pol Pot "examples of Ultra-Liberalism", while I've been trying to show those dictators were the exact opposite of Liberalism. Everything I've written in this post has been clearly been defending Liberalism, which (I repeat again) is absolutely against Authoritarianism of the Left or Right.

Ultimately, the whole question is moot. Both Liberalism and Conservativism are simply reactions, not thought out political stances. Liberals tend to react to a changing situation by embracing it, be it well thought out or not, whereas Conservatives tend to react to change by trying to maintain the status quo. Neither one has any specific political thought behind it, at the end of the day, and to label oneself as Conservative or Liberal is to, in a way, absolve oneself from having to independently consider each issue in favor of a wholesale set of instictual reactions.

What a glorious way to state how close minded the Liberal Thinker really is. The very first sentence of this thread shows the totalitarian attitude associated behind the so called "liberal". The first sentence is copied here to show proof behind the claim:


As a Liberal, I find I disagree with damn near *anything* a Conservative says.


If you were truely liberal, in your thinking, you would be open to all suggestions, no matter where they originate.

You are right about that. I used to be a liberal, but now I'm more of a centrist.

Ultimately, the whole question is moot. Both Liberalism and Conservativism are simply reactions, not thought out political stances. Liberals tend to react to a changing situation by embracing it, be it well thought out or not, whereas Conservatives tend to react to change by trying to maintain the status quo. Neither one has any specific political thought behind it, at the end of the day, and to label oneself as Conservative or Liberal is to, in a way, absolve oneself from having to independently consider each issue in favor of a wholesale set of instictual reactions.

That's a very good point...I've never heard it expressed that way, exactly, but I agree.

Personally, I'm conservative on many issues simply for moral reasons; I think that, as someone said before, if it weren't for a few bad apples (or many...) that society would not need government except to maintain roads and public services and the like. As it is, government has to keep the majority of society free from those who don't have the commond sense to do the right thing, and so go out to try to somehow cause harm (physical, economical, whatever) to others. Also, the biggest reason I'm conservative is because I think that what's been slowly (but now, increasingly rapidly) happening to society is a total loss of morals, as exhibited mainly by television and popular culture. I see the morals of yesteryear better, not because people were better, but because people tried to be. Whatever their mentality, people who wear revealing clothes are disposing themselves and others to lower moral standards.

I do, however, make my own decisions. But I have two sets of opinions;
- First, what is needed to control modern society? By these standards, I'm for gun control, surveilance, and all that.

-Second, what would be ideal? By these standards, gun control would not be necessary because no one would shoot anyone else. Surveilance would not be needed because people were trustworthy.

I think that the ideal government in the ideal society would trust all its citizens fully, but our society necessitates a government that holds a distrustful attitude of everyone to begin with. It's sad, really...

Pretty much everyones arguments in this hread make me mad. I am considered liberal, and I will tell you why.

- I support health care infrastructure because i believe everyone has the right to live a long and healthy life no matter how much money they make.

- I support a sudsidized education infrastructure because I believe that if everyone gets a chance at higher education, it will make my country a better place.

-I support a womans right to abortion because it is her body, and though I totally understand why others are against it, people should just mind their own business.

-I disagree with the war in Irag because there is no proof of WMDs, and I believe that it is essentially Bush jr. finishing his daddys job, though I am glad that Saddam was captured. I do agree with the war in Afganistan, because frankly, the us does have the right to attack the people that attacked them, though they should be going after saudi arabie if they are using that reasoning.

-Honestly, i just do not like bush because he does not deserve to be President. He did not receive the popular vote, he is not an intelligent man, and it is not right of him to base his decisions on his religion, there is supposed to be a separation of church and state.

-I support gay marriage because, honestly, who would want to deny people love? There is enough hatred in the world, let 2 people be together, for goodness sakes. I wonder how Dick Cheney feels everytime Bush says being gay is immoral? His poor daughter.

I would like it if 'conservative' could give thoughtful explanations other than "because i'm moral" for these things. Why do you want to deny two people that love eachother?

Pretty much everyones arguments in this hread make me mad. I am considered liberal, and I will tell you why.

- I support health care infrastructure because i believe everyone has the right to live a long and healthy life no matter how much money they make.

- I support a sudsidized education infrastructure because I believe that if everyone gets a chance at higher education, it will make my country a better place.

-I support a womans right to abortion because it is her body, and though I totally understand why others are against it, people should just mind their own business.

-I disagree with the war in Irag because there is no proof of WMDs, and I believe that it is essentially Bush jr. finishing his daddys job, though I am glad that Saddam was captured. I do agree with the war in Afganistan, because frankly, the us does have the right to attack the people that attacked them, though they should be going after saudi arabie if they are using that reasoning.

-Honestly, i just do not like bush because he does not deserve to be President. He did not receive the popular vote, he is not an intelligent man, and it is not right of him to base his decisions on his religion, there is supposed to be a separation of church and state.

-I support gay marriage because, honestly, who would want to deny people love? There is enough hatred in the world, let 2 people be together, for goodness sakes. I wonder how Dick Cheney feels everytime Bush says being gay is immoral? His poor daughter.

I would like it if 'conservative' could give thoughtful explanations other than "because i'm moral" for these things. Why do you want to deny two people that love eachother?

Pretty much everyones arguments in this hread make me mad. I am considered liberal, and I will tell you why.

- I support health care infrastructure because i believe everyone has the right to live a long and healthy life no matter how much money they make.

- I support a sudsidized education infrastructure because I believe that if everyone gets a chance at higher education, it will make my country a better place.

-I support a womans right to abortion because it is her body, and though I totally understand why others are against it, people should just mind their own business.

-I disagree with the war in Irag because there is no proof of WMDs, and I believe that it is essentially Bush jr. finishing his daddys job, though I am glad that Saddam was captured. I do agree with the war in Afganistan, because frankly, the us does have the right to attack the people that attacked them, though they should be going after saudi arabie if they are using that reasoning.

-Honestly, i just do not like bush because he does not deserve to be President. He did not receive the popular vote, he is not an intelligent man, and it is not right of him to base his decisions on his religion, there is supposed to be a separation of church and state.

-I support gay marriage because, honestly, who would want to deny people love? There is enough hatred in the world, let 2 people be together, for goodness sakes. I wonder how Dick Cheney feels everytime Bush says being gay is immoral? His poor daughter.

I would like it if 'conservative' could give thoughtful explanations other than "because i'm moral" for these things. Why do you want to deny two people that love eachother?

((bump))

Oh good grief, Garaj, of all your threads to bump, this is the one you chose?

Oh good grief, Garaj, of all your threads to bump, this is the one you chose?

Yep!

conservatives deserve death. :evil:

they are evil, malicious thingamabobbers... like bush.Ah, the true Liberal mindset, at last, being stated.dude, im joking. i couldnt care less about someones political stance, as long as they're a good person.This was said a couple of posts before yours. Is not bothering to read threads properly an integral part of Conservatism?

The idea that Conservatives favour small goverment simply isn't true. They only do with economic issues, on social issues they're in favour of goverment interference on all levels.

Equally, I'm with Phil Ochs. The idea that Liberals are in some way radical is laughable. They're do-nothing fencesitters.

Both Liberalism and Conservativism are essentially doctrines representing different factions within the (upper) middle and upper classes.

First of all, anytime you want to debate, most of us conservatives are open to it. Not kidding...I love it. And this?...

In Canada, Western Europe and other places where education standards are high, Conservatism is becoming extinct - increasingly just a regional oddity.

Good job on that point. Look at the university systems in places like France and Britain and compare them to those of the United States and try to say that with a straight face. Maybe you should do a bit more research (if you want some, I'll send you some), because the college systems there are in horrible shape.

I don't know about the EU or Britain, but I know Australia is what Americans would consider a 'liberal' country, we have free (mostly) heatlhcare, subsidised medicenes and good social welfare.

Another 'liberal' aspect to our society is the availabilty/affordabilty of higher education. We have a system called "HECS' which means I don't pay a cent for university untill I graduate and get a decent job, then I start paying it back with taxes ect. on an incramental scale (ie. the more I earn, the more I pay) untill my debt is repaid. The government also set fees so no matter what uni I go to the rate remains the same. It's called equality. How much my parents earn have nothing to do with 'if I can afford to go to university'. And no, our 'college system' isn't in terrible shape.

You say you don't have to pay it back until you graduate and get a good job, well..just what is the criteria for paying it back?..1 yr after college?..3 yrs?..10 yrs til you get that awesome 45,000 yr job or what?...and to get to that college...aren't the one's already working paying an inordinately high amount in order to pay for all this free stuff?..let's say I make 20,000 yearly gross..just how much will it be net after your taxes are thru with it?

This simplistic "conservative" and "liberal" two-ideology mentality is starting to get a little wearing. It's much more complex than that. At any rate, this thread seems to have been created for Garaj Mahal and his ilk to continue their anti-conservative (whatever they consider one to be) wanking. Are we supposed to be arguing the bases of the ideologies of 'liberalism' and 'conservatism', or are we just going to bring up the same issues that have been discussed a hundred billion times before? This seems like yet another 'go-nowhere' thread. Bye.

:cry: Why do we fight? We all live in the same country(well most of us)! Instead of dividing, we should unite. Only through uniting will we end terrorism! That's what Bush is trying to do! You don't have to agree with him. But you have to unite.

I like being in the middle. Both extremes suck. The liberal/conservative argument annoys me, work togerther people, and then we all win. I support some things on both sides. I get the best of both worlds. I do not have a party affiliation. I like having guns around. I hate the patriot act. I am pro-life. I do not like seeing the government ignore the poor who cannot help themselves, quite a few of them have mental illnesses, lower IQ's and emotional disorders, meanwhile the government heads fatten their wallets to extreme. So why not combine the best of both worlds and become an Independent. Go for the middle.

They run on religion, oil and its many byproducts, money, and probably sacrificing newborn children.

Allow me to go through your post and point out everything that's wrong with it. My comments are in bold. Oh, and for the record I'm a conservative.

As a Liberal, I find I disagree with damn near *anything* a Conservative says.

Alright, fair enough. Your right to disagree. I disagree with almost anything a liberal says, and I don't feel the need to make a thread about it

You name the issue: War, poverty, drug laws, religion, feminism, abortion, welfare, the environment, handgun control, the death penalty, law and order, censorship, violence-in-entertainment...Conservatives are consistently on the wrong side!

You can be opposed to the conservative view of these if you'd like, but to just say that we are on the wrong side without providing any reasons why is ignorant and hypocritical of you. You claim that the liberals give all the best reasoning and Conservative's never give arguments. I suggest you reread these posts more carefully, and don't just selectively pick out the posts in your mind that fit your theory. Conservative's generally argue for social stability, economic development, and holding on to moralistic values. The left I've noticed seems to have no better argument than "We don't want to turn into America" (referring to the Canadian Federal Election, as I live in Canada).

The basis to much Conservative ideology seems to be that humans are inherently evil and untrustworthy - that we need constant "fear-of-god" and "fear-of-authority" to keep us in line. They also seem to feel that people are somehow better off if we have to constantly compete and fight for resources and turf.

Not true, I'd like you to tell me where you are getting this from. Please cite examples, rather than just stating things. This is what I've noticed Liberals often do, they make statements as facts but do not give reasons to back it up. Feel free to prove me wrong and give me some good solid facts and reasoning behind what you're saying. Seeing as the right is for LESS government controls, I don't see where you are coming from for the fear of authority thing. As for the fear of god, that only applies to the religious right, those who are right wing out of their religious beliefs. That doesn't apply to me as I do not belong to those religions, so I won't bother, other than saying that you can't apply to the entire right wing what only truly applies to the religious right. As a Conservative, I can tell you I don't believe people are better off if they have to constantly fight for resources and turf, unless you consider fair competition fighting. By fair competition I mean those who are hard working, those who are intelligent, those who are willing to go out and get what they want will be those who succeed. I see no reason why the successful should have to pay for the unsuccessful's mistakes.

In Canada, Western Europe and other places where education standards are high, Conservatism is becoming extinct - increasingly just a regional oddity.

Which explains perfectly why the Liberals are losing support every day to the Conservatives, and perfectly why the Green party is still seen as mostly a fringe party and the NDP has less than half the support of the Conservatives. Conservatism is far from becoming extinct. Also, are you saying that the United States has low education standards? I can tell you right now that the United States does not have lower education standards than Canada, being a Canadian student and having spoken to many American students. So, once again, please back up your statements with facts rather than making up things, and if they aren't made up, prove them

Conservatives' arguments usually seem poorly thought-out, poorly researched, and poorly expressed. Many of them can barely even spell or construct a proper sentence. I also pick up on a lot of fear and hostility from Conservatives, mainly towards those who try to improve the world through Liberalism.

You truly believe that many Conservative's are incapable of spelling or constructing a proper sentence? English is my third language, and I am currently learning a 4th language, so English isn't even my first language but you can feel free to quiz me on grammar or spelling (although I can't guarantee I will know complex scientific terms, any normal words or grammatical use...) Backing up a moment, cite an example of a poorly thought-out and poorly expressed Conservative argument. Please, go ahead. I'm waiting. As to poorly expressed, I don't doubt that some Conservative's don't express their opinions very well. However, if you don't understand something due to the way they expressed it, feel free to ask me, and I'll clarify. There is no fear from us Conservative's towards Liberals, I'd like to know where you picked that up from. As to hostility, well when you argue something repeatedly with no logical backing behind your statements while I have given many many good factual reasons and statistics to support my stance, but you continue to blindly yell your arguments, of course I'm going to be hostile to you (not you as in you specifically, you as in a general you). Also, Liberalism does not improve the world, it merely creates stagnation. I'll explain why later if you don't understand and ask, but I don't want to right now, as this post is already really long.

We Liberals wish nothing more than to for Conservatives to see the light. To quote John Lennon, "we hope some day you'll join us".

I think I already successfully voided your last statement here in the rest of my post.

I await your response :) And if you can't, then please stop posting your Liberal crap.

Thank you.