All Comments

  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 10 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Start off with the old definitions of conservative and liberal. One meaning make haste slowly and deliberate and within the existing laws. the other get it done now, react to the moment, never mind the law.

    Then see the transistion over the years to the new definitions and finally the see the move of the Republicans into the same socialist camp and left wing camp as the Democrats. One Statist the other Corporatist. Both believing in government control of citizens. One the left wing of the left and the other the right wing of the left. Finally both in an unadvertised coalition of the left.

    now the Coalition of the left is liberal enough to hasten the final incremental move to full control. It's been a hundred years in the making. They are in a big time rush.

    But suspicion has grown within the public who no longer trusts the Government so we'll call that coalition the Government Party.

    Their right wing is used to deflect criticism but really does nothing practical to slow the course.

    Once they reach their goal the original conservative definition takes hold again and they slow down as a full fledged fascist socialist state opposed to any change once again.

    It's all in the definitions and how they are applied and when. There is a name for this put forward I think by Chomsky. ah yes State Capitalism where what the state doesn't own it controls.

    Think about that for a while. Then refer to the comment by profChuck on situational ethics

    The key is they are NOT two separate parties but a cooperative coalition.

    Also remember their is scant difference between international socialism whee the state owns everything and national socialism where the state controls everything. Germany WWII was socialist.

    Sweden, Norway, New Zealand are NOT socialist but hampered capitalist nations. Citizens still in charge.

    It's all in the definitions but only if you accept their version.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by plusaf 10 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    +1 Herb, but I apply the same critique/complaint to the folks called 'conservatives' in the US today...
    Imposing rules on others based on the ethical or moral tenets YOU (they) believe in.
    Same diff; mirror image.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jlc 10 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Michael Aarethun -
    I have mentally referred to it as 'a different set of premises' but I like the Framing The Reference term. Doing so also necessitates not looking too closely at things like the percentage of human suffering that has been alleviated by technology invented for profit vs the amount that has been alleviated by charitable efforts.

    I am going to a party with them tonight. There may be one other person there who is a Randist - but a closet Randist. There will be fascinating conversation and much eating of large red boiled bugs.

    Jan
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jlc 10 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    OUCarl -
    They are really excellent people, but their premises are different than mine. Logically, I should be able to demonstrate to them that their views are inaccurate, but they do not want to go there. One cannot 'drive them' to changing their beliefs, though I can occasionally chip away at individual points. I think that the most I can do to influence their worldview is to be open about my beliefs and make them realize that they cannot pigeonhole the 'Randists' in a virtual oubliette...since they would have to include me (and they do not want to do that).

    Jan
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by CircuitGuy 10 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I simply don't believe this stuff. I believed it from the time I became aware of public policy as a young teenager and stopped believing it about 5 to 10 years ago. The final nail in the coffin was when Democrats proposed (and succeeded) in cutting Medicare payments, something they had condemned as dangerous in '95. 15 years later, it was Republicans turn to criticize it and condemn it as dangerous. I had heard politics was "show business for ugly people" for a long time, but I didn't get what that meant until I realized mainstream political ideologies don't even exist.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 10 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    They make it fit so well using a technique called Framing The Reference. Presuming the right to usurp and commandeer the thoughts of others and thus suppressing any opponent. They refers to the Secular Progressive Group and friends.

    It's inevitable some will stick and seep over into the next conversation.

    Except here of course. Jan brought up some good points Your last sentence is another good point.

    The sentence before that rated a thumbs up.

    I've noted four or five key points and leads followed up two so far and came up with two more intentionally misdefined words. Grist for the mill and wood for the fire.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Olduglycarl 10 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Except for the last paragraph, I would of thought you were talking about most American conservatives.
    Except for the forcing you to give to the poor. It's because of 'Force' we have poor people and those that would help, can not because that which we might have help With, has been taken from us.

    I myself, do not fit neatly into any category.

    Your 'Liberal's' do not sound like the one's I have met. If anything, they've done more taking and are what I call anti-lectual and not exibit the profound honesty I prefer.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 10 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    White male slave owners exactly like them? No. White slave owners is an apt description of the left. they lost the second revolution along with their northern anti-civil rights partners and have never strayed form that ultimate goal. Republicans had some salad years ending in the 1890's and dying after the 1960s with some exceptions ....then joined the government party. Now a working coalition or ...a one party system of government. The third revolution is over. We now look forward to life under the Patriot Act until we see what Soros and the ALCU" have in mind for step number four. i agree with your analysis except the last sentence. That's a done deal.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 10 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    That is what happens when you have hampered press that is not bothered by such mundane things as dicitonaries. I do not know where the mis- termed Conservatives get their definitions excep they seem to stick to reality to some small degree for the liberals it's easy. James Carville looks at himself in the mirror describes what he sees and subsitutes the target of the day. that is a common method of the left.

    To keep things balanced here conservative means slow to judge and make change always following the rule of law while liberals want immediate change to satisfy the moment with no regard for such trivial nonsense as .laws. That with some acid was the oldest defintion I could find in the pre PC dictionaries. As the firs post i think it was mentioned the European definitions are something else again. In the US under present definition.

    Another trait I noticed. If they come out strong for a Republican candidate that's their chosen candidate from the right wing of the left. Also the first one they will dump after primaries.

    It follows if they are hot about Trumpet they have other plans than your, to them, meaningless definitions of evil and greater good. One is defeat a weakness in their own group (Hillary) once and for while still controlling from the right wing of the left. Trump is after all nothing more than a socialist corporatist as opposed to Hillary an embarassing socialst statist. Sometimes better to sit out one cycle and let the heat die down. Either way the party is served. Statist, Corporatist and of course union leaders are their three main divisions. Remember their goal is not owning your land or your bank account they want to own you.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by gaiagal 10 years, 9 months ago
    Frankly I consider myself to be a true liberal. The people I know who call themselves liberal haven't a clue as what it actually means. It is also obvious they do not know the definition of socialism, fascism or communism or irony.

    They also call themselves "progressive" which, apparently, means supporting government programs for all aspects of health care, redistributing wealth, protecting the environment and making sure everyone is nice to one another. None of which has anything in common with socialism, fascism or communism. It also, somehow, means they are independent, free and are the decision makers when it comes to their health care and their ability to earn a living. They also believe their lives are private and, even if the government knows everything about them, they have nothing to hide and anyone who thinks the government would do anything "bad" with the information is crazy.

    These include graduates of MIT, Fordham, Yale and Harvard. Oy vey.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by CircuitGuy 10 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    "sex anywhere and time, with anyone is a right etc etc."
    I think it's a subset of other human rights.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by CircuitGuy 10 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    "American liberals are victims of Utopian vision, believing that it's possible and correct to force common outcomes on everyone, thinking that by making "everyone" (and there's a qualifier on what they mean with that word) equal in terms of property and services they'll do away with greed, envy, and violence. What they don't like to acknowledge is that each of us is as unique as our fingerprints, and naturally resist being shoved into a "one size fits all" box. Of course the liberal definition of "everyone" means all but an elite who must guide society toward achieving their idea of Utopia."
    Amazingly, I've heard that exact same definition of conservatives. I do not agree with it. Its value is in it lends itself to getting on the radio or TV and yell at each other.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by DrZarkov99 10 years, 9 months ago
    American liberals are victims of Utopian vision, believing that it's possible and correct to force common outcomes on everyone, thinking that by making "everyone" (and there's a qualifier on what they mean with that word) equal in terms of property and services they'll do away with greed, envy, and violence. What they don't like to acknowledge is that each of us is as unique as our fingerprints, and naturally resist being shoved into a "one size fits all" box. Of course the liberal definition of "everyone" means all but an elite who must guide society toward achieving their idea of Utopia.

    The reason many liberals think the Constitution is an obsolete rag, written by white male slaveholders and an obstruction to social progress is the fact that it consists of absolutes that attempt to account for human individual variability without restricting individual freedom. That document isn't supposed to leave much wiggle room for situational ethics, but liberal justices have found creative ways to find exceptions. Given enough unobstructed effort, liberals will make our Constitution into just so much decoration.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Stormi 10 years, 9 months ago
    Liberals seem to think they have values, think they are "saving" society,think they are well educated. However, they are more prone to grabbing on to the talking points set forth by people in power or those of Alinksy's ilk.Lack of wide based education seems to be a common thread among them, being in is more important. Reason is seriously lacking. When asked to define their view in their own words, depruved if talking points, they usually give you a blank look. One very nice man who works hard, asked me what difference it made if Hillary lied about Benghazi or e-mails? It he had true values, it would definitely matter. They want to help Africans, yet kill babies via abortion, ban DDT and give Africans mosquito nets instead. They support Obama, yet ignore that while he urges mortgages for all, he will support Agenda 21, which will deprive them of the very home thye owe on then. The total irrationality just drives me up the wall.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jlc 10 years, 9 months ago
    I am stunned by the comments listed below. Do you not have any liberal friends? Or perhaps I should ask, "Don't you have any liberal friends you respect?" I have a ton of highly intelligent friends who are flaming liberals.

    These people are incredibly honest (proof against blackmail or bribery - we have a very good business reputation with the CDC in the Carib because of this), incredibly intelligent and well read, charismatic, scintillating conversationalists, well dressed, and have a great sense of humor (including about themselves).

    What are their standards? Several of them are Christian, and they believe in the Christian principle of giving to the poor and sometimes turning the other cheek. They are willing to give to the poor themselves in equal proportion to the degree that they latch onto my income and force me to do this too. The ones who are atheists have about the same ethos as the Christian liberals, but without the religious underpinning. I agree with these liberal friends on almost all social issues.

    But the difference is that they do think that it is moral to force me to live by their standards. They think that if They give to the poor, so that poor people do not have to inconvenience themselves with jobs, that it is OK for them to make me do the same. Were the shoe on the other foot, and I were King, I would not consider that my not giving to the poor meant that they were forbidden to do so themselves. (This goes back to my comment on the thread about the clerk not signing marriage licenses: the difference between force and permission.) They would certainly be welcome to give their own income to the poor, according to whatever parameters they designed.

    As I have said before, liberalism and even socialism and communism 'nest' well inside a freedom based society; the reverse is not true.

    Jan
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 10 years, 9 months ago
    When you speak of values you strike at the heart of Liberalism. What ever values there are in Liberalism or any form of leftism is outside of man and is dependent on values not held by man qua man but by an institution set up to govern men. That means that values are not inherent in mankind and must be imposed upon him by a series of rules that can be altered at the whim of those enforcing them. When the rules spring from within mankind allowing for everyone to do what is best for each individual without imposing the use of force on any other man, then you have the basis of a rational society. There is no better example of the lack of inherently good values in liberalism than the current decline of American governance as seen in the last 100 years.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ProfChuck 10 years, 9 months ago
    Liberal-progressives practice "situational ethics" which is similar to "negotiable virtue" as practiced by prostitutes. (The similarity probably goes far beyond that. Their approach to life is summed up by the old Marxist motto "The end justifies the means". So it is perfectly acceptable to lie, cheat, swindle, and even murder and they view their opponents whose scruples make that approach difficult as weak and deserving of defeat.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by DeanStriker 10 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Using the word "liberal" always raises that question. I am a Jefferson Liberal, being liberal with freedom. It's so spun these days that I just stopped using the word, and encourage others to do the same.

    Same is true about many other words. Our language is becoming gibberish for that reason.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by gcarl615 10 years, 9 months ago
    I recently asked my 19 year old college attending niece, if she was taking any philosophy courses this year. Now please understand I have great regard for her and her mother. She is good girl, if you get my meaning. No drugs, maybe an occational cocktail, a 4H tattoo on her ankle, all in all what I would have liked my daughter to be. So anyway, I asked her that question. She kind of looked at me with that "no what the heck for" look. I started to explain the importance of having a guiding principle(s) for how you conduct your life. I finally decided to lend her my copy of AS. I asked her to read it when she had quality time to slowly absorb it. I also said she would probably have to read it several times. She seemed very interested and I will see how this turns out. My point here is that young people don't seem to get a moral compass from their parents, piers, or their schools. Seemingly only from liberal academics, spouting Marxist crap and a society that tells them they have no bounds, anything goes, sex anywhere and time, with anyone is a right etc etc.

    So in my humble opinion it is the corrupt bankrupt society that has no morals or standards, not just liberal or conservatives. It is time to withdraw from that society and live only for ones self.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jdg 10 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    At which point I always jump in with "Imagine all the monikeys, flying out my butt!"
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by MagicDog 10 years, 9 months ago
    I think that this hits on the basic philosophical difference between Conservatives/Republicans and Liberals/Democrats.  Conservatives value success and Liberals despise achievements of any kind. The most obvious example is how Liberals hate successful business. Observe “no grade” academics and “no winner” athletics. One of the key things about socialism is the equality factor where everyone is supposed to be “equal”. To a Liberal, if they succeed then they must hate themselves. The further continuation of the Liberal hatred of success is “self sacrifice”. The ultimate continuation of liberal philosophy is the dropout slow suicide sometimes exhibited by alcoholism and other self abusive behavior. Note how most teachers will profess to be sacrificing their life to “helping others”. This accounts for why there are so many Liberals in academics. They will frequently be heard to exclaim how much they sacrifice by not working in the private sector. Businessmen who are Liberal and successful must hate themselves. There are many other examples of this in charity, social work, etc. where some will say that they “don't want money”. Why not? I notice that many Liberals are happy to shop at expensive stores if someone else is paying.
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo