Jump to content
Dr. Joe B.

Liberalism Versus Conservatism

Recommended Posts

"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

You have an edited versionof that quote edited by conservatives.

Churchill was explaining why he switched parties so often, no less than four times in his career.

 

In the end he was a Liberal, or a Labor party man!

 

The end of that quote reads"...by 60 you realize that your brain should have followed your heart."

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.

 

The government with their 60 cents of the oil revenue use it to build an infrastructure that makes the oil pigs a hearty 8 cents profit. Without roads oil tankers go no where. And roads are just one of many infrastructures that the Oil companies (and all companies) need to make their profit. Do not equate government taxation with profit-making. Doing this is irrational. It misses the whole point of why we need a federal and local government. We need to maintain an infrastructure as well as the regulations for using it. Government is what makes our nation work. Without it there is no corporate profits. Theodore Roosevelt, a great Republican, made this observation a long time ago.

 

And yes, I have read Thomas Paine. His book sets on my shelf at the moment. I plan to return to it again to reinforce my thoughts.

 

I should point out that I have a close relationship with a signer, Abraham Clark. Little seems to be known about this great man. He kept his greatness hidden from the public. He fought for the working classes. He was a REAL Republican. He believed that the working people should be the deciding factor on how their government works. He was extremely anti-elitism. He was known as the poor man's lawyer. He was not a fan of George Washington who was an elitist capitalist. Probably, this explains why he had so many political obstructions in his career. Possibly, his best work was in helping to write the legislation that made property as a basis for our monetary system. He fought the gold and silver standard that was promulgated by the wealthy elitists. He wished to make mortgage paper money available to farming and business. Ultimately, our nation became a great nation because value became more than gold. After all, the tories and the British controlled most of the gold and silver in the early days of our nation. Abraham Clark was a real founding father.

 

Everyone should read Ruth Bogin's book on the politics of Abraham Clark. It gives an entirely different picture of what was going on in the early days of our nation forming its way of governing.

 

I should add that my wife is a direct descendent of Abraham Clark. And I believe that I am a reincarnation of him. However, I am still trying to prove it to my own satisfaction. After carefully reading his thoughts as told by Ruth Bogin I now know that I think exactly the same type of thoughts as Abraham Clark. I have been to his grave site in Rahway NJ with my wife. I volunteered for a special assignment on a billion dollar source selection board in order to live in NJ for 8 months. I had no idea that I might have a spiritual connection to Abraham Clark at that time.

Edited by Dr. Joe B.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Following is a reprint of an article that I wrote for the Peoplesforum before it went defunct. The article was written on April 3, 2007 with the opening remark:

 

Barack Obama penetrates the wisdom of Liberalism Versus Conservatism.

 

Obama has a handle on liberalism versus conservatism. All he needs to do is apply his wisdom consistently and persistently. His arguments in his book The Audacity of Hope are essentially the ones that have been made in the author Dr.JoeB's political blogging since 1999. It is refreshing that one of the political candidates has chosen to convey wisdom concerning the liberal and conservative paradigms.

 

It is unfortunate that many understand the nature of liberalism versus conservatism but fail to see and apply its all-pervasive nature in the workings of government. Obama has made a few faux pas in his book that show he is not always consistent in his application of the liberal point of view versus the conservative point of view. But his book shows that he has at least achieved 95 percent success in his outlook. If the followers of Limba-ugh would read and grasp what Obama is saying, then the Fuxnuts at Rupert Murdock's political hackshop on the Fux Nutwork would evaporate without a hint of their stench left behind.

 

Here is a quote from Obama's book that finally puts to rest how to think liberalism versus conservatism in the wide political sense on all types of issues. Obama gives a guideline that comes directly from one of the greatest presidents of all times, Abraham Lincoln. The quote occurs on p.159 of Audacity of Hope and it gives in a nutshell exactly how we should think about governing effectively using both the liberal and conservative approach in their most positive ways.

 

BEGIN QUOTE: Without any clear governing philosophy, the Bush Administration and its congressional allies have responded by pushing the conservative revolution to its logical conclusion--even lower taxes, even fewer regulations, and an even smaller safety net. But in taking this approach, Republicans are fighting the last war, the war they waged and won in the eighties, while Democrats are forced to fight a rearguard action defending the New Deal programs of the thirties.

 

Neither strategy will work anymore. America can't compete with China and India simply by cutting costs and shrinking government-unless we're willing to tolerate a drastic decline in American living standards, with smog-choked cities and beggars lining the streets. Nor can America compete simply by erecting trade barriers and raising the minimum wage-unless we're willing to confiscate all the world's computers.

 

But our history should give us confidence that we don't have to choose between an oppressive, government-run economy and a chaotic and unforgiving capitalism. It tells us that we can emerge from great economic upheavals stronger, not weaker. Like those who came before us, we should be asking ourselves what mix of policies (liberal and conservative) will lead to a dynamic free market and widespread economic security, entrepreneurial innovation and upward mobility. AND WE CAN BE GUIDED THROUGHOUT BY LINCOLN'S SIMPLE MAXIM: THAT WE WILL DO COLLECTIVELY, THROUGH OUR GOVERNMENT, ONLY THOSE THINGS THAT WE CANNOT DO AS WELL OR AT ALL INDIVIDUALLY AND PRIVATELY.

 

In other words, we should be guided by what works.

 

END OF QUOTE

 

Collectivism is another label that is interchangeable with liberalism. Later on I will quote another message that I wrote which essentially proves the equivalence of liberalism with collectivism. Lincoln's quote uses the the word 'collectively' but the quote could easily replace this word with 'liberally' in accordance with the definition proposed by the originator of this topic.

 

Do you understand that collective actions of the people instigated by our government is exactly the substance of liberalism? Do you see how the quote captures the notion that government should behave both liberally and conservatively in a positive way? The end of the quote implies that government should behave conservatively on those things that are best done by private companies and private individuals. Do you see that there is NO CONFLICT between liberalism and conservatism as long as we only try to make positive liberal and positive conservative policies? Lincoln understood the importance of collective action.

Edited by Dr. Joe B.

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.

 

I don't see how you can attach a political label to success, because it is so mixed. Your conservative success could be every Liberal actor in Hollywood, or soldier dying in Iraq.

 

Worldview:

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

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

 

I think the conservative is look out for #1 and whoever feathers my pillow, but screw the rest of you.

 

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.

 

I think that is the conservative dream idelogy, but the use of Capitalism defeats any possibility of enjoyment, as socialists know. Regulation does insure safety and maintain stable economies.

 

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.

 

I agree with that.

 

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.

 

I agree with that.

 

I see the difference between Liberalism and Conservativism as Liberal being human and Conservative being a machine. A machine does not feel, does not shange course and only needs a few to keep it running. Humans however feel, need other people, seek goals together to keep things working.

 

I notice you used pain for your example. I have always thought of conservatives as masochists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They think educating themselves makes them smart.

 

 

Priceless.

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

 

I studied Zen Buddhism in the 60s. I practiced meditation. I read about the notion of Koans leading to enlightenment. Many good things come from stopping ones out-of-control-opinions not based on truthful facts. However, too many self-styled Zen followers think that it is about absurd simplicity of no-thought. Zen masters are not like that. They are in fact extremely tuned to consciousness of reality. Reality is not simple. Zen masters know that it is difficult to filter out the static caused by our own inability to focus our conscious minds. So, they whack their novice followers with sticks on occasion to wake them up. Zen does not result in idiotic blank mindedness. It results in ultra-consciousness. It results in releasing creative energy to actually experience reality with its many headedness. Your comments seem to gloss over this truth about Zen Buddhism. Zen does not make anyone into a mindless idiot.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hitler and Bushjr Are Birds of A Feather But Hitler Had Better Qualifications

 

Both Hitler and Bushjr hold many common evil left wing positions. Recall that the definition used by the starter of this topic for left wing liberalism is essentially government action while right wing conservativism is equated with laissez-faire inaction. Both Hitler and Bushjr have had a penchant for using government control in evil left wing ways. There are many similarities in their behavior.

 

Following is an article written by Dr.Joe.B for the defunct PeoplesForum.com a little more than one year ago on Jun 1, 2007.

 

BEGIN MESSAGE: Hitler, like the Bushmurderer, believed in pre-emptive wars. Hitler also believed in lying to his citizenry about why he attacked neighboring sovereign nations like Poland. Hitler portrayed Poland as a threat just like the Bushbastards portrayed Iraq as a threat. Both Hitler and the Bushfiend conjured up a war against sovereign nations based on lies. The Bushcriminals made up lies about WMD, falsified evidence about aluminum tubes being used for nuclear weapons, pretended Hussein was in cahoots with Al Qaeda and generally propagandized about the danger of Iraq.

 

There is one major difference between the mentality of the Bushpsychomaniac and Hitler. Hitler was no coward. Hitler actually risked his own life by fighting for Germany in WWI. Hitler never avoided the gruesome task of going to war like the Bushchickenheartedbastard. The Bushcoward avoided Vietnam like the plague. (Cheney and his friends did the same) In fact, he even avoided doing safe military service in the Air National Guard. i.e. Hitler had more right to send his soldiers into battle than the Bushcoward who has sent young men and woman to their deaths with a trumped up oil-war that he surely would never have had the guts to fight himself according to his military record.

 

Both Hitler and the Bushcoward were miserable mass-murderers using pre-emptive war as their tool for mass murder. Hitler, at least, went to WWI himself. Bush avoided Vietnam. In a weird sense Hitler was more justified in sending his army into battle than the Bushcoward who conveniently avoided risking his own neck by avoiding battles in Vietnam unlike Kennedy, Kerry, Murtha, Gore, McClelland, Dole and many other decent politicians (mostly Democrats) who volunteered to fight for our country.

 

Have we had enough of the Bushhypocrite yet? When will the impeachment begin? It is long overdue. He must not be allowed to finish his criminally stolen presidency. He will pardon all of his criminal friends, if allowed to finish his term. Every day his illegal war goes means more young soldiers die or become maimed. Impeaching the Bushmurderer will save many lives.

 

Both parties are needed in this endeavor to impeach. They did the right thing with Nixon. It is time to repeat their performance. The evidence is overwhelming. John Dean believes that Nixon's crimes were minor compared to the Bushgang. Even Lee Iacocca a lifelong Republican who actually supported the Bushmoron in 2000 has recanted his support and did not back the Bushboob in 2004. Iacocca wrote in his last book a condemnation of the Bushjr that says it all.

 

Kudos for Iacocca, a real American, who understands when an abomination has occurred in our government.

 

END OF MESSAGE

 

Yesterday, I purchased a copy of Vincent Bugliosi's 2008 copyrighted book: The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder. Since early 2003 I have advocated prosecuting the Bushmurderer for treason and mass murder. Bugliosi makes the case for the prosecution of Bushjr and his cohorts in this book. As I get deeper into Bugliosi's thoughts on the matter I will try to summarize some of them in this topic.

 

Keep the faith.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You have an edited versionof that quote edited by conservatives.

Churchill was explaining why he switched parties so often, no less than four times in his career.

 

In the end he was a Liberal, or a Labor party man!

 

The end of that quote reads"...by 60 you realize that your brain should have followed your heart."

 

 

Funny how they left the end of the quote off, isn't it. The wingnuts like to edit quotes almost as much as they like making up facts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont think ill read just post. Liberalism is the idea of individual weakness. Conservatism is the idea of individual power.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I dont think ill read just post. Liberalism is the idea of individual weakness. Conservatism is the idea of individual power.

Is that why China is financing the Iraq war?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I dont think ill read just post. Liberalism is the idea of individual weakness. Conservatism is the idea of individual power.

 

Have fun when you get to that war.

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:

 

You must be talking about another planet. There are no such things as 'liberals' as you describe on planet earth. Though you are quite right about government liberal power being used to fill prisons with innocent people by the corrupt fascist government now in operation here in the USA. It is estimated that 70 percent of the so-called criminals in our jail system are harmless folks caught with a few joints or something equally meaningless.

 

It is suggested that the author of this foolishness read the definition of a 'liberal' stance and a 'conservative' stance as described in message 1 of this topic. Next try to apply it to governing politicians. You will find that none of them are 'liberals' as you describe. They simply do not exist. You are living in a world of weird fantasy. Good luck on contacting reality. It is a real fun experience.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You must be talking about another planet. There are no such things as 'liberals' as you describe on planet earth. Though you are quite right about government liberal power being used to fill prisons with innocent people by the corrupt fascist government now in operation here in the USA. It is estimated that 70 percent of the so-called criminals in our jail system are harmless folks caught with a few joints or something equally meaningless.

 

It is suggested that the author of this foolishness read the definition of a 'liberal' stance and a 'conservative' stance as described in message 1 of this topic. Next try to apply it to governing politicians. You will find that none of them are 'liberals' as you describe. They simply do not exist. You are living in a world of weird fantasy. Good luck on contacting reality. It is a real fun experience.

 

I should have mentioned that the fascists must have got a real bang out of putting some of our great leaders of industry into jail. Did you sleep better because Martha stewart was put into jail for answering a phone call from the Nazoid FBI? How about poor old Mr. Taubman the founder of indoor shopping? Did that make you sleep better knowing that this great innovator was jailed for doing nothing of consequence. His counterpart owner of Christie of the UK was not even given a slap on the wrist for his part in the so-called price-fixing. Meanwhile the huge Democrat-supporter innovator Alfred Taubman in his 80s spent 16 months in jail for no reason. You see? Our criminal system is broken. Real treasonous pricks that exposed Valerie Plame as a CIA agent were simply pardonned. Nixon got away with other crimes, too. Are you aware that DNA has freed about 15 percent of the poor folks on death row in Illinois?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They think educating themselves makes them smart.

 

Didn't Abraham Lincoln educate himself? And Albert Einstein? Seems like the smartest individuals can and do educate themselves, contrary to the IQ99 and lower crowd that have no choice but to be spoonfed by others until they can work as part of a clean-up crew on a construction site.

 

As Sin said, "Priceless".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You must be talking about another planet. There are no such things as 'liberals' as you describe on planet earth. Though you are quite right about government liberal power being used to fill prisons with innocent people by the corrupt fascist government now in operation here in the USA. It is estimated that 70 percent of the so-called criminals in our jail system are harmless folks caught with a few joints or something equally meaningless. It is suggested that the author of this foolishness read the definition of a 'liberal' stance and a 'conservative' stance as described in message 1 of this topic. Next try to apply it to governing politicians. You will find that none of them are 'liberals' as you describe. They simply do not exist. You are living in a world of weird fantasy. Good luck on contacting reality. It is a real fun experience.
WOW. Can you say conspiracy theory, you've got a major load on your mind. Here on planet earth i live in memphis and our jails are full of worthlessness that rob, steal, and rape. These people get charged and convicted 100 or more times (SERIOUSLY) and get put back on the street. The real problem is our courts are way out of control and legislate from the bench with absolutly no idea what our planet earth is like. Thank you very much! P.S i can understand y you dont want to be labeled as a liberal your right about one thing LIBERALISM is a frame of mind
Didn't Abraham Lincoln educate himself? And Albert Einstein? Seems like the smartest individuals can and do educate themselves, contrary to the IQ99 and lower crowd that have no choice but to be spoonfed by others until they can work as part of a clean-up crew on a construction site.As Sin said, "Priceless".
Are you serious how in the world can you make a statement like that. Living in the world we live in today is irrelivent to the achievements of those people. You can possibly apply those people to modern day standards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You have an edited versionof that quote edited by conservatives.

Churchill was explaining why he switched parties so often, no less than four times in his career.In the end he was a Liberal, or a Labor party man!The end of that quote reads"...by 60 you realize that your brain should have followed your heart."

 

And if you distort and lie about quotations from famous people in a dishonest attempt to bolster your position, you are a neocon.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And if you distort and lie about quotations from famous people in a dishonest attempt to bolster your position, you are a neocon.

 

 

True. Not only is that quote questionably attributed to Churchill, they never post the complete quote - which ends saying something like by the time you are sixty you wish your mind followed your heart.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But even with the final clause of that quote, it's saying follow your heart over your brain.

 

I have a problem with that. Wouldn't some liberals be quick to say that that is what GWB is doing?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obama is Easily Forgiven....

 

Here is one of the last posts that I offered to the defunct PeoplesForum.com. Because Obama is now the Democrat nominee, I feel a need to give my past thoughts on Obama prior to his becoming the nominee. Most know that I favored the experienced Hillary over Obama. But Obama is eons ahead of the best Republican that I have ever watched. So, make no mistake. I am an Obama-ite through and through. I believe that he is a highly intelligent man who will quickly rise to any occasion that occurs as our next president. And he will be the next one provided the election is honest unlike the past two presidential elections.

 

Here is the message that I offered to the PeoplesForum on May 5, 2007 at 07:54 A.M.

 

BEGIN PEOPLESFORUM MESSAGE: Obama is on the right side of most issues. The last message objects to Obama referring to the liberals as having a particularly severe reaction to the war in Iraq intimating that it is liberals who were the most against going to war in Iraq. That is the problem with his statements. Liberals have always been more willing to use government control, especially with regards to war-making. It is the conservatives who have always opted for isolationism. Obama's statement could easily be fixed by simply removing the word 'liberal' and replacing it with 'American citizens' from the statement that he made: "The reaction has been particulary severe among liberals (Should be American Citizens), who see in Iraq a repeat of the mistakes America made in Vietnam." By not taking note of this fact Obama has inadvertently insulted true conservatives who probably fought against going into Iraq from the get-go based on their belief in isolationism relative to nation-building and pre-emptive war-making.

 

Admittedly, it is a subtle point. But it does belie an inner liberal spirit of Obama wishing to blame rightees. Obama fixes his faux pas to a degree by stating that members of both parties were against going to war when it meant US casualties. He cites the Mogadishu mess as a very poignant example.

 

Probably, the last message was nitpicky. Still, the author of this topic has never found any politician who had a clear handle on what it truly means to have a liberal or a conservative stance on an issue with complete consistency. The worst political jerks are the ones who try to make out that either way of thinking is evil whether conservative or liberal. This topic is trying its darndest to weed out this nonsequitur. But idiots like Limba-ugh keep espousing such nonsense. And too many are not capable of thinking clearly to see through old pillhead's theme.

 

Such distortions and confusions in what it means to have a liberal or conservative stance add up to an erroneous picture of what is good government and how it should work. Good government strives to have both positive liberal and conservative stances and sometimes it has both a positive liberal stance and conservative stance on the same issue. Repeated for the umpteenth time in this topic, there is no contradiction in having both a conservative and liberal position on the same issue. The existence of the US Postal Service and Fedex proves that point. Ben Franklin started the public postal system in the 1700s. Government never intervened when Fedex, UPS, and other private companies formed to compete with the US Postal Service. Government behaved both liberally and conservatively on the issue of how mail can be handled in the USA. The competition has resulted in a better mail delivery system for all. Kudos for smart government operating with both positive liberal and conservative positions.

END PEOPLESFORUM MESSAGE OF MAY 5, 2007.

 

Show me a person who always takes a liberal government control position or a conservatie hands-off position on every issue and I will show you a fool. Sometimes a conservative inaction is the right way to go. Sometimes action is required on an issue. It is the great president who knows when to act and when not to act. i.e. to behave liberally or conservatively on an issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But even with the final clause of that quote, it's saying follow your heart over your brain.

 

I have a problem with that. Wouldn't some liberals be quick to say that that is what GWB is doing?

 

 

The organ that GWB is using for thinking is located directly around the corner from his c*ck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WOW. Can you say conspiracy theory, you've got a major load on your mind. Here on planet earth i live in memphis and our jails are full of worthlessness that rob, steal, and rape. These people get charged and convicted 100 or more times (SERIOUSLY) and get put back on the street. The real problem is our courts are way out of control and legislate from the bench with absolutly no idea what our planet earth is like. Thank you very much! P.S i can understand y you dont want to be labeled as a liberal your right about one thing LIBERALISM is a frame of mindAre you serious how in the world can you make a statement like that. Living in the world we live in today is irrelivent to the achievements of those people. You can possibly apply those people to modern day standards.

 

Here are some easily obtained FBI crime stats. There are approximately 2,299,116 prisoners held in state, local, and federal jails/prisons as of June 30, 2007. This is less than 1 percent of the population of the USA. The stats are broken down as follows:

4618 black males per 100,000 are prisoners

1747 hispanic males per 100,000

773 white caucasians per 100,000

 

Violent crimes represent between 47 and 52 percent from 1995 to 2004. Likely these stats have not changed from 2004 to 2008. So, about half of the criminals are in jail for violent crimes. About 20 to 22 percent of the prisoners are there for drug-related offenses. Could the whopping 50 percent unemployment rate in many inner cities possibly have something to do with the huge number of black males incarcerated? Could tighter standards on law enforcement against black males be another reason for the high proportion of black males in prison? Could a poor public system of education in inner cities be another factor? Could prejudice and discrimination be another?

 

Memphis and Detroit have similar crime ratings. On the average crime rates in these cities are about 2 to 3 times worse than the rest of the nation. So, it is likely that Detroit and Memphis have a deluge of criminals that they do not know where to place. So, they probably let innocuous-type offenders roam the streets due to lack of facilities. For example, prostitutes rarely spend more than one night in jail unless they test for HIV. People caught with dope may or may not wind up in prison depending on the quantity of dope confiscated. More than likely Memphis has the same problem that Detroit has. There simply is no where to place all of the petty non-violent innocuous-type criminals. It is unlikely they let known rapists and killers run free.

 

Generally, crime has gone down since 1974.

Edited by Dr. Joe B.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

Democracy is a left-wing notion. Marx and Lenin were very keen on it. Hitler, on the other hand, worked with big business to crush it--just like Stalin when he led his right-wing offensive against Lenin and Trotsky. Hitler called himself a "socialist" in order to trick people into joining his right-wing revolution. His Nazi Party, throughout the entire period of his rule, ruled in coalition with the conservative German National People's Party. And the ACLU was founded by Communist Party members and has always been a left-leaning organization.

 

Conservatives DO "tamper with human rights using government power." Look at Bush. Oh, but I guess he's not a "true" Scotsman--I mean conservative.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All education is self education, really.

 

All any teacher can do is give you the tools and show you the way.

 

You have to actually make the steps yourself

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!

 

Actually.... he hit the nail on the head. I hurts, doesn't it?

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.

 

I don't find this to be accurate, realistic or fair. It is overly general and causes more stereotypes than understandings. There is some truth hiding in it, but overall I have no use for rash generalizations like this.

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

×