<div align="center"><table border="1" cellpadding="5" cellspacing="0" bordercolor="#111111" bgcolor="#C9C0A7" width="414" height="66"><tr><td background="http://somd.com/news/inmyopinion/little_back.gif" width="56"><img src="http://somd.com/news/inmyopinion/trr.gif" width="56" height="56"></td><td width="358"><font face="Impact" color="#000000" size="6">In My Opinion</font><font face="Arial" color="#000000" size="3"><i><br><b> by Trevor Bothwell</b></i></td></tr></table></div>
The more I try to convince myself that liberals truly have America’s best interests at heart, the harder it becomes. Whether it’s the constant chants of “quagmire,” the endless whining about Bush’s “lies,” or all the contradictory bellyaching about stealing Mideast oil amidst rising gasoline prices, there’s nothing that brings out liberals’ true colors quite like war.

So I’m just going to come right out and say it. Despite my best efforts to the contrary, I find myself wondering constantly if liberalism isn’t really de facto anti-Americanism. No, really. I’m not just talking run-of-the-mill Bush hatred here. I’m beginning to believe this is a condition of membership before they issue you your club card.

How dare I think such a thing, you ask? Well, before I’m condemned to the gates of hell, let me explain.

Suggestions of this nature always tend to raise the ire of many a liberal, no doubt eliciting accusations of jingoism, “intolerance,” and the like. But regardless of its appearance, this isn’t a cheap ploy to score shock-value points. Nor do I prefer to have to question the devotion of many Americans to their country. Unfortunately, however, the reasons I feel I must abound.

For starters, the concept that liberals despise America -- or at the very least denounce American exceptionalism -- is obvious to many conservatives. But liberals positively chafe at the idea that they’re unpatriotic. In fact, you don’t even need to accuse liberals of a lack of patriotism for them to go on the defensive.

Consider John Kerry. During the Democratic primaries, Republicans merely needed to point out Kerry’s opposition to defense systems throughout the years for the senator to accuse them of attacking his patriotism, and for him to remind everyone -- again -- that he’s a war hero. To listen to liberals, you’d think we were accusing these people of pedophilia. So it kind of makes you wonder, Why all the self-consciousness?

Now, I’m not blatantly accusing Senator Kerry of being anti-American. Lord knows I’d hate to have to put out that brushfire. Besides, we all know how much the French love America.

So let’s consider some real examples of America-hatred, shall we?

When football-star-turned-Army-Ranger Pat Tillman was killed last April in Afghanistan, liberals hadn’t been that excited since the Supreme Court ruled in favor of killing unborn babies on demand. It’s hard to explain the irony surrounding the far-left websites that condemned Tillman for being a “baby killer,” but at least they clarified their stance by celebrating the death of this “dumb jock” who “got what he deserved.” This, however, wasn’t quite as telling as the virtually silent response of the mainstream media to this bile.

On May 12, New York Daily News columnist Michael Goodwin -- no raging right-winger he -- criticized Air America -- the new liberal “equivalent” of conservative talk-radio -- for being “a cartoonish echo chamber” with little more to offer than “crude sex jokes.” He also reported its “rancid venom directed at the President, (Donald) Rumsfeld, Rush Limbaugh, [and] the Catholic Church,” and noted disturbing calls for the torture of Rumsfeld and the murder of President Bush.

The week of May 1-7, Time magazine ran a Bruce Beattie <a href="http://www.time.com/time/cartoons/20040507/2.html">cartoon</a> depicting a terrorist (likely Osama bin Laden) driving a tank with its barrel pointed at a submitting American man and his son standing beside a street sign reading Main St. USA. The caption reads, “Imagine, for a moment, the situation reversed:” The terrorist states, “We’ve invaded to install a government so that you give up democracy. Bonus points for converting to Islam.” This implication of moral equivalence is jaw-dropping. Get it? Democracy is no better than fascist tyranny. The U.S. intentionally targets innocents. America is forcing Muslims to convert to Christianity. Please.

Welcome to 21st century “liberalism,” folks.

In short, the left would rather appease terrorists instead of confronting them; they’d sooner turn over to the U.N. control of our destiny before empowering the U.S. to determine its own fate; and liberal media outlets like CBS and the Washington Post have demonstrated through their publication of the Abu Ghraib prison photos that they’re willing to incite Arab anti-American malice, which they now nonchalantly accept from Islamic terrorists as the principal rationale for the beheading of Nick Berg (as if we hadn’t witnessed the barbaric murder and mutilation of our own troops and civilians at home and in Iraq prior to the release of these photos).

The current scandal over the treatment of Abu Ghraib prisoners is only the latest attempt by liberals to undermine the nobility of our cause in Iraq and the war on terror, as if our soldiers who participated in this atrocity somehow represent the rule instead of the exception. Don’t get me wrong, the guards involved in this mess should be tried swiftly and harshly, and they undoubtedly will. But the media’s simple refusal to simultaneously introduce the soldiers who actually declined to follow those dishonorable orders at Abu Ghraib indicates its preference to exploit this situation as prima facie evidence of the existing state of affairs in American warfighting, and to paint the U.S. in the worst possible light.

In the interest of rationality -- not to mention quelling potential death threats -- I obviously know that there are some sensible liberals out there, but you’d hardly know it listening to the prevailing sentiment on the left. I can even understand why liberals would be upset after being accused of being anti-American. But considering how they act, I can’t understand how they can deny it.

<p>
<center><a href="http://www.therightreport.com/articles/InMyOpinion/myopinion_home.htm"><b>In My Opinion Archives</b></a></center>
Trevor Bothwell is editor of <a href="http://www.therightreport.com/">The Right Report</a>, and he is also press secretary for <a href="http://www.jewitt2004.com/">Brad Jewitt’s (R-Md.)</a> 2004 campaign for U.S. Congress. Trevor can be contacted at <a href="mailto:bothwell@therightreport.com">bothwell@therightreport.com</a>.</font>

I must say that I disagree with your thought that liberalism amounts to anti-Americanism. It is this sort of opinion that has caused this nation to be so divided between the red and blue. Yes there are some liberals that are anti-American...the statements of some liberal websites concerning Pat Tillman were absolutely awful and the inability of some liberals to discuss the greatness of our troops are terrible stains on the entire ideology. These people are not an accurate representation of the entire liberal ideology or even most of them for that matter. The same could be said for the most conservative parts of our society as well...their thoughts are wholly un-American as well. Sometimes we try to take the fringe elements of both ideologies and try to paint everyone else who is in the same sort of ideology as the exact same. This is a disservice to the patriotic liberals and conservatives as well as a disservice to truth.
John Kerry does not make a good counterpoint concerning the questioning of his votes on defense systems. The attacks are not meant to attack his patriotism they are questioning his judgement. Rather than run away from that debate Kerry should embrace it for he has damn good points. At the time the weapons systems were costing billions of dollars to an already deficit running national treasury and their effectiveness was questionable. Kerry should discuss that and not just run away - after all is his slogan not bring it on? The Republicans are not questioning his patriotism because it is understood that he does truly love this nation. I do not see how a thirty year public servant and volunteer for the Vietnam War could hate this nation.
What I think is mistaken here in this column is the difference of viewpoint between liberals and conservatives. Conservatives generally see America as fine the way it is - not much change is needed. Liberals meanwhile have a very different viewpoint - that America is great but could be greater. This is what John F. Kennedy said in the sixties and some would say he was unpatriotic but those who are smart would know that he was a true American hero and patriot. So Mr. Bothwell I am sorry but I just do not see it your way.

I was in a debate with a Left winger the other day when she admitted to believing Socialism would be a good thing. So there I thought OK, well this conversation is over because you are obviously delusional.

Originally posted by newnickname
I was in a debate with a Left winger the other day when she admitted to believing Socialism would be a good thing. So there I thought OK, well this conversation is over because you are obviously delusional.

I am sorry sir, but I do not believe that you should make generalizations like that based on talking to one person. I am probably considered a left-winger and you know what, socialism is terrible because it penalizes personal iniative and squashes the concept of freedom that liberals have always supported. The concept of everyone is equal and the government enforces that strictly sounds nice and all but it can never be acheived. I am a liberal that thinks socialism is ineffective and thinks that your left winger friend needs to reconsider her opinion. I wouldn't consider myself un-American.

Originally posted by rraley
I am sorry sir, but I do not believe that you should make generalizations like that based on talking to one person. I am probably considered a left-winger and you know what, socialism is terrible because it penalizes personal iniative and squashes the concept of freedom that liberals have always supported. The concept of everyone is equal and the government enforces that strictly sounds nice and all but it can never be acheived. I am a liberal that thinks socialism is ineffective and thinks that your left winger friend needs to reconsider her opinion. I wouldn't consider myself un-American.

I called no one here dilusional, just that person. I beleive it's healthy to have different political beliefs. If we didn't we would probably be Socialistic.

Originally posted by newnickname
I was in a debate with a Left winger the other day I was in a debate with my Democrat grandmother who is ANYTHING but liberal and she has decided that John Kerry's anti-war antics (such as throwing his medals over the White House fence) are a lie created by George Bush to discredit his opponent. When I pointed out to her that these were rather big news stories, she said that the right-wing media helps create and perpetuate the lie.

What do you say to someone who thinks like that? :confused:

Originally posted by newnickname
I called no one here dilusional, just that person. I beleive it's healthy to have different political beliefs. If we didn't we would probably be Socialistic.

Oh sorry about that sir; I misread your statement. And here here to the statement on the different political beliefs. If one side - liberal or conservative completely dominated - our nation would not be what it is today. The political differences of our nation are what make us great.

Originally posted by vraiblonde
I was in a debate with my Democrat grandmother who is ANYTHING but liberal and she has decided that John Kerry's anti-war antics (such as throwing his medals over the White House fence) are a lie created by George Bush to discredit his opponent. When I pointed out to her that these were rather big news stories, she said that the right-wing media helps create and perpetuate the lie.

What do you say to someone who thinks like that? :confused:

Kerry definitely did throw something over that stupid fence in a fit of youthful stupidity and irrationality. And tell your mother that yes there is a right-wing media out there and a left-wing media, but that when things hit the mainstream media, they are damn serious and have some rationality to them.

When you find an American voter that believes in Socialism, it will generally be a Liberal Democrat but NEVER a Republican. IMHO Socialism is un-American.

Originally posted by willie
When you find an American voter that believes in Socialism, it will generally be a Liberal Democrat but NEVER a Republican. IMHO Socialism is un-American.

That is a fair statement to make I would have to say...I don't know too many Republicans who would say that socialism was just fine. But these left wingers that say they would love socialism would also say that they would vote for Ralph Nader. At least in most cases.
Just to talk a little about our economy here. Our economic system cannot be labeled a pure market economy. True capitalism does not exist in our nation thankfully today (it did in the late 1800s and early 1900s when children had to work 18 hour days and meat was made from rats). We have a mixed system that combines economic independence of capitalism and some common sense regulation from a socialist system. This combination that we have in this nation for our economy has worked great for us over the past hundred years and whoever says that we need to move more socialist or move back to the old system of unchecked capitalism is gravely mistaken.

Agree, except for the Nader part. A small amount of Social Liberalism is OK but I believe most people voting for Nader are voting against both George and the fat haired dingbat.

Originally posted by willie
When you find an American voter that believes in Socialism, it will generally be a Liberal Democrat but NEVER a Republican. IMHO Socialism is un-American.

OK Willie, no socialism ever, lets start by getting rid of social security and medicare. That will go over good with thre Republicans, especially the AARP crowd. Then we can go with the pseudo-socialist programs like unemployment and health insurance.

It's already here and has been for over 50 years.

Originally posted by jlabsher
OK Willie, no socialism ever Proving once again that liberals can't read.

Originally posted by willie
A small amount of Social Liberalism is OK

Originally posted by jlabsher
OK Willie, no socialism ever, lets start by getting rid of social security and medicare. That will go over good with thre Republicans, especially the AARP crowd. Then we can go with the pseudo-socialist programs like unemployment and health insurance.

It's already here and has been for over 50 years.
Yes and they are all so very well managed programs....a model for all Socialist country's to copy. Unemployment especially comes to mind that can carry a needy soul all the way to Medicaid.

Vrai, thanks for bringing out the liberal tag again, I suppose it suits me on this board. Of course, compared to you Ann Coulter is a liberal.

Exactly what is your definition of social liberalism and how is that different than socialism? I never was a big poly sci fan, had more important fish to fry in my college days.

My whole point was that some socialistic programs can be good for a society, and this society with it's "not my fault" attitude is becoming more socialistic every day, be it republican or democrat. Social security as well as welfare are both socialistic programs.

Originally posted by jlabsher
Vrai, thanks for bringing out the liberal tag again You're welcome. :kiss:
I suppose it suits me on this board. I will suggest it would suit you on just about any board.
Of course, compared to you Ann Coulter is a liberal. Really??? Thanks! Christy will die of envy!! :diva:
Exactly what is your definition of social liberalism and how is that different than socialism? Socialism is where the government owns everything and doles it out as they see fit - typically to themselves and let the civilians whistle for it.

Social liberalism means liberals control everything, including thought and speech, and if you say or do something they don't like, they get to make your life miserable until you are "re-educated".

and this society with it's "not my fault" attitude is becoming more socialistic every day, be it republican or democrat Really??? "It's not my/your/our fault" is a liberal mantra. You'll rarely hear a Republican utter those words.

Social security as well as welfare are both socialistic programs. The prosecution rests.

Originally posted by jlabsher
OK Willie, no socialism ever, lets start by getting rid of social security and medicare. That will go over good with thre Republicans, especially the AARP crowd. Then we can go with the pseudo-socialist programs like unemployment and health insurance.

It's already here and has been for over 50 years.
One huge reason that a reasonable dialog is difficult to come by is the type of post you just made. The farther left a person leans, the more exaggeration they put into their false arguments. Intentionally changing what a person clearly writes indicates you have a weak case. It seems to be a plague that left leaner's are prone to. Socialism is un American....being FAIR is American. Being fair requires rules and Socialist do not have the balls to enforce rules. I'm waiting for you to mis interpret that as Fascism.

Originally posted by willie
When you find an American voter that believes in Socialism, it will generally be a Liberal Democrat but NEVER a Republican. IMHO Socialism is un-American.

That's funny considering most every country in the world, including the US, is already socialist to one degree or another.

Originally posted by jlabsher
Social security as well as welfare are both socialistic programs.

I'm confused. I thought socialism was where the government owned all the factories and the stores, and there was no private enterprise. How does something like Social Security fall under that definition?

Originally posted by vraiblonde

Really??? "It's not my/your/our fault" is a liberal mantra. You'll rarely hear a Republican utter those words.

The prosecution rests. :yeahthat: It's not your fault you are a career welfare leach. It's not your fault that you sat in the same classroom in a public school as other people who are self sufficient and contribute to society. It is not your fault that you turned to crime because welfare and food stamps couldn't support the lifestyle you wanted. It is not your fault that you have 9 kids by the age of 30 from 8 different men. It's not your fault that you dropped out of school in the 9th grade because it was dragging you down and now you cannot get anyone to pay you the $20 an hour you think you are worth. It is not your fault you live in a shack. It is not your fault you cannot afford to go to the Dr. It is not your fault.

Originally posted by jlabsher
Then we can go with the pseudo-socialist programs like unemployment and health insurance.


How is health insurance a "social program" when it's costs are managed by market? I pay $70 a month for health insurance. Maybe you can tell me how I get it on the government's tab? :confused:

Originally posted by Warron
That's funny considering most every country in the world, including the US, is already socialist to one degree or another.
The part that you quoted from me.......was that all that I wrote?

Maybe you guys need to figure out the difference between socialism and communism methinks.

Just try and take social security and medicare away from those republicans and see how far you get. Yet both programs are socialism. Unemployment insurance-socialism. Welfare certainly is. Even health insurance is pseudo socialism where many pay into the pot, but few draw out as much as they pay and some reap the benefits provided by the others. National health insurance would be socialism.

And Willie, I'm glad nobody ever exaggerates anything "the opposition" posts. Exaggeration at times can point out the fallacy of a statement, as can irony.

Most of the rest of the world is far more socialistic than us with national health care and care for the aged as prime examples. I personally think all forms of social engineering, be they democracy or communism have good and bad points, just as all social programs, i.e. medicare & unemployment have those who take advantage of them.

By Vrai's definition, on this board we have conservatives practicing social liberalism.

I agree that at the root liberalism is un-American. America was founded on several principles. Hard work, perceverance, self sufficiency, freedom, self destiny. Liberalism thwartsall of those basic principles.

If our nation had been this liberal from the begining we would not be where we are now.

There is a grass roots movment that is not publisized going on. Taxpayer revolts in out of the way liberal states that are not reported. If I wanted to be a socialist I would move to Canada.

Originally posted by Tonio
I'm confused. I thought socialism was where the government owned all the factories and the stores, and there was no private enterprise. How does something like Social Security fall under that definition?

Unfortunately there are multiple definitions for socialism. Government ownership of resources is the definition used mostly in political debates. But under economic theory socialism is the sliding scale between capitalism and communism.

Capitalism is about priviate ownership and pure competition. The rich control all and the poor get to die in the gutter. In reality, its nothing but an ideal, because the poor always out number the rich and force change (one way or another).

Communism is about total public ownership of resources which are shared equaly among all. Sounds nice in theory, but once again, it is nothing but an ideal. Abuse always results in one group (those that control the government) giving themselves more then everyone else. Also, there is little motivation to inovate or to do more then the bare minimum.

If you think of a line with capitalism and communism on the points at opposite ends, socalism is the length of the line in between. Some countries are more toward the capitalist end and some are more toward the communism end, but since none are at the end points themselves, all are socalist.

Social security falls unders socialism because it is a means of redistributing wealth. Sure you pay into it, but many people get more back then they put in. Idealy this would be equalized by those that die early and put in more then they get back, but as life spans get longer things are not working as idealy as planned. Any program that redistributes wealth moves society one tick more toward the communist side of the socialism scale.

Originally posted by jlabsher
Maybe you guys need to figure out the difference between socialism and communism methinks.

That's what I would like to know, too.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=67&q=socialism

Socialism: Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.

Tonio, read Warron's post. There are various definitions, political & economic being the main ones.

And Pete, I don't think the founding fathers were dyed-in-the-wool capitalists either, they were more liberal than you would like to believe, especially Jefferson & Franklin.

Originally posted by willie
The part that you quoted from me.......was that all that I wrote?

It's all you wrote in that post.

Originally posted by jlabsher
And Pete, I don't think the founding fathers were dyed-in-the-wool capitalists either, they were more liberal than you would like to believe, especially Jefferson & Franklin. Don't know about capitalism but they surely were conservatives. They would no dobt be spinning in their graves at the tax burden, the depth of reach the federal government had gained, and that 1/3 of the citizens were suckling off the teet of the federal government, dependent on the government for survival.

Originally posted by Pete
If our nation had been this liberal from the begining we would not be where we are now.


Do you mean before or after they overthrew the lawful government they lived under. That hardly seems like the act of conservatives to me.

As I see it, conservatives think things are fine as they are, while liberals advocate change. While I think there is room for both philosophies in our society, if conservatives had always been in charge we would still be living in caves.

Originally posted by Warron
While I think there is room for both philosophies in our society, if conservatives had always been in charge we would still be living in caves. This is the most assinine statement you have ever posted.

Seacrest OUT

Originally posted by Pete
This is the most assinine statement you have ever posted.


Why is that. Change is what moves society forward and change is a liberal concept. Whats assinine is believing that people who overthrew their government are conservatives simply because they might not like the tax burden whe currently have.

Of course this entire liberal vs conservative mantra is assinine as the majority of people are liberal on some issues and conservative on others.

Originally posted by Warron
Of course this entire liberal vs conservative mantra is assinine as the majority of people are liberal on some issues and conservative on others.

Agreed.

Originally posted by Warron
Why is that. Change is what moves society forward and change is a liberal concept. Whats assinine is believing that people who overthrew their government are conservatives simply because they might not like the tax burden whe currently have.

Of course this entire liberal vs conservative mantra is assinine as the majority of people are liberal on some issues and conservative on others. First of all the statement that "if conservatives had always been in charge we would still be in caves." is the quote I was speaking of.

Second, where the hell did this mantra "conservatives want everything to stay the same forever, liberals want change" come from and who waved the magic wand over it and made it fact? Conservatives are not against change, they are against changing "core values" that are the bulding blocks we believe America was built on. Why is changing the social fabric of the nation from a group of hard working, self sufficient, tough, free thinkers to a nation that is lazy, dependent, wussy, Democrat addicts, a good change?

Why is changing the basic tennent of the constitution from a weaker federal government with strong state and local governments to a big Federal government and puppet state governments who are exstorted by withholding funds to get the federal agenda in place. (National speed limit/education funds/highway funds)

Why change form a society that rewards hard work and responsibility to one that rewards laziness and irresponsible behavior?

Why change form a nation that has industrial might with little government oversight to one that over regulates the crap out of business, then turns around and taxes them to the point they move to Guatemala?

Why turn form a nation who has the foriegn policy to boycott and economically punish rogue nations and human rights violators into reforming, to one that feels we need to be candy asses, cozy up to them all nicey nicey, give them tons of aide only so they can thumb their nose at us, and violate agreements anyway. (Korea)

What type of change is it that you are a proponent for? Gay marriage? Ia m a conservative and don't give a rats ass what 2 concenting adults do in the privacy of their own home. It is an alternative lifestyle that will NEVER be accepted and I do not like to see children adopted into it but hey, what can I do about that. We are already seeing what a total mess it has become, biological mother denied custody because surrogate lesbian mother actually carried them to term.

Stem cell research? I am for research but against human cloning. We have too many social problems we cannot solve already lets go ahead in introduce one like that.

Liberal social policies have their place, within reason. Personally I like the idea of social security. A forced nest egg for the elderly or disabled. I am against any "entitlement" programs. They are for short term, emergency use only and not life long entitlements.

Problem is with the liberalism is that in this country not being able to support oneself used to be a cause for some degree of shame, liberalism has not only taken away the shame of being a leach, but created a "you owe me" mentality that has permiated all other areas. Now it is not only YOU OWE ME 3 squares a day and money for other basic necessities but that YOU OWE me the right to say whatever I want on the public airwaves NO MATTER how vile or obscene. YOU OWE ME a job even though my work eithic stinks. YOU OWE ME the right to drive a school bus naked. YOU OWE ME the right to be imprisoned for the rest of my life and not executed because I killed a family of 4 while they slept. YOU OWE ME that seat in medical school even though I am less qualified because I am a minority.

What makes liberalism un-American in my thoughts is that they NEVER scream, YOU OWE ME that seat in law school because I worked hard and I have the best grades and am the most qualified. YOU OWE EVERYONE to take responsibility for yourself and not have 15 children you cannot support so that the government has to. YOU OWE ME the right garunteed to me by the constitution to buy and keep a gun if I want. YOU OWE ME the sense of decency to keep filth off the public airwaves, but allow me to buy/subscribe to it if I wish in a way kids cannot sneak and listen or see. YOU OWE ME the right to fairly compete for jobs/loans/contracts based on ability and not race. YOU OWE ME not to defile life by allowing abortion to be an accepted form of birth control. YOU OWE ME the right to chose what school is right for my child and allow me to use my tax money to send him there so I and he are not forced to suffer a pizz poor education just because it might hurt someones feelings. YOU OWE ME as an American to keep us the leader of the whole world, not just the free world, and not subjagate us to some namby pamby bunch of third world idealists from backwards assed countries whose sensibilities we might offend while they chase down dinner through the bush.

:yeahthat:

Originally posted by Pete
First of all .

It sounds to me like you are just using liberalism as the catch all for things you don't like. But then, I said a long time ago that the word liberal seems to be taking on the meaning "anything I don't agree with".

You go Pete!

Originally posted by Warron
It sounds to me like you are just using liberalism as the catch all for things you don't like. But then, I said a long time ago that the word liberal seems to be taking on the meaning "anything I don't agree with". It just happens that liberalism is "for" most of the things I am "against", hense I am a conservative.

Originally posted by Pete

Second, where the hell did this mantra "conservatives want everything to stay the same forever, liberals want change" come from and who waved the magic wand over it and made it fact?


From the dictionary? :confused:

conservative
Function: noun
1 a : an adherent or advocate of political conservatism b capitalized : a member or supporter of a conservative political party
2 a : one who adheres to traditional methods or views b : a cautious or discreet person

con·ser·va·tive
Pronunciation: k&n-'s&r-v&-tiv
Function: adjective
1 : PRESERVATIVE
2 a : of or relating to a philosophy of conservatism b capitalized : of or constituting a political party professing the principles of conservatism : as (1) : of or constituting a party of the United Kingdom advocating support of established institutions (2) : PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE
3 a : tending or disposed to maintain existing views, conditions, or institutions : TRADITIONAL b : marked by moderation or caution <a conservative estimate> c : marked by or relating to traditional norms of taste, elegance, style, or manners <a conservative suit>



liberal
Function: noun
: a person who is liberal: as a : one who is open-minded or not strict in the observance of orthodox, traditional, or established forms or ways b capitalized : a member or supporter of a liberal political party c : an advocate or adherent of liberalism especially in individual rights

lib·er·al
Pronunciation: 'li-b(&-)r&l
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin liberalis suitable for a freeman, generous, from liber free; perhaps akin to Old English lEodan to grow, Greek eleutheros free
1 a : of, relating to, or based on the liberal arts <liberal education> b archaic : of or befitting a man of free birth
2 a : marked by generosity : OPENHANDED <a liberal giver> b : given or provided in a generous and openhanded way <a liberal meal> c : AMPLE, FULL
3 obsolete : lacking moral restraint : LICENTIOUS
4 : not literal or strict : LOOSE <a liberal translation>
5 : BROAD-MINDED; especially : not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or traditional forms
6 a : of, favoring, or based upon the principles of liberalism b capitalized : of or constituting a political party advocating or associated with the principles of political liberalism; especially : of or constituting a political party in the United Kingdom associated with ideals of individual especially economic freedom, greater individual participation in government, and constitutional, political, and administrative reforms designed to secure these objectives

Originally posted by SmallTown
From the dictionary? :confused:

conservative
Function: noun
1 a : an adherent or advocate of political conservatism b capitalized : a member or supporter of a conservative political party
2 a : one who adheres to traditional methods or views b : a cautious or discreet person

con·ser·va·tive
Pronunciation: k&n-'s&r-v&-tiv
Function: adjective
1 : PRESERVATIVE
2 a : of or relating to a philosophy of conservatism b capitalized : of or constituting a political party professing the principles of conservatism : as (1) : of or constituting a party of the United Kingdom advocating support of established institutions (2) : PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE
3 a : tending or disposed to maintain existing views, conditions, or institutions : TRADITIONAL b : marked by moderation or caution <a conservative estimate> c : marked by or relating to traditional norms of taste, elegance, style, or manners <a conservative suit>



liberal
Function: noun
: a person who is liberal: as a : one who is open-minded or not strict in the observance of orthodox, traditional, or established forms or ways b capitalized : a member or supporter of a liberal political party c : an advocate or adherent of liberalism especially in individual rights

lib·er·al
Pronunciation: 'li-b(&-)r&l
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin liberalis suitable for a freeman, generous, from liber free; perhaps akin to Old English lEodan to grow, Greek eleutheros free
1 a : of, relating to, or based on the liberal arts <liberal education> b archaic : of or befitting a man of free birth
2 a : marked by generosity : OPENHANDED <a liberal giver> b : given or provided in a generous and openhanded way <a liberal meal> c : AMPLE, FULL
3 obsolete : lacking moral restraint : LICENTIOUS
4 : not literal or strict : LOOSE <a liberal translation>
5 : BROAD-MINDED; especially : not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or traditional forms
6 a : of, favoring, or based upon the principles of liberalism b capitalized : of or constituting a political party advocating or associated with the principles of political liberalism; especially : of or constituting a political party in the United Kingdom associated with ideals of individual especially economic freedom, greater individual participation in government, and constitutional, political, and administrative reforms designed to secure these objectives Could you highlight the part that says conservatives want everything to stay the same forever. I see that they are cautious, and doing things in moderation. I also see where they respect traditional values and like to maintain them.

I also see that liberal means obsolete;lacking moral restraint.

What conservatives actually see:


conservative
Function: noun
1 a : an adherent or advocate of political conservatism b capitalized : a member or supporter of a conservative political party

marked by or relating to traditional norms of taste, elegance, style, or manners

liberal
Function: noun
: a person who is liberal: as a : one who is open-minded or not strict in the observance of orthodox, traditional, or established forms or ways b capitalized : a member or supporter of a liberal political party c : an advocate or adherent of liberalism especially in individual rights

lib·er·al
Pronunciation: 'li-b(&-)r&l
Function: adjective

3 obsolete : lacking moral restraint :



What liberals actually see:




conservative
Function: noun

3 a : tending or disposed to maintain existing views, conditions, or institutions : TRADITIONAL
b : marked by moderation or caution <a conservative estimate>


liberal
Function: noun
: a person who is liberal: as a : one who is open-minded or not strict in the observance of orthodox, traditional, or established forms or ways b capitalized : a member or supporter of a liberal political party c : an advocate or adherent of liberalism especially in individual rights

lib·er·al
Pronunciation: 'li-b(&-)r&l
Function: adjective

2 a : marked by generosity : OPENHANDED <a liberal giver> b : given or provided in a generous and openhanded way <a liberal meal>
5 : BROAD-MINDED; especially : not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or traditional forms

Really??? Thanks! Christy will die of envy!!

:notworthy :lol:

You know me, I'm a fiscal conservative and social liberal (of sorts) I don't give a rats behind what one does in their personal life just so long as #1. I'm not forced to be privy to it and #2 I don't have to pay for it.

I think Pete summed it all up very nicely. :clap: He has such a way with words. :lol: :notworthy

Why not get rid of social security, Medicare, and unemployment benefits? Arguments about the rationality of these programs aside, I should not be FORCED to pay to help my fellow man. If I choose to do so, then that is my prerogative. This is the way things used to operate, back when we were allowed to be "judgmental" about the behaviors of others.

Let states offer these benefits if they choose -- let them all compete for our business, and then we'd really see governments begin to function efficiently. The federal government should have no hand in taking our income and doling it out however they please.

As far as unemployment and welfare benefits go, as Art Laffer once said, It goes totally against common sense to think that paying people not to work and raising taxes on those who do work will result in more people working ... or something like that.

Originally posted by Christy
I think Pete summed it all up very nicely. All hail Pete! :notworthy

But I disagree about Social Security. It pizzes me off that the government takes MY money and won't give it back until THEY decide I need it. :mad: We should get a choice if we want to lend our money to the Feds at 0% interest or if we want to invest it or do something else with it.

Originally posted by trevor
Why not get rid of social security, Medicare, and unemployment benefits? Fine with me. I'd rather have that money in my paycheck. People did just fine before that crap and they'll do just fine if it were taken away.

So it seems to me that most of the conservative resentment of the liberal ideology, here at least, is the whole concept that liberalism created laziness...here's a rebuttal that is coherent (hopefully, I am researching for my term paper in US History class so my brain is a little fried after reading 100 years of election results in southern states). Caution long post...

Welfare is a tough issue to address because this nation (at least those of us who are so interested that we are compelled to share our views on a website such as this) has such strong feelings on the issue. When we put away these strong feelings, which produce harsh back and forth and stifle the decision-making process, we can come to true, coherent conclusions. Welfare was first initiated in the New Deal of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, one of the Left's most enduring symbols and one of my political icons. It was created during a time when unemployment hit around 25% and poverty was out of control. There was even some worry at the time that the poor and unemployed would rise up and overthrow the United States government. The New Deal's welfare satisified the poor of the 1930s and calmed their resentment at their government for not caring about them (Herbert Hoover, FDR's predecessor, believed in "rugged individualism" in which people had to do everything on their own; it is a fine thought, but when there are no jobs to be had and the economy is so awful, how can people do everything by themselves?). FDR had made the "forgotten man" feel like he had a place in the government and greatly helped in the smooth progression of the Great Depression (although it was not the reason for the ending of the Great Depression, World War II caused that to happen).
The concept of government providing relief was foreign to the American populace and the New Deal's institution of welfare programs did not create the "cult of reliance" as some have come to called our society's dependence on government aid. Lyndon Johnson's Great Society program was the stimulus that has arguably created the dependence on government. The New Deal's welfare programs were expanded and caused the Reagan backlash of the 1980s and conservatives today still see welfare as a bloated creator of dependence on government.
While there are many who abuse the welfare system (I can think of some personal examples), it must be understood that welfare is nowhere near as bad as some conservatives would like us to believe. The 1996 Welfare Reform Act, signed by President Clinton, who conservatives absolutely despise, made great strides towards rectifying the abuse of the welfare system. Those in welfare can no longer accept benefits for longer than five years in a lifetime and the emphasis was readjusted from welfare for life to "welfare to work." As a result, welfare rolls have dropped like a lead balloon. Liberals voted for this bill (of course some also opposed it), and believe that the system does need reform. What liberals also believe though is that welfare has a place in our society. We believe that money should be provided for child care so that single mothers can have their children safe while they work. We believe that welfare does not create laziness; it provides relief for today so that families can have hope for tomorrow. While there are abuse stories, there are also success stories and each one of those successes are ones that we can all look upon and smile at.

Very eloquent points. I agree with you on most of your points of fact. Welfare in its basic form was begun by Roosevelt in his new deal. What has happened in the decades since 1933 is horrific and I believe that Roosevelt himself would be ashamed. The basic tenant of Roosevelt’s social programs was that they provided a means to support and boost the unemployed and poor while allowing them to maintain their self esteem. It also taught a willing populous new vital skills which they could use later on. His creation of the WPA, CCC, NIIRA and many other cultural programs were fine examples of social programs in which everyone gained. The poor gained income, skills and self esteem and the nation benefited from many of the reforestation, agricultural programs and work projects such as the TVA and Hoover hydro-electric projects. I scarcely think you will find anyone worth their salt who would argue that at that time, under those circumstances sweeping government programs to boost society and the economy were not wise uses of our resources.

However, as you pointed out after WWII and the booming post war period the administrations, namely Johnson and his Great Society and its lingering repercussions have been terrible. Unlike the New Deal Johnson’s social programs began the striping of the poor and unemployed sense of self esteem. In the 3 plus decades since the beginning of these social shaping programs self esteem of the poor has eroded while the outright dependence on the federal government has steadily increased. In today’s society there is no shame what so ever in being on welfare or the numerous other social programs. We have not only lost self esteem and dignity but we have gone to the extreme where it is viewed as and entitlement, supplemental income and in many cases a cash cow for rampant fraud. Clinton, when faced with a Republican majority in congress bowed to pressure because of his centrist nature and did reform welfare. Alas I believe it is still the cash cow only with different spots. It is still a myriad of programs with limits for enrollment however jumping from one to another when a person hits the limit is relatively easy.

Unfortunately the damage is done. We have a great portion of America which have no lingering flecks of the American spirit. While we have set limits on the number of years we have failed to reform the welfare recipients’ minds from one of entitlement to self reliance. Compounding this we have morons like Michael More who in his documentary “Bowling for Columbine” basically blames spikes in crime on the welfare reform act. He painstakingly depicts one case of a child killed by a another child who gets a hand gun on the fact that a woman had to ride a bus to work for 90 minutes because her welfare was cut off. My conservative mind finds fault in this logic. The mother, the uncle who left the gun where it was discovered by a 12 year old are in fact where the blame in that tragedy lies. In typical liberal fashion More ambushes Dick Clark, the owner of the franchise in which this woman worked part time and even blamed him. It is time that we hold the real culprits accountable instead of the incessant shifting of blame to society for avoidable tragedies and pizz poor choices made by people.

Not every citizen of this country is going to be able so make $75,000 a year. Not everyone in this country has the wherewithal and intelligence to live a lifestyle equal to a median wage. This is a simple socioeconomic fact. There is no wealth distribution scheme that will not find full revolt of taxpayers to boost everyone to an enviable lifestyle. Another painful fact is that there are many out there who even if given the cash to live a comfortable outright would still squander it and end up back in poverty. One example of this is a HUD development in my hometown called Pine Valley. 3.5 million dollar development built specifically for poor and underprivileged minority families. Within 6 years of the ribbon cutting ceremony this 3.5 million dollar housing project was condemned due to horrible caretaking by its occupants. Every year HUD budgeted more and more money for annual upkeep and maintenance. It was all in vain, for the occupants pig sty, unhealthy and outright squalor living style outpaced good tax payer money budgeted to keep the place habitable. How is this possible? The entitlement mindset is how. They knew that the government would just build another one.

The old adage “You give a man a fish he will eat for one day; If you teach a man to fish you will feed him for a lifetime” comes to mind. What we have here is an entire sub-culture in this country who absolutely refuses to learn to fish, and a political party who sees more benefit in keeping them dependant, a self regenerating constituency.

I have no problem lending a helping hand to someone in need, nor I dare say do most if not all conservatives. I do however have a problem paying for people who refuse to help themselves.

Some very good reads tonight.:yay:

Originally posted by Pete
In today’s society there is no shame what so ever in being on welfare or the numerous other social programs. We have not only lost self esteem and dignity but we have gone to the extreme where it is viewed as and entitlement, supplemental income and in many cases a cash cow for rampant fraud. It is still a myriad of programs with limits for enrollment however jumping from one to another when a person hits the limit is relatively easy.
Unfortunately the damage is done. We have a great portion of America which have no lingering flecks of the American spirit. While we have set limits on the number of years we have failed to reform the welfare recipients’ minds from one of entitlement to self reliance.
The old adage “You give a man a fish he will eat for one day; If you teach a man to fish you will feed him for a lifetime” comes to mind. What we have here is an entire sub-culture in this country who absolutely refuses to learn to fish, and a political party who sees more benefit in keeping them dependant, a self regenerating constituency.

I have no problem lending a helping hand to someone in need, nor I dare say do most if not all conservatives. I do however have a problem paying for people who refuse to help themselves.

Very good post sir, you deserve compliments for presenting a rational argument for what conservatives feel. I do have to disagree with the first premise of the quote I provided. I believe that our society still provides a great deal of shame to those that are on welfare and those that receive it also feel shameful (at least most of them). Those who are on welfare are definitely not painted in a positive light and that mere term carries severely negative connotations with it that make me truly believe that there is still a substantial amount of shame that comes with being on welfare.
There is a great deal of fraud in our welfare system, but there also is in our tax system, etc., etc. When you have government, there will be fraud. The test is to ask whether that fraud outweighs the benefits of the system. The fact that the poverty rate has declined since the institution of welfare makes the benefits of the system worthy to me. Furthermore, welfare is not even the most expensive part of our federal budget; health care, social security, and the military all have that beat. Welfare provides another safety net for the most needy of peoples and the small minority that abuse it should not make the other law-abidding recipients suffer (it's like the Prisoner Abuse Scandal; those soldiers acted outside of the spirit of the nation and the military, their actions are not reflective of the rest of the armed forces). Basically welfare is not the best run government program but we cannot just completely abolish it.
I definitely believe in that maxim you quoted sir, and I believe that welfare-to-work does go great strides in ensuring the things that you mentioned. Changing a former lifestyle takes awhile and it is far too early to pass judgement of a reform that just passed eight years ago.

Pete----Huzzah! :clap:

Originally posted by Pete
I also see that liberal means obsolete;lacking moral restraint.

That's funny. The obsolete means that definition is obsolete. I.E., not commonly used in this day in age. It's not part of the definition.

Although I can see where that definition comes from. Since most conservatives think thier traditions or beliefs are what defines morality, they would see anyone who believes differently as lacking moral restraint.

This definition of conservative might be the easiest for you to understand;

3 a : tending or disposed to maintain existing views, conditions, or institutions

You can argue over the meanings of a few words all you want, but every definition of conservative comes down to keeping things as they are.

Originally posted by rraley
Very good post sir, you deserve compliments for presenting a rational argument for what conservatives feel. I do have to disagree with the first premise of the quote I provided. I believe that our society still provides a great deal of shame to those that are on welfare and those that receive it also feel shameful (at least most of them). Those who are on welfare are definitely not painted in a positive light and that mere term carries severely negative connotations with it that make me truly believe that there is still a substantial amount of shame that comes with being on welfare.
There is a great deal of fraud in our welfare system, but there also is in our tax system, etc., etc. When you have government, there will be fraud. The test is to ask whether that fraud outweighs the benefits of the system. The fact that the poverty rate has declined since the institution of welfare makes the benefits of the system worthy to me. Furthermore, welfare is not even the most expensive part of our federal budget; health care, social security, and the military all have that beat. Welfare provides another safety net for the most needy of peoples and the small minority that abuse it should not make the other law-abidding recipients suffer (it's like the Prisoner Abuse Scandal; those soldiers acted outside of the spirit of the nation and the military, their actions are not reflective of the rest of the armed forces). Basically welfare is not the best run government program but we cannot just completely abolish it.
I definitely believe in that maxim you quoted sir, and I believe that welfare-to-work does go great strides in ensuring the things that you mentioned. Changing a former lifestyle takes awhile and it is far too early to pass judgement of a reform that just passed eight years ago. I challenge you sir to travel the deep south and the inner cities and show me one example of shame. Do not confuse shame with pity or anger. Pity exists in the mind of the benevolent, shame exists in the mind of the benefactor. There is very little shame out there. If there were shame and remorse for poor decisions, we would see a reduction in teenage pregnancy rates, drug use and crime and an increase in education as the older generation of welfare recipients held their children to a higher standard to prevent them from making the same choices, yet the cycle continues and increases. Liberals "pity" them like lost soulds but they feel no shame. Still we have a sub-culture that gladly accepts welfare and uses it for the wrong priorities. My aunt who is a RN and former liberal recently changed jobs to work in the Michigan Department of health. She calls the poor priorities of these people the 4 C's. ciggarettes, cell phones, CD's and cars. Her clientele is predominatly white teenage to mid twentys females who must come in for well baby checks to continue to recieve WIC. The stories she tells are appauling. They come in 2 weeks early complaining and asking for urgent suppliment because they are out of formula, yet they have a pack of cigarettes in their pocket, a cell phone clipped to their belt and a nice car with a booming stereo in the parking lot. Where did these people learn prioritizing? Nowhere, because they do not have to. They will not have to listen to a crying baby because they will not be turned away when their money is gone and they are out of food.

My own "former" step daughter is a prime example. 19 years old, a child, on welfare, HUD, WIC and other programs and is listless. Has never worked a day in her life, and according to her never will. All she has to do is keep signing up for programs. When one runs out there is always another.

There is no shame because these people have no concience, they have no real idea where the money comes from nor do they care. It is the governement, they just print more. If these people were to be fored to go door to door to collect their welfare payments perhaps the shame would creep back in but I doubt it.

As far as its ranking on the list of appropriations, I agree it is not the top cost in the federal budget. But I challenge you to think of welfare like this; For every able bodied, capable person who gets welfare, there are 3 elderly persons with a medical problem who cannot get medicine or treatment because there is no money for it.

Thanks for the info, Pete. Not much different from my wife's experience in social work.

My first question was, "Why don't the agencies just give out cans of Similac and Enfamil instead of vouchers?" But then I realized that would only be a Band-Aid.

What's with all the sirs and chaps and fellows. :bs:

Y'all are :buttkiss:

:biggrin:

If you're going to debate, debate, but don't sit there and complement each other on how thoughtful each other's posts are. :rolleyes:

Originally posted by sleuth
What's with all the sirs and chaps and fellows. :bs:

Y'all are :buttkiss:

:biggrin:

If you're going to debate, debate, but don't sit there and complement each other on how thoughtful each other's posts are. :rolleyes: Shut your pie hole you uninformed goober.













that better :neener:

Originally posted by Tonio
Thanks for the info, Pete. Not much different from my wife's experience in social work.

My first question was, "Why don't the agencies just give out cans of Similac and Enfamil instead of vouchers?" But then I realized that would only be a Band-Aid. Logistics, it costs less to use vouchers than it would be to pay shipping, handling, build warehouses to handle the product, trucks to deliver it, people to handle it.

And I'll add that the reason deadbeats don't feel shame is because liberals, for 30 years, have been encouraging them not to.

"You can't help it"

"It's not their fault"

Even convicted ax murderers get the liberal excuses of "he had an abusive childhood" and "she got caught up in a bad relationship". Hell, some of them get turned into celebrities and become the toast of Hollywood.

Originally posted by vraiblonde
And I'll add that the reason deadbeats don't feel shame is because liberals, for 30 years, have been encouraging them not to.

"You can't help it"

"It's not their fault"

Even convicted ax murderers get the liberal excuses of "he had an abusive childhood" and "she got caught up in a bad relationship". Hell, some of them get turned into celebrities and become the toast of Hollywood. Karla Faye Tucker comes to mind. Brutally murdered someone with a pick axe, yet the media attempted to make her a darling.

Originally posted by Pete
Shut your pie hole you uninformed goober.
that better :neener:


Much. :biggrin:

Originally posted by Pete
Karla Faye Tucker comes to mind. Brutally murdered someone with a pick axe, yet the media attempted to make her a darling. Isn't that the one the said she "climaxed" every time the axe found its mark? :twitch:

Originally posted by mainman
Isn't that the one the said she "climaxed" every time the axe found its mark? :twitch:

http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/women/tucker/1.html?sect=5

Under the darkness of the cover, Karla Faye's senses became more acute; she could hear the whoosh of the axe as it fell, could hear the squish-squish of the blade penetrating soft, wet flesh. Ecstasy! Although she denied it later, she would tell friends that the excitement generated a triple orgasm, the likes of which she had never before experienced.

Originally posted by Tonio
http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/women/tucker/1.html?sect=5 I love the Crime Library.. I don't think I read her story though...:yay:

Originally posted by mainman
Isn't that the one the said she "climaxed" every time the axe found its mark? And then the libs thought Bush was the horrible one because he wouldn't call off her execution. :duh:

Originally posted by vraiblonde
And then the libs thought Bush was the horrible one because he wouldn't call off her execution. :duh:

Yeah, that was weird. I think that had to do more with their opinion about Bush than it did anything about Tucker.

Originally posted by Admin
For starters, the concept that liberals despise America -- or at the very least denounce American exceptionalism -- is obvious to many conservatives.

Wow, talk about having a POV check. Interesting statement. Because most sane liberals I know see conservatives' hyperfocus on short-term American primacy and security as a serious threat to our diplomatic relations and the primacy and security of the nation in the long run. They have the strong impression that conservatives would rather impose draconian security measures and bomb people who look different than talk and cooperate with the rest of the world.

Republicans merely needed to point out Kerry’s opposition to defense systems throughout the years for the senator to accuse them of attacking his patriotism, and for him to remind everyone -- again -- that he’s a war hero.

OK, that GOP accusation is full of holes (Cheney is guilty of at least as much), but I won't get into that at the moment. Again, the sane liberals I know see the American military-industrial complex as not only the source of our military supremacy, but also a collosal waste of money that hides behind the flag and classified budgets in order to piss away tax dollars on redundant weapons and infrastructure to fill Congressional pork barrels. Let's face it, the military can waste money with the best of them, and it pisses liberals off when conservatives rail about social spending and then back bills that spend exponentially more on outdated fighters, artillery and redundant bases to prop up individual local economies. That's patriotic? This position is, of course, heresy in a military region like SoMD. :-)

In short, the left would rather appease terrorists instead of confronting them; they’d sooner turn over to the U.N. control of our destiny before empowering the U.S. to determine its own fate

I think liberals tend to view terror as a symptom of a global sickness, rather than an entity that can be fought and conquered. They see solutions in pooling global resources and cooperation to address the root causes of terror and coordinate responses to active terror cells. At the present time, America is far from omniscient and could use a few friends around the world to watch our back. Our miliary's broadsword approach has stymied that cooperation and soured our allies to our cause.

and liberal media outlets like CBS and the Washington Post have demonstrated through their publication of the Abu Ghraib prison photos that they’re willing to incite Arab anti-American malice

Hang on, there, Big Brother. Don't be using The Liberal Media Cop-out. A free press has the duty to show the public the truth of war, not rebroadcast the Pentagon's happy video game version of events. War is hell, and any nation that launches a war should be prepared to deal with the harsh realities of that hell, including the brutality of our own troops. If we hold the world to such a high standard, that we are willing to invade other countries to enforce it, then we need to be able to take our own medicine. 60 Minutes held off showing the prison photos for like a month at the Pentagon's request to hopefully spare the lives of American troops. But then a British newspaper got the photos, and the show had to go public. That shows AMAZING restraint for a news outlet. When you are sitting on a scoop, it's like sitting on dynamite.

The current scandal over the treatment of Abu Ghraib prisoners is only the latest attempt by liberals to undermine the nobility of our cause in Iraq and the war on terror

Again, the sane people I know see those pictures as a symptom of a problem. The problem being a lack of planning and training by our leaders, not the presence of our soldiers in Iraq (though a lot of them thought we shouldn't have gone in there in the first place). I suspect, however, that the attention being paid to this issue has more to do with what the media has heard and can't prove yet, rather than a political agenda. I expect a lot of top heads are gonna roll once it all comes out.

Originally posted by Pete
I agree that at the root liberalism is un-American. America was founded on several principles. Hard work, perceverance, self sufficiency, freedom, self destiny. Liberalism thwartsall of those basic principles.

OMFG. It's like reading Dr. Suess. OK, "liberalism" and "conservatism" are not words that are representative of political ideologies. Got that? They are relational words, applied in different ways to different situations. Literally, "liberals" are defined as pushing for less regulation and more change. "Conservatives" tend to push for more regulation and less change.

In this country, Democrats tend to be liberal on issues of abortion, sex education, gay marriage and other social issues, while the GOP takes up the contrary position. The GOP, OTOH, is more liberal on the issues of trade, business regulation, land use, and the environment.

The terms "liberalism" and "conservatism" are often wrongly transposed for better words that address different dicotomies - collectivism vs. indiviualism or authoritarianism vs. democracy. American, if anything, is a liberal democracy with a strong individualist streak...most of the time. It has always valued personal responsibility, free markets, rapid change, and self-determination, all liberal ideals, over the status quo or collectivism.

You can have collectivist democracies (Britain, Sweden, etc.) or authoritarian free markets (Nazi Germany, increasingly China), and it's hard to call them either "liberal" or "conservative." They are a little of both!

I suspect that the bastardization of the term "liberal" came with the collectivist reforms of the 30s and 60s (New Deal, Great Society, etc.). These ideas ran counter to the individualist tradition of this nation and brought change, which, in that context, was a "liberal" action. However, I would argue that the changes were collectivist in nature and undermined the nations' individualist, liberal tradition. Confused yet?

:snacks: