“Conservatives – a group with which I just happen to self-identify – are much better than liberals, for the following trite and shallow reasons. . .”
“Liberals – a group with which I just happen to self-identify – are much better than conservatives, for the following trite and shallow reasons. . .”
Bitch, bitch, bitch. Maybe complaining about the other side isn’t quite as useful as we seem to think it is.
And I didn’t choose to have my taxes raised to excessive levels to support your bloated military.
And I use “conservative” to mean “People who are generous with my money because they have problems with Iraq.”
Oh, but, no, conservatives like small government. No corporate welfare or farm subsidies. And certainly not billions spent in a bungling attempt to invade another country and rule citizens who don’t seem to be interested in having you around.
For someone who prides his political ideology on being intellectually motivated, you don’t use your head much, do you?
OK, can we follow the Conservative line of thought here for a bit? There are some things that I would like clarification on.
The general tone that I am getting here is that you guys want to eliminate social programs so that you keep more of the money that you earn but keep funding for the armed forces and the cops. Do I have that right?
So, what I am very curious about is your vision of what would happen if we did this. Let’s say that we woke up tomorrow, and that all of the Liberals saw the light and stopped opposing this, we eliminate welfare, food stamps, HUD, Medicare, Social Security (?), the whole lot. What do you think would happen? How would this be better?
Do you think that folks (finding themselves with more money) would suddenly start opening private soup kitchens and homeless shelters? Would corporations, suddenly freed from taxes and regulations, suddenly become responsible citizens?
What would happen to those among us that are less fit? Would they starve in the streets? In short, how do you think that this whole thing would pan out?
My goodness there are some awfully big brushes being bandied about in this thread!
Esprix
If you are referring to my post, I guess that I should apologize in advance. I really am after some clarification on what I understand the Conservative agenda to be, specifically in the arena of how folks that hold that philosophy think that it will make things better for everyone. Not trying to stereotype, just a poor Liberal trying to understand.
Liberal as defined by the Americans in this thread seems to resemble what we in the UK might call Conservative.
What you would describe as Conservative appears to be the more reactionary end of our Conservatives.
One serious reason that our Conservatives were voted out, was that they became too greedy, and as a result some ended up in prison, whilst others have fled the country not daring to return to justice.
Conservatives are motivated by two things, fear and greed.
Fear that someone might forcibly deprive the fruits of their greed.
This, this in the UK, seems to be the only reason why Conservatives have any concern for the lower orders at all.This results in minimal programs to keep people just out of complete pverty, but still hungry enough to work for a small portion of the profits they make for therir company owning masters.
Fact, in the UK the year to date, workers have had 2.8% pay increases, and company directors, who have been operating companies whose values are generally substantially olower than the previous year, have taken pay rise that average 24%.
It’s such disparities that cause much disquiet, whilst those lower down the social order must worry about security of employment in a declining marketplace, the gaffers fill their wallets with rewards for failure.
No one argues against reward for success.
Minimal government can end up as an abrogation of responsibility by those with power, it has a tendency to drift that way all the time and would do so without the counterbalance of a public belief in some form of social justice.
If you actually look back in time, you will find the greatest opponents of human decency are found in the wealthy layer of society, from slavery, drug trafficking(in China) to resisting universal public education, to outlawing child labour, to a large percentage of health and safety legislation.
Nowadays even the most extreme Conservative realise that many of those positions they defended are untenable, better educated populations created more wealth rather than consumed it, that drug trafficking drained societies even as it made profit for the owners of the companies involved.
If we had not had all those ‘bleeding heart liberals’ the vast majority of us on this message board would still be working a compulsory 60 hour week, we would have no recourse to law if we were injured whilst at work, we would not have the right to walk away from an employer we no longer wished to work for.
Black would not have the vote, nor even women, free assembly would be looked upon with suspicion by those in power, we could be dismissed from employment for asking for machine guards.
Bleeding heart liberals have moderated the worst excesses of industry, unless poster would really like to return to the age of the industrial revolution.
There is no doubt that business has to be allowed to operate free of as many controls as is socially acceptable, that it must not be burdened with unnecessary costs and buerocrary, but it cannot be allowed to operate completel unfettered either, we have had centuries of that, and populations have had centuries of poverty and misery whilst their lords lived in heaven on earth.
I was not referring specifically to your post, Binarydrone - if I were, I would have said so. I was referring to the entire thread.
Esprix
This conservative is in full agreement with you Esprix. The conservative and liberal positions are undeserving of the generalizations here. I would say that both have good motives, different priorities and different preferred methods of accomplishing them.
A liberal is a person who recognizes his responsibities to the other members of the society he chooses to live in; a person whose guiding principle is the Golden Rule.
A conservative is a person who fails to acknowledge that the society that she lives in is a fabric made up of and supported by the talents and contributions of many different people; she takes unfair advantage of the benefits of society while refusing to contribute equally its maintenance. Her guiding principle is “I got mine.”
Care to give an example of where I refuse to contribute to the mainenance of society? Oh, yeah, this year’s new expensive and wasteful social program is part of society too, right?
“I didn’t choose to have my taxes raised to excessive levels so that we could create a welfare state.”
–Airman Doors, 7/31/2003, SDMB
Of course it is – after all, the folks who need those social programs are citizens of the state, just as much as you and I are.
You may have legitimate complaints about the efficiency of those programs, but to say that we should simply toss 'em out because you like them is nothing more than refusing to contribute to the maintenance of society.
Er, dislike them, I mean.
Lissener
I think you have that backwards.
Very loaded statement. Please elaborate.
ok, let me try one more time.
Conservatives: Don’t liberals tend to misunderstand and misrepresent your views? Isn’t it, then, reasonable to assume that you tend to misunderstand their views, and that their opinions are probably more benign than they at first seem? Or are you somehow immune to bias?
Liberals: Same question.
I’m surprised at Libertarian. When I saw that his was the most recent post, I assumed he would have pointed out the absurdity of this discussion instead of taking sides.
Of course, I’m doing the same thing, aren’t I? I’m just playing a different version of the “I’m Better Than You” game – specifically, the “I’m More Tolerant Than You” game.
That said, I prefer my game; I think it’s gentler.
Just out of curiosity, is there any such thing as a website which lists the budgets of different cabinet departments? I’m thinking specifically the budgets of, say, DoD and Ag for…oh, I 'unno, 1998 or something. It would really be news to me if I had more tax dollars going to AFDC than the military.
And.
AND!!
I was probably a tax paying member of society, and my tax dollars were more than likely funding small, community-based programs which could have helped you when you were down and out had you made a few telephone calls to as about them.
Yeah, maybe I’m a liberal, but I’m a conservative in that I strictly interpret the “promote the general welfare” bit of my Constitution, and I believe that food, shelter, and clothing are the bare necessities of someone’s welfare.
Yep, that’s me. :rolleyes:
I find it pathetic that people around here cannot even talk about what the labels “liberal” and “conservative” mean without the thread promptly disintegrating into the usual tired and pointless bashing. I don’t find it surprising, but I do find it pathetic.