|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: The liberals - 10/9/2008 11:38:26 AM
|
|
|
AdrianaS
Posts: 1229
Joined: 3/21/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: MrFribbles
quote:
what is the difference of being liberal for Obama and liberal for Ron Paul ?
Ooo, ooo, since I have a Ron Paul bumper sticker, can I answer that one?
Dr. Paul supports smaller government, and the liberties and freedoms therein.
Obama, from what I've read, seen and heard, supports bigger government, and the nanny-like control therein.
Thanks MrFribbles, I like Mr Ron Paul and at some point almost embrace my third party..until someone brought up he is into conspiracy theories and stuff..still I did like what he stands for as heard him a C-Span etc
Thanks Nomesrea also and about:"I don't think you can generalize about the character traits of all liberals or conservatives based on a single political figure." plus a huge problem that I do see in the US politics is about the 2 system parties and about the abortion issue...I'm not used to have what it comes across to me as a straightjacket in politics, the way it goes here..people trowing labels all over based on this situation...I do come from a country where abortion is illegal and for this motive may be label "conservative" here but not only "liberal" but libertine also..but morality issues does not play into politics..well there are so many parties representing all kinds of ideals and issues and extremism also that you do not see many agendas, all stucked like sardines in a can as we may see here, in the 2 system parties...
I do not like iron fist extremists coming from any side at all but they do have the right to exist of course..I like people who like people and up to dialogues, at least in produtive civilized manners, no one knows all at all..they may want give that impression in their approaches and try to shut up others who are different or thinks different..I know what is oppresion, censorship and etcs I did went through dictatorship right wing regime for 20 years.
1)I do have question about the pro-choice abortion..in my mind I would take it from the politics and the way I do come up with it is to make it illegal again, at least let the people vote where their individual choices are not judges not politician..I do see it as a very important issue because it is a very divisive issue that weights heavy into the politics of this country...in my understanding it wraps up as a killing baby party and the other no killing babies party..and the politicians and parties taking advantage of the status quo...
Question: what to do with abortion issue..remain the same as it is now or change it and take away from the politics?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The liberals - 10/9/2008 12:43:24 PM
|
|
|
stamper_ben
Posts: 10946
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lone Star State
Status: offline
|
Since my imbibing of a Pepsi yesterday was supposedly an indication of my wrath toward liberals (and I won't even mention my love for my extremely liberal mother and extended family  ), and I can co-exist with even *gasp* diet coke drinking members here on the forums, I have to ask nomensrea this...
Coke or Pepsi?
_____________________________
We will be known as His by the love we show one another.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The liberals - 10/9/2008 1:20:40 PM
|
|
|
Marcus.
Posts: 1334
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: offline
|
Why do marxists hide behind the terms progressive, leftist, and liberal in western societys?
_____________________________
Blessed is He who comes in the Name of the Lord.
Hosea Project Care Net
Google
|
|
|
|
RE: The liberals - 10/9/2008 3:38:19 PM
|
|
|
nomensrea
Posts: 22
Joined: 10/8/2008
Status: offline
|
Stamper_Ben said: quote:
Coke or Pepsi?
For me? Coke all the way! On the other hand, a suspiciously large number of my friends drink and, I would say are addicted to, Diet Pepsi
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The liberals - 10/9/2008 3:40:45 PM
|
|
|
stamper_ben
Posts: 10946
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lone Star State
Status: offline
|
quote:
On the other hand, a suspiciously large number of my friends drink and, I would say are addicted to, Diet Pepsi Yes but are they liberals?
_____________________________
We will be known as His by the love we show one another.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The liberals - 10/9/2008 4:03:10 PM
|
|
|
nomensrea
Posts: 22
Joined: 10/8/2008
Status: offline
|
Marcus said: quote:
Why do marxists hide behind the terms progressive, leftist, and liberal in western societys?
Marcus, was that question for me? I can speak only for myself as a progressive American. I'm not a Marxist in hiding... I don't think. (See my beliefs in a previous post to the same thread.) What makes someone a Marxist? Don't Marxists believe in the abolition of private property, and that the government should own everything? I certainly don't believe that. Don't Marxists believe that everyone should be paid the same wage? I don't. I think there's a huge difference between wanting a fair wage (a.k.a. a living wage, or a wage you can live off of) and wanting everyone to have the same wage.
Okay... I looked up Marxism on wikipedia and found a section on the main ideas. Here's what I think of them:
- Idea #1: Exploitation of one segment of society by another segment of society is inherent in capitalism: I'd say I agree with that basic principle. The working class provides labor that is exploited by business owners (shareholders) in order to make a profit. I'm not placing a value judgment on it -- I think both classes of people benefit, and you don't necessarily have to be in one group or the other. But I think it's a truth of capitalism.
- Idea #2: Alienation of producers from their product is part of capitalism (employers own the final product): Hmm... that depends, I'd say. This is largely changing as employees become stakeholders in their companies. Also, in small businesses, employers and employees often have close personal relationships; but at the end of the day, the product is owned by the employer. If employer wants to move a factory from Flint, MI to Mexico, the employee doesn't get a say.
- Idea #3: Base & Superstructure -- I did not understand this point at all. If someone else wants to explain it to me... feel free!
- Idea #4: Class consciousness is a segment of society's awareness of its existence and its position relative to the rest of society; classes of people are capable of acting on behalf of their rational interests as a group: I'd say I agree with this. I doubt there's anybody who is going to argue that there aren't different classes (middle, lower, upper, upper-middle, orking, etc.). The question is whether classes are willing to act in ways that don't advance their class's interests. I think Americans kind of constantly struggle between wanting to protect their financial interests (e.g. keeping taxes low, preserving financial autonomy, not being forced to contribute to government programs they disagree with) and wanting to see their fellow Americans do well (e.g. providing aid to the poor, charity, supporting small business, etc.). I don't think people in this country are so greedy and uncaring that they only want to hold onto their own $$ and not help others; the question is how to help other fairly.
- Idea #5: The ruling class controls the means of production, thus they are able to control the main institutions ("superstructures") and ideas of society, and do so to their best interest: Again, I agree that those who control the money tend to have greater control of the institutions (*cough*housing crisis*cough*) and I would even say they have control over what ideas get promoted in society (after all, when those bankers were making tons of money on those sub-prime mortgages, everyone was talking about how it was a great idea). What I disagree with is that the ruling class is one clear-cut group that rules over everyone else, or that those who control the means of production always and simply act in their best interests. Well... maybe those at the very, very top (that .5% who have, what, 95% of our nation's wealth?). But most of us who are well off aren't part of that ruling class, I'd say. Most of us are just people trying to balance our needs with the needs of our fellow Americans.
In short, I'd say Marxism is too cut-and-dry. I do think there are some interesting ideas listed above. I think there are important points to be considered about the relationship between most Americans and those who are playing with our money in those investment banks. But I don't subscribe to the idea, as Marx does, that what has to happen is a revolution where the "working class" rises up and destroys those institutions owned by the "ruling class". On the other hand, as I type this, I think maybe those people who are crying out for no bail-out are showing some of that marxist "revolutionary" anger... And I hear both conservatives and liberals getting angry about that situation.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The liberals - 10/9/2008 4:05:02 PM
|
|
|
nomensrea
Posts: 22
Joined: 10/8/2008
Status: offline
|
stamper_ben: quote:
Yes but are they liberals?
Liberals and conservatives both. My cousin (diet pepsi addict) hosted McCain at her house. Another friend (and diet pepsi addict) is totally an Obama supporter. I vehemently disagree with both of their tastes in soda! 
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The liberals - 10/9/2008 4:08:36 PM
|
|
|
davemiller7
Posts: 1060
Joined: 3/5/2008
From: NC via NY
Status: offline
|
I can't believe this. I ask a question and then have to answer it myself.
Ok, here goes:
As far as I know, socialism hasn't changed that much over the years. The following varies somewhat from country to country and with whomsoever is running the show. Socialists believe that government should control nearly everything in our lives - industry, medicine and healthcare, economics, etc. They allow private enterprise on a limited scale, thus the "LTD" after most British and Canadian business names. You name it, socialists have their nose stuck in it.
Conservative Republicans are for supporting what the Constitution states (not a federal judge's interpretation of it), small unobtrusive government, free-trade, private control of business and industry, and states rights.
Democrats, 50-75 years ago, were for big government and getting involved in most activities, but not to the extent of socialism. Their biggest claims to fame were supporting labor unions and Franklin D. Roosevelt's programs during the depression. Many now claim that his programs actually helped prolong the depression, but that's a topic for another thread.
Many of FDR's economic programs (creation of government jobs, Social Security, welfare, etc.) were quite radical ideas back then. These ideas were soon adopted by the Democrat Party as their normal party platform.
Republicans were against most of them at first. After World War II and beginning in 1952, when Eisenhower won the Presidency, Republicans began to adopt more and more of the programs the Democrats had been promoting. However, even then most of the "liberal" plans would seem relatively conservative by today's standards. John F. Kennedy would probably be considered pretty conservative if he were to present the ideas he had in 1960 today, and all but the most conservative Republicans of today would be laughed out of the party back then.
Fast forward to 2008. Both parties are tripping over each other to see who can give the country away first. Foreign aid to practically any country, no drilling for much needed oil in the US, income tax rates many times higher than 50 years ago and Democrats want them even higher.
Democrats want to nationalize healthcare, Rep. Maxine Waters let it slip about nationalizing oil companies. This is socialism. Redistribution of wealth (via taxation, continually upping the minimum wage, etc.) is socialism. Socialism, when carried to its extreme (communism) destroys personal incentive to better one's lot in life because everyone is paid the same, whether they do a good job or do it poorly. Only fear of the consequences provides incentive and that's a poor one.
Anyway, gotta go. I've spent way too much time on this (in many separate segments). Hope it makes sense. Any additions or corrections from anyone out there?
quote:
ORIGINAL: nomensrea
DaveMiller7 said quote:
can you tell me why the Democrats of today are like the Socialists of yesteryear and why the Democrats of yesteryear are like middle of the road Republicans of today?
EStan said quote:
do you or any liberals you know believe a socialist agenda would better serve the United States and her citizens? Why or why not?
Dave, I'll be honest. I just don't know enough about history to be familiar with the politics of Socialists of the past (are you talking pre-WWII?) so I really can't say how similar their political views are to the ones I hold. Same goes for Democrats from the past, although I do know that Republicans and Democrats of a different era had vastly different agendas and political opinions than they do today. If you want to ask about specific points on a socialist agenda, I can tell you whether or not I agree with them. I won't say flat out that I do or I don't because I simply don't know.
EStan, please reference my answer above. That said, I don't call myself a Democrat as I think most of our politicians are pretty corrupt and put little faith in them to solve the problems of our nation. My views tend toward the left in most respects, although this does not mean that I have "drank the kool-aid" so to speak. I do have some friends from when I was in college that have thrown the word "socialism" around. I can't speak for them. I am thinking specifically of one or two people who do not support Barrack Obama (or John McCain) and would call themselves radicals, and shudder at the term "liberal". If you want to talk about specific points on a socialist agenda, I'd be glad to give my opinion.
_____________________________
-Dave
The Prayer of Protection
The light of God surrounds me,
The love of God enfolds me,
The power of God protects me,
The presence of God watches over me.
Wherever I am, God is.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The liberals - 10/9/2008 4:11:07 PM
|
|
|
SonInMe1
Posts: 3370
Joined: 4/16/2005
From: my mom by God
Status: offline
|
Pepsi all the way.
My problems with liberalism..
no truth. All truth is situational, with no standard.
A do what feels good theology with no respect for society.
Disguising their ambitions for power with compassion...a false compassion.
Their complaints about the morality of the right..when their standards are just as moral, in reality, immorality.
Government over God.
Forcing people to be charitable.
The constant degradation of common folk....ya know the ones they are "helping" by saying without the government..and their programs...they cannot survive?
The racist agenda of proporting to help minorities by increasing welfare benefits.
Abortion and homosexual agendas...nuff said. Big issue.
Excessive taxation. Targtetted taxation on the wealthy.
Radical enviromentalism that is another disguised form of socialism.
The worship of the government school system.
The villification of christianity.
The attack on the constitution and legislation from the bench.
From redefining the meaning of the word is to whining like a little baby when an election is clearly lost, the horrible leadership and example of liberal politicians.
I'm tired so I have probably left out a few hundred more...but that should get ya started.
_____________________________
You adulterous people, don't you know that friendship with the world is hatred toward God? Anyone who chooses to be a friend of the world becomes an enemy of God.
James 4:4
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The liberals - 10/9/2008 4:28:15 PM
|
|
|
nomensrea
Posts: 22
Joined: 10/8/2008
Status: offline
|
Hi Dave, sorry for not answering your question directly earlier... it was far too broad for me to know what you wanted me to comment on. This helps, thanks.
First, I have to disagree with you on one point -- about "LTD" at the end of companies' names in Britain and Canada (and the US). You said quote:
They [socialists] allow private enterprise on a limited scale, thus the "LTD" after most British and Canadian business names. You name it, socialists have their nose stuck in it. "LTD" stands for "limited", yes, but that means limited liability for shareholders. Simply, that a shareholder who invests money in a corporation is liable only up to the amount of their original investment. So if the company goes bust, and I only invested $100 bucks in the company, I'm only liable $100. That's nothing to do with socialism (and in fact, is a policy highly supported by venture capitalists).
quote:
Conservative Republicans are for supporting what the Constitution states (not a federal judge's interpretation of it), small unobtrusive government, free-trade, private control of business and industry, and states rights. I think republicans and democrats across the spectrum are for supporting what the Constitution states, and since the Constitution is not very clear on many points it HAS to be interpreted by federal judges (that's the whole point of the judicial branch of government). What we disagree on is the WAY its interpreted. So yeah, I think liberals tend to interpret it in a way that allows the government to have more of a say in industry and business. But the thing about this whole economic crisis is that now both democrats and republicans are scrambling to show that they wanted more regulation (and both sides wanted less when the sub-prime thing was booming). And isn't more regulation more government involvement?
quote:
Democrats, 50-75 years ago, were for big government and getting involved in most activities, but not to the extent of socialism. This is where I'm not sure how to comment. You say that there's been a slippery slope in the democrats' desire to have the government get involved in private activities, to the point that now democrats are essentially socialists. And your definition of a socialist is someone who wants the government to control all aspects of peoples' lives. So I'm interpreting your question to me as why do liberals of today want the government to have so much control over people's private lives...
My answer, then, is that I don't think we want the government to be the big controller of our lives. I even think that the conservative republicans also want the government to control our lives in ways that the democrats don't. I just think that, yes, the government owes it to the American people to provide some rules over how bankers can spend invest our money, so that it's not frittered away in stupid things like golden parachutes and so it's not stolen by fraudulent accountants and CEOs who are being left to their own devices. I DO think the government needs to be involved to some extent in how the market is run. If you don't, then I suppose you think that the economic crisis is going to resolve itself and that the way we got here was just fine by you... just an example of free-market doing its thing. This is one place where we surely disagree. I don't think that makes me a socialist, but if it does, then I guess I am one.
On the other hand, I don't think the government has a right to control whether or not I sustain a pregnancy, although I do think that there should be a law against late-term abortions. I don't think the government should have the right to control whether or not the life partner of a homosexual has a right to be on his health insurance plan if that partner is at home caring for their children as a homemaker. I don't think the government should have the right to look at what library books I'm checking out or listen in on my phone calls, a la the PATRIOT Act. So... on the other hand, there are areas where I think less government is good.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The liberals - 10/10/2008 9:07:52 AM
|
|
|
nomensrea
Posts: 22
Joined: 10/8/2008
Status: offline
|
As a liberal who does not understand all the tenants of socialism, I am hereby requesting that somebody enlighten me. If nobody will, I'll be glad to look into it myself and start a new thread to discuss what I've learned and its application to Obama's platform.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The liberals - 10/10/2008 9:52:14 AM
|
|
|
iluvatar
Posts: 1964
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: EStan
I have a question: do you or any liberals you know believe a socialist agenda would better serve the United States and her citizens? Why or why not?
I'm not a liberal, but I have to wonder if we'd be better off admitting to ourselves that our government is at least partly socialist and try to better execute this marriage of capitalism and socialism rather than continuing to botch the whole thing by denying and ignoring any socialist properties.
quote:
ORIGINAL: davemiller7
no drilling for much needed oil in the US, income tax rates many times higher than 50 years ago
Huh? It's virtually unanimous among those in-the-know that even if we opened up drilling everywhere in the US, it would barely make a dent in global capacity and the price of oil - it's an issue manufactured to get votes. Second, income tax rates are nowhere near as high as they were 50 years ago. Not even close.
-Dan.
_____________________________
Well, I've been to one world fair, a picnic, and a rodeo, and that's the stupidest thing I ever heard come over a set of earphones.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The liberals - 10/10/2008 12:29:04 PM
|
|
|
huangshan
Posts: 780
Joined: 8/6/2008
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Marcus.
Why do marxists hide behind the terms progressive, leftist, and liberal in western societys?
"Have you stopped beating your wife?"
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The liberals - 10/10/2008 12:46:04 PM
|
|
|
davemiller7
Posts: 1060
Joined: 3/5/2008
From: NC via NY
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: iluvatar
Huh? It's virtually unanimous among those in-the-know that even if we opened up drilling everywhere in the US, it would barely make a dent in global capacity and the price of oil - it's an issue manufactured to get votes.
And, don't forget the mantra about we won't get any gasoline from new drilling for at least ten years. That one always works.
quote:
Second, income tax rates are nowhere near as high as they were 50 years ago. Not even close.
-Dan.
Sorry, Dan. You're wrong. I was there and earning money at the time.
_____________________________
-Dave
The Prayer of Protection
The light of God surrounds me,
The love of God enfolds me,
The power of God protects me,
The presence of God watches over me.
Wherever I am, God is.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The liberals - 10/10/2008 12:47:47 PM
|
|
|
davemiller7
Posts: 1060
Joined: 3/5/2008
From: NC via NY
Status: offline
|
And just what is that supposed to mean?
quote:
ORIGINAL: huangshan
quote:
ORIGINAL: Marcus.
Why do marxists hide behind the terms progressive, leftist, and liberal in western societys?
"Have you stopped beating your wife?"
_____________________________
-Dave
The Prayer of Protection
The light of God surrounds me,
The love of God enfolds me,
The power of God protects me,
The presence of God watches over me.
Wherever I am, God is.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The liberals - 10/10/2008 8:25:12 PM
|
|
|
iluvatar
Posts: 1964
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: davemiller7
Sorry, Dan. You're wrong. I was there and earning money at the time.
Got any numbers to back that up? Here is a paper with the history of federal income tax rates dating back to 1913. Here is a site that converts the value of a dollar in one year to the value of a dollar in another year. ($1 in 1957 is equal to $7.37 in 2007). Not since the early 40's have tax rates been this low.
-Dan.
< Message edited by iluvatar -- 10/10/2008 8:33:54 PM >
_____________________________
Well, I've been to one world fair, a picnic, and a rodeo, and that's the stupidest thing I ever heard come over a set of earphones.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The liberals - 10/11/2008 2:31:53 PM
|
|
|
Marcus.
Posts: 1334
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: offline
|
My question was for whoever wanted to answer it.
I asked because that is how I see many but not all on the left. Most particularly the leadership on the left.
< Message edited by Marcus. -- 10/11/2008 2:49:42 PM >
_____________________________
Blessed is He who comes in the Name of the Lord.
Hosea Project Care Net
Google
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The liberals - 10/11/2008 2:46:51 PM
|
|
|
blue1914
Posts: 398
Joined: 6/21/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
quote:
Sorry Jack. I'm drinking a Pepsi.
That would explain your difficulty loving liberals.
Which is, in a nutshell, the point really isn't it? We are on a CHRISTIAN message board - aren't we supposed to be a little different than the world?
Isn't our hallmark supposed to be love-in all things? Faith hope and love, the greatest of these is love-if I have not love, I am a clanging cymbol-LOVE-isn't that supposed to be the name of the game?
The only thing I hate is that it has to be pointed out that there really is no need to hate in any form-disagree (on matter of policy, etc.), sure, but HATE-it's the opposite of LOVE, the thing we ALL as Christians are supposed to have regardless of how we believe.
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
Unless you drink *gasp* decaf! 
