Jump to content
Dr. Joe B.

Liberalism Versus Conservatism

Recommended Posts

Too many bloggers are using the labels 'liberal' and 'conservative' without a clear definition in mind. Talking heads like Rush Limbaugh do it daily. The labels have become meaningless. Or worse they have become chameleons that can change color to mean any thing that anyone wants them to mean. No matter how you slice or dice it there can be no way a meaningful political dialogue can occur using the labels 'liberal' and 'conservative' until a precise, concise, consistent, and complete definition to the labels is established.

 

It would be the most desirable situation if everyone accepted the same definition. That is probably going to be an impossible undertaking. However, at a minimum it should be possible to force anyone using the terms to explain their interpretation of a liberal versus a conservative stance. Still there will be some who believe that they can make sense in using the labels despite not having a clear idea of what they mean. Such folks will not be worth wasting time entering into a political dialogue. Only confused nebulous illogical thoughts can come out of such a dialogue.

 

This is why I have decided to start this topic. I have created this same topic on three other forums since 1998. Two of the forums closed down. The third one was full of vile moronic out-of-control nitwits who had no desire to enter into meaningful dialogue. So, I quit that forum. This forum seems to have a much higher quality blogger. No doubt it is because of the strict editing policy. I truly believe that this topic will be a valuable addition to this forum.

 

I should point out that I have written well over 2000 messages that are really essays on the subject of Liberalism versus Conservatism since 1998. So, I am not a novice. I have probably thought of almost everything imaginable connected to this topic. But I recognize that the insight that I have gained will still need to be re-visited by new questioning minds. I am quite open to new thoughts on this subject. But I will not pull any punches, if I see folly in anyone's opinion. Thin skinned folks will have to get used to brutal honesty at times, if they wish to participate in this topic.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The third one was full of vile moronic out-of-control nitwits who had no desire to enter into meaningful dialogue. So, I quit that forum. This forum seems to have a much higher quality blogger. No doubt it is because of the strict editing policy.
Have you read anything here at all?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Have you read anything here at all?

 

:lol: :lol:

 

Seriously, there have been some great discussions here, but your post about bowled me over.

 

 

And for Joe B.

 

What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label "Liberal"? If by "Liberal" they mean, as they want people to believe, someone who is soft in his policies abroad, who is against local government, and who is unconcerned with the taxpayer's dollar, then . . . we are not that kind of "Liberal." But if by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the -people--their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties--someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal." -- John Kennedy, NYC, 1960

 

This is more akin to my idea of liberalism than what conservatives have gotten away with characterizing us as.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there are core beliefs that separate liberals from conservatives (a few listed below). However, I also think it's incorrect to pigeonhole people as either liberal or conservative. I find myself on different sides, depending on the issue.

 

Success:

- Liberal: You benefitted from fortunate circumstances. You were born to a good environment, had good genes, people supported you, you were lucky, you had opportunities.

- Conservative: You worked hard, showed initiative, made the most of your opportunities, developed your talent, applied your strengths. A person can transcend their circumstances.

 

Worldview:

- Liberal: Respect the equivalent moral standing of all peoples and ideologies.

- Conservative: Look out for #1 (us), and our friends.

 

Economics:

- Liberal: 'Free' enterprise is like the core of a nuclear reactor. You've got to have it to keep the lights on, but it's extremely dangerous and must be highly regulated to ensure safety.

- Conservative: Free enterprise is the engine of economic growth. The more free the economy, the faster it grows, the more jobs/money/wealth we will all have to enjoy.

 

Religion:

- Liberal: Religion is illogical and dangerous. It should be kept out of any decision making process. People in decision making positions should at least put on the public cloak of secularism.

- Conservative: Religion is the source of our morals and values. Without it we're like rudderless ships in a sea of relativism. Leaders who properly apply religious (ie Christian) values are good for society.

 

Responsibility:

- Liberal: Everyone makes mistakes. Forgive, rehabilitate, counsel, and help the person do better. Pick them up, dust them off, give them a good meal and a bed to sleep in and they'll make you proud.

- Conservative: People who make mistakes should be allowed to feel the pain. Through suffering, they will learn what not to do. Others will also see their pain and learn vicariously.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Have you read anything here at all?

 

The reason that I did not begin entry into this forum immediately was so that I could survey a number of political messages. The first messages that I wrote mainly were replies to other bloggers thoughts. Generally, I found a high quality response to my replies. Name-calling without substantiation was minimal. I noticed that many of the members write their thoughts with detailed reasoning that seems typical of quality mental activity. I would guess that a large percentage of the bloggers on this forum have college education based on what I have read here.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
:lol: :lol:

 

Seriously, there have been some great discussions here, but your post about bowled me over.

And for Joe B.

This is more akin to my idea of liberalism than what conservatives have gotten away with characterizing us as.

 

Of course, you realize that John F. Kennedy was making exactly the same comments that I make concerning the nebulousness in usage of the label 'liberal'. Kennedy was pointing out that the label had to be first explained before applying it to anyone. So, Kennedy explained that he was liberal only if the interpretation resulted in good government. Kennedy did not attempt to synthesize and analyze the label. That is what I like to do. It is my calling to do analytic things in life. I spent 21 years working for the Dept of Defense doing analysis. I was a senior Operations Research Analyst for the whole of my career.

 

If you are interested, check out my website INTERJETIC.COM. At that site you will find a number of my research publications as well as other interesting background information. The hyperlink ACADBIO in one of the pages of my website gives a summary of my life's work and education background.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think there are core beliefs that separate liberals from conservatives (a few listed below). However, I also think it's incorrect to pigeonhole people as either liberal or conservative. I find myself on different sides, depending on the issue.

 

Success:

- Liberal: You benefitted from fortunate circumstances. You were born to a good environment, had good genes, people supported you, you were lucky, you had opportunities.

- Conservative: You worked hard, showed initiative, made the most of your opportunities, developed your talent, applied your strengths. A person can transcend their circumstances.

 

Worldview:

- Liberal: Respect the equivalent moral standing of all peoples and ideologies.

- Conservative: Look out for #1 (us), and our friends.

 

Economics:

- Liberal: 'Free' enterprise is like the core of a nuclear reactor. You've got to have it to keep the lights on, but it's extremely dangerous and must be highly regulated to ensure safety.

- Conservative: Free enterprise is the engine of economic growth. The more free the economy, the faster it grows, the more jobs/money/wealth we will all have to enjoy.

 

Religion:

- Liberal: Religion is illogical and dangerous. It should be kept out of any decision making process. People in decision making positions should at least put on the public cloak of secularism.

- Conservative: Religion is the source of our morals and values. Without it we're like rudderless ships in a sea of relativism. Leaders who properly apply religious (ie Christian) values are good for society.

 

Responsibility:

- Liberal: Everyone makes mistakes. Forgive, rehabilitate, counsel, and help the person do better. Pick them up, dust them off, give them a good meal and a bed to sleep in and they'll make you proud.

- Conservative: People who make mistakes should be allowed to feel the pain. Through suffering, they will learn what not to do. Others will also see their pain and learn vicariously.

That is a bunch of crap and you know it! That in no way describes the ideology philosophy or charactors of either Liberal or conservative! Especially the success part!

You have posted the most idiotic thing I have ever read on this forum! The problem is that you believe your own crap!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would take the OP a step further and say liberals represent what's wrong with America. They collect the most welfare, fill the jails, ruin neighborhoods, commit the most crime, whine/protest everything they can, support terrorists, welcome criminal aliens, and are mostly just pathetic losers. They think educating themselves makes them smart. The liberal college grads are just morons with a degree. :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Too many bloggers are using the labels 'liberal' and 'conservative' without a clear definition in mind. Talking heads like Rush Limbaugh do it daily. The labels have become meaningless. Or worse they have become chameleons that can change color to mean any thing that anyone wants them to mean. No matter how you slice or dice it there can be no way a meaningful political dialogue can occur using the labels 'liberal' and 'conservative' until a precise, concise, consistent, and complete definition to the labels is established.

 

It would be the most desirable situation if everyone accepted the same definition. That is probably going to be an impossible undertaking. However, at a minimum it should be possible to force anyone using the terms to explain their interpretation of a liberal versus a conservative stance. Still there will be some who believe that they can make sense in using the labels despite not having a clear idea of what they mean. Such folks will not be worth wasting time entering into a political dialogue. Only confused nebulous illogical thoughts can come out of such a dialogue.

 

This is why I have decided to start this topic. I have created this same topic on three other forums since 1998. Two of the forums closed down. The third one was full of vile moronic out-of-control nitwits who had no desire to enter into meaningful dialogue. So, I quit that forum. This forum seems to have a much higher quality blogger. No doubt it is because of the strict editing policy. I truly believe that this topic will be a valuable addition to this forum.

 

I should point out that I have written well over 2000 messages that are really essays on the subject of Liberalism versus Conservatism since 1998. So, I am not a novice. I have probably thought of almost everything imaginable connected to this topic. But I recognize that the insight that I have gained will still need to be re-visited by new questioning minds. I am quite open to new thoughts on this subject. But I will not pull any punches, if I see folly in anyone's opinion. Thin skinned folks will have to get used to brutal honesty at times, if they wish to participate in this topic.

Thank you. Looking forward to hearing more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since you are discussing the meaninglessness of mere labels, Dr. Joe this quote from Anthony Demello comes to mind:

 

 

LABELS

 

As Japanese Zen masters say, "Don't seek truth; just drop your opinions". Drop your theories; don't seek the truth. Truth isn't something you search for. If you stop being opinionated, you would know. It's the same thing with labels. If you dropped your labels you would know. What do I mean by labels? Every label you can concieve of except perhaps that of a human being.

 

I am a human being. Fair enough; doesn't say very much. But when you say, "I am successful", that's crazy. Success is not part of the "I". Success is something that comes and goes; it could be here today and gone tomorrow. That's not "I". When you said, "I was a success", you were in error; you were plunged into darkness. You identified with success. The same thing when you said, "I am a failure, a lawyer, a businessman". You know what's going to happen to you if you identify with these things.

 

You're going to cling to them, you're going to be worried that they may fall apart, and that's where your suffering comes in. That is what I meant to you when I said to you, "If you're suffering, you're asleep". Do you want a sign that you're asleep? Here is is: You're suffering. Suffering is a sign that you're out of touch with the truth. Suffering is given to you that you might open your eyes to the truth, that you might understand that there's falsehood somewhere, just as physical pain is given to you so you will understand that there is disease or illness somewhere. Suffering points out that there is falsehood somewhere. Suffering occurs when you clash with reality, when your falsehoods clash with truth, then you have suffering. Otherwise there is no suffering.

 

Anthony Demello

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That is a bunch of crap and you know it! That in no way describes the ideology philosophy or charactors of either Liberal or conservative! Especially the success part!

You have posted the most idiotic thing I have ever read on this forum! The problem is that you believe your own crap!

Let's see yours!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ten years of thinking about what it should mean to have a liberal or a conservative position based on the big picture of what government is about has led me to the following simple definition of the labels 'liberal' and 'conservative'. Keep in mind that definitions to be effective should be basic and get to the heart of the matter under consideration. Complex definitions with multiple interpretations taking pages of rhetoric are useless. To get the real spirit of how to effectively define terms one should look at any higher level mathematics book. Mathematicians like physicists know that to be useful a definition has to be concise, precise, consistent, and what is normally referred to as well-defined. Definitions are never nebulous subject to fuzzy interpretations. Rarely ever are definitions too complicated to grasp quickly. Generally, definitions distill basic truths.

 

Geometry progressed using basic axioms and definitions. From the simple definitions and axioms followed often incredible results like the medians of a triangle intersect in a common point. Geometry starts simple and usually ends up with incredible understanding of the mathematics of triangles and other geometric figures. There is no reason that political thinking cannot be formalized starting with a simple, concise, realistic, complete and consistent definition of the labels 'liberal' and 'conservative'.

 

After viewing a number of issues and the possible positions it should become obvious that a liberal point of view normally requires some sort of government action. On the other hand a conservative point of view most often requires "Laissez Faire" type thinking. This French phrase literally means "leave to do". I.e. do not interject government into the issue. In addition, frequently the conservative position is referred to as "Status Quo" which is Latin for don't disturb the current status. Conservative thinking thrives on inaction while liberal thinking thrives on action by government. This is no accident. True conservatives do not like to build government. Conservatives like to minimize government. Conservatives do not like regulations. Conservatives do not like huge expensive bureacracies. Conservatives like to save money by not wasting it. Liberals like to create regulations. Conservatives like to deregulate. So, do you see? The basic truth is that a conservative position on an issue is normally a one of inaction whereas a liberal position invariably means government action.

 

When we first formed as a nation it was necessary to set up a Constitution with amendments along with a host of other ground rules for running our government in a fair way. All of this activity in those early days by our founding fathers was largely liberal positioning. Once the Constitution was set up and ratified then it became the status quo. At that point conservative stances began. It is highly conservative not to disturb our Constitution.

 

If you have been patient enough to read this far, then you probably are ready to understand how I arrived at the following precise, concise, consistent and complete definitions of a "Liberal" stance on an issue and a "Conservative" one. Notice that I do not define a person as being a liberal or conservative. I define one atomic issue at a time.

 

DEFINITION 1: Liberal position. A liberal stance or position on an issue requires a government action, such as, regulation, legislation, official policy making, court resolution, and anything that government might do using its power to act through any of its branches.

 

DEFINITION 2: Conservative position. A conservative stance is government abstaining from using its power. I.e. Government inaction on any issue is always a conservative way of behaving. Conservatives do not tamper with the liberally formed Constitution of the USA.

 

It should be noted that the definitions do not cast any aspersions on either way of thinking on an issue. In fact, both a liberal position and a conservative position can be either positive, negative, or neutral. Moreover, one can have both a liberal position on a given issue and a conservative position that do not conflict with one another on the very same issue. Liberal action and Conservative inaction have no moral valuation. They are simply paradigms for addressing government behavior.

 

I tend to use the same old tired example for how you can be both conservative and liberal on the same issue, because it is so easy to grasp. Consider the issue of postal service. Benjamin Franklin institutionalized the government controlled Post Office known as the US Postal Service. Most of us believe that the liberal action of operating a publicly available post office is a great idea. We also believe that government should not restrict (i.e be inactive) on not interfering with any private organization from setting up a private mail system. For example, fedex, UPS, DHL, and more are all examples of private delivery companies who have a right to exist. Government does not disallow the existence of private mail carrying. Government, however, does have a number of liberal regulations on private mail systems. The simple atomic issue of whether an organization can exist as a private mail carrying system is not stopped by big government. I believe that this is a good conservative position. So, I have two clearly defined positions on mail delivery, one is conservative and the other is liberal. I believe both are positive positions. Most of us do.

 

Of course, we can generalize this situation to a number of issues. Education, libraries, road systems, medicine, and much more all are issues that give rise to both a positive liberal and conservative position. Who would like to stop private education? Hardly any of us would like to put Catholic schools out of business, for example. Who thinks that public education should be abolished by big government action? Some do. Many Libertarians think so. Of course, they are dead wrong. John Adams would explode with rage from his grave, if anyone tried to eliminate public education. He championed public education and truly believed that it would make our nation great. He was right.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Let's see yours!

 

 

A little late. I have posted many many times the version of what is Liberal and what is conservative, even to the point of how each ideology evolved!

 

If you need a guide to what is Liberal just read the Constitution of the United States of America, the Declaration of Independence, the 'Federalist Papers', and 'Common Sense' by Thomas Paine.

 

If you need a guide to real conservatism read 'Mein Kampf'!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you need a guide to real conservatism read 'Mein Kampf'!

 

 

If you need a guide to liberalism in America read Marx and Engels also Mein Kampf because you can`t say Nazi without saying socialism!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you need a guide to liberalism in America read Marx and Engels also Mein Kampf because you can`t say Nazi without saying socialism!

 

 

Wow you ARE an idiot. If you think that Fascism is socialism you're stupid. If you think Liberalism is socialism, you're even Dumber. If you think that Liberalism has anything to do with communism or fascism you're even dumber!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wow you ARE an idiot. If you think that Fascism is socialism you're stupid. If you think Liberalism is socialism, you're even Dumber. If you think that Liberalism has anything to do with communism or fascism you're even dumber!

 

 

 

Hitler on May 1, 1927:

 

"We are socialists. We are enemies of today's capitalistic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are determined to destroy this system under all conditions."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A little late. I have posted many many times the version of what is Liberal and what is conservative, even to the point of how each ideology evolved!

 

If you need a guide to what is Liberal just read the Constitution of the United States of America, the Declaration of Independence, the 'Federalist Papers', and 'Common Sense' by Thomas Paine.

 

If you need a guide to real conservatism read 'Mein Kampf'!

 

Mein Kampf is a blue print for evil left wing control of government. Hitler used his power to outlaw other parties in Germany. He ended democracy using government control. Hitler's usage of government power amounted to nothing but EVIL LEFT WING fascism. His brand of evil left wing behavior was not far from the evil communism of the USSR. The major difference was Hitler worked closely with the big German Corporations. Stalin just subjugated all major industries in the USSR to his control. Hitler referred to his party as National Socialists. Socialists are not conservative right wingers. There was not one thing conservative right wing about Hitler. Conservatives do not tamper with human rights using government power. It was the conservatives in our nation who fought the hardest to stop censorship in many of its forms. Freedom of speech is one of the liberally endowed positions of our Constitution that good right wingers accept as the status quo untouchable. Right wingers from the ACLU especially fought hard to end censorship. Many think that the ACLU is a left wing liberal organization. They are completely in error.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This forum seems to have a much higher quality blogger.

 

 

That is a bunch of crap and you know it! That in no way describes the ideology philosophy or charactors of either Liberal or conservative! Especially the success part!

You have posted the most idiotic thing I have ever read on this forum! The problem is that you believe your own crap!

Well...so much for "higher quality blogger"...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ten years of thinking about what it should mean to have a liberal or a conservative position based on the big picture of what government is about has led me to the following simple definition of the labels 'liberal' and 'conservative'. Keep in mind that definitions to be effective should be basic and get to the heart of the matter under consideration. Complex definitions with multiple interpretations taking pages of rhetoric are useless. To get the real spirit of how to effectively define terms one should look at any higher level mathematics book. Mathematicians like physicists know that to be useful a definition has to be concise, precise, consistent, and what is normally referred to as well-defined. Definitions are never nebulous subject to fuzzy interpretations. Rarely ever are definitions too complicated to grasp quickly. Generally, definitions distill basic truths.

 

Geometry progressed using basic axioms and definitions. From the simple definitions and axioms followed often incredible results like the medians of a triangle intersect in a common point. Geometry starts simple and usually ends up with incredible understanding of the mathematics of triangles and other geometric figures. There is no reason that political thinking cannot be formalized starting with a simple, concise, realistic, complete and consistent definition of the labels 'liberal' and 'conservative'.

 

After viewing a number of issues and the possible positions it should become obvious that a liberal point of view normally requires some sort of government action. On the other hand a conservative point of view most often requires "Laissez Faire" type thinking. This French phrase literally means "leave to do". I.e. do not interject government into the issue. In addition, frequently the conservative position is referred to as "Status Quo" which is Latin for don't disturb the current status. Conservative thinking thrives on inaction while liberal thinking thrives on action by government. This is no accident. True conservatives do not like to build government. Conservatives like to minimize government. Conservatives do not like regulations. Conservatives do not like huge expensive bureacracies. Conservatives like to save money by not wasting it. Liberals like to create regulations. Conservatives like to deregulate. So, do you see? The basic truth is that a conservative position on an issue is normally a one of inaction whereas a liberal position invariably means government action.

 

When we first formed as a nation it was necessary to set up a Constitution with amendments along with a host of other ground rules for running our government in a fair way. All of this activity in those early days by our founding fathers was largely liberal positioning. Once the Constitution was set up and ratified then it became the status quo. At that point conservative stances began. It is highly conservative not to disturb our Constitution.

 

If you have been patient enough to read this far, then you probably are ready to understand how I arrived at the following precise, concise, consistent and complete definitions of a "Liberal" stance on an issue and a "Conservative" one. Notice that I do not define a person as being a liberal or conservative. I define one atomic issue at a time.

 

DEFINITION 1: Liberal position. A liberal stance or position on an issue requires a government action, such as, regulation, legislation, official policy making, court resolution, and anything that government might do using its power to act through any of its branches.

 

DEFINITION 2: Conservative position. A conservative stance is government abstaining from using its power. I.e. Government inaction on any issue is always a conservative way of behaving. Conservatives do not tamper with the liberally formed Constitution of the USA.

 

It should be noted that the definitions do not cast any aspersions on either way of thinking on an issue. In fact, both a liberal position and a conservative position can be either positive, negative, or neutral. Moreover, one can have both a liberal position on a given issue and a conservative position that do not conflict with one another on the very same issue. Liberal action and Conservative inaction have no moral valuation. They are simply paradigms for addressing government behavior.

 

I tend to use the same old tired example for how you can be both conservative and liberal on the same issue, because it is so easy to grasp. Consider the issue of postal service. Benjamin Franklin institutionalized the government controlled Post Office known as the US Postal Service. Most of us believe that the liberal action of operating a publicly available post office is a great idea. We also believe that government should not restrict (i.e be inactive) on not interfering with any private organization from setting up a private mail system. For example, fedex, UPS, DHL, and more are all examples of private delivery companies who have a right to exist. Government does not disallow the existence of private mail carrying. Government, however, does have a number of liberal regulations on private mail systems. The simple atomic issue of whether an organization can exist as a private mail carrying system is not stopped by big government. I believe that this is a good conservative position. So, I have two clearly defined positions on mail delivery, one is conservative and the other is liberal. I believe both are positive positions. Most of us do.

 

Of course, we can generalize this situation to a number of issues. Education, libraries, road systems, medicine, and much more all are issues that give rise to both a positive liberal and conservative position. Who would like to stop private education? Hardly any of us would like to put Catholic schools out of business, for example. Who thinks that public education should be abolished by big government action? Some do. Many Libertarians think so. Of course, they are dead wrong. John Adams would explode with rage from his grave, if anyone tried to eliminate public education. He championed public education and truly believed that it would make our nation great. He was right.

Outstanding.

This also explains why society becomes more liberal over time, yet, individuals become more conservative as they age.

 

I agree with this assessment. Well written.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Think not for one moment that I have exhausted my thoughts on the topic of Liberalism versus Conservatism. There is many more thoughts buzzing around in my way too active mind to let sit. However, it is Memorial weekend coming up. And I need some R&R in my wonderful refuge in the great state of Michigan's western coast where I have a second dwelling. I should be back in action by tuesday of next week. I will be cavorting around Grand Haven Michigan for most of this weekend. Probably, I will visit Saugutuck, South Haven, Ludington, and Michigan City Indiana where the Light House outlets are. If you ever wish to tour Michigan do not neglect to go to Grand Haven. Downtown Grand Haven has a boardwalk and features the world's largest musical fountain in the world. Every night from memorial day to labor day the fountain goes off at about 9:30 to 10:00 P.M. It is a real spectacle. They have fireworks on at least two occasions. Grand Haven is known as Coast Guard City.

 

I would like to address the issue of how we might characterize a political thinker as conservative or liberal. For sure some have one or other of the tendencies. The tendency to act and want to make the world better usually translates into liberal tendencies. Whereas the tendency to not act or act very carefully with only minimal changes to the status quo is definitely what we think to be a conservative tendency. I have noticed a huge difference in the personalities of those who are true conservatives. There are many fake conservatives who only give lip service to that paradigm. Most of them are confused individuals who do not have the remotest ideas of what true conservatism is about.

 

It should occur to most that it would be freakish to be totally conservative or totally liberal. One who is totally conservative would opt for never changing the status quo. It would be closely akin to what we think of as an anarchist or libertine who does not believe in any government control. The anarchist believes that government is an unnecessary intrusion in personal lives. They believe that laissez faire would lead to a natural system where government policing is not necessary.

 

I knew an anarchist or at least he claimed to be one. He was my best friend from high school and college days. He was also a lawyer and a true academic genious with an IQ of well over 160. He was Mensa. He died of a drug overdose complicated by a number illnesses caused by complete out-of-control activity with street women. He looked like he had aids. I will never forget my last conversation with him just before he died. He wanted me to go to Mexico with him for one last blast like we did in the 60s. His brother told me that it was the dope talking.

 

You see? Rules and regulations are a good thing to live by. Anyway I will be back posting next week.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Think not for one moment that I have exhausted my thoughts on the topic of Liberalism versus Conservatism. There is many more thoughts buzzing around in my way too active mind to let sit. However, it is Memorial weekend coming up. And I need some R&R in my wonderful refuge in the great state of Michigan's western coast where I have a second dwelling. I should be back in action by tuesday of next week. I will be cavorting around Grand Haven Michigan for most of this weekend. Probably, I will visit Saugutuck, South Haven, Ludington, and Michigan City Indiana where the Light House outlets are. If you ever wish to tour Michigan do not neglect to go to Grand Haven. Downtown Grand Haven has a boardwalk and features the world's largest musical fountain in the world. Every night from memorial day to labor day the fountain goes off at about 9:30 to 10:00 P.M. It is a real spectacle. They have fireworks on at least two occasions. Grand Haven is known as Coast Guard City.

 

I would like to address the issue of how we might characterize a political thinker as conservative or liberal. For sure some have one or other of the tendencies. The tendency to act and want to make the world better usually translates into liberal tendencies. Whereas the tendency to not act or act very carefully with only minimal changes to the status quo is definitely what we think to be a conservative tendency. I have noticed a huge difference in the personalities of those who are true conservatives. There are many fake conservatives who only give lip service to that paradigm. Most of them are confused individuals who do not have the remotest ideas of what true conservatism is about.

 

It should occur to most that it would be freakish to be totally conservative or totally liberal. One who is totally conservative would opt for never changing the status quo. It would be closely akin to what we think of as an anarchist or libertine who does not believe in any government control. The anarchist believes that government is an unnecessary intrusion in personal lives. They believe that laissez faire would lead to a natural system where government policing is not necessary.

 

I knew an anarchist or at least he claimed to be one. He was my best friend from high school and college days. He was also a lawyer and a true academic genious with an IQ of well over 160. He was Mensa. He died of a drug overdose complicated by a number illnesses caused by complete out-of-control activity with street women. He looked like he had aids. I will never forget my last conversation with him just before he died. He wanted me to go to Mexico with him for one last blast like we did in the 60s. His brother told me that it was the dope talking.

 

You see? Rules and regulations are a good thing to live by. Anyway I will be back posting next week.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wow you ARE an idiot. If you think that Fascism is socialism you're stupid. If you think Liberalism is socialism, you're even Dumber. If you think that Liberalism has anything to do with communism or fascism you're even dumber!

 

Mykcob, you are a truely ignorant person. I find you to be the worst blogger on this forum. You are full of hate and ignorance. Can you seriously look at what Hillary has put forth as anything but socialism? And by some standards facist. Taking profits from private companies because they make to much money? Or forcing citizens to pay for something they do not want (ie government health care)

 

Re-distribution of wealth is very socialist, and communist if you want to really label it for what it is.

 

Are republicans doing much better? Not really, to me they are just a slower road to socialism that is coming.

 

Americans are getting sick and tired of government regulation and taxes. It is the reason for our oil problem now, and many other problems we are facing in this country.

 

The democratic leadership today is quite socialist, and the Republican leadership is worthless, and gets nothing done.

 

You keep hanging on to your talking points from the daily kos or whatever source you get your false facts from, and you will always be some dolt on a forum who is seen as ignorant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

“If you're not a liberal at twenty you have no heart, if you're not a conservative at forty you have no brain.”

 

Winston Churchill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ohhh and Myckob, something I just found in here that made my blood boil and only further prove my point on what a liberal wants.

 

Here is a clip of a darling liberal talking to an oil company on how she wants to take the company away from them and have the government run it. As if the government has run anything good, but what this boils down to is frickin communism, and you cannot deny that.

 

These oil companies make 8cents per gallon of gas while the government takes 60cents + per gallon. Who is hurting the American people here?

 

The government is the problem with the oil companies not being able to tap into oil here, and the reason why gas is so high. Its something simple liberal, its called supply and demand. China and India are eating up alot of oil now, and that demand is putting the screws to supply.

 

Tell me myckob, that this is not communism

 

http://en.sevenload.com/videos/5R0Ex3l-Waters-oil

 

I will start a thread with this, and I want the liberals to tell me that it isn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×