OT: Political Definition of Conservative/Liberal
Ben Holmes
the two major political parties in America today, the Democratic
Party, and the Republican Party. As one author comments:
"The secret ballot was a well-intended democratic innovation designed
to provide voters with enough privacy to vote their true convictions
without fear of reprisal. Unfortunately it is an innovation that also
manifests a concomitant desire to think and even learn about politics
in private so as to, again, avoid possible reprisals from a public
revelation of political positions and, additionally, the acrimony that
often accompanies adversarial democratic politics. With such an
attitude, it is no wonder that 60-70% of us don't know the difference
between Democrats and Republicans and that by default we send equal
numbers of Democrats and Republicans to Washington where they proceed
to divide and grid-lock the governmental process."
In this post, I'm going to concentrate my efforts on describing the
differences between a "Liberal", and a "Conservative". Party
definitions of what a Republican, or a Democrat are, tend to shift
over time, but the underlying political philosophy, which can be
described with the terms Liberal and Conservative, stay the same. For
example, Republicans were defined as the "Anti-Slavery" party in the
1860's, but that definition hardly applies today. The underlying
philosophy that led to these definitions have not changed.
The first attempt for most people is to examine what the dictionary
says about "Liberals" and "Conservatives". From the Random House 1999
Webster's College Dictionary:
"liberal, adj. 1. favorable to progress or reform, as in political or
religious affairs. 2. [often cap.] designating or pertaining to a
political party advocating measures of progressive political reform.
3. pertaining to, based on, or having views or policies advocating
individual freedom of action and expression. 4. of or pertaining to
representational forms of government rather than aristocracies and
monarchies. 5. free from prejudice or bigotry; tolerant. 6. free of or
not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc.;
openminded. 7. characterized by generosity and willingness to give in
large amounts. 8. given freely or abundantly; generous. 9. not strict
or rigorous; free; not literal: a liberal interpretation of a rule.
10. of, pertaining to, or based on the liberal arts: a liberal
education. -- n. 11. a person of liberal principles or views. 12.
(often cap.) a member of a liberal political party, esp. the Liberal
Party in Great Britain. [1325-75]"
"conservative, adj. 1. disposed to preserve existing conditions,
institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to
limit change. 2. cautiously moderate: a conservative estimate. 3.
traditional in style or manner; avoiding novelty or showiness: a
conservative suit. 4. (cap.) of or pertaining to a conservative
political party, esp. the Conservative Party of Great Britain. 5. of
or pertaining to political conservatism. 6. (cap.) conforming to or
characteristic of Conservative Judaism. 7. having the power or
tendency to conserve; preservative. -- n. 8. a person who is
conservative in principles, actions, habits, etc. 9. a supporter of
conservative political policies. 10. (cap.) a member of a conservative
political party, esp. the Conservative Party of Great Britain. 11. a
preservative. [1350-1400]"
This concept of attempting to use just the dictionary meanings can be
found in posts by various people, and websites have followed this same
path... here's two examples:
http://www.politicalstrikes.com/thesaurus.html
http://www.thehemperor.net/nontesters/thehemperor/liberal.htm
Here is another rather interesting discussion of the issue.
http://www.deanesmay.com/archives/000052.html
The dictionary meaning give only the barest outlines of what the basic
fundamental philosophy that underlies these two political belief
systems. Attempting to rely on the idea that Liberals are "generous,
progressive, and reforming" and Conservatives are "cautious and tend
to conserve/preserve" is to completely misunderstand the terms as used
in today's political debates.
Somewhat better is to look to a dictionary designed for political
definitions. The Harper Collins "American Government & Politics"
dictionary provides the following:
"liberal: 1. An advocate of political and social reform, expanding
government control of the economy, greater efforts on behalf of the
poor, and more laws protecting consumers, the environment, and
criminal defendants. (Because of this last concern, it is often said
that a liberal is a CONSERVATIVE who has been arrested.) During the
1988 presidential election, the Republican candidate George Bush
effectively used what he called "the L word" against Democratic
candidate Michael Dukakis, who was trying to avoid political labels
and run on the issue of competence. Only toward the end of the
campaign, after it was too late to do any good, did Dukakis admit he
was a liberal -- and proud of it. But by that time the Republicans had
effectively insinuated that "liberal" was a dirty word, and Dukakis
simply wasn't competent enough to clean it up. 2. When referring to
trade policy, relative freedom of controls or restraints. The most
liberal trade is free trade."
"Conservative: One who believes in conservatism. But conservatives are
seldom pure. The new right is a major variant and many conservatives
are closet LIBERALS. For example, Republican Representative Trent Lott
of Mississippi said: "Americans think of themselves as conservatives;
they want government reduced. But in their hearts they're liberals;
they want money for sewers and libraries and all the goodies coming
in. It's a fact" (The New York Times, November 18, 1982). Another
Republican Representative, Clay Shaw of Florida, confessed: "Every
conservative becomes a liberal when he talks about his own district"
(The New York Times, January 18, 1981). Even the nation's leading
conservative officeholder, President George Bush, once admitted that
he was "a conservative but... not a nut about it" (The Washington
Post, November 3, 1984). The reality is that most Americans, the
mainstream of society, have both conservative and liberal inclinations
depending upon a given issue and how they perceive their economic
circumstances. Purity is to be found only among the LUNATIC FRINGE."
It can be seen that by using a more specific dictionary, we approach
more accurately the meanings of the terms as commonly used in
politics. But for the underlying philosophy of each term, it's
necessary to move away from dictionaries and begin a little actual
research. Taken from the textbook, "The Challenge of Democracy -
Government in America":
"In popular usage, liberals favor a broader scope of government
whereas conservatives would narrow the scope. This distinction
applies clearly to government action in providing for public goods.
Liberals favor generous government support for education, wildlife
protection, public transportation, and so forth. Conservatives favor
fewer government programs and smaller government budgets. In
particular, conservatives favor free enterprise and oppose government
activism in economic matters, such as undertaking major job programs,
regulating business operations, and legislating working conditions and
wage rates."
As can be seen, by using textbooks on politics, we are moving away
from simplistic "reform" and "preserve" definitions that are commonly
found in dictionaries. The textbook "Government by the People" offers
these definitions:
"In its modern American usage, Liberalism refers to a belief in the
positive uses of government to bring about justice and equality of
opportunity. Modern day liberals wish to preserve the rights of the
individual and the right to own private property, yet they are willing
to have the government intervene in the economy to remedy the defects
of capitalism. Contemporary American liberalism has its roots in
Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal programs, designed to aid the poor
and to protect people against unemployment and bank failures. Today
liberals seek protection against inadequate or deficient medical
assistance and inadequate or deficient housing and education. They
generally believe in affirmative action programs, regulations that
protect workers' health and safety, tax rates that rise with income,
and the right of unions to organize as well as to strike."
"In contrast to liberals, conservatives want to keep government small,
except in the area of national defense. However, because
conservatives take a more pessimistic view of human nature than
liberals do, they maintain that people need strong leadership
institutions, firm laws, and strict moral codes to keep their
appetites under control. Government, they think, needs to ensure
order... Conservatives are also inclined to believe that those who
fail in life are in some way the architects of their own misfortune
and thus must bear the main responsibility for solving their own
problems."
The textbook "American Government - People, Institution, and Policies"
comments that:
"Conservatism and Liberalism. To make our discussion of these two
leading ideologies as clear as possible, let us begin with the
extremes. A person who takes conservative stances across the board
would oppose government intervention into the economy, oppose social
programs, and favor governmental intervention to uphold morality. He
or she would want a strong military and be willing to use force to
obtain desired ends in foreign policy. A person who took
across-the-board liberal stands would favor government intervention
into markets, favor social program to help the needy, oppose
governmental restrictions on morals and private activities, and oppose
military expansion. Liberalism and conservatism are ideologies
because each links together positions across a variety of issues."
This textbook also includes an interesting chart that shows the
inter-relationships and ideology:
More Government ------------------------------- Less Government
Socialism ----- Liberalism ----- Conservatism ----- Libertarianism
Values:
Guarantee equal --- Freedom ------- Freedom ---- Individual
Distribution of ------- and Political --- and Order ---- liberty;
Wealth, social ------- Equality ---------------------------- Laissez
Equality ------------------------------------------------------- Faire
-------------------------------------------------------------- Economy
While this is good, certainly every text I've seen agrees when it
comes to government, this book lists "Values", and it seems that there
may be an alternative that is preferable. In "Are You a Republican or
a Democrat" by O'Leary and Kamber, the statement is offered that:
"Whether you're a liberal of a conservative has a lot to do with how
you view human nature. Liberal philosophers like Jean Jacques
Rousseau believed that people were naturally good and only corrupted
by the evil world. Therefore, a government that protected and
developed that natural goodness was necessary. Conservative
philosophers like Thomas Hobbes believed that it was human nature to
be subdued by evil and that government should be used to protect
people from each other."
This immediately makes understandable the differences on many issues
between Liberals and Conservatives... for example, Liberals don't
believe in the death penalty... why would you offer the supreme
punishment to a good man who was corrupted by forces beyond his
control? Rather, let us attempt to control those forces that led him
to his crime, such as poverty, child neglect, poor education, and so
on. Conservatives, on the other hand, see crime as a moral issue, and
believe that transgressions against society must be paid for. This
explains why Conservatives are for the death penalty.
On almost any issue, it becomes apparent why the Liberal/Conservative
takes the position he does, once you understand these two underlying
philosophical differences... how one views human nature, and what the
purpose of government is.
(Just a side note here: Interesting to point out that Christians are
more often found among Conservatives, for as Romans 3:23 points out,
"For all have sinned, and come short of the Glory of God". This is
the Conservative view of human nature. And while you don't have to be
religious to be Conservative, it's a fact that a large fraction of
those who consider themselves conservative also consider themselves
religious.)
Another example that becomes clear [once the philosophy is understood]
is the favor Conservatives appear to show to the "rich", vice the
disdain of the Liberals. Conservatives believe that individuals are
responsible for their own actions, and applaud those who have, through
their own hard work, achieved wealth. Liberals, believing that all
men are equally good, see no reason for one person to so dramatically
achieve wealth above others, and will tend to assume criminal
behavior. And, as all people are equally good, will prefer to "level
the playing field" by inordinately taxing the wealthy.
There can be a greater divide between two people of the same party
than between two of opposing parties... for example, Pat Buchanan, who
is rather to the right of most Republicans, and John McCain, who would
fit so easily in the Democratic Party that no-one would complain of
any conservative streak. So it can be difficult to label people on
the basis of their professed political party. But there's no doubt in
people's minds that Pat Buchanan is Conservative, and John McCain is
Liberal. This explains why it can sometimes be more accurate to use
the terms "Liberal" and "Conservative", rather than Democrat or
Republican.
Robert Olin
not liberal has no heart and a 40 year old who is still liberal has no
head. How about a political party that lets you keep more of your hard
earned money , while not trying to control your social freedoms.
RO
"Ben Holmes" <bnho...@rain.org> wrote in message
news:oimi5vcliuahg98m9...@4ax.com...
Ben Holmes
wrote:
>A very good comparson. I've also heard it said that a 20 year old who is
>not liberal has no heart and a 40 year old who is still liberal has no
>head.
I've heard a number of variations on this, attributed to various
people... a good treatment of the various attributes/quotes can be
found here: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/5952/unquote.html
My purpose in writing the below post isn't to start another
"Conservatives are better than liberals" post, (which would rightfully
find its place in another newsgroup), but just to clarify something
that many people are unaware of.
>How about a political party that lets you keep more of your hard
>earned money , while not trying to control your social freedoms.
>RO
That's called a "Libertarian". Many times mistaken for a
Conservative, but quite different. I've quoted Libertarian Larry
Elder in past posts, and find his talk show worth listening to.
Rule
Well, here I am back again. I just can't resist, I guess...
Since you asked, the source I used for the definition of "Establishment" in
the context I was using it, was "The American Heritage Dictionary of the
English Language". I did not go hunting around for a definition I agreed
with, I just looked it up, and there it was. Same with the other words.
Ben Holmes <bnho...@rain.org> wrote in message
news:oimi5vcliuahg98m9...@4ax.com...
> Most people have only the most vague idea of the differences between
> the two major political parties in America today, the Democratic
> Party, and the Republican Party. As one author comments:
>
> "The secret ballot was a well-intended democratic innovation designed
> to provide voters with enough privacy to vote their true convictions
> without fear of reprisal. Unfortunately it is an innovation that also
> manifests a concomitant desire to think and even learn about politics
> in private so as to, again, avoid possible reprisals from a public
> revelation of political positions and, additionally, the acrimony that
> often accompanies adversarial democratic politics. With such an
> attitude, it is no wonder that 60-70% of us don't know the difference
> between Democrats and Republicans
Lately, we don't see ANY substantive difference. Both sides use the same
tiresome rhetoric, just like the man said. After awhile, a lot of folks get
just plain bored with the same old bullshit.
and that by default we send equal
> numbers of Democrats and Republicans to Washington where they proceed
> to divide and grid-lock the governmental process."
And, depending on who the government is proposing to "process", that may or
may not be a good thing. But before we start counting votes next time,
let's make sure those doing the count are doing it honestly, and that we are
allowed to hear some alternatives to business-as-usual. I wonder why Nader
was not allowed to debate the main candidates on TV? After all, it is a
"liberally-biased media", and Nader is a self-confessed liberal, ain't he
Ben?
>
> In this post, I'm going to concentrate my efforts on describing the
> differences between a "Liberal", and a "Conservative". Party
> definitions of what a Republican, or a Democrat are, tend to shift
> over time, but the underlying political philosophy, which can be
> described with the terms Liberal and Conservative, stay the same. For
> example, Republicans were defined as the "Anti-Slavery" party in the
> 1860's, but that definition hardly applies today. The underlying
> philosophy that led to these definitions have not changed.
Except that the definition "hardly applies today"... I see.
> The first attempt for most people is to examine what the dictionary
> says about "Liberals" and "Conservatives". From the Random House 1999
> Webster's College Dictionary:
>
> "liberal, adj. 1. favorable to progress or reform, as in political or
> religious affairs. 2. [often cap.] designating or pertaining to a
> political party advocating measures of progressive political reform.
> 3. pertaining to, based on, or having views or policies advocating
> individual freedom of action and expression. 4. of or pertaining to
> representational forms of government rather than aristocracies and
> monarchies. 5. free from prejudice or bigotry; tolerant. 6. free of or
> not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc.;
> openminded. 7. characterized by generosity and willingness to give in
> large amounts. 8. given freely or abundantly; generous. 9. not strict
> or rigorous; free; not literal: a liberal interpretation of a rule.
> 10. of, pertaining to, or based on the liberal arts: a liberal
> education. -- n. 11. a person of liberal principles or views. 12.
> (often cap.) a member of a liberal political party, esp. the Liberal
> Party in Great Britain. [1325-75]"
Why those BASTARDS! How DARE they espouse such views!
>
> "conservative, adj. 1. disposed to preserve existing conditions,
> institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to
> limit change. 2. cautiously moderate: a conservative estimate. 3.
> traditional in style or manner; avoiding novelty or showiness: a
> conservative suit. 4. (cap.) of or pertaining to a conservative
> political party, esp. the Conservative Party of Great Britain. 5. of
> or pertaining to political conservatism. 6. (cap.) conforming to or
> characteristic of Conservative Judaism. 7. having the power or
> tendency to conserve; preservative. -- n. 8. a person who is
> conservative in principles, actions, habits, etc. 9. a supporter of
> conservative political policies. 10. (cap.) a member of a conservative
> political party, esp. the Conservative Party of Great Britain. 11. a
> preservative. [1350-1400]"
Why those BASTARDS! How DARE they espouse those views!
>
> This concept of attempting to use just the dictionary meanings can be
> found in posts by various people, and websites have followed this same
> path... here's two examples:
>
> http://www.politicalstrikes.com/thesaurus.html
> http://www.thehemperor.net/nontesters/thehemperor/liberal.htm
>
> Here is another rather interesting discussion of the issue.
> http://www.deanesmay.com/archives/000052.html
I'm sure your examples are swell, Ben, and I'll look at them later. But I
ain't answering them right now, I'm talking to you.
>
>
> The dictionary meaning give only the barest outlines of what the basic
> fundamental philosophy that underlies these two political belief
> systems. Attempting to rely on the idea that Liberals are "generous,
> progressive, and reforming" and Conservatives are "cautious and tend
> to conserve/preserve" is to completely misunderstand the terms as used
> in today's political debates.
-- by corporate lackeys. (You didn't finish your sentence.)
>
> Somewhat better is to look to a dictionary designed for political
> definitions. The Harper Collins "American Government & Politics"
> dictionary provides the following:
>
> "liberal: 1. An advocate of political and social reform, expanding
> government control of the economy, greater efforts on behalf of the
> poor, and more laws protecting consumers, the environment, and
> criminal defendants.
Why those idiots have never even bothered to look up the word! If they did,
they would find their OWN goddam label, such as maybe the idiot fringe of
the DEMOCRATS, and leave us poor ol' espousers of liberalism alone.
(Because of this last concern, it is often said
> that a liberal is a CONSERVATIVE who has been arrested.)
Why that was just darling, Ben. But said by whom?
During the
> 1988 presidential election, the Republican candidate George Bush
> effectively used what he called "the L word" against Democratic
> candidate Michael Dukakis, who was trying to avoid political labels
> and run on the issue of competence.
Why that son-of-a-bitch! How DARE he mess with the usual bullshit aproach
to political debate and bring up what might be possibly be called an
"issue".
Only toward the end of the
> campaign, after it was too late to do any good, did Dukakis admit he
> was a liberal -- and proud of it. But by that time the Republicans had
> effectively insinuated that "liberal" was a dirty word,
Which it has become! Gee! I wonder why?
and Dukakis
> simply wasn't competent enough to clean it up. 2. When referring to
> trade policy, relative freedom of controls or restraints. The most
> liberal trade is free trade."
>
> "Conservative: One who believes in conservatism. But conservatives are
> seldom pure. The new right is a major variant and many conservatives
> are closet LIBERALS. For example, Republican Representative Trent Lott
> of Mississippi said: "Americans think of themselves as conservatives;
> they want government reduced. But in their hearts they're liberals;
> they want money for sewers and libraries and all the goodies coming
> in. It's a fact"
I see. Trent Lott thinks liberals want their tax moneys to go toward
sewers, and libraries and stuff... And where, pray tell, do Conservatives
want their tax moneys to go? Let me guess; military hardware, big armies,
big prisons and into the pockets of the owners of "private schools", right?
(The New York Times, November 18, 1982). Another
> Republican Representative, Clay Shaw of Florida, confessed: "Every
> conservative becomes a liberal when he talks about his own district"
> (The New York Times, January 18, 1981). Even the nation's leading
> conservative officeholder, President George Bush, once admitted that
> he was "a conservative but... not a nut about it" (The Washington
> Post, November 3, 1984). The reality is that most Americans, the
> mainstream of society, have both conservative and liberal inclinations
> depending upon a given issue and how they perceive their economic
> circumstances. Purity is to be found only among the LUNATIC FRINGE."
>
> It can be seen that by using a more specific dictionary, we approach
> more accurately the meanings of the terms as commonly used in
> politics.
-- by demagogues with axes to grind. (You really must learn to finish your
sentences, Ben.)
But for the underlying philosophy of each term, it's
> necessary to move away from dictionaries and begin a little actual
> research. Taken from the textbook, "The Challenge of Democracy -
> Government in America":
>
> "In popular usage, liberals favor a broader scope of government
> whereas conservatives would narrow the scope. This distinction
> applies clearly to government action in providing for public goods.
> Liberals favor generous government support for education, wildlife
> protection, public transportation, and so forth. Conservatives favor
> fewer government programs and smaller government budgets. In
> particular, conservatives favor free enterprise and oppose government
> activism in economic matters, such as undertaking major job programs,
> regulating business operations, and legislating working conditions and
> wage rates."
Go on! Go on! This is SO fun.
>
> As can be seen, by using textbooks on politics, we are moving away
> from simplistic "reform" and "preserve" definitions that are commonly
> found in dictionaries. The textbook "Government by the People" offers
> these definitions:
>
> "In its modern American usage, Liberalism refers to a belief in the
> positive uses of government to bring about justice and equality of
> opportunity. Modern day liberals wish to preserve the rights of the
> individual and the right to own private property, yet they are willing
> to have the government intervene in the economy to remedy the defects
> of capitalism. Contemporary American liberalism has its roots in
> Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal programs, designed to aid the poor
> and to protect people against unemployment and bank failures. Today
> liberals seek protection against inadequate or deficient medical
> assistance and inadequate or deficient housing and education. They
> generally believe in affirmative action programs, regulations that
> protect workers' health and safety, tax rates that rise with income,
> and the right of unions to organize as well as to strike."
Why the BASTARDS! (See above.) And, since as you say, Conservatives are at
the other end of the "spectrum", they must OPPOSE all of the above, right?
>
> "In contrast to liberals, conservatives want to keep government small,
> except in the area of national defense. However, because
> conservatives take a more pessimistic view of human nature than
> liberals do, they maintain that people need strong leadership
> institutions, firm laws, and strict moral codes to keep their
> appetites under control. Government, they think, needs to ensure
> order... Conservatives are also inclined to believe that those who
> fail in life are in some way the architects of their own misfortune
> and thus must bear the main responsibility for solving their own
> problems."
In other words, fuck the poor, give the cops more leeway, build more
prisons, draft bigger armies, and tell the sinners to STOP IT. See how I'm
catching on, Ben?
>
> The textbook "American Government - People, Institution, and Policies"
> comments that:
>
> "Conservatism and Liberalism. To make our discussion of these two
> leading ideologies as clear as possible, let us begin with the
> extremes. A person who takes conservative stances across the board
> would oppose government intervention into the economy, oppose social
> programs, and favor governmental intervention to uphold morality. He
> or she would want a strong military and be willing to use force to
> obtain desired ends in foreign policy.
Gee! What lovely people!
> A person who took
> across-the-board liberal stands would favor government intervention
> into markets, favor social program to help the needy, oppose
> governmental restrictions on morals and private activities, and oppose
> military expansion. Liberalism and conservatism are ideologies
> because each links together positions across a variety of issues."
>
> This textbook also includes an interesting chart that shows the
> inter-relationships and ideology:
>
> More Government ------------------------------- Less Government
> Socialism ----- Liberalism ----- Conservatism ----- Libertarianism
>
> Values:
> Guarantee equal --- Freedom ------- Freedom ---- Individual
> Distribution of ------- and Political --- and Order ---- liberty;
> Wealth, social ------- Equality ---------------------------- Laissez
> Equality ------------------------------------------------------- Faire
> -------------------------------------------------------------- Economy
>
> While this is good,
Good! It's TERRIFIC. It must be, since I cannot make head or tail of it.
certainly every text I've seen agrees when it
> comes to government, this book lists "Values", and it seems that there
> may be an alternative that is preferable. In "Are You a Republican or
> a Democrat" by O'Leary and Kamber, the statement is offered that:
>
> "Whether you're a liberal of a conservative has a lot to do with how
> you view human nature. Liberal philosophers like Jean Jacques
> Rousseau believed that people were naturally good and only corrupted
> by the evil world. Therefore, a government that protected and
> developed that natural goodness was necessary. Conservative
> philosophers like Thomas Hobbes believed that it was human nature to
> be subdued by evil and that government should be used to protect
> people from each other."
By punishing the shit out of them, I presume. But who punishes the
government? It is, after all, made up of people who are human too, and thus
prone to be "subdued by evil" also. (Or did you mean "subverted"? Not that
it makes much difference.)
>
> This immediately makes understandable the differences on many issues
> between Liberals and Conservatives... for example, Liberals don't
> believe in the death penalty... why would you offer the supreme
> punishment to a good man who was corrupted by forces beyond his
> control?
A "good" man, huh? Talk about loading the statement. But ahhhh yes.
Punishment! (Revenge is sweet!) Personally, I'd prefer certain dangerous
folks (such as wife-beaters, child-molesters and sadists who love starting
fights with ordinary folks so they can show off their fighting-prowess) be
exiled to a nice remote island somewhere, no guards, no authorities, no
overseers, no imported foodstuffs, nothing but sufficient hand tools to
allow the cultivation of gardens and the harvesting of fish, where if they
cannot get along with the folks already placed there, they will quickly be
dispatched. It should cost a lot less than the $27,000/year we now spend
keeping certain of these murderous bastards alive and it would give the Navy
something really useful to do, namely making sure they stay there. Now,
what are we going to do with all the guys who smoked or sold pot, you
Libertarian you?
Rather, let us attempt to control those forces that led him
> to his crime, such as poverty, child neglect, poor education, and so
> on. Conservatives, on the other hand, see crime as a moral issue, and
> believe that transgressions against society must be paid for. This
> explains why Conservatives are for the death penalty.
>
> On almost any issue, it becomes apparent why the Liberal/Conservative
> takes the position he does, once you understand these two underlying
> philosophical differences... how one views human nature, and what the
> purpose of government is.
I got it now! The Liberal thinks the government should help people, and the
Conservative thinks the government should punish people! Hot dog! It's so
simple now that you and your authoritative sources have explained it!
>
> (Just a side note here: Interesting to point out that Christians are
> more often found among Conservatives, for as Romans 3:23 points out,
> "For all have sinned, and come short of the Glory of God". This is
> the Conservative view of human nature. And while you don't have to be
> religious to be Conservative, it's a fact that a large fraction of
> those who consider themselves conservative also consider themselves
> religious.)
Right! Got it! Christians think people stink, and are beyond redemption,
(at least down here) and therefore should be killed and/or punished. But if
Christians are people too... My God! Are they advocating suicide? Or just
murder and torture? (No wonder some of those old time Christian ascetics
whipped themselves! They were Conservatives, and thus deserved living in
self-inflicted pain because they realized that they too were people and
basically no damned good!)
>
> Another example that becomes clear [once the philosophy is understood]
> is the favor Conservatives appear to show to the "rich", vice the
> disdain of the Liberals. Conservatives believe that individuals are
> responsible for their own actions, and applaud those who have, through
> their own hard work, achieved wealth. Liberals, believing that all
> men are equally good, see no reason for one person to so dramatically
> achieve wealth above others, and will tend to assume criminal
> behavior. And, as all people are equally good, will prefer to "level
> the playing field" by inordinately taxing the wealthy.
I see! Conservatives believe the rich should be applauded for getting rich,
and the playing field shouldn't be level! Good! Got it! But wait! What
about those who inherited their wealth and never "through their own hard
work, achieved it"? Is it okay if we "inordinately" tax them?
>
> There can be a greater divide between two people of the same party
> than between two of opposing parties... for example, Pat Buchanan, who
> is rather to the right of most Republicans, and John McCain, who would
> fit so easily in the Democratic Party that no-one would complain of
> any conservative streak. So it can be difficult to label people on
> the basis of their professed political party. But there's no doubt in
> people's minds that Pat Buchanan is Conservative, and John McCain is
> Liberal. This explains why it can sometimes be more accurate to use
> the terms "Liberal" and "Conservative", rather than Democrat or
> Republican.
Uh oh! I thought I had it there for a second, but now you're telling me
that there is a difference between "Liberal" and "Democrat", and
"Conservative" and "Republican". But haven't you been saying all along
that a "Republican" cannot be liberal and a "Democrat" cannot be
conservative?
Jeez. Now I'm all confused again.
I give up. (Until next time, when I will explain to you by a starting a
fresh new thread, why this discussion has gone in circles since its
inception.)
Rule
art guerrilla
rule ruled -
> But by that time the Republicans had
>> effectively insinuated that "liberal" was a dirty word,
>Which it has become! Gee! I wonder why?
'cause the devious liberal (*ptui*) media
beat that drum so long and hard -you
remember all the konservatives who were
averring otherwise, right ? ? ?- so that
all the li'l peeps would have sympathy
for the debbil being stigmatized...
hee hee hee
ho ho ho
ha ha ha
ak ak ak
ann debbil-debbil archy
eof
Ben Holmes
>
>
>Well, here I am back again. I just can't resist, I guess...
>
>Since you asked, the source I used for the definition of "Establishment" in
>the context I was using it, was "The American Heritage Dictionary of the
>English Language". I did not go hunting around for a definition I agreed
>with, I just looked it up, and there it was. Same with the other words.
I hope you can tell me that the online version is different than your version.
If not, then you've not been honest.
This is what is given by the American Heritage Dictionary on the net:
1a. The act of establishing. b. The condition or fact of being established. 2.
Something established, as: a. An arranged order or system, especially a legal
code. b. A permanent civil, political, or military organization. c. An
established church. d. A place of residence or business with its possessions and
staff. e. A public or private institution, such as a hospital or school. 3.
often Establishment An established social order, as: a. A group of people
holding most of the power and influence in a government or society. Often used
with the. b. A controlling group in a given field of activity. Often used with
the.
Again, nothing about "private" agreements, or "conservatives".
Rule
> In article <SFj6a.217777$iG3.26805@sccrnsc02>, "Rule" says...
> >
> >
> >Well, here I am back again. I just can't resist, I guess...
> >
> >Since you asked, the source I used for the definition of "Establishment"
in
> >the context I was using it, was "The American Heritage Dictionary of the
> >English Language". I did not go hunting around for a definition I agreed
> >with, I just looked it up, and there it was. Same with the other words.
>
> I hope you can tell me that the online version is different than your
version.
> If not, then you've not been honest.
I am so sorry. I didn't use the online version, I used the dictionary
sitting on my desk next to me. I'll certainly know better next time. Silly
me.
>
> This is what is given by the American Heritage Dictionary on the net:
>
> 1a. The act of establishing. b. The condition or fact of being
established. 2.
> Something established, as: a. An arranged order or system, especially a
legal
> code. b. A permanent civil, political, or military organization. c. An
> established church. d. A place of residence or business with its
possessions andagreements
> staff. e. A public or private institution, such as a hospital or school.
3.
> often Establishment An established social order, as: a. A group of people
> holding most of the power and influence in a government or society. Often
used
> with the. b. A controlling group in a given field of activity. Often used
with
> the.
>
> Again, nothing about "private" agreements, or "conservatives".
As I've said, I gave my definition from the dictionary I own. The last
copyright listed was 1981.
I'll type it out here in all it's glory, although I think it's overkill.
e-stab-lish-ment (I presume you know how to pronounce it)
n. 1. The act of establishing. 2. The condition or fact of being
established. 3. a. A business, firm, club, institution, or residence,
including its members or occupants. b. A place of business, including the
possessions and employees. c. Any organized group, such as a government,
political party or military force. 4. Capital E. a. an established church.
5. usually capital E. An exclusive group of powerful people who rule a
government or society by means of private agreements and decisions. b. A
powerful group that tacitly controls a given field of activity, usually in a
conservative manner (as in) the Literary Establishment.
Jeepers! I guess mine must have been written by (gasp) LIBERALS spouting
subversive left-wing propaganda, right?
In any case, I'll accept "A group of people holding most of the power and
influence in a government or society." -- and add that unless one is
totally naive, one must accept that holding on to power and influence often
involves private agreements and decisions, and since those within the
Establishment HAVE power and influence and often exclude others, it would be
my guess that they'd want to "conserve" the exclusivity, power and influence
they possess in any way they can.
Wouldn't you if you were them? I sure would.
Now shall we argue about which dictionary is "correct"? (Oh dammit, I
forgot again! YOURS is.)
Rule
Rule
>> http://www.thehemperor.net/nontesters/thehemperor/liberal.htm
>>
>> Here is another rather interesting discussion of the issue.
>> http://www.deanesmay.com/archives/000052.html
Durn, Ben! I just went to the links you furnished (above). Which side of
this debate are you arguing?
Mine?
Now I'm REALLY confused.
Rule
latisha
> Most people have only the most vague idea of the differences between
> the two major political parties in America today, the Democratic
> Party, and the Republican Party.
The more intelligent among us see very little difference in that
neither offers any hope of releasing the stranglehold the
Establishment has on American society. In fact both are whores for the
Establishment. This is probably the best explanation for why so many
choose not to vote, as they realize neither party really represents
their interests.
As one author comments:
>
> "The secret ballot was a well-intended democratic innovation designed
> to provide voters with enough privacy to vote their true convictions
> without fear of reprisal. Unfortunately it is an innovation that also
> manifests a concomitant desire to think and even learn about politics
> in private so as to, again, avoid possible reprisals from a public
> revelation of political positions and, additionally, the acrimony that
> often accompanies adversarial democratic politics. With such an
> attitude, it is no wonder that 60-70% of us don't know the difference
> between Democrats and Republicans and that by default we send equal
> numbers of Democrats and Republicans to Washington where they proceed
> to divide and grid-lock the governmental process."
This is because we are given very little choice on issues, with no
middle ground. Want to own as many Uzi's as you'd like? Well you
better vote Republican, reagardless of your beliefs on other issues.
Do you believe the Federal Government should ensure that racism
doesn't effect hiring practices(since many states historically have
discriminated at will when left on their own) better vote Democrat.
>
> In this post, I'm going to concentrate my efforts on describing the
> differences between a "Liberal", and a "Conservative". Party
> definitions of what a Republican, or a Democrat are, tend to shift
> over time, but the underlying political philosophy, which can be
> described with the terms Liberal and Conservative, stay the same.
But Ben says they haven't and has refuted himself with this post,
which I find very funny. Liberals can not be called Republicans,
remember Ben?
For
> example, Republicans were defined as the "Anti-Slavery" party in the
> 1860's, but that definition hardly applies today. The underlying
> philosophy that led to these definitions have not changed.
Which is what I claimed all along and which Ben has spent *hours* of
writing trying to deny.
Ah but I thought the underlying philososophy of the schools of thought
didn't chan+ge?
"popularly" used by Establishment whores attempting to tarnish the
name of those seeking to restrain the power of the Establishment,
their pimps.
liberals favor a broader scope of government
> whereas conservatives would narrow the scope.
More so asking the gov't to check abuses of power by corporations,
normally to no avail until outright protest, until near threat of
revolution, was necessary.
This distinction
> applies clearly to government action in providing for public goods.
> Liberals favor generous government support for education, wildlife
> protection, public transportation, and so forth.
Because when left to their own, corproations abused their freedoms
time and time again.
Conservatives favor
> fewer government programs and smaller government budgets. In
> particular, conservatives favor free enterprise and oppose government
> activism in economic matters,
Which also just so happens to be a corporate agenda, though Ben claims
one can't say corporations are conservative. AS I've said before. The
goal of conservatives and the conservative media is to push an agenda
favorable to corporations and sucker enough Americans into believing
it is good for them also. It has worked.
such as undertaking major job programs,
> regulating business operations, and legislating working conditions and
> wage rates."
Translation? Making workers as effecient as possible while paying them
as little as possible.
>
> As can be seen, by using textbooks on politics, we are moving away
> from simplistic "reform" and "preserve" definitions that are commonly
> found in dictionaries.
because the Establishment want no unclean thoughts out there among
Americans that might check their power.
The textbook "Government by the People" offers
> these definitions:
>
> "In its modern American usage, Liberalism refers to a belief in the
> positive uses of government to bring about justice and equality of
> opportunity. Modern day liberals wish to preserve the rights of the
> individual and the right to own private property, yet they are willing
> to have the government intervene in the economy to remedy the defects
> of capitalism.
Who else will? What is the purpose of government if not to protect us?
Our individual interests and those of corporations are *not* the same,
folks. Historically, this has become the last resort and has been
fought tooth and nail by corporations, which is why Rush and Liddy et
al are necessary and you won't hear shit from anti-corporate pundits
in the media.
Contemporary American liberalism has its roots in
> Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal programs, designed to aid the poor
> and to protect people against unemployment and bank failures.
Because corporations unchecked ran the economy to shit.
Today
> liberals seek protection against inadequate or deficient medical
> assistance and inadequate or deficient housing and education. They
> generally believe in affirmative action programs, regulations that
> protect workers' health and safety, tax rates that rise with income,
> and the right of unions to organize as well as to strike."
Which are all good things and promote the interests of what this
country is supposed to be about far more than the conservative agenda,
which simply allows the most pwoerful elements in society to run
ramapant over everyone else.
>
> "In contrast to liberals, conservatives want to keep government small,
> except in the area of national defense.
And individual freedom, unless that individual is a corporation.
However, because
> conservatives take a more pessimistic view of human nature than
> liberals do, they maintain that people need strong leadership
> institutions, firm laws, and strict moral codes to keep their
> appetites under control.
Much like totalitarian governments, though they don't want to check
corporate appetites in the unending quest for profit, the environment
or general welfare of the populace be damned.
Government, they think, needs to ensure
> order... Conservatives are also inclined to believe that those who
> fail in life are in some way the architects of their own misfortune
> and thus must bear the main responsibility for solving their own
> problems."
Which may or may not be true, depending on the situation. If all of us
could only be born into families where we bankrupt every comapany we
run yet still get to be president.
>
> The textbook "American Government - People, Institution, and Policies"
> comments that:
>
> "Conservatism and Liberalism. To make our discussion of these two
> leading ideologies as clear as possible, let us begin with the
> extremes. A person who takes conservative stances across the board
> would oppose government intervention into the economy, oppose social
> programs, and favor governmental intervention to uphold morality. He
> or she would want a strong military and be willing to use force to
> obtain desired ends in foreign policy. A person who took
> across-the-board liberal stands would favor government intervention
> into markets, favor social program to help the needy, oppose
> governmental restrictions on morals and private activities, and oppose
> military expansion. Liberalism and conservatism are ideologies
> because each links together positions across a variety of issues."
One is plus bad, the other plus good, if you get my drift.
>
> This textbook also includes an interesting chart that shows the
> inter-relationships and ideology:
>
> More Government ------------------------------- Less Government
> Socialism ----- Liberalism ----- Conservatism ----- Libertarianism
Socialism is an economic theory where control of the factors of
production are divided between the state and the private sector.
>
> Values:
> Guarantee equal --- Freedom ------- Freedom ---- Individual
> Distribution of ------- and Political --- and Order ---- liberty;
> Wealth, social ------- Equality ---------------------------- Laissez
> Equality ------------------------------------------------------- Faire
> -------------------------------------------------------------- Economy
>
> While this is good, certainly every text I've seen agrees when it
> comes to government, this book lists "Values", and it seems that there
> may be an alternative that is preferable. In "Are You a Republican or
> a Democrat" by O'Leary and Kamber, the statement is offered that:
>
> "Whether you're a liberal of a conservative has a lot to do with how
> you view human nature. Liberal philosophers like Jean Jacques
> Rousseau believed that people were naturally good and only corrupted
> by the evil world. Therefore, a government that protected and
> developed that natural goodness was necessary. Conservative
> philosophers like Thomas Hobbes believed that it was human nature to
> be subdued by evil and that government should be used to protect
> people from each other."
Agree some here, corporations are considered people and we must be
protected from them.
>
> This immediately makes understandable the differences on many issues
> between Liberals and Conservatives.
Than the Lord we have Ben to do this for us.
.. for example, Liberals don't
> believe in the death penalty... why would you offer the supreme
> punishment to a good man who was corrupted by forces beyond his
> control?
this is a double plus bad argument. How about an imperfect legal
system convicting the innocent? How about seeing killing as *always*
wrong?
Rather, let us attempt to control those forces that led him
> to his crime, such as poverty, child neglect, poor education, and so
> on. Conservatives, on the other hand, see crime as a moral issue, and
> believe that transgressions against society must be paid for. This
> explains why Conservatives are for the death penalty.
Until it's one of them accused. Then they believe in getting the best
lawyer money can buy.
>
> On almost any issue, it becomes apparent why the Liberal/Conservative
> takes the position he does, once you understand these two underlying
> philosophical differences... how one views human nature, and what the
> purpose of government is.
One is bullshit and in the interests of a few, the other is for
humanity and what's best for society.
>
> (Just a side note here: Interesting to point out that Christians are
> more often found among Conservatives, for as Romans 3:23 points out,
> "For all have sinned, and come short of the Glory of God". This is
> the Conservative view of human nature. And while you don't have to be
> religious to be Conservative, it's a fact that a large fraction of
> those who consider themselves conservative also consider themselves
> religious.)
Right, Jesus was all about killing people, hating gays, discrimination
and profit. Anyone wanna *really* try and reconcile Christianity and
Capitalism?
Anyone ever hear of cognitive dissonance?
>
> Another example that becomes clear [once the philosophy is understood]
> is the favor Conservatives appear to show to the "rich", vice the
> disdain of the Liberals. Conservatives believe that individuals are
> responsible for their own actions, and applaud those who have, through
> their own hard work, achieved wealth. Liberals, believing that all
> men are equally good, see no reason for one person to so dramatically
> achieve wealth above others, and will tend to assume criminal
> behavior. And, as all people are equally good, will prefer to "level
> the playing field" by inordinately taxing the wealthy.
The examples of criminal behavior on the part of the Establishment are
too many to mention.
>
> There can be a greater divide between two people of the same party
> than between two of opposing parties... for example, Pat Buchanan, who
> is rather to the right of most Republicans, and John McCain, who would
> fit so easily in the Democratic Party that no-one would complain of
> any conservative streak. So it can be difficult to label people on
> the basis of their professed political party. But there's no doubt in
> people's minds that Pat Buchanan is Conservative, and John McCain is
> Liberal. This explains why it can sometimes be more accurate to use
> the terms "Liberal" and "Conservative", rather than Democrat or
> Republican.
Only to dipshits and asses.
<sigh> If we only had real liberals in gov't'
latisha
no clue what he was arguing about and was wrong!
I love it!
Rule wrote:
Uh oh! I thought I had it there for a second, but now you're telling
me
> that there is a difference between "Liberal" and "Democrat", and
> "Conservative" and "Republican". But haven't you been saying all along
> that a "Republican" cannot be liberal and a "Democrat" cannot be
> conservative?
>
> Jeez. Now I'm all confused again.
>
> I give up. (Until next time, when I will explain to you by a starting a
> fresh new thread, why this discussion has gone in circles since its
> inception.)
>
> Rule
"Rule" <ruler...@attbi.com> wrote in message news:<SFj6a.217777$iG3.26805@sccrnsc02>...
Ben Holmes
latis...@hotmail.com says...
If you'd be so kind as to *quote* my words, you may find that they don't
disagree with this statement.
> For
>> example, Republicans were defined as the "Anti-Slavery" party in the
>> 1860's, but that definition hardly applies today. The underlying
>> philosophy that led to these definitions have not changed.
>
>Which is what I claimed all along and which Ben has spent *hours* of
>writing trying to deny.
Nope. You're getting confused between the goals and current situation of a
political party, with the underlying political philosophy.
That's been my position... it still is.
Asserting something without proving it is one of the classic debating mistakes.
It doesn't seem to matter how many times I point out that liberals seem to have
no problems raising funds from "conservative" corporations. The truth falls on
deaf ears...
>though Ben claims one can't say corporations are conservative.
Nope... again, not what I said. I asked you to *prove* your assertion. You've
so far failed to address it.
>AS I've said before. The
>goal of conservatives and the conservative media is to push an agenda
>favorable to corporations and sucker enough Americans into believing
>it is good for them also. It has worked.
>
>> such as undertaking major job programs,
>> regulating business operations, and legislating working conditions and
>> wage rates."
>
>Translation? Making workers as effecient as possible while paying them
>as little as possible.
>>
>> As can be seen, by using textbooks on politics, we are moving away
>> from simplistic "reform" and "preserve" definitions that are commonly
>> found in dictionaries.
>
>because the Establishment want no unclean thoughts out there among
>Americans that might check their power.
Lurkers can see that as I demonstrate how simplistic Latisha and Rule's
dictionary definitions prove to be, rather than defend their ideas, they stand
around and snipe, and use personal insults to cover their lack of facts.
> The textbook "Government by the People" offers
>> these definitions:
>>
>> "In its modern American usage, Liberalism refers to a belief in the
>> positive uses of government to bring about justice and equality of
>> opportunity. Modern day liberals wish to preserve the rights of the
>> individual and the right to own private property, yet they are willing
>> to have the government intervene in the economy to remedy the defects
>> of capitalism.
>
>Who else will?
So you now admit the correct usage of "liberal"?
It's clear that you and your dictionary was not doing a good enough job.
One could presume, from your lack of argument about the entire point of this
post, ie; liberal/Conservative definitions, that you have no facts in rebuttal
to offer?
>.. for example, Liberals don't
>> believe in the death penalty... why would you offer the supreme
>> punishment to a good man who was corrupted by forces beyond his
>> control?
>
>this is a double plus bad argument. How about an imperfect legal
>system convicting the innocent? How about seeing killing as *always*
>wrong?
ROTFLMAO!!! Then you should be pro-life!
Really! Get your ideas a little more soundly based than this!!
The reason that liberals are pro-choice, yet anti-death penalty, reveals that
the underlying reasoning for their position is NOT based on the idea that
"killing is *always* wrong". For if it were, they'd be hypocrites.
The whole idea of this post is to *demonstrate* the underlying reasons that
liberal philosophy can support apparently contradictory positions.
And too few to document, it would appear.
Criminal behavior of people has always greatly overshadowed any corporate
criminality.
>> There can be a greater divide between two people of the same party
>> than between two of opposing parties... for example, Pat Buchanan, who
>> is rather to the right of most Republicans, and John McCain, who would
>> fit so easily in the Democratic Party that no-one would complain of
>> any conservative streak. So it can be difficult to label people on
>> the basis of their professed political party. But there's no doubt in
>> people's minds that Pat Buchanan is Conservative, and John McCain is
>> Liberal. This explains why it can sometimes be more accurate to use
>> the terms "Liberal" and "Conservative", rather than Democrat or
>> Republican.
>
>Only to dipshits and asses.
Yep... when you have no facts, resort to personal insult. I'm sure that I'm not
the only one who noticed a COMPLETE lack of arguing with the entire message of
this post.
Remember? Your claim that the dictionary meaning of liberal and Conservative
was the only correct way to use the terms? I noticed that you were completely
unable to dispute a *single* reference here on the substantive issue.
><sigh> If we only had real liberals in gov't'
<sigh> If we only had people who could argue the facts...
Ben Holmes
Oh? He did? Seems to me that he was merely getting confused again.
>That's Ben's way of saying he had
>no clue what he was arguing about and was wrong!
>I love it!
Sounds to me like this is YOUR way of saying "I don't have any facts to present
to rebut your case that the terms "liberal" and "Conservative" have a wider
meaning and usage than that given in just the dictionary"...
>Rule wrote:
>
>Uh oh! I thought I had it there for a second, but now you're telling
>me
>> that there is a difference between "Liberal" and "Democrat", and
>> "Conservative" and "Republican". But haven't you been saying all along
>> that a "Republican" cannot be liberal and a "Democrat" cannot be
>> conservative?
>>
>> Jeez. Now I'm all confused again.
>>
>> I give up. (Until next time, when I will explain to you by a starting a
>> fresh new thread, why this discussion has gone in circles since its
>> inception.)
(Psst... this *is* a new thread... it only started *yesterday*...)
Ted Gittinger
ted
"latisha" <latis...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c2cb1f89.03022...@posting.google.com...
Ben Holmes
wrote:
You're probably confused by people who are only willing to offer one
particular side of an argument.
I find it far more interesting to provide *all* the facts, then
present my point of view of those facts.
If you're confused, it can only be because you don't carefully read
what I write. It's really not that confusing.
Ben Holmes
wrote:
>Ben Holmes <bnho...@rain.org> wrote in message
>news:b3dfc...@drn.newsguy.com...
>> In article <SFj6a.217777$iG3.26805@sccrnsc02>, "Rule" says...
>> >
>> >
>> >Well, here I am back again. I just can't resist, I guess...
>> >
>> >Since you asked, the source I used for the definition of "Establishment"
>in
>> >the context I was using it, was "The American Heritage Dictionary of the
>> >English Language". I did not go hunting around for a definition I agreed
>> >with, I just looked it up, and there it was. Same with the other words.
>>
>> I hope you can tell me that the online version is different than your
>> version. If not, then you've not been honest.
>
>I am so sorry. I didn't use the online version, I used the dictionary
>sitting on my desk next to me. I'll certainly know better next time. Silly
>me.
I'll take a look this coming weekend, I'm sure the local library has
this dictionary.
>> This is what is given by the American Heritage Dictionary on the net:
>>
>> 1a. The act of establishing. b. The condition or fact of being
>> established. 2. Something established, as: a. An arranged
>> order or system, especially a legal code. b. A permanent civil,
>> political, or military organization. c. An established church.
>> d. A place of residence or business with its possessions and
>> agreements staff. e. A public or private institution, such as a
>> hospital or school. 3. often Establishment An established
>> social order, as: a. A group of people holding most of the
>> power and influence in a government or society. Often used
>> with the. b. A controlling group in a given field of activity. Often used
>> with the.
>>
>> Again, nothing about "private" agreements, or "conservatives".
>
>As I've said, I gave my definition from the dictionary I own. The last
>copyright listed was 1981.
>
>I'll type it out here in all it's glory, although I think it's overkill.
>
>e-stab-lish-ment (I presume you know how to pronounce it)
>n. 1. The act of establishing. 2. The condition or fact of being
>established. 3. a. A business, firm, club, institution, or residence,
>including its members or occupants. b. A place of business, including the
>possessions and employees. c. Any organized group, such as a government,
>political party or military force. 4. Capital E. a. an established church.
>5. usually capital E. An exclusive group of powerful people who rule a
>government or society by means of private agreements and decisions. b. A
>powerful group that tacitly controls a given field of activity, usually in a
>conservative manner (as in) the Literary Establishment.
>
>Jeepers! I guess mine must have been written by (gasp) LIBERALS spouting
>subversive left-wing propaganda, right?
Actually, books that are standard references aren't immune from
liberal bias, just as they aren't immune from Conservative thought.
But if you have no idea of the liberal bias in the mainstream news,
then you'll be ill-prepared to recognize it elsewhere.
>In any case, I'll accept "A group of people holding most of the power and
>influence in a government or society." -- and add that unless one is
>totally naive, one must accept that holding on to power and influence often
>involves private agreements and decisions, and since those within the
>Establishment HAVE power and influence and often exclude others, it would be
>my guess that they'd want to "conserve" the exclusivity, power and influence
>they possess in any way they can.
Yep... and liberal organizations would never *think* of "conserving"
the exclusivity, power, and influence they possess... right?
(Of course not... because then, by YOUR definition, they'd be
Conservatives)
>Wouldn't you if you were them? I sure would.
>
>Now shall we argue about which dictionary is "correct"?
I've never said *any* dictionary is *incorrect*... merely simplistic.
Or, depending on the field, not relevant.
Since you were one of the ones atttempting to re-define liberal, why
no rebuttal to my post illustrating the more complete definition?
>(Oh dammit, I forgot again! YOURS is.)
Comments like this just demonstrate that you have no facts to present.
>Rule
Rule
> On Mon, 24 Feb 2003 21:03:58 GMT, "Rule" <ruler...@attbi.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Ben Holmes <bnho...@rain.org> wrote in message
> >news:b3dfc...@drn.newsguy.com...
> >> In article <SFj6a.217777$iG3.26805@sccrnsc02>, "Rule" says...
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >Well, here I am back again. I just can't resist, I guess...
> >> >
> >> >Since you asked, the source I used for the definition of
"Establishment"
> >in
> >> >the context I was using it, was "The American Heritage Dictionary of
the
> >> >English Language". I did not go hunting around for a definition I
agreed
> >> >with, I just looked it up, and there it was. Same with the other
words.
> >>
> >> I hope you can tell me that the online version is different than your
> >> version. If not, then you've not been honest.
> >
> >I am so sorry. I didn't use the online version, I used the dictionary
> >sitting on my desk next to me. I'll certainly know better next time.
Silly
> >me.
>
> I'll take a look this coming weekend, I'm sure the local library has
> this dictionary.
You do that Ben. I wouldn't want you thinking I'm not honest.
Damn! Mine is biased. Thank God you told me. Guess I'll have to throw it
out. Can you direct me to a standard reference with a bias toward
Conservative thought?
>
> But if you have no idea of the liberal bias in the mainstream news,
> then you'll be ill-prepared to recognize it elsewhere.
Still whippin' away at that dead horse, huh Ben? I do wish that you'd
backup your statement with some examples. Should be easy as pie! All
you'll have to do is watch any of the major networks and quote the
statements showing a liberal bias. (I've been trying and trying to find
them, and have had no luck so far. Help me Ben. Help me.)
>
> >In any case, I'll accept "A group of people holding most of the power and
> >influence in a government or society." -- and add that unless one is
> >totally naive, one must accept that holding on to power and influence
often
> >involves private agreements and decisions, and since those within the
> >Establishment HAVE power and influence and often exclude others, it would
be
> >my guess that they'd want to "conserve" the exclusivity, power and
influence
> >they possess in any way they can.
>
> Yep... and liberal organizations would never *think* of "conserving"
> the exclusivity, power, and influence they possess... right?
I don't know of any liberal organizations that possess much "exclusivity,
power and influence" these days. In any case, since liberals are such grand
folks, (as I thought you'd done an admirable job of showing in your big
post) I can't imagine them doing such a thing. Why if they did, they
wouldn't be liberals anymore!
>
> (Of course not... because then, by YOUR definition, they'd be
> Conservatives)
It ain't MY definition, Ben. It's my ding-dong-danged dictionary's! And
YOURS! Didn't you read your own LINKS?
>
> >Wouldn't you if you were them? I sure would.
> >
> >Now shall we argue about which dictionary is "correct"?
>
> I've never said *any* dictionary is *incorrect*... merely simplistic.
> Or, depending on the field, not relevant.
Not "relevant"... I see. Dictionaries, which define words, are not
relevant. Back to that again. But if they are not relevant, and are
simplistic, why did you bother quoting one?
> Since you were one of the ones attempting to re-define liberal, why
> no rebuttal to my post illustrating the more complete definition?
I don't remember trying to re-define liberal, Ben. I just suggested you
look the word up. You did, several times, and hated the definitions.
Anyway, my reply to your attempt to "illustrate the more complete
definition" was about three items up from this one, last time I looked.
> >(Oh dammit, I forgot again! YOURS is.)
>
> Comments like this just demonstrate that you have no facts to present.
Now don't get all stuffy on me just 'cause you're miffed, Ben.
Rule
Ben Holmes
Certainly... "See I Told You So", by Rush Limbaugh.
>> But if you have no idea of the liberal bias in the mainstream news,
>> then you'll be ill-prepared to recognize it elsewhere.
>
>Still whippin' away at that dead horse, huh Ben? I do wish that you'd
>backup your statement with some examples. Should be easy as pie! All
>you'll have to do is watch any of the major networks and quote the
>statements showing a liberal bias. (I've been trying and trying to find
>them, and have had no luck so far. Help me Ben. Help me.)
Actually, since the beginning of this discussion, I've given a number of
examples, polls, and statistics. If you ignored them, there's nothing I can do.
I've listed both web sites, such as http://www.mrc.org and books that discuss
and present the evidence for this. If you don't click on the URL's, or bother
to check out the books, again, there's nothing I can do for you.
You've decided that there is no liberal bias in the mainstream media, and any
number of demonstrations of that aren't going to make any difference.
In fact, even a book titled "What liberal Bias?" written to rebut "Bias"
admitted to liberal bias!! Admittedly, not to the degree that *I* believe it
exists, but it's funny that even a book dedicated to erasing that idea couldn't
do it!
>> >In any case, I'll accept "A group of people holding most of the power and
>> >influence in a government or society." -- and add that unless one is
>> >totally naive, one must accept that holding on to power and influence
>often
>> >involves private agreements and decisions, and since those within the
>> >Establishment HAVE power and influence and often exclude others, it would
>be
>> >my guess that they'd want to "conserve" the exclusivity, power and
>influence
>> >they possess in any way they can.
>>
>> Yep... and liberal organizations would never *think* of "conserving"
>> the exclusivity, power, and influence they possess... right?
>
>I don't know of any liberal organizations that possess much "exclusivity,
>power and influence" these days.
Ever heard of NOW? Just one example...
>In any case, since liberals are such grand
>folks, (as I thought you'd done an admirable job of showing in your big
>post) I can't imagine them doing such a thing. Why if they did, they
>wouldn't be liberals anymore!
>
>> (Of course not... because then, by YOUR definition, they'd be
>> Conservatives)
>
>It ain't MY definition, Ben. It's my ding-dong-danged dictionary's! And
>YOURS!
No, it's not mine. I'm intelligent enough to recognize that dictionary meanings
are the *beginning* of understanding, not the end... as I pointed out with my
rather long post.
>Didn't you read your own LINKS?
Absolutely! You must have missed them the FIRST time I posted them.
>> >Wouldn't you if you were them? I sure would.
>> >
>> >Now shall we argue about which dictionary is "correct"?
>>
>> I've never said *any* dictionary is *incorrect*... merely simplistic.
>> Or, depending on the field, not relevant.
>
>Not "relevant"... I see.
And, as I previously pointed out, only an idiot would attend medical school with
a dictionary better suited to an English Poetry major. Denying this is merely
ignorant.
>Dictionaries, which define words, are not relevant.
Nope... never said that. I said they *could* be, depending on your attempted
use of them. As, for example, my hypothetical medical student.
It's not easy to mis-understand what I write... it appears that you're making an
intentional effort to do so.
>Back to that again. But if they are not relevant, and are
>simplistic, why did you bother quoting one?
Idiot... flog your own strawman.
>> Since you were one of the ones attempting to re-define liberal, why
>> no rebuttal to my post illustrating the more complete definition?
>
>I don't remember trying to re-define liberal, Ben.
Sure you did. You tried claiming that only the dictionary meaning was needed.
You gave the same argument as those first two URLS I cited. It's a dumb
argument, as I've shown.
>I just suggested you look the word up. You did, several times, and hated
>the definitions.
Nope... merely simplistic.
>Anyway, my reply to your attempt to "illustrate the more complete
>definition" was about three items up from this one, last time I looked.
*Thats* your reply to my rather long post defining the basic meanings and
philosophical differences between liberals and Conservatives???
>> >(Oh dammit, I forgot again! YOURS is.)
>>
>> Comments like this just demonstrate that you have no facts to present.
>
>Now don't get all stuffy on me just 'cause you're miffed, Ben.
Hard to be "miffed" when you have the facts on your side. As I do.
>Rule
Rule
don't it'll soon be coming out your nose!
I said: Can you direct me to a STANDARD REFERENCE with a bias toward
Conservative thought? (Emphasis added.)
Ben said -- now get this everybody -- here it comes -- Ben ACTUALLY SAID:
"Certainly... "See I Told You So", by Rush Limbaugh."
Ha - hahahahahahahahahahahaha! Hahahahaha. Hahaha. Hahahah. Ha ha.
Rule
Ben Holmes
See! My purpose achieved! You ask a question that isn't meant to be serious, I
give an answer in the same vein.
>Rule
If you were *serious*, I can give you a real example. I figured that you were
just blowing smoke.
Anyone who can't understand the requirement to use a reference appropriate to
the task at hand, isn't interested in discussion, merely rhetoric.
Rule
> In article <j8O6a.264504$Ec4.2...@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net>, "Rule"
says...
> >
> >LURKER WARNING! Swallow anything you may be presently eating, 'cause if
you
> >don't it'll soon be coming out your nose!
> >
> >I said: Can you direct me to a STANDARD REFERENCE with a bias toward
> >Conservative thought? (Emphasis added.)
> >
> >Ben said -- now get this everybody -- here it comes -- Ben ACTUALLY SAID:
> >"Certainly... "See I Told You So", by Rush Limbaugh."
> >
> >Ha - hahahahahahahahahahahaha! Hahahahaha. Hahaha. Hahahah. Ha ha.
>
> See! My purpose achieved! You ask a question that isn't meant to be
serious, I
> give an answer in the same vein.
Lame, Ben. LAME! (I was dead serious.)
> If you were *serious*, I can give you a real example. I figured that you
were
> just blowing smoke.
You figured wrong. Go ahead. Show me that "standard reference";
dictionary, encyclopedia, thesaurus, almanac, anything at all that shows a
Conservative bias.
Jesus. Orwell's "1984" was right on the MONEY.
> Anyone who can't understand the requirement to use a reference appropriate
to
> the task at hand, isn't interested in discussion, merely rhetoric.
Lamer and lamer.
Rule
Rule
Ted Gittinger <TGITT...@austin.rr.com> wrote in message
news:uBz6a.16324$O41.6...@twister.austin.rr.com...
> Flushed for irrelevancy.
"Look Mommy! I FLUSHED!"
Rule
latisha
Ok, here it is for a third time.
I wrote:
>Now please explain how the Democratic Party never changed
Ben replied:
>
> Nope. Never said that. It would be *stupid* to make such an
> un-historical statement. Have no interest in attempting to defend it.
But Ben wrote:
Republicans have a long
> history of shifting power *back* to the states, and Democrats have a
> long history of concentrating more power in the Federal Government."
Now the we must understand that the South seceeded due to states
rights issues.
Here are the words submitted by South Carolina:
The 1860 South Carolina
Declaration of the Causes of Secession quoted the states 1852
declaration, which said that "the frequent violations of the
Constitution of the United States by the Federal Government, and its
encroachments upon the reserved rights of the States," would justify
the state in withdrawing from the Union. The South Carolina secession
ordinance, following the procedure that Calhoun had prescribed, simply
repealed the states ratification of the Constitution and subsequent
amendments. The secession ordinances of other states did the same.
Now understand that the Democratic Party carried the Southern states
in the Election of 1860. Yet Ben writes :
Both are historical facts... the
> Republicans did indeed "free" the slaves, and they are, compared to
> Democrats, certainly more concerned with states rights.
So now we have the Southern states, who were Democrats, leaving the
Union due to "encroachments upon the reserved rights of the states"
Problem is Ben has said Liberals and Democrats are the same thing and
haven't changed since we can't call Republicans "liberals" as
evidenced by his quote:
Refuse to define your terms, and continue to call Republican's
> >> Liberal, and there isn't any discussion possible.
After I had said Lincoln was "liberal" relative to his time.
So our problem is Democrats, who are liberals, and are synonyms, are
for shifting power to the Federal gov't.-All according to Bens terms.
So to Ben, Liberals have a long history of concentrating more power
in the Federal Government.
Yet since the Southern Democrats seceeded due "encroachments upon the
reserved rights of the States" "by the Federal Government", any
objective person should conclude that the Republicans, who were at the
time favoring power in the Federal Gov't, were the "liberals". This is
according to Ben's terms, since "liberals" are for power in the
Federal gov't and conservatives are for power in the states. Ask Ben,
he'll tell you.
So why when I claim:
Or-have the platforms changed and Republicans *then* were more liberal
> >than the conservative south?
> Ben replies:
> Nope.
Yet states:
>>
> Nope. Never said that. It would be *stupid* to make such an
> un-historical statement. Have no interest in attempting to defend it.
You said it, Ben. It *would* be stupid. So why do you claim it?
>
> > For
> >> example, Republicans were defined as the "Anti-Slavery" party in the
> >> 1860's, but that definition hardly applies today. The underlying
> >> philosophy that led to these definitions have not changed.
> >
> >Which is what I claimed all along and which Ben has spent *hours* of
> >writing trying to deny.
>
> Nope. You're getting confused between the goals and current situation of a
> political party, with the underlying political philosophy.
Uh, no ben, you are. You have maintained all along that Republicans
can't be called liberal and vice versa. Lurkers see through your
denials. This get more hilarious as we go since you are backtracking
on everything you've claimed. WHy don't *you* cite where you've
claimed this.
Since when?
And everyone knows a politicain would *never* pretend to be for
something to attract votes. That just *never* happens. Smarter people
would realize that corporations funding(bribing?) both sides kinda
proves the point that there aren't *really* liberals( or those who
fight to reform society from the power of the Establsihment) in
leadership positons. Corporations know if they want their horse to win
the race they need to own all the horses.
>
>
> >though Ben claims one can't say corporations are conservative.
>
> Nope... again, not what I said. I asked you to *prove* your assertion. You've
> so far failed to address it.
You aren't bright enough to understand your own definitions. So you
say corporations are *NOT* for "free enterprise and oppose gov't
intervention in economic affairs"? That is of course, unless that
intervention is pro corporate trade agreements like NAFTA and GATT.
Ben's liberal usage I'm sure is gov't intervention in the form of
regulation, right, Ben?
>
> >AS I've said before. The
> >goal of conservatives and the conservative media is to push an agenda
> >favorable to corporations and sucker enough Americans into believing
> >it is good for them also. It has worked.
> >
> >> such as undertaking major job programs,
> >> regulating business operations, and legislating working conditions and
> >> wage rates."
> >
> >Translation? Making workers as effecient as possible while paying them
> >as little as possible.
> >>
> >> As can be seen, by using textbooks on politics, we are moving away
> >> from simplistic "reform" and "preserve" definitions that are commonly
> >> found in dictionaries.
> >
> >because the Establishment want no unclean thoughts out there among
> >Americans that might check their power.
>
> Lurkers can see that as I demonstrate how simplistic Latisha and Rule's
> dictionary definitions prove to be, rather than defend their ideas, they stand
> around and snipe, and use personal insults to cover their lack of facts.
Not simplistic. You are the one fixated on politics where the term
liberal can also be applied to other aspects like the media(that *is*
how the thread started. Are journalists and politicans synonyms too?)
and religion. That's been pointed out numerous times to you, you
ignore it .
>
>
> > The textbook "Government by the People" offers
> >> these definitions:
> >>
> >> "In its modern American usage, Liberalism refers to a belief in the
> >> positive uses of government to bring about justice and equality of
> >> opportunity. Modern day liberals wish to preserve the rights of the
> >> individual and the right to own private property, yet they are willing
> >> to have the government intervene in the economy to remedy the defects
> >> of capitalism.
> >
> >Who else will?
>
> So you now admit the correct usage of "liberal"?
Just asking a question. You fail to undertand that most "liberal"
programs reulted from grassroots movements by people wanting abuses
reformed. They are *responses* to problems created *by* conservatives.
And now conservatives try to convinces us that we must go back to
these times. Some suckers fall for it. You are a Tootsie Pop.
On you? No, obviously not. Reading Plato to chimps would be equally
useless.
>
> One could presume, from your lack of argument about the entire point of this
> post, ie; liberal/Conservative definitions, that you have no facts in rebuttal
> to offer?
You've gotten counter arguments over and over, Black Knight. AS I've
said before what you call "Big Governemnt" are all programs aimed at
addressing social *reforms* started by non-politicans. This is a the
first point you chose to argue. The movement to end slavery, grant
womens suffrage, initiate Civil Rights legislation, pro labor reforms
etc etc *ALL* came from liberals outside of the political arena. When
protest got too loud they were embraced by politicans and encated as
laws *afterwards* What conservtives want is to go back to times before
all this occurred.
Now question for you is: What group is most likely to gain from these
regressive reforms and what group is most likely to listen to Rush?
>
>
> >.. for example, Liberals don't
> >> believe in the death penalty... why would you offer the supreme
> >> punishment to a good man who was corrupted by forces beyond his
> >> control?
> >
> >this is a double plus bad argument. How about an imperfect legal
> >system convicting the innocent? How about seeing killing as *always*
> >wrong?
>
> ROTFLMAO!!! Then you should be pro-life!
Well, no. The bible doesn't consider abortion murder.
>
> Really! Get your ideas a little more soundly based than this!!
Not necessarily *my* ideas. Just loigical conclusions that could be
drawn by others.
>
> The reason that liberals are pro-choice, yet anti-death penalty, reveals that
> the underlying reasoning for their position is NOT based on the idea that
> "killing is *always* wrong". For if it were, they'd be hypocrites.
No proof that abortion is murder. Liberals aren't for killing children
who have been born are they?
>
> The whole idea of this post is to *demonstrate* the underlying reasons that
> liberal philosophy can support apparently contradictory positions.
Like Christian Conservatives supporting the death penalty and
Capitalism?
>
>
> >> Rather, let us attempt to control those forces that led him
> >> to his crime, such as poverty, child neglect, poor education, and so
> >> on. Conservatives, on the other hand, see crime as a moral issue, and
> >> believe that transgressions against society must be paid for. This
> >> explains why Conservatives are for the death penalty.
> >
> >Until it's one of them accused. Then they believe in getting the best
> >lawyer money can buy.
> >
> >> On almost any issue, it becomes apparent why the Liberal/Conservative
> >> takes the position he does, once you understand these two underlying
> >> philosophical differences... how one views human nature, and what the
> >> purpose of government is.
> >
> >One is bullshit and in the interests of a few, the other is for
> >humanity and what's best for society.
> >
> >> (Just a side note here: Interesting to point out that Christians are
> >> more often found among Conservatives, for as Romans 3:23 points out,
> >> "For all have sinned, and come short of the Glory of God". This is
> >> the Conservative view of human nature. And while you don't have to be
> >> religious to be Conservative, it's a fact that a large fraction of
> >> those who consider themselves conservative also consider themselves
> >> religious.)
> >
> >Right, Jesus was all about killing people, hating gays, discrimination
> >and profit. Anyone wanna *really* try and reconcile Christianity and
> >Capitalism?
> >Anyone ever hear of cognitive dissonance?
No response here Ben?
> >
> >> Another example that becomes clear [once the philosophy is understood]
> >> is the favor Conservatives appear to show to the "rich", vice the
> >> disdain of the Liberals. Conservatives believe that individuals are
> >> responsible for their own actions, and applaud those who have, through
> >> their own hard work, achieved wealth. Liberals, believing that all
> >> men are equally good, see no reason for one person to so dramatically
> >> achieve wealth above others, and will tend to assume criminal
> >> behavior. And, as all people are equally good, will prefer to "level
> >> the playing field" by inordinately taxing the wealthy.
> >
> >The examples of criminal behavior on the part of the Establishment are
> >too many to mention.
>
> And too few to document, it would appear.
I could show how ignorant you are by asking you to name 10
Establishment crimes and if you could not you would only prove how
woefully little you know about your country.
>
> Criminal behavior of people has always greatly overshadowed any corporate
> criminality.
Bahhhh haaa haaaa!!!
>
> >> There can be a greater divide between two people of the same party
> >> than between two of opposing parties... for example, Pat Buchanan, who
> >> is rather to the right of most Republicans, and John McCain, who would
> >> fit so easily in the Democratic Party that no-one would complain of
> >> any conservative streak. So it can be difficult to label people on
> >> the basis of their professed political party. But there's no doubt in
> >> people's minds that Pat Buchanan is Conservative, and John McCain is
> >> Liberal. This explains why it can sometimes be more accurate to use
> >> the terms "Liberal" and "Conservative", rather than Democrat or
> >> Republican.
> >
> >Only to dipshits and asses.
>
> Yep... when you have no facts, resort to personal insult. I'm sure that I'm not
> the only one who noticed a COMPLETE lack of arguing with the entire message of
> this post.
I damn near argued every point, Black Knight.
>
> Remember? Your claim that the dictionary meaning of liberal and Conservative
> was the only correct way to use the terms? I noticed that you were completely
> unable to dispute a *single* reference here on the substantive issue.
No, the two were similar. Liberals were behind enacting most of the
programs conservatives are against. You choose to stay in the
political realm and deal with those *forced* to enact them, many
against their will.
>
> ><sigh> If we only had real liberals in gov't'
>
> <sigh> If we only had people who could argue the facts... as well as Latisha, Rule, Art, and Neologic.
What a Wonderful World it Would Be-Sam Cooke
Ted Gittinger
>
> Ted Gittinger <TGITT...@austin.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:uBz6a.16324$O41.6...@twister.austin.rr.com...
> > Flushed for irrelevancy.
>
> "Look Mommy! I FLUSHED!"
>
ted
Ben Holmes
wrote:
Actually, I just asked you to quote me saying "Liberals can not be
called Republicans." once. I see you haven't done so.
If you can't correctly give my argument, it would be nice if you use
quotes instead.
Yep... as I've previously pointed out, you're trying to saddle the
North with statements and motives of the South... rather silly, that.
>Problem is Ben has said Liberals and Democrats are the same thing
They are largely the same thing... true. It would be perhaps more
accurate to say that Democrats tend toward the liberal, just as
Republicans tend toward the Conservative.
>and
>haven't changed since we can't call Republicans "liberals" as
>evidenced by his quote:
>
>> >> Refuse to define your terms, and continue to call Republican's
>> >> Liberal, and there isn't any discussion possible.
And, this was in response to your attempt to call Republicans
"liberal" for the anti-slavery stance they took. It's simply wrong.
>After I had said Lincoln was "liberal" relative to his time.
>
>So our problem is Democrats, who are liberals, and are synonyms, are
>for shifting power to the Federal gov't.-All according to Bens terms.
Nah... you can find exactly that sort of statement in most "American
Government & Politics" textbooks. The fact that you keep trying to
deny it is neither here nor there.
>So to Ben, Liberals have a long history of concentrating more power
>in the Federal Government.
Yep... this is true.
>Yet since the Southern Democrats seceeded due "encroachments upon the
>reserved rights of the States" "by the Federal Government", any
>objective person should conclude that the Republicans, who were at the
>time favoring power in the Federal Gov't, were the "liberals".
Nope. This is absolutely stupid. I've already pointed it out to you
that you cannot attempt to use the motives of the South as the same
reasoning that the North was using. The North wanted to keep the
Union together - that does NOT mean that they are not in favor of
states' rights.
>This is
>according to Ben's terms, since "liberals" are for power in the
>Federal gov't and conservatives are for power in the states. Ask Ben,
>he'll tell you.
In general, this is correct. Conservatives prefer power at the lowest
levels, and liberals prefer to concentrate power at the Federal level.
>So why when I claim:
>
>Or-have the platforms changed and Republicans *then* were more liberal
>> >than the conservative south?
>> Ben replies:
>> Nope.
>Yet states:
>
>> Nope. Never said that. It would be *stupid* to make such an
>> un-historical statement. Have no interest in attempting to defend it.
>
>You said it, Ben. It *would* be stupid. So why do you claim it?
Don't.
>> > For
>> >> example, Republicans were defined as the "Anti-Slavery" party in the
>> >> 1860's, but that definition hardly applies today. The underlying
>> >> philosophy that led to these definitions have not changed.
>> >
>> >Which is what I claimed all along and which Ben has spent *hours* of
>> >writing trying to deny.
>>
>> Nope. You're getting confused between the goals and current situation of a
>> political party, with the underlying political philosophy.
>
>Uh, no ben, you are. You have maintained all along that Republicans
>can't be called liberal and vice versa.
It's a rather transparent ploy on your part to mix labels up so that
everything is correct, and nothing is wrong.
You'd like to brand everything Conservative as wrong, and anything
done right by Conservatives as really liberal.
> Lurkers see through your denials.
Oh, I have more confidence in people than you appear to.
Since the beginning.
Can't have it both ways, Latisha... either the "evil" Conservative
corporations are defeating liberals everywhere they meet them, or
there's some liberal corporations around somewhere. LOL!!
>> >though Ben claims one can't say corporations are conservative.
>>
>> Nope... again, not what I said. I asked you to *prove* your assertion. You've
>> so far failed to address it.
>
>You aren't bright enough to understand your own definitions. So you
>say corporations are *NOT* for "free enterprise and oppose gov't
>intervention in economic affairs"?
Corporations are made up of people... you saying that people are
Conservative? Okay, I'll agree.
>That is of course, unless that
>intervention is pro corporate trade agreements like NAFTA and GATT.
>Ben's liberal usage I'm sure is gov't intervention in the form of
>regulation, right, Ben?
>>
>> >AS I've said before. The
>> >goal of conservatives and the conservative media is to push an agenda
>> >favorable to corporations and sucker enough Americans into believing
>> >it is good for them also. It has worked.
>> >
>> >> such as undertaking major job programs,
>> >> regulating business operations, and legislating working conditions and
>> >> wage rates."
>> >
>> >Translation? Making workers as effecient as possible while paying them
>> >as little as possible.
>> >>
>> >> As can be seen, by using textbooks on politics, we are moving away
>> >> from simplistic "reform" and "preserve" definitions that are commonly
>> >> found in dictionaries.
>> >
>> >because the Establishment want no unclean thoughts out there among
>> >Americans that might check their power.
>>
>> Lurkers can see that as I demonstrate how simplistic Latisha and Rule's
>> dictionary definitions prove to be, rather than defend their ideas, they stand
>> around and snipe, and use personal insults to cover their lack of facts.
>
>Not simplistic. You are the one fixated on politics
When the statement is made that the mainstream media slants to the
liberal side, did you think someone was talking about how
"progressive" they were? Of *course* it's political.
>where the term
>liberal can also be applied to other aspects like the media(that *is*
>how the thread started. Are journalists and politicans synonyms too?)
>and religion. That's been pointed out numerous times to you, you
>ignore it .
Your writing is getting a tad dense...
>> > The textbook "Government by the People" offers
>> >> these definitions:
>> >>
>> >> "In its modern American usage, Liberalism refers to a belief in the
>> >> positive uses of government to bring about justice and equality of
>> >> opportunity. Modern day liberals wish to preserve the rights of the
>> >> individual and the right to own private property, yet they are willing
>> >> to have the government intervene in the economy to remedy the defects
>> >> of capitalism.
>> >
>> >Who else will?
>>
>> So you now admit the correct usage of "liberal"?
>
>Just asking a question. You fail to undertand that most "liberal"
>programs reulted from grassroots movements by people wanting abuses
>reformed. They are *responses* to problems created *by* conservatives.
>And now conservatives try to convinces us that we must go back to
>these times. Some suckers fall for it. You are a Tootsie Pop.
You're using the standard definition of liberal and Conservative in
your paragraph above... rather than your simplistic dictionary ones.
And you are a Jew-baiting racist.
Or to Jew-baiting racists, such as yourself.
>> One could presume, from your lack of argument about the entire point of this
>> post, ie; liberal/Conservative definitions, that you have no facts in rebuttal
>> to offer?
>
>You've gotten counter arguments over and over, Black Knight. AS I've
>said before what you call "Big Governemnt" are all programs aimed at
>addressing social *reforms* started by non-politicans. This is a the
>first point you chose to argue. The movement to end slavery, grant
>womens suffrage, initiate Civil Rights legislation, pro labor reforms
>etc etc *ALL* came from liberals outside of the political arena.
Nope. As I've previously discussed. If you *really* believed what
you're saying, you'd be voting Republican.
>When
>protest got too loud they were embraced by politicans and encated as
>laws *afterwards* What conservtives want is to go back to times before
>all this occurred.
As I pointed out, it was Republicans who freed the slaves, Republicans
who helped the Suffrage movement, and Republicans who voted for the
Civil Rights Act of 1964 in GREATER numbers, proportionately, than
Democrats. Why aren't you voting Republican?
>Now question for you is: What group is most likely to gain from these
>regressive reforms and what group is most likely to listen to Rush?
>>
>> >.. for example, Liberals don't
>> >> believe in the death penalty... why would you offer the supreme
>> >> punishment to a good man who was corrupted by forces beyond his
>> >> control?
>> >
>> >this is a double plus bad argument. How about an imperfect legal
>> >system convicting the innocent? How about seeing killing as *always*
>> >wrong?
>>
>> ROTFLMAO!!! Then you should be pro-life!
>
>Well, no. The bible doesn't consider abortion murder.
LOL!! liberals citing the bible!! Can you cite the relevant
passages, if you believe this?
>> Really! Get your ideas a little more soundly based than this!!
>
>Not necessarily *my* ideas. Just loigical conclusions that could be
>drawn by others.
>>
>> The reason that liberals are pro-choice, yet anti-death penalty, reveals that
>> the underlying reasoning for their position is NOT based on the idea that
>> "killing is *always* wrong". For if it were, they'd be hypocrites.
>
>No proof that abortion is murder. Liberals aren't for killing children
>who have been born are they?
No, just children who've not been born yet...
>> The whole idea of this post is to *demonstrate* the underlying reasons that
>> liberal philosophy can support apparently contradictory positions.
>
>Like Christian Conservatives supporting the death penalty and
>Capitalism?
Conservatives can support apparently contradictory positions as well,
but "death penalty" and "Capitalism"??? You apparently have a weird
definition of Capitalism.
You aren't making any sense. Capitalism has nothing to do with
"killing people", "hating gays", or "discrimination". Profit is the
only thing that Capitalism can talk about.
>> >> Another example that becomes clear [once the philosophy is understood]
>> >> is the favor Conservatives appear to show to the "rich", vice the
>> >> disdain of the Liberals. Conservatives believe that individuals are
>> >> responsible for their own actions, and applaud those who have, through
>> >> their own hard work, achieved wealth. Liberals, believing that all
>> >> men are equally good, see no reason for one person to so dramatically
>> >> achieve wealth above others, and will tend to assume criminal
>> >> behavior. And, as all people are equally good, will prefer to "level
>> >> the playing field" by inordinately taxing the wealthy.
>> >
>> >The examples of criminal behavior on the part of the Establishment are
>> >too many to mention.
>>
>> And too few to document, it would appear.
>
>I could show how ignorant you are by asking you to name 10
>Establishment crimes and if you could not you would only prove how
>woefully little you know about your country.
I don't recognize your "elite" establishment ideas.
>> Criminal behavior of people has always greatly overshadowed any corporate
>> criminality.
>
>Bahhhh haaa haaaa!!!
This merely shows what an idiot you must be. Feel free to cite any
statistics of comparable crimes...
Cite how many corporations were even *accused* of said crime, and
compare it to mere people who were *convicted* of a similar crime.
The sad fact of life, that you're going to find out, is that there are
FAR more people than corporations.
>> >> There can be a greater divide between two people of the same party
>> >> than between two of opposing parties... for example, Pat Buchanan, who
>> >> is rather to the right of most Republicans, and John McCain, who would
>> >> fit so easily in the Democratic Party that no-one would complain of
>> >> any conservative streak. So it can be difficult to label people on
>> >> the basis of their professed political party. But there's no doubt in
>> >> people's minds that Pat Buchanan is Conservative, and John McCain is
>> >> Liberal. This explains why it can sometimes be more accurate to use
>> >> the terms "Liberal" and "Conservative", rather than Democrat or
>> >> Republican.
>> >
>> >Only to dipshits and asses.
>>
>> Yep... when you have no facts, resort to personal insult. I'm sure that I'm not
>> the only one who noticed a COMPLETE lack of arguing with the entire message of
>> this post.
>
>I damn near argued every point, Black Knight.
The post is on the political definition of Conservative and liberal.
You argued that the dictionary definition was the correct one. I
demonstrated that it was quite simplistic, and didn't even approach
the full meanings of the words as used in textbooks on politics or
American government.
Not a *SINGLE* argument have you made against this...
latisha
You said if I continue to call liberals Republicans no discussion was
possible.
>
> If you can't correctly give my argument, it would be nice if you use
> quotes instead.
I used quotes.
Huh? I said the Democrats, who carried the South were leaving the
Union because of encroachments on their states rights. *THEY* claimed
this. You said loberals were for more power in the Federal Government.
So, by your terms, the liberal Dems were leaving the Union because
they wanted more power in the Federal Government even though the
Democrats *said* they were leaving due to the opposite reason.
>
> >Problem is Ben has said Liberals and Democrats are the same thing
>
> They are largely the same thing... true. It would be perhaps more
> accurate to say that Democrats tend toward the liberal, just as
> Republicans tend toward the Conservative.
Just not always, Ben. You started our argument by saying liberals
covered for black people:
It's not even a secret, for example, that the race of a criminal will
>> NOT be reported if that criminal suspect is Black.
So liberals, who were Democrats and fought to keep slavery, cover for
them?
If not, what is the point of bringing this up for a liberally biased
media?
Same with the admissions policies and not calling Mosely-Braun a
liberal.
These are you liberal examples yet.
Total contradiction.
>
> >and
> >haven't changed since we can't call Republicans "liberals" as
> >evidenced by his quote:
> >
> >> >> Refuse to define your terms, and continue to call Republican's
> >> >> Liberal, and there isn't any discussion possible.
>
> And, this was in response to your attempt to call Republicans
> "liberal" for the anti-slavery stance they took. It's simply wrong.
I thought liberals were pro black and for power in the Fed Gov? So
anti slavery is a conservative issue and pro-slavery is a liberal one,
along with anger over states rights being violated?
Ridiculous.
>
> >After I had said Lincoln was "liberal" relative to his time.
> >
> >So our problem is Democrats, who are liberals, and are synonyms, are
> >for shifting power to the Federal gov't.-All according to Bens terms.
>
> Nah... you can find exactly that sort of statement in most "American
> Government & Politics" textbooks. The fact that you keep trying to
> deny it is neither here nor there.
But your terms also and proven wrong historically.
>
> >So to Ben, Liberals have a long history of concentrating more power
> >in the Federal Government.
>
> Yep... this is true.
Politicians, probably, which is why the Republicans were violating the
states rights of the south( in the Souths eyes) to the point that the
southern Democrats decided to leave.
>
> >Yet since the Southern Democrats seceeded due "encroachments upon the
> >reserved rights of the States" "by the Federal Government", any
> >objective person should conclude that the Republicans, who were at the
> >time favoring power in the Federal Gov't, were the "liberals".
>
> Nope. This is absolutely stupid.
On your part.
I've already pointed it out to you
> that you cannot attempt to use the motives of the South as the same
> reasoning that the North was using.
The northern industrialists who backed Lincoln were trying to use the
power of the Fed to impose their economic will on the less represented
southern states.
That is why the south left. Do you deny this? Support it if so.
The North wanted to keep the
> Union together - that does NOT mean that they are not in favor of
> states' rights.
They were certainly less in favor as they had no problem using Fderal
power to override state sovereignty, which is why the South left, and
that's in their own words. Or do you believe the South didn't know why
they were leaving? Support this if so.
>
> >This is
> >according to Ben's terms, since "liberals" are for power in the
> >Federal gov't and conservatives are for power in the states. Ask Ben,
> >he'll tell you.
>
> In general, this is correct. Conservatives prefer power at the lowest
> levels, and liberals prefer to concentrate power at the Federal level.
So the Southern states were the conservatives in 1860.
>
> >So why when I claim:
> >
> >Or-have the platforms changed and Republicans *then* were more liberal
> >> >than the conservative south?
> >> Ben replies:
> >> Nope.
> >Yet states:
> >
> >> Nope. Never said that. It would be *stupid* to make such an
> >> un-historical statement. Have no interest in attempting to defend it.
> >
> >You said it, Ben. It *would* be stupid. So why do you claim it?
>
> Don't.
Yet I proved you did.
>
> >> > For
> >> >> example, Republicans were defined as the "Anti-Slavery" party in the
> >> >> 1860's, but that definition hardly applies today. The underlying
> >> >> philosophy that led to these definitions have not changed.
> >> >
> >> >Which is what I claimed all along and which Ben has spent *hours* of
> >> >writing trying to deny.
> >>
> >> Nope. You're getting confused between the goals and current situation of a
> >> political party, with the underlying political philosophy.
> >
> >Uh, no ben, you are. You have maintained all along that Republicans
> >can't be called liberal and vice versa.
>
> It's a rather transparent ploy on your part to mix labels up so that
> everything is correct, and nothing is wrong.
No I quoted you.
>
> You'd like to brand everything Conservative as wrong, and anything
> done right by Conservatives as really liberal.
>
> > Lurkers see through your denials.
>
> Oh, I have more confidence in people than you appear to.
then you would be liberal
ha ha
Liberal corporation is a contradiction in terms. Whether you agree
with my position, I've explained enough that I believe there aren't
real liberals in gov't and that liberals are at the grassroots level.
Most if not all politicains are whores. You pointing out that
"liberals" in gov't get corporate contributions simply shows your lack
of comprehension. Corps own both sides.
>
>
> >> >though Ben claims one can't say corporations are conservative.
> >>
> >> Nope... again, not what I said. I asked you to *prove* your assertion. You've
> >> so far failed to address it.
> >
> >You aren't bright enough to understand your own definitions. So you
> >say corporations are *NOT* for "free enterprise and oppose gov't
> >intervention in economic affairs"?
>
> Corporations are made up of people... you saying that people are
> Conservative? Okay, I'll agree.
Those who lead them are. Same with those who profit most from them.
No ideas supposedly held by large groups of citizens.
>
> >where the term
> >liberal can also be applied to other aspects like the media(that *is*
> >how the thread started. Are journalists and politicans synonyms too?)
> >and religion. That's been pointed out numerous times to you, you
> >ignore it .
>
> Your writing is getting a tad dense...
AS are your definitions.
>
> >> > The textbook "Government by the People" offers
> >> >> these definitions:
> >> >>
> >> >> "In its modern American usage, Liberalism refers to a belief in the
> >> >> positive uses of government to bring about justice and equality of
> >> >> opportunity. Modern day liberals wish to preserve the rights of the
> >> >> individual and the right to own private property, yet they are willing
> >> >> to have the government intervene in the economy to remedy the defects
> >> >> of capitalism.
> >> >
> >> >Who else will?
> >>
> >> So you now admit the correct usage of "liberal"?
> >
> >Just asking a question. You fail to undertand that most "liberal"
> >programs reulted from grassroots movements by people wanting abuses
> >reformed. They are *responses* to problems created *by* conservatives.
> >And now conservatives try to convinces us that we must go back to
> >these times. Some suckers fall for it. You are a Tootsie Pop.
>
> You're using the standard definition of liberal and Conservative in
> your paragraph above... rather than your simplistic dictionary ones.
>
> And you are a Jew-baiting racist.
I am actually a smelly jack ass, and I don't believe Jews are a race,
nor do I believe race *exists* for that matter. Are Christians a race
too? What race would a black convert to Judaism be?
The Nazis thought Jews were a race.
I also don't single out blacks as getting special treatment.
But you *are* a dipshit.
I'm not the one singling out specific racial groups for getting
special protection.
Exodus 21:22
Numbers 5:31
>
> >> Really! Get your ideas a little more soundly based than this!!
You do some reading!!!!!
> >
> >Not necessarily *my* ideas. Just loigical conclusions that could be
> >drawn by others.
> >>
> >> The reason that liberals are pro-choice, yet anti-death penalty, reveals that
> >> the underlying reasoning for their position is NOT based on the idea that
> >> "killing is *always* wrong". For if it were, they'd be hypocrites.
> >
> >No proof that abortion is murder. Liberals aren't for killing children
> >who have been born are they?
>
> No, just children who've not been born yet...
In Genesis: God breathed life into Adam and Even and THEN they got
souls. In other words, _breathing_ comes before life. Fetuses don't
breathe. That's why the Jewish religion and even many Christian
religions are not anti-abortion.
>
> >> The whole idea of this post is to *demonstrate* the underlying reasons that
> >> liberal philosophy can support apparently contradictory positions.
> >
> >Like Christian Conservatives supporting the death penalty and
> >Capitalism?
>
> Conservatives can support apparently contradictory positions as well,
> but "death penalty" and "Capitalism"??? You apparently have a weird
> definition of Capitalism.
No, Christians supporting the death penalty which is contradictory and
Capitalism which is contradictory.
You said many conservatives were Christians because of the value
syetems. I say they oppose one another.
>
>
> >> >> Another example that becomes clear [once the philosophy is understood]
> >> >> is the favor Conservatives appear to show to the "rich", vice the
> >> >> disdain of the Liberals. Conservatives believe that individuals are
> >> >> responsible for their own actions, and applaud those who have, through
> >> >> their own hard work, achieved wealth. Liberals, believing that all
> >> >> men are equally good, see no reason for one person to so dramatically
> >> >> achieve wealth above others, and will tend to assume criminal
> >> >> behavior. And, as all people are equally good, will prefer to "level
> >> >> the playing field" by inordinately taxing the wealthy.
> >> >
> >> >The examples of criminal behavior on the part of the Establishment are
> >> >too many to mention.
> >>
> >> And too few to document, it would appear.
> >
> >I could show how ignorant you are by asking you to name 10
> >Establishment crimes and if you could not you would only prove how
> >woefully little you know about your country.
>
> I don't recognize your "elite" establishment ideas.
Pull your head out of you ass and you might.
>
> >> Criminal behavior of people has always greatly overshadowed any corporate
> >> criminality.
> >
> >Bahhhh haaa haaaa!!!
>
> This merely shows what an idiot you must be. Feel free to cite any
> statistics of comparable crimes...
Baaah haaa haaaa!
>
> Cite how many corporations were even *accused* of said crime, and
> compare it to mere people who were *convicted* of a similar crime.
Baaahhhh haaaa haaaaa!!!
>
> The sad fact of life, that you're going to find out, is that there are
> FAR more people than corporations.
>
> >> >> There can be a greater divide between two people of the same party
> >> >> than between two of opposing parties... for example, Pat Buchanan, who
> >> >> is rather to the right of most Republicans, and John McCain, who would
> >> >> fit so easily in the Democratic Party that no-one would complain of
> >> >> any conservative streak. So it can be difficult to label people on
> >> >> the basis of their professed political party. But there's no doubt in
> >> >> people's minds that Pat Buchanan is Conservative, and John McCain is
> >> >> Liberal. This explains why it can sometimes be more accurate to use
> >> >> the terms "Liberal" and "Conservative", rather than Democrat or
> >> >> Republican.
> >> >
> >> >Only to dipshits and asses.
> >>
> >> Yep... when you have no facts, resort to personal insult. I'm sure that I'm not
> >> the only one who noticed a COMPLETE lack of arguing with the entire message of
> >> this post.
> >
> >I damn near argued every point, Black Knight.
>
> The post is on the political definition of Conservative and liberal.
> You argued that the dictionary definition was the correct one. I
> demonstrated that it was quite simplistic, and didn't even approach
> the full meanings of the words as used in textbooks on politics or
> American government.
>
> Not a *SINGLE* argument have you made against this...
Yes I have. We weren't arguing politics and I defined liberalism as
peoples movements.