NationStates Jolt Archive

For some reason, being conservative has been glorified as being more patriotic, tough, and rational. It is no such thing.

To most people, being conservative has been boiled down to lower taxes, a powerful military and a stronger connection to traditional values. Unfortunately, being conservative literally means a want or need to cling to the status quo. Those who are in power should stay in power. Thoughts and ideas should remain caught in stasis, no matter what new information comes along. Traditional values (whatever those are,) change from place to place and time to time and depend on culture. To say that your values are somehow superior is an inexcuasable self-deceit that borders on bigotry.

For example, at one point people who did not adhere to the ideals of the Catholic Church were burned at the stake. If one were conservative, then this practice would never have changed. Under conservative ideals, slaves would never have been freed, Democracy would never have been developed, women's rights would never have emerged, technology would have stagnated, and, in general, human rights would b in a barbaric state.

Therefore, in my mind, conservatism equates to either being stupid, corrupt, or simply stubborn.

Liberals are progressive. Liberals adapt to changing times. Liberals innovate. Liberals are able to logically grasp new information and change their ideas about the world around them. This, of course, is seen by conservatives, as "flip-flopping." This is an easy, finger-pointing strategy to enable conservatives who are too afraid of new things or too attached to the way things are to feel somehow superior to those who would like to analyze the world around them and find better ways to do things.

Guess what, if someone had a great idea on how to overhaul government, make it more efficient and thereby save everyone taxes by doing things in a more efficient way, this would be a liberal concept.

Of course, there are thiose who say liberals are pessimists because we point out flaws in the workings of things around us. I say that the conservatives are the pessimists, because they somehow think that what we have now is as good as things are gonna get. Doesn't sound too optimistic to me.

Fight conservative ideas wherever you go. Fight stagnation. Fight corruption. Fight lazy lassez-faire ideas. There is a better day ahead, and we must not bend our knee to those who would hold us back.

There are some differences as well as different brands of conservatism, but what you've described here is basically what I've been trying to tell my conservative friends for a long time.

Indeed, conservativism lacks the ability to adapt. At the rate we're going, we're going to end up with a world that is beyond repair if the conservatives keep having their way.

Thank you BLARG

Of course Liberals are progressive.

That's why killing babies is moving this country forward; a country where a mother will kill her two unborn twins so she does not have to buy a big jar of mayonnaise at Costco.

Why a 13 year old girl does not have to inform her parents on having an abortion.

How Affirmative Action is furthering education.

Man, good people them Liberals.

conservative literally means a want or need to cling to the status quo.

yes that is right. currently, someone with an objective view would see that life is good and that it does not need to be fucked with. that is not what I would call a "flaw"

Actually I have no problem with conservatism in many areas, and I have plenty of problems with conservatism in other areas, its all relative to the status quo. For instance I think conserving the tradition of not attacking other countries pre-emptively on the far fetched off chance that they might be a threat is a tradition worth conserving, I also think the parts of the Constitution that insist particular groups (for instance homosexuals) not be singled out for particular treatment are also worth conserving, as is the right for a woman to choose what happens inside her own body. In these areas Bush's government are radicals not conservatives.

I personally think the whole 'liberal v conservative' thing in the States just confuses people. Liberal has a whole other meaning everywhere else, it is a term that cannot be accurately attached to the Democrates for instance, just as conservative does not appear to be an accurate title for the current Bush administration. Outside America the word 'liberal' refers to policies that favour an unfettered free market. Neo Liberal is the term used to describe the rebirth of liberalism in contemporary times. It applies to policies and ideologies that are premised on 'free market', 'small governement' and individual responsibility.

The problem with the way politics is described in the States is that it makes no sense. People who are usurping the current status quo and who favour 'neo-liberal' policies are called conservative, while those who are more conservative (as relative to the status quo) and who dont favour 'neo-liberal' policies are called liberals. Meanwhile these words say absolutely nothing about the people they are afixed to, but rather the people they are afixed to define the current meaning of the word......that makes no sense.

Of course Liberals are progressive.

That's why killing babies is moving this country forward; a country where a mother will kill her two unborn twins so she does not have to buy a big jar of mayonnaise at Costco.

How Affirmative Action is furthering education.

Man, good people them Liberals.

Yes we are.

However, we Liberals just do not consider a small clump of cells to be a baby.

And minorities are indeed set back by the system which is why Affirmative Action is necessary at current in the US. Does not mean that it will always be there though, just till things get a little more equal in the 'opportunities' department.....

Yes we are.

However, we Liberals just do not consider a small clump of cells to be a baby.

And minorities are indeed set back by the system which is why Affirmative Action is necessary at current in the US. Does not mean that it will always be there though, just till things get a little more equal in the 'opportunities' department.....

Woa there buddy.

I am referring to a mother who terminated two of her unborn children who had heart beats.

Again, let me repeat that.

Heart beats.

And in case your forgot, so she didn't have to buy big jars of mayonaisse. Justifying the murder of twins for a jar of mayonaisse. Just wow.

You say minorities are set back, but why?

It is not because of their race/ethnicity or nationality. Affirmative Action rewards inferior students with entrance to college; students getting in not because they deserve it, but because society feels sorry for them.

Amen, Gymoor! Hallelujiah! Finally, a thread started by a non-conservative! May God Bless You!

Woa there buddy.

I am referring to a mother who terminated two of her unborn children who had heart beats.

Again, let me repeat that.

Heart beats.

You say minorities are set back, but why?

It is not because of their race/ethnicity or nationality. Affirmative Action rewards inferior students with entrance to college; students getting in not because they deserve it, but because society feels sorry for them.

My apologies, I must have misread.

However, the inequality in the system is due to the quality of education in ethnic areas which is substantially lower than the education quality in white areas. This creates and unfortunate gap in intelligence as the ethnic students do not have there potential exploited. If they can get into college with affirmative action, there talents can be honed.

My apologies, I must have misread.

However, the inequality in the system is due to the quality of education in ethnic areas which is substantially lower than the education quality in white areas. This creates and unfortunate gap in intelligence as the ethnic students do not have there potential exploited. If they can get into college with affirmative action, there talents can be honed.

So your argument is that a minority student is not given an equal opportunity, it is fair to cheat the other students who deserve to get into college?

Two Students, one White, the other Mexican.

Same marks, same grades, same everything, right down to the font used on their application.

The Mexican gets in because he is Mexican.

Does no one see a problem with this?

Of course Liberals are progressive.

That's why killing babies is moving this country forward; a country where a mother will kill her two unborn twins so she does not have to buy a big jar of mayonnaise at Costco.

Why a 13 year old girl does not have to inform her parents on having an abortion.

How Affirmative Action is furthering education.

Man, good people them Liberals.

Mmmhmm, hysterical slippery slope thought certainly defend your position well. Ending the development of a collection of cells with no brain function is murder. Yeah. Life begins at conception huh? So every woman who has a miscarriage should be jailed for negligence I suppose? Since everyone pretty much unchagably disagrees about abortion, how about we keep the decision about it in the hands of the person it concerns most? Or would you rather make government bigger by having to make a whole lot more legislation to muddle through that morass?

No one is saying that being a liberal means you have to support bad ideas, just because they're new. Children, of course, need to have their parents awareness and approval for any medical procedure. Please do not equate liberalism with barbarism because you are afraid of new ideas.

Yeah. Affirmative action is horrible compared to cronyism where children of rich and connected people can go to great colleges on no merits of their own. Without help, those in poor areas will continue getting the short end of the stick when it comes to jobs and education, through no fault of their own. Kinda hard to study when you're dodging bullets, but yeah, I guess you're right, rich kids who never had to face a day without a safety net display much better fortitude in their every day lives. All else being equal, damn straight that someone from a hard background should be given a shot!

Now, maybe a better way of giving those people who have had to travel a much more difficult road to get where they are a chance can be devised. All the more reason to be progressive and keep thinking of the future.

So your argument is that a minority student is not given an equal opportunity, it is fair to cheat the other students who deserve to get into college?

Two Students, one White, the other Mexican.

Same marks, same grades, same everything, right down to the font used on their application.

The Mexican gets in because he is Mexican.

Does no one see a problem with this?

How much do you wanna bet that some much more deserving kid was kept out of Yale because you namesake's daddy went to Yale?

The greatest President ever to be in office was a Liberal and every one knows who he his. But you right wings that think that Bush is the greatest President that ever walk on two legs it is FDR and he couldn't walk on his.

Mmmhmm, hysterical slippery slope thought certainly defend your position well. Ending the development of a collection of cells with no brain function is murder. Yeah. Life begins at conception huh? So every woman who has a miscarriage should be jailed for negligence I suppose? Since everyone pretty much unchagably disagrees about abortion, how about we keep the decision about it in the hands of the person it concerns most? Or would you rather make government bigger by having to make a whole lot more legislation to muddle through that morass?

No one is saying that being a liberal means you have to support bad ideas, just because they're new. Children, of course, need to have their parents awareness and approval for any medical procedure. Please do not equate liberalism with barbarism because you are afraid of new ideas.

Yeah. Affirmative action is horrible compared to cronyism where children of rich and connected people can go to great colleges on no merits of their own. Without help, those in poor areas will continue getting the short end of the stick when it comes to jobs and education, through no fault of their own. Kinda hard to study when you're dodging bullets, but yeah, I guess you're right, rich kids who never had to face a day without a safety net display much better fortitude in their every day lives. All else being equal, damn straight that someone from a hard background should be given a shot!

Now, maybe a better way of giving those people who have had to travel a much more difficult road to get where they are a chance can be devised. All the more reason to be progressive and keep thinking of the future.


Don't give me that holier-than-thou bullshit.

There is a difference between a miscarriage and rape than ending the life of two unborn twins because it is an 'inconvenience'. Big big difference. Past first-term, and if it not a special case, as rape or whatnot, it's murder, pure and simple. You argue that women should have the rights to their own bodies, and I agree. But what about the rights of the baby's body? Your argument of how women have the right to their own body is already false under that notion I have outlined.

Again, don't go giving me these arguments that put your ideals on a high-horse. I know how there is corruption with rich kids getting into Ivy League schools, but that still does not justify letting someone into college, using their race as an excuse. Get into college by the merit of your work and own capable thought, not because you have a variation in skin color.

Obviously you do not know of a few laws here in this country, I believe in Illinois, where a minor does not have to inform her parents of having an abortion. Go see what your buddies at ACLU are campaigning for over in Florida.

My apologies, I must have misread.

However, the inequality in the system is due to the quality of education in ethnic areas which is substantially lower than the education quality in white areas. This creates and unfortunate gap in intelligence as the ethnic students do not have there potential exploited. If they can get into college with affirmative action, there talents can be honed.

Actually, one might more appropriately state that they are not as well educated due to a myriad of socioeconomic factors and that their actual *intelligence* remains relatively fixed. Perhaps that's what you were trying to say. However it did sound a lot like you may have been falling into the limousine liberal habit of saying, "Oh these poor damaged people, I must help them." That's called noblese oblige and puts you right there with the "conservatives" that are being so railed against in this forum.

As for other conservative/liberal issues being braught up (eg. Abortion), let us consider whether it would be worse to have it and not need it, or need it and not have it. Both sides of the equation seem to view the world through rose tinted glasses (to a degree), conservatives suffer from thinking that life is perfect and wonderful for everyone and so these things are not necessary, whereas liberals fall folly to the notion that services are not being misused and abused.

Of course, it swings the other way as well; take corporations and industry.

Sono Independent on every issue!

Don't give me that holier-than-thou bullshit.

Past first-term, and if it not a special case, as rape or whatnot, it's murder, pure and simple.

Number one" no it is not "pure and simple".

Number two, and I think this can be said to everyone here: do some research so that you aren't just talking out of your ass and repeating the same propaganda that gets fed to you through your media sources, family, and friends.

I *have* done some research, even into the reasons for so called "partial-birth" abortions that even many otherwise liberal people see as wrong. Needless to say there are many more reasons why people do not have abortions until after their first trimester.

To rattle off a few, many complications or information about the pregnancy do not become available into later in the pregnancy, some women do not realize they are pregnant for a while, others know but are scared and/or in denial (pregnancy is traumatic? really?). Those are just a few. I suggest you research what you intend to talk about.l

But then, Bush doesn't need to research anything, why should you? Just have your closest friends tell you what's up like he does. (I may be moderate, but I don't like him and he scares me.)

My apologies, I must have misread.

However, the inequality in the system is due to the quality of education in ethnic areas which is substantially lower than the education quality in white areas. This creates and unfortunate gap in intelligence as the ethnic students do not have there potential exploited. If they can get into college with affirmative action, there talents can be honed.
I would really like to know how many here have gone to a minorty school? I went to 9 differnt schools and 2 of them where mostly minorty. 1 of them I was the only white student in my entire grade. In both of these schools it was not the quality of education but the attitude of the STUDENTS. Kind of hard for the teacher to teach when the students do what ever they dam well please and tell the teacher to f*** off if she trys to get them to sit down.

Let's make this clear. I don't really like either of teh two major parties in the US.

Second, Peopleandstuff is correct about labels meaning nothing.

However,
I don't see the wrongness in debating teh concept of when life begins. For at soem point inside of the womb the fetus becomes human. It is only a common sense concept, that at soem point the beginning of life (Which fetus stands for) becomes life. It is now only a matter of at which time the fetus becomes a person. I am no conservative, but I am perfectly fine chattign with someone who is and carries socially conservative values for I value the premise it represents. the crux of the argument is not in most "pro-lifers" minds taking away rights of women but deciding between the rights the woman has over her body and the rights the infant has on itself. Pro lifers err on the side of caution and if you look at msot america they prefer a middle path. Abortion with limits and regulations.

Another thing people often don't understadn is teh reaqction against affirmative action. I understand teh copncept of trying to equalize and wrong injustice. However, it is also a common sense thing to understand whatever your belief affirmative action is special treatment for one group or several groups over others. to many this is contradictory to the concept of every man being created equal. To them it is a choice between wether men should begin with equal oppurtunity or be given equal chances from there. Maybe not the best argument but it isn't without logic.

thirdly, it is not so absurd to beleive in smaller government or more individual rights.

just a small thought for everyoen who wants to call conservative's or republican's stupid. they are not stupid they just ahve several different world views.

Number one" no it is not "pure and simple".

Number two, and I think this can be said to everyone here: do some research so that you aren't just talking out of your ass and repeating the same propaganda that gets fed to you through your media sources, family, and friends.

I *have* done some research, even into the reasons for so called "partial-birth" abortions that even many otherwise liberal people see as wrong. Needless to say there are many more reasons why people do not have abortions until after their first trimester.

To rattle off a few, many complications or information about the pregnancy do not become available into later in the pregnancy, some women do not realize they are pregnant for a while, others know but are scared and/or in denial (pregnancy is traumatic? really?). Those are just a few. I suggest you research what you intend to talk about.l

But then, Bush doesn't need to research anything, why should you? Just have your closest friends tell you what's up like he does. (I may be moderate, but I don't like him and he scares me.)

If you are fooling around having sex, and don't have the responsibility to check if you are pregnant, why in the hell would you give this same parent the right to have an abortion?

It makes zero sense.

So your argument is that a minority student is not given an equal opportunity, it is fair to cheat the other students who deserve to get into college?

Two Students, one White, the other Mexican.

Same marks, same grades, same everything, right down to the font used on their application.

The Mexican gets in because he is Mexican.

Does no one see a problem with this?


Conservative arguments against affirmative action are (as in your case) almost always based on DRASTIC misconceptions about how college admissions happens -- and HAPPENED long before affirmative action ever existed.

Now, having seen what actually goes on in college admissions, how about I enlighten everyone?

The FIRST thing a college or university does is establish a "pool" of qualified applicants. They go through every application, and they don't look at race, or gender, or anything BESIDES grades, test scores, whatever else they have decided, as professionals, counts toward "merit."

Now, this may surprise you... but there are ALWAYS more "qualified" candidates than there are available places in the incoming class. Therefore, narrowing this group down to an acceptance list ALWAYS requires decisions about what the school would like its freshman class to "look like" -- questions about the makeup of the class in terms not precisely definable as "merit."

For instance, a school might want geographical diversity... so even if the top 1000 SAT scores all happen to come from Pennsylvania, within the qualified pool of acceptable scores (not just the TOP 1000) SOME of those very smart, very qualified Pennsylvanians will not be accepted... because the school wants students from all over.

Now, schools want ethnic or racial diversity just as much as geographical diversity (or any of the other kinds of diversity they look for)... So, WITHIN the pool of qualified applicants, if the "very top" is dominated by white boys... then, just as with the Pennsylvanians, SOME of those qualified white kids may be passed up in order to get a higher number of QUALIFIED minority students.

From the point of view of an INDIVIDUAL, a rejection is ALWAYS "unfair" -- there is NO SUCH THING as a fair admissions procedure. When I applied to Ph.D. programs, for instance, I got into some of my top programs... and was surprised to be rejected from my "safety" school!! How could this happen?? I checked their average GRE scores, and found that I was WAAAY above -- clearly, I was "more qualified" than some individuals who had gotten in. Did I think it unfair? Yes. But, why did it happen? The department just wasn't looking for someone with "my interests" -- and, it also happens that like most schools they practice some form of affirmative action with respect to minorities. They were looking for a certain make-up of the incoming class... and I wasn't it. Now, I calmed down... since the students they accepted WERE QUALIFIED, even if they hadn't scored quite as high on the GRE as I had.

Like all qualified (white) students, however, I got in elsewhere. No one was discriminating against me BECAUSE of my race... which is what makes affirmative action different from racist discrimination. To discriminate based on race means that admissions officers have made a decision to disenfranchise a particular race -- and NO ONE had decided that we should "keep down white people." They've just made perfectly reasonable decisions about how to pick FROM AMONGST a pool of qualified applicants to have an attractively diverse student population -- which benefits ALL students.

Better watch out. You can bet your diminishing life quality "change" will be a central slogan in the forthcoming Bush speeches!

I think Ambrose Bierce said it best:
Conservative, n: A statesman who is enamored of existing evils, as distinguished from the Liberal who wishes to replace them with others.

Conservative arguments against affirmative action are (as in your case) almost always based on DRASTIC misconceptions about how college admissions happens -- and HAPPENED long before affirmative action ever existed.

Now, having seen what actually goes on in college admissions, how about I enlighten everyone?

The FIRST thing a college or university does is establish a "pool" of qualified applicants. They go through every application, and they don't look at race, or gender, or anything BESIDES grades, test scores, whatever else they have decided, as professionals, counts toward "merit."

Now, this may surprise you... but there are ALWAYS more "qualified" candidates than there are available places in the incoming class. Therefore, narrowing this group down to an acceptance list ALWAYS requires decisions about what the school would like its freshman class to "look like" -- questions about the makeup of the class in terms not precisely definable as "merit."

For instance, a school might want geographical diversity... so even if the top 1000 SAT scores all happen to come from Pennsylvania, within the qualified pool of acceptable scores (not just the TOP 1000) SOME of those very smart, very qualified Pennsylvanians will not be accepted... because the school wants students from all over.

Now, schools want ethnic or racial diversity just as much as geographical diversity (or any of the other kinds of diversity they look for)... So, WITHIN the pool of qualified applicants, if the "very top" is dominated by white boys... then, just as with the Pennsylvanians, SOME of those qualified white kids may be passed up in order to get a higher number of QUALIFIED minority students.

From the point of view of an INDIVIDUAL, a rejection is ALWAYS "unfair" -- there is NO SUCH THING as a fair admissions procedure. When I applied to Ph.D. programs, for instance, I got into some of my top programs... and was surprised to be rejected from my "safety" school!! How could this happen?? I checked their average GRE scores, and found that I was WAAAY above -- clearly, I was "more qualified" than some individuals who had gotten in. Did I think it unfair? Yes. But, why did it happen? The department just wasn't looking for someone with "my interests" -- and, it also happens that like most schools they practice some form of affirmative action with respect to minorities. They were looking for a certain make-up of the incoming class... and I wasn't it. Now, I calmed down... since the students they accepted WERE QUALIFIED, even if they hadn't scored quite as high on the GRE as I had.

Like all qualified (white) students, however, I got in elsewhere. No one was discriminating against me BECAUSE of my race... which is what makes affirmative action different from racist discrimination. To discriminate based on race means that admissions officers have made a decision to disenfranchise a particular race -- and NO ONE had decided that we should "keep down white people." They've just made perfectly reasonable decisions about how to pick FROM AMONGST a pool of qualified applicants to have an attractively diverse student population -- which benefits ALL students.


Either way you roll the die, you are rewarding students with admission not based on their merit, but on their race, and that is fundamentally wrong.

Last I checked the Constitution still meant something.

Isn't it funny how the conservatives bring up two issues (abortion and affirmative action,) and base their entire case on that. They fail to address my central theme, but instead, try to demonize my whole point with a couple hotly contested issues. Seems like a familiar tactic, no?

The fact is that affirmative action and abortion issues are not entirely satisfactory to liberals either. They are simply the best we can do at the moment. When new ideas come anlong and supercede them, we who are liberals will adopt those better ideas.

Such as, for example, the day after pill. Certainly no one can argue that a 1 day old zygote is a viable person? Yet the conservatives fight the day after pill.

How about we fight the disease and not the symptom by ensuring equal grade-school education for all, instead of basing funding on local property taxes (nicely designed to give the least funding to the poor, therefore preserving the status quo, in standard conservative fashion)? But again, the conservatives would fight against that too, necessitating programs like affirmative action.

But see, I've been drawn into these same arguments again. Typical delaying tactics. It never changes. Ah yes, conservatism at work.

Either way you roll the die, you are rewarding students with admission not based on their merit, but on their race, and that is fundamentally wrong.

Last I checked the Constitution still meant something.

Well, congratulations on completely missing the point.

The pool of MERIT-QUALIFIED applicants is always larger than the number of POSITIONS AVAILABLE. Therefore, admissions officers ALWAYS use, and HAVE ALWAYS used, non-merit criteria for determining the make-up of the freshman class. Race is no different than geographical location, "interests," or any other way in which they try to diversify the school.

The point, again, is that the beneficiaries of affirmative action are ALWAYS "qualified"... in that they meet the minimum requirements set by the school for ALL applicants.

It seems to be the running fantasy of conservatives that admissions officers just walk down the street and pick the first 10 minorities they can find and hand them an acceptance letter. What nonsense!

If you are fooling around having sex, and don't have the responsibility to check if you are pregnant, why in the hell would you give this same parent the right to have an abortion?

It makes zero sense.

And having a child when you are completely irresponsible is going to do any good to the kid? Yeah, sure. :headbang:

Acutally, being conservative means trying to stick to the basic values one believes in and not just flip-flop your values around to suit what's best fit at the moment.

It does not mean a lack of adaption. It's very possible to adapt to new situations while sticking to the basic values.

I could say the same exact thing about your post.

'Running away from the problems, Liberalism at it's finest'.

Now the above statement is both incorrect and inherently stoopid, yet for some reason, Gymoor feels he is just in labeling Conservatives at dodging real issues.

Well NEWS FLASH, THESE ARE REAL ISSUES.

I am not going to engange in this discussion anymore because Gymoor feels that by discussing A & AA is another 'conservative attempt' to distract the public from real issues.

That chain of thought is just so childish and ill-conceived.

I'm done with this thread.

I could say the same exact thing about your post.

'Running away from the problems, Liberalism at it's finest'.

Now the above statement is both incorrect and inherently stoopid, yet for some reason, Gymoor feels he is just in labeling Conservatives at dodging real issues.

Well NEWS FLASH, THESE ARE REAL ISSUES.

I am not going to engange in this discussion anymore because Gymoor feels that by discussing A & AA is another 'conservative attempt' to distract the public from real issues.

That chain of thought is just so childish and ill-conceived.

I'm done with this thread.

I didn't say they weren't real issues. I stated that focusing on two issues that clearly are hot buttons and irreducable (at this point) conflicts merely distracts from the greater point being made. Also, at what point did I run from those problems? I distinctly made a point about finding better solutions to those problems. Obviously, you ignored those points that didn't help you to frame the argument exactly how you wanted to.

The point here people, isn't necessarily about the issues at hand, it's in the basic philosophy of liberalism vs. conservatism. If you think wanting to delve into the causes of issues and finding the sources of the problems is childish and ill-conceived, then you make my point for me, sir.

Having traditional values is fine, as long as it doesn't interfere with innovative and open thought. Being able to see the other sides of things and sometimes come down on the other side of the fence may seen like a flip-flop to those with closed minds. I on the other hand, see it as being able to look rationally at information without one's preconceptions and ego getting in the way.

Why do both sides fundamentally believe that the other is stupid? Liberalism is an extremely noble ideal, based on careful consideration of what would be best for the world and then working on that, but unfortunately because "Liberal" is such a broad term, it is taken to incorporate every yahoo who thinks drugs should be illegalised and tax not applicable to "free spirits". Further to that, because Liberalism doesn't follow any set views, there is much more of a problem with the branding of these views, as within any Liberal party, there will be massive discension on most issues, which means that Liberals get painted as weak because their party is unable to do anything due to argument within; all too readily painted by Conservatives as being a lack of unity.

There are altogether too often conservative or right wing leaders who are either dominated solely by advisors or seek to dominate everything around them, and so the Left paints them as being stupid and easily led: republicans and Conservatives do have the courage of their convictions, and usually the will to carry them out, so we can't just write them off.

The crux of the matter is, as far as I can see, that Conservatives look at the world and say "This is our lot, and this is what we believe, so let's make the best we can of it.", whereas Liberals look and say "this is what our lot could be, let's improve everything for everyone." Both are equally valid perspectives, though one is cynical, and the other naive.

My point therefore is this; stop drawing party lines, stop launching character attacks; act according to your principles and acknowledge that the other guys have probably got something to bring to the table.

Why do both sides fundamentally believe that the other is stupid? Liberalism is an extremely noble ideal, based on careful consideration of what would be best for the world and then working on that, but unfortunately because "Liberal" is such a broad term, it is taken to incorporate every yahoo who thinks drugs should be illegalised and tax not applicable to "free spirits". Further to that, because Liberalism doesn't follow any set views, there is much more of a problem with the branding of these views, as within any Liberal party, there will be massive discension on most issues, which means that Liberals get painted as weak because their party is unable to do anything due to argument within; all too readily painted by Conservatives as being a lack of unity.

There are altogether too often conservative or right wing leaders who are either dominated solely by advisors or seek to dominate everything around them, and so the Left paints them as being stupid and easily led: republicans and Conservatives do have the courage of their convictions, and usually the will to carry them out, so we can't just write them off.

The crux of the matter is, as far as I can see, that Conservatives look at the world and say "This is our lot, and this is what we believe, so let's make the best we can of it.", whereas Liberals look and say "this is what our lot could be, let's improve everything for everyone." Both are equally valid perspectives, though one is cynical, and the other naive.

My point therefore is this; stop drawing party lines, stop launching character attacks; act according to your principles and acknowledge that the other guys have probably got something to bring to the table.

You make a very good point, sir. But rather than pointing at distinct party lines, I'm trying to clarify the difference in philosophy between liberal and conservative thought.
History is rife with proof that there is always a better way of doing things. I'm sure there were people in Colonial America who were perfectly happy with their lot. It's a good thing some of them (not even a majority at the time of the Revolutionary War,) decided that they wanted something better and did something nearly unprecedented about it. Many thought human dissection was evil. Scientist have often been persecuted for speaking new truths.

To think that things cannot get better is the naive view, to my thinking. To think that the way things are done now is the best way is fuzzy thinking and borders on hubris.

You make a very good point, sir. But rather than pointing at distinct party lines, I'm trying to clarify the difference in philosophy between liberal and conservative thought.

Yet, you ignore my post on the issue.


History is rife with proof that there is always a better way of doing things. .
As already posted. Being concervative means sticking with your values, and not changing your values around to fit the current oppinion.

It does not mean having to do things the same way forever or not being able to adapt.

Yet, you ignore my post on the issue.


As already posted. Being concervative means sticking with your values, and not changing your values around to fit the current oppinion.

It does not mean having to do things the same way forever or not being able to adapt.

I didn't ignore your post. I read it, but responded to something else.

So, what happens when your values disagree with new and better information? What values stay the same and which evolve over time? If you are raised in a rascist environment, and believing in the superiority of your race is a core value you were raised with, by your argument, being conservative would mean that that belief would not change. If you came to realise the value of all people, you would become a flip-flopper then? Who can define what values are unchangeable?

Of course there are some values that are common sense. Respect for life and other's property. Family. Decency. The are values we all agree on and really aren't subject to change, whetehr you're liberal or conservative. What values are you suggesting that liberals are inconsistent on then? Funding the military, for example? What if the bill that comes by has a lot of waste attached? What if it's for an expansion that you see as unwarranted? Does being pro-military mean you have to vote for every military bill that comes by? Seems pretty undiscriminating to me. I'd prefer someone who can analyze the merits of something based on all the information, rather than a slavish dedication to a single platform.

I didn't ignore your post. I read it, but responded to something else.

:headbang:


So, what happens when your values disagree with new and better information?

Ahh... that questions shows the nature of not being conservative. Something new comes along, and the values change to fit.

Values are subjective and based on opinions of right and wrong. And they, in a conservative view, is not supposed to change very often. Values are not based on information, but the subjective opinion is of course based on how one sees the world. It might seem a bit contradictive, but it's not.

But believing in sticking to your values does not mean it's impossible to change them. If you dicover that what you were raised to believe in is not what you believe is right, then it is of course it is possible to change your belief system.

But conservative means that you don't easily change your oppinions of right and wrong based on what issues are at hand. A couple of examples that are relevant today.

If you believe killing of humans are wrong, and you believe a fetis is a small human, then being conservative means you believe abortion is wrong.

If you believe all people have a right to freedom and democracy, and you believe it's something worth fighting for, then you believe it's right and worth fighting for in Iraq too.

If you believe force can be used to uphold the law and protect people nationally (believing in having a police force) then you believe it's right internationally.

If you believe in the value of the traditional family, you don't stop believing in these values just because more and more people choose to live differently.

Yes, I know there are more issues in these debates. I'm just keeping it simple to illustrate.



What values stay the same and which evolve over time?

Values do never evolve. But sometimes one may discover that values were wrong, and then change values.

But the idea is. Values are not formed by fit the issues at hand, but opinions on issues are formed by the values.


Who can define what values are unchangeable?

That is of course highly subjective.



Does being pro-military mean you have to vote for every military bill that comes by?

Of course not.


Seems pretty undiscriminating to me. I'd prefer someone who can analyze the merits of something based on all the information, rather than a slavish dedication to a single platform.
It seems to me you confuse issues and values. A value system is the basic ethics of right and wrong you believe in. It has nothing to with not being able to analyze a situation and considering information and different opinions. What it does mean is that you will try to chose what is right over what you want.

I'm completely aganst "Affirmative action" it's nothing more than reverse racism. I believe in a system that rewards for merit, hard work and diligence - not the colour of your skin! And I'm sick and tired about this pervasive guild that been going around for the last 40 years or so trying to make me (and my people) feel guilty about our past.

Get the hell over it! It happened, let's move on!

Although I part of a majority, I often feel like I'm treated like a minority in my own country.

As for preserving the "status Quo", what the hell is wrong with that!? I happen to favour a great number of traditions. In other words, if it works. don't fuck with it!

The problem with many liberals is that they seem to automatically assume that change = good. This is a tragic falsehood, Change in itself is neither good nor bad, it is simply change - and nothing more!

Buggard, I can't agree with your definition. I don't really think Liberalism and Conservatism are based on basic values as you define them at all. Those basic values are a function of society and upbringing, rather than political philosophy. Other than the mentally ill, or the malignantly unscrupulous, I don't think anyone redefines their basic values depending on the situation. To me, this sounds like an attempt to dehumanize those you disagree with.

Your definition basically defines liberals as evil, and I can't accept that. Give me a real world example of someone you would define as liberal changing their values to suit a situation.

I'm completely aganst "Affirmative action" it's nothing more than reverse racism. I believe in a system that rewards for merit, hard work and diligence - not the colour of your skin! And I'm sick and tired about this pervasive guild that been going around for the last 40 years or so trying to make me (and my people) feel guilty about our past.

Get the hell over it! It happened, let's move on!

Although I part of a majority, I often feel like I'm treated like a minority in my own country.

As for preserving the "status Quo", what the hell is wrong with that!? I happen to favour a great number of traditions. In other words, if it works. don't fuck with it!

The problem with many liberals is that they seem to automatically assume that change = good. This is a tragic falsehood, Change in itself is neither good nor bad, it is simply change - and nothing more!

Likewise a resistance to change isn't "good" either. What is wrong with sticking with the status quo is that history has shown us we can always do better. I'm not saying everything has to change, nor should change be "forced". If we can find better ways to do certain things, why should we not pursue them? Those who find themselves in comfortable situations of course have no necessity to change. There are those who are not so comfortable, and never will be unless the status quo is changed. As history teaches us, change is inevitable. Do we resist it and risk revolution, or do we seek out gradual, rational and controlled change?

Make no mistake, change will come. How will we prepare for it?

Buggard,

"If you believe all people have a right to freedom and democracy, and you believe it's something worth fighting for, then you believe it's right and worth fighting for in Iraq too."

Well, with that example, we should be fighting in North Korea, the Sudan, and anywhere where human rights are trampled. We'd be involved in a never-ending series of wars for other people. Can you show me a single example of an outside force successfully interceding in the affairs of an oppressed people and creating a working Democracy for them, especially after a prolonged occupation? I agree that Democracy is worth fighting for, but I also think that the only way for it to work is if it comes internally, as it did in our country. If a country erupts in civil war and asks for our help, I'm all for going in and doing so, but is imposed Democracy even possible? Isn't that a contradiction in terms? Especially in the Middle East, where there never has been Democracy, and the only limited stability that ever seems to come about in that region comes about under the heel of an iron boot. If we really wanted Democracy there, then we needed to come up with an idea better than a rushed and foolhardy war of choice.

Also, if our goal was to create a Democracy in Iraq, then why did we need the doctored reasons of ties to Al Qaeda and WMD? Doesn't it seem that our leaders changed their values mid-stream? Didn't George W himself say he wasn't interested in nation building?

Resistance to change can be if that change is undesirable. I resist certain so called "good changes" and rightfully so!

Change in itself is often "marketed" to the young who are infinately maleable, and many of which lack forethought and wisdom when making choices. Certainly much more so than older people who have more experience under their belts. Who have "seen more" so to speak.

Most young people (and many people in general) equate change (whether conciously or subconciously) as a 'good" thing. In some cases it is, such as the development more efficient technologies, for example.

I myself support space exploration, envirnmental protection and habitate preservation, the development of more efficient technologies, the preservation of our cultural and national idendity (and yes, I would even go so far as to say racial idendity as well, regardless of getting fingers pointed at me calling me "racist"), gentic engineeering, cloning from stem cell research and so on.

But I condemn mass immigration, affirmative action, rampart abortion, exccess capitalism which often leads to morbid decadence and gross consumerism, the "mangling" of the English language by slang and poor grammer, most so called "youth sub-cultures" (which I find worthless and hardly cultural at all) and so on.

I am convinced that deep within myself, these are sound values and beliefs and will uphold them as such.

Buggard, I can't agree with your definition.

In other words, you're not conservative.


I don't really think Liberalism and Conservatism are based on basic values as you define them at all.

To me being conservative means that.


Those basic values are a function of society and upbringing, rather than political philosophy.

As I said, they are subjective and based on how one sees the world. So you're right on this one.



Other than the mentally ill, or the malignantly unscrupulous, I don't think anyone redefines their basic values depending on the situation. To me, this sounds like an attempt to dehumanize those you disagree with.

Oh, but people are. Many people are inconsistent in their oppinions, chosing whatever arguments fit the moment. This is probably not consciously chaning their ethics as they go along, but it is lacking strong ethics.

But some people even go further. They claim that what is right for them may be wrong for someone else. That is called culture relativism. And that, Gymoor, is the root of all evil. Culture relativism means you accept that other people are doing wrong, based on the idea that right and wrong is subjective (which it is). The mistake here is believing that because someone else thinks something is right, it is right for them even though you yourself think it's wrong. If you believe something is right or wrong, you have to believe that it is so for everybod, and not only for yourself. You have to take a stand and believe in your own ethics.

The obvious argument about this is, how do I know I am right and the other guy is wrong? The answer is, I have to. If not, ethics is worth nothing. Nothing would be right or wrong, and I would be unable to say anything was wrong. I would have to say, 'Slavery, probably right for you!'. 'Child abuse, probably right for you!'. 'Mutilation of female genetalie, probably right in your culture. Your religion says so, and who am I do say that is wrong?'.

I am not saying democrats in general do this, but I am saying conservatism is (among other things) about not doing this. Think about Bush' talks about good and evil in the context of above. You see that he fits conservatism quite well in this sense? What democrats chose to do is up to the democrats.


Your definition basically defines liberals as evil, and I can't accept that. Give me a real world example of someone you would define as liberal changing their values to suit a situation.
No, I am not saying that. I am talking about what conservatism is. If someone is not conservative, it does not necessarily mean they are the opposite. It's you who, based on what I say, draw this conclusion.

But if you really do think democrats fits my description, then maybe you should consider not being a democrat any more.

When you say 'I can't accept that', it's actually quite ironic. You seem to do exactly what I said I think is wrong. You seem to think, 'Being a democrat is the right thing to be, I can't accept a point of view that would change my conclusion'. This is dismissing arguments that don't fit your conclusion.

I am not going to give you any real world examples. That is because I am not talking about what democrats are like, rather I am talking about conservatism of values. Also, I cannot presume to know any democrats full intentions behind his/hers choices. However, I have in the issues mentioned in the prvious post, indicated where democrates might be doing this, subconsciously.

Well Sskiss, if those are your beliefs, then I hope you'll be voting for Kerry, or working to find a viable 3rd party candidate in the near future.

Gymoor, I think you have missed the point with regards to conservatism. People with conservative views base their views on their principles. These principles or values as they have been called earlier are the basics by which we determine right and wrong. They are shaped over our lifetime and it is from these principles that we determine our stance on issues.
This does not mean conservatives are unable to adapt because the principles by which conservatives base their opinions are challenged everyday. The reason you see conservatives as being unable to adapt is because your pattern of beliefs is based on idealism. Your ideals change regularly depending on what is happening in the community where conservatives analyse the issues against their principles.
As was stated earlier, these principles are applied across the board. Where you can justify the killing of an unborn child for convenience by deciding that a "bunch of cells" are not human, conservatives believe that killing innocent humans is wrong no matter what stage if development the child is at. You may see it as being inflexible but a conservative sees it as common sense.
Your narrow-minded view of conservatism and your desire to label those who have conservative beliefs as stupid proves you have no clue what conservatism is about.

Well Sskiss, if those are your beliefs, then I hope you'll be voting for Kerry, or working to find a viable 3rd party candidate in the near future.

I'm not a US citizen, and I do not care for either Kerry or Bush. As a Canadian, I voted for the newly formed Conservative /Alliance party. They do not hold all my beliefs, but no political party ever does. You have to take the "good with the bad" in such cases.

I have been called many things, but "wishy washy" was never one of them!

You say minorities are set back, but why?

It is not because of their race/ethnicity or nationality. Affirmative Action rewards inferior students with entrance to college; students getting in not because they deserve it, but because society feels sorry for them.

Let me explain something to you by showing you an analogy. You are a conservative, so most likely you like sports.

You have two runningbacks. Both of them are exactly the same, except for a couple of small things. One grew up in a poorer area, where he had little opportunity and had to work for everything he had. He could not play football as much as the other guy. The other guy grew up in a well off neighborhood, where he could practice football as much as he wanted to because he had no worries.

The rich one runs a 100 meter dash faster than the poorer one. Now, which one, as a coach, would you choose? The richer faster one, or the poorer slower one?

The slower one. Why? Because he has more potential. He has gone through more and if you focus him on football, he can be far better than the richer one. The rich one is only good because he has practiced all his life. The poorer one is not quite as good, but has not had as much experience in the game. But once he gets that experience, he will be far better than the other one. (I have actually seen this done in person by a friend of mine who was playing Anstoss 3, a soccer manager simulation game in Germany).

So, the same goes here. You have two students. One who is black, one who is white. The black student, even in todays culture, has had more hardships (in general) than the white student. If they both have similar scores, the college should take the black student because he has gone through more. Once he is in the system, he can blossom more than the white student because he was not able to show all his colors previously, due to hardships. Now, this is not always the case, but this is the general idea, in my opinion.

I am white.

Two Students, one White, the other Mexican.

Same marks, same grades, same everything, right down to the font used on their application.

The Mexican gets in because he is Mexican.

Does no one see a problem with this?

I see none. See my post above.

Buggard,
Well, with that example, we should be fighting in North Korea, the Sudan, and anywhere where human rights are trampled.

Yes, we most definitely should! Absolutely!

It is utterly wrong an immoral to allow such things to happen.

More to the point, the UN (as an international police force), should do this. The UN should have clear guidelines about how to handle such nations, where the use of force should be tha last meassure.


We'd be involved in a never-ending series of wars for other people. Can you show me a single example of an outside force successfully interceding in the affairs of an oppressed people and creating a working Democracy for them, especially after a prolonged occupation?

I am no historian, but how about world war II where the nazis were driven out of several occupied nations?

How about all the interventions that were done to stop communism? Like in the korean war?


I agree that Democracy is worth fighting for, but I also think that the only way for it to work is if it comes internally, as it did in our country. If a country erupts in civil war and asks for our help, I'm all for going in and doing so, but is imposed Democracy even possible?

Why do you think democracy is impossible when an outside force intervenes? What is the logical argument for this point of view?

I've hear it many times. Many people repeats this. But I have never heard anyone backing it up with facts or argumentation.

And what do you think a civil war in for example Iraq would come to? How many years of fighting? How many deaths? How much suffering?



Isn't that a contradiction in terms? Especially in the Middle East, where there never has been Democracy, and the only limited stability that ever seems to come about in that region comes about under the heel of an iron boot. If we really wanted Democracy there, then we needed to come up with an idea better than a rushed and foolhardy war of choice.

I am all ears. Please tell me about these posibilites. Because I seriously don't like war, and I only think war is the last sollution when everything else fails. So if you have some good ideas to solve this problem, that hasn't been tried before, please share!




Also, if our goal was to create a Democracy in Iraq, then why did we need the doctored reasons of ties to Al Qaeda and WMD? Doesn't it seem that our leaders changed their values mid-stream? Didn't George W himself say he wasn't interested in nation building?
Because the US is not an international police force. That should be the role of the UN. The US acts mainly in self interests. But that does noe change the values of what is right and wrong! It is still the right thing to do to fight for freedom and democracy, even if the fight also was against terrorism and possible treats from WMD. One reason does not exclude the other.

I wish the UN would act as the police force. Failing that I wish the US would do so, with support from the UN. But unfortunately the UN is not doing this, and the UN opposes the US. This situation forces the US to not intervene, unless the US think the selv interest is great enough. (Whether or not the US would act as a police force with UN support is speculation.)

Let me explain something to you by showing you an analogy. You are a conservative, so most likely you like sports.

You have two runningbacks. Both of them are exactly the same, except for a couple of small things. One grew up in a poorer area, where he had little opportunity and had to work for everything he had. He could not play football as much as the other guy. The other guy grew up in a well off neighborhood, where he could practice football as much as he wanted to because he had no worries.

The rich one runs a 100 meter dash faster than the poorer one. Now, which one, as a coach, would you choose? The richer faster one, or the poorer slower one?

The slower one. Why? Because he has more potential. He has gone through more and if you focus him on football, he can be far better than the richer one. The rich one is only good because he has practiced all his life. The poorer one is not quite as good, but has not had as much experience in the game. But once he gets that experience, he will be far better than the other one. (I have actually seen this done in person by a friend of mine who was playing Anstoss 3, a soccer manager simulation game in Germany).

So, the same goes here. You have two students. One who is black, one who is white. The black student, even in todays culture, has had more hardships (in general) than the white student. If they both have similar scores, the college should take the black student because he has gone through more. Once he is in the system, he can blossom more than the white student because he was not able to show all his colors previously, due to hardships. Now, this is not always the case, but this is the general idea, in my opinion.

I am white.


What a load of crap. :eek:

You beat me to it Tygaland, thanks. His example is what they call pure anecdotal evidence - and I'm being polite about it!

It's yet more proof why I despise Affirmative action - it's racism in sheeps clothing!

yes that is right. currently, someone with an objective view would see that life is good and that it does not need to be fucked with. that is not what I would call a "flaw"

The above is brilliantly insightful. Rooting for the status quo means *you* are happy with *your* spot in life, and lack the imagination to see that it could be better. Worse yet, you lack the sympathy to see that not everyone has it nice like you. Most progressive legislation and thought from liberals stems from their underlying need to sympathize with those who are getting dicked over by the system, and feel that it needs a severe fucking up.

An "objective" view, as you advocate, should include the following:
1. the sweatshop slave labor that went into making your Nikes
2. the billions of people who do not have disease-free, drinkable water
3. the millions of babies who will die from preventable diseases because of lack of vaccinnation
4. the millions of people who will contract HIV because their country lacks the resources to educate them about basic sexual health
5. the millions of people who will starve to death this year

I guess as long as you're privileged enough not to be in the above 5 categories, you can "objectively" say that things are peachy keen.

I disagree with the originator of the thread that "conservatism means rooting for the status quo". Although this is true at a literal level, I think that the ideals of conservatism - lower taxes, smaller government, etc. - are quite noble. Unfortunately ever since Reagan and the enlistment of the religious right into the Republican ranks, things have been getting wonky, and conservatism is now somehow about government regulating what is and isn't legal in the bedroom (even if it's consentual).

I didn't say Democrats fit your description. Nor did I say I was describing Democrats. Nor did I even say I was a Democrat. You shouldn't put words in my mouth any more than I should do likewise to you.

I am saying that your definition of liberal and conservative, as they apply to politics and society, do not fit with my definitions. I am politely disagreeing with your position that to be liberal is to have mercurial and situational values. To be honest, I think liberalism and conservatism have much more to do with one's general outlook.

When dealing with another culture with another set of values, it is very important to realize that those values did not spring up out of a vacuum. They have a historical context, and to impose our values of right and wrong on others is to both deny them their history, and to deny ourselves of better understanding of our own values. Most would agree that suicide, for example, is a desperate cry for help in our society. In feudal Japanese culture though, suicide was sometimes the only honorable resolution to a failure or betrayal. Failure or loss of face was worse than death. It was a warrior-based society where the weak and unsuccessful could cost a ruler his life. While I personally disagree with it, it was a perceived necessity for the time and place. To interfere with it externally would be morally wrong, and would cause incredible chaos.

To respect something is not the same as embracing it. To have a new perspective is not the same as changing your values.

For another example. Many see gay marriage (to use a popular wedge issue,) as an erosion of family values. They are welcome to their point of view. Those who are gay see gay marriage as only fair, and as a way for them to have an equal claim to family values. To deny them their right is to deny them the family they want. And when you think about it, two gay people getting married shouldn't effect someone who isn't gay in the least, unless they fail to respect said gay family.

I'm not saying you are for or against any of this, I am merely making examples.

You beat me to it Tygaland, thanks. His example is what they call pure anecdotal evidence - and I'm being polite about it!

It's yet more proof why I despise Affirmative action - it's racism in sheeps clothing!

Yes, it was racism and stereotyping all wrapped in a big bag of bs. The fact that people actually believe that is mindboggling.

Too bad if the running back from the "well off" neighbourhood actually had a great work ethic. But lets not give him a chance on merit, lets judge him on our stereotype chart and pick the other guy. Unbelievable... :rolleyes:

How much do you wanna bet that some much more deserving kid was kept out of Yale because you namesake's daddy went to Yale?

Great way to answer a question..with a question..and for the record...I am a minority...and all affirmative action does is perpetuate the belief that we are victims..that we need someone else to help us....Martin Luther King would be positively aghast at the system of Affirmative Action, he never would have approved had he lived..his dream was for minorities to stand on their own two feet....Malcolm X had the same philosophy to an extent..that the only victim is a person who lets themselves become a victim..

Though it is not a 100% correlation, you will find that the preponderance of those with great wealth are "conservative", while those with little wealth are "liberal". Again, not a perfect fit, but close enough.
Why?
Because those with wealth and power would like to see those things remain in their hands. Logical and not unexpected. Those that are on the lower end of the society will of course want change, something to give them a rung so they can pull themselves up from their circumstances.

Neither of these positions is wrong. In a sense, it is a social eco-system. When things get too stagnant, the "lower" end of society tends to get angry, riots break out, and if still unchanged, sometimes revolution. However, it is too easy to point to the "conservatives" as wrong or evil.

Trust me, there will always be have and have-nots.

Too bad if the running back from the "well off" neighbourhood actually had a great work ethic. But lets not give him a chance on merit, lets judge him on our stereotype chart and pick the other guy. Unbelievable... :rolleyes:

You missed the point, both of you. The one from the poorer neighborhood did not have a poor work ethic, he just could not focus on just football because he did not always have food infront of him! The rich guy could, because he did not have to worry about clothing or food.

The point is, the poor guy had more potential than the rich guy. The rich guy has reached his max, but the poor guy had a long ways to go before he peaked in performance.

Yes, it was racism and stereotyping all wrapped in a big bag of bs. The fact that people actually believe that is mindboggling.

Too bad if the running back from the "well off" neighbourhood actually had a great work ethic. But lets not give him a chance on merit, lets judge him on our stereotype chart and pick the other guy. Unbelievable... :rolleyes:

Like I said, reverse racism, but somehow it's "exceptable" nowadays...go figure...

And although I'm still in the majority, somehow I'm supposed to be made to feel guilty about it?! This PC crap has gone out of hand!

Buggard,

I am no historian, but how about world war II where the nazis were driven out of several occupied nations?

How about all the interventions that were done to stop communism? Like in the korean war?

The occupied nations we drove the Nazis out of were democratic before the war started, we also had their full cooperation, and were allied with them. Furthermore, they were all of Western culture, and so we had a much better basis of understanding with them. Iraq has never been a peaceful democracy, nor does it show any real signs of being one. Also, since the majority of Iraq is fundamentalist Islam, a democratically elected leadership (if it's left up to the populace) would end up a Islamic Theocracy, similar to Iran. This, of course, will be a heavy breeding ground for terrorists, at which point Iraq will become an even greater threat to the US than it ever was before. Our government will never allow Iraq to democratically govern itself. All the more reason why that war fits the category of A Very Bad Idea

As for the results of the Korean war, I direct you to North Korea.

Great way to answer a question..with a question..and for the record...I am a minority...and all affirmative action does is perpetuate the belief that we are victims..that we need someone else to help us....Martin Luther King would be positively aghast at the system of Affirmative Action, he never would have approved had he lived..his dream was for minorities to stand on their own two feet....Malcolm X had the same philosophy to an extent..that the only victim is a person who lets themselves become a victim..

Then do not accept it. Reject your acceptance letter. But let other minorities accept their acceptance letters.

Hm... thought problem:

A young man, who happens to be white, is born in the nation of South Africa. At the age of 6, his parents (also born and raised in South Africa) move to America, and become citizens. Fast forward to this young man at 18. He's filling out college admission forms. This raises a couple questions:

1) Does he qualify for "African-American" scholarships? After all, he actually is African-American, as in an American who hails from Africa; he's just not black.

2) What does he check for 'race/ethnicity'? African-American, or white? Both?

3) Does he have greater claim to priveleges for African-Americans than a young black man who's family has lived in America for generations? What about a black youth who's family is rich?

4) Finally, what if the white African-American in question comes from a dirt poor family who were from a different African country and they came to America to flee human-rights abuses?

You missed the point, both of you. The one from the poorer neighborhood did not have a poor work ethic, he just could not focus on just football because he did not always have food infront of him! The rich guy could, because he did not have to worry about clothing or food.

The point is, the poor guy had more potential than the rich guy. The rich guy has reached his max, but the poor guy had a long ways to go before he peaked in performance.

And how the hell do you know that?! Again it sounds like BS to me. It's descrimination based on somebodies elses social status and possibly race as well!

Which seems to be in vogue nowadays...

Then do not accept it. Reject your acceptance letter. But let other minorities accept their acceptance letters.

What..and continue to let whites look at us all as victims??...That we are children who must be hand-held thruout life..the men who helped bring civil rights to this nation would be positively horrified at affirmative action...it's reverse racism...and while a younger Malcolm X might have applauded, it is damn sure that King would have fought it tooth and nail..what he wanted for his people was not to be put above the white man..but simply up on the same level and let life take it's course.

Very good points, Hack. As I said before, Affirmative Action is merely an band-aid. It helps with the relative imbalance and counteracts cronyism. It treats the symptom, but it's not a cure. It's a thumb on the scales, rather than a real balancing. But it's the best we have (or the best we're allowed to have,) at the moment.

What the REAL solution is is to stop the practice of funding schools with local property taxes. Poor kids go to underfunded schools and end up more likely to underacheive in school, so they are less able to compete in the workplace and have to stay in the poor areas. It's a viscious cycle.

And how the hell do you know that?!

It is called logic.

One guy has been practicing all his life, doing nothing but football.

The other guy did football all he could, but had many other things in his life that he had to do (eat). He could not devote all his time to football.

So you have guy A (rich guy) and guy B (poor guy). Guy A has practiced all his life, all he could. Guy B has not practiced as much because he could not. Guy B is not quite as good as Guy A, but he sure can compete with him. Guy B, if he focuses everything on football, can logically surpass Guy A because Guy A has practiced a lot more and is not that much better than Guy B. It is called logic.

I have played Counter-Strike for a bit. So, if someone who does his homework instead of playing CS (not me) comes in and almost beats me consistantly, I would say he has a lot more potential than I. Because I have been practicing a lot more than he has and he is almost as good as me still. So logically, if he were to practice as much as me, he would be a lot better than me in the end.

You missed the point, both of you. The one from the poorer neighborhood did not have a poor work ethic, he just could not focus on just football because he did not always have food infront of him! The rich guy could, because he did not have to worry about clothing or food.

The point is, the poor guy had more potential than the rich guy. The rich guy has reached his max, but the poor guy had a long ways to go before he peaked in performance.

You are missing the point. No-one said the poor guy had a poor work ethic..YOU said the "well off" guy had a poor work ethic due purely to the fact he came from a "well off" area.
How do you know the rich guy had reached his max? How do you know the poor guy had more to give by way of potential? I can only assume you base this on stereotypes and racism.

Very good points, Hack. As I said before, Affirmative Action is merely an band-aid. It helps with the relative imbalance and counteracts cronyism. It treats the symptom, but it's not a cure. It's a thumb on the scales, rather than a real balancing. But it's the best we have (or the best we're allowed to have,) at the moment.

What the REAL solution is is to stop the practice of funding schools with local property taxes. Poor kids go to underfunded schools and end up more likely to underacheive in school, so they are less able to compete in the workplace and have to stay in the poor areas. It's a viscious cycle.

A band-aid that has been in place for 30 yrs...with no end in sight..it's time to remove that band-aid and see if the body can stand on it's own. It's reverse racism anyway ya slice it....

What the REAL solution is is to stop the practice of funding schools with local property taxes. Poor kids go to underfunded schools and end up more likely to underacheive in school, so they are less able to compete in the workplace and have to stay in the poor areas.
Mmm... vouchers...

I would really like to know how many here have gone to a minorty school? I went to 9 differnt schools and 2 of them where mostly minorty. 1 of them I was the only white student in my entire grade. In both of these schools it was not the quality of education but the attitude of the STUDENTS. Kind of hard for the teacher to teach when the students do what ever they dam well please and tell the teacher to f*** off if she trys to get them to sit down.


The truth is these minoriy students have been told there whole lives that they will never amount to anything. That is why they goof off. They are not idiots a lot of them see that the chances of them going to college or being successful are slim to none.

A band-aid that has been in place for 30 yrs...with no end in sight..it's time to remove that band-aid and see if the body can stand on it's own. It's reverse racism anyway ya slice it....

Couldn't agree more Salishe.

What..and continue to let whites look at us all as victims??...That we are children who must be hand-held thruout life..the men who helped bring civil rights to this nation would be positively horrified at affirmative action...it's reverse racism...and while a younger Malcolm X might have applauded, it is damn sure that King would have fought it tooth and nail..what he wanted for his people was not to be put above the white man..but simply up on the same level and let life take it's course.

Did you read the post near the beginning about how college acceptance really works? No one is being looked at as a victim. No unqualified candidates are being hand-held. It's a method to make sure that the pool of qualified candidates who are accepted are as diverse as possible, which is really to everyone's benefit. Does the unqualified rich kid with great connections feel like a victim? The only one who can make you feel like a victim is yourself, and if you think a helping hand demeans you somehow, then you need to get over yourself.

You are missing the point. No-one said the poor guy had a poor work ethic..YOU said the "well off" guy had a poor work ethic due purely to the fact he came from a "well off" area.
How do you know the rich guy had reached his max? How do you know the poor guy had more to give by way of potential? I can only assume you base this on stereotypes and racism.

Way to pull that one out of your ass.

I never once implied that the rich guy had poor work ethic. I even said that he focused solely on football! Which was my point! He focused on football! He put everything into football! The other guy did not, and he can still compete! Logically, come on. Use some god damn logic here people! The guy who had to do other things besides football can compete with a guy who has done nothing but football his entire life. Is that not a slight hint that the guy who is not quite as good can do a lot better if you were focus him in on football?

But I guess the 2nd string quarterback, since he is not quite as good as the starter, should not be given a chance even though he never plays a single game during the season and only plays during practice. The starter gets all the playing time, that is why he is a little better than the second string guy! Not because he has more skill, but because he has more playing time.

PS
If I seem a little irritable, it is because it is 5:20 in the morning where I am at.

The truth is these minoriy students have been told there whole lives that they will never amount to anything. That is why they goof off. They are not idiots a lot of them see that the chances of them going to college or being successful are slim to none.

Told by who?

Mmm... vouchers...

Vouchers? How about equal funding? Equal funding costs no one extra, it just distributes the wealth evenly to schools.

Why is the conservative's answer to everything to privatize it? A school's job is to educate and look after the kids, when you introduce capitalistic competition into something like that, you get a mess, and the disparity between the have and have-nots increases. A public school is not a business. A business is there to make money. Period. It does not have anyone's best interest at heart.

Did you read the post near the beginning about how college acceptance really works? No one is being looked at as a victim. No unqualified candidates are being hand-held. It's a method to make sure that the pool of qualified candidates who are accepted are as diverse as possible, which is really to everyone's benefit. Does the unqualified rich kid with great connections feel like a victim? The only one who can make you feel like a victim is yourself, and if you think a helping hand demeans you somehow, then you need to get over yourself.

No..you need to check yourself if you think I need a helping hand...didn't want one..never asked for one...but yet someone I am being sold this bill of goods that I can't get into college on my own..that someone must hold a place for me just because of my skin color...now..what do I tell the white kid who didn't get in because they held a quota slot for me?

Way to pull that one out of your ass.

I never once implied that the rich guy had poor work ethic. I even said that he focused solely on football! Which was my point! He focused on football! He put everything into football! The other guy did not, and he can still compete! Logically, come on. Use some god damn logic here people! The guy who had to do other things besides football can compete with a guy who has done nothing but football his entire life. Is that not a slight hint that the guy who is not quite as good can do a lot better if you were focus him in on football?

But I guess the 2nd string quarterback, since he is not quite as good as the starter, should not be given a chance even though he never plays a single game during the season and only plays during practice. The starter gets all the playing time, that is why he is a little better than the second string guy! Not because he has more skill, but because he has more playing time.

PS
If I seem a little irritable, it is because it is 5:20 in the morning where I am at.


Here's the assumptions you are making to support your belief:

1. The person from the more affluent background devoted his who life to football.

2. The person from the poorer background did not.

3. Because of the more affluent upbringing the rich person was less likely to improve.

4. Because of the less fortunate upbringing the poor person had so much more potential to build on.

These are called stereotypes. Not facts, not treating each person on their merits but purely stereotypes in which you place everyone according to your preconceived ideas. It is this kind of narrowmindedness that breeds racism and discrimination.

No..you need to check yourself if you think I need a helping hand...didn't want one..never asked for one...but yet someone I am being sold this bill of goods that I can't get into college on my own..that someone must hold a place for me just because of my skin color...now..what do I tell the white kid who didn't get in because they held a quota slot for me?

I frankly agree with the other guy. You should try to suck up the blow to your pride. There are other people of all races who have endured hardships due to their race. They should not be penalized for not getting as good of scores as someone who had a silver spoon in their mouth.

I like the UC (University of California) system. They ask if there is anything you had to go through as a child that made it difficult for you. That is basically their affirmative action. They take that part and weigh it heavily in their acceptance process.

For some reason, being conservative has been glorified as being more patriotic, tough, and rational. It is no such thing.

To most people, being conservative has been boiled down to lower taxes, a powerful military and a stronger connection to traditional values. Unfortunately, being conservative literally means a want or need to cling to the status quo. Those who are in power should stay in power. Thoughts and ideas should remain caught in stasis, no matter what new information comes along. Traditional values (whatever those are,) change from place to place and time to time and depend on culture. To say that your values are somehow superior is an inexcuasable self-deceit that borders on bigotry.

For example, at one point people who did not adhere to the ideals of the Catholic Church were burned at the stake. If one were conservative, then this practice would never have changed. Under conservative ideals, slaves would never have been freed, Democracy would never have been developed, women's rights would never have emerged, technology would have stagnated, and, in general, human rights would b in a barbaric state.

Therefore, in my mind, conservatism equates to either being stupid, corrupt, or simply stubborn.

Liberals are progressive. Liberals adapt to changing times. Liberals innovate. Liberals are able to logically grasp new information and change their ideas about the world around them. This, of course, is seen by conservatives, as "flip-flopping." This is an easy, finger-pointing strategy to enable conservatives who are too afraid of new things or too attached to the way things are to feel somehow superior to those who would like to analyze the world around them and find better ways to do things.

Guess what, if someone had a great idea on how to overhaul government, make it more efficient and thereby save everyone taxes by doing things in a more efficient way, this would be a liberal concept.

Of course, there are thiose who say liberals are pessimists because we point out flaws in the workings of things around us. I say that the conservatives are the pessimists, because they somehow think that what we have now is as good as things are gonna get. Doesn't sound too optimistic to me.

Fight conservative ideas wherever you go. Fight stagnation. Fight corruption. Fight lazy lassez-faire ideas. There is a better day ahead, and we must not bend our knee to those who would hold us back.

Yes! Fight the status quo! Like the enviroment. Liberally we need to change that! I mean it there so naturally in order to be progressive we must get rid of it because it has to change.

I frankly agree with the other guy. You should try to suck up the blow to your pride. There are other people of all races who have endured hardships due to their race. They should not be penalized for not getting as good of scores as someone who had a silver spoon in their mouth.

I like the UC (University of California) system. They ask if there is anything you had to go through as a child that made it difficult for you. That is basically their affirmative action. They take that part and weigh it heavily in their acceptance process.

Oh..so you're saying I shouldn't try to excel based purely on my own merits, that I should have to suck at the affirmative action teat just in order to please some guilt-ridden white people?..It is not about pride..but doing for yourself what someone else would do for you.

Here's the assumptions you are making to support your belief:

1. The person from the more affluent background devoted his who life to football.

2. The person from the poorer background did not.

I said this to be general about it. The poor guy could not devote as much time to football because he had more things to worry about, like his next meal.

3. Because of the more affluent upbringing the rich person was less likely to improve.

4. Because of the less fortunate upbringing the poor person had so much more potential to build on.

This is where you are still not understanding what I am saying. I am not saying that the poor person inherantly has more to build on, that is just idiotic to say that because someone is poor, they are better. What I am saying is that due to the hardships that someone like that has, they cannot devote as much time to something like football as the rich person can. Therefor, they cannot reach their full potential like the rich person can, unless they get into an environment (college) that allows them to focus on football more. Then, they can reach their potential and surpass the rich guy, who most likely has (or almost has) reached his due to his consistant practice.

These are called stereotypes. Not facts, not treating each person on their merits but purely stereotypes in which you place everyone according to your preconceived ideas. It is this kind of narrowmindedness that breeds racism and discrimination.

It is called you misunderstanding what I am saying and trying to turn it into something it is not. I never once said that the rich guy had less work ethic, but you said I implied that. Now you are saying that I am saying the rich guy is not as good because he is rich. I am not saying that in any way shape or form. I am saying that the person who has gone through more could not devote as much time to football, therefore not reaching his potential.

Is this logic not logical to anyone else here besides me?

I frankly agree with the other guy. You should try to suck up the blow to your pride. There are other people of all races who have endured hardships due to their race. They should not be penalized for not getting as good of scores as someone who had a silver spoon in their mouth.

I like the UC (University of California) system. They ask if there is anything you had to go through as a child that made it difficult for you. That is basically their affirmative action. They take that part and weigh it heavily in their acceptance process.

Here's the point..they are not getting penalised! They are being treated the same as everyone else.
Sounds like a great system, who can provide the biggest sob-story gets into college.
If you want to make a difference in the world, why not fix the source of any discrepencies in education standards between communities instead of trying to cover up the symptoms to make yourself feel good.
People from disadvantaged backgrounds do not need to be patronised, they need to be inspired to stand up for themselves and achieve something for themselves.

No..you need to check yourself if you think I need a helping hand...didn't want one..never asked for one...but yet someone I am being sold this bill of goods that I can't get into college on my own..that someone must hold a place for me just because of my skin color...now..what do I tell the white kid who didn't get in because they held a quota slot for me?

Hey, if you have the goods and ability, then you'll get into college. It wasn't always that way, and you know it. Preferential treatment is always given to the children of alumni. If diversity wasn't emphasized, then there wouldn't be very many minority alumni, and succeeding genrations would get completely screwed. Like has been said several times, everyone who is accepted is qualified, this is simply a way to make sure the system isn't consciously or unconciously used against you.

As for the white kid you may or may not displace, he'll be at an equally as good college elsewhere, boozing it up and sleeping with strange women. College is great.

Oh..so you're saying I shouldn't try to excel based purely on my own merits, that I should have to suck at the affirmative action teat just in order to please some guilt-ridden white people?..It is not about pride..but doing for yourself what someone else would do for you.

I am not saying you should not.

What I am saying is that someone who has potential from the lower economic class and who has good grades (especially in comparison to those around him or her) should be given a chance in a good college. I would say a chance over some rich person who has had everything spoon fed to them, even their upper class schools.

I think others should have the chance even if they are from the lower economic classes. I am more for an affirmative action that supports economic classes, not races. But, even at that, I support AA 100%.

Oh, and I do not feel guilty at all. My ancestors did nothing to black people. My direct ancestors did terrible things to the indians. But I do not feel guilty, because it was not me. If some minority starts going off on my in the streets for what my ancestors did I would go off on him or her right back. It was not me, so I have no reason to feel guilty.

I frankly agree with the other guy. You should try to suck up the blow to your pride. There are other people of all races who have endured hardships due to their race. They should not be penalized for not getting as good of scores as someone who had a silver spoon in their mouth.

I like the UC (University of California) system. They ask if there is anything you had to go through as a child that made it difficult for you. That is basically their affirmative action. They take that part and weigh it heavily in their acceptance process.

So I guess I should have been born in California... I can tell you one thing...My life was damned hard! Oh, but wait! I forgot something! I'm white! So I guess that means I wouldn't qualifiy!

Oh, and by the way, poor people can reach there maximum athletic potential too, It's called welfare! You know, lots of free time to practise ther favorite sport...

Now you are saying that I am saying the rich guy is not as good because he is rich. I am not saying that in any way shape or form. I am saying that the person who has gone through more could not devote as much time to football, therefore not reaching his potential.

Is this logic not logical to anyone else here besides me?

But what if the poor guy's potential is less than the rich guy's? You are assuming the poor guy has more potential because you have said so in choosing the poor guy over the rich guy based on this assumption.
You have no idea what potential these people have so you are basing your conclusions on stereotypes. Whether they be socioeconomic or racial it makes no difference.
The only facts before you are that the rich guy was better at the time they applied to go to college. Anything is is speculation on your part based on your stereotypical assumptions.

Here's the point..they are not getting penalised! They are being treated the same as everyone else.
Sounds like a great system, who can provide the biggest sob-story gets into college.
If you want to make a difference in the world, why not fix the source of any discrepencies in education standards between communities instead of trying to cover up the symptoms to make yourself feel good.
People from disadvantaged backgrounds do not need to be patronised, they need to be inspired to stand up for themselves and achieve something for themselves.

Wow, what an amazing idea! You think I did not think of it myself? Education is my top priority, just look at my nation! I am in the top 30 for most intelligent citizens!!! But you never asked me my opinion on this. I agree with you that we should take care of the source. But until that is done, should we ignore the symptoms? If you had cancer would you rather them focus solely on fixing it, or focus on fixing it and also making you not feel pain the whole way through?

Hey, if you have the goods and ability, then you'll get into college. It wasn't always that way, and you know it. Preferential treatment is always given to the children of alumni. If diversity wasn't emphasized, then there wouldn't be very many minority alumni, and succeeding genrations would get completely screwed. Like has been said several times, everyone who is accepted is qualified, this is simply a way to make sure the system isn't consciously or unconciously used against you.

As for the white kid you may or may not displace, he'll be at an equally as good college elsewhere, boozing it up and sleeping with strange women. College is great.

Who ever said that diversity is great?...Do you realize that colleges like Hillman College in Atlanta or Grambling College in Mississippi are booming precisely because they are historically minority colleges..kids of any color will go to college regardless of the makeup of the school..but how can I look into my parent's eyes and say..."I got in because I displaced a white kid just because I'm not white"..not that I'm better..not that I have higher scores or that I have some relevent contribution..but because I'm dark-skinned and he wasnt....not the kind of legacy I want to leave to future minority children.

Yes! Fight the status quo! Like the enviroment. Liberally we need to change that! I mean it there so naturally in order to be progressive we must get rid of it because it has to change.

There are liberals, conservatives and morons. I'm not saying which group you belong to, as that would be flaming, but I'm willing to put it up to a vote.

But what if the poor guy's potential is less than the rich guy's? You are assuming the poor guy has more potential because you have said so in choosing the poor guy over the rich guy based on this assumption.
You have no idea what potential these people have so you are basing your conclusions on stereotypes. Whether they be socioeconomic or racial it makes no difference.
The only facts before you are that the rich guy was better at the time they applied to go to college. Anything is is speculation on your part based on your stereotypical assumptions.

It is called logic. I do not think I really have to say much more than that because obviously you have not thought about it at all. You cannot go directly on who is the best at the moment, that is terrible (in this case) coaching. You have to look at who has the most potential, logically. Of course, this is not always the case. But, most of the time this logic will help in the end.

Why is the conservative's answer to everything to privatize it?

The private sector is infinitely more capible of responding to change and updating itself for new realities. Also, it has less BS to deal with. A good example is Underwriters Labratory. They are non-profit, private, and 100% optional. However, they are so respected that many stores won't carry appliances that haven't been tested by UL. Most people won't buy and appliance that hasn't been tested by UL. They do this entirely without involving the government, and they do it for the betterment of society. Privitization at it's finest. Another fine example would be Consumer Reports.

Essentially, government is big, ponderous, and slow. For some things, that's fine. I'd never advocate privitizing the Army, for instance. However, for many other things, the private sector is better equipped to handle.

Oh, and by the way, poor people can reach there maximum athletic potential too, It's called welfare! You know, lots of free time to practise ther favorite sport...

Have you ever been on welfare? One of my friends is. He does not have free time like I do. He has to work the system in order to get money for things. Welfare does not cover a lot.

I should be off to bed, it is almost 6am here.

Why is affirmative action based on race anyway? Maybe black and hispanic people tend to be poorer than whites on average but there are poor and disadvantaged people of all races. Why not base the affirmative action on the area the person comes from and maybe a few other things like the income of the parents rather than the race of the person in question?

That is if you are going to have affirmative action at all.

Who ever said that diversity is great?...Do you realize that colleges like Hillman College in Atlanta or Grambling College in Mississippi are booming precisely because they are historically minority colleges..kids of any color will go to college regardless of the makeup of the school..but how can I look into my parent's eyes and say..."I got in because I displaced a white kid just because I'm not white"..not that I'm better..not that I have higher scores or that I have some relevent contribution..but because I'm dark-skinned and he wasnt....not the kind of legacy I want to leave to future minority children.

Diversity, in general (though not in all situations,) is great because the more perspectives and lifestyles one is exposed to, the more empathy and undertanding for others one is able to generate. The broader one's experience, the more informed choices one is able to make. We can't have equality unless those who are different are commonplace in all walks of life.

Wow, what an amazing idea! You think I did not think of it myself? Education is my top priority, just look at my nation! I am in the top 30 for most intelligent citizens!!! But you never asked me my opinion on this. I agree with you that we should take care of the source. But until that is done, should we ignore the symptoms? If you had cancer would you rather them focus solely on fixing it, or focus on fixing it and also making you not feel pain the whole way through?

I don't believe I said it was an original idea. Your NationStates nation is of no relevence and I do not care what ratings your nation has. I am living in the real world, not a fantasy land.
The problem is, your "fixes" for the symptoms only further fuel the problems. By sending the message that minorities are not good enough to make it on their own you create a victim mentality. It does not inspire people to achieve. Your "fixes" are cosmetic coverups to make you feel better about yourselves and nothing more. It has nothing to do with helping out minorities, listen to what Salishe is saying for God's sake. People need to be inspired to achieve, they do not need to be patronised.

I don't believe I said it was an original idea. Your NationStates nation is of no relevence and I do not care what ratings your nation has. I am living in the real world, not a fantasy land.
The problem is, your "fixes" for the symptoms only further fuel the problems. By sending the message that minorities are not good enough to make it on their own you create a victim mentality. It does not inspire people to achieve. Your "fixes" are cosmetic coverups to make you feel better about yourselves and nothing more. It has nothing to do with helping out minorities, listen to what Salishe is saying for God's sake. People need to be inspired to achieve, they do not need to be patronised.

Half right, it also perpetuates the "racial guilt" complex that many whites are feeling about themselves (for being white) and about their own culture and history.

This has got to stop!

The private sector is infinitely more capible of responding to change and updating itself for new realities. Also, it has less BS to deal with. A good example is Underwriters Labratory. They are non-profit, private, and 100% optional. However, they are so respected that many stores won't carry appliances that haven't been tested by UL. Most people won't buy and appliance that hasn't been tested by UL. They do this entirely without involving the government, and they do it for the betterment of society. Privitization at it's finest. Another fine example would be Consumer Reports.

Essentially, government is big, ponderous, and slow. For some things, that's fine. I'd never advocate privitizing the Army, for instance. However, for many other things, the private sector is better equipped to handle.

California de-regulated it's energy system, and that worked great! Big business really looked out for everyone there! Did you hear the Enron tapes? Sorry, but in my world, gradeschool education is not a commodity, it's a necessity, and business rubs it's hands in glee when it gets us to pay for things we can't do without.

It is called logic. I do not think I really have to say much more than that because obviously you have not thought about it at all. You cannot go directly on who is the best at the moment, that is terrible (in this case) coaching. You have to look at who has the most potential, logically. Of course, this is not always the case. But, most of the time this logic will help in the end.

You are not looking at it logically. You assume because someone has had a more affluent upbringing that they have no more room for improvement. That narrowminded approach is poor coaching. But I guess it makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside knowing you helped out a poor kid.
You did not say the poor kid was proven to have more potential, you just ASSUMED he had more potential because he was poor. Understand?

Half right, it also perpetuates the "racial guilt" complex that many whites are feeling about themselves (for being white) and about their own culture and history.

This has got to stop!

Indeed it does. I had not touched on that side because I was too busy trying to show Soviet Democracy that he bases his opinions on stereotypes and not on a person by person basis.

I don't believe I said it was an original idea. Your NationStates nation is of no relevence and I do not care what ratings your nation has. I am living in the real world, not a fantasy land.
The problem is, your "fixes" for the symptoms only further fuel the problems. By sending the message that minorities are not good enough to make it on their own you create a victim mentality. It does not inspire people to achieve. Your "fixes" are cosmetic coverups to make you feel better about yourselves and nothing more. It has nothing to do with helping out minorities, listen to what Salishe is saying for God's sake. People need to be inspired to achieve, they do not need to be patronised.

I'm wasting my breath Tygaland..no doubt many would have assumed..."Oh..salishe is a minority..of course he's for AA"...nothing could be further from the truth..it's like an insidious virus...spreading into the minority community that we need the governments help to do for ourselves what we should be doing...I don't want a handout, a helping hand..whatever...equality means I just want the same shot to be accepted as the other thousands of kids in college...in fact..I don't believe college entrance applications should have color as a factor...erase that damn block...I would hope that if a black, brown, or asian kid wants to go to college that he backs up his chances to go to college with his test scores and his drive and will, not smirk as he knows he'll get into college based on for no other reason then he was not white.

I personally think the whole 'liberal v conservative' thing in the States just confuses people. Liberal has a whole other meaning everywhere else, it is a term that cannot be accurately attached to the Democrates for instance, just as conservative does not appear to be an accurate title for the current Bush administration. Outside America the word 'liberal' refers to policies that favour an unfettered free market.
The problem with the way politics is described in the States is that it makes no sense. People who are usurping the current status quo and who favour 'neo-liberal' policies are called conservative, while those who are more conservative (as relative to the status quo) and who dont favour 'neo-liberal' policies are called liberals. Meanwhile these words say absolutely nothing about the people they are afixed to, but rather the people they are afixed to define the current meaning of the word......that makes no sense.

Agreed. The terms "liberal" and "conservative" in the US have evolved into a different meaning. They do not adhere to the book definition.

after doing a quick study up on vouchers i will not advocate or agree with them, they are another imaginary fix, it supposedly gives poor children the ability to go to better, private schools, on government funding, this helps the children from poor areas because schools are for some reason funded by area taxes as stated

and as stated the better idea and much better fix is to remove area taxes from funding schools alone, put forward more taxes to fund schools or have the government fund or not fund every school to the point where all have equal funding. this is a much cheaper and more efficient fix than vouchers. it solves the problem instead of leaving the problem and throwing money at the people experiencing the problem without even thinking of the rammifications, that being it would cost people even more money for the government to fund every single under privileged child to go to a better learning facility, this obviously costs us more money cutting the very benefit of said vouchers

Have you ever been on welfare? One of my friends is. He does not have free time like I do. He has to work the system in order to get money for things. Welfare does not cover a lot.

I should be off to bed, it is almost 6am here.

Yes, I have been on welfare, and as a result, I became one of the top 20 powerlifters in Canada. Why? Because I had plenty of time to practise my sport. I was also a competant gymnist. Although my glory has since passed, I know I earned it, and whether I was rich or poor had nothing to do with it!

Now you might be thinking that I didn't get enough on welfare, but I was, (and am now) thrifty. I only spent my money on necessities, such as food, rent and bills. This was always easy for me because I'm not luxury oriented to begin with (I believe such things weaken the body, mind and spirit) Once I got a job, I was still able to practise my sport, before work usually.

There is no such thing as "not enough time", but rather it's what you feel is important to you. If it's important to you - you make the time!

For some reason, being conservative has been glorified as being more patriotic, tough, and rational. It is no such thing.
Absolutely not, no it is no more of any of those things, those things are not really effected by either party, they are the truthfully dependent upon the individual.

To most people, being conservative has been boiled down to lower taxes, a powerful military and a stronger connection to traditional values. Unfortunately, being conservative literally means a want or need to cling to the status quo. Those who are in power should stay in power. Thoughts and ideas should remain caught in stasis, no matter what new information comes along.
No it does not mean this, traditionally what Conservative means is not a stagnant line of thought it is a literally conservative one, which equals non-excessive taxes, less legislation on personal liberties, a strong military(not an imperial one), a reasoble stance on the enviorment(unlike the current one) and working very hard to maintain a balanced budget(unlike the current quasi-conservatives in power)

1Traditional values (whatever those are,) change from place to place and time to time and depend on culture. 2To say that your values are somehow superior is an inexcuasable self-deceit that borders on bigotry. Those would be American Traditional Values which do not change.
Education, Personal Freedom, Freedom of Worship, Support of the Family unit(which through our staggeringly dropping wages is again not occuring with the current regime).
On the second part of your statement, my values are superior to many peoples.
I will prove it with a simple example,
Go to NAMBLA.com a real organization read their core values, if you can say that you do not have superior values to these people then...well I suppose I have superior values to you too.
I realize that is only one example, however your statement gave no qualifing number.


For example, at one point people who did not adhere to the ideals of the Catholic Church were burned at the stake.
Please, in what year was this church edict was made, when it was repealed.
I am unaware of any point in history where this was the Doctrine of the Catholic Church, and no the "Salem" witch trials were not done on behalf of the Holy Roman church(and no I am NOT Catholic, however your statement is a vile stereotype)
If one were conservative, then this practice would never have changed.
Wrong, it would have never happened, and it was never a law, you are using half-truths to make a validate an absurd notion.
Under conservative ideals, slaves would never have been freed, Lincoln was a Conservative AND a Republican Idiot read a history book.

Democracy would never have been developed,
What!!This statement is again caused by your made-up defenition of what Conservative means. women's rights would never have emerged Wrong again read about Womens Sufferage and you will see it was the Women of the Republican Right conservative aristocracy who helped Suffereage the most, seriously did you go to school in America?
technology would have stagnated, The Conservative Government throws money at the technology sector(big business) so again no. and, in general, human rights would b in a barbaric state.

Therefore, in my mind, conservatism equates to either being stupid, corrupt, or simply stubborn.

Liberals are progressive. Liberals adapt to changing times. Liberals innovate. Liberals are able to logically grasp new information and change their ideas about the world around them. This, of course, is seen by conservatives, as "flip-flopping." This is an easy, finger-pointing strategy to enable conservatives who are too afraid of new things or too attached to the way things are to feel somehow superior to those who would like to analyze the world around them and find better ways to do things.

Guess what, if someone had a great idea on how to overhaul government, make it more efficient and thereby save everyone taxes by doing things in a more efficient way, this would be a liberal concept.

Of course, there are thiose who say liberals are pessimists because we point out flaws in the workings of things around us. I say that the conservatives are the pessimists, because they somehow think that what we have now is as good as things are gonna get. Doesn't sound too optimistic to me.

Fight conservative ideas wherever you go. Fight stagnation. Fight corruption. Fight lazy lassez-faire ideas. There is a better day ahead, and we must not bend our knee to those who would hold us back.
What are you about 19, you have heard a few sound bite and read Cheggy/and Mao and think you have some grasp of something.
Anyone who understands current politics knows that Right/Left, Dem/Rep, Con/Lib, are both NOT what they claim to be, neither are our Liberals the progressive intelligent Liberals of the past, or our Conservatives the staunch defenders of American Ideology.
They are now groups of children who piss and moan about the others evil while turning a blind eye to their own.
You have merely joined in the massive display of ignorance of entire degraded.
You have not bothered to understand the shaping of each party and group of polarized lines of thought before spewing flawed half-truths that support your masters on the left, making you no better then rightwing zealot who does the same. You are merely goose stepping with your party.
I am former republican, a devoted Conservative.
A progressive thinker.
I support ideas which value my family, what else should I support?
If like me you have seen this country slowly be stupified by side that is partisan politics go to http://www.lp.org/
I read [url=http://www.lpmich.org/issues/platform.html] this[/url three days ago while trying to decide what happened to my country and the two parties who were supposed to be with me, if you are a real Conservative, then the choice is clear, you have been abadoned by the republican party.
If you think the Democrats are now only opposing the Republicans simply to be on the other end of the HUGE spectrum without thought as to what they are doing, please check those sites as well.
The Partisan foolishness has to come an end as it has infected every segment of our society rich and poor alike.
People vote like good little Nazis doing and thinking what their party wants instead of making their party do and think whatthey want.
The extreme few are masters of both the Left and the Right.
American people must come together in the middle to show these divisionist mongrels will want our system back, we our Democratic party back, we want our Republican Party and we want YOU gone.
To claim one side of this orgy of ignorance is more wrong then another does not do justice to ending this game of sound bite politics, which only serve to reduce our nation to a war of words and to make our system seem terminally flawed before the world.
Vote, your heart, not your favorite commercial, not what the Union says not what your friends say, and most certainly not what either wing says.

I'm wasting my breath Tygaland..no doubt many would have assumed..."Oh..salishe is a minority..of course he's for AA"...nothing could be further from the truth..it's like an insidious virus...spreading into the minority community that we need the governments help to do for ourselves what we should be doing...I don't want a handout, a helping hand..whatever...equality means I just want the same shot to be accepted as the other thousands of kids in college...in fact..I don't believe college entrance applications should have color as a factor...erase that damn block...I would hope that if a black, brown, or asian kid wants to go to college that he backs up his chances to go to college with his test scores and his drive and will, not smirk as he knows he'll get into college based on for no other reason then he was not white.

You are operating under a misunderstanding of how AA works. No one who is unqualified get accepted. Left completely to their own devices, universities would operate under the system of cronyism that was pervasive before the civil rights movement, and still is, but to a lesser extent, thanks to AA. Now, I agree that AA is not the ultimate solution. We all need to bend our minds to find a better alternative to meet the needs of everyone. My suggestion is that when you get into college, instead of feeling guilty, spend your time and energy studying to find and implement a better solution for all. It's not going to happen by itself.

G Dubyah:If you are fooling around having sex, and don't have the responsibility to check if you are pregnant, why in the hell would you give this same parent the right to have an abortion?

Why the hell would you want someone this irresponsible having children?

I think the current US government is extreme conservative in the sense it wants things to be done the way of the past, not just the present way.

You are operating under a misunderstanding of how AA works. No one who is unqualified get accepted. Left completely to their own devices, universities would operate under the system of cronyism that was pervasive before the civil rights movement, and still is, but to a lesser extent, thanks to AA. Now, I agree that AA is not the ultimate solution. We all need to bend our minds to find a better alternative to meet the needs of everyone. My suggestion is that when you get into college, instead of feeling guilty, spend your time and energy studying to find and implement a better solution for all. It's not going to happen by itself.

No guilt trip here..more like justified anger..AA has been around 30 yrs..and as long as minorities continue to feel that the only reason they have not succeeded in life is "because of Da Whitey Syndrome"...then they will continue to expect AA to be around...no...cut the limb off to save the body I say...

Why is affirmative action based on race anyway? Maybe black and hispanic people tend to be poorer than whites on average but there are poor and disadvantaged people of all races. Why not base the affirmative action on the area the person comes from and maybe a few other things like the income of the parents rather than the race of the person in question?

That is if you are going to have affirmative action at all.
.

Erinin. Left/Right/Republican/Democrat/Liberal/Conservative have not always had the same connections as they do now. Republicans were once the progressive party, to state that Lincoln was a conservatice is absurd.

Here is the dictionary definition of Conservative (minus more specific definitions as they pertain to many disparate political parties around the world):

Favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change.
Traditional or restrained in style: a conservative dark suit.
Moderate; cautious: a conservative estimate.

I wasn't basing my argument on party affiliation (though I did include Republican in the title, because I knew it would incite debate. Yes, a bit of manipulation on my part.) It was the resistant to chage that I was specifically targeting. While they were Republicans, I would hardly say, by that definition, that Lincoln and T Roosevelt were conservative.

Here is the dictionary definition of liberal:

Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
Of, relating to, or characteristic of liberalism.

Now do you see my point?

All political parties, of course, are not completely black and white. What prompted this thread was the continued perjorative use of the word "liberal" by the american media and conservatives.

Oh, and I'm not too happy with either political party either, though the majority of my ire is directed at republicans.

What I'm most upset about is the widespread use of the term "liberal" to somehow mean "amoral" or "wanting to blindly raise taxes" or "weak and wishy-washy" etc..

Erinin, please do not resort to ad hominem statements about me, especially as you were operating under a misapprehension about the meaning of my post here. You only weaken your point with such behavior.

Woa there buddy.

I am referring to a mother who terminated two of her unborn children who had heart beats.

Again, let me repeat that.

Heart beats.

And in case your forgot, so she didn't have to buy big jars of mayonaisse. Justifying the murder of twins for a jar of mayonaisse. Just wow.

You say minorities are set back, but why?

It is not because of their race/ethnicity or nationality. Affirmative Action rewards inferior students with entrance to college; students getting in not because they deserve it, but because society feels sorry for them.

1) link?

2) minorities are set back by the way our schools are primarily funded: local property taxes; poor people get poor schools, and generations of poor people get stuck in the rut that their poor schools provide them with; generations descended from freed slaves that were kept in poverty for over a century by "Jim Crow" laws remain in poverty because of our educational system's funding practices.

However, the inequality in the system is due to the quality of education in ethnic areas which is substantially lower than the education quality in white areas. This creates and unfortunate gap in intelligence as the ethnic students do not have there potential exploited. If they can get into college with affirmative action, there talents can be honed.

Ever heard of tax credits and vouchers? You know, when Republicans allow minorities to take their own tax dollars and choose to go to a a better public or private school? It's called "school choice." Liberal democraps deny minorities school choice and keep blacks in poor ghetto schools and out of good white schools.

Ever heard of tax credits and vouchers? You know, when Republicans allow minorities to take their own tax dollars and choose to go to a a better public or private school? It's called "school choice." Liberal democraps deny minorities school choice and keep blacks in poor ghetto schools and out of good white schools.
read my reply to the voucher bullshit and quit throwing around conservative guilt trip bullshit and fix the problem

Ever heard of tax credits and vouchers? You know, when Republicans allow minorities to take their own tax dollars and choose to go to a a better public or private school? It's called "school choice." Liberal democraps deny minorities school choice and keep blacks in poor ghetto schools and out of good white schools.

So your answer is, more bussing? Removal of public educational funds from poorly performing schools? Thus neccesitating even more bussing?

Where does this great liberal republican plan end? When all of the public schools that are left are massive enclaves of 1000s of students located in the districts with the highest property values?

Good plan :rolleyes:

California de-regulated it's energy system, and that worked great!

Davis' idea of "deregulation" was deregulation only in name, not reality. The companies were given a maximum that they could charge for energy, and weren't allowed to purchase in advance to take advantage of low rates, nor could they lock in said low rates.

Tell me, what do you expect to happen when you can charge now more than $5/kilowatt hour and it's costing you $15/kilowatt hour? That wasn't deregulation, they were still heavily regulated. They went bankrupt because they were paying more for the energy than they were allowed to charge. Maybe if California had actually deregulated, many of those problems wouldn't have happened.

Did you hear the Enron tapes?

Did you hear about the dead voting in Chicago? Well, gee, there's a rare event of something not working like it's supposed to, so let's just damn the whole thing. Away with voting!

Seriously, you're going to condemn all businesses because of Enron? Or Tyco? Please. What about all those other businesses that don't break the law? Screw em?

Also, which government agency discovered the irregularities at Enron and blew the story wide open?

Oh, that's right. The government didn't figure it out. A private auditor did.

[/quote]Sorry, but in my world, gradeschool education is not a commodity, it's a necessity, and business rubs it's hands in glee when it gets us to pay for things we can't do without.[/QUOTE]
As opposed to government making us pay for things we can do without.

Of course Liberals are progressive.

That's why killing babies is moving this country forward; a country where a mother will kill her two unborn twins so she does not have to buy a big jar of mayonnaise at Costco.

Why a 13 year old girl does not have to inform her parents on having an abortion.

How Affirmative Action is furthering education.

Man, good people them Liberals.

Killing fetuses and killing babies are two different things.

Conservatism is clinging onto the status quo??
I knew libs were full of shit but get your head out of your ass. Conservatives want to change things for the better not just sit there. For example: I would love to eliminate welfare, socialsecurity, medicare and any other entitlement as well as add more funding to education and police officers as well as job training.
The idea that conservatism is not for change is under the catagory of classical conservatism, much like classical liberalism it is a far cry from what it once was.

For some reason, being conservative has been glorified as being more patriotic, tough, and rational. It is no such thing.

To most people, being conservative has been boiled down to lower taxes, a powerful military and a stronger connection to traditional values. Unfortunately, being conservative literally means a want or need to cling to the status quo. Those who are in power should stay in power. Thoughts and ideas should remain caught in stasis, no matter what new information comes along. Traditional values (whatever those are,) change from place to place and time to time and depend on culture. To say that your values are somehow superior is an inexcuasable self-deceit that borders on bigotry.

For example, at one point people who did not adhere to the ideals of the Catholic Church were burned at the stake. If one were conservative, then this practice would never have changed. Under conservative ideals, slaves would never have been freed, Democracy would never have been developed, women's rights would never have emerged, technology would have stagnated, and, in general, human rights would b in a barbaric state.

Therefore, in my mind, conservatism equates to either being stupid, corrupt, or simply stubborn.

Liberals are progressive. Liberals adapt to changing times. Liberals innovate. Liberals are able to logically grasp new information and change their ideas about the world around them. This, of course, is seen by conservatives, as "flip-flopping." This is an easy, finger-pointing strategy to enable conservatives who are too afraid of new things or too attached to the way things are to feel somehow superior to those who would like to analyze the world around them and find better ways to do things.

Guess what, if someone had a great idea on how to overhaul government, make it more efficient and thereby save everyone taxes by doing things in a more efficient way, this would be a liberal concept.

Of course, there are thiose who say liberals are pessimists because we point out flaws in the workings of things around us. I say that the conservatives are the pessimists, because they somehow think that what we have now is as good as things are gonna get. Doesn't sound too optimistic to me.

Fight conservative ideas wherever you go. Fight stagnation. Fight corruption. Fight lazy lassez-faire ideas. There is a better day ahead, and we must not bend our knee to those who would hold us back.
Uhhhhhhh.... You make me bang my head in disgust. OK, for one thing, politics does not boil down to the literal meaning of each word! Even If a person is conservative, that does not mean he does not want to change the world for the better! Good glory, I didnt know anyone could be so simpleminded.

Uhhhhhhh.... You make me bang my head in disgust. OK, for one thing, politics does not boil down to the literal meaning of each word! Even If a person is conservative, that does not mean he does not want to change the world for the better! Good glory, I didnt know anyone could be so simpleminded.Politics is all about propaganda.
What he says is true, although it shouldn't be an issue. Being conservative is very acceptable but the idea of progress is a good way to do propaganda.
He says "conservatives want to hold us back", this can be translated into "conservatives want to preserve us".
It is true though that conservatives want to conservate.

Politics is all about propaganda.
What he says is true, although it shouldn't be an issue. Being conservative is very acceptable but the idea of progress is a good way to do propaganda.
He says "conservatives want to hold us back", this can be translated into "conservatives want to preserve us".
It is true though that conservatives want to conservate.
Well yes, but you cannot blame conservatives for the holding back of technology, and you cannot credit liberals with the advance of technology, or any of those other things that guy claimed in his first post.

-bla bla broad generalisation etc. -

I think you need both sides. A careful blend of progress and stability .

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservative." - John Stuart Mill

Well yes, but you cannot blame conservatives for the holding back of technology, and you cannot credit liberals with the advance of technology, or any of those other things that guy claimed in his first post.
Well if there is a technology out there which makes a political status-quo obsolete, then progressive politics must be applied so as to adapt the political landscape. However if it doesn't make the political status-quo obsolete, conservative politics is a good way of preserving what you have. Note the idea of obsoletism itself can be used as propaganda. It has to be seen if the technology available really makes the political system unworkable anymore.

For some reason, being conservative has been glorified as being more patriotic, tough, and rational. It is no such thing.

To most people, being conservative has been boiled down to lower taxes, a powerful military and a stronger connection to traditional values. Unfortunately, being conservative literally means a want or need to cling to the status quo. Those who are in power should stay in power. Thoughts and ideas should remain caught in stasis, no matter what new information comes along. Traditional values (whatever those are,) change from place to place and time to time and depend on culture. To say that your values are somehow superior is an inexcuasable self-deceit that borders on bigotry.

For example, at one point people who did not adhere to the ideals of the Catholic Church were burned at the stake. If one were conservative, then this practice would never have changed. Under conservative ideals, slaves would never have been freed, Democracy would never have been developed, women's rights would never have emerged, technology would have stagnated, and, in general, human rights would b in a barbaric state.

Therefore, in my mind, conservatism equates to either being stupid, corrupt, or simply stubborn.

Liberals are progressive. Liberals adapt to changing times. Liberals innovate. Liberals are able to logically grasp new information and change their ideas about the world around them. This, of course, is seen by conservatives, as "flip-flopping." This is an easy, finger-pointing strategy to enable conservatives who are too afraid of new things or too attached to the way things are to feel somehow superior to those who would like to analyze the world around them and find better ways to do things.

Guess what, if someone had a great idea on how to overhaul government, make it more efficient and thereby save everyone taxes by doing things in a more efficient way, this would be a liberal concept.

Of course, there are thiose who say liberals are pessimists because we point out flaws in the workings of things around us. I say that the conservatives are the pessimists, because they somehow think that what we have now is as good as things are gonna get. Doesn't sound too optimistic to me.

Fight conservative ideas wherever you go. Fight stagnation. Fight corruption. Fight lazy lassez-faire ideas. There is a better day ahead, and we must not bend our knee to those who would hold us back.

Awesome post my friend! :)

I think that its good to conserve those things that work but when there is a problem with a system, it's usually the liberals who are willing to find new ways to fix the problem. The ones willign to try out new ideas.

Liberals are the ones who care when someone is getting disenfranchised while conservatives don't seem to normally. Unless it's in another country, and then they are often completely gung ho about bombing them out of their misery.

It's disheartening how conservatives hate to give people freedom to choose things like abortion. They want everyone to follow their ideals and not live in a free-thinking society. They don't seem to realize that a woman choosing to abort her pregnancy is her choice and not theirs. They act like this choice affects them somehow. Restriction is their favorite tool. But whenever they outlaw something, then it creates a bunch of outlaws. Banning abortion just creates back alley abortions. Banning alcohol and drugs use just created gangs that profited from it being illegal.

It's very true that without progressives that we would still be living with slavery, and without womens rights. Affirmative action is at least an attempt to help the downtrodden minorities get a fair deal in life, although the system is clearly flawed it is better than ignoring the problem. That doesnt mean the idea shoudl be completely discarded. It should be massaged and worked on until it becomes more effective and less unfair on those non-minorities who have also worked hard and also deserve that job or that spot in the school. Trust me, I missed out on a few scholarships because of my white skin color to minorities with lower grades and I found it unfair but I understand at least that it was just an attempt to help the disenfranchised. I am not bitter and I still fid it to be a good idea in principle.

It's also stupid when conservatives say that liberals are anti-business. That is completely misguided. Liberals merely want corporations to be socially responsible, but as they have a strong hold on Washinton they practically get away with murder and noone can do anythign about it. They destroy the environment with teh blessing of nimrods like George Bush who pass laws to ease pollution restrictions. They buy off candidates and get laws passed that help teh rich get richer off the backs of the poor.

I know that most of them are very well meaning and are just traditionalists. They think that they are helping out society by following a conservative agenda and I repect that but I just dont see how they can defend some of the things they do so staunchly.

<3'n'light

Yes we are.

However, we Liberals just do not consider a small clump of cells to be a baby.

And minorities are indeed set back by the system which is why Affirmative Action is necessary at current in the US. Does not mean that it will always be there though, just till things get a little more equal in the 'opportunities' department.....

Hmm a small clump of cells... Ok, what about the case when a mother gave birth to a baby, and killed it after it was born, but before the umbilicle cord was cut. She was defended by abortion rights groups and found not guilty of murder, because abortion was her right.

Hmm a small clump of cells... Ok, what about the case when a mother gave birth to a baby, and killed it after it was born, but before the umbilicle cord was cut. She was defended by abortion rights groups and found not guilty of murder, because abortion was her right.

okay i never heard of that and it sounds like complete crap. Link please?

Mmmhmm, hysterical slippery slope thought certainly defend your position well. Ending the development of a collection of cells with no brain function is murder. (implied sarcasm)

Ok, apply your logic to a vegistative state person, due to illness or accident. Since they are simply a larger collection of cells with no brain function they can be killed. Or experimented on. Or used as an organ farm....

Ok, apply your logic to a vegistative state person, due to illness or accident. Since they are simply a larger collection of cells with no brain function they can be killed. Or experimented on. Or used as an organ farm....

if they are totally braindead and have no chance of recovery and if they consented to it before they got to that condition, yep.

Hmm a small clump of cells... Ok, what about the case when a mother gave birth to a baby, and killed it after it was born, but before the umbilicle cord was cut. She was defended by abortion rights groups and found not guilty of murder, because abortion was her right.

that would indeed be horrible and denounced by any sane liberal as well.

But I think you are full of donkey doo and if you don't supply a link then you are just another lying Bush propaghandist.

the same goes for the story about the twins who were killed by their mother because she didnt want to buy a large jar of mayonaise. :rolleyes:

give me a freekin break

:headbang:


Ahh... that questions shows the nature of not being conservative. Something new comes along, and the values change to fit.

Values are subjective and based on opinions of right and wrong. And they, in a conservative view, is not supposed to change very often. Values are not based on information, but the subjective opinion is of course based on how one sees the world. It might seem a bit contradictive, but it's not.

But believing in sticking to your values does not mean it's impossible to change them. If you dicover that what you were raised to believe in is not what you believe is right, then it is of course it is possible to change your belief system.

But conservative means that you don't easily change your oppinions of right and wrong based on what issues are at hand. A couple of examples that are relevant today.

If you believe killing of humans are wrong, and you believe a fetis is a small human, then being conservative means you believe abortion is wrong.

If you believe all people have a right to freedom and democracy, and you believe it's something worth fighting for, then you believe it's right and worth fighting for in Iraq too.

If you believe force can be used to uphold the law and protect people nationally (believing in having a police force) then you believe it's right internationally.

If you believe in the value of the traditional family, you don't stop believing in these values just because more and more people choose to live differently.

Yes, I know there are more issues in these debates. I'm just keeping it simple to illustrate.



Values do never evolve. But sometimes one may discover that values were wrong, and then change values.

But the idea is. Values are not formed by fit the issues at hand, but opinions on issues are formed by the values.


That is of course highly subjective.



Of course not.


It seems to me you confuse issues and values. A value system is the basic ethics of right and wrong you believe in. It has nothing to with not being able to analyze a situation and considering information and different opinions. What it does mean is that you will try to chose what is right over what you want.

But believing in sticking to your values does not mean it's impossible to change them. If you dicover that what you were raised to believe in is not what you believe is right, then it is of course it is possible to change your belief system.
You mean Flip-flop them right? I mean that is the words used against Kerry for changing them when he discovers his past view might be wrong. Contradictions ain't they a mother.

If you believe killing of humans are wrong, and you believe a fetis is a small human, then being conservative means you believe abortion is wrong.
And yet you think killing is okay as long as its state sponsored ie Execution.

If you believe force can be used to uphold the law and protect people nationally (believing in having a police force) then you believe it's right internationally.
Yes that is best, who cares if the govt (UN) tell the Police(US) its out of their jurisdiction? Not the US, if we think we have a case even if there is reasonable doubt that Saddam is innocent of charges, we must rush to war!
That is the case the police are told by the govt you can't do that and the police turn rebel and do it anyway.
You can't be police and disrespect the Govt. If its the UN's laws then the Un upholds them not police illegally.

okay i never heard of that and it sounds like complete crap. Link please?

http://www.karisable.com/drexler.htm

Here is the link... but I have to say that I misrembered this.. I remembered she had been aquitted, when in fact she was convicted.

However, the defense was still mounted.

Awesome post my friend! :)

I think that its good to conserve those things that work but when there is a problem with a system, it's usually the liberals who are willing to find new ways to fix the problem. The ones willign to try out new ideas.

Liberals are the ones who care when someone is getting disenfranchised while conservatives don't seem to normally. Unless it's in another country, and then they are often completely gung ho about bombing them out of their misery.

It's disheartening how conservatives hate to give people freedom to choose things like abortion. They want everyone to follow their ideals and not live in a free-thinking society. They don't seem to realize that a woman choosing to abort her pregnancy is her choice and not theirs. They act like this choice affects them somehow. Restriction is their favorite tool. But whenever they outlaw something, then it creates a bunch of outlaws. Banning abortion just creates back alley abortions. Banning alcohol and drugs use just created gangs that profited from it being illegal.

It's very true that without progressives that we would still be living with slavery, and without womens rights. Affirmative action is at least an attempt to help the downtrodden minorities get a fair deal in life, although the system is clearly flawed it is better than ignoring the problem. That doesnt mean the idea shoudl be completely discarded. It should be massaged and worked on until it becomes more effective and less unfair on those non-minorities who have also worked hard and also deserve that job or that spot in the school. Trust me, I missed out on a few scholarships because of my white skin color to minorities with lower grades and I found it unfair but I understand at least that it was just an attempt to help the disenfranchised. I am not bitter and I still fid it to be a good idea in principle.

It's also stupid when conservatives say that liberals are anti-business. That is completely misguided. Liberals merely want corporations to be socially responsible, but as they have a strong hold on Washinton they practically get away with murder and noone can do anythign about it. They destroy the environment with teh blessing of nimrods like George Bush who pass laws to ease pollution restrictions. They buy off candidates and get laws passed that help teh rich get richer off the backs of the poor.

I know that most of them are very well meaning and are just traditionalists. They think that they are helping out society by following a conservative agenda and I repect that but I just dont see how they can defend some of the things they do so staunchly.

<3'n'lightYa but liberals and conservatives are political groups, not people. People can move from one political group to the other.

http://www.karisable.com/drexler.htm

Here is the link... but I have to say that I misrembered this.. I remembered she had been aquitted, when in fact she was convicted.

However, the defense was still mounted.

of course a defence was mounted! Its everyones right isnt it? The case proves nothing.

http://www.karisable.com/drexler.htm

Here is the link... but I have to say that I misrembered this.. I remembered she had been aquitted, when in fact she was convicted.

However, the defense was still mounted.


that is truely aweful what she did. but realistically, anyone in any case has someone defend them (at least to get them a lighter sentence because this girl never pleaded anythign but guilty) and I dont see anything about defense in that article, especially about abortion rights groups.

The flaw of conservatism is that we have day jobs, so while we're out being productive, liberals are either squirting out 5 kids of their own or else brainwashing our kids at school. So they are killing us by demographic shift.

http://www.karisable.com/drexler.htm

Here is the link... but I have to say that I misrembered this.. I remembered she had been aquitted, when in fact she was convicted.

However, the defense was still mounted.

OMG!!! :eek: Somebody who was accused of a crime found an attorney that could mount a defence!!!

Actually no :rolleyes: she pled guilty and got 15 years.

The flaw of conservatism is that we have day jobs, so while we're out being productive, liberals are either squirting out 5 kids of their own or else brainwashing our kids at school. So they are killing us by demographic shift.

So quit being so productive :rolleyes:

Ya but liberals and conservatives are political groups, not people. People can move from one political group to the other.


of course they are and of course people can move their political affiliation. and people can even see good things about both sides which is good. but I don't see what your point is really. Was that a retort to my statement or were you saying that I convinced you to change sides? :D

of course they are and of course people can move their political affiliation. and people can even see good things about both sides which is good. but I don't see what your point is really. Was that a retort to my statement or were you saying that I convinced you to change sides? :DI said this because you said something along the line "the liberals are like that, the conservatives are like this". I would have said "liberalism is like that, and conservativism is like this", but it probably doesn't matter.

oh ok I got you. sorry I wasn't sure what you meant, and I agree and should have expressed it in a clearer manner. I guess I am just as guilty as most generalizers out there. I agree that people shouldn't stick with a parties ideology when they feel it is flawed. And there are many people who in fact dont follow parties, they just follow ideas, which is more of what I do even though I associate with the green party the most. I dont agree with everything green though. I dont disagree withe everything Republican, Democrat or Libertarian either.

The greatest President ever to be in office was a Liberal and every one knows who he his. But you right wings that think that Bush is the greatest President that ever walk on two legs it is FDR and he couldn't walk on his.

FDR was a socialist. His policies prolonged the Depression. His snake-oil "New Deal" policies were at first rejected by the Supreme Court. His response? Pack the court with more left leaning "judges" so he could get his way. Oh and let's not forget the forced imprisonment of thousands of loyal Americans of Japanese decent. When told he had Soviet agents (among them, Alger Hiss, who sold out Europe at Yalta and condemed Millions to 50 years of slavery behind the Iron Curtian) in high positions in his administration, he didn't care.

Great President my A$$!

He prolonged the depression?

You may call me and the people that believe the same way as me religious fanatics but then of course you would be right but not in the way some people find to be a fault of ones personality. The idea of conservatives and the idea of Liberals have changed through the years. I don't think it's that we can't move forward in the progression of man kind, it's just if moving forward means to stray away from the morals and values one should have then I think staying the way our country was founded (on religion) is the best way to live. Yes we have moved past slavery and we have moved past suppression of races and sexes, but we are moving toward mass murdering of children, blasphemy, denial of Christ and his words. It is not the Conservatives that are stopping you from reaching a righteous goal it is the Liberals that are bringing you closer to a world where a person's life is measured in how many murdered babies it's going to take to keep them alive an extra 3 years. Though don’t mistake me… I don’t think a person is defined in whether they call themselves liberals and conservatives and I don’t think that all liberals are atheists and I don’t believe all conservatives are all religious. This is merely my thoughts on how people in the political sense separate them selves.

Socialist policies stifle economic growth and FDR was no exception. Without the war to spur mass industrialization, the depression probably would not have ended.

How does stem-cell research stray away from morals?

Furthermore, morals aren't universal and why should the minority tell the majority what is and is not right (if liberals ever become a clear majority).

Socialist policies stifle economic growth and FDR was no exception. Without the war to spur mass industrialization, the depression probably would not have ended.
Do you think a conservative president (like the guy that was right before FDR whatever his name was) would have done a better job? Probably not. The absolute only solution to the depression was war. It's just that the socialist policies made life easier to live until we got out of the depression. And besides, the economy was slowly beginning to recover. It may have taken 50 years without a major war, but how long would it have taken under conservatism?

You may call me and the people that believe the same way as me religious fanatics but then of course you would be right but not in the way some people find to be a fault of ones personality. The idea of conservatives and the idea of Liberals have changed through the years. I don't think it's that we can't move forward in the progression of man kind, it's just if moving forward means to stray away from the morals and values one should have then I think staying the way our country was founded (on religion) is the best way to live. Yes we have moved past slavery and we have moved past suppression of races and sexes, but we are moving toward mass murdering of children, blasphemy, denial of Christ and his words. It is not the Conservatives that are stopping you from reaching a righteous goal it is the Liberals that are bringing you closer to a world where a person's life is measured in how many murdered babies it's going to take to keep them alive an extra 3 years. Though don’t mistake me… I don’t think a person is defined in whether they call themselves liberals and conservatives and I don’t think that all liberals are atheists and I don’t believe all conservatives are all religious. This is merely my thoughts on how people in the political sense separate them selves.

OK I want to know where you get off saying that America was founded on religion? Can you provide proof of this? Try to go back to founding fathers statements please.

Morals are universal. There is such a thing as "absolute truth." To deny this would be self contradictory.

Stem cell research has never shown to do any more than any of the other research that is currently ongoing. Besides, stem cell research IS currently ongoing - just not on the Federal dime.

BTW - Evil Republicans ended slavery and more Repubs voted for the 1965 Civil Rights Act than did Democrats. The Democrats are the ones who have known former Klansmen in their party. Sen. Byrd recently spoke about "niggers" on National news a year or two ago. Just because the media doesn't report it (to protect him) doesn't mean it doesn't go on. Conservatism is about "In matters of principle, stand like a rock; in matters of style, flow like a river." - Thomas Jefferson

OK I want to know where you get off saying that America was founded on religion? Can you provide proof of this? Try to go back to founding fathers statements please.
I think what he means is that the colonists came here original for religious freedoms.

HOWEVER...this is not entirely true...Virginia was founded on capitalism...Rhode Island and Maryland and maybe a few colonies were founded for religious freedoms, however originally, it was all for business ventures.

Morals are universal. There is such a thing as "absolute truth." To deny this would be self contradictory.
...you're just talking...not really arguing against my point...

Stem cell research has never shown to do any more than any of the other research that is currently ongoing. Besides, stem cell research IS currently ongoing - just not on the Federal dime.
Uh...federally funded research means that they can make a lot more progress and a lot faster. Besides, do you think that results are supposed to be found immediately? (Probably...since you an obv conservative)

BTW - Evil Republicans ended slavery and more Repubs voted for the 1965 Civil Rights Act than did Democrats. The Democrats are the ones who have known former Klansmen in their party. Sen. Byrd recently spoke about "niggers" on National news a year or two ago. Just because the media doesn't report it (to protect him) doesn't mean it doesn't go on. Conservatism is about "In matters of principle, stand like a rock; in matters of style, flow like a river." - Thomas Jefferson
This thread isn't Democrats vs Republicans. It's liberals vs conservatives. Abraham Lincoln was pretty liberal. I would call any clansmen pretty conservative.

Erinin. Left/Right/Republican/Democrat/Liberal/Conservative have not always had the same connections as they do now. Republicans were once the progressive party, to state that Lincoln was a conservatice is absurd.

Here is the dictionary definition of Conservative (minus more specific definitions as they pertain to many disparate political parties around the world):

Favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change.
Traditional or restrained in style: a conservative dark suit.
Moderate; cautious: a conservative estimate.

I wasn't basing my argument on party affiliation (though I did include Republican in the title, because I knew it would incite debate. Yes, a bit of manipulation on my part.) It was the resistant to chage that I was specifically targeting. While they were Republicans, I would hardly say, by that definition, that Lincoln and T Roosevelt were conservative.

Here is the dictionary definition of liberal:

Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
Of, relating to, or characteristic of liberalism.

Now do you see my point?

All political parties, of course, are not completely black and white. What prompted this thread was the continued perjorative use of the word "liberal" by the american media and conservatives.

Lincoln was a devout Christian (non-Catholic). He was a conservative. His reading of the Bible is what made him adopt the idea (as well as our forefathers) that all men are created equal and should not be held in slavery. That philosophy existed in no non-homogenous society until ours (because of the Bible). I'd call the freeing of slaves "progressive."

The "conservative" label applies more nowadays to a person's view of Government role/rule in our personal lives. The conservative believes that the Feds are not our parents and that we have the ability to pull ourselves out of a bad situation given the economic freedoms to do so. The only reason liberals have a voice is because they have easy access to luxuries such as quality food and water, free media, freedom of speech, etc. All of which are products of a capitalist, conservative, society.

Keep in mind that the Republican party used to be a progressive party. It was the party that freed the slaves, the party of Lincoln.

Don't make the mistake of associating 'conservative' with Republican and 'liberal/progressive' with Democrat. They are both far too short-sighted and conservative parties nowadays for my tastes.






Under conservative ideals, slaves would never have been freed, Democracy would never have been developed, women's rights would never have emerged, technology would have stagnated, and, in general, human rights would b in a barbaric state.

Therefore, in my mind, conservatism equates to either being stupid, corrupt, or simply stubborn.

Liberals are progressive. Liberals adapt to changing times. Liberals innovate. Liberals are able to logically grasp new information and change their ideas about the world around them. This, of course, is seen by conservatives, as "flip-flopping." This is an easy, finger-pointing strategy to enable conservatives who are too afraid of new things or too attached to the way things are to feel somehow superior to those who would like to analyze the world around them and find better ways to do things.

Guess what, if someone had a great idea on how to overhaul government, make it more efficient and thereby save everyone taxes by doing things in a more efficient way, this would be a liberal concept.

Of course, there are thiose who say liberals are pessimists because we point out flaws in the workings of things around us. I say that the conservatives are the pessimists, because they somehow think that what we have now is as good as things are gonna get. Doesn't sound too optimistic to me.

Fight conservative ideas wherever you go. Fight stagnation. Fight corruption. Fight lazy lassez-faire ideas. There is a better day ahead, and we must not bend our knee to those who would hold us back.

...you're just talking...not really arguing against my point... If you were to say that "There is nothing that is absolutely right or wrong, you're saying that nothing is absolutely true, or "There is no absolute truth". I would respond "is that statement absolutely true?" And you would say....what?


Uh...federally funded research means that they can make a lot more progress and a lot faster. Besides, do you think that results are supposed to be found immediately? (Probably...since you an obv conservative)
How much progress has been made by government funding in finding a cure for AIDS, cancer, or anything else? If federal research money is so good, we should have had a cure by now. Private enterprises realize that if they don't make a good medicine, they don't exist. They have the best motivation to build the cheapest, most effective medicine possible.

This thread isn't Democrats vs Republicans. It's liberals vs conservatives. Abraham Lincoln was pretty liberal. I would call any clansmen pretty conservative. And I can call any liberal conservative, it just depends on what issue I want to call them conservative on...for instance, liberals hold that the socialist principles present in Cold War era Soviet Union are strong prniciples...if they're so progressive, why wouldn't they be willing to change their minds on Redistribution of wealth, banning (Christian) religion from public, promoting proletarianism, etc.?? Sounds backward to me.

Lincoln was a devout Christian (non-Catholic).
Actually, he was very close to being an atheist.

He was a conservative. His reading of the Bible is what made him adopt the idea (as well as our forefathers) that all men are created equal and should not be held in slavery.
Actually, he didn't give a tinker's cuss about slavery.

That philosophy existed in no non-homogenous society until ours (because of the Bible).
Actually, the bible was used to uphold slavery.

Actually, he was very close to being an atheist.


Actually, he didn't give a tinker's cuss about slavery.


Actually, the bible was used to uphold slavery.
All true.

The only problem with what you just said is that your saying it doesn't make it true. Only the fact that be Bible was used by corrupt individuals to uphold slavery is true. But the vast majority of those opposed to slavery held such position because of their Christian belief. Read.

How much progress has been made by government funding in finding a cure for AIDS, cancer, or anything else? If federal research money is so good, we should have had a cure by now. Private enterprises realize that if they don't make a good medicine, they don't exist. They have the best motivation to build the cheapest, most effective medicine possible.
...
"No cure has been found yet. Therefore, no cure exists."
...

The only problem with what you just said is that your saying it doesn't make it true. Only the fact that be Bible was used by corrupt individuals to uphold slavery is true. But the vast majority of those opposed to slavery held such position because of their Christian belief. Read.
The problem with the Bible is that the North used it to denounce slavery and the South used it to defend slavery.

And in addition, Lincoln wasn't really that concerned about slavery.

The problem with the Bible is that the North used it to denounce slavery and the South used it to defend slavery.

That sounds like a problem with the South, then.

James Garfield is a good example of this conservative-thinking concept. He fought against people in his own party to grant suffrage for Blacks in that day.

That sounds like a problem with the South, then.
Uh...not even all of the North was opposed to slavery dude. It was like 25%...

Which is probably about the same percentage of Southerners that actually owned slaves.

The fact of the matter is, if it were economically feasible, the North would have been slaveholders too.

James Garfield is a good example of this conservative-thinking concept. He fought against people in his own party to grant suffrage for Blacks in that day.
I'd call that a liberal move by a conservative.

bunch a damn crazies. Laissez faire all the way! Tear down the IRS and taxation. Military? I'm not sure where I am on that one, I'd prefer no government or country have one.

Many indeed sadly used the bible to defend slavery but they were wrong and lincoln was no hero as he is made out to be he allowed the unecessary to take place a civil war was not necessary. Its sad that many who spoke against slavery were secular atheists and such but many were christians and used the bible rightfully to fight slavery I would have been on that side it was and still is the right side, slavery also comes in forms besides being forced to work but being forced to pay taxes, the draft among others to.

The only problem with what you just said is that your saying it doesn't make it true.
True. But I have facts on my side.

Only the fact that be Bible was used by corrupt individuals to uphold slavery is true.
Ah. "Corrupt" individuals. So they weren't "true christians", I take it, right? Can you say "No True Scotsman fallacy"?

But the vast majority of those opposed to slavery held such position because of their Christian belief.
No, they didn't.

I'd call that a liberal move by a conservative.

Except that many others like him thought that way who were considered "conservatives" What most people don't see is that conservatives do believe in progression, just not at the sacrifice of the basic principles that give us the freedom to pursue progression. Give me an example of forward-thinking in America's modern liberal party. There are none.

Lincoln and many Republicans actually felt that slavery was a good idea because it helped the south economically and allowed northerners to earn wages in factories and such. The abolishment of slavery meant massive black migration north to take jobs for cheap in factories because any pay is better than no pay.

Except that many others like him thought that way who were considered "conservatives" What most people don't see is that conservatives do believe in progression, just not at the sacrifice of the basic principles that give us the freedom to pursue progression. Give me an example of forward-thinking in America's modern liberal party. There are none.
...I think I'm done responding to this guy...there's no point in continueing.

liberals bore easily.

liberals bore easily.
I just get tired of pure-flamage quickly.

liberals bore easily.

Well it's the conservatives who want to ban everything until you become as boring as they are.

[/generalisation while we're at it]

There are liberals, conservatives and morons. I'm not saying which group you belong to, as that would be flaming, but I'm willing to put it up to a vote.

Well... wouldn't CONSERVING the enviroment be a CONSERVATIVE idea?

I feel that conservatives do want change. Indeed, the world has changed since conservatives started appearing in politics around the thirties, and so have we. We use to be a group that believed in a centralized economy and such. Now, obviously, we aren't. The liberals have gone through similar changes, too.

Well... wouldn't CONSERVING the enviroment be a CONSERVATIVE idea?

Just because two words are similar does not make them synonyms. Environmentalism is a liberal concept, as it is an idea thast strays from the established "business as usual, money above all else" ideals of the establishment. Allowing businesses free reign without government regulation is the conservative stance.

I know what side of the aisle enviromentalist are on. You said that conservatives did not want change. Logically, one would think that they diddn't want to change the enviroment around them because they want to stay put. You were going strictly on definition here. Im just trying to show you that things are more grey then you make them seem. Also, interestingly enough the first acts of conservation were done by a republican. ;)

Just trying to make you think...

I'm wasting my breath Tygaland..no doubt many would have assumed..."Oh..salishe is a minority..of course he's for AA"...nothing could be further from the truth..it's like an insidious virus...spreading into the minority community that we need the governments help to do for ourselves what we should be doing...I don't want a handout, a helping hand..whatever...equality means I just want the same shot to be accepted as the other thousands of kids in college...in fact..I don't believe college entrance applications should have color as a factor...erase that damn block...I would hope that if a black, brown, or asian kid wants to go to college that he backs up his chances to go to college with his test scores and his drive and will, not smirk as he knows he'll get into college based on for no other reason then he was not white.

Yes, it looks like it. For what it is worth I agree with everything you said.

less legislation on personal liberties,
Well that explains the attempt to legislate against certain types of marriage, ditto for regulations telling people what substances they may or may not consume, the list of course could go on....

a reasoble stance on the enviorment
As anyone who watched the BBC the other week could tell you this is needed. Generally speaking a stance that causes other countries to literally sink beneath the ocean is far from reasonable.

Education, Personal Freedom, Freedom of Worship, Support of the Family unit(which through our staggeringly dropping wages is again not occuring with the current regime).
And indeed is not likely to occur as long as what Americans call conservative government (but is elsewhere referred to as neo-liberalism) continues to dominate.

Please, in what year was this church edict was made, when it was repealed.
I am unaware of any point in history where this was the Doctrine of the Catholic Church, and no the "Salem" witch trials were not done on behalf of the Holy Roman church(and no I am NOT Catholic, however your statement is a vile stereotype)
Surely you realise that history did not begin with America, and that history refers to more than 'what has happened since white folk turned up in the 'new world'.

Democracy would never have been developed,

What!!This statement is again caused by your made-up defenition of what Conservative means
Actually it is entirely true. You are confused either as to history or as to the meaning of conservative. Conserve is the root of conservative, it means to conserve the current ways. At one point democracy was not the current way and ergo if conservatism had prevailed and the current way had been conserved there would be no democracy.

Wrong again read about Womens Sufferage and you will see it was the Women of the Republican Right conservative aristocracy who helped Suffereage the most, seriously did you go to school in America?
Such women were not conservative in the area of social gender relations. The problem with the confusion over what conservative means is that many people dont understand that it does not describe for most people their views, but sections of their veiws, I for instance am very conservative in many arears whilst being not at all conservative in others.

The Conservative Government throws money at the technology sector(big business) so again no.
This has nothing to do with being conservative in a discreet sense (if you are referring to a society that already does this, that is conservative, if you are referring to a society that does not do this, then to do so would be radical rather then conservative). It is actually a trade mark of neo-liberalism, where by the premise is that the market is left alone, but the actuallity is corporate welfare, because apparently that top 3% of the nation's income earners still dont feel like they have quite enough. Meanwhile middle income earners are fed cock-and-bull stories about the lowest income earners being the reason why middle income earners struggle to get ahead. Why middle income earners are happy to believe that a largish group at the bottom who own the smallest share of resources are the ones taking all the money, as opposed to the very smallest group of the population who own more than the middle and low income earners combined, I cannot explain.

The extreme few are masters of both the Left and the Right.
Aha because they own all the stuff, and people like stuff, so people listen to people who own stuff if they think in doing so they might get their hands on a share of said stuff....

To claim one side of this orgy of ignorance is more wrong then another does not do justice to ending this game of sound bite politics,
One side is worse, because both sides are embarking on the same path, but one is ambling along and occasionally taken a scenic detour, while the other is sprinting at full speed. I think that until things can be turned around proceeding slowly in the wrong direction is preferrable to sprinting in the wrong direction.

Davis' idea of "deregulation" was deregulation only in name, not reality. The companies were given a maximum that they could charge for energy, and weren't allowed to purchase in advance to take advantage of low rates, nor could they lock in said low rates.

Tell me, what do you expect to happen when you can charge now more than $5/kilowatt hour and it's costing you $15/kilowatt hour? That wasn't deregulation, they were still heavily regulated. They went bankrupt because they were paying more for the energy than they were allowed to charge. Maybe if California had actually deregulated, many of those problems wouldn't have happened
Then again maybe not. Trust me we did deregulate, we have had shortages, and we are struggling with the means by which we can re-regulate as a result of continued supply problems coupled with consumers being burdened by rising costs. Complete deregulation has failed as it appears has partial deregulation. Is it too sensible to suggest that moving away from service imperatives to profit imperatives often results in more profits being generated through cut backs in service? Businesses are in business to make a profit, that is to surcharge after all costs have been accounted for. Are you really trying to suggest that paying costs plus profits is cheaper than paying cost?

I would love to eliminate welfare, socialsecurity, medicare and any other entitlement
Great another neo-liberal.

. I don't think it's that we can't move forward in the progression of man kind, it's just if moving forward means to stray away from the morals and values one should have then I think staying the way our country was founded (on religion) is the best way to live.
Morals and values one should have....and who's to decide which morals and values are the ones people should have?

Morals are universal. There is such a thing as "absolute truth."
No morals are not universal, there is much contestation with regards to morals, for instance many people are absolutely convinced that it is immoral for a woman to leave her family home without a male relative. I decide my morals, you decide your own, and that way neither of us end up beholden to some idea that simply makes no sense. There is a difference between socially necessary values/regulations and morals, whilst the earlier and latter can coincide, the earlier is something a society can expect its members to abide by, the latter is personal choice and ought to treated as such.

BTW - Evil Republicans ended slavery and more Repubs voted for the 1965 Civil Rights Act than did Democrats. The Democrats are the ones who have known former Klansmen in their party. Sen. Byrd recently spoke about "niggers" on National news a year or two ago. Just because the media doesn't report it (to protect him) doesn't mean it doesn't go on.
And current Republican Congressional candidate Mr Heart believes in eugenics (not sure how he works that in with the anti abortion position, after all whats the point of banning people from breeding if you cant enforce the rule with abortion in cases of defiance), and also offered the rather surprising news that cars would not have been invented if non-white people had been integrated 200 years ago.......he has yet to produce valid evidence as to why this should be so, and personally I am not holding my breath....

Lincoln was a devout Christian (non-Catholic). He was a conservative. His reading of the Bible is what made him adopt the idea (as well as our forefathers) that all men are created equal and should not be held in slavery. That philosophy existed in no non-homogenous society until ours (because of the Bible). I'd call the freeing of slaves "progressive."
Lincoln's view on slavery were not conservative. Conservative means to conserve things as they are. If you wish to have change in a particular area, you are not in relation to that area a conservative.

The "conservative" label applies more nowadays to a person's view of Government role/rule in our personal lives. The conservative believes that the Feds are not our parents and that we have the ability to pull ourselves out of a bad situation given the economic freedoms to do so. The only reason liberals have a voice is because they have easy access to luxuries such as quality food and water, free media, freedom of speech, etc. All of which are products of a capitalist, conservative, society.
Conservative means what it has always meant, its just that most of the time most of the people in America have no idea what the words conservative and liberal mean. The words in fact have become so confused that they are apparently meaningless to Americans, beyond being a source of name calling and accusation. Just to be completely clear (yet again) conservativism is to conserve the status quo, most people are conservatives in some areas and not in others. Name one person you know who wants to legalise rape for instance.

There is nothing that is absolutely right or wrong, you're saying that nothing is absolutely true, or "There is no absolute truth". I would respond "is that statement absolutely true?"
And if I were to say that there is an absolute right and wrong in many issues and not so in others, and by the way which is which and how do you know that you know that you know what you know, your arguments would quickly become reductionist and/or tautological.

bunch a damn crazies. Laissez faire all the way!
Darn right! Lets get those children back down the coal mines working 14 hours a day for 5 cents or so. Imagine the savings to be made in education, health (hey they'll have no time to seek out medical attention and will die before they get to the really expensive elderly stage), pensions, and law enforcement (because there's not a lot of criminal opportunities down your average coal mine).

Many indeed sadly used the bible to defend slavery
Morally they were wrong, academically they were correct to infer that the bible endorses slavery.

Except that many others like him thought that way who were considered "conservatives" What most people don't see is that conservatives do believe in progression, just not at the sacrifice of the basic principles that give us the freedom to pursue progression.
Ok let me again clarify for those who still dont understand what conservative means. Conservative does not refer to one's views and values, it refers to one's attitude toward the current status quo. If there are slaves and you are against this, you are not on the issue of slavery conservative. Any other views you may have are not relevent to whether or not this particular view is conservative. At this point in time if you are an American that supports homosexual law reform vis a vis marraige (whether to promote such unions or ammend the Constitution to ban it) you are not a conservative on that issue, whilst those who wish to ignore the whole issue and carry on are conservatives with regards to this particular issue.

Well... wouldn't CONSERVING the enviroment be a CONSERVATIVE idea
That would depend on whether or not the status quo is to conserve the enviroment. If the status quo is to conserve the enviroment then yes, if the status quo does not include conservation of the enviroment then no.

I feel that conservatives do want change.
Then you are confused regarding the meaning of the word.

Indeed, the world has changed since conservatives started appearing in politics around the thirties,
Indeed the world is changing and always has been and regardless conservatism existed long before the 30's. There have always been those who are opposed to change, and fact I suggest that it is very rare for anyone to not want to retain something.....

Except that many others like him thought that way who were considered "conservatives" What most people don't see is that conservatives do believe in progression, just not at the sacrifice of the basic principles that give us the freedom to pursue progression. Give me an example of forward-thinking in America's modern liberal party. There are none.

Tell me, how many republicans get heart transplants?
By definition they should not if they are conservatives, as when they were first introduced it was considered wrong to alter the human body that way in this country anyhow. Traditionalism, conservative, these are words used to describe what people want to claim to be such.

Progress cannot take place in a truely conservative world, it just wont happen, the benifits of the progress soon become aparent, or something happens to make someone realize just how important a new procedure is and walla change even in the most traditional hearts.

The truth is America is blind, we have a two party system no matter how many parties exist, after all how many parties are allowed to debate or have a real chance at any power? People need to get rid of parties all together, the truth of what is best almost always lies somewhere in the middle, never in the extremes.

Capitolism to the extreme, the rich own everything, the poor cant afford to eat, they die and the pyramid collapses because no one stopped to help the guy at the bottom. Add in compassion and you become more socialist or communist.

Communism to the extreme, someone gets lazy or greedy, great idea wont work due to human greed, too bad really.

Socialism to the extreme, people feel no identity, they own nothing, they don't work as hard because it gives then nothing, it is the most stable of all extremes but weakens over time and collapses like the rest.

The honest truth is that no country falls into an extreme, it is impossible and would not last even a year. Fortunately the people in control have some realization of this, but sell themselves to be whatever they wish the people to think. We then go around claiming we are a democracy, yet few in America seem to know what that means, last time I was allowed to vote on whether or not we went to was was, er, never. Congress passes our laws for us, how is that democracy, even the president is not selected by the majority of the people, we are not even close to being a democracy so why do we claim it? Republic perhaps, hell it even states such in our pledge, "I pledge alligiance to the REPUBLIC for which it stand...."

If we were a capitolism Bill Gates would be president and we would all be forced to purchase cars with the Microsoft Car OS, Linux would be outlawed, as would apple and all microsoft competitors, soon following those in the fields that Microsoft took over.

If we were a democracy everything would be put to a vote to the people.

If we were a republic we could go several ways, but we would have several more people in congress than we do, representing all different people who have the right of representation, which could be determined in as many ways. Though we do resemble this closer than anything else.

Wellfare is a socialist concept, the USSR was a socialist state, does that mean supporting ideas such as wellfare and public schools is a russian concept and should be banned? We would turn into an aristrocrate based republic if that were the case.

I know its long and its just the tip, but something to think about anyhow.

My opinion is that America has to much capitolism and is to militant, trying to be dictators of the world.
If we took the 150 billion spent in the Iraqi war we could have given 1.5 Million jobs or more to people in need, instead unemployment is still high the economy is still in a dump, where are our priorities?

pet peeve time:

I also find it funny that most of the people spitting on the anti war activists never been to war, I for one have and I don't believe people should take the liberty I supposedly fought for from me and use them so liberally without knowing what they are saying, war sucks that is all there is to it, and yes it can be needed, but not when our country needs other things first. Put a ransom on any terrorist that bombs us at say 1 billion, and their mother will turn them in, then spend the 149 billion on helping our country to recover, give a billion to the families and we still come out ahead. America needs to figure out their priorities, and think before they flex, a bounty on someone's head of that magnitude will both take out the people responcible and ensure that others think twice before even trying such an act, and save tax payers 149 billion. Just think how many corperations and rich people would fund militia to hunt Ben Lauden down :D.

This is not only isolated to the war protestors at the start, it is relevant to everything that goes on in this country. War protestors should not spit on people that are prowar either. Pro abortionists should not be name calling anti abortionsts, and vice versa. United we stand, yet the debates are over before they start and people fight over the results instead of debating and discussing things like rational people then deciding based on majority support.

Anyways, love, peace and happyness to all.

For example, at one point people who did not adhere to the ideals of the Catholic Church were burned at the stake. If one were conservative, then this practice would never have changed. Under conservative ideals, slaves would never have been freed, Democracy would never have been developed, women's rights would never have emerged, technology would have stagnated, and, in general, human rights would b in a barbaric state.
Therefore, in my mind, conservatism equates to either being stupid, corrupt, or simply stubborn.

Was Abraham lincoln not a republican? As I understand it, during the american civil war, it was the republican north versus the democratic south

Actually I have no problem with conservatism in many areas, and I have plenty of problems with conservatism in other areas, its all relative to the status quo. For instance I think conserving the tradition of not attacking other countries pre-emptively on the far fetched off chance that they might be a threat is a tradition worth conserving, I also think the parts of the Constitution that insist particular groups (for instance homosexuals) not be singled out for particular treatment are also worth conserving, as is the right for a woman to choose what happens inside her own body. In these areas Bush's government are radicals not conservatives.

I personally think the whole 'liberal v conservative' thing in the States just confuses people. Liberal has a whole other meaning everywhere else, it is a term that cannot be accurately attached to the Democrates for instance, just as conservative does not appear to be an accurate title for the current Bush administration. Outside America the word 'liberal' refers to policies that favour an unfettered free market. Neo Liberal is the term used to describe the rebirth of liberalism in contemporary times. It applies to policies and ideologies that are premised on 'free market', 'small governement' and individual responsibility.

The problem with the way politics is described in the States is that it makes no sense. People who are usurping the current status quo and who favour 'neo-liberal' policies are called conservative, while those who are more conservative (as relative to the status quo) and who dont favour 'neo-liberal' policies are called liberals. Meanwhile these words say absolutely nothing about the people they are afixed to, but rather the people they are afixed to define the current meaning of the word......that makes no sense.

Thank you for that. Someone had to inform them. It's all very confusing if your used to the more international system

Yes we are.

However, we Liberals just do not consider a small clump of cells to be a baby.

And minorities are indeed set back by the system which is why Affirmative Action is necessary at current in the US. Does not mean that it will always be there though, just till things get a little more equal in the 'opportunities' department.....

Could someone explain to me how "affirmative action" works exactly and how it benefits people?
Because as I understand it, (I could be very wrong so please correct) it gives advantages depending on race or colour.

A quick thought:
"And liberty and justice for all."

Proof that our government is incompetent, those two cannot go together, and they are NOT descriptive of the US.

For instance I know a gal on wellfare, she makes good money but doesn't have to report it for lots of reasons, another person in serious need of assistance gets nothing, justice?

Some people have the freedom to get married, others do not, liberty?

In some places you cannot buy beer on Sunday, obviously due to religion, forcing people to follow religious guidelines that they may not believe in, freedom of religion? liberty?

We ignore our constitution, spit on our pledge, the only conclusion one could honestly state is America is nothing but an act and what we claim falls far from the truth.

A theif gets injured trying to break into someone's home, the thief sues, now that is justice if I ever heard of it.

A person sues McDonalds because their coffee was hot, wow, justice again.

Lets all sue ciggarette companies for giving us tabacco, forget the indians that gave us it in the first place, don't forget to sue McDonalds for giving us food, never mind its the cows that got fat. America has turned into a joke because people ignore the real issues and fight over things like should we extend the last call to 2 am or A joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States authorizing Congress to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States, whats more important to stop people from speaking out against a nation or ensure that our nation's people are being treated fairly and justly and have liberties? Hmmm, which is in the constitution, the pledge, and in the claims of what it is to be American?

Don't get me wrong America was a great nation and can be again, it just requires that we all sit and think what is truely important to us.

As a note, I would like to see an extra hour of drinking, but I would rather the time of my representatives be spent on more important issues. Personally if someone dislikes America and we don't let them speak then we are the tyrants we claim to stop. To speak out against America is what made America a great nation, to say what you wanted and have the government protect you even if you stated claims that they were hiding your alien grandfather in the desert is what made me proud of this nation as a child. Now I fear for my life to spit in the wrong direction that it may happen to hit a flag, or say fuck in public as I may get arrested for submitting a child to sexual language and become a sex offender or some stupid shit that way. Meanwhile mrs. Dumbass can sue a food chain because she couldn't control her appitite. Believe me I wish that I thought of suing McDonalds when I spilt hot coffee on myself, but that does not make it just.

Being a health care worker, if I was wise I would be afraid of bruising one of my clients, they may sue me for causing a temporary blemish that lead to mental distress and depression since it was on their butt cheek. People need to stand up and deal with reality kick the corperate unions out and invoke new unions, revolt against things they feel are not right, be it standing up being brave and saying thats not right or go to arms because the government has become corrupt enough that the voice of a nation does not matter.

People grow to accept anything, Jews being marched by a single man with a gun, easily rushed and overcome, yet they march too suppressed to try. I wonder if one man stood there and yelled that it could be done loud enough if they would follow.

The people are the power, we just need to take it back.

Could someone explain to me how "affirmative action" works exactly and how it benefits people?
Because as I understand it, (I could be very wrong so please correct) it gives advantages depending on race or colour.

Here is the concept:
As the tests administered for some schools are considered culturally bias, and they are as all things are, they give a differential based on statistical evidence to minorities. Laws vary from place to place and are not truely in effect in places that do not seem to need them. The big debate was based on a small handful of schools and after researching it for a paper I did in college I personally found the local article against affirmative action to be irrelevant to the local populace as no affirmative action measures were being used in the ways he was describing them, all examples were from other states, and his research was poorly done. Basically I considered his proposal to be a waste of tax payers money, like trying to remove the law that it is illegal to hunt whales from the side of the road, (My state (Utah) has no oceans and currently does not even have a seaworld).
Really its basically saying because the venacular of some cultures and education resources available are limited to the test, to truely find if they are comparable to those that score higher on the test we need to adjust for that.
Think of it as this, if someone from the south went to New York, they would be instantly though dumb because they speak slower and use different slang, thus taking a test in New York would be a bit harder as well. Affirmative action is the imperfect means to try and balance these types of issues in dealing with racial barriers, but it does not include all possible problems nor can any real sollution.

Hope this makes sense.

From what I see going on in the US, I can honestly say that unless someone told me which one is the republican and which is the liberal, I would not have a clue.
Someone earlier said that the greatest president was FDR, who was a liberal. But did he not strenghen the central government and do alot of other acts that would normally be seen as conservative?

Here is the concept:
As the tests administered for some schools are considered culturally bias, and they are as all things are, they give a differential based on statistical evidence to minorities. Laws vary from place to place and are not truely in effect in places that do not seem to need them. The big debate was based on a small handful of schools and after researching it for a paper I did in college I personally found the local article against affirmative action to be irrelevant to the local populace as no affirmative action measures were being used in the ways he was describing them, all examples were from other states, and his research was poorly done. Basically I considered his proposal to be a waste of tax payers money, like trying to remove the law that it is illegal to hunt whales from the side of the road, (My state (Utah) has no oceans and currently does not even have a seaworld).
Really its basically saying because the venacular of some cultures and education resources available are limited to the test, to truely find if they are comparable to those that score higher on the test we need to adjust for that.
Think of it as this, if someone from the south went to New York, they would be instantly though dumb because they speak slower and use different slang, thus taking a test in New York would be a bit harder as well. Affirmative action is the imperfect means to try and balance these types of issues in dealing with racial barriers, but it does not include all possible problems nor can any real sollution.

Hope this makes sense.

ahhh.... so its not if your black/chinese/latino that you get special treatment. But that if you come from an area that does not offer the same level of education then you are "helped along" a bit. Is that correct?
So in a minority school as I assume it is not up to the same standard by the way you are talking about it, then you would get the advantage even if you are white.
But then, why force universities to take student with this "point advantage". If a student is smart they are smart.
By using quotas and such you seem to reinforce the idea that minorities as you call them are less likely to do well. They can't be seen as highly even if they do graduate as there will always be that idea at the back of your mind

The truth is America is blind, we have a two party system no matter how many parties exist, after all how many parties are allowed to debate or have a real chance at any power? People need to get rid of parties all together, the truth of what is best almost always lies somewhere in the middle, never in the extremes.

That's why I see myself as center right. Its the best option in my eyes. Business is good, but don't screw the people. Very simplistic i know, but am at work must type quickish

ahhh.... so its not if your black/chinese/latino that you get special treatment. But that if you come from an area that does not offer the same level of education then you are "helped along" a bit. Is that correct?
So in a minority school as I assume it is not up to the same standard by the way you are talking about it, then you would get the advantage even if you are white.
But then, why force universities to take student with this "point advantage". If a student is smart they are smart.
By using quotas and such you seem to reinforce the idea that minorities as you call them are less likely to do well. They can't be seen as highly even if they do graduate as there will always be that idea at the back of your mind

I think my examples were a bit confusing sorry.

It is racially based, that is one of it's weaknesses.
They use statistics to determine the advantage they give the a set race, this is not completely accurate or fair, as a black raise in a wealthy area prodominately white gets an advantage over their peers.

In some states it may be where you grew up though. It is regulated by states sort of, and usually volunteer in the means by which schools/places of employment handle it. Some states handle it lightly others a bit more aggressively.

Some states do not support affirmative action, as is their right to choose so.

The idea is that the entrance exam tests are there to test your raw ability to think, not so much your current standing on those. By giving people with statistically poorer education (racially) you are allowing "supposedly" the best of the best in reguardless of background. Once in the school they are held to the same standards as other students and must learn the same subject matter at the same level.

As I said it is not perfect, and in some places it is not needed, other places the laws should be redraw as whites are minorities. The problem with laws is they are never truely just, it is only a hope that they will be better than before. I would suggest if you are still confused to search the internet for more detailed information as to the reasoning placed behind the paticular locations that give certain advantages. Yes I do believe that in many places whites get the shaft because of the laws and wish people were not prejudice so that we could all find a fit resolution.

California abolished affirmative action and the immediate impact did not exist, this is either because California culture is one that is less prejudice or that things have not changed that much yet, the future will only tell. Most states do not have much to do about affirmative action as no need is present.

From what I see going on in the US, I can honestly say that unless someone told me which one is the republican and which is the liberal, I would not have a clue.
Someone earlier said that the greatest president was FDR, who was a liberal. But did he not strenghen the central government and do alot of other acts that would normally be seen as conservative?

That's why I see myself as center right. Its the best option in my eyes. Business is good, but don't screw the people. Very simplistic i know, but am at work must type quickish

Daroth,
I agree that business is good, and people are the bulk of that union thus need to be treated with respect.

I cannot accept a party as I do not see the true differences either, it seems more a advertising tool than anything. In theory Republicans are for bussiness, Democrats for people, yet if that was true why do most people (not being bussiness owners) vote republican in some places? Basically I agree a liberal doing conservative things, actually very common, conservatives are liberal waiting to catch up, because by todays standards the most liberal man in the 1920s was very conservative. Thats one aspect, another is most democrates in Utah would be considered republicans in most other states because they are so conservative, so the party concept really means nothing.

Strength of liberals: They move things along at a faster rate, improvements are faster and things become more modernized.
Weakness of liberals: They tend to take more risks as new things are not always proven better. Too much change can cause problems.

Strength of conservatives: The methods may not be the best but they usually still work.
Weakness of conservatives: They cannot adapt and tend to make descicions based on the past instead of the present. Slow to change.

Anyone disagree with how I define them?

A quick thought:
"And liberty and justice for all."

Proof that our government is incompetent, those two cannot go together, and they are NOT descriptive of the US.

For instance I know a gal on wellfare, she makes good money but doesn't have to report it for lots of reasons, another person in serious need of assistance gets nothing, justice?

Some people have the freedom to get married, others do not, liberty?

In some places you cannot buy beer on Sunday, obviously due to religion, forcing people to follow religious guidelines that they may not believe in, freedom of religion? liberty?

We ignore our constitution, spit on our pledge, the only conclusion one could honestly state is America is nothing but an act and what we claim falls far from the truth.

A theif gets injured trying to break into someone's home, the thief sues, now that is justice if I ever heard of it.

A person sues McDonalds because their coffee was hot, wow, justice again.

Lets all sue ciggarette companies for giving us tabacco, forget the indians that gave us it in the first place, don't forget to sue McDonalds for giving us food, never mind its the cows that got fat. America has turned into a joke because people ignore the real issues and fight over things like should we extend the last call to 2 am or A joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States authorizing Congress to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States, whats more important to stop people from speaking out against a nation or ensure that our nation's people are being treated fairly and justly and have liberties? Hmmm, which is in the constitution, the pledge, and in the claims of what it is to be American?

Don't get me wrong America was a great nation and can be again, it just requires that we all sit and think what is truely important to us.

As a note, I would like to see an extra hour of drinking, but I would rather the time of my representatives be spent on more important issues. Personally if someone dislikes America and we don't let them speak then we are the tyrants we claim to stop. To speak out against America is what made America a great nation, to say what you wanted and have the government protect you even if you stated claims that they were hiding your alien grandfather in the desert is what made me proud of this nation as a child. Now I fear for my life to spit in the wrong direction that it may happen to hit a flag, or say fuck in public as I may get arrested for submitting a child to sexual language and become a sex offender or some stupid shit that way. Meanwhile mrs. Dumbass can sue a food chain because she couldn't control her appitite. Believe me I wish that I thought of suing McDonalds when I spilt hot coffee on myself, but that does not make it just.

Being a health care worker, if I was wise I would be afraid of bruising one of my clients, they may sue me for causing a temporary blemish that lead to mental distress and depression since it was on their butt cheek. People need to stand up and deal with reality kick the corperate unions out and invoke new unions, revolt against things they feel are not right, be it standing up being brave and saying thats not right or go to arms because the government has become corrupt enough that the voice of a nation does not matter.

People grow to accept anything, Jews being marched by a single man with a gun, easily rushed and overcome, yet they march too suppressed to try. I wonder if one man stood there and yelled that it could be done loud enough if they would follow.

The people are the power, we just need to take it back.



Some good points but in need of some comments:

1) this welfare cheat you know... have you reported her? No? Why not? How can you complain that a crime is occuring when you, a witness to that crime, do not come forward and report it?

2) at the time of the infamous case, McDonalds, by corporate policy, served all of its coffee at 190 degrees F, a temperature that WILL cause third degree burns to human flesh. The woman who sued required major, painful and expensive reconstructive surgery to her groin. If you want to jump on the "well she was a dumbass to have spilled it" bandwagon, you are welcome to, but please do be aware of the details. In the real world, people sometimes spill drinks, and some of us do believe that such occurences should not be crippling.

3) the "McDonalds made me fat" lawsuit has been thrown out of court.

Some good points but in need of some comments:

1) this welfare cheat you know... have you reported her? No? Why not? How can you complain that a crime is occuring when you, a witness to that crime, do not come forward and report it?

2) at the time of the infamous case, McDonalds, by corporate policy, served all of its coffee at 190 degrees F, a temperature that WILL cause third degree burns to human flesh. The woman who sued required major, painful and expensive reconstructive surgery to her groin. If you want to jump on the "well she was a dumbass to have spilled it" bandwagon, you are welcome to, but please do be aware of the details. In the real world, people sometimes spill drinks, and some of us do believe that such occurences should not be crippling.

3) the "McDonalds made me fat" lawsuit has been thrown out of court.

about the 2nd point. are those coffee cups not designed with lids. And had she not removed hers? jsut asking

Some good points but in need of some comments:

1) this welfare cheat you know... have you reported her? No? Why not? How can you complain that a crime is occuring when you, a witness to that crime, do not come forward and report it?

2) at the time of the infamous case, McDonalds, by corporate policy, served all of its coffee at 190 degrees F, a temperature that WILL cause third degree burns to human flesh. The woman who sued required major, painful and expensive reconstructive surgery to her groin. If you want to jump on the "well she was a dumbass to have spilled it" bandwagon, you are welcome to, but please do be aware of the details. In the real world, people sometimes spill drinks, and some of us do believe that such occurences should not be crippling.

3) the "McDonalds made me fat" lawsuit has been thrown out of court.

She was reported, though not by me I tend to try to stay out of it cause I learned a long time ago it just causes more greif for you, ya know, why report a crime spend 3 hours filling out reports and find it did not good. Basically they said they had no evidence of any fraud and would look into it at a later time, last I heard she is still going strong.

As for McDonalds lady, so by your argument, we should tear some one a new a-hole because they were unaware of something, so should not microsoft be sued for the various bugs it has, they cost companies a ton of money all the time. Or how about the old lady that hits someone because she can't see, do we sue her or the state for letting her drive? Why is it ok for someone to cut themselves with a knife and need reconstructive surgeory and not sue but it is if they burn themselves. The world is a dangerous place, do we sue bathtub manufacturers because you slipped? When is it rediculas and when is it ok? Btw no one still that bath tub Idea I gotta figure this one out, to get a concusion but not effect me too much, cut face on the facet?


The made me fat lawsuit: Yeah it was, but the fact that they even allowed that to go to court is the joke, McDonalds should be allowed to sue them for damages in legal costs for wasting their time. Fine the guy that made the documentary about it is one thing, thats just showing what we all know.

Yeah the poor lady got hurt, people get fat, and people lie cheat and steal all the time, either we stop being allowing people to take advantage of the system or we get stuck with the costs, sign a waiver before you order anything at mcdonalds, noting you realize it may be hot and make you fat. Have cameras everywhere watching everything just to make sure people are not cheating, pay extra taxes so people that don't need to money can sit in the lap of luxery. McDonalds is not the one that paid that lady to sit back with a million bucks or their lawyers to go to court, it was their customers that ended up flipping the bill. Not to mention the complications that get added to our lives as companies spend more time and develop more policies to protecting their interests, in the end we will have to sign a contract that if you get fat your first born will be sacrificed to appease the God of McDonalds just so they do not get sued.

Quiting is hard, accidents happen, its the way it is. But people need to take responcibility for themselves and own up to what they did. I am thinking I will sue the catholic church as they are the representatives to god for being born with a crooked nose and the pain and agony it caused me. I think my friend should for being born paralyzed with osteoparalysis. After all at that point is it god, your parents? Parents have no money so go after god. Sarcasm aside I understand what you are saying, and feel sorry for these people, but why are they different than the hundreds of thousands of others that have things happen all the time, Iraqii children blown to bits by americans, can their parents sue us because we hit the wrong building? The list goes on and on.

As a side note, it is possible that people feel the coffee woman just where I do not, well if it be so be it, I don't mind people disagreeing with me as long as its reasonable if it is not and important enough to me I will do something about it, as I hope all will and do, I just questions the important enough part sometimes :D.

about the 2nd point. are those coffee cups not designed with lids. And had she not removed hers? jsut asking

Yes she had, she was a passenger in a car that was pulled over, unmoving, and adding creamer, or somesuch ingredient. I imagine that you might be thinking "well, she opened it, holding it between her knees, so it was her fault" ...certainly, to an extent, she certainly could have been more careful. But at just 20 deg. F lower, 170, the temperature of common kitchen coffee machine coffee, the worst thing she would have risked was second degree burns, far less painful and far less expensive injuries that often do not, at least in the non-elderly, require emergency attention. Three more things to keep in mind:

1) drive-throughs serve food and drink to people in cars; certainly a no-brainer, but consider that not all cars have cup-holders, plus people will often eat/drink what they have bought while the car is in motion - McDonalds certainly knew this;

2) reasonable people do not generally expect, when served coffee, that it will be hot enough to melt through their flesh, and again, everbody spills eventually;

3) this was like the 11th or 12th case of McDonalds coffee causing major third degree burns when spilled or when drunken in foolish (read: "human") haste, and over the 700th case of causing severe burns of a less critical nature - this was simply the one that got the big bucks. Why? McDonalds' corporate policy of not merely brewing their coffee too but maintaining it at 190 deg. F up until the moment of service was brought into evidence, and the previous injury cases were brought into evidence. This time, the jury decided to get punative, awarding $2.7M which (another little known fact) the judge knocked down to $0.48M - she had only asked for her $20k medical expences, McDonalds' counteroffer was $800.



...and that $2.7M is why we've all heard about it, and after President Ronnie got done using it in one of his charming anecdotes about how plaintiff's attorneys were ruining America, or whatever, all most people remember is "a lady spilled hot coffee and she sued for millions" and it has become a horror story about the evils of lawyers &/or the stupidity of juries.

http://www.osmond-riba.org/lis/essay_mcdonalds.htm
http://lawandhelp.com/q298-2.htm

Too bad the pictures aren't available here... people might get an idea of a true horror story.

From what I see going on in the US, I can honestly say that unless someone told me which one is the republican and which is the liberal, I would not have a clue.
Someone earlier said that the greatest president was FDR, who was a liberal. But did he not strenghen the central government and do alot of other acts that would normally be seen as conservative?

Conservative? Gov't strengthening is pretty liberal. The guy nearly made us socialist with all the federal programs. (Which is why he's the best...)

Yes she had, she was a passenger in a car that was pulled over, unmoving, and adding creamer, or somesuch ingredient. I imagine that you might be thinking "well, she opened it, holding it between her knees, so it was her fault" ...certainly, to an extent, she certainly could have been more careful. But at just 20 deg. F lower, 170, the temperature of common kitchen coffee machine coffee, the worst thing she would have risked was second degree burns, far less painful and far less expensive injuries that often do not, at least in the non-elderly, require emergency attention. Three more things to keep in mind:

1) drive-throughs serve food and drink to people in cars; certainly a no-brainer, but consider that not all cars have cup-holders, plus people will often eat/drink what they have bought while the car is in motion - McDonalds certainly knew this;

2) reasonable people do not generally expect, when served coffee, that it will be hot enough to melt through their flesh, and again, everbody spills eventually;

3) this was like the 11th or 12th case of McDonalds coffee causing major third degree burns when spilled or when drunken in foolish (read: "human") haste, and over the 700th case of causing severe burns of a less critical nature - this was simply the one that got the big bucks. Why? McDonalds' corporate policy of not merely brewing their coffee too but maintaining it at 190 deg. F up until the moment of service was brought into evidence, and the previous injury cases were brought into evidence. This time, the jury decided to get punative, awarding $2.7M which (another little known fact) the judge knocked down to $0.48M - she had only asked for her $20k medical expences, McDonalds' counteroffer was $800.



...and that $2.7M is why we've all heard about it, and after President Ronnie got done using it in one of his charming anecdotes about how plaintiff's attorneys were ruining America, or whatever, all most people remember is "a lady spilled hot coffee and she sued for millions" and it has become a horror story about the evils of lawyers &/or the stupidity of juries.

http://www.osmond-riba.org/lis/essay_mcdonalds.htm
http://lawandhelp.com/q298-2.htm

Too bad the pictures aren't available here... people might get an idea of a true horror story.

But then when they give you drinks don't they give them to you in cup holders. they do in europe as a general rule. You right though about it metling skin that is extremely hot.
I guess it was having it that hot, or having clients bitch about it being cold by the time they drink it. You must admit too that you would have to be pretty slow to think it was a good idea to drink coffee in a car.

1) drive-throughs serve food and drink to people in cars; certainly a no-brainer, but consider that not all cars have cup-holders, plus people will often eat/drink what they have bought while the car is in motion - McDonalds certainly knew this;

2) reasonable people do not generally expect, when served coffee, that it will be hot enough to melt through their flesh, and again, everbody spills eventually;

3) this was like the 11th or 12th case

...and that $2.7M is why we've all heard about it


1) So people that get in wrecks because they are stupid and spill food, liquid or such should be allowed to sue because McDonalds knew they would eat while driving?

2) I assume she has been to McDonalds before thus reasonable people would both assume it is as hot has the last 200 times I went there AND hmm, the cup is a bit warm, I guess the coffee is hot.

3) Again, I think people should sue knife makers for accidentally cutting their hand of or some such crap because they were careless.

I still say, yes people do stupid things, I stabbed myself in the chest, I did not think I should sue the company I worked for nor did I think oh the knife manufacturer should have made a better grip, so I would not have dropped the knife. I was a dumb guy with a knife, we are all dumb at times, but if we had ethics we would not be so sue happy. Child burns himself on a stove causing third degree burns after spilling hot soup on him, sue the pot company for not making a safety lide, the stove people for letting it get things that hot, the parent? After all this is a CHILD, doesn't know better, has no ability to reason. I say take the kid to the doctors, take care of it, and learn a valuable lesson from it all. Things happen, people get hurt, people get killed or injured from mistakes, its part of life. No one has yet to answer the other items that I compare with the lady being dumb at the time.

You must admit too that you would have to be pretty slow to think it was a good idea to drink coffee in a car.

This is a brilliant thought, but here in America people are so stressed about getting things done, most Americans rush too much, few enjoy life, and most are on prozak or some shit :D. Really the big lesson we need to learn is lets just relax, do a drug of choice if you need to, and take in life a bit. I would love to see restraunts become common again for the lunch "hour" or 21.5 minutes whatever it is for your company. America is wound to tight and I fear will burst or something.

She was reported, though not by me I tend to try to stay out of it cause I learned a long time ago it just causes more greif for you, ya know, why report a crime spend 3 hours filling out reports and find it did not good. Basically they said they had no evidence of any fraud and would look into it at a later time, last I heard she is still going strong.

As for McDonalds lady, so by your argument, we should tear some one a new a-hole because they were unaware of something, so should not microsoft be sued for the various bugs it has, they cost companies a ton of money all the time. Or how about the old lady that hits someone because she can't see, do we sue her or the state for letting her drive? Why is it ok for someone to cut themselves with a knife and need reconstructive surgeory and not sue but it is if they burn themselves. The world is a dangerous place, do we sue bathtub manufacturers because you slipped? When is it rediculas and when is it ok? Btw no one still that bath tub Idea I gotta figure this one out, to get a concusion but not effect me too much, cut face on the facet?


The made me fat lawsuit: Yeah it was, but the fact that they even allowed that to go to court is the joke, McDonalds should be allowed to sue them for damages in legal costs for wasting their time. Fine the guy that made the documentary about it is one thing, thats just showing what we all know.

Yeah the poor lady got hurt, people get fat, and people lie cheat and steal all the time, either we stop being allowing people to take advantage of the system or we get stuck with the costs, sign a waiver before you order anything at mcdonalds, noting you realize it may be hot and make you fat. Have cameras everywhere watching everything just to make sure people are not cheating, pay extra taxes so people that don't need to money can sit in the lap of luxery. McDonalds is not the one that paid that lady to sit back with a million bucks or their lawyers to go to court, it was their customers that ended up flipping the bill. Not to mention the complications that get added to our lives as companies spend more time and develop more policies to protecting their interests, in the end we will have to sign a contract that if you get fat your first born will be sacrificed to appease the God of McDonalds just so they do not get sued.

Quiting is hard, accidents happen, its the way it is. But people need to take responcibility for themselves and own up to what they did. I am thinking I will sue the catholic church as they are the representatives to god for being born with a crooked nose and the pain and agony it caused me. I think my friend should for being born paralyzed with osteoparalysis. After all at that point is it god, your parents? Parents have no money so go after god. Sarcasm aside I understand what you are saying, and feel sorry for these people, but why are they different than the hundreds of thousands of others that have things happen all the time, Iraqii children blown to bits by americans, can their parents sue us because we hit the wrong building? The list goes on and on.

1) welfare cheat - well then the guy who turned her in may have cause to complain about her - but it sounds to me like a case of the law working right - once someone cared enough to report the crime;

2) mcdonalds victim - I hate to ask you but... what are you talking about when you say "because they were unaware of something"? Who was unaware? McDonalds? No, they were very very much aware of the problem as the evidence showed - it was Mrs. Liebeck who was unaware.

3) fat lawsuit - yes it never should have gotten as far as it did, but I was just pointing out that it is no longer an issue ... unless somebody wants to complain about the judge who let it see the inside of a courtroom. How many such rediculous lawsuits do we hear about? Few, because most judges are not such jackasses.

The rest of your post seems to show that you see this as an all-or-nothing issue, but perhaps your apparent unawareness of the facts of the earlier McDonalds suit means that you are only talking about the cases that you feel are extreme in their rediculousness. I would shudder to think that you are for a society where people cannot sue for genuine injuries that are truly someone else's fault.

Sencilia, I am not going to bother anymore. If you've read the links and still think the suit was worthless, there is no sense in me wasting anymore of my time.

Oh I will say this: if somebody got in a wreck because they were at that moment receiving third degree burns from a coffee they had just bought, I would say the seller, if it was a drive through, has some part of that. And it's so stupid to drink coffee in a car? That's where McDonalds markets them.

You may wish to recall that my initial post in this sub-thread was opened by stating my agreement with most of what you had said.

I would shudder to think that you are for a society where people cannot sue for genuine injuries that are truly someone else's fault.

Well, the point is I do not see spilling something on yourself as someone else's fault. Yes McDonalds kept it a bit hot, but like mentioned I think if people didn't want hot coffee it wouldn't be that way. If she didn't want hot coffee should would have gone elsewhere.

Secondly if the McDonalds worker spilt it on her while handing it to here, yes McDonalds is then to blame, but beyond hospitol bills and lost wages (McDonalds would have settled out of court for) I think it is rediculas.)
Basically you are saying that everyone has accidents, and that is exactly my point, if we jacked everyone over ever time they had an accident, I would probably owe my last company hundreds of thousands of dollars. Why not just accept medical costs and lost wages, instead of going for much more than you would make in your life time anyways (assuming she did not make more than a couple million). I am sure a big factor in why we have a weak economy is because people are so sue happy, McDonalds is not a big deal, but what about some small company, that puts then and how ever many people they employ out of bussiness. Do we need a list of every possible problem that may happen everywhere? May get hit by car crossing the road, caution do not dry hair while sitting in a tub of water! I may seem somewhat facist but if people are unaware of these things perhaps they should be locked up in a padded room so they don't stub their toe on the door trying to read the sign may stub toe on door.

I realize that some things are a bit extreme, but not really, these things happen, maybe not the sign warning about the door, but with every accomodation required by law, and every law out there costs us money, and when you hit a small company they pay the bill, when you hit a large one we pay it. You either put a few dozen people out of work or raise the price of a hamburger for 300 million people. While no when it happened prices did not go up, thats because McDonalds plans for lawsuits and it was already worked in. People love to blame others for their fuck ups, but it still comes down to if she was not being dumb at the time she would be fine and working her piss ant job still, rushing for coffee so she could go to work and make it on time. I believe corperations should be held liable, but I also believe people should be as well.

1) So people that get in wrecks because they are stupid and spill food, liquid or such should be allowed to sue because McDonalds knew they would eat while driving?

2) I assume she has been to McDonalds before thus reasonable people would both assume it is as hot has the last 200 times I went there AND hmm, the cup is a bit warm, I guess the coffee is hot.

3) Again, I think people should sue knife makers for accidentally cutting their hand of or some such crap because they were careless.

I still say, yes people do stupid things, I stabbed myself in the chest, I did not think I should sue the company I worked for nor did I think oh the knife manufacturer should have made a better grip, so I would not have dropped the knife. I was a dumb guy with a knife, we are all dumb at times, but if we had ethics we would not be so sue happy. Child burns himself on a stove causing third degree burns after spilling hot soup on him, sue the pot company for not making a safety lide, the stove people for letting it get things that hot, the parent? After all this is a CHILD, doesn't know better, has no ability to reason. I say take the kid to the doctors, take care of it, and learn a valuable lesson from it all. Things happen, people get hurt, people get killed or injured from mistakes, its part of life. No one has yet to answer the other items that I compare with the lady being dumb at the time.

Remove all warning labels, let Natural Selection sort it out.

If a company has a defective product which causes people harm, say that pot melted or something, and the child got burned, then yes, I say that litigation is in order. If a coffee cup burns someone, causing a crash, well, that's a grey area. In effect, the cup wasn't protecting the driver, so you could call it "faulty", and there could be grounds for litigation.

I too have burned, cut, broke bones on products because of my own stupidity. I've had several close calls with death, (hell, I ride a motorcycle and I rock climb), and I know that sometimes, the ol' noggin' just doesn't work the way it should.

Of course Liberals are progressive.

That's why killing babies is moving this country forward


Mmm ... Andrea Yates ... God-fearing Christian, Republican conservative ...

John and Patsy Ramsey ... God-fearing Christian, Republican conservatives ...

Steven Williams ... God-fearing Christian, Republican conservative ...

Tracey Reid ... God-fearing Christian, Republican conservative ...


Go Republicans!

Sencilia, I am not going to bother anymore. If you've read the links and still think the suit was worthless, there is no sense in me wasting anymore of my time.

Oh I will say this: if somebody got in a wreck because they were at that moment receiving third degree burns from a coffee they had just bought, I would say the seller, if it was a drive through, has some part of that. And it's so stupid to drink coffee in a car? That's where McDonalds markets them.

First, people get in wrecks spilling catchup in the car, they SHOULDN'T be eating. People get lunch cancer from cigarrettes, they shouldn't have been smoking. People get in a wreck because they are drunk, they shouldn't have been drinking. Utah has a law that cabs cannot sit infront of bars, so should the bar be sued because some guy can't get a ride and drives himself instead of using a phone to call a cab? People should buy their food and take it somewhere to eat, no one does, but still they should have. McDonalds did not force them to eat in the car, drink coffee in the car, or make her take the lid off in the car. I am sorry if people do stupid things and get hurt, but I for one do not want to pay for their stupidity, I did not make them pay for mine when I did things that hurt me. Oh I pulled a muscle sue the gym cause I worked to hard. It gets to a point where the fine line of reason and stupidity are gone. If the personal trainer said one more and they ripped a tendon because of it, yeah sue the trainer because he was the stupid one by saying one more. Otherwise grin and bear it. Wieghts are heavy can break toes, yet people don't sue the gym when they do. Billions of hazards out there, and some people do sue the gym, pathetic really, people need to be responcible stop blaming society for their children, TV for their lazyness and children. I don't blame the internet that I should have been to bed 8 hours ago, and I wont blame it if I get in a wreck because it was so addicting. I take the responcibility for my actions, bottom line for me. Gun stores are not guilty for selling guns, people that shoot someone are. Canada does not have these problems yet they watch the same tv have the same guns, have the internet, and everything else. Just us lazy ass americans that want a quick buck so we can go watch more TV get fatter and remain lazy for all eternity.

<b>Remove all warning labels, let Natural Selection sort it out.</b>

If a company has a defective product which causes people harm, say that pot melted or something, and the child got burned, then yes, I say that litigation is in order. If a coffee cup burns someone, causing a crash, well, that's a grey area. In effect, the cup wasn't protecting the driver, so you could call it "faulty", and there could be grounds for litigation.

I too have burned, cut, broke bones on products because of my own stupidity. I've had several close calls with death, (hell, I ride a motorcycle and I rock climb), and I know that sometimes, the ol' noggin' just doesn't work the way it should.

On faulty products, I completely agree.
On the coffee cup if the cup itself melts or gets to hot then I agree company fault, if the contained liquid known to be hot by any competent person somehow spills or the person does something to the cup personal liability.
Anyhow, sorry for the lengthy posts :D of repetition, I disagree with many of you, and I guess thats cool, perhaps I should go to the dark side and become a sue happy freak too :D, anyhow good night/day/afternoon all and enjoy.

People get lunch cancer

Lunch Cancer .... the silent killer ...

Mmm ... Andrea Yates ... God-fearing Christian, Republican conservative ...

John and Patsy Ramsey ... God-fearing Christian, Republican conservatives ...

Steven Williams ... God-fearing Christian, Republican conservative ...

Tracey Reid ... God-fearing Christian, Republican conservative ...


Go Republicans!

Just to let you know christianity is on a fast decline, soon the majority will be a collection of new age and pagan based religions, hmmm, ouch better be ready for when they enact their religious laws on pro-church/state peeps :D.

Well, the point is I do not see spilling something on yourself as someone else's fault. Yes McDonalds kept it a bit hot, but like mentioned I think if people didn't want hot coffee it wouldn't be that way. If she didn't want hot coffee should would have gone elsewhere.


..."a bit hot"...

Did you read the links?

Other resteraunts saw fit to serve their coffee at 140 deg. F, while McDonalds did so at 180-190 deg. F.

Do you fucking know what third degree burns are?

"a bit hot"???

Fucking Hell this is useless...

..."a bit hot"...

Did you read the links?

Other resteraunts saw fit to serve their coffee at 140 deg. F, while McDonalds did so at 180-190 deg. F.

Do you fucking know what third degree burns are?

"a bit hot"???

Fucking Hell this is useless...

She should have gone to another fucking hell useless resturant then eah?
Some knives cut to the bone others cut to the dermis. Some hot things burn all the way to the fucking bone, others give you a nice sunburn, yes I know what a third degree burn is, I also know what it is like to cut to the bone from MY OWN FUCKING STUPIDITY. Just like she KNOWS what it is like to burn to the hypodermis, its a matter of if we cater to ever idiodic bitch in the world we couldnt have coffee at all, some places are too cold others too hot, she must have liked it hot or she would have gone to a 140 degree fucking resturant right? Gawly people, people get stupid they hurt themselves, it happens, people burn themselves cut themselves. I am going to sue suv manufacturers because I can't see around them, fuck the results of extended costs and a loss of something people love. Who cares as long as I can get lots of money and sit on my fat lazy ass the rest of my life. It is about impact, let darwin sort the idiots out. I think I am going to grab an electric fense and sue the company for my incompetence. Now that is hot, you must have been stupid and wanted someone else to blame and since I don't accept stupidity as a means to put blame on any other than your parents for having a stupid gene too fucking bad, deal with it, your the one that did it.

next time order Orange Juice, wait until you are home to drink it and you wont burn your dumb ass. Solution given :D

here the big kicker for me, someone does something stupid and gets a huge wad of cash, a company fires someone for medical reasons and they get shit, hmmm, now thats a good little nation of bullshit. A country that caters to idiots and could care less about the good people of the nation :D, hmm. I could have sued got 10K out of them, put them out of bussiness and seen all my friends loose their job, but instead I accepted that if I didnt get hurt to where I had a hard time with my job I would still be there and moved on.

Just to let you know christianity is on a fast decline, soon the majority will be a collection of new age and pagan based religions, hmmm, ouch better be ready for when they enact their religious laws on pro-church/state peeps :D.

I'm thinkin' that whole "Three Fold" thing is going to get obnoxious.

I would also not look forward to the enforcement of "If it harm none, do what thou wilt". I mean ... "harm" is a relative term. "Harm none" is even flakier ... we'd have to outlaw tattoos, all forms of vice (tobacco, alcohol, etc), and make veganism mandatory ... after all, "none" includes the self.

*shudder*

I just assume no religions have any say whatsoever in the laws of the land.

I'm thinkin' that whole "Three Fold" thing is going to get obnoxious.

I would also not look forward to the enforcement of "If it harm none, do what thou wilt". I mean ... "harm" is a relative term. "Harm none" is even flakier ... we'd have to outlaw tattoos, all forms of vice (tobacco, alcohol, etc), and make veganism mandatory ... after all, "none" includes the self.

*shudder*

I just assume no religions have any say whatsoever in the laws of the land.
hehe, ah it but the golden rule do unto others. But it is a relative term, and impossible to follow, eating take food from another and the plant is another (or animal), I was thinking that everyone had to take the sabbats off. :D

..."a bit hot"...

Did you read the links?

Other resteraunts saw fit to serve their coffee at 140 deg. F, while McDonalds did so at 180-190 deg. F.

Do you fucking know what third degree burns are?

"a bit hot"???

Fucking Hell this is useless...
lets play a game called justification

mcdonalds is a fast food restuarant, they also have a good many drive in customers, we can assume people are smart and wont try to drink cofee while driving around, or at least not open it ot play with it keeping it that hot lets it kewl down to a drinkable temperature while driving, and they dont have the time to let coffee sit around to become cool, fast food damnit

oh and ideal serving temperature for coffee is 155-185 degrees, thanks for playing

next time order Orange Juice, wait until you are home to drink it and you wont burn your dumb ass. Solution given :D

Or buy coffee at 140-170 deg. F and if you do spill it, anywhere, you will just get minor burns. This is what you do at McDonalds since the Liebeck case, and guess how many cases there have been since?

But wait... no... you're right. Anybody who is dumb enough to spill the coffee that they have just bought through a drive-through deserves to have disfiguring burns that require skin grafts, and should thank McDonalds for the generous offer of $800 U.S. cash money to put towards their lifetime of crippling pain and crippling medical bills. What was I thinking? That guy below said it right: remove all warning labels from everything and let natural selection take its course. Too bad Mrs. Liebeck had already bred. And why the Hell did they go and recall the Pinto? Anybody dumb enough to buy one deserves to go up in a ball of flame if they are also stupid enough to get hit from behind. And what about Thalidomide? A perfectly good morning-sickness pill that we, the almighty consumer, are denied the benefits of just because any fucktard ignorant enough to take it while she's pregnent will give birth to kids with flippers.

Natural Selection and the Free Market ... two Gods I truly regret having doubted. I have Seen the Light!!! I'm gonna vote Libertarian!!!

lets play a game called justification

mcdonalds is a fast food restuarant, they also have a good many drive in customers, we can assume people are smart and wont try to drink cofee while driving around, or at least not open it ot play with it keeping it that hot lets it kewl down to a drinkable temperature while driving, and they dont have the time to let coffee sit around to become cool, fast food damnit

oh and ideal serving temperature for coffee is 155-185 degrees, thanks for playing

You didn't read the links either, did ya Sparky?

Or buy coffee at 140-170 deg. F and if you do spill it, anywhere, you will just get minor burns. This is what you do at McDonalds since the Liebeck case, and guess how many cases there have been since?

But wait... no... you're right. Anybody who is dumb enough to spill the coffee that they have just bought through a drive-through deserves to have disfiguring burns that require skin grafts, and should thank McDonalds for the generous offer of $800 U.S. cash money to put towards their lifetime of crippling pain and crippling medical bills. What was I thinking? That guy below said it right: remove all warning labels from everything and let natural selection take its course. Too bad Mrs. Liebeck had already bred. And why the Hell did they go and recall the Pinto? Anybody dumb enough to buy one deserves to go up in a ball of flame if they are also stupid enough to get hit from behind. And what about Thalidomide? A perfectly good morning-sickness pill that we, the almighty consumer, are denied the benefits of just because any fucktard ignorant enough to take it while she's pregnent will give birth to kids with flippers.

Natural Selection and the Free Market ... two Gods I truly regret having doubted. I have Seen the Light!!! I'm gonna vote Libertarian!!!

Well I hope not I really hope you just find a darwin reward for yourself, I know people have accidents, but that is life....I fucked up and got disfgigured did I sue no because I think about how others will be effected, but I guess I should say fuck all you loosers that are stupid enough to not spill coffee, fucking so what disfigured get a fucking life and stop blaming others for your in ability to take your time and stop rushing around

Well I hope not I really hope you just find a darwin reward for yourself, I know people have accidents, but that is life....I fucked up and got disfgigured did I sue no because I think about how others will be effected, but I guess I should say fuck all you loosers that are stupid enough to not spill coffee, fucking so what disfigured get a fucking life and stop blaming others for your in ability to take your time and stop rushing around

So you hope I die soon? That's sad. But I guess that's just the way with a lot of the conservatives around here :(

You were disfigured in an accident? I'm really sorry to hear that. Can you tell us what happened, how it happened, why it happened? I would like to understand where you're coming from better.

You didn't read the links either, did ya Sparky?
didnt read what i wrote did you captain oblivious

and mcdonalds was NOT at fault in the liebeck case, she ordered hot coffee, she was served hot coffee at an acceptable level (155-185 from what i see), she is in the car, the coffee is between her legs, not in a cup holder, not on an arm rest, she tries to remove the top and is burned because it was hard to remove, there is no case

it is her own fault the coffee burned her, same with every other person it happened too, she is burned by hot coffee, no reason to make a federal case out of it, that is human error, nothing else, jsut like the people who were awarded damages for trying to cut shrubs with a lawnmower or some other really stupid shit, it is not the companies fault the people are stupid, be more careful and you dont get burned

now if some one else spilled it on her, employee say, then the company is responsible


i'll throw links at you then


http://www.millcreekcoffee.com/holding.htm

http://www.hammacher.com/about_us/Institute%20Ehelp/ins_December2000.asp

http://64.233.179.104/search?q=cache:biudlKjHobkJ:www.bunnomatic.com/pdfs/commercial/newsletters/Roasters_Rev_V1_I1_03.pdf+%22serving+temperature%22+%22coffee%22&hl=en


from what i gather the serving temperature is suggested to be that hot in order to bring out flavor of the coffee beans, not mcdonalds fault they were the only place with an actual suggested temperature

For some reason, being conservative has been glorified as being more patriotic, tough, and rational. It is no such thing.

To most people, being conservative has been boiled down to lower taxes, a powerful military and a stronger connection to traditional values. Unfortunately, being conservative literally means a want or need to cling to the status quo. Those who are in power should stay in power. Thoughts and ideas should remain caught in stasis, no matter what new information comes along. Traditional values (whatever those are,) change from place to place and time to time and depend on culture. To say that your values are somehow superior is an inexcuasable self-deceit that borders on bigotry.

For example, at one point people who did not adhere to the ideals of the Catholic Church were burned at the stake. If one were conservative, then this practice would never have changed. Under conservative ideals, slaves would never have been freed, Democracy would never have been developed, women's rights would never have emerged, technology would have stagnated, and, in general, human rights would b in a barbaric state.

Therefore, in my mind, conservatism equates to either being stupid, corrupt, or simply stubborn.

Liberals are progressive. Liberals adapt to changing times. Liberals innovate. Liberals are able to logically grasp new information and change their ideas about the world around them. This, of course, is seen by conservatives, as "flip-flopping." This is an easy, finger-pointing strategy to enable conservatives who are too afraid of new things or too attached to the way things are to feel somehow superior to those who would like to analyze the world around them and find better ways to do things.

Guess what, if someone had a great idea on how to overhaul government, make it more efficient and thereby save everyone taxes by doing things in a more efficient way, this would be a liberal concept.

Of course, there are thiose who say liberals are pessimists because we point out flaws in the workings of things around us. I say that the conservatives are the pessimists, because they somehow think that what we have now is as good as things are gonna get. Doesn't sound too optimistic to me.

Fight conservative ideas wherever you go. Fight stagnation. Fight corruption. Fight lazy lassez-faire ideas. There is a better day ahead, and we must not bend our knee to those who would hold us back.*ROITOUS APPLAUSE!*

Your links disagree with eachother, Chess. The first one says that coffee should be kept at 175-185 d.F and served at 155-175 d.F to preserve freshness, but the other two say it should be both brewed and served at 180-190 d.F, for the one, and held at 175-185 d.F and served at 155-185 d.F for the other.

McDonald's coffee was brewed held and served at 185 d.F.

Here's another link:

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/imagepages/8602.htm

+/- 20 d.F either way makes a lot of difference. McDonald's market was people in their cars, and they handed out coffee at nearly the highest of all suggested temperatures, +/- 5 d.F. They had gotten so used to people settling... over 700 cases... that they offered Mrs. Liebeck a mere $800 for her extensive injuries. But now that they've been smacked... what temperature is their coffee served at? Much lower and still within the perameters outlined by two of your three links. Warning label? They finally put on one their cups, a move they resisted all the other 700+ times... and why would they resist it? And have their coffee sales been hurt at all? I'll tell you this: if I want good coffee, I don't pull through McDonald's drive-through. They lowered the temp. ~20 d.F and added a warning label and guess what? THEIR CUSTOMERS DIDN'T CARE!

...in fact the only time I could ever see myself buying coffee from a drive-through would be if I wanted it fast and was going to drink it in the car. THAT is MacDonald's market for their coffee and THEY KNOW IT. Read the links again... their own market research showed it!

Enough about the effing coffee, people! This isn't a coffee thread! You've got almost ten pages of argument about whether it was too hot or whether the woman was too stupid ... let it go. Move on.
Anyway. It seems to me that there are two basic issues regarding the entire idea behind a discussion about conservatavism vs. liberalism that we're dancing around. 1) people aren't all one or the other; you can be conservative on one subject and liberal on another. This is, in fact, what most people tend to do. 2) IMHO the majority of people who are staunchly conservative tend to be those already in power, or at least comfortable with things the way they are. Staunch liberals tend to be the oppressed, or those who are generally unhappy with the way of the world. Whether you're one or the other depends less on who you are, and more on *where* you are. People aren't really born with a liberal sensibility that they carry with them through life; at any given moment when they'll probably be liberal on an issue they dislike, and conservative about an issue they like. Now, since people generally don't sit around and think about just how nice the 234th line of the Constitution is, IMHO a lot of people have latent conservative sides that act up only when they're confronted with an issue that lets them realize how much they like things the way they were. You don't consciously think about clean air until someone walks in the room with a cigarette.

Yes we are.

However, we Liberals just do not consider a small clump of cells to be a baby.

And minorities are indeed set back by the system which is why Affirmative Action is necessary at current in the US. Does not mean that it will always be there though, just till things get a little more equal in the 'opportunities' department.....

As well we shouldn't consider a small clump of cells to be a baby. However, that doesn't mean opponents of abortion have no case--but it does make them rather hypocritical to oppose abortion and not hand-washing. What makes humans so goddamned special that it's okay to kill millions of bacteria for the sake of hygiene but not okay to kill one nonsentient human for the sake of improving quality of life?

And the same people who oppose abortion were the ones who opposed birth control. It's a fairly new idea that life begins at conception; it's often been considered to begin before conception, an equally and arguably more valid idea.

The point is that opposition to abortion is tenable, but only if you accept several other ideas that are widely accepted as insane.

...in fact the only time I could ever see myself buying coffee from a drive-through would be if I wanted it fast and was going to drink it in the car. THAT is MacDonald's market for their coffee and THEY KNOW IT. Read the links again... their own market research showed it!
point?

they still serve it at a fresh temperature, its human error that causes spills

are you pretending said spills still dont happen sicne they made changes? dont count on it

I consider human life VERY sacred. What else in this world is able to think and set in motion experiments. Without our minds there would be no experiments. Now a rational mind is a very complicated and sacred thing. Will you kill eons of original thoughts for the sake of discovering that one thing that will help you live longer. Will not one of those eons of thoughts one day solve the problem of our delicate bodies deterioating into dust. Must we hang on the balance of only one thought. "I must live longer."? Can we go on from this thought?

I have all eternity to comprehend what make's human's die. I am no angel. We were meant to be immortal, but we have fallen because we picked knowledge of good and evil over life. The only person that will keep me running through all eternity now is Jesus Christ. He is the Life and the light of men. What will make my body live physically longer is the eternal peace now in my heart. I cannot be afraid of anything now. Not even death. Death will only shed this corrupted flesh off of me. I cannot focus on only one way to think. Nothing is impossible. It's only impossible because you trapped yourself into one process of thinking. Make no mistake. It will take an eternity to comprehend.

I consider human life VERY sacred. What else in this world is able to think and set in motion experiments. Without our minds there would be no experiments. Now a rational mind is a very complicated and sacred thing. Will you kill eons of original thoughts for the sake of discovering that one thing that will help you live longer. Will not one of those eons of thoughts one day solve the problem of our delicate bodies deterioating into dust. Must we hang on the balance of only one thought. "I must live longer."? Can we go on from this thought?

I have all eternity to comprehend what make's human's die. I am no angel. We were meant to be immortal, but we have fallen because we picked knowledge of good and evil over life.
Now this is sick. Someone thinks that having a moral code is BAD! Yes, that is the practical upshot. "Pick[ing] knowledge of good and evil" is GAINING A MORAL CODE. So because we have morality, we can't have "eternal life"? Is having a moral code bad?

[snip preaching]

Or buy coffee at 140-170 deg. F and if you do spill it, anywhere, you will just get minor burns. This is what you do at McDonalds since the Liebeck case, and guess how many cases there have been since?

But wait... no... you're right. Anybody who is dumb enough to spill the coffee that they have just bought through a drive-through deserves to have disfiguring burns that require skin grafts,
Thank you for the attitude which typifies the "It's someone else's fault, not mine. I don't want to take responsibility for my own life." mindset.

Thank you for the attitude which typifies the "It's someone else's fault, not mine. I don't want to take responsibility for my own life." mindset.

<aheam>

You really should NOT be going on about the coffee case, because Dru is right about this one. McDonalds coffee was WAY too hot and gave the woman third degree burns. Furthermore, she just wanted McDonalds to pay for the damages and hospital fees.

Of course, I have little doubt that it was McDonalds that spread the rumours about her and performed the charecter assassination, so the poor woman has no peace now.

Having the knowledge of good and evil is not a moral code. It means from our minds a nuclear bomb is detonated, and from the very same minds a polio vaccine is created, someone is brought in off the street and helped back on his feet, someone is murdered in cold blood, a house is built, a dungeon is created, a bed is made, a torture rack is created. We knew what was good, and now we also know what was evil. What our minds produce can destroy or heal us. That is what it means. Having good morals is good. You decide which side of knowledge you want to give your life for. Doing good is the hardest because we weren't the only beings who fell. I cannot do good by myself, because man has fallen and therefore is not perfect.

A moral code only tries to lock you onto one side of knowledge. It is very necessary but before we fell there was no need for a moral code. We were separated from God because He was Holy and cannot have evil. The law or moral code became a curse to us because we are not Holy. We were left to our own demise until Christ Jesus came. Now I only live by His mercy and grace. Do you understand? The moral code or law convicts and kills us. It is good but it means death to us.

<aheam>

You really should NOT be going on about the coffee case, because Dru is right about this one. McDonalds coffee was WAY too hot and gave the woman third degree burns. Furthermore, she just wanted McDonalds to pay for the damages and hospital fees.

Of course, I have little doubt that it was McDonalds that spread the rumours about her and performed the charecter assassination, so the poor woman has no peace now.
wrong, hot temperatures for coffee is considered the best temperature for serving to keep coffee fresh and flavorful

also, 130 WILL cause third degree burns, it just takes longer exposure, and in this case where the coffee seaped into her sweatpants, she still would have had third degree burns depending on what she did.

this case wouldve happened anyway unless it was cold coffee, then she wouldve bitched at mcdonalds for serving cold coffee

Explaining Liberal Anger

Why are liberals such as Paul Krugman, Michael Moore, and Howard Dean so angry and aggressive? I like to think that I have insight into this matter, since I was a liberal for a long time. If you haven't been a liberal, you may be puzzled by what you hear and read from them. They may seem -- dare I say it? -- insane, or at least discombobulated.

The first thing you must realize is that liberals have a program. They are visionaries. They envision a world in which everyone controls the same amount of resources. Nobody is born to privilege or disadvantage; or, if anyone is, it is swiftly neutralized by the state. To allow disadvantage, they believe, is to become a participant in it. Society, to the liberal mind, is a massive engineering project. Most of us distinguish misfortune and injustice. Not the liberal. No misfortune goes unaddressed by the social engineers. It is presumed -- conclusively, without evidence or argument -- that disparities in wealth are the result of morally arbitrary factors (accidents of birth or circumstance) rather than individual character, effort, discipline, work, or merit.

As the philosopher John Kekes has pointed out so eloquently, liberals disregard or discount concepts that loom large in the thinking of most of us, such as personal responsibility and desert. Most of us believe that responsibility and desert should play a role in the distribution of benefits and burdens. Liberals disagree. Deep down, liberals deny that anyone is responsible for anything. What we are, in terms of personal character, is a function of circumstances beyond our control. How we behave depends solely on our environment. Our very choices are determined, not free. Liberalism dissolves the person. To the liberal, we are loci of movement rather than initiators of action, patients rather than agents, heteronomous rather than autonomous beings. Liberals will deny this, of course, but look at their beliefs and policy prescriptions.

Liberals, unlike conservatives, are zealous. Like all zealots (true believers), they are eager to implement their program, but when they attempt to do so, they meet resistance. This resistance frustrates them immensely and eventually leads to anger toward and aggression against those who stand in their way (or are perceived as standing in their way). Ideally, liberals would rationally persuade those who resist in the hope of bringing them around. But this doesn't work. Belief in personal responsibility and desert is widespread and entrenched. Time and again, liberals run up against it. Since it seems obvious to them that the belief is baseless, they tell themselves a story about why it's pervasive.

It's a multifaceted story. First, the liberal imagines that the belief in question is rooted in ignorance. Opponents of the liberal program simply don't know the facts about responsibility and desert. But when liberals try to convey these "facts," they get no uptake. Indeed, they get denial. This leads to the stupidity hypothesis. Opponents of the liberal program aren't so much ignorant of facts as incapable of reasoning from and about them. In other words, they're stupid or unintelligent. They're incapable of thinking clearly or carefully, even about important matters such as equality, justice, and fairness. This explains the liberal mantra that conservatives, such as Presidents Reagan and Bush, are stupid. Note that if conservatives are stupid, liberals, by contrast, are intelligent. It's all very self-serving.

Deep down, liberals know that conservatives are no less intelligent than they are. It just makes them feel good to say as much. So they attribute the pervasive belief in responsibility and desert to greed. Opponents of the liberal program are greedy. They won't admit the truth because they don't want to share the wealth. They take the positions they do, on matters such as affirmative action and welfare, to solidify their social position. Greed is bad, of course, so if you reject the liberal program, you're evil. You put self-interest ahead of justice.

Here, in one neat package, we have all the liberal platitudes. Conservatives are ignorant, stupid, and evil, or some combination of the three. Either they don't grasp the obvious truth or they're incapable of thinking clearly or they don't give a damn about anyone but themselves. Liberals, of course, are the opposite of all these. They're knowledgeable, intelligent, and good. Note that if you believe your opponents to be stupid or evil, you don't try to reason with them. Stupid people, like animals and children, need guidance by their superiors. Evil people need suppression. It's often been remarked that liberals are less adept than conservatives at arguing for their views. Now you see why. They don't practice.

That, in a nutshell, is the liberal mentality. It explains why liberals are so angry, hateful, and spiteful and why they resort to courts rather than to legislatures to implement their vision of the just society. They have given up hope of engaging their adversaries on rational ground. They know that they can't muster a majority for their causes. To liberals, only the outcome matters, not the process. Without power, their egalitarianism is mere fantasy. But conservatives should be careful not to dismiss it as such, for liberals have demonstrated that they will do whatever it takes to secure and retain power. We saw it in the case of Robert Bork. We saw it in the case of Bill Clinton. We see it in the case of war in Iraq. To the liberal, the end justifies the means. Take it from me, a former liberal.

Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, Bill O'Reilly, Neil Cavuto, and Rush Limbaugh



and also, yes, damn those liberals, dman them for worknig torward social justice and realising the majority isnt always right, damn them for opposing the status quou when it is obviously wrong, damn them, damn them for guaranteeing black people civil rights and bringing the cause to the courts to strike down jim crow laws and other anto-black laws and acts, how dare they oppose the will of the majority, the majority that wished black people to not have the same rights and be second class citizens, liberals are bastards

The problem with the term "progressives" and "liberal" is they are applied to the modern left, who do not by any means fit the definitions of these words. conservatives do stand for the status quo, everything is fine just the way it is, etc.....as a classic defniition....but you can be a progressive conservative...want to stick with what works, and an open mind to change and sek to improve......the problem with the modern left is simple...they grasp on to ideals that have proven over the past 150 years to be a failure, and still use terminology that is bogus. for me, economic freedom and economic justice go hand in hand....you only get what you are willing to produce and acheive, if you are unwilling to be productive or acheive anything, you deserve nothing.....THAT IS ECONOMIC JUSTICE....the problem is, no one has found the middle ground, the "third way", as far as government limitations to social programs or how lasseiz faire to go...but it is somewhere in the middle.....there is a responsibility and role of government socially, but there is also a RESPONSIBILITY OF PEOPLE ON THE DOLE TO GET OFF AND BECOME A PRODUCTIVE MEMBER OF SOCIETY..

SO THE FATAL FLAW OF CONSERVATIVES IS JUST WHAT THE BEGINNING POINT OF THIS THREAD SAID......an unwillingness to change, adapt and improve. they seem to love responsibilities without rights, so to speak

THE FATAL FLAW OF THE LEFT is they can't seem to give up on failed policies either, and only take an opposite stance from a conservative instead of selecting what parts need drastic change and what is working......still a taste for the failed Marxist philosophy after 150 years of failed experiments, costing countless freedoms and lives in the process? sheesh, get a clue, it sounds great on paper but has nothing to do with human nature....The modern Left is enamored with rights without understanding they cannot exist without responsibilities.....

here's someone who thinks the cons and the leftys are ideological nincompoops and idiots.

just my two cents, funny how the right answer is usually somewhere between the left and right wings' ideological slogans.....

For some reason, being conservative has been glorified as being more patriotic, tough, and rational. It is no such thing.

To most people, being conservative has been boiled down to lower taxes, a powerful military and a stronger connection to traditional values. Unfortunately, being conservative literally means a want or need to cling to the status quo. Those who are in power should stay in power. Thoughts and ideas should remain caught in stasis, no matter what new information comes along. Traditional values (whatever those are,) change from place to place and time to time and depend on culture. To say that your values are somehow superior is an inexcuasable self-deceit that borders on bigotry.

For example, at one point people who did not adhere to the ideals of the Catholic Church were burned at the stake. If one were conservative, then this practice would never have changed. Under conservative ideals, slaves would never have been freed, Democracy would never have been developed, women's rights would never have emerged, technology would have stagnated, and, in general, human rights would b in a barbaric state.

Therefore, in my mind, conservatism equates to either being stupid, corrupt, or simply stubborn.

Liberals are progressive. Liberals adapt to changing times. Liberals innovate. Liberals are able to logically grasp new information and change their ideas about the world around them. This, of course, is seen by conservatives, as "flip-flopping." This is an easy, finger-pointing strategy to enable conservatives who are too afraid of new things or too attached to the way things are to feel somehow superior to those who would like to analyze the world around them and find better ways to do things.

Guess what, if someone had a great idea on how to overhaul government, make it more efficient and thereby save everyone taxes by doing things in a more efficient way, this would be a liberal concept.

Of course, there are thiose who say liberals are pessimists because we point out flaws in the workings of things around us. I say that the conservatives are the pessimists, because they somehow think that what we have now is as good as things are gonna get. Doesn't sound too optimistic to me.

Fight conservative ideas wherever you go. Fight stagnation. Fight corruption. Fight lazy lassez-faire ideas. There is a better day ahead, and we must not bend our knee to those who would hold us back.

Beautiful stuff!!
The conservative is fearful of the future. The conservative is a reactionary. The conservative believes that the answer to all of today's problems requires a return to the ideals of the past. They are past-directed...not future-directed. In fact, to most conservatives, the answer to all of society's ills requires a return to an idealized past...a past, which, in fact, never really existed.
The conservative fears change, they fear the incumbent loss of power that comes with the shifting of the status quo. they fear being more inclusive, because, to them...there is only so much to go around...and the more other people get...the less there is for THEM.
The conservative, as I say, prefers the past over any future.
Well, here's a news flash, conservatives...The days of Ozzie and Harriet Nelson are gone forever. The country is not well served by a return to the days of Ozzie and Harriet. Even when Ozzie and Harriet WERE around...the REAL WORLD was not like the world portrayed by Ozzie and Harriet. It is time for your to accept the uncertainty of the future...a more inclusive future...one where more people are allowed to participate in, and have a say, and some control over...their own destinies.
Conservatives feel they know what is best for everyone. they don't. they know only what is best for themselves...and they are so elitist as to believe that what is best for THEM is also what is best for everyone else.

yes that is right. currently, someone with an objective view would see that life is good and that it does not need to be fucked with. that is not what I would call a "flaw"
Good for YOU, maybe. But is YOUR experience being shared by the majority of the world's population? IS life good for the vast majority of the world's population? I do not think it is. You make the fatal mistake of believing that, because life is good FOR YOU...that your experience is being mirrored by everyone else...and that life is also good FOR THEM.
Or maybe, if you are of the more mean-spirited among conservatives, rather than the blinded variety...maybe you DON'T CARE if life is good for anyone else...as long as it is good FOR YOU.

Well I hope not I really hope you just find a darwin reward for yourself, I know people have accidents, but that is life....I fucked up and got disfgigured did I sue no because I think about how others will be effected, but I guess I should say fuck all you loosers that are stupid enough to not spill coffee, fucking so what disfigured get a fucking life and stop blaming others for your in ability to take your time and stop rushing around
Well, maybe if most of us didn't have fucktard, clock-watching, asswipe bosses that holler at us for being TWO FUCKIN' MINUTES late, but see no problem with being, themselves, TWO HOURS late...maybe we wouldn't have to rush around so much.
Between the unreasonable demands employers tend to place on employees (hugely increased overtime requirements) and the less time that leaves for OTHER things of importance in a person's life (things like family...kids, you know)...well, anyway...I guess we are all supposed to just workk ourselves to death in the office, until we are no longer productive (read: profitable) enough for an employer to justify keeping anymore...and then we get hauled out to the curb in a Glad Bag...with no insurance, no benefits, no pension...no jack shit...and who gives a FUCK if we starve, while guys like Ken Fucking Lay walks off with all the marbles!!

Now this is sick. Someone thinks that having a moral code is BAD! Yes, that is the practical upshot. "Pick[ing] knowledge of good and evil" is GAINING A MORAL CODE. So because we have morality, we can't have "eternal life"? Is having a moral code bad?

[snip preaching]
That is not what he is saying and you know it!! So why twist his words?
Before the fruit was plucked, which gave man knowledge of good and evil...they ALREADY WERE PERFECT...and thus had NO NEED of a moral code.
And would have been immortal, and perfect...incapable of sin.

Explaining Liberal Anger

Why are liberals such as Paul Krugman, Michael Moore, and Howard Dean so angry and aggressive? I like to think that I have insight into this matter, since I was a liberal for a long time. If you haven't been a liberal, you may be puzzled by what you hear and read from them. They may seem -- dare I say it? -- insane, or at least discombobulated.

The first thing you must realize is that liberals have a program. They are visionaries. They envision a world in which everyone controls the same amount of resources. Nobody is born to privilege or disadvantage; or, if anyone is, it is swiftly neutralized by the state. To allow disadvantage, they believe, is to become a participant in it. Society, to the liberal mind, is a massive engineering project. Most of us distinguish misfortune and injustice. Not the liberal. No misfortune goes unaddressed by the social engineers. It is presumed -- conclusively, without evidence or argument -- that disparities in wealth are the result of morally arbitrary factors (accidents of birth or circumstance) rather than individual character, effort, discipline, work, or merit.

As the philosopher John Kekes has pointed out so eloquently, liberals disregard or discount concepts that loom large in the thinking of most of us, such as personal responsibility and desert. Most of us believe that responsibility and desert should play a role in the distribution of benefits and burdens. Liberals disagree. Deep down, liberals deny that anyone is responsible for anything. What we are, in terms of personal character, is a function of circumstances beyond our control. How we behave depends solely on our environment. Our very choices are determined, not free. Liberalism dissolves the person. To the liberal, we are loci of movement rather than initiators of action, patients rather than agents, heteronomous rather than autonomous beings. Liberals will deny this, of course, but look at their beliefs and policy prescriptions.

Liberals, unlike conservatives, are zealous. Like all zealots (true believers), they are eager to implement their program, but when they attempt to do so, they meet resistance. This resistance frustrates them immensely and eventually leads to anger toward and aggression against those who stand in their way (or are perceived as standing in their way). Ideally, liberals would rationally persuade those who resist in the hope of bringing them around. But this doesn't work. Belief in personal responsibility and desert is widespread and entrenched. Time and again, liberals run up against it. Since it seems obvious to them that the belief is baseless, they tell themselves a story about why it's pervasive.

It's a multifaceted story. First, the liberal imagines that the belief in question is rooted in ignorance. Opponents of the liberal program simply don't know the facts about responsibility and desert. But when liberals try to convey these "facts," they get no uptake. Indeed, they get denial. This leads to the stupidity hypothesis. Opponents of the liberal program aren't so much ignorant of facts as incapable of reasoning from and about them. In other words, they're stupid or unintelligent. They're incapable of thinking clearly or carefully, even about important matters such as equality, justice, and fairness. This explains the liberal mantra that conservatives, such as Presidents Reagan and Bush, are stupid. Note that if conservatives are stupid, liberals, by contrast, are intelligent. It's all very self-serving.

Deep down, liberals know that conservatives are no less intelligent than they are. It just makes them feel good to say as much. So they attribute the pervasive belief in responsibility and desert to greed. Opponents of the liberal program are greedy. They won't admit the truth because they don't want to share the wealth. They take the positions they do, on matters such as affirmative action and welfare, to solidify their social position. Greed is bad, of course, so if you reject the liberal program, you're evil. You put self-interest ahead of justice.

Here, in one neat package, we have all the liberal platitudes. Conservatives are ignorant, stupid, and evil, or some combination of the three. Either they don't grasp the obvious truth or they're incapable of thinking clearly or they don't give a damn about anyone but themselves. Liberals, of course, are the opposite of all these. They're knowledgeable, intelligent, and good. Note that if you believe your opponents to be stupid or evil, you don't try to reason with them. Stupid people, like animals and children, need guidance by their superiors. Evil people need suppression. It's often been remarked that liberals are less adept than conservatives at arguing for their views. Now you see why. They don't practice.

That, in a nutshell, is the liberal mentality. It explains why liberals are so angry, hateful, and spiteful and why they resort to courts rather than to legislatures to implement their vision of the just society. They have given up hope of engaging their adversaries on rational ground. They know that they can't muster a majority for their causes. To liberals, only the outcome matters, not the process. Without power, their egalitarianism is mere fantasy. But conservatives should be careful not to dismiss it as such, for liberals have demonstrated that they will do whatever it takes to secure and retain power. We saw it in the case of Robert Bork. We saw it in the case of Bill Clinton. We see it in the case of war in Iraq. To the liberal, the end justifies the means. Take it from me, a former liberal.
No.
HERE is the source of liberal anger.
http://www.namebase.org/richnote.html

Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, Bill O'Reilly, Neil Cavuto, and Rush Limbaugh



and also, yes, damn those liberals, dman them for worknig torward social justice and realising the majority isnt always right, damn them for opposing the status quou when it is obviously wrong, damn them, damn them for guaranteeing black people civil rights and bringing the cause to the courts to strike down jim crow laws and other anto-black laws and acts, how dare they oppose the will of the majority, the majority that wished black people to not have the same rights and be second class citizens, liberals are bastards

I this short paragraph you have verified exactly what Meatopiaa said.

I this short paragraph you have verified exactly what Meatopiaa said.
the hardcore right wingers seem to like telling me that

Both liberals and conservatives at least in their modern American incarnations support rights in two differnet fields but basically could care less about rights in the opposing field. Liberals are pro-taxation, regulation and bureaucracy. However they support the idea that a person's life is their own with regards to personal decisions (drug use, sex, gambling, and religious beliefs) While as conservatives, are pro-economic freedom but shy away from embracing the freedom that comes from the fact that one's life is one's own and perhaps God's (it depends on if one believes that God exists, which I do, I'm a catholic). But they still on a base level believe that though a person's property is one's own, the determinants of one's property (one's body, mind) are property of the state because they belong to God, a mistaken assertion.

Both sides need to remember that though Government is a necessary evil it is still in fact an evil.

point?

they still serve it at a fresh temperature, its human error that causes spills

are you pretending said spills still dont happen sicne they made changes? dont count on it

No I am saying that spills happen anyway. Spills are caused by normal people, not just by morons. Everybody spills and McDonalds certainly knew that, too, and this could have expected ... did, in fact, based on the number of cases that happened before Liebeck ... and simply did not care.

They still serve it "at a fresh temperature" according to two of your three links, although not the third. Yes third degree burns can be inflicted by 130 degree liquid. Is it too much to grasp that more heat = more damage?

If I am sitting down in a restaraunt and order coffee, and it is brought at 190 d.F, fine. However McDonald's drive-through market is people in their cars, most of whom will be consuming their purchases in their cars. They knew that, as their research shows.

And thanks, Goed. :) Sorry I couldn't keep my mouth shut. ;)

Thank you for the attitude which typifies the "It's someone else's fault, not mine. I don't want to take responsibility for my own life." mindset.

So it's never someone else's fault?

There are stupid lawsuits, but your post typifies the "black or white, never gray" mindset of people who support corporate irresponsibility with their stoic ignorence. That "all or nothing" mindset also goes right back to the topic of this thread. It's like a NationStates issue... 1) outlaw personal injury suits; 2) outlaw attorneys and execute them all; 3) subsidize personal injury suits, or 4) dismiss. No option for 5) penalize bad faith lawsuits on the one side and irresponsible corporations on the other.

This goes right to the fact that conservatives have trouble with moderation, seeing things other than from one side only, and finding it even possible that both sides of an argument can have valid points.

Liberals are progressive. Liberals adapt to changing times. Liberals innovate. Liberals are able to logically grasp new information and change their ideas about the world around them. This, of course, is seen by conservatives, as "flip-flopping." This is an easy, finger-pointing strategy to enable conservatives who are too afraid of new things or too attached to the way things are to feel somehow superior to those who would like to analyze the world around them and find better ways to do things.

Change can be good, but this is not always so. Indeed, we have numerous words signifying unfavorable changes, such as atrophy, collapse, corrode, decline, degenerate, decline, enfeeble and so forth. For example, one can change from a state of relative health to being very sick. Or a representative government could become a dictatorship. We could even have a liberal abandoning such a philosophy for conservatism. ;) The question is not whether we should change, but what we should change and whether a specific change represents progress or regress.

Therefore, in my mind, conservatism equates to either being stupid, corrupt, or simply stubborn.

Ah, but stubbornly refusing to change for the worse would be, IMHO, a good thing.

Traditional values (whatever those are,) change from place to place and time to time and depend on culture.

Nonsense. Just because people's beliefs about what is right and wrong change doesn't mean right and wrong itself changes. Otherwise, if one is not objectively better than the other, we might just as well have slavery rather than freedom, cruelty rather than kindness, barbarism rather than courtesy, etc.

No I am saying that spills happen anyway. Spills are caused by normal people, not just by morons. Everybody spills and McDonalds certainly knew that, too, and this could have expected ... did, in fact, based on the number of cases that happened before Liebeck ... and simply did not care.

They still serve it "at a fresh temperature" according to two of your three links, although not the third. Yes third degree burns can be inflicted by 130 degree liquid. Is it too much to grasp that more heat = more damage?

If I am sitting down in a restaraunt and order coffee, and it is brought at 190 d.F, fine. However McDonald's drive-through market is people in their cars, most of whom will be consuming their purchases in their cars. They knew that, as their research shows.

And thanks, Goed. :) Sorry I couldn't keep my mouth shut. ;)
a third degree burn is a 3rd degree burn, more damage is not a factor here, time to cause damage is

if she spilled 130 degree coffee on SWEAT PANTS she STILL would have obtaiend THIRD DEGREE BURNS, and like you said spills happen, how are you blaimng mcdonalds, ok then shut up

a third degree burn is a 3rd degree burn, more damage is not a factor here, time to cause damage is

if she spilled 130 degree coffee on SWEAT PANTS she STILL would have obtaiend THIRD DEGREE BURNS, and like you said spills happen, how are you blaimng mcdonalds, ok then shut up

Third degree burns happen more instantly and more extensively at hotter temperatures... DUH. :rolleyes"

Spills happen, they happen more in cars, and McDonalds knew this. They chose to pay off those injured and keep the temperature at as high a level as the maximum recommended, ok then shut up.

Indeed, conservativism lacks the ability to adapt.

Ahh... that questions shows the nature of not being conservative. Something new comes along, and the values change to fit.

which one is it?

No.
HERE is the source of liberal anger.
http://www.namebase.org/richnote.html

Oh, that's cute. Somebody who's a lazy miserable failure made up a reason why they can't succeed with hard work and determination... and you buy into it. See, with hard work and a little luck, in America you too can be a success. Of course, in the liberal/socialist way of thinking, it'd be better if it was ALL just handed to you on a silver platter. No work, no incentive, no drive, just lazing around living on the government rations and collecting your alotted monies... that's pathetic, that's liberalism/socialism.

Face it... anyone who'd advocate that system of LIFE, that system of GOVERNING, is a pathetically lazy person. Sure, you'd still have to work, for the STATE, more or less, but you wouldn't have to if you didn't want to. Personally, I sure as hell do not and WILL NOT work my ass off to pay 55%-75% and up in taxes to a socialist/communist government. Screw that.

Way to go ad-hominem Labrador :rolleyes:

by Free Irish Peoples
Both liberals and conservatives at least in their modern American incarnations support rights in two differnet fields but basically could care less about rights in the opposing field. Liberals are pro-taxation, regulation and bureaucracy.


As you said, there is the Economic and Social side to life.
I would call myself a Social Conservative and a Liberal Economist.
I don't buy into the big government thing full tilt, however, I believe in moderation, the government should be there to help when certain things arise that a small minority group cannot do on their own. I am for a limited version of Socialism when it come to redistribution of money to help the poor and disenfranchised. I am for basic healthcare choices for everyone.
But at the same time I am not about to give into all the base behaviors humans can have...and that is based on my religious faith. I think if the majority of folks vote and don't want gay marriage, it should be banned. Then later, if the majority vote and decide civil unions are acceptable but limited, then that would be great. With all actions there are consequences. And although this is a pluralistic society, many religious beliefs, the idea of democratic country is that everyone votes and the majority wins.

I don't know about having laws for every little item that different ethnic, gender or racial groups want or think they need.

I put it this way...if I decided to leave the US and immigrate to Botswana, I would expect that I would have to learn their language and use it in their culture. I would not expect them to bow to my unique identity and give me everything I was used to. When people come to the US from foreign countries, I expect them to learn English since that is the founding predominant language here. I don't think that is uncaring or selfish. It just is what it is. If over decades, many Mexicans transplant themselves here, learn English, become bilingual and gradually they become the dominant ethnic group, then when voting time comes they can start having laws and amendments that work to their point of view. But at this point, blacks and hispanics are still minority, so unless a huge block of white people decided to vote as the minorities do, everyone should be expected to go by the majority rule, and if that happens to be white people's ideals, then so be it.

You cannot simply have it your own way. That is not a democracy.

And I believe that in some areas, especially the inner cities, there might be a dumbing down effect going on. I am guessing though. And if kids in these areas are not being taught the same things as kids in the better schools, then shame on the local school districts and the state for not expecting better. All kids should be able to get the same basic education, and same opportunities for higher education, without quotas and partiality because of race or ethnicity. That is just stupid. If there are black kids smarter than me, let them in the good colleges. Condoleeza Rice and Colin Powell and Bill Cosby are great examples of black people that have gone far in life but started with simple beginnings. It's a farce to think that black kids are statistically dumber than white kids. (by the way I am a white female Catholic who went to suburban public schools, knew very few black people when growing up).