Liberal,Middle, Conservative, NeoConservative.

[dragonslayer]

Conservative:
disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.
NeoConservative:
Advocating radical change, making destructive changes to
instutions, people and Government. Primarily very far to the right politically.
Strongly backed and assciated to big national and multinational companies. NeoCons see the USA as a bunch land, they see the people on that land as throw aways, labor, or obstacles.
Middle of the Road:
favoring, following, or characterized by an intermediate position between two extremes, esp. in politics; moderate.
Liberal:
1. favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.
2. (often cap.) noting or pertaining to a political party advocating measures of progressive political reform.
3. of, pertaining to, based on, or advocating liberalism.
4. favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, esp. as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.
5. favoring or permitting freedom of action, esp. with respect to matters of personal belief or expression: a liberal policy toward dissident artists and writers.
6. of or pertaining to representational forms of government rather than aristocracies and monarchies.
7. free from prejudice or bigotry; tolerant: a liberal attitude toward foreigners.

:2wave:

 

[FreeThinker]

Wrong section.

 

[ptsdkid]

Liberal:[/B]

1. favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.

***Favorable to reform in religious affairs? Yeah I suppose you're right. Liberals want to sodomize marriage and the child bearing process. Liberals are against 'Faith initiative programs'. So by reform you mean to promote gay pride parades, infanticide on demand, and insert progressive books into our public school system that teach subjects on Johnny has two moms as presented by queer nation reprobates.

2. (often cap.) noting or pertaining to a political party advocating measures of progressive political reform.

***Progressive political reform? Is this the part where you join forces with your co-patriots in marching on D.C. to protest any war, and in the meantime show disrespect and non-support for our troops? Perhaps its where you reform and revise our country's history so as to accept the millions of illegals into our melting pot of hard earned tax monies so that they can have free and unlimited access to our hospitals, our schools, housing, and to our jobs. Progressive to a liberal means to salute to the politically correct and multicultural infestation to America. Perhaps its progressive to accept Spanish as our #1 language as well.


3. of, pertaining to, based on, or advocating liberalism.

***Yeah, advocating liberalism, a failed ideology that has never worked any place its been tried.

4. favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, esp. as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.

***Maximum freedom? You liberals have always been against the second amendment of gun ownership. Go ahead..deny it! You liberals will increase our taxes every time you get the chance. How is that progressive or showing freedom to our workers? Where is the freedom to invent, to progress etc inside the liberal unions? You're against all forms of Capitalism--to be replaced by liberalism/socialism as they are one in the same.

5. favoring or permitting freedom of action, esp. with respect to matters of personal belief or expression: a liberal policy toward dissident artists and writers.

***Sure, you want to have the freedom to burn the American flag; to take the Ten Commandments off of the front of government buildings; to present art in the form of a 'Piss Christ", and to throw pies in the faces of Republican speakers. I hear ya!

6. of or pertaining to representational forms of government rather than aristocracies and monarchies.

***Surely you're referring to the liberal congressmen that traveled to Iraq and pulled a Jane Fonda on our troops by siding with the enemy again. Perhaps it was the liberal insistence that we handcuff our military brass and our CIC during war by initiating investigations into wartime wire tapping, prisoner ettiquette etc.

7. free from prejudice or bigotry; tolerant: a liberal attitude toward foreigners.

***This was your best one yet. Your liberal attitude has seen upwards to 30 million illegal imigrants wreak havoc on our country, and you're directly responsible for our loss in Vietnam, and you're doing your best to lose the Iraqi war, where we leave in total embarrassment, as would be the case with your cut-and-run enthusiasts. Think of Conservatives as being totally opposed to the aforementioned liberal traits, and you'll get a good idea of which political ideology suits our country best.

 

[Hatuey]

pstdkid he asked you which one you were...he didnt ask you to bitch about liberals. I find it funny how you can complain about liberals when I'm sure the money of atleast one liberal goes to that veteran welfare money you receive tax free.

--------------------------------------------------------

I'd say I'm in the middle of the road.

I don't agree belive in abortion but I wont force others to live by my belief and will defend a persons right to chose...

I dont believe in homosexuality but I'll defend a persons right to chose the sexual partner they want without it being anybody's business...

I agreed with the purpose of the war but I've become disenchanted by how it's been handled...

I belive that you can learn alot from the Bible and the Qu'ran and Torah and every other religious book but to take any of them too seriously is dangerous..

I belive in spirituality not faith(there is a very big difference)...

I dont belive I was created by an invisible being who has never revealed himself and is supposed to awnser all my questions for me when I die...I belive I'm here to search for those questions on my own with the ultimate goal being total enlightment..

Finally I belive in progress while preserving some of our values.

 

[PeteEU]

***I won't even acknowledge your lame descriptions of Conservatives. Needless to say they're all backwards. I will insert my views on liberalism as to offset your ridculous assumptions.

Whats wrong with it? Its in fact quite accurate. Only thing thats missing is the ecnomical part.

As for the definition of Liberal.. the American one or the one the rest of the world uses. As far as I can see, the definitions are of the true meaning of Liberal and liberalism, and not the warped US meaning thats been spouted by conservatives for decades, and has been eaten wholehearted by the US media and saddly also by the public and the left themselvs.

1. favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.

***Favorable to reform in religious affairs? Yeah I suppose you're right. Liberals want to sodomize marriage and the child bearing process. Liberals are against 'Faith initiative programs'. So by reform you mean to promote gay pride parades, infanticide on demand, and insert progressive books into our public school system that teach subjects on Johnny has two moms as presented by queer nation reprobates.

The liberal idea is not to get stuck in the "old ways" if there are better new ways, in all aspects of life. And your attack is baseless. "Liberals" in the US oppose conservative definitions of marriage and the child bearing process, which are based on centuries old and outdated religious dogma. They oppose labeling homosexuality as bad, because again such ideas are based on religous dogma. In other words, "liberals", basicly in this case means anyone who opposes conservative religious thinking of the last 2000 years.

2. (often cap.) noting or pertaining to a political party advocating measures of progressive political reform.

***Progressive political reform? Is this the part where you join forces with your co-patriots in marching on D.C. to protest any war, and in the meantime show disrespect and non-support for our troops? Perhaps its where you reform and revise our country's history so as to accept the millions of illegals into our melting pot of hard earned tax monies so that they can have free and unlimited access to our hospitals, our schools, housing, and to our jobs. Progressive to a liberal means to salute to the politically correct and multicultural infestation to America. Perhaps its progressive to accept Spanish as our #1 language as well.

What does your ranting have to do with anything progressive politically? Is it that so called liberals dont off hand dismiss any political messure based on religious dogma or the 2000 years of failed conservative policies?

3. of, pertaining to, based on, or advocating liberalism.

***Yeah, advocating liberalism, a failed ideology that has never worked any place its been tried.

Er, dont you mean communist? Liberalism has been the driving force for the last century in one way or another. If it was not for liberals and progressives, the US would still be a slave state with segregation. The list goes on. We can discuss if socalist ideas, which are not liberal ideas, have failed, but we can agree that for the most part communist ideology has failed.

4. favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, esp. as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.

***Maximum freedom? You liberals have always been against the second amendment of gun ownership. Go ahead..deny it! You liberals will increase our taxes every time you get the chance. How is that progressive or showing freedom to our workers? Where is the freedom to invent, to progress etc inside the liberal unions? You're against all forms of Capitalism--to be replaced by liberalism/socialism as they are one in the same.

Yes maximum freedom. Its not liberals who attempt to ban books, attempt to strip or deny rights to minorites (who are citizens). And unions have nothing to do with liberalism, but with socialism.

5. favoring or permitting freedom of action, esp. with respect to matters of personal belief or expression: a liberal policy toward dissident artists and writers.

***Sure, you want to have the freedom to burn the American flag; to take the Ten Commandments off of the front of government buildings; to present art in the form of a 'Piss Christ", and to throw pies in the faces of Republican speakers. I hear ya!

Yes its a freedom to burn a piece of cloth, regardless what it represents. Its also a freedom to dump the bible in the garbage can. Its also a freedom not to have religious dogma pushed in your face in goverment or law. Why do conervatives in the US and even over in Europe constantly want to force people to believe or see things that they dont give a damn about or think is a private matter? Thats the same crap Stalin and communism did for decades in Russia.. the party line.

6. of or pertaining to representational forms of government rather than aristocracies and monarchies.

***Surely you're referring to the liberal congressmen that traveled to Iraq and pulled a Jane Fonda on our troops by siding with the enemy again. Perhaps it was the liberal insistence that we handcuff our military brass and our CIC during war by initiating investigations into wartime wire tapping, prisoner ettiquette etc.

What on earth do the 2 have to do with each other? And for the record conservative congressmen have and will travel to Iraq, Iran and Syria so that argument is null and void. As for the last comment.. do you mean you belive in the absolute power of your goverment and they can do anything they want? Thats called a dictatorship, when goverment sees itself above the law and out of reach of consquences for its action.

7. free from prejudice or bigotry; tolerant: a liberal attitude toward foreigners.

***This was your best one yet. Your liberal attitude has seen upwards to 30 million illegal imigrants wreak havoc on our country, and you're directly responsible for our loss in Vietnam, and you're doing your best to lose the Iraqi war, where we leave in total embarrassment, as would be the case with your cut-and-run enthusiasts. Think of Conservatives as being totally opposed to the aforementioned liberal traits, and you'll get a good idea of which political ideology suits our country best.

Again you are way off the mark. He states foreigners, and you instantly go on the illegal imigrant talking notes. So all foreigners are illegals now? No wonder the latest survey sees the US loose billions a year due to such attitudes, attitudes that have created fortress USA for anyone attempting legally to enter the country. And I thought conservatives said that Vietnam was not a "loss"... tsk.

 

[SpooK]

ptsdkid, I can honestly say that if you were to never come on DP again, I would be very upset. I dont think I have read a post of yours that hasnt made me laugh -- and I do NOT mean that in a negative way, truly!

Rock on brother.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

pstdkid he asked you which one you were...he didnt ask you to bitch about liberals. I find it funny how you can complain about liberals when I'm sure the money of atleast one liberal goes to that veteran welfare money you receive tax free.

And so it spreads... :2wave:

 

[tecoyah]

Middle of the road....according to these descriptions. But with a few Liberal tendencies to add spice.

 

[ptsdkid]

ptsdkid, I can honestly say that if you were to never come on DP again, I would be very upset. I dont think I have read a post of yours that hasnt made me laugh -- and I do NOT mean that in a negative way, truly!

Rock on brother.

***Its amazing to see these liberals come back time after time spewing and supporting their failed ideological policies. They need to revert back to FDR's New Deal and LBJ's Great Society to see how dependent our country has become on welfare and social programs. Forty years of those failed burgeoning government programs have given America the distinction of being the greatest debtor nation on earth. Forget the fact that they base their ethical mindset on a secular/atheist religion of sorts, but they continue to vote against tax cuts--that are just the policy to pump investing monies back into the economy. The reason our economy is booming and we have the lowest unemployment rate of all time is because of Bush's tax cutting initiatives. Liberals need to open their eyes a little wider to see Reagan's and Bush's shining city upon the hill. Of course with liberals--they're too busy planning impeachment proceedings to worry about the war or in keeping our economy as sound as it is. Bunch of power hungry do-nothing anti Americans are about to take over the halls of our congress. Well at least it gives more pap and fodder to the multi-millions that tune into Rush Limbaugh every weekday. Rush's 3-hour program should be mandatory listening for every junior and high school civics class nationwide. Heaven knows those skulls full of liberal mush will be inundated with ultra liberal professors if and when they decide to venture into higher learning universities. God save America, and save every liberal from his perpetual sinning. What a disgrace these people are.

 

[dragonslayer]

Conservative:
disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.
NeoConservative:
Advocating radical change, making destructive changes to
instutions, people and Government. Primarily very far to the right politically.
Strongly backed and assciated to big national and multinational companies. NeoCons see the USA as a bunch land, they see the people on that land as throw aways, labor, or obstacles.
Middle of the Road:
favoring, following, or characterized by an intermediate position between two extremes, esp. in politics; moderate.
Liberal:
1. favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.
2. (often cap.) noting or pertaining to a political party advocating measures of progressive political reform.
3. of, pertaining to, based on, or advocating liberalism.
4. favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, esp. as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.
5. favoring or permitting freedom of action, esp. with respect to matters of personal belief or expression: a liberal policy toward dissident artists and writers.
6. of or pertaining to representational forms of government rather than aristocracies and monarchies.
7. free from prejudice or bigotry; tolerant: a liberal attitude toward foreigners.

:2wave:

I got my definitions from the Information please dictionary for Liberal, middle of the road, and conservative.

I look at the actions of neocons and wrote this definition based on actions and words of NeoCons, Bush, Cheney, Gingritch, Rove, etc.

 

[Adrian]

***Its amazing to see these liberals come back time after time spewing and supporting their [nonsensical, directionless babbling continues]

50 - 600 million sperm in a single ejaculation, and you had to be the winner. Way to go in your continual efforts to disprove Intelligent Design.

 

[ptsdkid]

I got my definitions from the Information please dictionary for Liberal, middle of the road, and conservative.

***Listen to and watch the actions of these new liberals to see if current beliefs hold up to those outdated views.

Let me now compare socialism to this 'New Liberalism' to see if you can glean similarities from the two.

SOCIALISM: refers to a broad array of doctrines or political movements that envisage a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to social control.

NEW LIBERALISM or SOCIAL LIBERALISM: advocate a greater degree of government interference in the free market, often in the form of anti discrimination laws, civil service examinations, universal education (rejection of vouchers), and progressive taxation. This philosophy believes government should provide for general welfare, including benefits for the unemployed, housing for the homeless, amnesty for illegals and felons, and medical care for the sick. Does any of this sound like 'individualism' or 'capitalism' to you?
'Classical Liberalism' rejects these publicaly funded initiatives; it emphasizes free enterprise--a Conservative concept. Founding Fathers like John Adams and Thomas Jefferson were considered 'Classical Liberals' or Democrat-Republicans. New Liberalism believes in pitting classes against one another by politicking to get the upper class to pay for everyone else's tax woes. I hear ya, the rich keep getting richer while the poor keep getting poorer. Cry me a river in that oversized pity pot...why doncha.

Modern American Liberalism peaked with FDR's New Deal, and with LBJ's Great Society. Social Liberalism in a nutshell--is combining support for government social programs, progressive taxation, and moderate Keynesianism with a broad concept of rights including education and health care.

It would be a stretch to find a modern day liberal that believed in individualism, competition in the market place, a free enterprise system, capitalism, a strong military, Jesus Christ, a positve ethical platform, inventors (as unions stole their individuality), tax cutting, and individual responsibility (since they have the ACLU and liberal lawyers on their side to help level out the playing field).

 

[LeftyHenry]

Socialism has nothing in common with liberalism and classic liberalism. Liberalism rejects materialism as well as class war, two essential tenets socialists have. I am a socialist, but I am far from a liberal.

 

[Morty]

I would consider myself a liberal, quite liberal, though I balk at saying it nowadays, being as "liberal" has a meaning now that I don't associate with. My "liberalism" would be extending maximum freedom to citizens and equality for all, and my liberalism ends on some points (foreign policy and immigration tend to be the big splits between me and most liberals).

For example: I am heavily against any anti-flag burning law, as I find that to be covered quite clearly under freedom of expression. However, I am also heavily against nearly any gun control law, as that right [to bear arms] is one that is absolutely fundamental to the security of freedom (and the more everyday agrument that it decreases crime).

@ptsdkid: You do a lot of talking about religion and faith-based laws. Do you not believe in the First Amendment?
Furthermore, you speak of Medicare, SS, etc as a reason we are the world's largest debtor nation. I think that may have a lot more to do with our increasing imports verses decreasing exports, no? It seems our movement towards free trade (a Neo-conservative concept) is more of the issue. Combined with the fact that we have an absurdly large military and are engaging in nonsensical wars of conquest; now we have some issues. And that War on Drugs is a quite expensive venture as well, while only restricting the freedom of the people to live their own lifestyle however they see fit. Prisons are overcrowded mostly due to your "tough laws" (often freedom-restricting or frivolous laws that have absurd penalties or are putting non-violent criminals in jail) and your commitment to an obsolete system of capital punishment. Plus the Pentagon 'misplacing' 2.3 trillion dollars prolly didn't help our overall financial situation You also might note that due to Bush's oh-so-great economic policies, it seems that the dollar may collapse. Yes, collapse. The Fed is trying desparately to make the descent a slow one, but finds that it is inevitable that it will drop quite dramatically.
And speaking of illegal immigrants, I wouldn't be singing the praises of modern conservatives if I were you. Reagan, as you may remember, gave total amenisty to millions of illegal immigrants and then did nothing to stem the tide of further illegal immigration. If would-be illegals think that if they hold out long enough they will just be given citizenship, isn't that a major incentive to give it a shot?
Then we have Mr. Bush, our current nation-killer. He's planning a similar amnesty program, this time it will be many millions more gaining amnesty. And what has he done for border security? Zilch. He built a wall that covers what, 700 miles? And it isn't well-manned, so even if the illegals didn't feel like just walking around the fence to an unfenced area, they could just cut through the fence in unmanned or undermanned areas. Oh, and not to mention Bush moving closer and closer to union with Canada and Mexico, via North American Union. Nice conservativism right there. Sounds more extreme than anything I've ever heard a Dem propose.

It might interest you that Reagan and Bush have both raised the debt in record amounts in both of their administrations, so their "shining example" of fiscal responsibility and conservativism is not very bright. Personally, given the choice between the Democrat's taxing and spending verses the Republican's cutting and spending, I'd choose the former. Of course I'd prefer cutting taxes AND cutting spending, but the libertarians don't stand much of a shot in the current political landscape. :lol:

 

[ptsdkid]

@ptsdkid: You do a lot of talking about religion and faith-based laws. Do you not believe in the First Amendment?

***Sure I believe in the first amendment. How does religion and faith-based initiatives have anything to do with that amendment. A faith-based intiative is not a law.


Furthermore, you speak of Medicare, SS, etc as a reason we are the world's largest debtor nation. I think that may have a lot more to do with our increasing imports verses decreasing exports, no? It seems our movement towards free trade (a Neo-conservative concept) is more of the issue.

***Social programs are a huge reason why we have become a great debtor nation, but are not the only factors. But if you were to cut those social programs in half, and parlay 100% of the savings toward the national debt, we could probably pay off the national debt in one day.
Did you ever think that our export to import ratio may very well be off balance due to the stringent rules and regulations put on our businesses by the government? The Sherman Act of 1890 continues to plague our economy to this very day. Free trade opens up global investment opportunities, which in turn adds to America's capitalistic outlook and burgeoning economy.



Combined with the fact that we have an absurdly large military and are engaging in nonsensical wars of conquest; now we have some issues.


***I remember liberals of the 1980's poking fun of Reagan's Starwars program, and of the liberal congress voting down every military appropriations bills that had come up for a vote. Raytheon and other high tech military defense corporations were left out of their billion dollar contracts to build Scud, Hawk and Patriot missiles because of the voting of an insecure pacifist congress. Somehow (with no help from liberal congressmen) we managed to build many of the aforementioned missles that were later used to help America win the first Gulf War.



And that War on Drugs is a quite expensive venture as well, while only restricting the freedom of the people to live their own lifestyle however they see fit.

***I don't see where the war on drugs is all that expensive or pertinent to America being a great debtor nation.


Prisons are overcrowded mostly due to your "tough laws" (often freedom-restricting or frivolous laws that have absurd penalties or are putting non-violent criminals in jail) and your commitment to an obsolete system of capital punishment.


***Prisons are overcrowed because we have such a high rate of criminally minded people. The sentences for our more dangerous felons are a joke. People are getting out in 5-7 years for murder. The recidivisim rate for these felons of lenient sentences is astronomical. Until we can get these liberal judges to show a firm hand by handing out jail time equal to the felon's crime--can we ever expect to see the prison population drop.
Capital punishment is a must if we are going to toughen up our punishment sentencing. I'd like to take it a step further where every video freak gets to film an execution. The hanging of Saddam Hussein saved at least another 1 million people from dying at a young age.


Plus the Pentagon 'misplacing' 2.3 trillion dollars prolly didn't help our overall financial situation You also might note that due to Bush's oh-so-great economic policies, it seems that the dollar may collapse. Yes, collapse. The Fed is trying desparately to make the descent a slow one, but finds that it is inevitable that it will drop quite dramatically.


****Yeah, the only things I support Bush on are his committment to Christian ethics, and to his fight on terroism. He has been an abject failure on immigration policy and on his spending habits. But if it wasn't for the Bush tax cuts, we would be singing the songs of your basic banana republic nation.

And speaking of illegal immigrants, I wouldn't be singing the praises of modern conservatives if I were you. Reagan, as you may remember, gave total amenisty to millions of illegal immigrants and then did nothing to stem the tide of further illegal immigration. If would-be illegals think that if they hold out long enough they will just be given citizenship, isn't that a major incentive to give it a shot?

***Look back to the immigration act of 1965 when Ted Kennedy set the rules where open borders were basically the law of the land. See what Mr. Kennedy and John McCain are saying about illegal immigrants today to see if that is the road we want to pursue. I am all for strating out by building that 700 mile wall.


Then we have Mr. Bush, our current nation-killer. He's planning a similar amnesty program, this time it will be many millions more gaining amnesty. And what has he done for border security? Zilch. He built a wall that covers what, 700 miles? And it isn't well-manned, so even if the illegals didn't feel like just walking around the fence to an unfenced area, they could just cut through the fence in unmanned or undermanned areas. Oh, and not to mention Bush moving closer and closer to union with Canada and Mexico, via North American Union. Nice conservativism right there. Sounds more extreme than anything I've ever heard a Dem propose.

***I agree with you. Bush doesn't sound conservative at all to me. Again, other than tax cutting and strong on defense--Bush doesn't cut it with me.

It might interest you that Reagan and Bush have both raised the debt in record amounts in both of their administrations, so their "shining example" of fiscal responsibility and conservativism is not very bright.


***My view has always been to not worry about the debt. Most that debt goes to China anyway. So why pay them? Looks like it won't be long before we engage in war with China anyway, why give them more capital in which to use against us?



Personally, given the choice between the Democrat's taxing and spending verses the Republican's cutting and spending, I'd choose the former. Of course I'd prefer cutting taxes AND cutting spending, but the libertarians don't stand much of a shot in the current political landscape. :lol:

***True conservatives would have us cutting taxes and spending less. Just think if Bush could have gotten his privatizing 6% of Social Security into private accounts passed the liberals in congress. Privatizing social security and medical accounts are a form of investment which can only help boost our economy in the long run. But investing money into government programs rather than having tax monies support big government is not something that bodes well with the tax and spend Democrats. Never has been, and never will.

 

[Morty]

***Sure I believe in the first amendment. How does religion and faith-based initiatives have anything to do with that amendment. A faith-based intiative is not a law.

The government isn't supposed to recognize that religion even exists. Courts have held that this applies not only to Congress, but also to the other two branches. So if our executive says "We should start doing this because my religion says [blah]" then he is doing something expressly forbidden in the Constitution.

***Social programs are a huge reason why we have become a great debtor nation, but are not the only factors. But if you were to cut those social programs in half, and parlay 100% of the savings toward the national debt, we could probably pay off the national debt in one day.

The National Debt is currently at about 8.6 trillion dollars. Our annual spending on ALL Human Resources (Health/Human Services, Soc. Sec. Administration, Education Dept., Food/Nutrition programs, Housing & Urban Dev., Labor Dept., etc) is about 750 billion dollars annually. So, if we were to entirely cut out that and put the savings 100% into the National Debt, it would take about 11 and a half YEARS to pay it back, at its current number (not taking into consideration the interest it would accumulate, which would also have to be paid). The National Debt since 9/29/06 has risen at an average of about 957 million dollars daily. Let's throw that into the calculation. In 11 and a half years' time, we would have accumulated about an extra 4 TRILLION dollars to pay off, and that's just at the current rate of increase. The current rate of increase indicates that the National Debt will rise about 350 billion dollars annually, meaning only 400 billion would be actually touching the current debt (and remember we are assuming the ENTIRE Human Resources section of the government is cut). That will take about 21 and a half years to pay off. Hardly your "cut half and we will pay it back in a day" idea.

Did you ever think that our export to import ratio may very well be off balance due to the stringent rules and regulations put on our businesses by the government? The Sherman Act of 1890 continues to plague our economy to this very day. Free trade opens up global investment opportunities, which in turn adds to America's capitalistic outlook and burgeoning economy.

No. I think it is because there are many countries in the world that simply aren't as good as ours, and their citizens will work for wages that aren't fit for animals in America. You think we can compete with sweatshops in Southeast Asia? You think we can compete with people who will GLADLY take a quarter a day in payment? It just can't happen. Free Trade is not what built America's economy and is not what will save it. Tariffs, lower taxes, better education, less government, and punishing of outsourcers will be what can save us.

***I remember liberals of the 1980's poking fun of Reagan's Starwars program, and of the liberal congress voting down every military appropriations bills that had come up for a vote. Raytheon and other high tech military defense corporations were left out of their billion dollar contracts to build Scud, Hawk and Patriot missiles because of the voting of an insecure pacifist congress. Somehow (with no help from liberal congressmen) we managed to build many of the aforementioned missles that were later used to help America win the first Gulf War.

As I remember it, "Star Wars" was a money pit that ended in failure.
And guess what, we could have won that war without any of your fancy missiles. Iraq was never a threat to us, nor even close to our military equal. Sure, they had the 4th largest army or whatever. But most of them were forced into service, poorly trained, and using extremely outdated Soviet weaponry. We could have smashed them without a major military increase. We wouldn't have had a massive increase in KIA, nor even a significant one. Not to say that Washington cares a THING about the soldiers they put on the ground over there. Thousands had their death warrants signed when they went over there in '91, and the toll is still rising. These deaths weren't reported as part of the death toll in the Gulf War because it wasn't in action that they were killed or wounded. Nope, they went home sick and died from illnesses brought on by the use of DU and other known-dangerous materials by the military. It sickens me when I hear one of the "leaders" in this country tell us to support the troops while they are sending them to die by their own weapons due to the use of stuff that the military knows and has known is extremely dangerous. But I digress.
The US government spends an absurd amount on the military (we seem to be in an arms race....with ourselves) and if we weren't in these wars of conquest, then we would certainly have more money to pay off this huge debt.

I'll get to the rest later, must go right now.

 

[Stinger]

pstdkid he asked you which one you were...he didnt ask you to bitch about liberals. I find it funny how you can complain about liberals when I'm sure the money of atleast one liberal goes to that veteran welfare money you receive tax free.

--------------------------------------------------------

I'd say I'm in the middle of the road.

I don't agree ............ but ...................

I dont believe ................but .....................

I agreed .... but......................

I belive that ....................... but .......................

I belive ............ not .......................

So you don't support anything you believe in..................how wonderful to live of life with no principles to uphold.

 

[disneydude]

So you don't support anything you believe in..................how wonderful to live of life with no principles to uphold.

The fact that you cannot see the principles in his post merely shows that you wouldn't know a principle if it walked up and kissed you on the face.

The principle is that perhaps Personal Freedom and Personal Responsibility are greater attributes than Big Government.
Inviting the Government to make decision about who you can be intimately involved with and the decision to bring a child into this world may seem like good values to you....but many of us value our American Freedoms and won't be so quick to give over the decision making process to the government.
Great Principles that you have there Stinger!

 

[Stinger]

The fact that you cannot see the principles in his post merely shows that you wouldn't know a principle if it walked up and kissed you on the face.

If you don't support what you state you believe in then you have no
principles. On each issue the poster claimed to support a BUT was issue saying but I won't stand up for it.

How easy to go through life not standing up for what you believe in.

 

[disneydude]

If you don't support what you state you believe in then you have no
principles. On each issue the poster claimed to support a BUT was issue saying but I won't stand up for it.

How easy to go through life not standing up for what you believe in.

Once again....you are only seeing what you want to see.

The poster stated that while he personally does not believe in abortion, homosexuality, etc....that he believes that his personal interests should not be forced by him or the government on everyone.
Let me spell it out for you Stinger so we don't have to go through this again...

The poster believes that individual choice and responsibility on issues such as this is more important than Governmental controls.
In other words, the principle that he stands for is freedom over legislation.

If you can't figure that out....then you ain't readin the post.

 

[Stinger]

Once again....you are only seeing what you want to see.

No I'm reading what the poster posted, and he can rebut what I posted if he wants to.

...so we don't have to go through this again...

Oh feel free to spare us all.

 

[Morty]

Alright continuing:

***I don't see where the war on drugs is all that expensive or pertinent to America being a great debtor nation.

Actually, it is. The federal gov't alone spends about 20 billion dollars annually on the War on Drugs and state+local governments add over 30 billion more. That's 50 billion a year to fight against the personal freedoms of Americans. That isn't even counting the amount spent for incarceration, extra police, trials, etc. That totals an additional 50 billion or so. Now we are at 100 billion dollars annually. And the amount of people in jail due to drug use is only on the rise. Furthermore, the prohibition of drugs has done nothing to improve the drug use and importation situation, in fact things have gotten exponentially worse. Also, the War on Drugs has been linked to various military operations, especially in Latin America, which would otherwise be entirely unnecessary.

***Prisons are overcrowed because we have such a high rate of criminally minded people. The sentences for our more dangerous felons are a joke. People are getting out in 5-7 years for murder. The recidivisim rate for these felons of lenient sentences is astronomical. Until we can get these liberal judges to show a firm hand by handing out jail time equal to the felon's crime--can we ever expect to see the prison population drop.

Well, now we have a nice jump point to continue my agruments against the War on Drugs. The reason many violent criminals are serving such low sentences is that the prisons simply don't have room for them. Why? Because of the amount of people in jail for non-violent crime that pose no threat to the community - by far the largest of these groups is drug-related offenders. The amount of drug-related offenders in prison in the United States right now is more than all the people in prison for any crime in all of the EU. And guess what, Europe's population is much higher (about 200 million more). And what are we doing by putting non-violent criminals in jail? We are creating violent criminals. You said it yourself, once people go to jail their chance of going back is greatly increased. We are basically training the next wave of criminals. I've never been to jail, so I can't speak from personal experience. But from what I've heard, once you go to jail for an extended period of time, even just a year, you will come out changed. You have a whole new set of morals, because you would have never survived without creating a new mentality. And it isn't some light switch that you can just turn back off as soon as you are out of the big house. Are there cases of people coming out of jail and then leading successful lives? Absolutely. But the government sure doesn't make it easy on them. Think about this: You are one of the millions of non-violent criminals sent to jail. Let's say you were in possession of pot, a good amount, and you got 2 years. Now fast-forward. You are out of prison. Somehow, through it all, you kept a good attitude and used your time in the slammer as a learning experience. But now you have to rebuild your life in the real world. Going to find a new job? Yeah, not so easy when you have to put "felon" on your application. Maybe you live in a bad neighbor, can't afford anything better with the terrible job you have now (because no one else would accept you). Wanna buy a weapon to protect yourself? Sorry - felons not allowed. Well now you have to live in fear of robbery or worse all the time. Jeez, things aren't really looking up for you now. But you remember something that a friend you made in jail told you about. A gang of his in your area. You could have protection, opportunity to rise up economically, etc. Or you can be stuck in the dangerous, run down area you live for the rest of your days. Now crime is looking a bit more like the ONLY choice, isn't it?
I agree that murderers getting such lenient sentences is ridiculous. I agree that violent criminals should be locked away. But non-violent criminals should have alternate forms of punishment that don't put further strain on the society they have already burdened with their criminal activity. Fines, loss of property, community service, etc would be a much better way of dealing with non-violent criminals than the current system of locking them up. Especially considering that it won't lead them to greater crime in most cases.
Also, although I know that liberal judges can often be a problem, placing too many minimums on sentences is dangerous as well. Judges are there to look at the circumstances surrounding the crime and make judgments on how long that particular offense deserves in punishment. Too high of minimums defeats the purpose of judges, and so should be avoided in all cases, as a legislator off in Washington cannot possibly predict every possible circumstance when setting a minimum.

Capital punishment is a must if we are going to toughen up our punishment sentencing. I'd like to take it a step further where every video freak gets to film an execution. The hanging of Saddam Hussein saved at least another 1 million people from dying at a young age.

Capital punishment often proves to be only determental to the community that instates it. There is little connection between the ending of capital punishment and increase in crime, showing that it is not a deterrent. Capital punishment is also more costly (often brings up greater amounts of appeals, longer trials, plus the issue of their holding on death row being much more expensive than regular cells), which is hardly a burden to place on a community already negatively affected by these criminals. Furthermore, capital punishment is (at least in my opinion) immoral, as it is lowering the authorities to the level of the criminal (killing is killing, whether state-sponsored or not). I believe that life in prison doing hard labor is a much better option, as they will be forced to give back to the community they harmed and not burden them further.
The allowing of any person to record the proceedings of the carrying out of capital punishment may very well be cruel and unusual - ie, un-Constitution.
I doubt very much that Saddam's hanging will save lives, if anything I believe it will only increase violence in Iraq. We'll have to wait and see on that one.

****Yeah, the only things I support Bush on are his committment to Christian ethics, and to his fight on terroism. He has been an abject failure on immigration policy and on his spending habits. But if it wasn't for the Bush tax cuts, we would be singing the songs of your basic banana republic nation.

He's not doing well on his Commandment following from what I can tell :2razz:
His War on Terrorism is absurd, if you ask me, and since the beginning of it terrorism has only increased around the world - by the government's own reports.
I doubt the country would have fallen that fast with or without his tax cuts. I'm not sure the cuts have helped, to tell you the truth, and if I remember correctly a recession was sparked off by his first ones.

***Look back to the immigration act of 1965 when Ted Kennedy set the rules where open borders were basically the law of the land. See what Mr. Kennedy and John McCain are saying about illegal immigrants today to see if that is the road we want to pursue. I am all for strating out by building that 700 mile wall.

I'm definitely not trying to say the Democrats are any better. Heck, they don't even pretend like they are trying to fight immigration. But the Republicans have a quite terrible track record of their own, and I don't think any Dems gave amnesty to millions of illegals.
I don't think that 700 mile wall is a start on the path to true border security. I think it is more of just feeding the lion that the American public has become to stop them from chewing out the politicians for not being tough on immigration. They just want to appease us for the time being without actually making progress, if you ask me.

***My view has always been to not worry about the debt. Most that debt goes to China anyway. So why pay them? Looks like it won't be long before we engage in war with China anyway, why give them more capital in which to use against us?

You have to pay them, if they ask for it, otherwise your money will be worthless around the world. You can't just say, "I'm not going to pay you." The only reason money has any purchasing power is that it represents value. Without the value it represents, it is simply a green piece of paper with fancy writing on it.
I doubt very much we will ever go to war with China, for the same reason we were never going to go to war with the USSR after about 1960. MAD. Neither country will risk destruction of life on earth via nuclear holocaust.

***True conservatives would have us cutting taxes and spending less. Just think if Bush could have gotten his privatizing 6% of Social Security into private accounts passed the liberals in congress. Privatizing social security and medical accounts are a form of investment which can only help boost our economy in the long run. But investing money into government programs rather than having tax monies support big government is not something that bodes well with the tax and spend Democrats. Never has been, and never will.

Heh, I see what you are saying there. It is true that change to a tax-cutting and minimalist government is not going to happen via the Democrats, and the Republicans are much more likely to move to those ends, but I am very disturbed by the Neo-conservatives in the Republican Party who simply don't have any respect for the ideals that made the Republicans successful in the 20th century, and these big-wig Republicans in Washington rarely represent the true views of the average Republican (they get elected on the fact that they are called Republicans and the Democrats are even worse - really the Libertarians have more in common with the average Republican if you ask me). But I wasn't talking about long-term goals of each party, I was simply commenting that in a choice between tax and spend verses cut and spend, I would choose the former because it makes more economic sense and shows fiscal conservatism (not spending money you don't have).

 

[Binary_Digit]

Stinger, do you not understand that people can have principles without wishing that the government would pass laws requiring everyone else to live by them?

 

[Stinger]

Stinger, do you not understand that people can have principles without wishing that the government would pass laws requiring everyone else to live by them?

BD you don't understand that the OP's positions are unprinicpled. To say you are for something but don't support it is unprincipled. You can always spot it when the but-monkey starts squealing.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

BD you don't understand that the OP's positions are unprinicpled. To say you are for something but don't support it is unprincipled. You can always spot it when the but-monkey starts squealing.

No, actually it's kinda like saying, 'I don't agree with your position, but I will defend your right to say/have it.'