Deciding between Liberal and Conservative Politics

[titsrock]

It's nice and correct to view yourself as a FREE AGENT in business, on the job and in politics.

Reality is not the same. The Constitution did not mention political parties but they formed for various reasons and they are here today and not going away.

How would the Dem and Repub party dissolve today? Seriously. How?

The Repub Party frakked itself by putting forth a group of candidates who all seemed like George Bush 3rd Termers. The McCain/Rudy/Mitt/Fred candidates would all continue the Patriot Act, the War Machine, Tax cuts, Deficit spending, drill our way to "oil independence," and they all put the blinders on for the present crumbling American economy. The only thing these candidates offered was "we've got to trade our way and find people to buy our stuff" philosophy out of this economic mess. And if that means offshoring jobs and in-sourcing cheap, migrant labor..so be it:dunno: That's free market Capitalism...

Only Ron Paul offered something truly different from this group. He wanted to end the war, tear up the Patriot Act and he did offer up a solution to the economic mess--return the U.S. to Gold Standard--but he didn't offer up a way to get there. Nobody knows what this actually means, I think.

Unfortunately, Ron Paul's brand of Republican politics would destroy the domestic system of our country because he would tear down "Gov't" only to return to a system of "States Rights" which, if he would only remember, led to secession and the Civil War back when we tried that. We would become a nation of Rogue States under President Ron Paul. That's not quite good for the country either...

Once the Republican Party realizes that the War Machine is EXACTLY HALF the problem with our economy right now, maybe they can make the Nov 2008 contest "close." But until they come to gripes with the reality of the wars...they're headed for a massive loss at the polls.

Too bad Mitt Romnay didn't say:"We got rid of Saddam. We got rid of the Taliban. We'll continue to hunt al Qaeda everywhere. I feel satisfied with what the military accomplished so that we can bring our troops home and begin to bring in a wide group of nations to solve the political problems currently going on within Iraq.." There! That was all he had to say to win the nomination. Huckabee came CLOSE to saying this above statement...actually.

 

[titsrock]

In Today's Wall Street Journal there is an interesting article about the apparent "rise" in open sexism against Hillary Clinton and her supporters. The article is filled with anecdotal examples of various men--Conservatives and Libs--displaying open sexist remarks toward Hillary and toward her supporters.

We all know what happened in New Hampshire. White New Englanders told the pollsters "I'm for Obama" but when they stepped into that pollbooth behind the closed curtain...they came out punching a different button.

If this racist/sexist duality is a hidden undertone within America regarding two of our own politicians...are you telling me that Americans, given their own economic misery they face (credit/mortgage meltdown, job losses) are going to continue to care about the Middle East?

I don't see how they will for very much longer....once they see more neighbors lose their jobs and homes.

 

[Facetious]

I know that I won't put up with politicians that are America haters for the purpose of politics. My grandmother always used to say it is a poor frog that can't praise his own pond and I believe that.

Me neither 'cause if you do you have to sacrifice something . . . usually sovereignty or money.

If the politicians we elect don't act consistent with the theme of their campaign, it's a good policy to raise hell against those individuals.

Only against the republicrats will we condemn the entire party for the misgivings of the few .
Never against the democrats will we see this. :1orglaugh ~ Just an observation, as I'm loyal to neither.

The time to effectively evaluate politicians is at the end of their respective terms.
Really, It's just a crapshot otherwise.

 

[georges]

I am fan of reaganism which was the best form of political thing the Republicans have made for USA.

 

[Facetious]

Only Ron Paul offered something truly different from this group. He wanted to end the war, tear up the Patriot Act and he did offer up a solution to the economic mess--return the U.S. to Gold Standard--but he didn't offer up a way to get there. Nobody knows what this actually means, I think.

Unfortunately, Ron Paul's brand of Republican politics would destroy the domestic system of our country because he would tear down "Gov't" only to return to a system of "States Rights" which, if he would only remember, led to secession and the Civil War back when we tried that. We would become a nation of Rogue States under President Ron Paul. That's not quite good for the country either...

Once the Republican Party realizes that the War Machine is EXACTLY HALF the problem with our economy right now, maybe they can make the Nov 2008 contest "close." But until they come to gripes with the reality of the wars...they're headed for a massive loss at the polls.

Too bad Mitt Romnay didn't say:"We got rid of Saddam. We got rid of the Taliban. We'll continue to hunt al Qaeda everywhere. I feel satisfied with what the military accomplished so that we can bring our troops home and begin to bring in a wide group of nations to solve the political problems currently going on within Iraq.." There! That was all he had to say to win the nomination. Huckabee came CLOSE to saying this above statement...actually.

Good for an op ed, yet you present it with such finality. :dunno:

What specific issues do you have with States Rights ? Civil War . . what ? There were much different issues at hand at that time. Which issues today would lead you to believe that civil war would be imminent if States Rights were reinvigorated ?

 

[titsrock]

What specific issues do you have with States Rights ? Civil War . . what ? There were much different issues at hand at that time. Which issues today would lead you to believe that civil war would be imminent if States Rights were reinvigorated ?

Under a States Rights scenario--we would become a nation of Haves and Have Nots. There would be a group of Rich states and a group of poor states. States would also have incentives to build walls around their boundaries to hoard resources. There would also be 50 ways to do things. Making a phonecall to a family member in another state would become a hassle.

It is the Federal Government which unites all Americans.

 

[Quagmire33]

I don't live in the States but i'm fairly liberal, which would suit the democrats.

 

[L3ggy]

What is the difference of Liberal and Conservative politicians?

 

[jk34]

I am fan of reaganism which was the best form of political thing the Republicans have made for USA.

well George i agree with you,Reagan was the best republican president ever...

but im still more of a liberal,sorry.
enviroment,poverty and equality...anybody who has those priorities,gets my vote

 

[bombardier52]

well George i agree with you,Reagan was the best republican president ever...

but im still more of a liberal,sorry.
enviroment,poverty and equality...anybody who has those priorities,gets my vote

Equality? That's left of liberal. That's socialist. I just leafed through my pocket Constitution again and I don't see any equality in there. Unless you mean of opportunity of course and I believe we have that already.

 

[scubamike]

Equality? That's left of liberal. That's socialist. I just leafed through my pocket Constitution again and I don't see any equality in there. Unless you mean of opportunity of course and I believe we have that already.

Such as affirmative action when you mean of opportunity? I'm certainly not for that. I believe it was good in the 1940s/50s when African Americans and other nationalities were trying to catch up with Caucasians. Right now there is no need for that. I feel that it will be more of an insult to a person if their qualifications for a position are easier to grasp than the next person...and it will be especially unfair to the other person.

 

[scubamike]

What is the difference of Liberal and Conservative politicians?

If you like porn, you have some Liberal standards.

If you hate guns...Liberal

lower/middle class...alot of Liberal

Love the environment...Liberal

War is not the answer...Liberal

Higher class...Conservative

If you want more security...Conservative

Borders...Conservative

Most religions fall under Conservative

Straight/non-homosexual relationships...Conservative

Everything referring to the bible...Conservative

Basically, liberal means to be much more flexible with a rule or decision while conservative is being more strict in thinking on something. Is this a fair comparison?

One other difference I notice, Liberals like change and want to make things different. Conservatives are more traditional and like to keep things the way they are. Such as, Liberals want to legalize gay marriage. Conservatives are against it because it is against religion.

 

[YMIHERE]

Such as affirmative action when you mean of opportunity? I'm certainly not for that. I believe it was good in the 1940s/50s when African Americans and other nationalities were trying to catch up with Caucasians. Right now there is no need for that. I feel that it will be more of an insult to a person if their qualifications for a position are easier to grasp than the next person...and it will be especially unfair to the other person.

You're way off on the years in history. Affirmative action did not exist until about 1970. In the 1940's there were riots in Philadelphia because a black man was hired to drive a trolley. Blacks could not be a police or fire man untill the late 60's. In the 1950's and 1960's the south still had signs for Black and White restrooms and schools were still segregated according to race. In just about every where in the US black could not really buy a house in a white area until about 1980. The segregation was a lot more recent then you think and is still with us today in many ways.

 

[scubamike]

You're way off on the years in history. Affirmative action did not exist until about 1970. In the 1940's there were riots in Philadelphia because a black man was hired to drive a trolley. Blacks could not be a police or fire man untill the late 60's. In the 1950's and 1960's the south still had signs for Black and White restrooms and schools were still segregated according to race. In just about every where in the US black could not really buy a house in a white area until about 1980. The segregation was a lot more recent then you think and is still with us today in many ways.

okay thanks for the history lesson...I missed the mark by a few decades...but like I said, it was necessary at some point and I don't feel it is still necessary today.

 

[YMIHERE]

okay thanks for the history lesson...I missed the mark by a few decades...but like I said, it was necessary at some point and I don't feel it is still necessary today.

I agree to a point. I think we need affirmative action based on socioeconomic status not race. Poverty is a very hard cycle to break out of and the idea of a lot of social mobility is a myth.

 

[scubamike]

I agree to a point. I think we need affirmative action based on socioeconomic status not race. Poverty is a very hard cycle to break out of and the idea of a lot of social mobility is a myth.

Interesting point. Yeah, when I brought up Affirmative Action I only referred to race. I did not think about it as being used in class terms. Though I hate to see people in poverty and would like to help them out as much as I can, I know there will never be a one-class system. This country is run by Capitalism. In order to be in the higher positions, you have to work to get there and then you reap the benefits. I'm a blue-collar worker, but I've moved up from being bag-boy at a grocery store to manager of 20+ people in an organization. I knew then that if I wanted more benefits, I would need to improve. Am I stating a similar point to what you were referring to, even if you don't approve?

 

[YMIHERE]

^^^
I agree there will never be a one class social structure. Glad to hear you're working your way up the organization. But what true for the individual is not true for the group. There is room for only a few at the top or even the middle. I think a social goal would be a less skewed income distribution curve not a flat curve. The US is approaching a Banana Republic income distribution.

 

[scubamike]

^^^
I agree there will never be a one class social structure. Glad to hear you're working your way up the organization. But what true for the individual is not true for the group. There is room for only a few at the top or even the middle. I think a social goal would be a less skewed income distribution curve not a flat curve. The US is approaching a Banana Republic income distribution.

I understand your view but that is not how I think. I'm an independent person and am proud of that. I feel that everyone is responsible for their future and actions. Even many handicapped people such as blind and mentally retarded. They receive career opportunities and are doing something with themselves. Like I said earlier, I do not expect the government to take care of me, especially if I sit back and do nothing. I work hard to give myself a future and put food on the table. Sometimes there are problems and things don't go well (I could be laid off, fired, re-classed, etc.) but that doesn't mean I should bitch and whine about it. I would pick up the pieces and start over. Many people in this world who are less fortunate are hard workers and have the hard-worker mentality while not worrying about what their government will give them. I deeply respect those people and try to be like them.

 

[Blink]

Basically, liberal means to be much more flexible with a rule or decision while conservative is being more strict in thinking on something. Is this a fair comparison?

The Bush Administration and the Republican Party are both conservative in your view, correct? Then why are they pushing for... "less strict" interpretation of the law?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/14/AR2008031400803.html

One other difference I notice, Liberals like change and want to make things different. Conservatives are more traditional and like to keep things the way they are.

Things are obviously not so black-and-white. The Neo-Conservatives have a radical agenda. Perhaps these "good" extremists are truly trying to protect us from the "bad" extremists (or terrorists, if you prefer), but I doubt it. When I consider everything that Bush and company have done, I'm left thinking that they're only looking out for their own interests, not mine and not the American public's.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1138009.stm

 

[bombardier52]

^^^
I agree there will never be a one class social structure. Glad to hear you're working your way up the organization. But what true for the individual is not true for the group. There is room for only a few at the top or even the middle. I think a social goal would be a less skewed income distribution curve not a flat curve. The US is approaching a Banana Republic income distribution.

Yikes! Social goal? That's kind of scary sounding to me. It certainly doesn't sound like anything I want government's hand in at all. If everyone is "equal" why would you work hard and take the chances required to make it big? And then even more frighting is that someone has to make the choice of who to take things from to redistribute. That sounds rife with danger!