PDA

View Full Version : An Opportunity to Define Liberalism


JOhn
12-21-2000, 09:58 PM
The Democratic Party bears little resemblance to the party my Grandfather was so proud of. Either America's definition of 'Liberal' has changed, or the Democratic Party has been hijacked by that movement ~ it's current leadership definitely resides far to the left of anything 'mainstream'.

The Liberals that control the Democratic Party are masters at defining their enemies in the public eye. With the unknowing(?) cooperation of many in the media, they have successfully labeled Conservatives as the 'Religious Right'. Republicans are 'mean spirited', 'intolerant', 'rich', and even 'racist'.

I would never suggest a strategy as bold (or as deceitful) as this for the Republicans, however, this next year will present some unique opportunities to redefine public perception. Considering the Republicans terrible track record in this regard, I would suggest they take heed.

George Bush has struck a chord with the American public when he talks about Compassionate Conservatism and bipartisanship. Most Americans want their government to function in a civil and cooperative manner. Yes, politics is conflict, but there is a general sense that people that really care about the country (Statesmen) will find a way to work together.
(cont.)<P>

JOhn
12-21-2000, 10:00 PM
(cont.)
There are many Democrats in Congress that feel the same way. The 'Rigid Liberal Leadership', however, eschews any form of cooperation (regardless of what they publicly say) and carry a big PR stick that it effectively uses to keep it's membership in line. For the Republican Congress to be successful in advancing bipartisan legislation, it must give honest Democrats the public justification to join the effort.

While publicly extending the hand of friendship at every opportunity to every Democrat in Congress, it must be privately understood that the 'Rigid Liberal Element' of the Democratic Party will never cooperate. We must not confuse an honest Democrat that has honest objections, with the 'Domineering Liberal Fringe' that is inflexible.

We must refer to baseless allegations and innuendo as unfortunate 'Liberal Dogma' that is being used by the 'Inflexible Liberal Fringe'.

We must publicly agree that honest people can sometimes get caught up in this 'Rigid Liberal Spin', and that some 'Selfish Liberal Fringe Elements' might have their own selfish hidden agendas. In the same breath we must praise the 'Mainstream' Democrats that are working hard in a bipartisan effort.

We must "slough off" accusations of racism and sexism by encouraging Republican minorities to publicly discount the cries of the 'Supremacist Liberal Fringe', and decry the elitist attitude of this 'Splintered Liberal Element'.

We must publicly call for all Republicans and Democrats to put the country first, and our differences second. We must openly applaud the Democrats that do this, and publicly lament the 'Rigid Liberal Element' that refuse to cooperate.
(cont.)

JOhn
12-21-2000, 10:00 PM
(cont.)
If Republicans will remain true to the principals that put them in office, while continuously and publicly welcoming bipartisan help in working out the details, they will carry the day.

In addition, this coalition of 'Ultra Liberal Elements' that make up the current leadership of the Democratic party will be unmasked and exposed for the extremists and elitists that they are.

This coalition of 'Ultra Liberal Elements' cannot withstand such public scrutiny. With the correct Republican strategy, this coalition will begin to splinter and cannibalize itself. Perhaps with the disintegration of this 'Divisive Liberal Influence', America can once again be a unified nation that concentrates on our strengths, not the faults that divide us.

Luz
your thoughts???...

ChiTown
12-22-2000, 08:27 AM
Liberals will never be happy until Big Goverment controls every facet of your life. And white males pay for their ancestors crimes since time began.

BigChiefsFan
12-22-2000, 09:16 AM
Luz--
While I agree that the "Rigid Liberal Element" of the Democratic party is a big problem, I see the "Ultra Conservative Right-Wing" faction of the Republican's just as dangerous and just as much of a problem with bipartisanship.

The "Liberal Fringe" believes that the government should do everything for everyone (except the wealthy, of course), and the "Ultra Conservative Right-Wing" feels the same way—they believe the government can tell women what to do with their bodies, what our children should think (i.e. putting the ten commandments in school) and what the public should be able to watch or listen to (TV rating systems and the hearings on Capitol Hill telling movie execs what they can and can't do).

The problem is not the extreme left or even the extreme right.

It is the extremes themselves that are the problem.

I actually admire Bush for being willing to hire Democrats to cabinet positions and for trying to extend an olive branch across the aisle. But I will wait and see if all of the rhetoric is just that, or if real actions towards cooperation will be carried out.

MM
~~Sees extremism, not liberalism or conservativism, as the problem.

------------------
One of the great things about books is sometimes there are some fantastic pictures.
--George W. Bush

Dr. Red
12-22-2000, 09:28 AM
Mark M - while what you write about the 'extremes' has a lot of merit, one cannot overlook the maginot lines being dug smack dab in the center. This past election was one of the more rancorous [and obviously the closest] I can recall. But it wasn't a battle between zenophobic isolationism and surrender of sovereignty, or between frank socialism and abolition of the entire tax structure, or any other form of 'stark' contrast by objective standards. We were gouging each others' eyes out over a choice between a man who "is in favor" or the death penalty and another who "strongly support[s]" it, between a man who wants prescriptions for the elderly in 6 months and one who wants them in 3. etc, etc.
It is a sad reality, but division is often a vital part of self-definition [ie., I know who I am, I am NOT that person there]. In a time of few percieved external threats, we turn our divisive instincts inward.

[This message has been edited by JC-Johnny (edited 12-22-2000).]

ChiTown
12-22-2000, 09:35 AM
I see nothing wrong with a list of moral ethics as a guide in which to live by in the class room. Perhaps a child who's parents are lax in instiling a sense of morality, And there's a lot of that going on these days. Will get a sense of right and wrong. Is the Pledge of Aligence-sp still allowed? Or has that been done away with by the ACLU and other fringe elements?

BigChiefsFan
12-22-2000, 10:00 AM
alanm--
The 10 commandments are not believed in by everyone: Islam believes in an eye for an eye, for example. What I have a problem with is people pushing their religous beliefs on others. Like I've said before, "don't pray in my school and I won't think in your church."

Perhaps I took too many history classes in colleges to believe in myth.

I'm not sure about the pledge of allegiance. I remember saying it every morning while in elementary school, but that was a long time ago. And while I love this country, I don't follow its leaders or laws blindly just because I said it every day. I got the love of this country through my parents, which is where I believe religion, patriotism, etc. should come from. It is not the school's responsibility to teach one how to be a good Christian, a good American or anything else. It is their job to educate children. Give them the facts (and I mean all of the facts) and let them decide for themselves, with help from their families.

I also feel that the ACLU and others (i.e. NAACP) are good in theory, but they cross the line of good sense and logic more often than not.

MM
~~Not against religion...but against choosing one over the other.

------------------
One of the great things about books is sometimes there are some fantastic pictures.
--George W. Bush

BigChiefsFan
12-22-2000, 10:08 AM
JC--
Very, very good point. This election, IMO, came down to two evenly matched opponents.

But the exteme factions of both parties spew their rhetoric in such a way that makes it difficult for some to see what the other party has to offer.

Example: I am independent. I have listened to Republicans state that, if Gore was elected, the Democrats would essentially make gun ownership an extremely difficult right to obtain. The laws imposed by Democrats would punish law abiding citizens by restricting the manufacture, distribution and sale of guns to such a degree that it would be nearly impossible to obtain one legally.

I have heard Democrats say that, if Bush were to win (which he did) that the rich would get richer, the poor would get poorer and women would have to go to back-alley doctors or coat hanger stores to get an abortion.

While we here can see that neither one of these claims are true, there are many more feeble minded folks who believe this crap.

And that is what I see as the problem. Sure, we need extremists so that the centrist view can become clearer. I just wish both sides would be less destructive and focus more on the good of the country, rather than on their own agendas.

Just MHO.

MM
~~Loves discussions like these...and loves riding the fence.

------------------
One of the great things about books is sometimes there are some fantastic pictures.
--George W. Bush

JOhn
12-22-2000, 10:20 AM
Mark M,

While you make some good points about extremism on both sides, I must point out that the Liberal extremist are in control of their party.

The point of my writing is that the Republicans have a great opportunity to expose this extremism to the rest of the country (and just perhaps effect the balabce of power in the Democrartic Party.

The Republicans will stick to their platform and initiate the legislations they campaigned on. When the 'Inflexible Liberal Element' (leadership) doesn't cooperate, the Repubs could, in a classy way, laber them as uncooperative, extremist, rigid, inflexable, and selfish.

I think this would be a great political tactic (and much more accurate and ethical than trying to label them mean spirited, uncaring, planet killing, rich, and racist).

Luz
can they pull it off???...

TEX
12-22-2000, 10:23 AM
mark,

i'm not going to try to push my views on you or anyone..i got an email a while back that said something similar to this...think about it...

After all of the shootings in public schools recently, this letter was written by little suzy to GOD.

Dear God,
Why did you let those bad men come into schools and shoot all of the kids. Why did you let that happen? Why didn't you stop them?

Love, Suzy


response from God

Suzy,
I'm not allowed in schools any more.

Sincerely,
GOD

JOhn
12-22-2000, 10:25 AM
Mark M,

One other thing (after reading your last post)...

There is a huge difference between not being one of the fringe, extremist elements of a party, and in being Centrist.

IMHO, using my definition of Centrist, it is the absolute worst position to hold (believe in) because it requires the total lack of any kind of philisophical underpinnings or foundation of belief.

The saying, "if you don't believe in something, you'll fall for anything" comes to mind.

Luz
doesn't believe 'centrist is a viable position...

Dr. Red
12-22-2000, 10:35 AM
Mark M - Don't confuse what they fear with what they are. That's just my point, just because someone 'spouts off' against right or left extremism doesn't make them extreme on the other side.
I think most people are yelling out of a need for definition because they are so centrist, overall they ache to yell their one or two 'extreme-ish' views from the mountaintop, or blurt out their opposition to 'extreme-ish' views on the other side.
It is interesting that race and ethnicity play so strongly into this, because I have read studies [and I wish I could now find them] about 'ethnic' division in relatively homogenous societies [Japan, and Inuit Indian come to mind]. They have strikingly similar biases and prejudices, etc., but over differences we can't even see. In the absence of differing skin color [as in America], they differentiate on skin tone, or hair type, subtle differences in eye shape, etc.
Just because we're all clustered around the center doesn't mean that we all agree, that would be too easy. To paraphrase a cheesy movie-line; MI2 - to have a hero, you must first have a villian.

BigChiefsFan
12-22-2000, 10:41 AM
Iowa--
As much as I agree with you most of the time, and although I am sure you're a great guy...give me break! It is the parents that are to blame for school shootings, not the lack of religion in schools. Isn't there something about the separation of church and state in the Constitution? If the schools receive federal $$, then they have no business expousing Christian ethics (or any other's for that matter) to children who aren't all Christians (or whatever). How would you feel if your child's teacher started to preach, say, Hindu or Muslim beliefs upon your children? Would you be happy that everything you had taught your children was told to them by a teacher as being wrong? If parents want their children to grow up with Christian or Jewish or Muslim ideals, then teach them that at home or send them to a private school. But don't use my tax $$ to brainwash my kids. Of course, this is just my opinion, so I hope you're not offended.

Luz--
While your point is valid, IMO being centrist does not mean that one has no philisophical beliefs. I see it as being able to see both sides of the argument and taking what one feels to be the best of both and combining them into one, coherent philosophy. Instead of saying "I'm this" or "I'm that" one can then say "I see 'this' and 'that' and am somewhere in between. I will combine what I feel is the best of 'this' and 'that' and not be labeled as either." Perhaps my definition of centrist is incorrect. :confused:

MM
~~Has no problem with people disagreeing with his opinions...and hopes others feel the same way.

------------------
One of the great things about books is sometimes there are some fantastic pictures.
--George W. Bush

Dr. Red
12-22-2000, 10:50 AM
There are [at least] two different ways to 'become' a centrist. One is to not have an opinion on any issue, or framework for assessment, until the issue arises. The other is to realize that different issues require different frameworks. For example social issues assessed differently than fiscal issues, state government issues assessed different if the federal government tackles them. Constitutional precepts analyzed and applied differently than more routine measures, etc.
To say the government should try to solve all problems is activist. To say the government causes all problems is libertarian. They rest generally gets called centrist, although that term is not nearly adequate to the task.

BigChiefsFan
12-22-2000, 10:51 AM
JC--
#14: Very well said! That's what I have been trying to say all this time. Thanks for putting it more eloquently than I ever could. I feel I am in the second category...I am fiscally conservative yet (somewhat...not a big fan of life-long welfare) socially liberal, for example.

In any group or society you will have polar opposites. The problem lies when one side is ssooooo pig-headed that it refuses to even acknowledge the crediblity of the other. I have no problem with extremes—like your quote says, you've got to have both.

It is when those extreme sides force their opinions on all that it becomes a problem. The extemist voice should be heard, and even occasionally acted upon. But not at the sacrifice of everyone, many of whom do not believe in the same things.

MM
~~Trying to explain his thoughts...perhaps doing so poorly? :confused:

[This message has been edited by Mark M (edited 12-22-2000).]

TEX
12-22-2000, 10:55 AM
mark,

For the record, I'm an independent..and I'm not offended by your response...civil debate is educational.

I agree with you that most right/wrong teaching should come from home...The problem with "only" relying on that is the percentage of homes in which one or no positive parental role models exist..If mom and dad are drunks, druggies, or work all of the time...little johnnie(no personal reference here jc) doesn't have that influence....I'm not promoting one single religion, but don't see a problem with basic religion in school...I'm not saying promote prayer to my god...but what is wrong with for ex..the 10 commandments...1.THou Shalt not Kill...etc...

I aggree with alot of what has been said here..I see psychotic behavior on both parties..I'm no rich, private school, oil barron tycoon....and on the other hand, Al sharpton, Jesse Jackson, abortion, dope smoking etc..don't fit my personal beliefs....

Oh well, Usually in a room, 3 people can't agree on the color of the sky...

shakesthecat
12-22-2000, 11:02 AM
Since you asked for my thoughts:

Very little on this thread is dedicated to defining liberalism. What I read here is some very caustic remarks based on your fear and ignorance.

I realize it is all the rage lately to attack liberalism and declare it paramount to socialism. However you are wrong and I find your attempts to attack and mislabel everythig evil as liberal quite repugnant. Perhaps someone here would like to read the role liberalism has played in building this great nation. <a href="http://www.turnleft.com/libgood.html">What liberalism has done for America</a>

Dr. Red
12-22-2000, 11:07 AM
I THINK [and I'm not trying to put words into anyone's mouth], but I think that many who have problems with the term moderate or centrist are not looking at the term the same. Indeed people who call themselves that probably look at it very differently.

For me its like food. Say for the most part I like spicy food. Amount of spice is my barometer. I like spicy salcitta, burritos, nachos, jambalaya, even McElhenney's on my eggs and cayenne on my steak. That doesn't mean I should judge a chocolate pudding or a bowl of oatmeal on how spicy it is.

The same with how I judge specific political issues.

BigChiefsFan
12-22-2000, 11:08 AM
Iowa--
Your point is very well taken. And I agree that something needs to be done with the kids in this country. I just wish a way could be found to either: 1) teach kids right and wrong without bringing in religion; or 2) teach all religions, with no particular slant to one being better than the other. Then the kids can get the whole story and make their decision.

I think all of us debating these issues are great (even though we've done it a thousand times).

What scares me is that there are so many problems and no solutions seems viable. Maybe we should all do rock-paper-scissors? :D

MM
~~Also thinks eeny-meeny-miney-moe will work, too.

------------------
One of the great things about books is sometimes there are some fantastic pictures.
--George W. Bush

shakesthecat
12-22-2000, 11:15 AM
Q:What is a liberal?

A: The word has a number of meanings, all of which reflect aspects of liberal thought. These include "favorable to progress and reform, as in religious or political affairs"; "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"; "open-minded or tolerant, esp. free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc."; and "characterized by generosity and willingness to give in large amounts". [Random House Dictionary of the English Language]. Liberals want to change things to increase personal freedom and tolerance, and are willing to empower government to the extent necessary to achieve those ends. <BR>

shakesthecat
12-22-2000, 11:18 AM
Q: How do liberals differ from "libertarians" and "conservatives"?

A: Once upon a time (in the 1800s), "liberal" and "libertarian" meant the same thing; both were individualist, distrustful of state power, pro-free-market, and opposed to the entrenched privilege of the feudal and mercantilist system. After 1870, models of of society were being refined in terms of the structural effects of group interaction; the social environment came to be seen as a significant factor in determining the ability of large numbers of people to succeed in attaining their goals (and indeed in determining what those goals were). Libertarians felt that any attempt to solve social problems had to depend on private, voluntary effort, and that modifying social factors would inevitably lead to worse problems. Liberals felt that the problems were too serious to be passively left to chance in this way, and that government should have a role in influencing the social framework within which people act. Economically, liberals came to believe that pure free markets led to systematic abuse, so that a limited amount of regulation was needed; libertarians continued to favour the caveat emptor approach. By this time, conservatives had become comfortable with the free-market, capitalist system, so they joined forces with the libertarians on the economic (though not the social) front. <BR>

shakesthecat
12-22-2000, 11:21 AM
Q: How do liberals differ from "socialists" and "communists"?

A: Communists understand society as interactions of groups, to the extent that they largely ignore the value and effect of individual action. Socialists, while advocating individual rights, see property-owning structures in society as inevitably leading to corruption and the ill-treatment of the poor by the rich. Both groups arose as a reaction to the abuses of capitalists, and so feel that individual acquisitiveness is the primary cause of social injustice and poverty. [This is over-simplified.] Liberals feel that when properly regulated, self-interest is a powerful and useful motivation; it should be harnessed, rather than erased. <P>

Moon§hiner
12-22-2000, 12:38 PM
KC - thanks for providing some much-needed balance in counterpoint to those who think capitalism cures all ills.

shakesthecat
12-22-2000, 12:53 PM
Realizing some people wont follow the link below to the successes of Liberalism in America, I'm included a short list:

Interstate Highway System
GI Bill
Labor Laws
Marshall Plan
Environmental Laws
Food safety laws
Workplace safety laws
Social Security
Economic Growth
Space Program
Peace corps
Civil rights movement
The Internet
The Tennessee Valley project
Women's right to vote
Universal Public Education
National Weather Service
Scientific Research
Product Labeling/Truth in Advertising Laws
Public Health
Morrill Land Grant Act
Rural Electrification
Public Universities
Bank Deposit Insurance
Earned Income Tax Credit
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Family and Medical Leave Act
Consumer Product Safety Commission
Public Broadcasting
Americans With Disabilities Act

These are all the results of liberal policies, and in most cases were fought against by (you guessed it) conservatives. Imagine our nation without these things, and then read Luz's many unabashed attacks on Liberalism again. Hopefully it will provide the proverbial grain of salt needed to see through these attacks. Sure, there have been some really bad liberal policies like the Welfare system, but not all liberal policies are so poorly designed and executed. I encourage all of you to educate yourselves rather than listen to the talking heads on the evening news that spew politicized vitriol.

redbrian
12-22-2000, 12:55 PM
Excellent summation KC.

Good job.

shakesthecat
12-22-2000, 12:57 PM
Soon you can add two more items to that list that conservatives are currently opposed to:

1 Campaign Finance Reform: Money equals speech, and conservatives don't see any problem being bought out by those nice folks who send them huge checks. Campaign finance reform has been killed by the Republicans time and time again since they took control of Congress.

Health Care Reform: People might not want to government controlling all of the health care industry, but they don't like the idea of insurance bureaucrats controlling it either. Conservatives are gonna lose this one big-time, as they oppose even common-sense measures like allowing people to choose their own doctors and letting women stay in the hospital for 2 days after giving birth.

shakesthecat
12-22-2000, 12:57 PM
thanks

TEX
12-22-2000, 01:20 PM
KC,

Same party affiliation, different agendas.

can you with a straight face say that the same democrats who supported things like the TVA are in office today...not the same people mind you, but the same eithics and priorities?

I think many or most of those issues were supported by "my grandfather's democratic party"...not Rev. Jackson, ALGORE et al..

[This message has been edited by Iowanian (edited 12-22-2000).]

Ecto-I
12-22-2000, 01:49 PM
KC Jones,

That list seems to be seasoned with a little zeal . . .

victory over totalitarianism? The grounds for that seem to be that Democrat Presidents were in office during WWII. Therefore we should give liberals the credit for stoping the Nazi threat? If that's so we should also credit liberalism for getting America's arse out of the Depression too. Are you suggesting that the result would have been different had Republicans been in office?

Space Program? I learned that NASA was the reaction to Soviet progress/threats in the heavens (in the '50s), If Nixon had won in '60 it seems certain that our competitive instincts would have taken over regardless of political doctrine.

the two results listed above are mere reactions to worldly threats, not liberalism at its finest, if anything, Patriotism at its finest.

National Weather Service?
I need more proof . . .I'm all eyes

------------------
Chief Justice Pants
(D)- Texas

[This message has been edited by Chief Red Pants (edited 12-22-2000).]

Ecto-I
12-22-2000, 01:57 PM
KC Jones,

The alterior motive for the development of the Interstate Highway System was for quick and safe transportation of nuclear armaments, hence common overpasses having a 14-15' clearance, so we dont dent the missles.

------------------
Chief Justice Pants
(D)- Texas

[This message has been edited by Chief Red Pants (edited 12-22-2000).]

KCWolfman
12-22-2000, 02:02 PM
The Interstate Highway System?

**Created as a part of the National Civil Defense Initiative... Defense of the Nation was paramount behind this system. The fact that it encourages easy movement to civilians was secondary to the ability to shift troops quickly.

The Marshall Plan?

Hmm, help defend Europe from Communism...yeah, that's a real liberal viewpoint. So liberal that Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, Regan and Bush also supported Europe with grants, loans and armed forces.

The Internet?

Derived from ARPANet...a Department of Defense project and a few selected Universities. Expanded immensely due to the viability of business in the past few years. I'm not quite sure how liberals or conservatives had much to do with this...I'd say Capitalists of both sorts benefited here.

The Space Program
Tennessee Valley Authority

Both have already been adequately covered below.

Scientific Research

Oh, ok. Only liberal scientists do research?
C'mon here...I'm smelling hyperbole.

Public Universities?

Hmmm, Nope.... CMSU was a HUGELY conservative university up until the early 80s. Just because it's public doesn't mean it's liberal or conservative. And I don't think that ONLY liberals ever started a public college....

Personally, a lot of the stuff you list (Peace Corps, Social Security, Earned Income Credit (especially unnecessary if the Income Tax was either reasonable or repealed), Public Broadcasting) if it went away tomorrow, I'd never miss. I'd rather have that money that goes into FICA to invest in a method I choose. If others wanted to blow it and have nothing left for their retirement, well, shame on them.

[This message has been edited by Misplaced_Chiefs_Fan (edited 12-22-2000).]

[This message has been edited by Misplaced_Chiefs_Fan (edited 12-22-2000).]

12-22-2000, 02:05 PM
As an independent, I'd like to chime in here and inject something:

Liberlism and Conservatism go well beyond party affiliations...

Interstate Highway System - Eisenhower, Republican

Marshall Plan - a triumph of liberalism...try imperialism, who? Harry Truman, Democrat

Environmental Laws - first set of environmental laws passed in US...Teddy Roosevelt, Republican

Food safety laws - again, first passed by Teddy Roosevelt, Republican...

A Democrat dropped ordered the use of the first atomic bomb...

The epitomic Democrat (JFK) got us involved in Vietnam...

A Democrat (Andrew Jackson) ordered the Army to slaughter thousands of native Americans...

A Republican freed the slaves...

A Republican (Herbert Hoover) oversaw the beginning of the Great Depression, and a Democrat saved us from it...

Many good things have been done, both by Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives...

Characterizing Conservatives as hate-mongering warlords, catering to corporate whim is as off-base as labeling liberals as God-less socialist demagogues...



------------------
Parker
[b]ChiefsPlanet Administrator</B>

TEX
12-22-2000, 02:17 PM
htis,

excellent rebuttal...happy holidays. heading back to the sticks?



------------------
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Helvetica, verdana, ariel">quote:</font><HR>Anyone who wouldn't cheat for a poke, doesn't want one bad enough, Augustus McCray<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

JOhn
12-22-2000, 05:56 PM
I have a couple of questions for KC Jones, Cannibal, Brock, et al...

Was it ETHICAL for the Dogmatic Liberal Leadership of the Democratic party to p[urposely set out to label Republicans (in the public eye) as racist, mean spirited, uncaring, and against the poor?

Was it EFFECTIVE?

Was it ACCURRATE?

I will be very curious to compare your answers to these questions, to your comments here on this topic. I suspect it will be a dead give away for some of you.

Luz
if you're in that category, you'll probably want to ignore this post!!!...<P>

TheFly
12-22-2000, 06:40 PM
I've just got a min. so I'm gonna try to say as much in as little time as possible.

KCJones ACCURATELY notes that much good has been done by "liberals." While they were toying with their social experiments the conservatives have provided and PROTECTED the moral ground that has allowed us to live (somewhat) peacfully and productivly......It's called the Constitution.

God I love this country!

Unfortunately we find ourselves at a crossroads. The "liberals" (now, more accurately defined as socialists) find it neccessary, in order to carry their agenda any further, to attack and erode that moral guide (The Constitution.) This fact, in my view, is what the next major conflict that we experience will be fought over.

[This message has been edited by Kurt Surber (edited 12-22-2000).]

Ecto-I
12-22-2000, 06:53 PM
Luz,

forgive me . . . I'm not, to any great depth, familiar with the key personnel noted on the rosters of the "extreme" right and "extreme" left. Now, we both know the true extremes dont reside within the Republican and Democratic parties . . . but you are refering to people of power and influence so they have to be part of this two-party system to have such influence.

could you drop some names for me?

------------------
Chief Justice Pants
(D)- Texas

Ecto-I
12-22-2000, 07:00 PM
Luz,

You may find post #339 of the thread"The Bush Presidency . . .Take Two" interesting . . . if not humerous

shakesthecat
12-22-2000, 07:30 PM
Again, conservatives attempt to mislead. There is nothing in the definition of either conservatism or liberalism that has to do with national defense or military perparation. I know, you like to paint liberalism into a corner and set up some straw dummies so you can dismiss it as inherently evil and let your minds close to new ideas. I'm not going to let you. The point here is not whether an administartion or founder of these was considered a 'liberal' or a Republican (BTW Republicans were liberals in the last century and first third of this one). It's that these are the sort of big government projects or government regulations that have greatly benefited our society. The same sort of government intervention that conservatives rail against.

Interstate Highway System
Proposed by Roosevelt and erected by Eisenhower (a Republican), the Interstate system was a big government project. As much as anything else in the post WWII era, the Interstate is responsible for tremendous economic growth, prosperity, and has spawned an entire culture. At the time it was originally proposed it was vehemently opposed by conservatives. I might point out that many of the conservatives here like to oppose all government plans as inherently evil and socialistic, so you can see why conservatives of that era opposed that idea.

Marshall Plan
Foreign aid is a popular scapegoat these days. Those who would cut it (like Bush) should look back at the Marshall Plan, which rebuilt Europe, and is the major reason that Communism never made it past East Berlin.

cont.

shakesthecat
12-22-2000, 07:31 PM
Space Program
It was Kennedy who challenged us to make it to the moon, and it is under his and Johnson's administrations that the space program took off, with numerous benefits to American industry and peoples' standard of living, not to mention national pride. If you are reading this on a computer, thank the space program and the liberals who got it going.

Internet
Not a liberal program per se, but rather a government one, which many equate as the same thing according to most conservatives on this board. The internet is a good example of what a government program can do when allowed to work.

Scientific Research
Much of the great discoveries in science have come about through grants from the government. This is not to say that scientific genius depends on Washington, but the fact remains that pure science is expensive, and private industry will often not fund experiments which don't have a direct commercial potential. From Salk's polio vaccine to todays Human Genome Project and Hubble Space Telescope, the government is an important partner in scientific discovery. Conservatives would like to cut the research budget to almost nothing, because again it's another 'big government socialistic plan'.<BR>

shakesthecat
12-22-2000, 07:34 PM
Kurt,

Are you proposing that Liberals didn't serve and fight for their country in WWII, Korea, or Vietnam? I certainly hope not, because that is clearly not the case.

shakesthecat
12-22-2000, 07:38 PM
Luz,

I think you know by now I find the politicized vitriol spewed by both sides to be tasteless and contemptuous. Deceit has nothing to do with liberalism vs. conservative beliefs. How quaint of you to try changing the subject.

Ecto-I
12-22-2000, 08:05 PM
KC Jones,

per posts #29,30 (note signature)

I'm neither a Conservative nor a Republican. I urge you to take a moment, be objective, and ponder a different outcome from turning points in our history had a Conservative occupied the office of the President, or any other significant office, when indeed a Liberal was there to make a decision.

The only thing that may have had been delayed would would be Lincoln's "freeing of the slaves" in my opinion ,but the claims of your Liberal web site stirs some personal curiosities . . . I strongly feel that some of the programs mentioned in it's list originate in the natural evolution of our world and this great country.

------------------
Chief Justice Pants
(D)- Texas

JOhn
12-22-2000, 11:42 PM
KC Jones,

How can you accuse me of changing the subject when I created the subject in the first place?

It is you, sir, that will not address the issue.

Once again, in the hopes that you won't dodge it again, I ask you:

Was it ETHICAL for the Dogmatic Liberal Leadership of the Democratic party to purposely set out to label Republicans (in the public eye) as racist, mean spirited, uncaring, and against the poor?

Was it EFFECTIVE?

Was it ACCURRATE?

Stop avoiding the subject and answer the question.

Luz
if you give me a straight answer i'll show you why you're all wet on your 'big government projects' crusade...

<BR>

JOhn
12-23-2000, 12:01 AM
CRP,

You honor me with #339, and I want you to know that I always enjoy discussing things with you.

I guess that one of my points on this thread is that some of these extremists DO reside in the Democratic Party. As a matter of fact, they currently represent the leadership of that party.

I'm specifically reffering to Gephardt, Daschel, Wexman, Waters and other non-elected players such as the Rev Jackson and Patty Ireland.

These people do not represent mainstream thought, nor traditional Democratic Party values ~ they are fringe elements that in most cases are more concerned about holding onto power than they are the wellfare of the people.

A case could be made that Gephardt, Daschel, and Ireland are sincere (just misguided IMO), but even so, they are WAY OUT THERE to the left of anything this country has ever seen. Much like Nader, what they advocate borders on pure socialism.

The main point (and what KC Jones doesn't get) is that they are NOT traditional Democrasts or Traditional Liberals ~ he can spout history all he wants, but it has nothing to do with these guys.

I personally have no problem working hand in hand with Democrats or sincere liberals ~ but America needs to become aware of what these guys are. If the veil is lifted, Americans (Dems and Repubs) will not stand for them.

Luz
striving to be clear...

Baby Lee
12-23-2000, 04:54 AM
Luz,
You say that dems have conspired to make republicans to look racist & mean spirited. Well, we have a republican poster here on this bb who does a pretty good job of it himself. I'm not gonna say his name, but here's a few of his points:
1. Refers to gays as 'butt pirates'.
2. Refers to Germans as 'Krauts'.
3. Insists blacks & Jews vote democratic to preserve the sanctity of their handouts.

Now, as a German, I wasn't offended by his 'kraut' remark, but as you can see, you republicans do a damn fine job of making yourselves look racist & mean spirited.

Baby Lee
12-23-2000, 05:09 AM
One more point i'd like to make: your examples of 'extreme' liberalism are Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. What's there occupation again?

It just reinforces what me, Clint & Cannibal have been saying all along: religion & politics shouldn't mix.

shakesthecat
12-23-2000, 06:01 AM
Luz,

I must not have paid as much attention to what the "liberal" branch (not leadership) of the democratic party said during the campaign as you did. If they did label the republican party as mean spirited, racist, etc. it was neither ethical nor entirely accurate. I have no idea if it was effective, but judging that only 10% of blacks voted for Bush it sounds like it was. There certainly are elements of the republican party that fit that description though. I've come to understand not all Republicans are greedy tools of corporate interest. I've been watching the Bush appointments with great interest and like what I see. I'm scared to death that we'll see another Jame Watt for secretary of the interior but maybe we'll see another good appointment.

[This message has been edited by KC Jones (edited 12-23-2000).]

JOhn
12-23-2000, 07:52 AM
KC Jones,

That's my point. The mainstream Democrats are good people; the leadership is rotten.

This labeling has been going on for the last 6+ years. I can't fathom how you could miss it?

From Gephardt taping a commercial, standing in a Public School, saying that if the Republicans win the majority in Congress (1994 elections) THAT CHILDREN WILL GO HUNGRY.

Daschel has said similar things regarding old people dying because under the Republicans,they won't be able to afford their RXs.

Maxine Waters has said that if George Bush gets elected, there will be a concerted effort to keep African Americans down.

Jesse Jackson recently said that there was an organized effort to disenfranchise blacks in the Florida election, and that the Bush canpaign was "Hitler like" in it's tactics.

These are only a few examples in what has been an orchastrated effort to maliciously label Republicans in the public eye.

So I again, it brings us to my questions:

Was it ethical?

Was it effective?

Was it correct?

These people currently have leadership of the Democratic party. They are not ethical and they cannot be trusted.

If you really care about traditional Democratic values, if you really believe that the U.S. needs more liberal views, then you'd better figure out a way to get rid of these guys. No honest person (that's not at the mercy of their political power) will go near them.

Luz
if you honestly haven't noticed this, start watching NOW...

[This message has been edited by Luzap (edited 12-23-2000).]

JOhn
12-23-2000, 08:42 AM
Mi_chief_fan,

I want to reiterate that my criticizms are directed at your philosophy, not you personally. I say this again because I'm going to come down on you pretty hard ;)

To say that some Republicans on a public BB that say stupid things, are representative of the entire Republican Party is juvenile (and I think you know that). A small sampling of any party does not represent it's platform, beliefs, or tactics.

The Leadership of any given party, however, can certainly be used to judge the party's beliefs, agenda, and tactics. After all, they represent the party. Again, this is elementry.

You don't find the leadership of the Republican party engaging in these tactics. Period.
(cont.)<P>

JOhn
12-23-2000, 08:43 AM
(cont.)
Your comments on religion in politics, however, are some of the most biggoted statements I've ever heard (even on a public BB).

You are implying that religious people should not be involved in government. Why?

I hope you're not one of these people that haven't read the U.S. Constitution but, because you don't question the dogma of the far left, believe that you have a right to be protected from religious people?

The Constitution says that Congress shall pass NO LAW regading religion. It doesn't say that religious values shouldn't be used in making law; it doesn't say that religion has no place in our government. As a matter of fact, if Congress passes a law stating that religion cannot be discussed in the formulation of legislation, THAT WOULD BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

This is designed to protect religion from the government and to keep the government from restricting it, not to protect the government from religion.

The fact that you cite two less than honorable men as examples again only proves your biggoted tendancy to stereotype.

I personally have no problem working with, debating, and learning from people that believe differently than I do. I will not stand for, however, opponents that blatently lie and maliciously label their opponents so that they may win by intimidation rather than the power of their thoughts. The CURRENT leadership of the Democratic Part are people such as these, and for the sake of our country, I hope Democrats will oust them on their ear so that we can once again work together as a unified country.

Luz
thinking the veil weighs a ton...<BR>

Baby Lee
12-24-2000, 06:43 AM
Lie, Luz? How did I lie? I stated facts.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Helvetica, verdana, ariel">quote:</font><HR>A small sampling of any party does not represent it's platform, beliefs,or tactics<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Try looking at that statement from something other than an extreme right point of view. ;)

Back atcha!

Baby Lee
12-24-2000, 06:44 AM
BTW, YOU first cited these 'less than honorable' men, not me.

I suppose you'll call that a lie, too.

[This message has been edited by Mi_chief_fan (edited 12-24-2000).]

JOhn
12-24-2000, 08:11 AM
Mi_chief_fan,

I feel like apologizing ~ except I didn't do anything wrong!

You need to re-read my last two posts. I clearly did not say that you were lying. I said that the leadership of the Democratic party has been taken over by a group of extrem liberals that do lie (among other things).

Would enjoy debating this with you, but you will need to stick to and address the points. :D

Luz
Merry Christmas to you and yours...<BR>

Baby Lee
12-24-2000, 08:29 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Helvetica, verdana, ariel">quote:</font><HR> I personally have no problem DEBATING and LEARNING from people that BELIEVE DIFFERENTLY than I do. I will not stand for, however, opponents that BLATENTLY LIE and maliciously label their opponents so that they may win by intimidation rather than the power of their thoughts.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Now, reading this makes it a little unclear if you think i'm lying or the democratic party is. Republicans don't lie, do they Luz? Remember Iran-Contra? S&L bailout? Watergate? Maliciously label: I'd say the Republican controlled house & senate went out of their way to label Clinton. Was Clinton right? Certainly not, but the attacks were unwarranted. Just remember: for every Dick Gephart in the senate, there is an equal and opposite Jesse Helms.

Merry Christmas to you and your Wife, Luz. http://www.chiefsplanet.com/ubb/smile.gif

JOhn
12-24-2000, 09:07 AM
MI_CHIEF_FAN,

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt (because it's Christmas).

Otherwise I'd ask you why you purposely left out the very next line of mine:

"The CURRENT leadership of the Democratic Part are people such as these,... "

You are trying to change and obfuscate the subject. I suggest that you would carry a lot more credibility if you would simply give a straight answer.

Was it ETHICAL for the leadership of the Democratic Party to maliciously label Republicans as they did?

Was it EFFECTIVE?

Was it CORRECT?

Luz
waiting for a straight answer... and waiting... and waiting...

Baby Lee
12-24-2000, 09:12 AM
My whole point of my original post was to illustrate that republicans do a good job of making themselves look mean spirited and racist. Do Dems cross the line? Absolutely, as do republicans.I'm not defending either, but it seems that people like you believe that "republicans are always right, all the time, and everyone else is wrong", and it's really unbecoming.

Dems are no worse than Republicans. ALL Politicians cross the line.

morphius
12-24-2000, 09:42 AM
Hey Luzap, why don't you just change your user name to "I hate liberals"? It would be much easier than posting endless babble about how your party is perfect and liberals are horrible.

Do you honestly think that you're going to change ANYBODY'S political beliefs?

Moon§hiner
12-24-2000, 09:45 AM
Maxine Waters and Trent Lott have more in common with each other than either of them have in common with any of us. Rich power mongers. The career politicians who infest Washington are all in the pockets of special interest groups and insurance and oil companies and will do whatever they have to do to stay in power. Those of you who think in terms of Republican/Democrat have a veil of your own to lift. There are black cats and there are white cats, but in the end, they're all cats.

morphius
12-24-2000, 09:58 AM
I agree, but that's never going to happen. Most of these people are so obsessed with the "bad guys" that they'll never change. Even worse, their faith in their own beliefs is so shaky that they must constantly belittle the "other" party to make themselves feel better.

Baby Lee
12-24-2000, 06:14 PM
Clint,
Illove it when they say i'm a bigot because I say religion & politics shouldn't mix. Then they bring up Jesse Jackson & Al Sharpton as being 'extreme' liberals. Then I point out that's exactly what we've been saying all along: religion & politics don't mix. Then i'm a bigot.

Luz is consistant, i'll give him that.

I'm beginning to see why Cannibal is so fond of him. ;)<BR>

shakesthecat
12-25-2000, 06:16 AM
You can mix politics and religion you just have to be careful. Rev. Emanuel Cleaver is a great example of a local civic and religious leader. The guy is nothing less than a total class act and has done so much good for this city. It's sad when I think about it because despite all of his and others hard work I'm not sure KC will ever recover from the civil rights riots and ensuing white flight to the Kansas suburbs. We are a city divided.