What is a Conservative? What is a Liberal?

Did you ask to see GW's birth certificate, doesn't he have the same responsibity to provide one, or do you just assume he had one because he is republican and white? ////////lol..sure thing. ask him and he will provide. love that race card though. you pull it like a six gun.

Liberals stand for personal liberty, while conservatives stand for smaller gov't. Sort of six one way, half a dozen the other, right? If the goal of both is to limit the role of gov't - either in preservation of individual liberty, or in the interest of limited gov't, one would think the end results would be the same.


I would respectfully disagree with the assessment that they are six one, half dozen the other. The goal of Liberalism isn't limited government. Honest to goodness Liberlism....which isn't even close to being in vogue these days......seeks whatever Government intervention is necessary in the perservation of individual liberty. It is limited in no way. True Conservatism does seek limited Government. I would say among many elite Republicans, that notion is in short supply, as well.

But, the reality of both parties differs vastly from their philosophic underpinnings. Conservatives lose the right to call themselves the party of limited gov't when they want the gov't to decide who is allowed to get married and who isn't, when they want to micro-manage our schools and tell a science teacher what is "real" science and what isn't or insert pseudo religious dogma into scientific discussion and call it anything-ism to make it sound good. Conservatives can't claim the small gov't high ground when they fancy themselves better able to make medical decisions than the patient and her doctor. Conservatives can't claim to be all about small gov't when the United States Congress attempts to pass emergency legislation to stop a doctor in Florida from complying with a court order to remove a feeding tube. Yes, that is some very small gov't you got there!

I'm not sure where to start. Based on your marriage argument, you must be ok with Poligamy. I have no issue with civil unions, but marriage is supposed to mean something.

I don't know a single Conservative that wants to 'micro-manage' education. In fact, most Conservatives would just as soon the Federal Government get completely out of the business of educating our kids. Most Conservatives believe that the real heaving lifting should be done by the local school boards. And telling teachers what they can teach and can't is kind of a basic oversight rule for Local & State Government. Would anyone argue that teaching kids the virtues of Nazism in civics class would be a good thing?

Name a Conservative that believes medical decisions shouldn't be between a doctor & their patient &/or family. The feeding tube story from several years ago is a nonstarter, because the family's were in disagreement over what was the appropriate action. Republicans did what Republicans do....fight for the preservation of innocent life.


Liberals though, are supposedly the defenders of individual liberty. Liberty though, comes at a cost, and oh what a cost it can be. Liberals say its ok to smoke cigarettes, but we will raise the taxes on your coffin nails until a single pack of smokes requires you to take out a mortgage. Same thing for sugar based drinks, chips, candy, and basically any other lifestyle decision they don't like. I hate halogen bulbs. They hurt my eyes, give me headaches, and if you break one you need a Hazmat kit to clean it up because mercury is used in the making of it. But starting sometime next year, incandescent bulbs will be banned and the only thing you can buy are the new halogen bulbs. Thank you liberals for that one. Where exactly is my personal liberty there? If you go to NYC, better go now. There is a proposal to ban the use of salt in all restaurants. Thank you liberals for that one too. If you live in Hollywood, CA and want to own a cat, you will need to take your cat to a vet outside of Hollywood if you want to have your cat declawed. Thanks liberals, no I don't need that particular personal liberty! I'll get along fine without it! So basically, liberals believe in the essential goodness of the human race, as long as we do exactly what they think we should be doing. Got it?

Most of your complaints don't apply to Liberalism. They apply to the festering Statism that now percolates in Washington & many state capitals. So, its not cruel to rip the claws from a cat's paws?

One of my biggest pet peeves surrounds cigarettes. On the one hand, Government tells us they are horrible, will kill you and everyone around you simply through the recommended use of the product. But on the other hand, Governments make millions of dollars from the sale of the product. If cigarettes are so damn bad....why don't Governments make them illegal? Or as long as you are making money off them, they are only sort of bad?

As you might guess, I'm not much of a fan of either party. Neither party lives up to their own standards. I'm more of a moderate/libertarian than either conservative or liberal. I like my liberties. If I want to smoke, I'm damned well going to smoke. If my incandescent bulbs are not as environmentally friendly, I don't give a crap. They don't give me headaches. If (god forbid) I ever need an abortion, I'll be damned if some idiot in a suit and tie is going to tell me he knows my body and my circumstances better than I do.

For me, the real issue with Abortion is that another person is involved...a person that is completely, totally & unavoidably reliant on someone else for literally every breath. The person that pays the ultimate price when an abortion is performed doesn't even get a say in whether or not the abortion occurs. It is the ultimate power of life & death. I would never forbid a woman from having an abortion...but I would damn well let her know exactly what her decision is going to cost. Roe v Wade is bad law, made up from whole cloth. The Feds have no business being in the business of supporting abortion. Every state legislature in the land should be able to vote up or down on the matter, and then face the voters with their decision. Its was a Representative Republic does.

Having said all that, I tend to vote Republican, though I've voted for my share of Democrats.

Even I have voted for a Democrat or two. Sometimes, those RINO's just cut to the quick.

Did you ask to see GW's birth certificate, doesn't he have the same responsibity to provide one, or do you just assume he had one because he is republican and white? ////////lol..sure thing. ask him and he will provide. love that race card though. you pull it like a six gun. Originally Posted by deacon

Are you sure he will provide, or do you just assume he would. Its not a race card if its true.

If conservatives would stop at the point when they get to limiting government and maximizing personal freedoms, I would support them. The problem I have with most conservatives is that they betray their own ideals by combining religious morality with political philosophy. The blurring of religious and political lives began with the Moral Majority and the Christian Right. Before that, churches purposely stayed out of politics because politics has a corrupting influence on the churches when they get in bed with politicians.

That leads to the same governmental meddling that liberals are accused of promoting, but in different ways, like dictating who can and can't marry, and passing laws to punish the sinners (drugs, prostitution, pornography, homosexuals, etc).

The problem is that power is corrupting. The founding fathers purposely divided governmental power and set up roadblocks to impede any one group from taking power too quickly.

Rather than hoping for a Republican majority, or a Democratic majority, we should be hoping that there's enough division of power between the two that nothing gets done except for the most vital things that we all agree upon. Originally Posted by Muffrider

I agree completely, its also funny to me and it is shown to be all so true in this post, if you dont agree with the conservative party completely you immediately labeled a liberal, as you were in KShunters reply. There is no ability from either extreem to meet in the middle ground. Its also amazing to me to listen to all these "conservatives" talk about personal liberties and less government intrusion, yet they belong to the party that did the most to take personal freedoms away with the Patriot act and the law which allows for cell phone service providers to record all your conversations and transactions and keep them on file. I love the irony.

I agree with Jesse Ventura. He said the other night on the radio, "The only way to save the country is to quit voting for Democrats or Republicans." Both parties want to control, obtain and maintain power. If you think either party has the citizens' best interest at heart, you are deluded.

I agree with Jesse Ventura. He said the other night on the radio, "The only way to save the country is to quit voting for Democrats or Republicans." Both parties want to control, obtain and maintain power. If you think either party has the citizens' best interest at heart, you are deluded. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

I can agree wit that in a big way COG, this is what I have been trying to say.

There is a reason that this country is called the "United States of America". And, honestly, states rights' don't really fit within the "United" definition. Its "United States of America", not a loose confederacy of states. That was tried twice - once immediately following the Revolution, and again by a loose confederacy of Southern States. Both times failed, so I think that it's safe to say that that form of government is not workable.

This centralized, strong, federal government that so many "conservatives" rail against is what holds/held/will hold the states together. National standards for education, healthcare, etc create a "common" society, a "common" culture, and people with "common" interests. "Nations are built around "common" interests. It seems to me, that Republicans should be called The Party of "ME" and the Democrats should be called The Party of "Taking Shit TOO Damned FAR".

[quote=Kshunter;1238631]I'm constantly amused by the "Cult of Intellectualism" of liberals, particularly since the decisions they make are anything but intellectual in nature. Most liberalism is driven by emotion, not by thought. Example - how did the current President, easily the most liberal ever, get elected? Well, here were the voting motivators:

1. Hope and Change.
2. He's a black guy.
3. He's not Bush.
4. We think he's really smart.

That's pretty much it. Nowhere did libs even begin to ask any of the hard questions surrounding Obama and his policies. Precious few Dems had any idea of his actual policy and voting background.

quote]

You should have #3 as your winner. I'm sure that that's why most voted for Obama. We tried the CowPoke from Texas, and he didn't work out too well. Republicans have really short memories. If I want my car fixed, I'll take it to a mechanic whose own car is running, not the "mechanic" who can't keep his own car running and who's riding a bike or bumming a ride to Autozone. You had it your way for 8 years and did a Bang-Up job. Pun Intended.
So the new guy, is just that, not the old guy, and that's a start. And as the new guy, you should at least let him try to fix the car. He's trying to buy new parts and you keep sending him to the junkyard. Really?

But the RULE OR RUIN attitude of Republicans helps no one. They'll cut off America's nose to spite Obama's/Democrats' faces.

Conservatism means asking the hard questions, and sometimes making the hard statements - things people don't want to hear. Asking those questions is an INTELLECTUAL exercise. Originally Posted by Kshunter

The hard questions, that have nothing to do with emotion...Hmmm.
1. Why did we invade Iraq after Al Qaeda attacked the U.S.?
2. Where are the WMD's?
3. Was the mission really accomplished?
4. Who de-regulated the banks and gave Wall Street the free reign to ruin a trillion dollar economy?
5. Why didn't republicans vote against the bailout?
6. What's a bigger welfare: Cheese and peanut-butter or Farmers' Subsidies?
7. How in the hell can you operate a government, that is already trillions in debt, and lower taxes? I'd understand if we were in the black and we just wanted to stay in the black, but you owe people money and you want the goverment's "salary" dropped?
8. What good is having a government that only paves highways and pays Haliburton every two years(Defense Budget) to produce billion dollar military "secret", 1 EA, and sell the counter-measure to China?
9. Where is OSAMA BIN LADEN? LOL
10. Where are all of the jobs that tax-cuts produce - i mean other than India? I just finished arguing with "Paul"(Babu) from AT&T.


BTW, it is entirely possible to have laws that benefit all of society without becoming a Bible-Thumper. "Jesus Told Me" is not an indication of sound policy. Most societies come to a social contract, similar to the Ten Commandments without a religious epiphany. Morality can't be legislated.

Voter I.D. - good idea. The right to vote is perhaps the most critical right we have; why should we not have to prove our citizenship? The truth is that voter fraud happens, and happens here - remember the busloads of Somali immigrants that swung a city election in KCMO a couple of years ago?
Originally Posted by Kshunter

So I would be forced to carry I.D or perhaps even a national ID card to exercise my right to vote.

Violate one right to enforce another?

So I would be forced to carry I.D or perhaps even a national ID card to exercise my right to vote.

Violate one right to enforce another? Originally Posted by BigMikeinKC

No, you wouldn't be 'forced' to carry ID. You are required to carry a driver's license if you drive your car; I fail to see why the requirement to carry and present a driver's license (which all voter ID laws would accept) is such a burden when one goes to vote. If you wish to walk down the street, neither driving nor voting, you would have the same right to not carry ID as you do now.

[quote=thorough9;1240967]

I'm constantly amused by the "Cult of Intellectualism" of liberals, particularly since the decisions they make are anything but intellectual in nature. Most liberalism is driven by emotion, not by thought. Example - how did the current President, easily the most liberal ever, get elected? Well, here were the voting motivators:

1. Hope and Change.
2. He's a black guy.
3. He's not Bush.
4. We think he's really smart.

That's pretty much it. Nowhere did libs even begin to ask any of the hard questions surrounding Obama and his policies. Precious few Dems had any idea of his actual policy and voting background.

quote]

You should have #3 as your winner. I'm sure that that's why most voted for Obama. We tried the CowPoke from Texas, and he didn't work out too well. Republicans have really short memories. If I want my car fixed, I'll take it to a mechanic whose own car is running, not the "mechanic" who can't keep his own car running and who's riding a bike or bumming a ride to Autozone. You had it your way for 8 years and did a Bang-Up job. Pun Intended.
So the new guy, is just that, not the old guy, and that's a start. And as the new guy, you should at least let him try to fix the car. He's trying to buy new parts and you keep sending him to the junkyard. Really?

But the RULE OR RUIN attitude of Republicans helps no one. They'll cut off America's nose to spite Obama's/Democrats' faces.





The hard questions, that have nothing to do with emotion...Hmmm.
1. Why did we invade Iraq after Al Qaeda attacked the U.S.? Because Iraq repeatedly violated the terms of the 1991 cease-fire requiring open access and inspections. Much like a criminal returning to jail if he violates parole, by violating the cease fire, Iraq voided their right NOT to be invaded.
2. Where are the WMD's? Personally, my best guess would be Syria. Prior to the invasion, there was not a single credible international source that suggested that there were not WMD's in Iraq. Given the expanse of land and desert, it's entirely possible that they still are there under the sand somewhere. Still, see #1.
3. Was the mission really accomplished? Unless Saddam pulls a Jesus, returns to life, and takes over Iraq again, I think it was.
4. Who de-regulated the banks and gave Wall Street the free reign to ruin a trillion dollar economy? Chris Dodd and Barney Frank. It wasn't deregulation that caused the economy to crash; it was the Community Reinvestment Act coercing banks to make loans that were unlikely to be paid as well as the willingness of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to buy them. For other subprimes, they were packaged into mortgage-backed-securities because banks had to monetize the bad loans they were being coerced into making. Remember, Bush tried to investigate this issue in 2006/7 and was blocked by Barney the Ass Bandit. Take away the CRA and Barney, and it's possible the subprime problem never happens.
5. Why didn't republicans vote against the bailout? Beats the fuck out of me. Fortunately many of those Republicans have been/are being replaced by Tea Party conservatives who will be more responsible with the taxpayer's money.
6. What's a bigger welfare: Cheese and peanut-butter or Farmers' Subsidies? Equal in my mind. In fact, they are tied together; the government cheese is a USDA program. Get rid of both.
7. How in the hell can you operate a government, that is already trillions in debt, and lower taxes? I'd understand if we were in the black and we just wanted to stay in the black, but you owe people money and you want the goverment's "salary" dropped? Well, first, you have to examine why we are trillions in debt. It's not tax policy, it's profligate spending. Since Kennedy did it in 1961, every tax cut has been followed by higher tax receipts to the government through economic growth. Since good tax policy is about revenue generation, the growth that's likely to result from cutting corporate taxes would, historically, generate more revenue for the government. The definition of 'irresponsible' is a tax increase during a recession - which we are still in.
8. What good is having a government that only paves highways and pays Haliburton every two years(Defense Budget) to produce billion dollar military "secret", 1 EA, and sell the counter-measure to China?To this, I can only say "WTF are you babbling about?
9. Where is OSAMA BIN LADEN? LOL deader than a fucking doornail.
10. Where are all of the jobs that tax-cuts produce - i mean other than India? I just finished arguing with "Paul"(Babu) from AT&T. So, because you talked to one guy in India, that should produce a verdict on tax policy? Libs love to fly in the face of history, don't you?


BTW, it is entirely possible to have laws that benefit all of society without becoming a Bible-Thumper. "Jesus Told Me" is not an indication of sound policy. Most societies come to a social contract, similar to the Ten Commandments without a religious epiphany. Morality can't be legislated. Originally Posted by Kshunter

I'd listen to Jesus before Al Gore...

The hard questions, that have nothing to do with emotion...Hmmm.
1. Why did we invade Iraq after Al Qaeda attacked the U.S.? Because Iraq repeatedly violated the terms of the 1991 cease-fire requiring open access and inspections. Much like a criminal returning to jail if he violates parole, by violating the cease fire, Iraq voided their right NOT to be invaded.
Really!?! You'd best hide b/c the Bloody Big Head is atill the ruler of Wonderland! lol. Best I've evr heard it said is : China attacks US, and US attacks...Mexico. Fool's logic.
2. Where are the WMD's? Personally, my best guess would be Syria. Prior to the invasion, there was not a single credible international source that suggested that there were not WMD's in Iraq. Given the expanse of land and desert, it's entirely possible that they still are there under the sand somewhere. Still, see #1.
Really!?! The proposed WMD were the reasons for attacking Iraq, remember? Remember the aluminum tubes and the yellow cake? LOL. Lies and delusions.
3. Was the mission really accomplished? Unless Saddam pulls a Jesus, returns to life, and takes over Iraq again, I think it was.
4311 soldiers died in Iraq, after the "Mission Accomplished" speech.
4. Who de-regulated the banks and gave Wall Street the free reign to ruin a trillion dollar economy? Chris Dodd and Barney Frank. It wasn't deregulation that caused the economy to crash; it was the Community Reinvestment Act coercing banks to make loans that were unlikely to be paid as well as the willingness of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to buy them. For other subprimes, they were packaged into mortgage-backed-securities because banks had to monetize the bad loans they were being coerced into making. Remember, Bush tried to investigate this issue in 2006/7 and was blocked by Barney the Ass Bandit. Take away the CRA and Barney, and it's possible the subprime problem never happens.
Whose policy is totally free market and unrestricted business? And the only thing that Bush investigated was the heimlich manuever and softer pretzels.
5. Why didn't republicans vote against the bailout? Beats the fuck out of me. Fortunately many of those Republicans have been/are being replaced by Tea Party conservatives who will be more responsible with the taxpayer's money.
From one extreme, hypocritical Jesus freaks who blow teenage pages and bang guys in the ass in public bathrooms -to - Blowhards who have no idea how government works aka Joe the Plummers aka Monday night couch potato quarterbacks who blow teenage pages and bang guys in the ass in public bathrooms. lol
6. What's a bigger welfare: Cheese and peanut-butter or Farmers' Subsidies? Equal in my mind. In fact, they are tied together; the government cheese is a USDA program. Get rid of both.
7. How in the hell can you operate a government, that is already trillions in debt, and lower taxes? I'd understand if we were in the black and we just wanted to stay in the black, but you owe people money and you want the goverment's "salary" dropped? Well, first, you have to examine why we are trillions in debt. It's not tax policy, it's profligate spending. Since Kennedy did it in 1961, every tax cut has been followed by higher tax receipts to the government through economic growth. Since good tax policy is about revenue generation, the growth that's likely to result from cutting corporate taxes would, historically, generate more revenue for the government. The definition of 'irresponsible' is a tax increase during a recession - which we are still in.
Asking the question, "why am i in debt?" does nothing to help you get out of debt. You're not gonna get "middle class welfare" aka file bankruptcy. the bills actually have to be paid..... all of the previous tax cuts took place before consumer culture and outsourcing hit. America was actually a producer then, exports outweigh the imports. Not the case now. Now, you've got to bite the bullet and make some payments if you want the debt to disappear.
8. What good is having a government that only paves highways and pays Haliburton every two years(Defense Budget) to produce billion dollar military "secret", 1 EA, and sell the counter-measure to China?To this, I can only say "WTF are you babbling about?
The ginormous defense budget, uncontested contracts, and cronyism. that's how the defense game is played. Manufacturer sells defense measure to country A, and sells the counter-measure to country B. Everybody keeps spending.
9. Where is OSAMA BIN LADEN? LOL deader than a fucking doornail.
How the fuck do you know? Where is the body? Again, Promises, Promises, and no results. The way that the republicans like to brag, if they'd killed Bin Laden, Bush would be walking around in a robe and crown proclaiming himself the chief Kahuna. lolol.
10. Where are all of the jobs that tax-cuts produce - i mean other than India? I just finished arguing with "Paul"(Babu) from AT&T. So, because you talked to one guy in India, that should produce a verdict on tax policy? Libs love to fly in the face of history, don't you?
Where are all of the jobs? Again, Where are all of the jobs? They're overseas. That's what the "loyal" business giants do when you give them tax-breaks. You give them an inch, and they figure out a way to take a mile, and fuck the consumer, and invariably the senator who voted for the tax cut too. Counter-productive.

BTW, it is entirely possible to have laws that benefit all of society without becoming a Bible-Thumper. "Jesus Told Me" is not an indication of sound policy. Most societies come to a social contract, similar to the Ten Commandments without a religious epiphany. Morality can't be legislated.

So in other words, you have no intelligent thoughts to contribute. Originally Posted by Kshunter

Actually I think he makes a valid point, you right wingers love to talk morals and comment on the lefts lack of morals, but the reality is your on a board which promotes what some would label immoral.

You need an ID to drive a car, cash a check, get a loan, rent an apartment, get into a bar, buy cigarettes, get a job, and innumerable other things. Requiring you to show it to vote doesn't seem like a big deal, and it can keep unauthorized voters from voting. It's not that big a deal.

I have no problem with a national ID which you must show to vote, but the idea that you have to carry it around with you all the time does seem to go against our idea's of personal freedom.