conservative vs liberal

[ingo]

I noticed that some of you think that conservative is the opposite to liberal. This is strange in my eyes since we have a conservative liberal party here in Germany.

Don't you agree on these definitions?

conservative = do not want to change anything
- is the opposite to -
progressive = likes to change the things

liberal = everybody/the economy should be free to do what he/it wants
- is the opposite to -
regulative = the gouvernment should regulate the things as far as possible

egalitarian = against disparity
- is the opposite to -
elitist = against parity

internationalistic = cooperation with other countries
- is the opposite to -
nationalistic = our country first

Since I do not see major differences between your Democrates and your Republicans I would describe both as: conservativ, liberal, elitist, nationalistic.

Sorry for Donn, Jägermeister etc. that they are liberal :D :D :D

[Meerkat]

Democrats: freedom.

Republicans: oppression.

[ingo]

I know your opinion about Bush - and I share it - but was this allways true? I am too young to think more back than Reagan. Are Reagan and the Bushs typical for Republicans or are there some "normal" conservatives (non-neurotic), too?

[ingo]

Originally posted by ingo:
I know your opinion about Bush - and I share it - but was this allways true? I am too young to think more back than Reagan. Are Reagan and the Bushs typical for Republicans or are there some "normal" conservatives (non-neurotic), too?After thinking some minutes, I have to retract my question since all politicans are neurotic and have to be to have success...

[Art Read]

A little education is a dangerous thing.

[uncas]

I guess I'm a real odball when it comes to being cons. or liberal...
I would like to think I an fiscally cons...Well, I retired early....because I could.
I am conservative regarding the death penalty
I am a liberal when it comes to the rights of a woman to choose, equal opportunity for men and women in the job market etc.
I have conservastive leaning towards welfare and our current welfare system...although some states are getting tougher on this....it is not a national trend
I am conservative when it comes to immigration laws and regulations.
I am liberal regarding the rights of non heterosexual relationships. ( and movies )
The list goes on...the issues differ and so do my feelings about them.

So....I guess I'm a bloody iundependent. And I vote independently...for the person not the party.

psss... some of these are based on the platforms of the two parties....
And I can see why there is a party somewhere in the world which combines the two.

[ 01-10-2006, 06:37 AM: Message edited by: uncas ]

[High C]

Ingo, the terms have flip flopped in meaning here, to some degree. Politicians have come to misuse the terms to mask who they really are.

Our "liberals" are also those who most want a strong, highly regulating government, while our "conservatives" tend to be closer to the laissez faire, or Libertarian approach.

There are plenty of exceptions in both cases, but in general, the terms are used backwards here. Sorry... ;)

[Ian McColgin]

The terms really do get messed around. Our "conservatives" claim to want less government yet each conservative administration over the last quarter century has increased the size of government spending, increased governmental welfare payments and no-bid contracts to wealthy corporations, and pressed for laws permitting governmental intrusion into private and doctor patient matters.

Of course, such policies carried out in the name of conservatism are not authentically conservative.

Despite the fact that there are political parties called "conservative" and "liberal," I personally preferr to use the terms adjectivaly to look at temperment.

The conservative in me treasures the best of the past, wants to maintain that which is right in society and in society's relationship to nature, and cleaves to the old fashioned boring virtue of rectitude.

The liberal in me looks toward rightous change and a sort of open-handed sharing with those less fortunate than myself.

Both conservative and liberal, at their best, share a notion of non-extreme democracy where differences are hammered out in compromise, rather like a good business deal where both parties arrive with equal power and make a deal of equal benefit.

In this view, "right" and "left" are terms more particularly political and are at the margins or even past the democratic spectrum. They are traditional terms with the right favoring its power base in land and wealth with the left favoring its base in working people. There are both democratic and non-democratic versions of each.

[Rick Tyler]

Originally posted by Meerkat:
Democrats: freedom.
Republicans: oppression.Heh.

Democrats: all power to the people who gave me money.
Republicans: all power to the people who gave me money.

[ssor]

I rather believe that the party with a majority in the congress and a same party president uses labels that define themselves in the most favorable terms and uses labels to define the minority party in less favorable terms when issues are contentious and the more contentious the issues become the less favorable the labels become. By the same token the minority party also uses labels in a similar manner. The use of these labels fades when the question before them is mutually beneficial to their personal wealth.
For example there is rarely any contention concerning congressional pay raises.

[uncas]

posted 01-10-2006 09:50 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Meerkat:
Democrats: freedom.
Republicans: oppression.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Heh.

Democrats: all power to the people who gave me money.

Is this before the politicians take their cut or after....?
They got the dollars...and the bridges...we get the spare change for a cup of coffee...

[High C]

Originally posted by ssor:
...there is rarely any contention concerning congressional pay raises.We are practically carpet bombed with the notion that everyone in Congress is corrupt, taking bribes left and right, that it's a "protection racket", etc.

If this were so, why would they anger their constituents as they do by giving themselves pay raises? Congressional pay is chump change compared to the kind of money they're routinely accused of taking under the table.

The fact that they hunger, just like the rest of us, for pay increases, contradicts their corrupt reputation.

[uncas]

High C...they got around that...pay raises are automatic unless voted not to accept them...
So...all of them politicans can now say that they did not vote for a pay raise...why because they now have to vote against one...heaven forbid that our politicans would do such a thing.
Nice political glitch there....no one can be accused of a wrong or questionable doing...

[High C]

Yeah, Unc, I understand that, but I wonder why they would give a rat's patoot about their pay at all if they are all on the take. Their image with the voters takes a hit over the pay, but they do it anyway.

To the corrupt ones, that Congressional pay is nothing.

It gives me hope that they're not as corrupt as is commonly thought.

[ishmael]

Ingo,

The appelations have lost all meaning. They are convenient attempts at mind control. I hope they aren't working.

Me? Personally I consider me a pragmatic libertarian. The government that works best is one that stays clear of the little fellow. Steps in when need be: pollution laws, you can't do murder etc. I'm all for government in those cases. Because the rule of law is it--the only game in town. But otherwise, leave people alone! They've done interesting things, will do more, but fewer if government peons are snooping about.

How does this play in Kiel?

[uncas]

High C...agree with your theory...but money is money...money is power...money on the take means that some can afford to buy a house in Key West...

This s not like those days when our reps. were worried about making ends meet...Read Ellis' book on John Adams...a lot of money concerns...this is about adding to what one is now getting...and taking it to the bank.
Politics used to be an avocation...one went into politics to do good...even with poor pay...Now it is a vocation...So many have never done anything but be a congressman or senator in their entire lives.

I keep on thinking about some of the professors I had a college...For a few, who had taught for years, their concept of the modern world died with them when they entered the educational field...No concept of reality...I put politicians in the same category.

ps...it used to be that ya got a raise if ya did a good job...now, our politicians get a raise for existing and continuing to be in office...nothing about doing a good job....

[ 01-10-2006, 10:37 AM: Message edited by: uncas ]

[Bruce Hooke]

Now on this one I agree with High C...

[George.]

I don't agree, High C. Most of our congressmen are corrupt, as the recent salary-for-votes acandal proved, and yet they constantly vote themselves pay raises. It seems that corrupt politicians also tend to be greedy...

[ssor]

A hundred years ago my Grandmother said that honest politicians have hair in the palm of their hands. :rolleyes:

[troutman]

Ingo, no Bush and Reagan are not typical. Certainly not Bush. I'm 58 and can tell you that republicans definitely were not always as insane and amoral as they are now. This is all new. Calling the night before the South Carolina primary to tell those voters that the little darkskinned girl was McCain's biological daughter. LBJ was the acknowledged master but there guys are pioneers in their own way. Max Cleland was carter's head of the Veteran's Administration and the Reeps called him soft on defense and trashed him and he's missing two legs and an arm from Viet Nam. No, Bush is not typical but had managed to cow otherwise reasonable people like McCain and Spector so there are no voices of moderation in the Republican Party. Every day is a new adventure.

[High C]

Originally posted by troutman:
... republicans definitely were not always as insane and amoral as they are now. This is all new...Yeah! Republicans knew their proper place back when they were the minority, ehh? :rolleyes:

[Alan D. Hyde]

I don't think either term is very helpful. Neither word moves our thinking about political matters toward more illumination or more clarity.

I'd say that there are, first, lovers and builders, and, second, haters and stealers.

The first keep the world going, and improving, and the second, parasitically, live off the efforts of the first.

Most groups, including political parties, include an assortment of both. And, no one is an unmixed example of either approach--- we all have our various faults and weaknesses.

Most people try to surmount the adverse circumstances in their lives, to learn from them, and to contribute positively in some way as best they can. A few, unfortunately, become increasingly negative and take things the wrong direction. When they do so intentionally, that is what I'd call evil.

Alan

[Rick Clark]

It's like I said in a different thread yesterday no one walks in a straight line, as I read here some on one side some on the other, and it all about the math,,,,, money, money, money it all adds up. Even tho Mr. Meer says it is not, WRONG...... smile.gif

[Meerkat]

Originally posted by High C:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by troutman:
... republicans definitely were not always as insane and amoral as they are now. This is all new...Yeah! Republicans knew their proper place back when they were the minority, ehh? :rolleyes: </font>[/QUOTE]Correct! There's hope for you yet, backboy!

It's preferable to keep the party of repression in the minority! Don't have to look any further than the news to see the truth of that!

[Billy Bones]

Well said, Alan.

[ingo]

Originally posted by ishmael:

Me? Personally I consider me a pragmatic libertarian. The government that works best is one that stays clear of the little fellow. Steps in when need be: pollution laws, you can't do murder etc. I'm all for government in those cases. Because the rule of law is it--the only game in town. But otherwise, leave people alone! They've done interesting things, will do more, but fewer if government peons are snooping about.

How does this play in Kiel?Well, I totally agree with you: The gouvernment should only regulate what is abolutely neccessary. I am a director of a small software company and every day I have to suffer from too much regulation in Germany. Some examples:

1) We have a law that you have to have a valid passport or ID-card. Both are valid only for 10 years. In June last year I thought that I have to prolong my papers that run our 11 months ago since I wanted to take part in a regatta in Stockholm (not that we have any border controls but you never know). I was at the city hall and they said me: "You have to pay 30€" I asked "why ?" they "Its a law by the city" I: "what's the problem? Don't i exist any more?" They: "be happy that you come this month - if your papers are 12 months invalid, it's 60€..."

2) The state office for statistics sent me a 10-page questionaire about the balance of my company. They asked funny questions like "how much revenue you have within foreign EU-member states and how much outside the EU?". I: "I can't answer this question, my balance does not differ between EU and non-EU-members" They "It's a law that you have to answer this question" I: "I can't" They "that will cost you a fine of 2000€". I just filled it out with random numbers...

3) We took part in an EU-wide submission for a new internet database for the german office for political education. They wanted to put all their material in this database. It took 9 months and we wrote about 200 pages answering funny questions like "How do you implement gender mainstreaming?" (since nobody knows what it is: http://europa.eu.int/comm/employment_social/gender_equality/index_en.html) I had no Idea what this had to do with an internet database but I had to answer the question. I was close to write "Well that is easy: first we ask if you are a man or a woman. After that we know that at every yes/no-question a man's yes is a yes and a man's no is a no. When there is a woman, a yes is a yes and a no is a yes, too."

4) you are not allowed to by distress signals for your yacht like parachute rockets without having a licence. And for this you have to pass an examination. Same with if you have a motor with more than 5hp

But in general we love our social system where everything is paid (by high taxes). If you are a family with two childreen, you get about $1500 each months if you have no work. And our medical system pays (nearly) everything. There were big protests last year when the gouvernment introduced a retention of $8 per quarter if you visit a doctor...

[troutman]

If thinking that we'd be showered with flowers in a conquered land where a lot of the people were on the dictator's payroll wasn't insane and calling voters in the first state to secede from the the Union telling them a white candidate had a black daughter wasn't amoral then what is? If you have incorporated this type of behavior into your business as usual paradigm and have no outrage you may be part of the problem. I'll stand by the words. This is all new; win any way you can and then steal. When the bills come due you'll scream for a Clinton.

[Meerkat]

Originally posted by Alan D. Hyde:
A few, unfortunately, become increasingly negative and take things the wrong direction. When they do so intentionally, that is what I'd call evil.

AlanI don't know how you can say that with a straight face and be, as I believe you are, anti-choice. Not just about abortion either.

[uncas]

Chelsea has my vote...

[Meerkat]

I'm voting for the President and Mr. Clinton! ;)

[uncas]

That's what scares me...you are not alone...Who is gonna sleep in the Lincoln bedroom...?

Sorry..I could not vote for that woman...if she was running unopposed... :eek:

[ 01-10-2006, 04:05 PM: Message edited by: uncas ]

[Meerkat]

Originally posted by uncas:
That's what scares me...you are not alone...Who is gonna sleep in the Lincoln bedroom...?
2 lesbians on their Honeymoon! ;) :D

[ 01-10-2006, 04:07 PM: Message edited by: Meerkat ]

[troutman]

Uncas, who cares who sleeps where. This bunch has got us in real trouble. Be fair, what's more repugnant; pimping the Lincoln bedroom, boffing Lewinsky or setting us a charity for children to launder illegal contributions. Be fair. What stinks more. Also, they'd be nuts to run her. Got to be Warner or the other guy.

[ 01-10-2006, 04:09 PM: Message edited by: troutman ]

[uncas]

They would have to move Abe...otherwise a tight fit.

[Meerkat]

BTW Unc: who has the most to gain by demonizing Hillary? I don't think it's the Dems...

[Meerkat]

Originally posted by uncas:
They would have to move Abe...otherwise a tight fit.And Abe's boyfriend too! ;)

[uncas]

setting us a charity for children to launder illegal contributions. Be fair. What stinks more.
courtesy of Troutman...

Explain with proof.....please....
I can't believe I am wasting my time on a thread which has become political...but...it is late in the afternoon.

[uncas]

Meer...the funny thing is...her party affiliation has nothing to do with my feelings....If she was a republican...I wouldn't vote for her....
I seriously do not like her...and as far as politicians go...I trust her less than most....
Hell...I'd vote for Ted Kewnnedy over her...and if ya knew me...you would know that this would be catastophic.

[Meerkat]

Well, who would you vote for in a Cheney vs. Hillary race?

[uncas]

Any independents running....

[Meerkat]

When was the last time we had an independent in a general election?

The question is: who do you hate less? ;)

[uncas]

Perot....Anderson....I'm not sure..Certainly when it comes to a truly independent.....Jackson...but I think he was a member of another party...Then again, don't think much of him either...
Now if elections were determined by who we hate less....I'd probably vote for Chenny and hope he picks a worthy VP. For obvious reasons.

[ 01-10-2006, 04:28 PM: Message edited by: uncas ]

[Alan D. Hyde]

David, I am not "anti-choice," but, since the scientific evidence at this point seems to strongly indicate that a fetus can hear, think, taste, and feel at around the third month of development (what once was called "quickening"), then to kill the fetus after that time may be murder, unless the mother's health makes it necessary to choose between the mother and the child. The great majority of cases of rape, and possibly many of incest, could be dealt with--- if need be--- prior to the end of this first trimester.

Alan

[ 01-10-2006, 04:32 PM: Message edited by: Alan D. Hyde ]

[uncas]

Alan...wrong thread or is this a major...bigtime hijack...

[Donn]

No, Unc...he's responding to one of Meerkat's earlier posts...up the thread.

[troutman]

Uncas, you want proof? It's on the way. You don't have to take up for a crook just because he's in your party. I'm a liberal and I had to cut Carter loose after letting that embassy fall without a shot. The whole charity thing is in the media regularly. Think he wouldn't? (oops the liberal media, I doubt Rush will mention it).

[ 01-10-2006, 04:41 PM: Message edited by: troutman ]

[uncas]

Troutman...watch out...I voted for Carter.... :D

[Billy Bones]

Anyone actually met her? I spoke with her briefly and shook her hand shortly after she became Frost Lady, back in the days of my idealistic youth when I leaned Democratic.

Understand I'm someone who loves and adores empowered successful women. My wife is my first best example and have and will continue to support her in any way and in any direction she chooses.

But that meeting with Mrs. Clinton was eye-opening. There is nothing resembling leadership in her presence. She carries herself like a skillful mercenary.

There would have to be some truely dreadful candidates opposing her.

[Meerkat]

Originally posted by Alan D. Hyde:
David, I am not "anti-choice," but, since the scientific evidence at this point seems to strongly indicate that a fetus can hear, think, taste, and feel at around the third month of development (what once was called "quickening"), then to kill the fetus after that time may be murder, unless the mother's health makes it necessary to choose between the mother and the child. The great majority of cases of rape, and possibly many of incest, could be dealt with--- if need be--- prior to the end of this first trimester.

AlanWRT to abortion, perhaps we differ only in details. I think abortion is ok up to the end of the 2nd trimester. Activities similar to the "quickening" you refer to is demonstrable in the lab with pithed frogs, or even just the frog's legs. IOW, just a nerve reaction, not necessarily a higher brain response.

I also said it wasn't just about abortion: gay marriage is another anti-choice issue of the conservatives. In fact, the general premise of conservatives seems to be that government has a right to decide what people may and may not do in their personal lives, according to particular conservative beliefs.

[Harry Miller]

Correct! There's hope for you yet, backboy! That's backbay (and harbor) - if there still there.

[uncas]

Well, I listed my cons. and liberal tendencies earlier...will stick by them...Meer all you have listed...coming from a reg...although not nec. voting rep...are part of my liberal tendencies.

[Keith Wilson]

. . . since the scientific evidence at this point seems to strongly indicate that a fetus can hear, think, taste, and feel at around the third month of development Actually, Alan, from what I know of the research, it doesn't. Brain development is not sufficient to allow anything that could be reasonably called "thinking" until the fifth month at least, and probably nearer the sixth. The wiring just isn't complete. Certain automatic nervous systems functions are working earlier, but the part that is characteristic of humans develops fairly late. I will admit, it is VERY hard to find any summary of the research in layman’s language that is not attempting to argue one side or the other. And lest this turn into another abortion thread, I won’t post any more on the subject.

About the definition of conservative and liberal, and how they are applied in current US politics, I agree that the words are so far removed for their roots as to be little more than a conventional label, like “red states” and “blue states”. There is one thing that does seem to reliably differentiate the positions, however: If a policy tends to either increase disparities of wealth and income, or increases the effect of such disparities, conservatives are always for it.

[Norman Bernstein]

If a policy tends to either increase disparities of wealth and income, or increases the effect of such disparities, conservatives are always for it. Interesting, Keith. I'd always observed that as an effect of conservative policies, not the intent of conservative policies. As I sit here, I honestly can't think of any conservative principles or causes that would result in the reverse of that effect, though... maybe Alan can come up with one.

[ 01-10-2006, 05:25 PM: Message edited by: Norman Bernstein ]

[Keith Wilson]

Oh, I don't know about intent (telepathy not being my strong point). I was speaking of effects. I tried hard to think of an exception, but I can't.

[Rick Clark]

Unc said that he was going to load up the boat and go 16 miles out to sea, I'm thinking he wants to be free of what the government has control over, he- himself. I think that a lot of us would like to be out from under the thumb of this administration.


MeerIn fact, the general premise of conservatives seems to be that government has a right to decide what people may and may not do in their personal lives, according to particular conservative belief.

Scenarios: If you really think that there is a real need for an abortion have a hospital boat 30 miles off shore. Only after it is certain that it is needed as in the following>>> rape, or a family member was responsible for the pregnancy and any other reason with out a doubt in a court of law.

The lady take a boat ride for the day and takes care of her needs, not that of anyone else.

I guess that in International waters there is not much anyone could do about it as the boat is on the move all the time, less bombing in the city.

Just a Scenario :(

[Meerkat]

Here's a scenario for you: all males, upon reaching the age of 50, must have their testes removed to prevent the possiblity of birth defects.

If the government is given the power to decide what a woman can do with her reproductive organs, why not men's too?

[ 01-10-2006, 07:50 PM: Message edited by: Meerkat ]