Liberal vs Conservative debate split from "Am I missing something"

[Empty Hands]

You want to go toe-to-toe with me at politics?

...bring it...

 

[elder999]

No, actually I'm not

Let's have some examples, shall we?<snip!>

You want to go toe-to-toe with me at politics?

...bring it...

Well.....

 

[Xue Sheng]

Well.....

:lfao::lfao::lfao:

 

[exile]

I don't exactly have a horse in this race, and I know that the split in the thread is maybe making it a bit tricky to figure out what's at issue. I think the point that people have made about the inclusiveness of MartialTalk and the need to keep a civil tone in discourse is great, and my instinct is that at this point, it would be helpful if someone could maybe rephrase the point at issue in this thread's OP in a way that got the discussion back to issues of substance, rather than personalities. The former usually turn out to be the best kind of debate, eh?

 

[Tez3]

I was confused as hell about this thread as I thought it was still on the other one!
I think the point of this one and it was suggested that the thread split off then was that American ideas of Liberalism is vastly different from British ideas of being a Liberal. Here it's a respectable thing to be a Liberal as they are the centre party and have been around for centuries. I think the American liberals are what we would call the Labour party or at the very least the socialist party so we are having an argument sorry a discussion about something neither side has any idea of what the other means! It's like we are using the word orange to describe a fruit when one actually means an apple and the other a pear!

(Winston Churchill was a Liberal , he served in a Liberal government in different positions.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winston_Churchill

 

[Makalakumu]

Here's the thing...

Look at the way that the word "liberal" has transformed in American political discourse (I can't say much for other countries). Liberal used to equate with freedom, now certain people associate it with tyranny.

The same thing happened with the word "conservative". It used to be associated with freedom, but now certain people associate it with tyranny.

So, the real **** that goes down and takes away our real freedoms is always the other sides fault.

The people who made it this way ****ing laugh at discussions like this. They want us to be looking at each other like strange cats even though we're both looking for the same thing.

Freedom.

We are being played against each other. The whole enterprise is a giant ****ing game the elite play in order to keep the lower social classes thinking about how to fight each other better.

It's the oldest trick in the book and we're falling for it again...

 

[CuongNhuka]

I was confused as hell about this thread as I thought it was still on the other one!
I think the point of this one and it was suggested that the thread split off then was that American ideas of Liberalism is vastly different from British ideas of being a Liberal. Here it's a respectable thing to be a Liberal as they are the centre party and have been around for centuries. I think the American liberals are what we would call the Labour party or at the very least the socialist party so we are having an argument sorry a discussion about something neither side has any idea of what the other means! It's like we are using the word orange to describe a fruit when one actually means an apple and the other a pear!

(Winston Churchill was a Liberal , he served in a Liberal government in different positions.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winston_Churchill

Tez have you seen a graph that places political parties by liberal-conservative and libertarian-fascist? If so, The Republican party would be about 70% into conservative, and 45% into libertarian. The Democratic party (the "liberal party" in the states) is 55% into conservative, and 45% into fascist. The ideals of liberalism is the same through out, the differnce is, we have no liberals in the national level (or next to none), therefore, Americans tend to assume that liberalism = what ever the Democratic party is doing.

 

[CuongNhuka]

Here's the thing...

Look at the way that the word "liberal" has transformed in American political discourse (I can't say much for other countries). Liberal used to equate with freedom, now certain people associate it with tyranny.

The same thing happened with the word "conservative". It used to be associated with freedom, but now certain people associate it with tyranny.

So, the real **** that goes down and takes away our real freedoms is always the other sides fault.

The people who made it this way ****ing laugh at discussions like this. They want us to be looking at each other like strange cats even though we're both looking for the same thing.

Freedom.

We are being played against each other. The whole enterprise is a giant ****ing game the elite play in order to keep the lower social classes thinking about how to fight each other better.

It's the oldest trick in the book and we're falling for it again...

Are you a Socialist?

 

[Makalakumu]

Are you a Socialist?

Nope.

"I am nussing, Lebowski!"

 

[CuongNhuka]

Nope.

"I am nussing, Lebowski!"

Funny. But you sound a little like Marx.

 

[Twin Fist]

I am thinking i will just stay away from this one

 

[Makalakumu]

Funny. But you sound a little like Marx.

I'm kind of a hard guy to figure out. My politics don't really fit any labels any more. I agree and disagree with all sorts of "sides". Mostly, I want what everyone else wants...

A stable environment for my family.
The ability to make a living and provide for them.
The ability to pursue happiness.

There are lots of great ideas to make all of this happen and that is what real politics should be about.

But its not. Right now, our political system is out of our control. The people with the most money own it and they shape the world for their own benefit. Oftentimes, the three things I listed above are not on their priority list.

My point in my previous post was to hint that the words "liberal" and "conservative" are artificial constructions. Their "definitions" were contrived to divide us against each other. Both "sides" have the same bosses. Their "issues" are artificial.

Never mind the men behind the curtain.

 

[Tez3]

Funny. But you sound a little like Marx.

Groucho or Harpo?

Sorry, couldn't resist!

When people want to 'get' at liberals over here the jibe is that they are the sit on the fence people! that they don't actually go one way or another. It's probably true in that liberals here are the middle of the road ones who want the compromises between the Labour and the Conservatives, the liberals want balance. Though I have to say the Labour party here is getting dangerously conservative.
I think the amount of Socialist parties in Europe confuses Americans too especially as there are many Christian socialist parties. Socialist doesn't equate to communism in Europe they way it does in America, here communism is communism but confusingly you will find Christian communists in Italy. they do quite well in their elections.
The party I think we have to watch in the UK although it's still a small one is the British National Party, they are a fascist party through and through. The promote racial hatred and even though they deny it they have a military wing called Combat 18. The 18 stands for the first and 8th letters of the alphabet AH, Adoph Hitler. You can argue about liberals, Democrats, Republicans, Tories etc but these are the ones keen to take away your rights, these are ones behind much of the racial tensions in our towns. they are also starting to make inroads into our local councils. Frankly these are evil people about evil work. We have to watch, like the their 'parent' party the Nazis, that they don't slip in under the radar and become any larger. What they stand for is illegal and immoral, democracy is a dirty word to them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_National_Party

 

[CuongNhuka]

I'm kind of a hard guy to figure out. My politics don't really fit any labels any more. I agree and disagree with all sorts of "sides". Mostly, I want what everyone else wants...

A stable environment for my family.
The ability to make a living and provide for them.
The ability to pursue happiness.

There are lots of great ideas to make all of this happen and that is what real politics should be about.

But its not. Right now, our political system is out of our control. The people with the most money own it and they shape the world for their own benefit. Oftentimes, the three things I listed above are not on their priority list.

My point in my previous post was to hint that the words "liberal" and "conservative" are artificial constructions. Their "definitions" were contrived to divide us against each other. Both "sides" have the same bosses. Their "issues" are artificial.

Never mind the men behind the curtain.

There's a politician from Nebraska (cann't remember his name or what he's running for though), he says "it's not about right or left, it's about forward or backward." I say "it's not about right or left, it's about who you want to be in charge: the greedy, the curupt, or the Proletarian Dictatorship"

Funny Tez. However, Marx himself said nothing much about religion, it was Stalin who condemmed religion. Stalin was really the one who screwed the pooch with Socialism/Communism. Infact, both are dirty words State-side. A classic example is Universal Health Care. Some of us are trying to get it, those against (the Republicans) are calling it "Socialised Healthcare". Geuss why?
Democracy is a dirty word in general. Aristotle was one of the first ones to coin the term, and he said it when a government of the people becomes curropt. Haha.

MMM... this makes me wonder about something... topic for anouther thread though.

 

[elder999]

Funny Tez. However, Marx himself said nothing much about religion,.

But what he said....

• Religious distress is at the same time the expression of real distress and the protest against real distress. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation. It is the opium of the people. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions.
  Karl Marx, Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right

 

[CuongNhuka]

But what he said....

OK, so I forgot about that essay (I'm pretty sure it was an essay). But, I'm sure if we were to ask Marx how to abolish the opium of the people, he would probably not advocate what Stalin did (ie, round up and execute every priest, demolish every house of worship, and make yourself a pseudo-God in Gods place). He would probably be fine up until it came to replacing God. But what do I know?

 

[jlhummel]

Welcome to the wonderful world of Liberalism!!! Were you must not prepare to protect yourself or your loved ones thats what the government and the police are for. If u just think good thoughts nothing bad will happen to you!

Hey folks that was me or at least my statement. The point I was making is that from my view liberalism seems to take the stance that government or other angencies (police) are responcible for protecting you. That when (you) taking a stance of owning a weapon or getting training in MA to protect yourself or your family you are promoting violence or the use of personal violence. Even if you never use the weapon or the training. That if you trust in others these things are really not needed and that by owning a weapon or training in a martial art you promote the very violence that you are trying to protect against. This type of circular thinking seems in my opinion to be a very center part of the liberal way of thinking and problem solving.

Let the opinions fly

 

[CoryKS]

The point I was making is that from my view liberalism seems to take the stance that government or other angencies (police) are responcible for protecting you.

Exactly. It's "freedom from" anything bad rather than "freedom of" choice to pursue those things which one desires. One's desires may lead one to explore options that have negative repercussions. In a "freedom of" setting, one may weigh the options and decide that the benefit of an action outweighs the possible risks; in a "freedom from" setting, that choice has already been made for you.

It's like living in your parents' house vs. moving out into your own apartment. You can have your room and board paid for, meals prepared for you, laundry done, but you have to abide by the rules of the house. Or you can get your own place. It's harder -- you'll have to get a job to pay for the rent, the bills, the food -- but you have complete autonomy in how you conduct your life, provided that you don't break the law.

That said, I don't think the woman in KenpoGuy's post was arguing from the "liberal" perspective.

 

[Archangel M]

A little more on the difference between US "liberals" and European ones....Wikipedias definition of "Classical Liberalism"

"Classical liberalism is liberalism, but the current collectivists have captured that designation in the United States. Happily they did not capture it in Europe, and were glad enough to call themselves socialists. But no one in America wants to be called socialist and admit what they are."

"Beginning in the late nineteenth century, and especially after 1930 in the United States, the term liberalism came to be associated with a very different emphasis, particularly in economic policy. It came to be associated with a readiness to rely primarily on the state rather than on private voluntary arrangements to achieve objectives regarded as desirable. The catchwords became welfare and equality rather than freedom. The nineteenth century liberal regarded an extension of freedom as the most effective way to promote welfare and equality; the twentieth century liberal regards welfare and equality as either prerequisites of or alternatives to freedom. In the name of welfare and equality, the twentieth-century liberal has come to favor a revival of the very policies of state intervention and paternalism against which classical liberalism fought. In the very act of turning the clock back to seventeenth-century mercantilism, he is fond of castigating true liberals as reactionary!"[49]

 

[SageGhost83]

A little more on the difference between US "liberals" and European ones....Wikipedias definition of "Classical Liberalism"

Ironically, many American liberals are well-versed in Communism and Marxism and they even draw from those sources while presenting some their own viewpoints. Their policies seem to follow that model, too.