Here's a little gem I picked up off the topic "Human Shields: Please Read" in the Global Community:

quote:

---

I have no sympathy for "human shields" who deliberately go over there to put themselves in harm's way.
Heck, if all the liberals did that, we'd be better off.

---

This kind of attitude is everywhere. One only has to turn on the radio and listen to a program like Rush Limbaugh, or browse through certain member profiles on this site to view many more and even more extreme examples of this sort of sentiment. I'll post more, but I just wanted to start off the topic with this one.

So, what do you think about this kind of hatred of people with liberal viewpoints?

DJ, your statement that the loss of money for the rich wasn't that much of a big deal reminded me of something: High taxes for the so called "rich" (i.e. people who worked for their money) as means of temporarily solving a problem. For the record, what would you call rich? And considering some of the ridiculously high tax rates proposed by the left out of "economic" justice (socialism) how is it fair to tax people so highly for their success while funding endless social programs for the "poor"? That’s a major reason for resentment towards the left, their insistence on high taxes which ultimately do not transfer to actual improvements in society. Proportionally right now, it is the "rich" who are funding much of what the government plans, a situation that economically speaking is not good for a capitalist economy (why make money if most of it is taken away and/or redistributed by the government?). For the record, what do you consider "rich"? Someone making income above the tens of thousands? Either way, as a society we should definitely draw the line to what is acceptable to tax the better off and what isn't, and that sentiment is shared by many discontent with liberalism in general.

No, I am not nuts when I say Clinton increased the National Debt. Bill Clinton increased the national debt by $1.16 trillion in his first term. Why didn’t you see this on the New York Times or other major news sources? Because the media has always had ties to the Democratic Party and is largely biased to the left (with a couple of exceptions, such as talk radio, Fox/MSNBC news etc). As for the tax cuts, you are indeed correct that there were no significant cuts, I apologize for my mistake (as well as the weakly pulled off claims of weapons secrets being sold, though considering Clinton’s corruption it wouldn’t surprise me).

When it comes to Reagan, his main accomplishment was indeed eliminating the threat posed by the Soviet Union, and albeit in a fashion drawing a lot of criticism. The fact is though, considering the recession in America and the state of affairs internationally due to Soviet Communism, deficit spending was virtually assured if one wanted a steady recovery and victory against the Reds. Did Reagan take a lot of risks? Yes, we could have had thermonuclear Armageddon if he or his Soviet Counterparts had made one wrong move, but instead Reagan's plan of distancing himself from the typical bureaucrats and détente appeasers while at the same time bankrupting the Soviets through one last arms buildup was a resounding success, and denying that is to ignore one of the most successful strategies in history.

Considering the cold war and the support of dictatorships and anti-soviet forces, how was supporting the contras all that different? The truth is, this country has subverted or broken the constitution's laws commonly when dealing with an enemy. Wilson imprisoned socialists and dissidents like Eugene V. Debbs when the opposed the First World War, LBJ waged Vietnam without specific congressional approval, and Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus to deal with the confederates. And these are all of course just a few examples I can name off the top of my head, there are still many other examples. Also, though his staff was involved Reagan was never convicted of any of the charges brought in front of him. Considering the Sadinistas and other leftist scum ruining their countries in Latin America by starting civil wars and provoking coups, I couldn’t care less if a president broke the law to get rid of them.

When it comes to Clinton’s military cuts, he did indeed leave us weak to terrorism. Clinton had numerous opportunities to deal with terrorists, from the 1993 WTC bombing to Osama Bin Laden’s attack on the USS Cole, but he continually failed to do so. Clinton also cut funding for the FBI and CIA, so that also in turn led to a poorly paid for bureaucracy developing. Lastly, Clinton involved the military in numerous unsuccessful or unnecessary humanitarian missions such as Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia and other third world countries while ignoring aggression or terrorism by states such as Syria, Iraq, Iran and North Korea (many of which, such as North Korea, he appeased as well through endless deals and negotiations).

question:

Joey, why do you feel that George W. Bush is a conservative?

( not challenging you or anything, just want to hear your side of the story)

I'll address the Clinton issue first,
I hardly think Clintons "cutting" of the military spending was what left us open to terrorist attacks. I agreed with a lot of Clinton’s military "cuts", in particular the closing of a good amount of unnecessary military bases. Most of these military bases were taking money that didn't need to spent. As for the Chinese weapon selling issue, again I will state, this is a very "weak" argument that is based on assumption. Also you are nuts if you think Clinton increased the National Debt, don't you remember the New York times and wall street Journal talking about the first surplus we had in ages.
Now onto Reagan,
Tax cuts for all, that’s just laughable. Reagan and his Supply-side economic hardly cut taxes for all. Sorry to Rain on your parade but at least 40 percent of American taxpayers had a bigger bite taken out of their pay checks at the end of the 1980s than they did when Reagan took office. While Reagan was giving with one hand, he was taking with the other. Personal taxes went down, but social Security, Medicare and other taxes went up. The take away part wasn't much of a problem for the rich, whose personal tax cuts were large and whose Medicare and social security taxes were capped. The overall tax load on the top 1 percent decreased from 32 percent in 1980 to 26 percent in 1990. During the same period, the tax load on the bottom 40 percent actually increased. Also you again I hardly call 2.2 trillion dollars a small price to pay, let alone was it the cause of the fall of the Soviet Union.
Also if Reagan had some of the worst numbers in Job Growth percentage, in comparison to Johnson who has 3.8%, Carter 3.1% and Clinton 2.4%, Reagan was at a 2.1% and Bush senior had the worse numbers, .6%.
Well I'll leave it at, even though there is much more to talk about.

Dj, did you ever consider that with military spending, tax cuts (for everyone, not just the wealthy), changes in programs and other occurrences under Reagan a massive increase in debt was inevitable? Do you not understand that if Reagan had not super funded the military and begun an arms race, the Soviet Union would probably have existed well into the 1990's with the money it would have saved (meaning more people dead under Soviet Communism and more communist regimes)? How about the fact that practically all the presidents this country has had since FDR have continued the national debt (FDR started the national debt for "temporary" problems, does that make him a bad president)? Given the circumstances and the end result internationally, a massive increase in debt was a small price to pay to eliminate communism's hold on Eastern Europe and the world.

Do you realize that Clinton greatly increased the national debt as well, without any benefits for us internationally or domestically? At least Reagan was able to get the recession over with and stop the Soviets. Clinton on the other hand let the economy get greatly overvalued and enter a recession (lets face it, Greenspan could only keep the boom rolling for so long) and greatly cut spending towards the military leaving us vulnerable to terrorists. As for weapons dealings, don't you think given the cold war that’s excusable? After all, we supported plenty of capitalist dictatorships during the years the Reds were in power. Anyway, Reagan was never convicted though much of his administration was. Clinton was directly involved in selling secrets to the Chinese and pardoning the highest bidders, how do you excuse that? Compared to Clinton and Carter, Reagan was perfect (of course, it’s not hard to look better than those two political hacks).

That of course brings up the subject of Carter: Of course he was one of our worst presidents, you would have to be a total ideologue to deny that. Under Carter we entered a recession, the Soviets expanded throughout the world, the Middle East became a mess, and overall the United States lost world wide relevance. Why do you think Reagan trounced Carter so much in the 1980 election, because the public suddenly shifted to the right of the Republican Party? Carter was a flop domestically, economically, and internationally. Carter is one of history's biggest failures, plenty of historians and political analysts will tell you that, even my leftist history teacher will say that (and he's always voted democrat). Carter was and still is a well meaning but clueless liberal, just as Hoover was a well meaning but clueless conservative.

I agree with you on a lot of things you say redjill, in particular towards the European welfare programs, which I grew to love during my many trips throughout Europe and also when I spent a year as a Foreign Exchange student in England, which isn't Europe necc. but practices similar welfare programs. I believe me you and Joey can agree that this is a dangerous time for civil liberties, in particular with the patriot act and such by Neo-conservatives such as Bush and his cronies. I have no real problem with libertarians because I agree with them on certain areas; I have problems with the Neo-conservatives, which the Electronic media call plan conservatives. The reason I have a problem with the Neo-conservatives is because they want to practice an Authoritarian government.

Listen, I was very, very liberal in high school; I was pro-choice and really pro-liberal.

But the more I got into politics (i.e., being a newspaper reporter), the more I saw that the two major parties, the Republicans and Democrats, are the SAME!

I do agree with you, redjill, on the foreign policy, and the liberal president we have now (anybody who calls Bush a conservative is completely ignorant) as being a threat to our liberties.

But your posts imply that a majority of Americans are right-wing extremists, when in fact, that's just not the case; a majority of Americans, I would say, are what you would call "moderate," which is basically liberal.

Certain people favor gun control, while at the same time wanting lower taxes.

And when you do espouse the beliefs of a Big Government politician, you can better be sure I'll respond - because, yes, I am one of those "right-wing" libertarian Christians.

I respect you for your views, but don't get all huffy when I start denouncing them; that's the best part of being in America -- you can have differing viewpoints, and STILL debate the fire out of them

I think that the biggest cause of the hatred of those of the opposite political spectrum (liberals, conservatives, republicans, democrats, etc., etc.) is that those who practice this kind of hatred have little or no understanding of the beliefs and practices of the other side. JoeyDauben is one prime example of this. Savedbygrace is another.

When it comes down to it, there are two types on either side: pragmatics and idealogues (I hope I spelled that correctly). I consider myself to be mostly pragmatic, with perhaps a touch of idealism (but this might decrease as I age and become more and more cynical :P). I don't believe in perfect governments, either capitalistic or socialistic. I especially don't believe in perfect leaders, or practice hero worship. I don't believe that the government should take control of all businesses. Yet I do not believe that businesses should be able to run rampant, either, and I admit to admiring the welfare programs of the European nations. I don't believe in silencing freedom of speech or belief at all: even if you are a Stalinist or an admirer of Hitler (or even Bin Laden), you should be able to write what you want and say what you want. I believe that the Bush Administration threatens these liberties (remember the Patriot Act?); you can check out my other posts, but I won't talk further about it here (too off topic). I am opposed to what I see as the imperialistic and arrogant foreign policy of this administration; as I have said before in other posts, I would be more in favor of these wars had they been conducted with more delicacy and consideration of the fragile state of the Middle East, and consideration of problems at home. I am no hippie pacifist, just a very concerned realist. I don't agree with, let alone worship Marx or Engels (though they brought up some thought-proking points). In many other democratic nations, or even at another time in this country, I would be considered a moderate. But yet in this country, surrounded by right-wing idealists with their bombastic rhetoric and American superiority complex, I am considered "very left wing."

I don't hate all conservatives. I even have friends who are republicans or libertarians. The reason that we get along is that they are willing to respect me for my beliefs, as I respect theirs. They are pragmatic, and we have pragmatic discussions. But I do have a strong dislike for people who think they are so superior, who cry for freedom, but are really saying, "You have a right to my opinion."

or I should say heard everything

In response to:
-------------------------------------------------
Liberals tend to just be idealists and can't see that what they're saying will never happen.
-------------------------------------------------
A radical Christian accusing somebody of being an Idealist, now I've seen everything?!?!

people hate liberals because of the fac that most of the time their ideas are completely ridiculous and there are more important things to worry about. People see liberals as a bunch of freakin dirty hippies at woodstock, and they get all their freakin ideas because they are under the influence of some certain herbs. Liberals tend to just be idealists and can't see that what they're saying will never happen.

Justice conservatism,
I'm sorry but a president who adds 2.2 Trillion dollars to the deficit is not what I consider a "great" president. Let’s face the facts Regean was a puppet for the Extreme Right wing, and he was dirty as hell. As for the mentioning of Clinton selling weapons to Chinese, Number 1 so that some how excuses Regean's actions? Also the whole Clinton weapon subject is what I consider a weak story; there is not much evidence against Clinton on this issue. Also I would like to hear your reasoning behind saying that Carter was possibly the worst president. Reagen is the example of why you don’t try to solve problems with short terms solutions.

Dj, do you know why Reagan was able to be elected and is widely regarded as ending the cold war? Because he stood up to the Soviet Union and cleverly pursued an arms race which he knew would bankrupt the communists. Reagan also got the economy on track (though some of the methods he used like program cutting and tax cuts had negative repercussions), stood up to terrorists, and was overall in some ways the best president of the 20th century.

The reason why so many like Reagan is simple: When the rest of the world was pessimistic about America and appeased the USSR, he was optimistic and called the Soviets an evil empire because of their human rights abuses, mass murder and iron hard ideology. Reagan had a lot of courage doing that, and regardless of Iran-Contra you really have to admire him for that. Besides, Clinton sold weapons secrets to the Chinese and had a high degree of corruption, so it’s not like the Left has much on Reagan due to his administrations own behind the scenes scandals.

Do I think that Reagan didn’t make mistakes? Of course not, he made the mistake of making cuts to mental institutions in the belief that private charities could take care of the mentally ill, instead leaving many on the streets. Most of Reagan’s blunders however were the result of his hard right policies that despite some of their negative consequences were overall highly successful in stimulating the sluggish economy and revitalizing the military. This is of course a stark contrast to his predecessor Jimmy Carter who was quite possibly the worst president of the twentieth century (besides of course Herbert Hoover).

just get over it...

i read an article written by a chinese just back from the US a while ago...
well,the haters are sooooooo typical
they cant believe different places need different systems.

now i confess,the more you hate communism,the more i'm for it.that's what you get in most communistic states in return.you put others on the oppsite side that's why you keep worrying about attacks!
communism stood up against capitalism in the first place,we changed the direction but you didnt,then fine.let's go back to the 60th.
some people remind me Joe McCarthy.Made in America......................

i dont need those people to tell me what i need,it doesnt even matter how weak my gov is now,i can't change the status i can't make my country un-communistic,since there still are people relating communism to evil treating us as a threat,i have to back my country,i have to be with them.

See, but it's hard to get the indoctrinated people used to the fact that Capitalism is the greatest economic model ever - I would love for someone to try to prove to me that another example exists...

Didn't think so.


Anyway, the competition among say, the gas stations is quickly evaporating, which, really and honestly, sucks, because that's when you get into the "power in the hands of a few." This not only smacks in the face of a true free market, but it flattens the motivation for Tom's Gas Mart to open up down the street.


Back to the propaganda the liberals espouse...

Socialism, communism look great on paper -- but when Engles and Marx first experimented with it on the little colonial German towns, the economies totally collapsed; you don't learn THAT in school.

quote:

---

Bex, capitalism is based on "greed" but it's been splashed as "evil" and "corrupt" by the socialists.

---

Furthermore, I have had this argument before, yeah everyone hates the big companies till they need a job. Do you know how many immigrants come here to work, and not to pay taxes either. They come here and work for a few years to make money to better their lives and the lives of their family. Some decide to stay as citizens, many go back....this time with enough money to live. So that's one evil thing Capitalism does. The second is providing jobs for the citizens, everyone is crying about the jobless rate in this country, yet they all want to tear down big business! Well let me know how angry you are when we do that and your parents can't afford to send you to college. The third evil thing Capitolism does is called corporate trickle down, which is basically after you have enough for you and your employees, give to the community, many companies do!! The company I work for builds and fixes up houses for people who can not afford them. We also do many other things including community picnics and teaching child safety classes.

So as you can see....it depends how you look at it, on how evil it is....

Magnus, your definition of liberal was used as today's, "libertarian."

In other words, it's the "classical liberal" philosophy that you're referring to; I, myself, would be considered a "classical liberal," or in 21st century terminology, "libertarian."


The word "liberal" now refers to someone who goes against the Founders, the Constitution, and who favors Bigger Government; it's also a substitute for socialism (Hillary Clinton's words) -- you can't win on a "SOCIALIST" platform, so you give it a new "name."

Bex, capitalism is based on "greed" but it's been splashed as "evil" and "corrupt" by the socialists.

Capitalism has been the driving force behind this nation's (the U.S.) success. There is no other country that can match our ability in many things, and that's solely the result of a free market, capitalist economy.

Capitalism is also based on the fact that I can choose which store to buy a broom from, or what school I want to send my child to.

It also gives me the oppurtunity to open up my own business and sell anything I want to, without threat or penalty from the government.

Of course, too much power into the hands of a few can happen in a Pure Capitalist (i.e., globalization) society, as well as the more common Socialist/Communist societies.

The U.S. is slooowly but surely creeping into a Socialist State, like England.

Of course, talking about capitalism and capitalistic ideals in England would make you a "liberal."

Funny how those things work; but I was confused at first, too, with all the meanings and things.

Two real easy political quizzes might help you guys:

http://www.politopia.com

(Click on the Quiz button)

http://www.self-gov.org/quiz

(this is a lot shorter, but a little more complicated to understand)

What is a liberal and why do people have a bad opinion of them?

Somebody has to explain US politics to me. I think I'd find this discussion interesting if I understood who you're talking about.

I don't understand, Joey, why you're pigeonholing people into political groups. I thought that is decided by who you vote for, not by who you tick off on youthNOISE.

Over here we have Labour, Conservatives, Liberal Democrats as the main parties. But young people don't say to each other, 'God, you're such a Labourist, I hate you'. Conservatives get a bit of a bad rap because they ran the country before labour (current) and did a bad job, so they're not widely supported. But I don't get the political name-calling, what's all that about?

or am I completely missing the point?

Could someone explain what's so great about being a capitalist, too. It works, but it's based on greed (correct me if I'm wrong, please). And what is a socialist? *sigh* At least I know what a communist is. Actually if you read about communism the ideals behind it are fairly noble (equality for all) naturally it backfired, became more of a brainwashed dictatorship, and any noble sensibilities were lost (read Wild Swans). I am not a communist because it is not a political movement that promotes freedom and individual choice. Calling anyone a communist unless they support that movement is ridiculous.

Sheesh. Maybe I should just stay away from political threads, too confusing…

Bex

I think what is partly to blame is peoples misunderstanding and the use of the outdated political spectrum. You have different people using the terms "conservative" and "liberal" in different contexts. You have people like Joey who’s understanding is based on a single line Economic spectrum, but then you have people like Marine16, who would be called a "Neo-conservative," see Liberals as what Joey would call a Conservative. My view of what Liberalism is “A Social-Political theory based on the Latin word “libertas.” Liberalism is based around the idea of freedom of the individual. The main thinker and pusher of Liberalism was John Locke. Locke’s pushed the idea of Liberalism through his writings such as “The Essay Concerning the Human Understanding.” Like any classical Liberal, Locke believed that the Government was there to provide for the individual."
This is what I mean when I say I’m a Liberal.