Liberalism is self defeating

Very well said forest lady very well said indeed.

Originally posted by grover
In fact I would be happy as a clam if we had a viable third (fourth, fifth, sixth, etc) candidates and parties.

Then someone could win by getting around 20% of the vote. And somehow I don't think that's a good idea.

[edit on 17-6-2007 by Johnmike]

When you consider the low turnout in elections as it is, it isn't much better than that anyway.

Personally I would like to see none of the above on the ballot and if none got the most votes, the parties would have to go back and nominate somebody else.

Forestlady,

Don't be surprised, I am sure Grover isn't, not really..

I looked and looked and looked and could not find anywhere I said the Republicans were 100% anything....

However,

I do take a stand and I DO support my party... Like me, my party has faults, like me they are trying to correct those faults at a grass roots level. Where I am at...

What I do not do is "Namby-Pamby around my beliefs and freely admit to being the one thing most on here despise, a Conservative Republican.... See I don't engage in politics for popularity, I do it because I love my country and all that it used to stand for and all of the potential it still has.

That is why I am not a MODERATE, what ever that is, or worse yet the undefinable PROGRESSIVE..... HMMMMMM

Grover is a Liberal and the party of liberals is simply the democrats...

I am a Conservative and the party of conservatives is the republican party..

I am personally strong enough to admit that and to take all of your heat on it with no difficulty at all..

So as Johnny Storm would say..

FLAME ON!!!!



Semper

Originally posted by semperfortis

Grover is a Liberal and the party of liberals is simply the democrats...

I am a Conservative and the party of conservatives is the republican party..

Semper

I have tried to say before, there were liberal Republicans just as there are still conservative Democrats, but most have been marginalized or forced out of the so-called big tent party. In the current configuration of the Republican party, Nixon would be considered to liberal for them to give the nomination to, a scary thought that one.

I would personally trade you Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins (both of Maine, both moderate Repubicans for whom I have a great deal of respect) for Joe liberman (conservative so-called democrat, whom I have no respect for) any day.

Semper, come on now, I didn't flame you. I'm trying to have a respectful debate here. Your post did come across as demonizing liberals and said nothing wrong about Republicans - can you see how it sounds pretty black and white?

And by saying you're a Republican because you love your country - does that mean you think liberals don't love their country? If you gave some respect to liberals, it woulnd't mean that you are being namby-pamby. It would mean that you do give respect to both sides.

I'm a liberal, but I am not part of any party. I vote for the person who I think will do the best job. I do think that the Republicans have had some good ideas. I would vote for Barry Goldwater in a heartbeat, for example. Don't you think liberals have come up with some good ideas? Nothing is black and white, including politics.
If those are your views about liberals, I have to say I'm hurt that you think those things of me. You have lumped me in with a group of people that you apparently despise.
And again, what did you hope to accomplish by your post? I'm still wondering.

Forestlady,

I am SOOOOO sorry if you took my "flame" comment as being offensive!!!!

I 100% apologize for that...

I am just having some fun, this is a good debate and Grover and I have gone at it before...

Please accept my apology for any insult you perceived from me...

This is all in fun for me...

Semper

Originally posted by semperfortis

Let’s examine for a minute the differences, at their core, between Conservatism and Liberalism.

You're doing yourself a disservice here, semper. You cannot cherry-pick all the best of what Conservatism has to offer and realistically compare it to the worst failings of the Liberal cause. I'm betting that most of this thread is responding in the same manner...slagging the worst of the Conservatives and citing the most shining examples of Liberalism. Both arguments are bravo sierra, and I say that as a liberal/pinko myself.

I'm going to write it off as a case of cranky-pants, because you've been much more astute in your comments, even when we disagree. But I will concede that the system is broken, and that it can only be fixed by attacking the problems instead of each other. I know we can't seem to play nice in Canada...I doubt you'll have any greater success in the U.S., cuz' as far as partisan politics go, you guys make us look like pikers.

you guys make us look like pikers.

I have NO idea what a "Piker" is but I'm guessing it can't be good... HAHAHAHAHA

I fully understand the Republicans have their problems, Bush and the Immigration fiasco come first to mind..

But if you go back and read some of my last posts at the last election, I am clear in my stance. One can not change anything by sitting on ones duff and complaining...

I am a very active republican and I campaign and work and attend my butt off... The base values of the Republican Party are 100% in line with what I consider to be the founding principles of this great nation. I support what the Republican Party is supposed to be and shall do so until I can speak no more, or when the Liberals get their way and I am not allowed to speak against them.. LOL (Couldn't resist)

Semper

Semper... What you seem to have a hard time understanding is that I am a liberal because of my personal moral, social and spiritual world views, not because I am a Democrat. The world view came first. I have said before I am often hard pressed to support the Democrats but even then, their political viewpoint is more in line with my world view than the Republicans are.

When I was in my teens I was exposed to works such as the Whole Earth Catalogs and they went a long way towards shaping my opinion about what community should be and about how interdependence is far stronger than solitary independence.

Those catalogs exposed me to writers such as Aldo Leopold whose Sand County Almanac and Rachel Carson's Silent Spring and the Life and Death of a Salt Marsh, Thoreau's Walden and Loren Eiseley's The Immense Journey educated me about the importance of wild things and the need to care for the environment.

They exposed me to Joseph Campbell and Claude Levi Strauss and Carl Jung and Merica Ellide who opened my mind to matters of the human psyche and its depths.

I still refer to the later Whole Earth Catalogs when I want to find out something. When I had an old house to renovate, I looked up what they suggested as a guidebook and resource guide and I was well served by it.

When I was 16 I became exposed to the Baha'i' faith and as they say the rest is history.
The Baha'i principles concerning the oneness of mankind and the essential oneness of religion, the need to work toward one unified planet for the good of all mankind, the need to eliminate all forms of prejudice, education and the equality of men and women, the need to take care of the planet... all those ideals expoused by an exiled and imprisoned 19th century Persian nobleman have formed the framework of my life ever since, even when I was not associated with the faith for years on end.

These are the ideas and ideals that make me a liberal, not the Democratic party. They are also just a few of the influences in my life including growing up in the shadow of the Vietnam war and worrying whether I would face the draft or not, the lies and corrpution of Nixon, the civil rights movement, the list goes on.

I am damned proud to be liberal.

That sort of ideology can't be used to form political beliefs. Instead, your ideas must come from reason... Perhaps that's why so many believe in New Deal economics, because it sounds like unity and working toward a "greater good", but doesn't actually help the poor at all. Same goes for things such as welfare (especially Robin Hood welfare).

Ideology is great when trying to find your place in the world, but when you're working with government you can only use logic (since, again, things that sound good can actually cause more people to starve).

I question both of your assertions...such an ideology has most certainly informed my political views and I live in the heart of Appalachia and both the New Deal and the War on Poverty did a lot of good down here.

Well Grover, we come from radically different philosophical backgrounds...

I was abandoned by my parents at the age of 3...

After some years in an orphanage and then foster homes, my Granny found me and took me home to the family farm and raised me.. She was in her 60.s then.

For many, especially the formative years, it was just Granny and me. What I was taught was independence, respect for nature and all it provided, a solid foundation of Christian Principles, agriculture, hunting skills and above all, a solid confidence in myself... We lived on 123.00 a month in social security benefits she received... No welfare, no food stamps... We were poor, but proud...

"I" learned that ANYTHING I wanted was within my reach if "I" worked hard enough...
"I" learned that hard work and self reliance is all anyone needs to succeed in this world...
"NO ONE" has ever given me anything, yet I am by all appearances successful. Not lucky, not benefited from anyones charity or contributions, just hard work and perseverance...

The Marines taught me that I can serve and not be robotic or easily influenced.
The Police Force has cemented that into my being...

Right from wrong and personal responsibility are everything to me and I expect it from others.. Frequently I am disappointed..

I am the living example of the Republican Party platform and all that conservatives stand for..

Semper

Originally posted by intrepid
OK Grady, devil's advocate. So you are saying you would rather have your tax dollars paying for the killing of Iraqi's rather than curing illegals?

Actually, I've said nothing of the sort. What you and ECK are presenting is a false dichotomy or a false dilemma.

I'd rather not spend money killing Iraqis, but as fate would have it, we are fighting a war in Iraq, which I think should be pursued until a stable government can be attained.

I do not believe in socialized medicine to the extent that ECK suggested in his previous post.

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
The costs of the occupation are extraordinary. In the billions. If we can blow that kind of dough on an unecessary war over on the other side of the earth, there's no reason why we shouldn't take medical care of all our citizens.

We have help for the poor and elderly in terms of health care. Putting the government in charge of universal health care in America is not a good idea in my opinion.

Furthermore, I am astounded by this statement.

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
As a lifelong Republican, I came around the idea of universal healthcare when I saw the invasion of Iraq and the ensuing occupation.

ECK, when you say lifelong Republican, how many years are you speaking of?

Why would an invasion of Iraq convince anyone, let alone a lifelong Republican, that universal health care is necessary.

What has one to do with the other?

Personally, I think that all the money wasted by Americans on gambiling, drinking, cable TV, and using illegal drugs should be spent funding their health insurance. To me, that makes perfect sense.


[edit on 2007/6/17 by GradyPhilpott]

I can respect where you are coming from Semper and your life experince. I also have to add however that I have known people who have had equally rough lives and experinces that taught them the importance of community and interdependence and as a result they are as liberal as can be. My father, may he rest in peace was more like you; my grandmother, his mother was a staunch liberal, a devout old school Brethern and about as country as you can get.

Originally posted by grover
...I live in the heart of Appalachia and both the New Deal and the War on Poverty did a lot of good down here.

To say such a thing would be assuming that it wouldn't be any better if the misnamed New Deal and "War on Poverty" didn't exist. I can almost guarantee you that if that if that money was left in the market (and not taxed out of it), more good would have been done.

[edit on 17-6-2007 by Johnmike]

Originally posted by semperfortis

you guys make us look like pikers.

I have NO idea what a "Piker" is but I'm guessing it can't be good... HAHAHAHAHA

A piker is someone who consistantly refuses to give it their all...see definition #2:
encarta.msn.com...
Piker:
pik·er (plural pik·ers)
noun U.S.

Definition:
1. stingy person: somebody who is stingy with money
2. petty person: somebody who does things in a small-minded or petty way
3. cautious gambler: somebody who gambles cautiously with little money

i.e
We won't actually run somebody out of town on a rail, but by golly we'll appoint a Royal Commission to look into it!!

No offense but you don't know what you are talking about. I grew up here in the south and I know how poor it was. What they both did was to not just pump money into the regions, but specifically to pump money into regions and communities that had already been passed by. They weren't hand outs either. The TVA created thousands of jobs were there were none, to places already depressed before the great depression hit and brought cheap electricity to a region that was one of the very last to get it. The parks that were created by the Conservation corp gave work to men who had none and the work they did was of considerable quality. Total Action Against Poverty still does good work and helps small businesses in poor areas get up and running, helps with school meals for the poorest and helps with medical services for those who cannot afford any. So tell me again how these are such bad things?

Originally posted by grover
So tell me again how these are such bad things?

Sure.

Originally posted by grover
No offense but you don't know what you are talking about. I grew up here in the south and I know how poor it was.

These observations are far from scientific. It's really presumptuous to say something like that.

Originally posted by grover
The TVA created thousands of jobs were there were none, to places already depressed before the great depression hit and brought cheap electricity to a region that was one of the very last to get it. The parks that were created by the Conservation corp gave work to men who had none and the work they did was of considerable quality.

Where did the money for the TVA come from? Taxes. These taxes could have been used by businesses to open up new jobs. By taxing this much, you're actually DESTROYING opportunities for employment by making it too costly for a company to support the new jobs. Additionally, some businesses can just outright fail due to the decreased income and business. So basically what you're saying is that whoever can get jobs with the TVA deserves to live, and when other people are made poor by it begin to starve, they deserve to die so that the TVA can succeed. It's sickening at the worst, stupid at best.

Originally posted by grover
I have tried to say before, there were liberal Republicans just as there are still conservative Democrats, but most have been marginalized or forced out of the so-called big tent party. In the current configuration of the Republican party, Nixon would be considered to liberal for them to give the nomination to, a scary thought that one.

Indeed that is an very accurate observation. Ford would also be considered to Liberal today by Republican supporters. The concept of an progressive or Liberal Republican isnt hard to grasp although I'm not conservative by American standards I do consider myself to a be a moderate conservative economic conservative on the NZ political spectrum . I hold Libertarian views on all social issues expect for compulsorily voting.