What does?

[Beano]

When describing another human being answer the following two question.



What does Liberal mean to you?

What does Conservative mean to you?

 

[Bruzilla]

I have a simple question: What should government be more concerned with - taking care of businesses or taking care of the average working people? Conservatives go with business and the Libs go with the working man dribble.

 

[vraiblonde]

I'm along the same lines as Bru. To me, a liberal is someone who thinks wealth comes from the government. A conservative thinks it comes from businesses.

 

[Bertha Venation]

Originally posted by Beano
When describing another human being answer the following two question.

What does Liberal mean to you?

What does Conservative mean to you?

I don't like to call a person "a liberal" or "a conservative." I consider a person's politics to be liberal or conservative. Not the person. When the terms are applied as labels they're sometimes meant to be--or are taken as--perjoratives. IMO the terms applied as labels exacerbate the current climate of extreme partisan polarization that cripplies the land.

And now to answer your question: IMO a person whose politics are conservative find certain government policies to be intrusive; one whose politics are liberal might find those same government policies to be sometimes-necessary evils. Take taxes: of my friends with no children, some resent knowing their property taxes pay for free public education, and some do not. Usually those who resent it vote toward the right, and those who don't, vote toward the left.

In other issues, it's reversed. Take the Lawrence v. Texas decision recently handed down by the USSC. In the sample of my friends referred to above, those whose politics are conservative resent that decision, having seen such laws as necessary, and those of liberal politics applaud the decision, having seen such laws as intrusive.

These are just two of many examples, and they're from my experience. YMMV.

 

[Christy]

Re: Re: What does?

Originally posted by Bertha Venation
I don't like to call a person "a liberal" or "a conservative." I consider a person's politics to be liberal or conservative. Not the person.

Well aren't our ideals who we are? You MUST be a liberal. (Just kidding, I'm not labeling you honest!)

My take on "liberals" is this, Liberals feel the solution is to any given problem is to "wish" it to be better. They feel that if we all acted a certain way (you know, do unto others as you'd have done unto you). Theoretically it makes sense. Realistically, it's completely implausible.

 

[2ndAmendment]

A liberal is a person who believes in a liberal interpretation of the Constitution; just tell the people the Constitution says anything to suit the liberal cause. They'll believe it, because they don't really know. Actually something to that effect was said by the Democrat hero Franklin D. Roosevelt.

A conservative is a person who believes in a conservative interpretation of the Constitution. Although a conservative interpretation is still an interpretation...which is still wrong

A strict constructionist is a person who believes the Constitution should be understood with the exact same meaning that the writers understood. Actually, an early Supreme Court ruling stated that when reading the Constitution for determining the constitutionality of a law or concept, the meaning of words that were in use at the time of the writing must be used. As an example, welfare, in constitutional terms, means taking care of the affairs and looking out for the government not providing benevolence (charity) for people.

 

[Bertha Venation]

Re: Re: Re: What does?

Originally posted by Christy
Well aren't our ideals who we are? You MUST be a liberal. (Just kidding, I'm not labeling you honest!)

back. Label away, in this instance... weird thing is, what I wrote notwithstanding, I call myself "a liberal" sometimes because it's just a whole lot easier than going through the "I don't like to label" thing.

Are our ideals who we are? Hmm. . . . To an extent, I guess so. But we're all also many things that aren't ideals. I'm blond & left-handed. I'm married. I'm registered Dem. I'm an aunt & sister. All of those things are labels too. But they're not ideals. With a couple of exceptions, there are ideals behind my reasons for appropriating those labels, but they're not ideals of themselves.

My take on "liberals" is this, Liberals feel the solution is to any given problem is to "wish" it to be better. They feel that if we all acted a certain way (you know, do unto others as you'd have done unto you).

Mmm... not entirely so. Take homelessness. (I know, a topic fraught with controversy, but maybe we can avoid that.) I know what I can do about it. It's not much. But I do it. And believe me, "wishing" the situation to be better may be a small part of what I do, but being a wholly realistic woman, I know that wishing does absolutely nothing. I have to put my voice, my actions, and my money where my mouth is, and that's what I do. The difference I make may be small, but it is a difference, and I believe that with the numbers of us that there are doing these small things, change happens. Slowly, in small ways, but it happens.

. . . (you know, do unto others as you'd have done unto you). Theoretically it makes sense. Realistically, it's completely implausible.

It makes sense--and a difference--when you take action. One of the strongest lessons I ever took away from Sunday School as a wee one was that the "do" in the golden rule is a verb. (And it's been a long time since I was a wee one. It's stuck with me.)

 

[Kain99]

Sorry.... Can't keep it to myself anymore!

Everyone knows that Bertha is Surf City Baby Right? Welcome Back Girl! Luv Ya!

 

[Bertha Venation]

Re: Sorry.... Can't keep it to myself anymore!

Originally posted by Kain99
Everyone knows that Bertha is Surf City Baby Right? Welcome Back Girl! Luv Ya!

edit The shut-up smiley was mean, even though I was just kidding, K.
all. Yeah, I'm back. Y'all needed a bit of queer killingme god, I'm so witty) music. :guitar:

 

[Kain99]

You should be proud of me.... I kept it quiet for at least 12 hours!

Man I'm glad you're back!

 

[Christy]

It makes sense--and a difference--when you take action. One of the strongest lessons I ever took away from Sunday School as a wee one was that the "do" in the golden rule is a verb. (And it's been a long time since I was a wee one. It's stuck with me.)

I'm all for that, do it myself. As do most Conservatives (moreso than liberals). The difference is, Liberals feel that the government should be the decision makers as to who is worthy of charity and who is not. Conservatives (at least this one) feels it's the individual person who should control where their money goes and to whom.

 

[Bertha Venation]

Originally posted by Kain99
You should be proud of me.... I kept it quiet for at least 12 hours!

Man I'm glad you're back!

Me too. Luv ya too, cutie pie.

 

[Bertha Venation]

Originally posted by 2ndAmendment
A liberal is a person who believes in a liberal interpretation of the Constitution; just tell the people the Constitution says anything to suit the liberal cause. They'll believe it, because they don't really know. Actually something to that effect was said by the Democrat hero Franklin D. Roosevelt.

Hi, Burt. On September 17, 1937, the sesquicentennial of the signing of the Constitution, FDR said,

"On this solemn anniversary I ask that the American people rejoice in the wisdom of their Constitution.

"I ask that they guarantee the effectiveness of each of its parts by living by the Constitution as a whole.

"I ask that they have faith in its ultimate capacity to work out the problems of democracy, but that they justify that faith by making it work now rather than twenty years from now.

"I ask that they give their fealty to the Constitution itself and not to its misinterpreters.

"I ask that they exalt the glorious simplicity of its purposes, rather than a century of complicated legalism.

"I ask that majorities and minorities subordinate intolerance and power alike to the common good of all.

"For us the Constitution is a common bond, without bitterness, for those who see America as Lincoln saw it, 'the last, best hope of earth.'

"So we revere it, not because it is old but because it is ever new, not in the worship of its past alone but in the faith of the living who keep it young, now and in the years to come."

 

[Bertha Venation]

Christy, lets discuss this more in the future. My bed is calling me, and if I don't get some beauty sleep I'm going to frighten the vet tomorrow morning.

'night, all.

 

[Bruzilla]

When I was up in Iceland, the big topic of discussion was cutting caital gains taxes, which all of the self-proclaimed "Independents" thought was a bad idea, designed to give more money to the wealthy. They felt that "The Wealthy" should get stuck with higher taxes so that there would be more money to spend on much needed programs. They never bothered to take into account that most of "The Wealthy" didn't just fall into their money, they made it and they know how to protect it.

I told them that when capital gains taxes are too high, "The Wealthy" have plenty of options for sheltering their income... like buying up tax-free municipal bonds. Once I explained the concept of munies to the "Independents" they all thought that having "The Wealthy" invest their money into civic projects like building bridges and highways was a great idea! Then I gave them the break down of that that would mean...

1. The municipality issues bonds to do some civic project, and "The Wealthy" snap them up.
2. Work begins on the civic project. Direct employment on the effort goes up, and increased employment in the support sector grows. More people are employed, the tax base increases, and all is well (the "Independents" were estatic!)
3. The work is completed, and the workers (direct and support) are laid off. Unemployment claims start coming in and increased payments go out, while the tax base decreases.
4. "The Wealthy" are paid the principal amount plus the interest charges by the municipality, and they pay zero taxes on either. So, in addition to the municipality losing money due to loss of income taxes, they also lose money on untaxed payouts of the munies. "The Wealthy" make money basically risk free, they just don't make "A lot" of money.

Then I compared the above scenario to cutting capital gains taxes:

1. Capital gains taxes are cut, so moderate-risk and higher ventures, which yield much higher financial gains than munies, become very attractive to "The Wealthy".
2. Business ventures start to grow, and more people (direct and support) become employed.
3. Businesses continue to grow and expand, more people are employed and promoted. The revenue base in taxes increases while unemployment drops.
4. Employees expand out to form their own businesses, increasing their income and making room for other new employees.
5. The percentage of taxes paid per dollar by businesses drops, but the amount dollars being taxed goes up, so there is more money available for spending on civic improvements. And low-return investments like munies become less attractive to "The Wealthy", so there are more investment opportunities for less-well-off folks.

The biggest miscalculation that I see Liberals... I mean "Independents" making is they think that they have the upper hand when dealing with business... that they can "stick it to them" and businesses or "The Wealthy" will just have to take it. They just don't understand that "sticking it to business" is like nailing jello to a wall. There are always options for "The Wealthy" and businesses to protect their resources, and no amount of regulation will ever change that since they always have the ultimate out of moving the business, or their money, overseas or investing in tax-free issuances.

The United States hasn't grown into the World's greatest economy over the past 227 years by screwing business, but over the past twenty or so years there are a lot of people who seem to have forgotten that fact. If a government doesn't look out for business, there isn't going to be a government. That's what's happening out in California right now, because government decided to look out for the common man rather than business.

 

[Larry Gude]

What it means to me...

...damn, I love it when someone asks what I think!

My take:

When we say 'liberal' or 'conservative' we need to clarify a bit along with some history:

Classis liberalism is all about the individual. A liberal (broad based with open opportunity to study individual interests more deeply) education. A liberal lifestyle, meaning one of opportunity for travel, recreaction, broad interaction.

Modern Conservatism seeks to conserve the status quo, ie, the gains of classic liberalism. Couple this with achievement being required to access opportunities. Conservatives have little interest in people who expect classic liberalisms gains to be given to them sans personal responsibility. It is all about the individual and responsibility equaling freedom.

Modern liberalism is all about maintaining groups and opportunity and advantage through mob rule, 'class' warfare and divisiveness.

The first group known as 'conservatives' wanted the status quo of slavery and the aristocratic class based society of 1859. Sounds familiar, yes?

Summary: Classic conservatism sought to preserve something bad. Classic liberalsim seeks something good for all. Modern liberalism seeks something bad and modern conservatism seeks to maintain something good.

 

[vraiblonde]

And let's don't confuse liberals with leftists. I have a few liberal tendencies but I'm never EVER a leftist.

Which brings me to a topic mutation: terminology.

I had to have Ken King point out that I was saying "racist" when what I meant to say was "bigot". So what's the difference between Democrat/Liberal/Leftist and Republican/Conservative/Right-Wing? Not the difference between the two groups, but the difference between the three segments of each group.

To me, Democrat/Republican denotes political parties, i.e. how you are registered to vote. Liberal/Conservative means how you view society and government. And Leftist/Right-Wing means you kill people.

Someone straighten me out, please.

 

[Bruzilla]

I don't think definitions for Liberals, Conservatives, Republicans, Democrats, etc., can really be made based on historical precedence since these definition have all changed frequently over the years. Even worse, what defines a Liberal and a Conservative today may change next month or next year. So I think the best thing to look at is what defines them today.

I think that the current definitions began shortly after the "New Deal" came about and we began to move away from traditional views of social spending. Gone were the days of "40 acres and a mule", i.e., government is responsible for providing those in need with the tools to become self-sufficient; and in was the welfare state, whereas government directly takes care of the needs of those who need assistance. This really opened the door for all manner of entitlement programs, defined as the receipt of government money because you are entitled to it... not because you're doing anything to earn it, which have lead to the current focus of Liberals/Democrats. And since human beings are no different from that lazy cat that hangs around your house forever because you screwed up and fed it once, the entitlement trough is a powerful tool in politics to whoever chooses to use it.

McGoven learned the hard way what happens when a Liberal runs on entitlement trough politics, so since then you've had the Dems looking for more and more splinter groups to bolster their core support since telling working people that the best thing they could do to help America was to give their money to others didn't play too well. That's why you have the tree huggers, gays and lesbians, pro-choice folks, racists, anti-business crowrd, etc., all turning up as Democrats even though they often disagree on many of each others' issues. If Democrats tried to run on the entitlement trough platform alone they'ld never win another public office.

Which brings us today to a population in America that for the most part has no idea what "40 acres and a mule" means, nor has any idea that the government used to invest heavilly into massive national infrastructure efforts that employed thousands rather than just handing out money and getting nothing in return. All they know is that the government cuts millions of checks to people and if those checks stop all those people will have to go without. And worse, there are enough of these mis-informed people that when mixed with the folks feeding at the trough they can form a rough majority of voters.

So once you take away all the special interest group influences I see the differnce between Liberals and Conservatives as being one side that feels people can't get by on their own and that the government needs to mother them, and another side that thinks government should offer the tools of success to the downtrodden but that their success relies on personal initiative not government support.

 

[Larry Gude]

But...

...the thing is that there MUST be special interest groups, yes?

They get a bad rap, like the term 'partisan'. Perhaps it is deservedly so SOME times but, if not for Sierra AND energy companies, how else would we have thorough, both sides information available concerning the pro's and con's in regards to drilling in ANWR? No one makes a case like a partisan or a special interest.

This is why the media is so important and so powerful; they become the arbiters of how the information comes across. I'd say poor news coverage, spin, is a bigger problem than the groups shilling their agenda. Which is why alternative sources are so loathed, they dilute the power.

At the end of the day, we the people still get to make our choice and THAT is what everyone really wants to gain, votes.