Originally posted by Dace AceAs opposed to being strangled by the self interested anarchy that results when government and regulation tends to zero and the only way forward is then to protect your freedom with violence and pack a pistol everywhere you go because of all the people that a concerted lack of Governmental programs forgot to train or adequately educate into becoming a participant of that great American dream.
The irony I see is that liberals want more & more government, but don't like to be told what to do. They are too dense to figure out that the bigger the government monster we create, more it will strangle our freedoms.
The problem is not Liberalism or Conservatism ,its Labelism which attempts to avoid doing anything about everything by claiming that every complex issue can be reduced to two opposing sides that can be caricatured and pilloried at will, ad infinitum, ad nauseum and without anyone actually trying to resolve or address anything.
Labelism is the serious parent of Libelism which is the teen aged tabloid knee jerk reactionaryism that goes for infotainment these days.
01 Apr 08
Originally posted by Dace AceI guess George 'W' Bush must be a liberal, because our government has never been bigger and
The irony I see is that liberals want more & more government, but don't like to be told what to do. They are too dense to figure out that the bigger the government monster we create, more it will strangle our freedoms.
more expensive and has imposed more restrictions on our freedoms than any other government.
Kinda ironic, huh?
Nemesio
02 Apr 08
1 edit
Originally posted by NemesioYou got that right!!
I guess George 'W' Bush must be a liberal, because our government has never been bigger and
more expensive and has imposed more restrictions on our freedoms than any other government.
Kinda ironic, huh?
Nemesio
Really saying a politician can be 100% conservative is like saying a kid in a candy store can then avoid wanting to eat candy once in the store.
As a politicain it is your duty to take hold of power, and then consolodate power, and then make a grab at even more power. These are not the tenats of "conservatism" because the tenants of conservatism call for less government, not more. However, some do a far better job at the"power grab" than others. For me it then becomes a contest of the lesser of two evils.
- Joined
- 21 Jul 06
- Moves
- 94201
02 Apr 08
Originally posted by kmax87Recc'd.
The problem is not Liberalism or Conservatism ,its Labelism which attempts to avoid doing anything about everything by claiming that every complex issue can be reduced to two opposing sides that can be caricatured and pilloried at will, ad infinitum, ad nauseum and without anyone actually trying to resolve or address anything.
02 Apr 08
3 edits
Is it just me or is conservatism verses Liberalism just another way of saying government verses corporation? On the one hand, the conservative defends the corporation and the tenants of free trade and say that the ills of society reside with the government because they regulate and restrict and tax everyone into misery and/or oblivion. On the other hand, the liberal defends the government and says that the government is the only vehicle for stopping corporate structures that cares little about the "average Joe" because if they do not the average Joe will get stepped on. Really both positions seem to want to increase the freedoms of one side of the spectrum and limit the freedoms of the other side.
I say there is merit for both positions, however, what concerns me the most about liberalism is that the powers of government are extended over all corporate structures and not vice versa. IN a way, the government might even be considered a corporation in and of itself. The only difference being, they don't have to make a profit or even balance their check book for that matter and hold power over EVERYBODY.
02 Apr 08
Originally posted by whodeyThe ONLY difference?
Is it just me or is conservatism verses Liberalism just another way of saying government verses corporation? On the one hand, the conservative defends the corporation and the tenants of free trade and say that the ills of society reside with the government because they regulate and restrict and tax everyone into misery and/or oblivion. On the other hand, th ...[text shortened]... make a profit or even balance their check book for that matter and hold power over EVERYBODY.
How about the fact that we can vote them in ... and out!
02 Apr 08
Originally posted by whodeyThe government in the USA (and elsewhere) facilitates corporate structures' stepping on "average Joe" who is seen as strictly nothing more than a consumer of products. Your two parties are merely two split-hair 'packages': one portrays itself as standing up for "average Joe" whilst being entirely beholden to corporate vested interests; the other portrays itself as liberating the "average Joe" from any obligation towards other "average Joes" whilst being entirely beholden to corporate vested interests - who are absolutely intent on liberating the "average Joe" from any kind of genuine political choice.
...the government is the only vehicle for stopping corporate structures that cares little about the "average Joe" because if they do not the average Joe will get stepped on.
02 Apr 08
The post that was quoted here has been removedTake this to its corollary.
'Labour' only encapsulates what the voters of the 'Labour Party' want that party to be. The label itself has lost all meaning. The same is true for Conservatives and Liberals or any other party in the world.
In Portugal, we still have a very active communist party. Their views reflect what the communists of old now believe in. Even if it's no longer a true Communist vision (which it was, hammer and sickle STILL included on their flag) of Portugal that they envision, they retain their label yet changed their ideas and propositions.
This is also true in many ways of Conservatives and Liberals.
02 Apr 08
Originally posted by der schwarze Ritterignorance is bliss
American conservatives are more optimistic than liberals, more likely to feel in control of their lives and therefore happier, says Arthur Brooks. More importantly, sez I, they know what's better for their own lives than any government bureaucrat ever could:
http://www.economist.com/world/na/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10924082