NationStates Jolt Archive

I think I have an understanding of these terms now.

Conservative:
Socially authoritarian
Economically authoritarian

Liberal:
Socially authoritarian
Economically authoritarian

They just want to use their authority for different things.

Examples of how liberals are socially authoritarian:
Gay marriage - the government recognises it. "But that's more freedom!" you say. "Ah, but it's the government deciding whether or not a marriage is valid" I say.

Now I need an example of a conservative government intervening to "help" the private sector.

Boeing

hmmmm.

Conservative: Controlling

Liberal: Relaxed

Thats but it really!!!

Conservatives favour 'free' markets, but are authoritarian in terms of law and order. The Patriot Act is a good example. Thatcher's legacy in the UK in the 1980s could be described as "free market, strong state". Whereas 'liberals' could be seen as interventionists in the market, and more 'liberal' social policy.

I'm well aware of the definitions popular opinion gives, I'm trying to say that that's wrong. E.g.

Labour giving "freedom" of religion - by prohibiting you from verbally attacking any religion! (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4075442.stm)

Another "liberal" policy - restricting people's ability to defend themselves.

I'm well aware of the definitions popular opinion gives, I'm trying to say that that's wrong. E.g.

Labour giving "freedom" of religion - by prohibiting you from verbally attacking any religion! (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4075442.stm)

Another "liberal" policy - restricting people's ability to defend themselves.

You are right. It depends how you interpret things.

Right-wingers would say being able to own a gun is "freedom".

Liberals would say you should ban guns, and then you will be free of being shot!

Conservative- Pro-Standards

Liberak - Anti-Standerds

You are right. It depends how you interpret things.

Right-wingers would say being able to own a gun is "freedom".

Liberals would say you should ban guns, and then you will be free of being shot!

Different meaning of the word "free". The first one means "at liberty to make your own decision as to whether you want to own a gun". The second one means "lacking the state of being shot" (although, actually the criminals would still have illegally bought guns - only the law-abiders would be unarmed).

Conservatives want to preserve some sort of decency in society, while Liberals want everything allowed.

Conservatives want less influence from government, while Liberals want more handouts.

If you would like to talk with me further personally, telegram my nation by the same name in Blutsoldaten Koalition.

American liberals: you can say this but not that because it is offensive.
American conservative: you can say this but not that because it is wrong and/or dirty.

Now I need an example of a conservative government intervening to "help" the private sector.

I think it's quite funny that you decided that conservatives were economically authoritarian before you could actually think of an example. :lol:


Anyway, trying to put these things into little neat boxes will never get you anywhere. Lots of 'conservatives' believe in free markets, but plenty of other 'conservatives' of a different bent believe in protecting American jobs against foreigners.

Similarly, while some 'conservatives' believe in imposing religious moral values on society through censorship, others believe in removing all government interference from everything except law and order.

You could probably do the same with liberals. If there is a line between liberals and conservatives it is probably not about authoritarianism.

Conservatives want to preserve some sort of decency in society, while Liberals want everything allowed.

Conservatives want less influence from government, while Liberals want more handouts.

If you would like to talk with me further personally, telegram my nation by the same name in Blutsoldaten Koalition.
I trust you are not talking about American liberals and conservatives.

Liberal:Short term solution, that will cause a problem in a few years, but hey let our childrens, children worry about it

Conservative: Long term solution will work for a VERY long time, may start off slow, so liberals complain but will work longer than liberal soultion and more effectively

Liberal:Short term solution, that will cause a problem in a few years, but hey let our childrens, children worry about it

Conservative: Long term solution will work for a VERY long time, may start off slow, so liberals complain but will work longer than liberal soultion and more effectively


That is a great definition of one facet of the two views. Also, American Conservatives are uber. :)

Liberal:Short term solution, that will cause a problem in a few years, but hey let our childrens, children worry about it

Conservative: Long term solution will work for a VERY long time, may start off slow, so liberals complain but will work longer than liberal soultion and more effectively

Thats why GWB is taking on global climate problems the way he is? Soy deisel wouldn't cover more than a few percent of current vehicles. It's physically impossible.

I think we should all be liberal.

Thats why GWB is taking on global climate problems the way he is? Soy deisel wouldn't cover more than a few percent of current vehicles. It's physically impossible.

That's cause global warming is a crock and if you could please point me to a site that proves the disadvantage of soy deisel I would appreciate it.

In Britain, the home of liberalism, liberalism means something different. It means the small state for all affairs and no intervention by the state as long as an individuals action doesn't affect another individual. Socialists have somewhat highjacked the term to disastrous results.

Also how can conservatism mean simultaneously the small state and retainign 'decency', which is completely elitist as it is decided by them what s decent and what isn't. Surely that needs positive state involvement like banning suggestive cheerleaders. Oh yet more state interventoin

I'm well aware of the definitions popular opinion gives, I'm trying to say that that's wrong. E.g.

Labour giving "freedom" of religion - by prohibiting you from verbally attacking any religion! (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4075442.stm)

Another "liberal" policy - restricting people's ability to defend themselves.

i don't think anyone is calling that freedom of religion. We all get the gist of curtailing freeodm of speech.

BY the way we are now even more officially no longer a democracy: no free media, no free speech, and the disregard for the rule of law

i don't think anyone is calling that freedom of religion. We all get the gist of curtailing freeodm of speech.

BY the way we are now even more officially no longer a democracy: no free media, no free speech, and the disregard for the rule of law

I take it you live in the former great britian?

i don't think anyone is calling that freedom of religion. We all get the gist of curtailing freeodm of speech.

BY the way we are now even more officially no longer a democracy: no free media, no free speech, and the disregard for the rule of law

Curtailing of free speech. How many people do you know out there inciting racial or religious hatred? If someone went around saying 'Muslims are a bunch of greasy pigs, we oughta kill 'em all' they deserve to be locked up. They are the people affected, not me, hopefully not you.

The BBC and the guardian are both more centrist and the BBC freer than any other media in the WORLD. I don't know what planet you live on.

And since the House of Lords recently ruled that the Belmarsh 'terrorists' can go free and the govt have had to respect tha (albeit they have scrambled a ne way of keeping them, it'll get struck down as well).

Bloody Daily Mail readers.

i don't think anyone is calling that freedom of religion. We all get the gist of curtailing freeodm of speech.

BY the way we are now even more officially no longer a democracy: no free media, no free speech, and the disregard for the rule of law


we never were a democracy; we're a republic.

Curtailing of free speech. How many people do you know out there inciting racial or religious hatred? If someone went around saying 'Muslims are a bunch of greasy pigs, we oughta kill 'em all' they deserve to be locked up. They are the people affected, not me, hopefully not you.

The BBC and the guardian are both more centrist and the BBC freer than any other media in the WORLD. I don't know what planet you live on.

And since the House of Lords recently ruled that the Belmarsh 'terrorists' can go free and the govt have had to respect tha (albeit they have scrambled a ne way of keeping them, it'll get struck down as well).

Bloody Daily Mail readers.

Actually the BBC is considered widely as the most bias and least reliable source of information in the free world. Even above the NY Times and LA Times. It is hard to tell however since yellow journalism is the mainstay at each.

we never were a democracy; we're a republic.

Well, technically we're both... we're a "Democratic Republic," as opposed to a "Representative Democracy," or a "Direct Democracy."

Liverbreath']Actually the BBC is considered widely as the most bias and least reliable source of information in the free world. Even above the NY Times and LA Times. It is hard to tell however since yellow journalism is the mainstay at each.

The bit where it has actively fought the government that funds it had me fooled then. As does the lack of bias in the actual reports (compare a BBC report to a Fox report).

It's actual fact-finding has been a little suspect at times though.

The bit where it has actively fought the government that funds it had me fooled then. As does the lack of bias in the actual reports (compare a BBC report to a Fox report).

It's actual fact-finding has been a little suspect at times though.

Okay, bash Fox. Compare a Fox report to a CNN report, or an NBC report. All of the news stations are biased as all hell, what the fuck does it even matter. Look at MSNBC - they had Kerry on Bush's tail the whole time during coverage of the 2004 election, when even CNN had to admit that Bush was kicking his ass by a good 30 votes.

Conservatives - Conservatives claim to be all about common sense. They favour quick, practical, simplistic, familiar solutions to problems as opposed to any kind of radical change. Anti-enlightenment, anti-egalitarian, anti-secular, pro-family, pro-religion. Although most often not racists themselves, they are less hostile towards racists, fascists and religious fundamentalists than liberals might be. and tend not to see homophobia or sexism as much of a problem, if any at all. They are also often guilty of demagoguery, claiming to have the ideology that defines the nation and how it is supposed to be. Retards basically.

Liberals - Definitions of the word can change from time to time, but essentially it is an egalitarian ideology which holds the belief that everybody should be granted the liberty to rise and fall on their own merits, irrespective of ethnicity, sex, sexual orientation or social background.

Libertarians - A pretty bizarre hybrid seldom seen outside the US. They tend to favour most of the social policies of liberals (gay rights, abortion, euthanasia, lax drug laws, prostitution, secular government) excluding a few (such hate crime laws, environmentalism, multiculturalism, altrusitic foreign policy)

I'm well aware of the definitions popular opinion gives, I'm trying to say that that's wrong. E.g.

Labour giving "freedom" of religion - by prohibiting you from verbally attacking any religion! (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4075442.stm)

Another "liberal" policy - restricting people's ability to defend themselves.

Huh? Labour aren't Liberal. The Liberals oppose that law.

Liberal Democrat MP Evan Harris argued the plans would jeopardise precious freedom of expression.

"The government's measure would stifle religious debate and feed an increasing climate of censorship," he said.

They just want to use their authority for different things.

Examples of how liberals are socially authoritarian:
Gay marriage - the government recognises it. "But that's more freedom!" you say. "Ah, but it's the government deciding whether or not a marriage is valid" I say.

Now I need an example of a conservative government intervening to "help" the private sector.
Examples of how liberals are socially authoritarian:
Gun control

Examples of how conservatives are economically authoritarian:
Subsidies favouring one corporation over another.

Liberals - Definitions of the word can change from time to time, but essentially it is an egalitarian ideology which holds the belief that everybody should be granted the liberty to rise and fall on their own merits, irrespective of ethnicity, sex, sexual orientation or social background.

The term 'liberals' generally refer to the social aspect and not the economic side which I'd say your 'rise and fall on their own merits' refers to. Libertarians believe in that "economic freedom" aswell as the liberal social views.

Unless of course you simply meant that they believe in a lack of discrimination in which case I'll be quiet...

Conservatives want to preserve some sort of decency in society, while Liberals want everything allowed.

Conservatives want less influence from government, while Liberals want more handouts.
Contradiction.

Liberal:Short term solution, that will cause a problem in a few years, but hey let our childrens, children worry about it

Conservative: Long term solution will work for a VERY long time, may start off slow, so liberals complain but will work longer than liberal soultion and more effectively
Absurdly biased!

That's cause global warming is a crock
You remind me of Michael "there is no terrorist threat!" Moore. :rolleyes:

Liverbreath']Actually the BBC is considered widely as the most bias and least reliable source of information in the free world.
Actually that honour falls squarely on FOX News (aka Faux news).

Okay, bash Fox. Compare a Fox report to a CNN report, or an NBC report. All of the news stations are biased as all hell, what the fuck does it even matter. Look at MSNBC - they had Kerry on Bush's tail the whole time during coverage of the 2004 election, when even CNN had to admit that Bush was kicking his ass by a good 30 votes.
Wow, you're sensitive. Do you work for FOX or something?

Conservatives - -snip- Retards basically.

Liberals - ... an egalitarian ideology ...

Libertarians - A pretty bizarre hybrid seldom seen outside the US.
That was even more biased than the two conservatives above! Libertarians are not so bizarre and probably more common outside the US than inside it. Outside the US they're called "liberals".

Contradiction

pretty much the entirety of the conservative program is in direct contradiction to that 'small government' line they trot out as a campaign slogan. i remain unsure whether the people that vote for them are in on the ploy or lack the critical thinking skills to work it out. a combination of the two, i suppose.

Conservative:
Socially Authoritarian
Economically Authoritarian

Liberal:
Socially Libertarian
Economically Authoritarian

Communist:
Socially Libertarian
Economically Libertarian

Meh, that's why libertarians are the only ones who truly desire freedom.....[/partisanry]

Communist:
Socially Libertarian
Economically Libertarian
Europaland, libertarian =/= communist - and don't give me that oxymoronic definition of libertarian (libertarian leftist)

Europaland, libertarian =/= communist - and don't give me that oxymoronic definition of libertarian (libertarian leftist)

Communism is the only ideology which is genuinely libertarian both socially and economically. It is socially libertarian as it aims to abolish the state and all forms of hierarchy while replacing it with a true democracy where all people have a direct say over the issues that affect their lives. It is economically libertarian as it will destroy the totalitarian control that corporations have over the economy by transferring it to the democratic management of working people.

Communism is the only ideology which is genuinely libertarian both socially and economically.

i'd say that a case could be made for the mutualists too. but otherwise, yep, pretty much.

Communism is the only ideology which is genuinely libertarian both socially and economically.
We're defining libertarianism as in lack of of government interference here....and since everybody is the government in a communist state, it only means that the government still has control.

It is socially libertarian as it aims to abolish the state and all forms of hierarchy while replacing it with a true democracy where all people have a direct say over the issues that affect their lives.
Do you really think everybody is fit to make laws?
The direct democracy of which you speak "is nothing more than mob rule, in which the 51% may take away the rights of the other 49%"
Remember, in a democracy it's majority rule, no matter how slim it is.

It is economically libertarian as it will destroy the totalitarian control that corporations have over the economy by transferring it to the democratic management of working people.
Meh, see my definition of libertarianism

I think I have an understanding of these terms now.

Conservative:
Socially authoritarian
Economically authoritarian

Liberal:
Socially authoritarian
Economically authoritarian

They just want to use their authority for different things.

Examples of how liberals are socially authoritarian:
Gay marriage - the government recognises it. "But that's more freedom!" you say. "Ah, but it's the government deciding whether or not a marriage is valid" I say.

But doesn't the government decide whether or not a marriage is valid anyway?

If they don't recognize gay marriage then they're deciding that gay marriage isn't valid and straight marriage is.

If they do recognize gay marriage then you can say that they're making a decision on what constitutes a gay marriage, but it could also be that they're recognizing that it's not up to them to decide what constitutes a marriage, so if they're going to recognize marriage at all then someone else has to decide what a marriage is, and it may not be for any one group to decide for others.

Recognizing gay marriage is not necessarily socially authoritarian, but banning it is.

Liberals = Socialists
Conservatives = Fascists

They will both take you over the edge of the cliff, only at different speeds. Both parties are highly controllable, and do not reflect the needs and carry out the desires of the constituency. Both parties believe entirely in supporting a one world government and a strong United Nations.

Europaland, libertarian =/= communist - and don't give me that oxymoronic definition of libertarian (libertarian leftist)
The Left originally owned the term "libertarian".

We're defining libertarianism as in lack of of government interference here....and since everybody is the government in a communist state, it only means that the government still has control.

In communism there is no government. People operate in communes.

I agree that it is tyranny by majority rule.

Meh, see my definition of libertarianism
That's what you say when you can't refute his point, right? ;)
Some corporations today are so big and powerful that they are like governments, but they don't have to respect borders.

Liberal:Short term solution, that will cause a problem in a few years, but hey let our childrens, children worry about it

Conservative: Long term solution will work for a VERY long time, may start off slow, so liberals complain but will work longer than liberal soultion and more effectively


Absurdly biased!

Also untrue. Take a look at Bush on social security. His plan does nothing to fix it ever, and he admits as such. Though he doesn't admit he has a plan. Do the conservatives have a long term plan for the war on terror? No, just a series of short term problems that become the bigger problems of tommorrow.

Take a look at the Republican's tax policy since Reagan. "Why pay for it now that we can afford it when we can just run up the debt and let our kids pay for it with interest." Conservatopolis seems to have liberals and conservatives exactly switched.

Communists in Afghanistan? Set up a theocratic dictatorship.
Theocratic dictatorship in Afghanistan? Set up a drug smuggling kleptocracy.
Drug smuggling kleptocracy in Afghanistan? ...?

Socialism in Panama? Install a military dictator and get him rich smuggling drugs.
Rich military dictator in Panama threatens to expose drug ring? War in Panama.

Conservatives not only have no long term solutions, they have no short term solutions. The have only problems. Conservatives in general are the "Old Lady Who Swallowed a Fly."


Actually that honour falls squarely on FOX News (aka Faux news).
Yup, it may be slightly less obvious that MSNBC hopes that Bush wins, but at least they don't make up bald faced lies to see to it that it happens. And what's with the "hard news" readers' phrase "homocide bomber." All bombers are homocide bombers. A bomber who isn't trying to kill people is a demolition worker. Only FOX news would be so absurdly pro war as to worry that the idea that bombers are killing themselves might garner them sympathy.

Conservatives want to preserve some sort of decency in society, while Liberals want everything allowed.

Conservatives want cultural hegemony. They think that the government should step in and force people to walk in lockstep with their idea of what society should be.

Liberals want less influence from the government on personal identity and freedom of choice.

Conservatives want less influence from government,

How on Earth do you reconcile this with the pro-cultural imperialism view you mentioned at the top of the post? Oh, ya, conservatives favor doublethink.

while Liberals want more handouts.

Liberals believe that in a free market system business people have a tendency to accumulate all of the wealth which eventually leads to market stagnation and economic recession. This was a Ben Franklin view of economics.

Conservatives will argue that those rich people then spend that money on the services of the poor and working classes, but because the rich control the wealth, they tilt the playing field forcing workers to settle for subsistence wages or less. This was an Alexander Hamilton view of economics.

In short, fiscal conservatives think that the poor should be made to compete with each other to see who will settle for the lowest standard of living, fiscal liberals think that the rich should be made to compete with each other for who can provide the best incentive.

Social Conservatives are a whole different breed who, when brought to the topic of economics, believe that if rich people are made richer that they'll be good papas and take good care of us if we're good little boys and girls and do as we're told. If you get poor then it's because you were naughty and deserve to be poor.

Boeing
Interesting example!
....
E-Mails Detail Air Force Push for Boeing Deal
Pentagon Official Called Proposed Lease of Tankers a 'Bailout,' Report Finds
By R. Jeffrey Smith
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, June 7, 2005; Page A01
For the past three years, the Air Force has described its $30 billion proposal to convert passenger planes into military refueling tankers and lease them from Boeing Co. as an efficient way to obtain aircraft the military urgently needs.
But a very different account of the deal is shown in an August 2002 internal e-mail exchange among four senior Pentagon officials.
"We all know that this is a bailout for Boeing," Ronald G. Garant, an official of the Pentagon comptroller's office, said in a message to two others in his office and then-Deputy Undersecretary of Defense Wayne A. Schroeder. "Why don't we just bite the bullet," he asked, and handle the acquisition like the procurement of a 1970s-era aircraft -- by squeezing the manufacturer to provide a better tanker at a decent cost?
"We didn't need those aircraft either, but we didn't screw the taxpayer in the process," Garant added, referring to widespread sentiment at the Pentagon that the proposed lease of Boeing 767s would cost too much for a plane with serious shortcomings.
Garant's candid advice, which top Air Force officials did not follow, is disclosed for the first time in a new 256-page report by the Pentagon's inspector general. It provides an extraordinary glimpse of how the Air Force worked hand-in-glove with one of its chief contractors -- the financially ailing Boeing -- to help it try to obtain the most costly government lease ever.
The inspector general's report, slated for release today at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing, adds a new dimension to what Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.), John W. Warner (R-Va.) and Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.) have already called one of the most significant military contracting abuses in several decades. Already, the scandal has resulted in prison terms for former Air Force principal deputy assistant secretary Darlene A. Druyun, and a senior Boeing official, Michael M. Sears.
Besides documenting precisely who was responsible, the new report details the Air Force's vigorous efforts on Boeing's behalf. It also shows how Air Force leaders and Boeing officials jointly manipulated legislation to authorize the deal and later sought to suppress dissenting opinion throughout the Pentagon.
After interviewing 88 people and reading hundreds of thousands of pages of e-mails, the inspector general's office concluded that four top Air Force officials and one of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld's former top aides, Undersecretary of Defense Edward C. "Pete" Aldridge, violated Pentagon and government-wide procurement rules, failed to use "best business practices," ignored a legal requirement for weapons testing and failed to ensure that the tankers would meet the military's requirements.
The report also connects Rumsfeld to policymaking on the lease, recounting a statement by former Air Force secretary James G. Roche that Rumsfeld had called him in Newport, R.I., in July 2003 to say "he did not want me to budge on the tanker lease proposal," despite criticism.
Earlier, after Roche made what he acknowledged was a "special pleading" for the lease at a key meeting with Rumsfeld on Jan. 31, 2003, Pentagon spokesman Lawrence T. Di Rita jokingly said "that my comments 'were brought to you by the Boeing Company,' " Roche later told Air Force Chief of Staff John P. Jumper in an e-mail. "I didn't rip his heart out," Roche added.
Air Force spokesman Douglas Karas said he could not comment on the report in detail until it has been officially released. He said, however, that "we've learned from this experience" and will apply the lessons to future procurement of large weapons systems. Di Rita and Rumsfeld were in Thailand yesterday. A Boeing spokesman said the company could not comment on a report it has not read.
The Pentagon and Congress ultimately killed the lease deal. Pentagon officials have noted that the department is now conducting special oversight of Air Force weapons-buying, in part because of the problems with the Boeing deal.
In the copy of the report obtained by The Washington Post, 45 sections were deleted by the White House counsel's office to obscure what several sources described as references to White House involvement in the lease negotiations and its interaction with Boeing. The Pentagon separately blacked out 64 names and many e-mails. It also omitted the names of members of Congress, including some who pressured the Pentagon to back the deal.
The report is nonetheless the most damning of the three reviews of the tanker deal completed by the inspector general since early 2004. It includes, for example, a statement from an unnamed cost analyst that "numbers were contorted a lot of different ways to sell the program."
It also suggests that the foundation of the Air Force's tanker lease -- that KC-135 planes were experiencing unexpected corrosion and needed urgent replacement -- was a house of cards. The report said the Air Force could not substantiate congressional testimony by two of the officials -- Roche and Maj. Gen. Paul W. Essex, a former head of its global reach program office -- on that subject.
"In fact, the studies that were available did not indicate an urgent or immediate requirement for the replacement of . . . KC-135 tankers," the report said. That view was confirmed last year by the Defense Science Board, which said the KC-135 airframes were usable until 2040.
The report says that Marvin R. Sambur, then the top Air Force acquisition official, knew that this urgency "did not exist" but claimed otherwise and ordered data unflattering to the deal removed from a key document. His office made what a critic of the lease elsewhere in the Pentagon interpreted as a "thinly veiled threat" to manipulate other Air Force contracts if the dissent did not cease, the report shows.
Sambur and Roche, who have resigned from the Air Force, did not respond to phone messages requesting comment. Previously, they have said their actions were appropriate and endorsed by others, including White House officials.
Druyun improperly used her influence to increase the price paid for the tankers and also made incorrect statements to others in the administration, the report states. When Air Force cost analysts told her that leasing would cost $2 billion more than buying the planes, she told the head of the Air Force Materiel Command that "she no longer needed the financial management team . . . on the project."
The Air Force has long maintained that any defects in the lease proposal were attributable solely to Druyun, who is serving a nine-month sentence in federal prison for illegally negotiating a lucrative job with Boeing as she supervised the lease negotiations. An employee at Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld said the law firm no longer represents Druyun.
The inspector general's report makes it clear that the Air Force's aggressive pursuit of the lease over a three-year period was actually a team effort, and that shortly after Druyun agreed to the concept in a September 2001 meeting attended by Essex and top Boeing officials, other top officials fell into lock step with her. Roche backed the idea in a letter to Capitol Hill dated Oct. 9, 2001, without conducting a legally required analysis of alternatives, and blocked such an analysis in August 2003, according to the report.
Boeing's interests were at the center of the deal, the report suggests. Less than a month after Druyun's meeting with Boeing, the Air Force began developing requirements for the new tanker "tailored to Boeing . . . tanker aircraft capabilities," the report states. The result fell short of what other services, such as the Navy, wanted, and it excluded the passenger, cargo and medical evacuation roles for the plane that some military officials desired.
Boeing prepared briefing materials that Druyun presented to lawmakers while seeking congressional approval of the deal and worked with Druyun to refine the wording of legislation that specifically named the company as the beneficiary of the deal. Roche and Sambur later cited that language as the prime reason for favoring Boeing.
Druyun "was accountable for manipulating the congressional language," the report states.
Her tactics sowed previously undisclosed resentment among Air Force cost analysts and others, according to the report. At a June 2002 negotiating session in California with Boeing officials present -- a meeting that later came to be known inside the Air Force as "The Long Beach Massacre" -- Druyun "pretty much by herself pushed the Air Force team to the high end" of the price range, one of those present told investigators.
Cooperation between Boeing and the Air Force was nonetheless not always perfect, according to the e-mails recounted in the report. Roche complained in November 2002 to Sears, Boeing's top financial officer, and Phil Condit, Boeing's board chairman, that they were not lobbying hard enough on Capitol Hill.
Roche wrote, "Gee Mike, when I knew you and Phil, I had the sense you wanted to make money. Guess I was wrong." Boeing executives later pressed subcontractors to call the White House, and met with Andrew H. Card Jr., the White House chief of staff, who backed the deal.

Liberal:Short term solution, that will cause a problem in a few years, but hey let our childrens, children worry about it

Conservative: Long term solution will work for a VERY long time, may start off slow, so liberals complain but will work longer than liberal soultion and more effectively
Yeah these past few years given the deficits run up are a perfect qualifier for such an educated and thoughtful post as this. Thanks.
:rolleyes:

That's cause global warming is a crock and if you could please point me to a site that proves the disadvantage of soy deisel I would appreciate it.
Wrong answer again ... i'm not taking you up on soy DIESEL but your first admission of non-compliance with reality.
:rolleyes:

Bush aide 'edited climate papers'
A White House official edited government reports in ways that played down links between global warming and emissions, the New York Times reported.
Philip Cooney removed or adjusted descriptions of climate research that had already been approved by government scientists, the newspaper said.
The White House denied Mr Cooney, a former oil industry advocate, watered down the reports.
It said the changes were part of a normal inter-agency review process.
The reports were "based on the best available science", spokesman Scott McClellan said.
Mr Cooney is chief of staff for the White House Council on Environmental Quality, which helps devise and promote the administration's policies on environmental issues.
The administration of President George W Bush has consistently questioned the need for quick action on climate change, and the US has refused to ratify the Kyoto Protocol aimed at cutting down greenhouse gas emissions.
'Uncertainties'
Before working at the White House, Mr Cooney was a lobbyist at the American Petroleum Institute, the largest oil industry trade group.
He is a lawyer by training, with no scientific background.
The New York Times said he made dozens of changes to reports issued in 2002 and 2003, and many appeared in final versions of major administration climate reports.
They included the insertion of the phrase "significant and fundamental" before the word "uncertainties", and tended to produce an air of doubt about findings most climate experts say are robust, the paper reported.
In another instance, the paper said Mr Cooney added the word "extremely" to the sentence, "The attribution of the causes of biological and ecological changes to climate change or variability is extremely difficult."
The newspaper obtained the documents from the Government Accountability Project, a non-profit group that provides legal assistance to whistle-blowers.
The project is representing Rick Piltz, who resigned in March from the office that co-ordinates government climate research and which issued the documents that Mr Cooney edited.
-
White House sexed-down climate change reports
By Lucy Sherriff
Published Thursday 9th June 2005 10:36 GMT

Official White House policy documents on climate change were altered by a former oil-industry lobbyist to play down the link between greenhouse gases and global warming, it emerged yesterday.
Philip Cooney, the chief of staff for the White House council on environmental quality, altered several draft reports in 2002 and 2003, after they had been approved by government scientists, despite having no scientific background himself. Much of his editing made it into final versions of reports.
Many of the changes were very simple. For instance, in one case he added the words "significant and fundamental" before the word "uncertainties. In another, he added the word "extremely" to the sentence: "The attribution of the causes of biological and ecological changes to climate change or variability is extremely difficult."
Others were more blatant. According to the New York Times, Cooney deleted an entire paragraph dealing with the impact of global warming on glaciers and the polar ice cap from a 2002 report that discussed the effect global warming might have on flooding and water availability. Cooney noted in the margins that the paragraph was "straying from research strategy into speculative findings/musings."
In all cases, the amendments cast doubt on scientific results that are increasingly accepted as robust by the scientific community, and by the general populace.
Cooney is a lawyer by training, with a degree in economics. Before going to work at the White House, Cooney was the climate team leader at the American Petroleum Institute, a trade body that represents the oil industry's interests.
The documents came to light via a non-profit organisation that provides legal assistance to government whistle blowers. The Government Accountability Project is representing Rick Piltz, formerly a senior associate in the office that issued the reports. Piltz resigned from his position in March.
"Each administration has a policy position on climate change," he wrote in a document reported by The New York Times. "But I have not seen a situation like the one that has developed under this administration during the past four years, in which politicization by the White House has fed back directly into the science program in such a way as to undermine the credibility and integrity of the program."
White House officials deny that they are politicising science.
At a press conference this week, President Bush told reporters he believed America is at the forefront of research into climate change. Asked whether he thought climate change was caused by man, he replied: "I've always said it's a serious long-term issue that needs to be dealt with. My administration isn't waiting around to deal with it; we're acting. We want to know more about it. Easier to solve a problem when you know a lot about it."
Meanwhile, academics from 11 countries, including the US and Britain, distributed an open letter saying: "The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action."
UK Prime Minister Tony Blair has been in the US trying to persuade Bush to commit the US to reducing its greenhouse emissions. The president has called for voluntary measures, but has made no firm promises.

AND>.....
Bush Administration and Climate Science
An editorial in today’s Detroit Free Press has some interesting information related to the Bush Administration’s position on climate science.
“The Bush administration is taking a new tack on global warming, finally conceding that human activities contribute to it. But, unfortunately, it doesn't look as if any of its underlying policies are going to take a similar leap forward. Glen Davies, principal deputy assistant secretary for European affairs at the Department of State, told editorial writers last week that "we accept that the science is clear" on human contributions to global warming -- although not on how much of the problem human activity causes or how fast climate change is occurring. The administration's focus clearly remains on alternative technologies, not mandated cutbacks, and Davies specifically cited hydrogen technology.”
This is interesting for several reasons. First, the fact that this information is being conveyed by a “principal deputy assistant secretary for European affairs” suggests that it is a trial balloon. And even though John Marburger has made similar comments in the recent past, as science advisor he is not is a policy position. Second, the Bush Administration is likely to take heat on this position from two camps. One is the hard-core contrarians who would like to persist in debate over climate science. They will likely make claims that the science is not yet settled. And the second are those opposed to Bush who also would like the debate to continue in the form of climate science. They will make claims about what the Bush Administatrion “really” believes on climate science. Both of these camps would be good examples of the “scientizers” that I characterized last week.
The Free Press editorial concludes with the following:
“The July G8 event would be an opportune time for the United States to do more than tweak its talking points on global warming. A bolder commitment -- to research, to alternative energy and to the right mix of incentives -- is in order.”

Conservatives - Conservatives claim to be all about common sense. They favour quick, practical, simplistic, familiar solutions to problems as opposed to any kind of radical change. Anti-enlightenment, anti-egalitarian, anti-secular, pro-family, pro-religion. Although most often not racists themselves, they are less hostile towards racists, fascists and religious fundamentalists than liberals might be. and tend not to see homophobia or sexism as much of a problem, if any at all. They are also often guilty of demagoguery, claiming to have the ideology that defines the nation and how it is supposed to be. Retards basically.

Liberals - Definitions of the word can change from time to time, but essentially it is an egalitarian ideology which holds the belief that everybody should be granted the liberty to rise and fall on their own merits, irrespective of ethnicity, sex, sexual orientation or social background.

Libertarians - A pretty bizarre hybrid seldom seen outside the US. They tend to favour most of the social policies of liberals (gay rights, abortion, euthanasia, lax drug laws, prostitution, secular government) excluding a few (such hate crime laws, environmentalism, multiculturalism, altrusitic foreign policy)
Good post! *bows*

Conservatives: Selfish and try to justify it
Liberals: Selfish while saying they're not

Conservatives: Selfish and try to justify it
Liberals: Selfish while saying they're not
Another good post! *bows*

Another good post! *bows*
Your back must be hurting by now.

In Australia it's so different. Conservatism isn't all that big. Liberals (Howard) run the country, but they are CERTAINLY not 'liberal'. Even the Labor (opposition) party aren't liberal. Neither party supports gay marriage and the liberals are currently debating wether abortion should be legal. The only truly 'liberal' party in Australia, by definition, is the Greens (of which I am a member :) )

Conservatives: Selfish and try to justify it
Liberals: Selfish while saying they're not

Conservatives - live in the states that live off of the taxes collected in liberal states, while bitching about having to pay taxes.

Liberals - live in the states that support conservative states with their tax dollars and bitch about conservatives bitching about taxes.

I'm well aware of the definitions popular opinion gives, I'm trying to say that that's wrong. E.g.

Labour giving "freedom" of religion - by prohibiting you from verbally attacking any religion! (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4075442.stm)

Another "liberal" policy - restricting people's ability to defend themselves.
Damn it Toast, you scooped my post.

I shall therefore post it anyway. pthblth! :p

I'm well aware of the definitions popular opinion gives, I'm trying to say that that's wrong. E.g.

Labour giving "freedom" of religion - by prohibiting you from verbally attacking any religion! (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4075442.stm)

Another "liberal" policy - restricting people's ability to defend themselves.

ummm silly americans...

LABOUR = socialist/leftist (although the extent to which is debatable)

LIBERAL = COMPLEATELY DIFFERENT - liberalism generally tends to favour a small state, strong private sector with minimal state interference, and strong freedom of the individual. ie. LIBERTY... and NO this does *NOT* necassarilly entail the right to carry a bloody GUN, anyone carrying a gun intends, or is providing themselves with the opportunity to USE it.

never quite worked out why you people are so bloody obsessed with the things.

In Australia it's so different. Conservatism isn't all that big. Liberals (Howard) run the country, but they are CERTAINLY not 'liberal'. Even the Labor (opposition) party aren't liberal. Neither party supports gay marriage and the liberals are currently debating wether abortion should be legal. The only truly 'liberal' party in Australia, by definition, is the Greens (of which I am a member :) )

Are you being ironc by saying that Conservatism isn't all that big? Still, I love the irony of the Australian Liberal Party being our conservative party. I was under the impression, though, that the abortion debate (which has ceased now) had more to do with internal Liberal party politics than any serious move by the Liberals to legislate on it. I think it was fundamentally to do with Abbot and Costello bickering.

The issues of gay relationships has also been pretty much left to the individual states, because while marriage laws are dealt with by Federally, the rights you get because of the relationships are dealt with on a State level.


How can people define increased liberties as the state being Authoritarian? A liberal government gives increased options to the people, allowing greater social change, wheras a conservative government attempts to preserve the status quo.

Personaly, I think that in general, a healthy society will shift between libneralism and conservatism. Change is necessary because conditions and people change, and what we did in the past isn't necessarily the best thing, but on the other hand, change for the sake of change destabilises the society, and that's where the conservative periods come in handy, to retard the change.

Conservative - white christians w/ guns


Liberal - freethinkers (Christians included)

LABOUR = socialist/leftist (although the extent to which is debatable)


debatable? It's simply not true

Also untrue. Take a look at Bush on social security. His plan does nothing to fix it ever, and he admits as such. Though he doesn't admit he has a plan. Do the conservatives have a long term plan for the war on terror? No, just a series of short term problems that become the bigger problems of tommorrow.

Take a look at the Republican's tax policy since Reagan. "Why pay for it now that we can afford it when we can just run up the debt and let our kids pay for it with interest." Conservatopolis seems to have liberals and conservatives exactly switched.

Communists in Afghanistan? Set up a theocratic dictatorship.
Theocratic dictatorship in Afghanistan? Set up a drug smuggling kleptocracy.
Drug smuggling kleptocracy in Afghanistan? ...?

Socialism in Panama? Install a military dictator and get him rich smuggling drugs.
Rich military dictator in Panama threatens to expose drug ring? War in Panama.

Conservatives not only have no long term solutions, they have no short term solutions. The have only problems. Conservatives in general are the "Old Lady Who Swallowed a Fly."

Liberals believe that in a free market system business people have a tendency to accumulate all of the wealth which eventually leads to market stagnation and economic recession. This was a Ben Franklin view of economics.

Conservatives will argue that those rich people then spend that money on the services of the poor and working classes, but because the rich control the wealth, they tilt the playing field forcing workers to settle for subsistence wages or less. This was an Alexander Hamilton view of economics.

In short, fiscal conservatives think that the poor should be made to compete with each other to see who will settle for the lowest standard of living, fiscal liberals think that the rich should be made to compete with each other for who can provide the best incentive.

Social Conservatives are a whole different breed who, when brought to the topic of economics, believe that if rich people are made richer that they'll be good papas and take good care of us if we're good little boys and girls and do as we're told. If you get poor then it's because you were naughty and deserve to be poor.

These two posts earn a tie for my current personal title of "Best Post I Have Seen on this Forum"

You earn a cookie and a :fluffle:

Liberal:Short term solution, that will cause a problem in a few years, but hey let our childrens, children worry about it

Conservative: Long term solution will work for a VERY long time, may start off slow, so liberals complain but will work longer than liberal soultion and more effectively

A fan of Friedman I see,

Your back must be hurting by now.
I try to stay flexible ....
As mentioned in good literary works elsewhere ....
"Bend like a reed in the wind"
*gives a hand gesture intending to convey a bow*
;)

Conservatives - Conservatives claim to be all about common sense. They favour quick, practical, simplistic, familiar solutions to problems as opposed to any kind of radical change. Anti-enlightenment, anti-egalitarian, anti-secular, pro-family, pro-religion. Although most often not racists themselves, they are less hostile towards racists, fascists and religious fundamentalists than liberals might be. and tend not to see homophobia or sexism as much of a problem, if any at all. They are also often guilty of demagoguery, claiming to have the ideology that defines the nation and how it is supposed to be. Retards basically.

Liberals - Definitions of the word can change from time to time, but essentially it is an egalitarian ideology which holds the belief that everybody should be granted the liberty to rise and fall on their own merits, irrespective of ethnicity, sex, sexual orientation or social background.

Libertarians - A pretty bizarre hybrid seldom seen outside the US. They tend to favour most of the social policies of liberals (gay rights, abortion, euthanasia, lax drug laws, prostitution, secular government) excluding a few (such hate crime laws, environmentalism, multiculturalism, altrusitic foreign policy)

wow you got it mixed up liberals dont let people rise and fall on their own merrits they tax the wealthy so much, and provide so much welfare to the poor, it seems they want communism, and liberals are the ones for a quick solution not republicans,

wow you got it mixed up liberals dont let people rise and fall on their own merrits they tax the wealthy so much, and provide so much welfare to the poor, it seems they want communism, and liberals are the ones for a quick solution not republicans,

Anyone care to point out that the rich have a lower Marginal Propensity to Consume their income and thus the argument that allowing rich people to have more money so they can spend it is bollocks according to Economic theory?

I liked the Liberal Democrats (UK Party) idea a few terms back - raise the Income tax of everyone by 1 penny in a pound and use the funds to pay for University Tuition Fees, spending on the health service, a load of things.

However, the money grabbing public didn't vote for it, so they switched to a policy of Progressive Income Taxes which, although I support them, acknowledge that there are problems (as shown in the Laffer Curve)

Also untrue. Take a look at Bush on social security. His plan does nothing to fix it ever, and he admits as such. Though he doesn't admit he has a plan. Do the conservatives have a long term plan for the war on terror? No, just a series of short term problems that become the bigger problems of tommorrow.

Take a look at the Republican's tax policy since Reagan. "Why pay for it now that we can afford it when we can just run up the debt and let our kids pay for it with interest." Conservatopolis seems to have liberals and conservatives exactly switched.

Communists in Afghanistan? Set up a theocratic dictatorship.
Theocratic dictatorship in Afghanistan? Set up a drug smuggling kleptocracy.
Drug smuggling kleptocracy in Afghanistan? ...?

Socialism in Panama? Install a military dictator and get him rich smuggling drugs.
Rich military dictator in Panama threatens to expose drug ring? War in Panama.

Conservatives not only have no long term solutions, they have no short term solutions. The have only problems. Conservatives in general are the "Old Lady Who Swallowed a Fly."

*seconds the gift of cookie*

I'm picturing a political ad here:

DRAMATIC VOICE-OVER:
"The Republican party - planning to spend huge amounts of money digging a few years' worth of oil out of protected land."
"The Republican party - spending really huge amounts of money and American lives on a war for which we have no realistic exit strategy."
"The Republican party - protecting social security by doing something or other which we haven't really figured out yet, but it'll be great when we do."
"The Republican party - Long-Term Solutions For America."

;)