NationStates Jolt Archive

You hate liberals, and yet you promote trade/market liberalisation with evangelical zeal.

How do you reconcile the two?

Call it bastardization or mistranslation, but here in europe, liberals are the term for anyone who supports freedom of enterprise.
Ultra-liberals are more or less aristocrats, and tend to drag the reasonable discourse lower than mud.

See maggy thatcher for an example. Damn, she would have privatized the fire department if she could ;)

You hate liberals, and yet you promote trade/market liberalisation with evangelical zeal.

How do you reconcile the two?

First I don't "hate" libs. I disagree strongly with them about issues ranging from politics to charater and personal responsibility. I don't promote market liberalization with evangelical zeal. It is an economic necessity over time, but the way we have chosen to approach in the US has been somewhat short-sighted in my opinion.

Its simply just that definitions are different here and in Europe...

You hate liberals, and yet you promote trade/market liberalisation with evangelical zeal.

How do you reconcile the two?

What do you consider market liberalization? I assume that means trending towards free trade.

Right wingers in the US support that. Liberals don't.

Yes, that is what I mean. So how can a group with a professed dislike of liberals endorse something called liberalisation? Even if liberals distance themselves from it? :p

It's a symantics problem with political definitions of words.

Yes, that is what I mean. So how can a group with a professed dislike of liberals endorse something called liberalisation? Even if liberals distance themselves from it? :p
It's what happened when the original liberals split into the welfares and the libertarians.

First I don't "hate" libs. I disagree strongly with them about issues ranging from politics to charater and personal responsibility. I don't promote market liberalization with evangelical zeal. It is an economic necessity over time, but the way we have chosen to approach in the US has been somewhat short-sighted in my opinion.
So you support high teen pregnancy rates, high divorce rates, low education funding, and an increasing divide between rich and poor? Glad we got that cleared up.

Well the reason is that the term Liberal means to liberate people, and conservatives want to conserve the power where it already is.

So you support high teen pregnancy rates, high divorce rates, low education funding, and an increasing divide between rich and poor? Glad we got that cleared up.

Actually, I'm opposed to all of those things. We just differ on how you go about correcting those problems, although the rich getting richer is one that will likely never change as motivating someone to do the right thing even when it costs them something is rather difficult, particularly apart from religion.

Actually, I'm opposed to all of those things. We just differ on how you go about correcting those problems, although the rich getting richer is one that will likely never change as motivating someone to do the right thing even when it costs them something is rather difficult, particularly apart from religion.
My point is that in the US, in states controlled by "conservatives" as opposed to "liberals," the conservative states have the highest rates of teen pregnancy, of divorce, of the rich/poor divide and generally have the lowest rates of per capita education funding. Like it or not, when you say you're a conservative, that's what the record shows you're in favor of, assuming you live in the US.

My point is that in the US, in states controlled by "conservatives" as opposed to "liberals," the conservative states have the highest rates of teen pregnancy, of divorce, of the rich/poor divide and generally have the lowest rates of per capita education funding. Like it or not, when you say you're a conservative, that's what the record shows you're in favor of, assuming you live in the US.

I live in the US and I am generally conservative though not a member of any party. You do not have the right to judge what I personally am for or against on the basis of what even an individual I elect choses to do in office. Quite frankly, most of the time I consider myself to be voting for the lesser of 2 evils and don't come anywhere close to agreeing with any party or individual on every issue.

To say that any place has a higher divorce or teen pregnancy rate on the basis of politics is to completely disregard a whole host of social and environmental issues that gov. does not and should not have the capacity to effect. As for funding to education, I'd say the problem is more a product of a poor system than lack of funding for the most part. Abdication of parental responsibility in the educational process is a major issue. As for the gap in economics, this is a personal moral responsibility and not a gov. one.

You hate liberals, and yet you promote trade/market liberalisation with evangelical zeal.

How do you reconcile the two?

I blame Rodan.
As we all know, Mothra is a protectionist. ;)

I live in the US and I am generally conservative though not a member of any party. You do not have the right to judge what I personally am for or against on the basis of what even an individual I elect choses to do in office. Quite frankly, most of the time I consider myself to be voting for the lesser of 2 evils and don't come anywhere close to agreeing with any party or individual on every issue.

To say that any place has a higher divorce or teen pregnancy rate on the basis of politics is to completely disregard a whole host of social and environmental issues that gov. does not and should not have the capacity to effect. As for funding to education, I'd say the problem is more a product of a poor system than lack of funding for the most part. Abdication of parental responsibility in the educational process is a major issue. As for the gap in economics, this is a personal moral responsibility and not a gov. one.Here's my point--simply so you get it. If you claim to be a conservative, then you ally yourself with the people who are largely responsible for the things I listed above. Don't like it? Don't call yourself a conservative.

Whether you like it or not, the US is now in the middle of a culture war. The liberal part of the country didn't want it--we're more interested in including every citizen than we are in creating divisions based on religious belief or so-called moral values. But since we're in it, we're going to point out some facts that are perhaps a bit inconvenient for the cultural zealots out there, and among them is the fact that by the very standards the conservatives point to as moral values, the liberals are far more moral. The religious conservatives fit the description Jesus gave of the Pharisees when he called them whitewashed graves that are beautiful on the outside but are filled with every sort of rot and disgusting thing.

I live in the US and I am generally conservative though not a member of any party. You do not have the right to judge what I personally am for or against on the basis of what even an individual I elect choses to do in office. Quite frankly, most of the time I consider myself to be voting for the lesser of 2 evils and don't come anywhere close to agreeing with any party or individual on every issue.

To say that any place has a higher divorce or teen pregnancy rate on the basis of politics is to completely disregard a whole host of social and environmental issues that gov. does not and should not have the capacity to effect. As for funding to education, I'd say the problem is more a product of a poor system than lack of funding for the most part. Abdication of parental responsibility in the educational process is a major issue. As for the gap in economics, this is a personal moral responsibility and not a gov. one.

As for the line which reads "Abdication of parental responsibility in the educational process is a major issue." I'm right there with you, my friend. However, how can the education system seriously expect "low-income" parents who both work full-time and many times more than full-time just to pay the bills and put food on the table to particpate "the way they should" in the education process. It simply cannot happen. I doubt anyone would want to help their child with homework after they have just put in a 8+ hour day!! So then by default the education system must go at it alone and assume full responsiblity for the quality of the end product, instead of pointing fingers at parents who have no way to reconcile the situation!

And as for the beginning portion of your response, unfortunately the two party system has utterly failed the US citizens because you get results like we have seen in the last two elections where the parties paint pretty pictures of themselves by taking sides on "moral" issues while they don't extend the same basic moral rights and guidelines to the rest of their diplomacy and policy making. What we need is more parties, so people like you and I can indeed align more closely to a party that shares the same views that we do. This also opens a forum of differing ideas in which people must compromise in order to get business done! Anyways sorry for rambling...take it easy!

Whether you like it or not, the US is now in the middle of a culture war. The liberal part of the country didn't want it--we're more interested in including every citizen than we are in creating divisions based on religious belief or so-called moral values. But since we're in it, we're going to point out some facts that are perhaps a bit inconvenient for the cultural zealots out there, and among them is the fact that by the very standards the conservatives point to as moral values, the liberals are far more moral. The religious conservatives fit the description Jesus gave of the Pharisees when he called them whitewashed graves that are beautiful on the outside but are filled with every sort of rot and disgusting thing.

This is both insulting and inaccurate. There are members of both parties the fit the description of the Pharisees and there are members of both parties that are benevolent and care for others. There are members of both parties that would like to see all of those problems solve. Your inability to acknowledge this and the inability of individuals on both sides to acknowledge this reality is a major factor in the cultural war. There are very big differences in opinion on how to deal with these problem and to do so in a way that is not morally objectionable to the population as a whole.

Have you considered that one of the reasons the divorce rate is high in conservate States may well be that more people feel the moral obligation to marry someone the are sleeping with in those places. This doesn't mean that the divorce rate is a good thing, but it is a lesser evil than sleeping around with whom ever, when ever and where ever someone is so inclined.

That is just one example of how looking at the stats doesn't tell the whole story.

As for the line which reads "Abdication of parental responsibility in the educational process is a major issue." I'm right there with you, my friend. However, how can the education system seriously expect "low-income" parents who both work full-time and many times more than full-time just to pay the bills and put food on the table to particpate "the way they should" in the education process. It simply cannot happen. I doubt anyone would want to help their child with homework after they have just put in a 8+ hour day!! So then by default the education system must go at it alone and assume full responsiblity for the quality of the end product, instead of pointing fingers at parents who have no way to reconcile the situation!

And as for the beginning portion of your response, unfortunately the two party system has utterly failed the US citizens because you get results like we have seen in the last two elections where the parties paint pretty pictures of themselves by taking sides on "moral" issues while they don't extend the same basic moral rights and guidelines to the rest of their diplomacy and policy making. What we need is more parties, so people like you and I can indeed align more closely to a party that shares the same views that we do. This also opens a forum of differing ideas in which people must compromise in order to get business done! Anyways sorry for rambling...take it easy!

Actually, my parents made sure to work with me even after putting in a full work day. It is not impossible, it is a matter of priorities. Do you really need 3000 sq. feet of living space? Do you really need 2 cars or 3 TV's or to live on eating out the list goes on and on... I know that there are poor people who are working hard already and don't have those things. The thing is, I don't have the right to force anyone to provide for someone else, particularly that which is their own responsibility to begin with. I may have a personal obligation to those people or others may have an obligation to me, but it is a moral one and shouldn't be a legal one.

As for the parties issue, I almost think that the world would be a better place without any political parties. Where each elected individual was elected strictly on their own merits and was free to vote their conscience on whatever issue happens to be on the table.

This is both insulting and inaccurate. There are members of both parties the fit the description of the Pharisees and there are members of both parties that are benevolent and care for others. There are members of both parties that would like to see all of those problems solve. Your inability to acknowledge this and the inability of individuals on both sides to acknowledge this reality is a major factor in the cultural war. There are very big differences in opinion on how to deal with these problem and to do so in a way that is not morally objectionable to the population as a whole.Here's why you're wrong--the liberals, generally speaking, aren't trying to impose a system of cultural morality on their neighbors and don't condemn them when they choose something different from what they would themselves. Conservatives do, while simultaneously failing to live up to the standards they set for others. That's hypocrisy, plain and simple.

Here's why you're wrong--the liberals, generally speaking, aren't trying to impose a system of cultural morality on their neighbors and don't condemn them when they choose something different from what they would themselves. Conservatives do, while simultaneously failing to live up to the standards they set for others. That's hypocrisy, plain and simple.

Excuse me? Ever here of unions or how about Social Security or Welfare or the Clinton's attempt at socialized medicine. Sounds like forced values to me.

BTW, I don't condemn anyone personally. I am willing to state that I believe a specific action is immoral, but it is not my place to determine and individual's condemnation or salvation.

Excuse me? Ever here of unions or how about Social Security or Welfare or the Clinton's attempt at socialized medicine. Sounds like forced values to me.

BTW, I don't condemn anyone personally. I am willing to state that I believe a specific action is immoral, but it is not my place to determine and individual's condemnation or salvation.
How the hell is Social Security or welfare or universal health care forcing values on anyone? How is the right to organize a forced value?

Here's why you're wrong--the liberals, generally speaking, aren't trying to impose a system of cultural morality on their neighbors and don't condemn them when they choose something different from what they would themselves. Conservatives do, while simultaneously failing to live up to the standards they set for others. That's hypocrisy, plain and simple.
Ever hear of Johnson's "Great Society" program?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Society
http://www.factmonster.com/ce6/history/A0821690.html

If you agree with what Johnson tried to do is not the point; it is that he tried to impose a system of cultural morality. And if you disagreed with it (IE: Affirmative Action), you were a bigot... case closed. :(
http://www.now.org/nnt/08-95/affirmhs.html

US "liberal" = European "socialist"
US "moderate" = European "conservative"
US "conservative" = European "right-wing extremist"
US "libertarian" = European "liberal"

hope that clears things up.

Call it bastardization or mistranslation, but here in europe, liberals are the term for anyone who supports freedom of enterprise.
Ultra-liberals are more or less aristocrats, and tend to drag the reasonable discourse lower than mud.

See maggy thatcher for an example. Damn, she would have privatized the fire department if she could ;)
I know volunteer fire departments tend to work better than govt. ones, but I'm unsure about completely privatized ones. I have the feeling it would be a complete success or complete crash and burn.

How the hell is Social Security or welfare or universal health care forcing values on anyone? How is the right to organize a forced value?
When you must join the union or be forced out of working in that particular jjob altogether which happens in many unionized industries then it most certainly is a forced value.


As for SocSec I'm perfectly fine with it if it were used as it was meant to be. It was originally meant to be for emergencies like if you broke something and could no longer work. It was not meant to be used as retirement money. The problem is that is what it's being used as.

Here's why you're wrong--the liberals, generally speaking, aren't trying to impose a system of cultural morality on their neighbors and don't condemn them when they choose something different from what they would themselves. Conservatives do, while simultaneously failing to live up to the standards they set for others. That's hypocrisy, plain and simple.
This would explain why the blue states get pwned in the generousity index while the red states come out on top.

My point is that in the US, in states controlled by "conservatives" as opposed to "liberals," the conservative states have the highest rates of teen pregnancy, of divorce, of the rich/poor divide and generally have the lowest rates of per capita education funding. Like it or not, when you say you're a conservative, that's what the record shows you're in favor of, assuming you live in the US.
So then by your own logic, Detroit is the 'Murder Capital of America' and Detroit is liberal, therefore liberals are for murder.

Here's why you're wrong--the liberals, generally speaking, aren't trying to impose a system of cultural morality on their neighbors and don't condemn them when they choose something different from what they would themselves. Conservatives do, while simultaneously failing to live up to the standards they set for others. That's hypocrisy, plain and simple.
First of all, liberals claim not to have a system of cultural morality because they disguize everything as 'victimhood'. The church protests boobies on TV because it is a sin, the national organization of women protests boobies on TV because it is degrading to women. Either way, I got no boobies on my TV!

Second - conservatism is not about morals or religion, it is a view on the role of government. Government should be conservatively applied, not liberally applied.

Adding the word 'liberal' to something does not suddenly make it a liberal policy. ex- 'The liberal use of the bible and it's morals in the classroom'.

I, as a conservative, am not a supporter of much of the 'morality' embraced by conservatives and certainly not the victimhood embraced by the left. Both parties try to impose their values on me one way or another and I am sick of it. I want less of that crap, which means I want less government telling me what to do. For now that means I'm stuck with conservatives - but the day democrats embrace reducing the government (fewer regulations, laws, rules and dollars) then I am a convert.

The liberal idea of building a big government just makes it easier for 'the other side' to impose their values on you when they are in power.

NO THANKS!

How the hell is Social Security or welfare or universal health care forcing values on anyone? How is the right to organize a forced value?

Simply to get a job where I work as a social worker for the Gov. you have to join a union. Social Security is not voluntary. I can't do like congress an opt out and create my own resource that can be passed on to my family. Welfare is forced redistribution of wealth, whether I want to pay for one of my clients next drug binges with my tax dollars or not. This isn't to say all welfare recipients abuse the resources that they should consider a gift, but I have first hand knowledge of some that do and have 0 power to stop it.

First of all, liberals claim not to have a system of cultural morality because they disguize everything as 'victimhood'. The church protests boobies on TV because it is a sin, the national organization of women protests boobies on TV because it is degrading to women. Either way, I got no boobies on my TV!

Second - conservatism is not about morals or religion, it is a view on the role of government. Government should be conservatively applied, not liberally applied.

Adding the word 'liberal' to something does not suddenly make it a liberal policy. ex- 'The liberal use of the bible and it's morals in the classroom'.

I, as a conservative, am not a supporter of much of the 'morality' embraced by conservatives and certainly not the victimhood embraced by the left. Both parties try to impose their values on me one way or another and I am sick of it. I want less of that crap, which means I want less government telling me what to do. For now that means I'm stuck with conservatives - but the day democrats embrace reducing the government (fewer regulations, laws, rules and dollars) then I am a convert.

The liberal idea of building a big government just makes it easier for 'the other side' to impose their values on you when they are in power.

NO THANKS!

You're preaching to the choir here. Although I believe very strongly in the tenents of my faith I certainly don't what the Gov. responsible for enforcing them. That would be the Dark Ages all over again.

First of all, liberals claim not to have a system of cultural morality because they disguize everything as 'victimhood'. The church protests boobies on TV because it is a sin, the national organization of women protests boobies on TV because it is degrading to women. Either way, I got no boobies on my TV!

Come again? When did the National Organization of Women engage in protests like this? To my knowledge, they have been more concerned with stuff like equal pay to be bothered with people freely choosing to show their breasts on television.

Perhaps you're confusing NOW with Focus on the Family.

In the larger sense, this is, how shall I put it, Republican propagandist BS. While it's often said that liberals are big on "victimization", usually by idiots like Ann Coulter who now berate the policies that helped get her into college (Pell Grant programs, for example), there is scarce little to back it up. How are we engaging in a "culture of victimization?" By pointing out that people can be influenced by their background? That maybe changing the background conditions is a better way of getting people to change than brutalizing them or castigating them for their moral failures? How is this anything more than a surprisingly insightful way of viewing the world and engineering change within it.


Second - conservatism is not about morals or religion, it is a view on the role of government. Government should be conservatively applied, not liberally applied.

Then you should be a Democrat, not a Republican, since Republicans sure as hell ain't the conservative party, if that is indeed what it means to be conservative. If you haven't noted in recent years, under Republican stewardship, we've gotten the government intrusion into our library checkout practices (Patriot Act), our bodies (defining fetuses as children for the CHiP program), and our very thoughts ("People need to watch what they say and watch what they do." to quote Ari Fleischer), all while racking up the biggest increases in government spending since WWII (up 8.8% last year). If you really are a conservative on the nature of government, why in the hell aren't you fighting tooth-and-nail with us?


I, as a conservative, am not a supporter of much of the 'morality' embraced by conservatives and certainly not the victimhood embraced by the left. Both parties try to impose their values on me one way or another and I am sick of it. I want less of that crap, which means I want less government telling me what to do. For now that means I'm stuck with conservatives - but the day democrats embrace reducing the government (fewer regulations, laws, rules and dollars) then I am a convert.

The liberal idea of building a big government just makes it easier for 'the other side' to impose their values on you when they are in power.


If that were true, then history would show other than it does. Arguments about big government aside, who did the better job of curbing government growth, Clinton or Reagan? Moreover, is "big government" even a bad thing? I seem to recall that the most oft-cited reason the Soviet Union collapsed is because Reagan outspent them in the defense budget and broke their bank. If true, then clearly government can in fact do something well, Reagan's assurance that "government is the problem" aside.

Here in America, the term liberal has been twisted from its original use.

Then you should be a Democrat, not a Republican, since Republicans sure as hell ain't the conservative party, if that is indeed what it means to be conservative. If you haven't noted in recent years, under Republican stewardship, we've gotten the government intrusion into our library checkout practices (Patriot Act), our bodies (defining fetuses as children for the CHiP program), and our very thoughts ("People need to watch what they say and watch what they do." to quote Ari Fleischer), all while racking up the biggest increases in government spending since WWII (up 8.8% last year). If you really are a conservative on the nature of government, why in the hell aren't you fighting tooth-and-nail with us?



If that were true, then history would show other than it does. Arguments about big government aside, who did the better job of curbing government growth, Clinton or Reagan? Moreover, is "big government" even a bad thing? I seem to recall that the most oft-cited reason the Soviet Union collapsed is because Reagan outspent them in the defense budget and broke their bank. If true, then clearly government can in fact do something well, Reagan's assurance that "government is the problem" aside.

Spending went up under Regan as a result of a Democratic Congress that had the power not to legislate anything if it was really against spending. The problem is both sides wanted to spend and still do, just on different line items. And when was the last time the Dems. thought the government needed less of our money?

You hate liberals, and yet you promote trade/market liberalisation with evangelical zeal.

How do you reconcile the two?


their is a difference between being economically liberal and socially liberal.
It's kind've hard to be equally both since sometimes you would have to do conflicting things.
I'm pretty sure Lenin would be considered socially liberal.

Spending went up under Regan as a result of a Democratic Congress that had the power not to legislate anything if it was really against spending. The problem is both sides wanted to spend and still do, just on different line items. And when was the last time the Dems. thought the government needed less of our money?

No, spending was up because Reagan promised that his tax cuts would yield more money in federal coffers. In point of fact, revenues decreased in 1982 by 9%. Moreover, it wasn't the Dems who were driving the biggest cause for government expansion in the 80's: military buildup. That was Reagan.

Let's see, there's the myth of Reagan's fiscal responsibility and supply-side economics dead at my feet. Any more conservative myths you want me to slay?

No, spending was up because Reagan promised that his tax cuts would yield more money in federal coffers. In point of fact, revenues decreased in 1982 by 9%. Moreover, it wasn't the Dems who were driving the biggest cause for government expansion in the 80's: military buildup. That was Reagan.

Let's see, there's the myth of Reagan's fiscal responsibility and supply-side economics dead at my feet. Any more conservative myths you want me to slay?
Soulds good, but it is complete bullpucky. Your points are so easy to prove inaccurate - in fact just simple lies - that I won't even bother.

Maybe you could run that whole line about a spaceship hidden at area 51, that argument has at least some plausibility.

My point is that in the US, in states controlled by "conservatives" as opposed to "liberals," the conservative states have the highest rates of teen pregnancy, of divorce, of the rich/poor divide and generally have the lowest rates of per capita education funding. Like it or not, when you say you're a conservative, that's what the record shows you're in favor of, assuming you live in the US.

We used to have a superb educationn system. Then the government poked its nose into it, and it's gone downhill ever since. The Deliberate Dumbing-Down of America and None Dare Call it Education are both good sources.