NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm curious to know why people are conservative. Personally, i'm a liberal person (that's a little L liberal for all the Australians... Stupid conservative "Liberal party") because I believe that change and progress to improve people's lives is a good thing. I believe that people shouldn't settle with what they have (or what their fellow disdavantaged citizens have) and fight for something better for everybody. Staying the same or moving backwards (which is what I feel is being conservative) means that people will never improve their situations.

Also, it seems like conservative people like to restrict individual freedoms, like their choice in contraversial foreign films or choice in sexual orientation. Conversely, they also like to let corporations do whatever, i.e., less regulations and relying on market forces. (which i think is mostly ineffective in protecting consumer rights and workers rights).

What do other people think?

Here is how I see it. Conservatives = "If it aint broke then dont fix it" where as liberals are more "If it aint broke then lets tweak it some more". Following that then they can break it badly! Conservatives are NOT against change. We just like to take it alittle slower and cautiously.

And yes we do restrict things like sexual orientation. Thats because we believe the same things as our founders. America was founded on CHRISTIAN ideas thusly we should have a set of morals based on such. Homosexuality is immoral and wrong. Plain and simple. If you dont like it then why are you here? Moving to another country isnt hard! and Canada is right above the border! They are very liberal! Another thing is some liberals are so far left they remind alot of people of communists. Is that what you want in America!? Communism!? I think not.

And yes we do restrict things like sexual orientation. Thats because we believe the same things as our founders. America was founded on CHRISTIAN ideas thusly we should have a set of morals based on such. Homosexuality is immoral and wrong. Plain and simple. If you dont like it then why are you here? Moving to another country isnt hard! and Canada is right above the border! They are very liberal! Another thing is some liberals are so far left they remind alot of people of communists.

Is that what you want in America!? Communism!? I think not.
So you want neither communism nor freedom. The American Founders were not about theocracy, they were about freedom.

Here is how I see it. Conservatives = "If it aint broke then dont fix it" where as liberals are more "If it aint broke then lets tweak it some more". Following that then they can break it badly! Conservatives are NOT against change. We just like to take it alittle slower and cautiously.

And yes we do restrict things like sexual orientation. Thats because we believe the same things as our founders. America was founded on CHRISTIAN ideas thusly we should have a set of morals based on such. Homosexuality is immoral and wrong. Plain and simple. If you dont like it then why are you here? Moving to another country isnt hard! and Canada is right above the border! They are very liberal! Another thing is some liberals are so far left they remind alot of people of communists. Is that what you want in America!? Communism!? I think not.

I'd like to draw to your attention that I live in Australia. Although we do have a conservative government in power at the moment, I think that the general conservative person in Australia is more moderate than the majority of that cateogry in America

(that's a little L liberal for all the Australians... Stupid conservative "Liberal party") Interestingly, the Liberal Party is technically a correct title, as the party defines itself by "Classical Liberal" standards, rather than the typical post-modern standard that is applied to "liberals" these days. Despite the title, of course, the party is essentially a staunch conservative power these days.

Many conservatives are believers in "slow social change".
Many liberals are believers in the occasional neccesity for "rapid social change"

This is partly why social conservatives typically come down on the side of refusing gay marriage, disliking the concept of euthanasia and being anti-abortion.

take the test: http://www.digitalronin.f2s.com/politicalcompass/index.php

:)

I think the kind of liberal you are is just as bad as the type of conservative you are describing. You're both restrictors of rights. Conservatives (of the form you have been describing) want to limit social rights, but you want to limit economic rights (people have, in my opinion, the moral right to trade freely, to buy, sell and make whatever they want, and to employ whatever consenting employee they like).

I'm curious to know why people are conservative?

Its the way people are brought up, and the lives they want to lead.

Why people are conservative (In my demented mind):
1. Political Socialization (What political ideology your parents were, school, peer group, etc.), 2. a reaction to an apparently immoralistic society (your own view of the society in which you live and how you react to the people around you), 3. socioeconomic status (Conservative economic policy is palatable to upper-middle and the upper classes), 4. religion (How fundamentalist are you?), etc.

The list can go on and not everything is etched in stone. I know a few conservatives from the lower classes and I interact with trustafarians and spoiled little rich kids who act liberal every day.

Trustafarian = a privileged white kid who takes on the persona of a hippie, but is financially secured by a trust fund that their parents created for them.

Well, at least among fiscal conservatives, the belief is that it is not the governments job to take care of people like they're children. They want to maximize individual economic choice (which includes less regulations on corporations) and allow the people to do what they want, when they want with what they have.

Of course, as a quasi-libertarian I happen to only agree with conservatives on economic issues. I tend to disagree with them on morality issues, chiefly because I believe in greater freedom there as well.

Interestingly, the Liberal Party is technically a correct title, as the party defines itself by "Classical Liberal" standards, rather than the typical post-modern standard that is applied to "liberals" these days. Despite the title, of course, the party is essentially a staunch conservative power these days.


Yeah that is interesting, 'cause the NSW opposition leader, John Brogden was saying to his Liberal party colleagues that they should remember that they're in the liberal party. My boyfriend, who's in to politics, told me that there is a liberal fraction within the Liberal party, although I don't see it as being particularly vocal

Small-c Conservative!

Economically, keep the government there to protect the little guys, but give businesses the freedom neccessary to move.
Socially, shut out the raving loonies to the right and the ones to the left, finding a slowly progressive middle path.

I think the kind of liberal you are is just as bad as the type of conservative you are describing. You're both restrictors of rights. Conservatives (of the form you have been describing) want to limit social rights, but you want to limit economic rights (people have, in my opinion, the moral right to trade freely, to buy, sell and make whatever they want, and to employ whatever consenting employee they like).


I guess what i meant was that there should be some rules to make sure people don't get cheated when they buy stuff, or if they were dismissed for no apparent reason

(people have, in my opinion, the moral right to trade freely, to buy, sell and make whatever they want, and to employ whatever consenting employee they like).

That could be construed as an argument in favour of sweatshops.

Here is how I see it. Conservatives = "If it aint broke then dont fix it" where as liberals are more "If it aint broke then lets tweak it some more". Following that then they can break it badly! Conservatives are NOT against change. We just like to take it alittle slower and cautiously.

"We're not against change, we just don't want it yet" :)

And yes we do restrict things like sexual orientation. Thats because we believe the same things as our founders. America was founded on CHRISTIAN ideas thusly we should have a set of morals based on such.

We'' it wasn't. But I'll go along with it.

Slavery was also morally OK for them too, as was disenfranchising women, non-whites and the poor. Should we really go back to the days where you could keep a ****** in the yard and had to have a certain amount of property to vote?

As admirable as the founding fathers might be, they weren't the be all and end all of how to run a country.

Homosexuality is immoral and wrong.

Immoral and wrong? Surely you mean, wrong by my moral code.

Plain and simple. If you dont like it then why are you here? Moving to another country isnt hard!

Thankfully the founding father didn't have that idea, otherwise you wouldn't the Constitution and would might still be under the Articles of Confederation (unlikely though, you'd probably have been taken over by Mexico).

and Canada is right above the border! They are very liberal! Another thing is some liberals are so far left they remind alot of people of communists. Is that what you want in America!? Communism!? I think not.

:confused: Some people think liberals are a bit like communists, therefore, if you support them (ie are not a conservative) you want America to be communist.

I think you have successfully insulted two ideologies you don't like, well done.

That could be construed as an argument in favour of sweatshops.

It could indeed. If you want to work in a sweatshop, and a sweatshop wants to employ you, you should be allowed to work there.

What do other people think?
When I try to classify myself as one or the other, I tend to lean to the right. To me it's all about where my tax dollars go. I have a certain disdain for people that don't even try to pull their own weight. I don't consider myself a very compassionate person and I don't like giving things to people for free if they don't deserve it. I like the ideologies that many conservatives stand for: pride in your country and hard work.

In Britain many support the Consevative Party because;

a. There is no liberal/Liberal party, instead there is the Liberal Democrats, who are socialists and do a lot of what Labour tells them,

b. The Labour party sells weapons to countries such as Turkey and Indonesia which use them to supress/salughter their ethinic minorities,

c. Labour is trying to rig the vote.

It could indeed. If you want to work in a sweatshop, and a sweatshop wants to employ you, you should be allowed to work there.

Such thinking is very first-world, since you don't see the impact of sweatshops in the third-world. If there is only one job available (in a sweatshop) and the owners of the sweatshop have a monopoly on employment, it isn't so much a choice as a lack of options.
Furthermore, liberty is hardly the greatest thing in life, as most basic human rights restrict liberty.

I guess what i meant was that there should be some rules to make sure people don't get cheated when they buy stuff, or if they were dismissed for no apparent reason

There are rules to stop people getting cheated when they buy stuff. It is against the law for a company to actually lie about what their product involves.

As for "why people are conservatives", I would venture these two points.

Economically, conservatives feel that government shouldn't butt into people's businesses too much because by doing this they almost inevitably damage the economy.

Socially, conservatives are often guided by a strong sense of morality (religious or otherwise) which they feel should be enforced upon other people. (This is chiefly why I am not a conservative).

In Britain many support the Consevative Party because;

a. There is no liberal/Liberal party, instead there is the Liberal Democrats, who are socialists and do a lot of what Labour tells them,

b. The Labour party sells weapons to countries such as Turkey and Indonesia which use them to supress/salughter their ethinic minorities,

c. Labour is trying to rig the vote.

rig the vote? are you serious? how?

In Britain many support the Consevative Party because;

a. There is no liberal/Liberal party, instead there is the Liberal Democrats, who are socialists and do a lot of what Labour tells them,

Riiiiiight. :rolleyes:

b. The Labour party sells weapons to countries such as Turkey and Indonesia which use them to supress/salughter their ethinic minorities,

Because it isn't as if Conservative governments have done this.

c. Labour is trying to rig the vote.

Way to overexagerate. Some Labour party member were caught trying to rig a vote in Birmingham. No conspiracy involved, just a few activists trying to make their party win.

You may as well claim that the Tories in the 80's tried to take over the world by using the Falklands way.

Such thinking is very first-world, since you don't see the impact of sweatshops in the third-world. If there is only one job available (in a sweatshop) and the owners of the sweatshop have a monopoly on employment, it isn't so much a choice as a lack of options.
Furthermore, liberty is hardly the greatest thing in life, as most basic human rights restrict liberty.

I understand that sweatshop labour is grueling, repetitive and doesn't pay particularly well, but consider what effects taking it away would have.

Better a shitty job which puts food on the table than no job at all because sweatshop labour is outlawed.

In other words - with sweatshop labour, you can live in grinding poverty, or without sweatshop labour, you can die in even more grinding poverty. Which is better?

I am one of those "Liberals" who is tired of hearing all the Liberal bashing and misinformation being spewed out by some of those on the Right. First of all, just because you heard someone like Shawn Hannitty or Pat Robertson claim on TV the founding fathers were motivated by "Christian" ideals, you should check your facts and read a bit of history before you make incorrect blanket statements like that. There were "Christian" elements around at the time our Bill of Rights and Constitution were written, and their attempts to write in so called "Christian laws" were soundly defeated by the majority of the fathers. People like Jefferson and Franklin, and many other "framers" of American Democracy made every effort to keep such dogma out of the documents, and succeeded in doing so. Take the time to read them, you will find no mention of religious dogma. In answer to the Liberal bashers who say Liberalism is a dirty word I say this: The founding Fathers, the men who fought and died to start America were Liberals, not Conservatives. The men who held the Boston Tea Party were hardly conservatives. If it were up to Conservatives we would still be dancing the minuet and powdering our wigs. Every bit of legislation benefiting the common man for the last 200 years was the result of Liberals, not Conservatives. You can thank Liberals for Social Security, Medicare, the right to free legal council if you can't afford it, child labor laws, the 40 hour work week, Labor Unions, Jeez, need I go on? I can, there is plenty more. So the next time you want to bash a Liberal, you ought to read your history books before making such statements. One more thing: The Neo Cons currently running the show are hardly Conservatives. They make Nixon look like Mary Poppins. I see nothing conservative about reckless spending and self serving policies.

I understand that sweatshop labour is grueling, repetitive and doesn't pay particularly well, but consider what effects taking it away would have.

Better a shitty job which puts food on the table than no job at all because sweatshop labour is outlawed.

In other words - with sweatshop labour, you can live in grinding poverty, or without sweatshop labour, you can die in even more grinding poverty. Which is better?

Here is what would be better- if first world countries penalized multinationals based on their sweatshops in third-world countries. Most third-world governments either lack the clout or are one the take themselves and cannot stop this practice. This is why I support government economic intervention- because a corporation is a tool for making money, nothing more, nothing less. Without policing by government, they could run rough-shod over the little guy.

And yes we do restrict things like sexual orientation. Thats because we believe the same things as our founders. America was founded on CHRISTIAN ideas thusly we should have a set of morals based on such. Homosexuality is immoral and wrong. Plain and simple.

This is a common misconception. Did you know Benjamin Franklin belonged to a cult that regularly took part in bisexual orgies? Thomas Jefferson even fathered children by his slaves. James Madison was an agnostic.

If this country was supposed to be a theocracy the Puritans wouldn't have lost control when the Founding Father's generation moved in and created our great nation.

Here is what would be better- if first world countries penalized multinationals based on their sweatshops in third-world countries. Most third-world governments either lack the clout or are one the take themselves and cannot stop this practice. This is why I support government economic intervention- because a corporation is a tool for making money, nothing more, nothing less. Without policing by government, they could run rough-shod over the little guy.

oooh! did you see "The Corporation"?

oooh! did you see "The Corporation"?

I'm afraid that I haven't even heard of it.

Here is what would be better- if first world countries penalized multinationals based on their sweatshops in third-world countries.

Too much penalization for low wage-paying or minimum-wage regulations which are too high will simply result in corporations pissing of to some country which doesn't regulate them so much.

It happens all the time, it's what outsourcing essentially is. Smack a huge minimum wage on one third world country and businesses will migrate to another, meaning the net result is still the "grinding poverty + no job" combo.

I'm afraid that I haven't even heard of it.

It was a really interesting documentary series on corporations. One of the things they said was something like if a corporation was a human being, it would be psychologically diagnosed as a paranoid schizophrenic

It could indeed. If you want to work in a sweatshop, and a sweatshop wants to employ you, you should be allowed to work there.
Yes, if you "want to" work in a sweatshop. Because it's just like that in the real world! :rolleyes:

Too much penalization for low wage-paying or minimum-wage regulations which are too high will simply result in corporations pissing of to some country which doesn't regulate them so much.

It happens all the time, it's what outsourcing essentially is. Smack a huge minimum wage on one third world country and businesses will migrate to another, meaning the net result is still the "grinding poverty + no job" combo.

1) I don't mean to penalize them in an expendable third-world country, but to penalize their head office in say, the US, where the product is sold. The company must operate in this country, so it has no choice but to comply with its regulations
2) A sidepoint- this is why I believe foreign aid is poorly used. I think the money would be better spent in developing a stable, reliable economic infrastructure rather than in handouts. This would lead to self-sufficiency.

In Britain many support the Consevative Party because;

a. There is no liberal/Liberal party, instead there is the Liberal Democrats, who are socialists and do a lot of what Labour tells them,

b. The Labour party sells weapons to countries such as Turkey and Indonesia which use them to supress/salughter their ethinic minorities,

c. Labour is trying to rig the vote.
a. partially true. mind you, the Tory plan involves just as much spending as the Labour plan, and probably the Lib Dem plan too. I'm Irish, and the thing I dislike about Howard is that he seems to favour protectionism and other blocks on free trade within Europe.

b. you really think that the Tories would be above selling weapons to countries like this? Remember, it's the party of Margaret Thatcher, who started a war in order to further her political career.

c. this one is probably true

A sidepoint- this is why I believe foreign aid is poorly used. I think the money would be better spent in developing a stable, reliable economic infrastructure rather than in handouts. This would lead to self-sufficiency. I believe that the best option would have to be a combination of the two. Hand-outs are a neccesity in the beginning of an aid operation to prevent needless mass death and suffering, but there should also be substantial investment in reconstructing and reinvigorating the local infrastructure, coupled with a gradual weaning off the supportive aid over time.

Yes, if you "want to" work in a sweatshop. Because it's just like that in the real world! :rolleyes:

I wasn't implying that there were necessarily any options other than "work in a sweat shop" or "be unemployed".

However, if we both conceed that sweatshop labour is the only real employment option in those situations, how can you justify taking it away?

I believe that the best option would have to be a combination of the two. Hand-outs are a neccesity in the beginning of an aid operation to prevent needless mass death and suffering, but there should also be substantial investment in reconstructing and reinvigorating the local infrastructure, coupled with a gradual weaning off the supportive aid over time.

Agreed. I think NGO's do a good job of taking care of handouts, though, and governments should primarily focus on infrastructure.
(Like CIDA)

1) I don't mean to penalize them in an expendable third-world country, but to penalize their head office in say, the US, where the product is sold. The company must operate in this country, so it has no choice but to comply with its regulations


Ok. Penalize them too much everywhere and they will just shut right down. There will be easier ways to make a lot more money if they're being heavily docked and punished for doing what they do, and the people who run the sweatshop complexes will just find another line of employment, which won't involve employing empoverished third-world workers. Again, we have the lethal absence of any kind of employment in countries where those companies used to pay sweatshop workers. Death ensues.

I think it's not very easy to define "liberalism" or "conservatism". For example, what do the conservatives want to conserve? People's individual rights? I think not. The environment? Definitely not. As for liberals, what are they campaigning for? "Liberal" sounds like it comes from "liberty", which means freedom. But most liberals I know aren't that keen on all types of freedom (for example economic freedom).

Too much penalization for low wage-paying or minimum-wage regulations which are too high will simply result in corporations pissing of to some country which doesn't regulate them so much.

It happens all the time, it's what outsourcing essentially is. Smack a huge minimum wage on one third world country and businesses will migrate to another, meaning the net result is still the "grinding poverty + no job" combo.
That's the problem. Simply outlawing sweatshops wouldn't work, as people would still be poor and dying. Legislating a decent minimum wage would make the company move elsewhere. This is why the effort for a decent minimum wage must be a concerted global effort. But I don't see that happening soon.

Too much penalization for low wage-paying or minimum-wage regulations which are too high will simply result in corporations pissing of to some country which doesn't regulate them so much.

It happens all the time, it's what outsourcing essentially is. Smack a huge minimum wage on one third world country and businesses will migrate to another, meaning the net result is still the "grinding poverty + no job" combo.
That's the problem. Simply outlawing sweatshops wouldn't work, as people would still be poor and dying. Legislating a decent minimum wage would make the company move elsewhere. This is why the effort for a decent minimum wage must be a concerted global effort. But I don't see that happening soon.

It was a really interesting documentary series on corporations. One of the things they said was something like if a corporation was a human being, it would be psychologically diagnosed as a paranoid schizophrenic
Not a schizo, a psychopath. Mind you it was biased. For example when it tried to prove that like a psychopath corporations have no regard for societal laws, they used a few (dozen) examples to generalise about all of them.

I'm curious to know why people are conservative. Personally, i'm a liberal person (that's a little L liberal for all the Australians... Stupid conservative "Liberal party") because I believe that change and progress to improve people's lives is a good thing. I believe that people shouldn't settle with what they have (or what their fellow disdavantaged citizens have) and fight for something better for everybody. Staying the same or moving backwards (which is what I feel is being conservative) means that people will never improve their situations.

Also, it seems like conservative people like to restrict individual freedoms, like their choice in contraversial foreign films or choice in sexual orientation. Conversely, they also like to let corporations do whatever, i.e., less regulations and relying on market forces. (which i think is mostly ineffective in protecting consumer rights and workers rights).

What do other people think?

I really don't think that conservatism means staying the same or moving backwards because a lot of conservatives do realize that the world changes and do believe that we need to adapt. I think that Conservatives just believe that a lot of old fashioned ways which did contribute to prosperous times in the past should work for the future. They don't fear change they just think that changing old things that worked then should be reconsidered or considered in a more rational matter then just out and out changing them.

Of course, this is just a layperson's opinion.

Ok. Penalize them too much everywhere and they will just shut right down. There will be easier ways to make a lot more money if they're being heavily docked and punished for doing what they do, and the people who run the sweatshop complexes will just find another line of employment, which won't involve employing empoverished third-world workers. Again, we have the lethal absence of any kind of employment in countries where those companies used to pay sweatshop workers. Death ensues.

Okay, then, combine it with economic rewards for companies that foster good working conditions. Use a combined "carrot-and-stick" approach. Companies will still have a comfortable profit margin.

I'm curious to know why people are conservative. Personally, i'm a liberal person (that's a little L liberal for all the Australians... Stupid conservative "Liberal party") because I believe that change and progress to improve people's lives is a good thing. I believe that people shouldn't settle with what they have (or what their fellow disdavantaged citizens have) and fight for something better for everybody. Staying the same or moving backwards (which is what I feel is being conservative) means that people will never improve their situations.

Also, it seems like conservative people like to restrict individual freedoms, like their choice in contraversial foreign films or choice in sexual orientation. Conversely, they also like to let corporations do whatever, i.e., less regulations and relying on market forces. (which i think is mostly ineffective in protecting consumer rights and workers rights).

What do other people think?

Here's why I'm conservative:

1)I believe strongly in financial freedom: IE, you keep what you earn and decide what to do with it (more or less, with a small tax sprinkled in). Conversely, I am strongly against socialism's act of stealing from some and redistributing to others except when totally necessary (EG, to help those who CANNOT work).

2)I believe that some ideals are worth keeping... but idealism should be tempered by some open-mindedness (or at least not steadfast snobbishness)... I espouse a sensible mix of open/closed-mindedness. hehe

3)I believe that change CAN be good but not that it necessarily IS good. Ergo, we should not change simply for the sake of changing: change should be meaningful and positive for at least the majority whom it affects.

4)Following the financial freedom stance, I believe that, more or less, markets should be left alone; business should be allowed to operate to maximize shareholders' return (without blatantly breaking laws of course.. see Enron, WorldCom, etc.). I believe that most businesses are basically GOOD -- that they try to maximize shareholder return by (chiefly) providing products and services that present value to the eyes of the consumer. Businesses also provide a great service to non-entrepreneurs by EMPLOYING them, and that if you hurt businesses, you also hurt the working man. I believe that owners should retain strong proprietary rights SINCE IT'S THEIR BUSINESS .. how would you like it if someone told you that you couldn't control something you started with your own money, ingenuity, and willingness to risk everything? We must respect the rights of ownership.

5)I believe that our President/government should do what is best for American citizens, even if it pisses off the rest of the world... IE, us over the popularity contest. I believe that our safety is the #1 thing our government must preserve for us, for without it we cannot enjoy LIFE. And without life we cannot enjoy liberty nor the pursuit of happiness.

so... that's a start.

I think it's not very easy to define "liberalism" or "conservatism". For example, what do the conservatives want to conserve? People's individual rights? I think not. The environment? Definitely not. As for liberals, what are they campaigning for? "Liberal" sounds like it comes from "liberty", which means freedom. But most liberals I know aren't that keen on all types of freedom (for example economic freedom).

I looked it up on the dictionary (i didn't know an exact definition myself either)

lib·er·al (lĭb'ər-əl, lĭb'rəl) pronunciation
adj.

1.
1. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.

(sounds pretty good, heehee i know i'm biased ;) )

Here is how I see it. Conservatives = "If it aint broke then dont fix it" where as liberals are more "If it aint broke then lets tweak it some more". Following that then they can break it badly! Conservatives are NOT against change. We just like to take it alittle slower and cautiously.

And yes we do restrict things like sexual orientation. Thats because we believe the same things as our founders. America was founded on CHRISTIAN ideas thusly we should have a set of morals based on such. Homosexuality is immoral and wrong. Plain and simple. If you dont like it then why are you here? Moving to another country isnt hard! and Canada is right above the border! They are very liberal! Another thing is some liberals are so far left they remind alot of people of communists. Is that what you want in America!? Communism!? I think not.

Although this may be the idea of an American conservative, The British Conservative is far more of a Neo Liberalist on social issues; that is to say that you can do what you want in the privacy of your own home solong as you don't harm any one. in Britain we are not as bigoted and backwards in out out look on things such as homosexuality, although the drunken morons down at the local pub would proberbly prove me wrong, we have no laws discriminating against homosexuals.

Liberalism in Britian is somthing of a dieing breed, even the Labour party has revampt its self and is slowly cutting links with the Trade unions in favour of big buisness. The Liberal Democrat party has no real chance of getting power, not within the next 50 years at least, it is just too left wing.

Here's why I'm conservative:

1)financial freedom
2)idealism should be tempered by some open-mindedness
3)I believe that change CAN be good but not that it necessarily IS good.
4)Following the financial freedom stance, I believe that, more or less, markets should be left alone
5)I believe that our President/government should do what is best for American citizens, even if it pisses off the rest of the world


1) Agreed, but with enough of a social safety net to prevent disadvantaged ones (e.g. critically ill people, people laid off nad now desperately looking for work, etc.) from being crushed by the system.
2) Yes, and also by pragmatism
3) Absolutely.
4) No. Corporations exist to make money. That is their only goal and objective. Governments can and should use their powers to insure that the powerful do not run rough-shod over the weak.
5) I believe all governments have a responsibility to look at what's good for the world as a whole in addition to narrow self interest. The case I will cite to support this is Rwanda. All the major players knew what was happening, yet they did nothing simply because it wasn't in their own interest and it wasn't popular. Sometimes, governments must help others out of altruism; this is true leadership.
(P.S.- The Iraq war is not used because it was not altruistic)

1) Agreed, but with enough of a social safety net to prevent disadvantaged ones (e.g. critically ill people, people laid off nad now desperately looking for work, etc.) from being crushed by the system.
2) Yes, and also by pragmatism
3) Absolutely.
4) No. Corporations exist to make money. That is their only goal and objective. Governments can and should use their powers to insure that the powerful do not run rough-shod over the weak.
5) I believe all governments have a responsibility to look at what's good for the world as a whole in addition to narrow self interest. The case I will cite to support this is Rwanda. All the major players knew what was happening, yet they did nothing simply because it wasn't in their own interest and it wasn't popular. Sometimes, governments must help others out of altruism; this is true leadership.
(P.S.- The Iraq war is not used because it was not altruistic)

Sure, corporations exist to make money... and by making money (profit), to enhance shareholders' return on their investments.

As for Iraq, if you want to see it as an altruistic move on the part of the US, it can be done: we freed a nation from an oppressive regime. This is a good deed if you value freedom.

As for the oil debate, well... we've spent enough on Iraq to totally outweigh any gain we might have made in terms of oil revenue/control. If we went there for oil, we lost our shirt.

You will never please everyone. If you are liberal and allow gay marriage, then some religions will not be happy. On the otherhand, if make homosexuality illegal then obviously gay people are not gonna be too pleased.
Of course, nowadays you can't judge a book by its cover - in Britain the Labour party have basically stolen all the Conservative party's policies even though Labour are meant to be left wing.
And the Conservative policies are basically about making life "better" for people who are already in the richest 3% of people in the world.
Life's a bitch, and so is politics.

Sure, corporations exist to make money... and by making money (profit), to enhance shareholders' return on their investments.

As for Iraq, if you want to see it as an altruistic move on the part of the US, it can be done: we freed a nation from an oppressive regime. This is a good deed if you value freedom.

As for the oil debate, well... we've spent enough on Iraq to totally outweigh any gain we might have made in terms of oil revenue/control. If we went there for oil, we lost our shirt.

Altruism implies a complete lack of self-interest. Iraq doesn't fit that definition.

Here's my take on liberal vs. conservative - (I consider myself conservative)

In america, at least we want the same values, we just differ on who has the responsability to move that change.

From my observation, (sorry I am not trying to tick off liberals and I know this is somewhat stereotypical) if you are conservative in a particular area (like business, welfare, etc), you want the responsability in the hands of the person. If you are liberal, you believe that the government should do something to force, lure, encourage, (whatever term you want) the people to act a certain way.

For instance, in the issue of welfare, I don't want the government to take money from me to give to those in need. It's none of the governments business. It is, however, my business and responsability to personally take care of those in need around me... to stop being to busy to notice those around me and help them out. It should be my choice. I consider this to be conservative.

However, I am somewhat liberal in areas of protection, law, crime prevention, etc... I believe this is one of the few realms that the goverment should go into. I like being able to walk home and not have to carry a weapon for protection, and I know there are places in the US that this is not the situation. I am thankful I pay taxes for this.

So as an overall liberal person is not someone that nessecarily wants more taxes but is willing to give up financial freedom in more areas than someone that is conservative.

The Optic

Altruism implies a complete lack of self-interest. Iraq doesn't fit that definition.

understood, from the standpoint that a more US-friendly Iraq helps our greater cause in the Middle East. Also, if they were going to harbor terrorists under Saddam... maybe this new government won't be quite as friendly.

Both sides have good and bad things. I think it is good that liberals and socialists support gay rights, secularism, and fiscally sensible social policies. Conservatives fail on these three matters because they are moralistic with regards to homosexuality and even some of the gay-friendly conservatives think it's okay that homophobic abuse in the media and in society is tolerated. Their alignment with the religious right and rejection of secularism robs them of even more respectability while it's as if they view minimal government intervention in the economy invariably equates to a fair society.

Liberals however are also not without their faults. The way liberals express a hatred of their own culture and any remotely non-pacifistic action by a Western government on those nice, peaceful theocrats and dictators in the Arab world seems almost pathological and the socialists and liberals over here in the UK in particular seem to have an irrational urge to make friends with Islamic fundamentalists who it seems they hold in much higher esteem than their respective counterparts in the Christian and Judaistic religions. Apeaking of which, anti-semitism is becoming more and more frequent too among leftists, Jews who support the State of Israel over the Palestinian fundamentalists are refused admissions to some universities but rest assured, any muslim who views the the UK, US and Israel as evil empires and Sharia law governed hellholes like Iran and Algeria to be justified by how they treat rape victims and homosexuals has as much opportunity to get in as anyone else, if not more. Socialist politicians such as Ken Livingstone have been known to make anti-Semitic slurs while George Galloway is a known apologist for Saddam Hussein's Baath party. Last but not least, I don't like to sound like a Republican here but liberals truely are a bunch of useless pussies, the amount of advantages to integrating muslims into secular European society are immeasurable, but people like Ken Livingstone wouldn't dream of that, such a thing would be (wait for it...) bigotry and cultural imperialism.

I do not consider myself a liberal or a conservative and I would not associate myself with the British left in its current conception. I am a human rights advocate, something conervatives and liberals might want to learn from.

Being an extreme radical, like Karl Marx is not a good thing. He is too much of an idealist to make a society run smoothly. Being an extreme reactionary, like Ann Coulter or George W. Bush is not a good thing either. If a mere ant bites Ann Coulter, she is more likely to nuke the ant colony than flick off the ant that bit her.

Conservatives are usually the people who are against change, i.e. they are the ones who want their slaves, the ones who want women in the house to cook and pump out kids. They are the ones who can't stand watching what could have been slaves rise up to the same level as them. I admit, I may be alienating many conservatives, but at the time, this is what their ideals were.

Now, even Pat Buchannan might be against slavery. There isn't much opposition to women's suffrage now, but when there was, it was predominantly by conservatives.

I know I've written a lot already and you're just going to skim over this as left-wing grandstanding, but whatever. On a whole new topic, the Christian rights crazos out there are trying to apply their Christian values on the masses. For example; gay marriage. What do they care if two fags get married across the country? It doesn't matter. Let them get married, they have as much right to get married as a "normal" person. Or are gays now 3/5ths of a person? The whole Christian rights group, the one currently running the United States of America, is trying to eliminate the very value that makes America unique. By getting rid of gay marriage, we are saying "screw democracy."

To be fair (you know, the stuff that you won't find on Fox News), being extreme liberal is not good either. They would probably ban religion thus violating the foundation that this nation was built on. Also, the repulsively rich would have to help the poor people, which they would not like.

getting back to the liberal v. conservatism, liberals are the Ghandis, conservatives are the Hitlers. (not getting into the Libertarian/Authoritative axis)

As for the Iraq war, that is a whole different story. But remember (that's you George Walker Bush, yes you, the one currently leading the U.S.), in the words of God, or Moses or whoever the f*ck made the 10 commandments:
THOU SHALT NOT KILL

there you have it, all war is now banned. God said it himself.
(isn't it ironic that a major pacifist like Jesus who advocated peace and brotherly love, has had more men die for him than even Hitler? And if Jesus loves all men, then isn't he gay?)

but what do we do about population control?...

Imagine there's no heaven.
It's easy if you try.
No hell below us.
Above us only sky.
Imagine all the people
living for today.

Imagine there's no countries,
It isnt hard to do,
Nothing to kill or die for,
No religion too,
Imagine all the people
living life in peace...

Imagine no possesions,
I wonder if you can,
No need for greed or hunger,
A brotherhood of man,
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world...

You may say Im a dreamer,
but Im not the only one,
I hope some day you'll join us,
And the world will live as one.
--God rest your soul, (how ironic is that?) John Lennon

What's so funny about peace, love and understanding?

wow, that was a lot of text, sorry.

Here's my take on liberalism vs conservatism. Liberal governments spend money liberally (freely) on social programs but grant the population more civil liberties. Conservatives on the other hands spend public funds conservatively (restrictively) on many programs except for military, but expect the population to act conservative.

As for the Iraq war, that is a whole different story. But remember (that's you George Walker Bush, yes you, the one currently leading the U.S.), in the words of God, or Moses or whoever the f*ck made the 10 commandments:
THOU SHALT NOT KILL

there you have it, all war is now banned. God said it himself.
(isn't it ironic that a major pacifist like Jesus who advocated peace and brotherly love, has had more men die for him than even Hitler? And if Jesus loves all men, then isn't he gay?)

Umm... You need to read the bible closer. Moses comes down and gives the 10 commandments. Moses successor 40 years later, Joshua is commanded by God to force out or Kill all the inhabitants of their promised land.

Did God forbid killing? Nope. I think a better translation is murder. And wars aren't always (but I will agree the vast majority) wrong.

And Jesus wasnt a pacifist. He believed in doing the right thing. With a whip he chased out money changers from his temple. At the time it was nessecary.

It's obvious you don't believe in the bible or it's teaching, so unless you are familiar with it, don't make us familiar with your ability to speak before you know what you are speaking about.

The Optic

Umm... You need to read the bible closer. Moses comes down and gives the 10 commandments. Moses successor 40 years later, Joshua is commanded by God to force out or Kill all the inhabitants of their promised land.


Indeed, Moses himself got up to a bit of the ol' slaughtering, but he wasn't quite as hardcore as Joshua. To my knowledge, the book of Joshua is essentially just a long list of people he killed and how he killed them. Purely biblical christianity is hard to construe as pacifist.

I'm not, by the way, trying to assert that either aggression or pacifism is right or wrong.

Well, at least among fiscal conservatives, the belief is that it is not the governments job to take care of people like they're children. They want to maximize individual economic choice (which includes less regulations on corporations) and allow the people to do what they want, when they want with what they have.

Of course, as a quasi-libertarian I happen to only agree with conservatives on economic issues. I tend to disagree with them on morality issues, chiefly because I believe in greater freedom there as well.

Yeah! What he said. Most liberals don't have any clue what conservatives are really about. Social issues are only a part of the issue, and for many not even an important part. If liberals understood this and adoped a small-government platform they'd find a tidal wave of support. When Democrats in the US finish their path towards irrelevance it will be the libertarians who take the most votes from the Republicans - including my own. For now a Democrat is far more troublesom than a Republican. They are just now awakening to the hangover of what's wrong with big government (which they created) - It was only fun for them when they were driving... God willing, someday someone will step up and go GW (George Washington), open a can of yankee whoopass on both parties and get this mess fixed.

Here is how I see it. Conservatives = "If it aint broke then dont fix it" where as liberals are more "If it aint broke then lets tweak it some more". Following that then they can break it badly! Conservatives are NOT against change. We just like to take it alittle slower and cautiously.

And yes we do restrict things like sexual orientation. Thats because we believe the same things as our founders. America was founded on CHRISTIAN ideas thusly we should have a set of morals based on such. Homosexuality is immoral and wrong. Plain and simple. If you dont like it then why are you here? Moving to another country isnt hard! and Canada is right above the border! They are very liberal! Another thing is some liberals are so far left they remind alot of people of communists. Is that what you want in America!? Communism!? I think not.
this post is a joke right?

Sure, corporations exist to make money... and by making money (profit), to enhance shareholders' return on their investments.

As for Iraq, if you want to see it as an altruistic move on the part of the US, it can be done: we freed a nation from an oppressive regime. This is a good deed if you value freedom.

As for the oil debate, well... we've spent enough on Iraq to totally outweigh any gain we might have made in terms of oil revenue/control. If we went there for oil, we lost our shirt.
why not free other nations from oppressive regimes. there are a lot of countries much worse off than Iraq. like say.......half of africa maybe. theres an oppressive regime in Saudi Arabia. why not promote democracy there? maybe not even invade them. maybe just say something....anything. show some interest at all. theres just so many countries where we could promote democracy freedom and all that, yet we dont do it. i'm not even talking about invasion there are so many things that could be done that dont involve such extreme measures.

this post is a joke right?

Hopefully. It's the good old "if you don't like things the way they are, just leave". Oh, and everyone knows that the Constitution specifically mentions Jesus as God. :rolleyes:

Hmm, in the case of *me*, I'm not one or the other. Economically, I'm very conservative, but socially, I'm very liberal. A Libertarian! Unfortunately, not many I've found are like this. It seems to be an either-or type of deal with a lot of people...

So I can't understand the reasons for economic liberalism and social conservatism.

In my case being a conservative came down to a couple of factors.
Which extremists annoyed me the least and which form of arrogance annoyed me the least. Conservative hypocrisy and arrogance annoyed me less than liberal hypocrisy and arrogance. This is using the US breed of con/lib, pardon me if this offends.
I don't have time to give examples, sorry, I gotta go to work now. Some of us work, conservatives mainly. . . there is one example for you.

And Jesus wasnt [sic] a pacifist. He believed in doing the right thing. With a whip [sic]he chased out money changers from his temple. At the time it was nessecary. [sic]

It's obvious you don't believe in the bible [sic: unless you're not talking about the Bible] or it's [sic] teaching, so unless you are familiar with it, don't make us familiar with your ability to speak before you know what you are speaking about.

The Optic

I like how you couldn't attack my other, more interesting points, only my religious talk where my time on the crapper exceeds my time spent in church. Good job, I couldn't care less about it. It's your book, I respect that. It's not my book or America's book in the slightest sense. Yes, America was founded on Christianity, but THINGS CHANGE. If you weren't aware, Christianity isn't the only religion in America now. Other people live in this country too. And if you tell me to move to Canada or France and leave behind only people who think like you, I could never do that to my own country. Why don't you TOLERATE other people instead of attack them? Or does that make too much sense?

And what's the difference between "killing" and "murder"? They're the same thing, only murder has a worse connotation. They both define the ending of lives and who's to say that that can be legal? And what exactly is right? You conservatives thought slavery was right. Do you think it's right now? I hope not. Was it right to persecute millions of Jews? Hitler thought so. Right isn't always black and white.
(And a whip isn't exactly as lethal as, say, an M-60. I know, since we're fighting what's basically a religious war in Iraq, why don't all the Christian American soldiers run around whipping Arabs on camels holding swords? It'd be like the good ol' days)
And please tell me how a Christian can support the death penalty while being against abortion. Do you have to wait for them to become a mass murderer before you can kill 'em?

If someone can argue with my other points, in the words of your leader, "Bring 'em on."

REMEMBER THIS IF YOU SUPPORT WAR IN IRAQ: "Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."
-- Herman Goering, Hitler's Reichsmarschall, at the Nuremberg trials

Oh and if you thought the Founding Fathers were right about everything, like Christianity being base for American values, "Dissent is the highest form of patriotism." --Thomas Jefferson.

--Later
with Peace, Love, Understanding.

I like how you couldn't attack my other, more interesting points, only my religious talk where my time on the crapper exceeds my time spent in church. Good job, I couldn't care less about it. It's your book, I respect that. It's not my book or America's book in the slightest sense. Yes, America was founded on Christianity, but THINGS CHANGE. If you weren't aware, Christianity isn't the only religion in America now. Other people live in this country too. And if you tell me to move to Canada or France and leave behind only people who think like you, I could never do that to my own country. Why don't you TOLERATE other people instead of attack them? Or does that make too much sense?

And what's the difference between "killing" and "murder"? They're the same thing, only murder has a worse connotation. They both define the ending of lives and who's to say that that can be legal? And what exactly is right? You conservatives thought slavery was right. Do you think it's right now? I hope not. Was it right to persecute millions of Jews? Hitler thought so. Right isn't always black and white.
(And a whip isn't exactly as lethal as, say, an M-60. I know, since we're fighting what's basically a religious war in Iraq, why don't all the Christian American soldiers run around whipping Arabs on camels holding swords? It'd be like the good ol' days)
And please tell me how a Christian can support the death penalty while being against abortion. Do you have to wait for them to become a mass murderer before you can kill 'em?

If someone can argue with my other points, in the words of your leader, "Bring 'em on."

REMEMBER THIS IF YOU SUPPORT WAR IN IRAQ: "Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."
-- Herman Goering, Hitler's Reichsmarschall, at the Nuremberg trials

Oh and if you thought the Founding Fathers were right about everything, like Christianity being base for American values, "Dissent is the highest form of patriotism." --Thomas Jefferson.

--Later
with Peace, Love, Understanding.
I think "Annihilation", "Freedom of Choice", and "Pet" are good quotables too .... but overall, especially in terms of this thread ... i am moved most by "The Fiddle and the Drum".

When I try to classify myself as one or the other, I tend to lean to the right. To me it's all about where my tax dollars go. I have a certain disdain for people that don't even try to pull their own weight. I don't consider myself a very compassionate person and I don't like giving things to people for free if they don't deserve it. I like the ideologies that many conservatives stand for: pride in your country and hard work.

Same with me. It is why Satanists can be conservatives. Which seems to shock alot of people. My main reason I support the conservative political view is because they believe in having a strong military and strong security in our nation. Also conservatives support having the right to believe in a religion, unlike Liberals who try to ban all religions. I have other reasons too, just too many to list now.

Posted by the Satanic Priest, Lord Medivh

unlike Liberals who try to ban all religions.

Thats crap.

Why dont you ask the average fellow conservative how he feels about your religion?

Liberally minded, generally means more tolerant of such things.

If you must hate liberals, at least know what it is you think you hate.

Liberally minded, generally means more tolerant of such things.

Tolerant? Ha. That's a good one. Liberals can't tolerant Bush or anything that is conservative.

Tolerant? Ha. That's a good one. Liberals can't tolerant Bush or anything that is conservative.


Show me something that Bush has done that didnt have an ulterior motive, or didnt involve a blatant lie, and I'll show you something I love.

Conservatives sometimes let their religious agendas interfere with political ideals, but the basic idea is that government has no place in our personal lives, that it is there to ensure protection of personal freedoms. We don't like the government telling us what to do with our own money. The basic idea, at least with american conservative republicans and libertarians, which is what most american conservatives are, is the less government, the better.

I like how you couldn't attack my other, more interesting points, only my religious talk where my time on the crapper exceeds my time spent in church. Good job, I couldn't care less about it. It's your book, I respect that. It's not my book or America's book in the slightest sense. Yes, America was founded on Christianity, but THINGS CHANGE. If you weren't aware, Christianity isn't the only religion in America now. Other people live in this country too. And if you tell me to move to Canada or France and leave behind only people who think like you, I could never do that to my own country. Why don't you TOLERATE other people instead of attack them? Or does that make too much sense?.

I prefer to think of America being founded on certain principles in Christianity that most if not all religions seek to teach their followers. Christianity is a secondary consideration. Methods and actions change but principles should never change.

I always thought the leave America theme was pretty petty as I can see that you also believe. I think its great that we can have such a diverse group of people here. But as far as tolerance, if you want to tell me about tolerance, I see your point with my response, but the only reason I responded the way I did was your INTOLERANCE toward religion. Practice what you preach man. I think most "religious" people dont do that. Many are hypocritical. but the key word there is "many".

And what's the difference between "killing" and "murder"? They're the same thing, only murder has a worse connotation. They both define the ending of lives and who's to say that that can be legal? And what exactly is right? You conservatives thought slavery was right. Do you think it's right now? I hope not. Was it right to persecute millions of Jews? Hitler thought so. Right isn't always black and white.
(And a whip isn't exactly as lethal as, say, an M-60. I know, since we're fighting what's basically a religious war in Iraq, why don't all the Christian American soldiers run around whipping Arabs on camels holding swords? It'd be like the good ol' days)
And please tell me how a Christian can support the death penalty while being against abortion. Do you have to wait for them to become a mass murderer before you can kill 'em?
The reason you can't differentiate between the two is because you believe that killing and murder are the same thing. There is a big difference, Intent.
I can respect your opinion that killing and murder are the same. I will agree that in MOST situations killing just as abortion are wrong most of the time they are used. But I also think we must look at the situation. I've had to think a long time about this one. I was a Soldier in Iraq. I never fired a shot until I was attacked, but heaven help the guy that tried to attack and kill me. I am for the death penalty. I think the current system we have needs revision, but I am all for the principle.

REMEMBER THIS IF YOU SUPPORT WAR IN IRAQ: "Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."
-- Herman Goering, Hitler's Reichsmarschall, at the Nuremberg trials


Oh and if you thought the Founding Fathers were right about everything, like Christianity being base for American values, "Dissent is the highest form of patriotism." --Thomas Jefferson.

--Later
with Peace, Love, Understanding.
I am in support of the war, but it's becuase of the tendancy of politicians to corrupt that I am greatful people like you can disent. It only matters to me why you are disenting. If you disent (as I think your reason is) on the basis that you think killing and murder are always wrong... Fine. I can respect that. Or if you really think there wasn't enough evidence to go to war... Fine I can respect that too. I don't agree with you but I can definately see where you are coming from

The Optic

Show me something that Bush has done that didnt have an ulterior motive, or didnt involve a blatant lie, and I'll show you something I love.

Thank you for a perfect example of liberal "tolerance"

Show me something that Bush has done that didnt have an ulterior motive, or didnt involve a blatant lie, and I'll show you something I love.

Ok, but first show me someone in history that did something solely becuase it didn't do him any good. You can't find one. Even you. And I have ulterior motives for even responding to this.

But as far as calling things lies, how the hell do you know? Have you ever met the man? (I haven't) Have you seen all the information he and his opponants have? (I sure haven't) Have you listened to all the conversations behind the scenes of all those that have ulterior motives against Bush's "agneda"? (nope)

You don't agree with him. Fine but don't call someone a lier when you really don't know.

I sure as hell didn't judge Kerry either. I most people went around attacking him just becuase he was on the opposite "side". I personally couldn't relate with the man and had trouble coming up with what his politics actually were/are. That's why I voted for Bush. I don't agree with Bush on a LOT of things. But I at least know where he stands on most things that are important to me.

The Optic

Anyone ever hear "The Liberals of Today are the Conservatives of Tomorrow!"

Its actually very true.

I'm a little late to this party. I'll just try explain my politics as best I can. I'm conservative (in America that is) in all three major policy areas - economic, social, and foreign.

In economics I take my cue from former U.S. President Ronald Reagan in that I believe citizens should pay less tax to the government. Corporations and wealthy individuals are the major sources of captial in any nation, and ergo they're incredibly important to the creation of new capital projects and investments. Captial projects all require jobs, which will be created helping to lessen unemployment, and they use equipment creating by existing businesses such as factories, etc. I don't think any conservative would say they're against government regulation of business to protect the consumer (e.g. Federal Savings Insurance, Food and Drug Administration, etc.). However, conservatives dislike initiatives like the Kyouto Protocols for instance because they're is conflicting evidence as to whether the scheme will work. Government can't enforce standards that are costly and not guaranteed to work. It's just not fair. That's only one example, but it illustrates the point.

In foreign policy I'm what's been dubbed a neo-conservative. That means that I'm for a more aggressive foreign policy that keeps American presence active in the world because international organizations have been generally defficient in that area. On the opposite end are paleo-conservatives (like Pat Buchanon) that are isolationists and would like to wall up American never to get involved with the world again. I think two late arrivals in different world wars proved the stupidity of that arrangement. Neo-conservative foreign policy could in the modern sense of the word be more "liberal" than it's older counterpart.

On the social end of things I'm not what you would call Bible thumper or evangelical I am a devout Catholic, but that's not the main reason I'm against things like homosexual marriages, abortion, stem cell research, and euthanasia. My reasons are primarily political. Like most conservatives in America I reject the idea of a "living Constitution," or one that changes over time. The law is the law and only does what it was intended to by its creators. That's why there is an amendment process. So, that the Constitution can be changed when the mood of the country changes. Moral decisions like abortion or euthanasia were meant to be made by the respective states. America is a large country and there needs to be flexibility for different ideas. New Yorkers and Californians do not have the same morals as Texans or Virginians. The culturul emphasis is different. While I do feel abortion is great moral wrong and that people without a living will shouldn't have their feeding tubes removed I recognize there are different view points. So, I disagree with Tom Delay for making the terry Schiavo case a national issue, but I don't think her feeding tube should've have been removed, and the same logic applies to other moral issues. Yay states' rights.

Sorry, for the long post, but I had to get that out there.

In my case being a conservative came down to a couple of factors.
Which extremists annoyed me the least and which form of arrogance annoyed me the least. Conservative hypocrisy and arrogance annoyed me less than liberal hypocrisy and arrogance. This is using the US breed of con/lib, pardon me if this offends.
Why do you have to be either liberal or conservative? There are more ideologies out there.

Hmm, in the case of *me*, I'm not one or the other. Economically, I'm very conservative, but socially, I'm very liberal. A Libertarian! Unfortunately, not many I've found are like this. It seems to be an either-or type of deal with a lot of people...

So I can't understand the reasons for economic liberalism and social conservatism.
If you're Libertarian then you support economic liberalism.

Tolerant? Ha. That's a good one. Liberals can't tolerant Bush or anything that is conservative.
"Tolerate" is not the same as "agree with".

I don't think any conservative would say they're against government regulation of business to protect the consumer (e.g. Federal Savings Insurance, Food and Drug Administration, etc.
Really? Reagan was against the FDA. He cut its funding drastically, which made American meat significantly more dangerous to eat.

Really? Reagan was against the FDA. He cut its funding drastically, which made American meat significantly more dangerous to eat.

Cutting Funding isn't the same as being against it. I am all for having a swimming pool in my backyard (sorry I didn't mean that as a reference to your name), I just don't have the funds.

But I definately see how that could be interpreted that way. Unless Reagan came out and said I am against this (much like Clinton saying he didn't really like the military) you can't be sure. Hell, and even then since they are all politicians you can't take their word at face value.

The Optic

Tolerant? Ha. That's a good one. Liberals can't tolerant Bush or anything that is conservative.

Bush isn't conservative.

Now Kerry is a liberal, how well do you tolerate him?

Cutting Funding isn't the same as being against it. I am all for having a swimming pool in my backyard (sorry I didn't mean that as a reference to your name), I just don't have the funds.
Funny, lack of funds didn't seem to stop his "Star Wars" ideas and general militarey buildup.

Tolerant? Ha. That's a good one. Liberals can't tolerant Bush or anything that is conservative.

If you weren't aware, tolerate does not mean idely sit by and watch as the ruling party does what you think is wrong. Ghandi didn't tolerate the British, but he resisted in a non-violent way. Thoreau didn't tolerate slavery, but he resisted in a non-violent way. MLK didn't tolerate racism, but he protested in a non-violent way. Don't twist the meaning of words to your advantage, I know it's a habit of Republicans, but try to break it. Somehow, (mostly by Fox News) Republicans have given the word "liberal" a bad connotation, even though it means to be "open-minded." Conservatives have completely twisted the word "patriot" to mean someone who blindly followes their leader whatever their actions are, and they have twisted "freedom" around to become something entirely hypocritical. If you don't believe me, just look at the PATRIOT ACT.

It's true no one can TOLERATE everything in the strictest sense of the word. In general, liberals tolerate more things better than conservatives. If you disagree, look back into history (something Bush has never done).

If you weren't aware, tolerate does not mean idely sit by and watch as the ruling party does what you think is wrong.

-snip-

It's true no one can TOLERATE everything in the strictest sense of the word. In general, liberals tolerate more things better than conservatives. If you disagree, look back into history (something Bush has never done).

First, liberalism extends beyond partisan American politics. Second, there were some who openly called themselves "liberal" who made fun of arbitrary things about President Bush (such as his pronunciation of "nuclear", which by the way, is the same way Representative Poloci (sp) pronounces it). Liberals might ideologically be more tolerant, but I think there are still a substantial number of instances that "liberals" have demonstrated intolerance of others.

I prefer to think of America being founded on certain principles in Christianity that most if not all religions seek to teach their followers. Christianity is a secondary consideration. Methods and actions change but principles should never change.

I am in support of the war, but it's becuase of the tendancy [sic] of politicians to corrupt that I am greatful people like you can disent [sic]. It only matters to me why you are disenting[sic]. If you disent [sic] (as I think your reason is) on the basis that you think killing and murder are always wrong... Fine. I can respect that. Or if you really think there wasn't enough evidence to go to war... Fine I can respect that too. I don't agree with you but I can definately see where you are coming from.

The Optic

You seem to be a pretty smart person (even though you repeatedly misspelled "dissent") so it strikes me odd as to why you would support Dubya. I'm guessing it's just that you share views on religion and possibly the fact (if it is indeed a fact) that you served in Iraq. Also, think about why that soldier tried to attack and kill you. What do you represent to him? What actions led you to be in that life or death situation? Were those actions worth being in that situation, and was it worth watching your fellow soldiers die? (I can only assume you lost someone you spent time with in the war)

And what is it, exactly that Christianity teaches its followers? Yes, it teaches them to be good, moral human beings; no sex before marriage, no abortions, and just all around decent people, like Ned Flanders. That's cool, but Christianity, like any major religion, has a dark side. Christians violently invaded and converted African natives. Christians slaughtered thousands of Muslims, as Muslims slaughtered thousands of Christians, Hindus slaughtered hundreds of Muslims as Muslims slaughtered hundreds of Hindus. Jews kill (or should I use murdered instead?) Palestinians, Palestinians kill Jews. Is this also, the teachings of Christianity? Kill if your religion is infringed upon? It's like that in virtually every other major religion, as displayed in my aforementioned examples. No wonder all the smart people became Zen Buddhas during Vietnam.

What does the "tendency of politicians to corrupt" have anything to do with invading Iraq? Or can you please restate your reason in coherent English, possibly by adding a comma so it's not a run-on?

It's just very hypocritical, that Christianity teaches people to respect eveyone else, that everyone is created equal under the eyes of God, yet the Catholic church won't allow women to become priests (yet, the liberal(ish) people in the church are working on it), that entire priest-boy love scandal, the Puritan witch hunts, the implied spite and contempt between branches of Christianity. Basically the entire violent and oppressive history of Christianity is just incredibly hypocritical.

--Later,
With Peace, Love, and Understanding

First, liberalism extends beyond partisan American politics. Second, there were some who openly called themselves "liberal" who made fun of arbitrary things about President Bush (such as his pronunciation of "nuclear", which by the way, is the same way Representative Poloci (sp) pronounces it). Liberals might ideologically be more tolerant, but I think there are still a substantial number of instances that "liberals" have demonstrated intolerance of others.

And that "substantial number of instances" is greater than the number of instances conservatives demonstrated intolerance? And Dubya's pronunciation of "nuclear" is not arbitrary. There is a deeper reason why we mock it (not to mention his intelligence, or lack thereof).

if you think bush is actually kind of smart (http://www.dubyaspeak.com)

Name one incident where liberal intolerance resulted in the death of more than 20 persons.

Don't twist the meaning of words to your advantage, I know it's a habit of Republicans, but try to break it. Somehow, (mostly by Fox News) Republicans have given the word "liberal" a bad connotation, even though it means to be "open-minded."

Note: I am not saying that you are wrong about Republicans.

Don't fall into your own trap. First, although I do not claim that this is politically relevant, not too long ago "liberal" was another word for lacking moral restraint. It's not exactly some bright and shining word that has never had a bad connotation associated with it. For that matter, I don't think that being open-minded is of inherently greater worth than being cautious, if you want to start bandying definitions about.

In my opinion both sides have inexcusably blackened the word for the opposing viewpoint...I have heard "conservative" spoken as an insult much more often than I have heard "liberal" spoken in the same manner, but I think that may be because of the number of liberal friends I have. Or...well, actually they're probably about equal numbers actual liberals and plain old Bush-haters.

Personally, I find it rather amusing that despite the fact that my political leanings (both as measured and as I would classify them) are both socially and economically moderate to liberal, I agree with so-called "conservative" American politics on far more actual issues than I do with "liberals".

Edit: Actually, now that I look at it, I don't think you really fell into your own trap after all. You do seem to be pressing negative connotations to the word "conservative," but not in the kind of way you seemed to be saying was unacceptable. I presume you don't take issue with an individual having a negative connotation for a word that is associated with views he finds unpalatable; in that case I afford you the same courtesy. However, the main reason I was posting was to point out that, again, both ends of the political spectrum have tried to make the name of the other end into an insult, despite the fact that neither philosophy is either infallible or contemptible in its own right.

As a left libertarian, I have no problems with anyone's ideology...until it starts affecting the way I live. I see conservatives as the people constantly trying to tell me what I can and can't do with my body and mind, trying to control what I see and hear, trying to raise my children for me, in short, trying to tell me how to live my life, and there is NOTHING in the world I hate more than someone trying to tell me how to live. In the meantime, thought I might not always agree with everything today's liberals are about, I've yet to have a liberal try to force his way of life on me.

Conservatives: please keep your opinions to yourselves and your hands off my body, mind, and children.

Promise to keep your opinions to yourself.

As a left libertarian, I have no problems with anyone's ideology...until it starts affecting the way I live. I see conservatives as the people constantly trying to tell me what I can and can't do with my body and mind, trying to control what I see and hear, trying to raise my children for me, in short, trying to tell me how to live my life, and there is NOTHING in the world I hate more than someone trying to tell me how to live. In the meantime, thought I might not always agree with everything today's liberals are about, I've yet to have a liberal try to force his way of life on me.

Conservatives: please keep your opinions to yourselves and your hands off my body, mind, and children.

I find that somewhat interesting. You see...bearing in mind that this is from the perspective of someone who agrees with a lot of conservative viewpoints and is therefore unlikely to feel stepped on by them...I generally see liberals constantly trying to tell me what I can and can't believe, trying to control what I see and hear, trying to raise my children for me (if I had any yet...trying to raise the children of parents I know, is that better?) and in short, trying to tell me how NOT to live my life.

However, I will admit that while I have in fact had liberals try to force their way of life on me, I have heard of fewer instances of that happening directly (as opposed to through legislation) and far fewer instances of it involving violence. Then again, I do not feel that I have adequate reason to assume that this is because it happens less...in modern America...rather than because it is less publicized.

I find that somewhat interesting. You see...bearing in mind that this is from the perspective of someone who agrees with a lot of conservative viewpoints and is therefore unlikely to feel stepped on by them...I generally see liberals constantly trying to tell me what I can and can't believe, trying to control what I see and hear, trying to raise my children for me (if I had any yet...trying to raise the children of parents I know, is that better?) and in short, trying to tell me how NOT to live my life.

However, I will admit that while I have in fact had liberals try to force their way of life on me, I have heard of fewer instances of that happening directly (as opposed to through legislation) and far fewer instances of it involving violence. Then again, I do not feel that I have adequate reason to assume that this is because it happens less...in modern America...rather than because it is less publicized.

Yes, but which side is the one with the legislation supporting censorship, outlawing abortion, keeping drugs illegal, trying to force prayer into schools, trying to turn all charities into religious charities, and now trying to throw out all judges that don't agree with them, (even though said judges were just upholding the law and nothing more) and trying to ram through a bunch of untra-conservative members into the Supreme Court for lifetime appointments by trying to change a law that doesn't agree with them (nuclear option)? Certainly not the liberals. I've yet to see a liberal pull any of those shenanigans.

Ok, but first show me someone in history that did something solely becuase it didn't do him any good. You can't find one. Even you. And I have ulterior motives for even responding to this.

But as far as calling things lies, how the hell do you know? Have you ever met the man? (I haven't) Have you seen all the information he and his opponants have? (I sure haven't) Have you listened to all the conversations behind the scenes of all those that have ulterior motives against Bush's "agneda"? (nope)

You don't agree with him. Fine but don't call someone a lier when you really don't know.

I sure as hell didn't judge Kerry either. I most people went around attacking him just becuase he was on the opposite "side". I personally couldn't relate with the man and had trouble coming up with what his politics actually were/are. That's why I voted for Bush. I don't agree with Bush on a LOT of things. But I at least know where he stands on most things that are important to me.

The Optic


Ok.

I see what your getting at.

Let me put in the sort of of context that I can relay back easier.
When I say lies, and ulterior motives concerning Bush, i generally refer to the war.
This is the absolute core of my personal hatred towards Bush, as its the most significant thing hes has done.

Originally, Bush claimed the reason for invasion, was to enforce the U.N resolution 1442 (I believe), wich was restricting Iraq's weapons capabilies, particularly in regards to weapons of mass destruction.
Against the protest of the organization that created that resolution, he invaded.

And found nothing.

Bush during this time was constantly harping on the "fact" that Saddam had several links to Al-Qeada, and also a cache of WMD's.

Both of wich have been proven false.
(yes, I can find sources to back these claims, but so can anyone if they do some looking, and Im very tired and I just dont feel like doing it)

So, then Bush changed his tune, and claimed the reason for invasion was to liberate Iraq.

Except that the first action Bush took after this "liberation" was to enforce martial law.

More recently, the war has been fought against "Insurgents".
The trouble is, Bush never tells us who these people are.
Terrorists certainly, we're led to believe.

Except that they are Iraqi citizens who are protesting U.S military occupation.

My point is, that the war itself was sponsored, and carried out, under half-truths, and shoddy information, and even outright deceptions.

Its just too convienient that Haliburton is personally gaining millions by this war, and Dick Cheney's personal involvment with that company.
Its too conveinient that most military experts say that the middle east is in a rapid decay, and that since Saudi Arabia removed all U.S military bases from its soil, that we no longer had a staging point for military actions when the eventual conflict between Isreal, and Iran, and its Muslim allies, breaks out.

To further the above point, it means that Iraq was perfect for occupation, becuase not only is it centrally located in the Middle East, but its also a giant oil well, wich means a steady source if the Saudis stop shipping.

This war is NOT about liberating the Iraqi people.
If Bush were truly concerned about the millions of Iraqis that are dead, or missing, we would have invaded when Saddam was actually killing them.
If Bush were so compassionate about the loss of life, then why did he do NOTHING about Rwanda, where over a million people have been slaughtered like cattle?

Make no mistake, this war was about securing a foothold in the middle east, to protect U.S oil interests now, and in the future.
Is this wrong?

Yes.

But I have to say that it is what must be dont to preserve our way of life.
America is a heroin junkie.
We shoot up tons of crude oil everyday, and absolutely MUST have our fix, or else we will die from withdrawals.
America society is so oil dependant that we simply cant continue with out it.
A sudden stop in shipments would throw a monkeywrench in our daily lives.

So we have to make sure we have a steady supply.

The part I completely resent, and the part that smacks of evil, is the part where Bush lies to me and says that hes invading to liberate a poor downtrodden nation, in the best interest of humanity.

Bullshit.

You seem to be a pretty smart person (even though you repeatedly misspelled "dissent" so it strikes me odd as to why you would support Dubya. I'm guessing it's just that you share views on religion and possibly the fact (if it is indeed a fact) that you served in Iraq. Also, think about why that soldier tried to attack and kill you. What do you represent to him? What actions led you to be in that life or death situation? Were those actions worth being in that situation, and was it worth watching your fellow soldiers die? (I can only assume you lost someone you spent time with in the war)
I'm a logical thinker, not an English major or a writer
I understand perfectly the state of mind of those that attacked us. I don't think that they are nessecarily wrong to attack us. What's their motive? There were many that are just fighting against us because we are there. I can understand that becuase if I put myself in their shoes, I wouldn't want me to be there either. So long as that's their reason, I understand it, I just wish they'd understand that if they'd stop attacking, we'd be able to reduce our numbers and slow down our operation.
Lots of the guys attacking us, were mercenaries. They were getting paid (or rather their remaining family was getting paid) to attack us. Many attacked us just becuase we were US soldiers.
My job was to rebuild infrustructure, clear and repair roads after all the IED attacks, and other projects (building soccer fields, playgrounds, schools, etc).
All the times I was attacked were while I was driving or riding as gunner down the road. And yes, I lost a soldier while I was there to death and injury.

And Yes it was worth it. When we rolled in these people had NOTHING. And don't act like you understand what having nothing is like. I am talking about NOTHING! You can't understand it unless you see it. When I left, I knew those that we were able to interact with and help were better off. It doesn't bother me that some of them hated me. I think I can sort of understand where they are coming from.

Have you ever had something you were willing to die for? Hell, dying is the easy part. Is there anything that you are willing to fight for?

And what is it, exactly that Christianity teaches its followers? Yes, it teaches them to be good, moral human beings; no sex before marriage, no abortions, and just all around decent people, like Ned Flanders. That's cool, but Christianity, like any major religion, has a dark side. Christians violently invaded and converted African natives. Christians slaughtered thousands of Muslims, as Muslims slaughtered thousands of Christians, Hindus slaughtered hundreds of Muslims as Muslims slaughtered hundreds of Hindus. Jews kill (or should I use murdered instead?) Palestinians, Palestinians kill Jews. Is this also, the teachings of Christianity? Kill if your religion is infringed upon? It's like that in virtually every other major religion, as displayed in my aforementioned examples. No wonder all the smart people became Zen Buddhas during Vietnam.
The dark side of any religion is that there are people in them. I am a Christian but please don't classify those that started the Crusades a Christian. That's not Christianity. The Crusades had NOTHING to do with Christianity. It was started by people claiming to be Christians. (Claimed is the key word) People will twist and mangle anything to suit their purpose. You do it.. I do it.

What does the "tendency of politicians to corrupt" have anything to do with invading Iraq? Or can you please restate your reason in coherent English, possibly by adding a comma so it's not a run-on?

It's just very hypocritical, that Christianity teaches people to respect eveyone else, that everyone is created equal under the eyes of God, yet the Catholic church won't allow women to become priests (yet, the liberal(ish) people in the church are working on it), that entire priest-boy love scandal, the Puritan witch hunts, the implied spite and contempt between branches of Christianity. Basically the entire violent and oppressive history of Christianity is just incredibly hypocritical.

--Later,
With Peace, Love, and Understanding
Ok, first of all. I've noticed something. It appears to me that you are taking what you classify as the worst of Christianity, religion, whatever... (which is just people not the religion) and comparing it with what you consider to be the best.

Let's compare apples to apples. It serves no purpose to compare best to the worst. Lets compare the best things about Christianity to the best of what you have to offer.

What is the best you have to without a comparision that degrades something else?

The Optic

And that "substantial number of instances" is greater than the number of instances conservatives demonstrated intolerance? And Dubya's pronunciation of "nuclear" is not arbitrary. There is a deeper reason why we mock it (not to mention his intelligence, or lack thereof).

if you think bush is actually kind of smart (http://www.dubyaspeak.com)

Name one incident where liberal intolerance resulted in the death of more than 20 persons.

French Revolution (classic example)
Russian Revolution (might be able to argue Bolshies weren't liberal)
could give more but I'm writing a paper

I've yet to have a liberal try to force his way of life on me.

Where do you live, you lucky devil. Here in the US the Left (I don't like to dishonor the word "liberal" which used to mean political and economic freedom by associating with them) is pretty much always trying to take my money and tell me how to live. As Sir Stafford Cripps (minister in Atlee's Labour govn't) said, you can't have people simply doing what they want. At school (I'm in law school) I can express any viewpoint I want, so long as it's sufficenently to the left. When some folks in my class displayed insufficent ideological purity, one prof brought in several other profs to help her beat us down. In undergrad I was disciplined for disagreeing with a professor's assertion that Stalin was a wonderful man and the purges were a myth. But at least I live in the South, where it's not so bad. My friend lives in New Jersey and up there the Democractic local gov't dictates such details as what color she can paint her garage which is behind her house and not visibile from the street. Smoking is allowable virtualy no where outside your car and residence now. I don't smoke, but I see that as an unwarranted assault on individual freedom. The Nanny State is largely a Left creation, at least what I've seen. The Right talks about things, but seldom implements restrictions on freedom. The Left talks abotu freedom whilst destroying it whenever an individual's choice isn't the "correct" one.

And found nothing.

Bush during this time was constantly harping on the "fact" that Saddam had several links to Al-Qeada, and also a cache of WMD's.

Both of wich have been proven false.
(yes, I can find sources to back these claims, but so can anyone if they do some looking, and Im very tired and I just dont feel like doing it)

Whoa... Who proved it false. Shoot. His dad (the first Bush) when he was director of the CIA GAVE Iraq the weapons. When I was in Iraq, I helped bury them and a few facilities underground to prevent tampering.

Here is the question. What is a WMD? My guess is that you support the media in there assertian that this is a bomb already that someone just has to push a button and there it goes. When the Army started to uncover different things it never got publicized becuase they weren't all ready to go.

You don't have the whole picture friend.

More recently, the war has been fought against "Insurgents".
The trouble is, Bush never tells us who these people are.
Terrorists certainly, we're led to believe.

Except that they are Iraqi citizens who are protesting U.S military occupation.

I understand why a select few citizens are part of the insergency. I was a soldier and I talked to alot of citizens. Most of them told me that they weren't from Iraq. Many of them weren't happy we were there but didn't want us to leave either.

My point is, that the war itself was sponsored, and carried out, under half-truths, and shoddy information, and even outright deceptions.

Friend, this is opinion and speculation. You are free to have this opinion and if I had your association and listened to the people that you do, I would probably have the same opinion. But please don't flout this as fact when it's the opinion of whoever you happen to listen to.

Its just too convienient that Haliburton is personally gaining millions by this war, and Dick Cheney's personal involvment with that company.
Its too conveinient that most military experts say that the middle east is in a rapid decay, and that since Saudi Arabia removed all U.S military bases from its soil, that we no longer had a staging point for military actions when the eventual conflict between Isreal, and Iran, and its Muslim allies, breaks out.

I agree that it was wrong to hand a contract over to Haliburton. I don't agree with everything Bush did. I think its sad and there are many other great companies that should have been given a chance.

No, we voluntarily pulled out of Saudi. We weren't removed. Are you in the military? Where are you getting this information?

To further the above point, it means that Iraq was perfect for occupation, becuase not only is it centrally located in the Middle East, but its also a giant oil well, wich means a steady source if the Saudis stop shipping.

This war is NOT about liberating the Iraqi people.
If Bush were truly concerned about the millions of Iraqis that are dead, or missing, we would have invaded when Saddam was actually killing them.
If Bush were so compassionate about the loss of life, then why did he do NOTHING about Rwanda, where over a million people have been slaughtered like cattle?
I agree. Bush's Father should have done this the first time around. Oh just before you use the Rwanda thing as bait. Do you think we should send people to Rwanda, if we weren't already in Iraq and Afganistan?

Make no mistake, this war was about securing a foothold in the middle east, to protect U.S oil interests now, and in the future.
Is this wrong?

Yes.

But I have to say that it is what must be dont to preserve our way of life.
America is a heroin junkie.
We shoot up tons of crude oil everyday, and absolutely MUST have our fix, or else we will die from withdrawals.
America society is so oil dependant that we simply cant continue with out it.
A sudden stop in shipments would throw a monkeywrench in our daily lives.

So we have to make sure we have a steady supply.

The part I completely resent, and the part that smacks of evil, is the part where Bush lies to me and says that hes invading to liberate a poor downtrodden nation, in the best interest of humanity.

Bullshit.

Wow if you don't like Bush for that, what about everyother politician or business man? There are always two reasons for doing something. The one that sounds good and then the real reason.

Now things are never that simple. Here are what I consider on the issue of the Iraq war:

1. You and I and every other poster here doesn't have all the information that was presented to the President and the Senate and whatever else committee.

2. Information is not infallable. It can be wrong or over/under stated or our interpretation is going to vary, even with the depth of most of these goverment reports.

3. The media, politicians on all sides, you, me... we all have an agenda to push.

4. We will never know what the "facts" are. Unless you witnessed it personally its your opinion. And even then your prespective changes it.

Are there underlying motives? Absolutely but show me any descision by any president or politician that didn't have them.

But are their good things coming out of it? Yep, I witnessed them first hand. (although you'll have to take my word for it)

When I run this all through my experience I think the best of Bush on that descision(not on a few others though). Now you do the same thing and get the opposite. Great! Isn't that wonderful?!

Just please don't claim it's this way or that way unless you have personal experience.

The Optic

I'm just amused by someone saying the Bush is a hypocrite because, when he was a private citizen running for Governor of Texas, he didn't somehow pull an army out of his back pocket and stop the Rwandan genocide. for those of you with temporal dislexia, 1994 was before January 2001, when bush became President. Just a little note.

French Revolution (classic example)
Russian Revolution (might be able to argue Bolshies weren't liberal)
could give more but I'm writing a paper

How 'bout in the U.S?


Not one major incident of liberal intolerance resulted in the death of more than 20 people. There have been close calls mainly during the strikes of the early 1900s, but that was between hard core anarchists and authoritative local government sending out police and even the national guard. In many of these instances, the strikers were the ones killed by police. A classic example of this injustice is Sacco and Vanzetti who were executed on no basis other than being anarchists and Italians.

The number of incidents of peaceful liberal resistance to injustice far exceeds the number of violent liberal resistance.

And if you want to talk about major incidents, bring it on.
1) Civil Rights movement in the U.S.
2) Tienanmen square, where hundreds were massacred for peacefully protesting.
3) Ganhdi's movement against the British.
4) Every African tribe against European colonizers.
5) The British massacre of hundreds of Indians, virtually identical to Tienanmen square.
and the list goes on...

Meh, Libertarianism > liberalism OR conservativism