Liberals vs. Conservatives

[Regret1017]

Now I've checked, and there isn't actually a thread focusing on this topic generally. So, who do you think is right?

[Eszett]

I lol at both.

Liberals are too stringent about the economy, and conservatives wouldn't dare let people practice the way they desire. Though, if I had to take a side, I would probably choose the liberals since I feel that without personal freedoms not everybody will able to use their money to their fullest extent. Of course, ideally people ought to be granted copious freedoms so that they can own their companies and make free love to all the people/animals/traffic cones they wish.

[flareofdragon]

Basically the question asks: do you want your country changing rapidly or do you want to stick with one thing?

Whats there to debate about?

[LiLi]

The first thing I think should be done here is give complete definitions of both "liberal" and "conservative" -- as I think people who label themselves one of these do so because they have a specific definition in mind, which may be unknown to another person. Heck, someone once wanted to call me conservative simply because I'm religious. *blink*

[Meowth&Slash]

This is exactly the same as the other two threads, wtf?

[Dimitar]

Asking who is right is like trying to understand the Universe. Liberals are probably closer to it, but what I find strange is that, when glancing back at history, you can tell that banning abortion is more of a progressive view that is held by the conservatives. This shif is due to religion, with which conservatives associate, which does not only hold regressive views.

[flareofdragon]

Another amazingly unknown fact revealed:

Abortion was considered ok until women started to become socially equal (America). So now it is a moral decision.

Liberals are people who want to try new things.
Conservatives just stick with the old ways.

Thats why there is such thing as extreme right and extreme left.

[Roses Ablaze]

Persoally, I'm a liberal. But I think bad could be said of both sides.

[LiLi]

And again, I feel the need to ask that there be definitions to both words that we can agree on before people start tossing out opinions left and right (heh heh, left and right...). I, for one, wouldn't label myself without knowing the proper definition. And, personally, I don't label myself much anyway, since definitions end up getting skewed and changed around depending on who you talk to. Different people have different ways of looking at things, and I'm almost positive that if you ask a conservative what the definition of "liberal" is, they might just give you a completely different definition than what a liberal him/herself would give you.

[Ice Tyranitar]

I'd support liberals more. Both sides have "extremes" that we consider stupid today, though eventually, countries will move more and more left so that the actual beliefs of liberals and conservitives vary. Forty years ago liberal and conservitive in the US were mostly defined on the civil rights issue, now both sides pretty much agree on it.

[absol attacker]

i believe there needs to be a balance of the two for a sound government. which is one reason why Bush is a bad president.

i myself have not picked a side yet, but what i have decided is that i don't like Bush and the rest of his extreme conservatives.

[Cipher]

I think there should be some definitions for people who aren't politically aware.

Conservatives:
Want more government involvement in social issues, such as gay marriage and abortion. Most often involving banning something. Back in the day it was blacks/women voting.

Want less government involvement in economic issues. Meaning they want America to be a "capitolist" economic system. A system based off of competition in the economy, which they believe will raise it over all. The most extreme form of capitolism is a "free market economy" in which the government provides nothing, and even police and such must be purchased. With a "capitolist" system, some people will be very poor, but some will also be very rich. They also believe in tax cuts for the rich, and not for the poor, believing that if the maximum pay is higher, the economy will go up. But it only helps the little people if the rich actually invest in public things, which they rarely do.

Liberals:
Want less government involvement in social issues, so they want people to be able to choose whatever lifestyle they want withouth the government telling them they can't.

Want more government involvement in economic issues. They lean towards the economic system of "socialism." The extreme form of socialism is "communism," a system in which the government owns and provides everything, no private assets. In a "socialist" system, the government provides basic needs to everyone in return for higher taxes, but people can still make money and have their own things. This ensures that everyone will at least have food, schooling, and medical help. In a "socialist" system, no one is extremely rich, but no one is extremely poor. They believe in tax cuts for the poor, and not for the rich, thinking if the rich have more money to give, they should use it for public projects.
-----------------------------------------------

I'm 110% liberal. By the way, communism isn't "evil", it just fails to work in a large society. I strongly support Democratic Socialism, however.

[Eszett]

i believe there needs to be a balance of the two for a sound government. which is one reason why Bush is a bad president.

i myself have not picked a side yet, but what i have decided is that i don't like Bush and the rest of his extreme conservatives.Such a balance would not work in our modern society since most adherents of one of these ideologies is diametrically opposed to the other. Our government would stagnate due to endless filibustering and the inability to agree upon anything. It would be like being trapped in time, almost. :O

[Flaming Lip]

Why not Moderates? I am a moderate, though I lean towards liberalism.

First of all, if people are supposed to be equal, than there should be equal taxes for everyone, not more for the poor, or more for the rich. The point is, people are most normally Liberal or Conservative depending on what benifits them most. If you inhereit a lot of money, and you're rich, you want to invest and spend the money the way you want to, and you don't want to have to pay more taxes because you're rich, in a way that just defeats the point.

At the same time if you're poor, you want less taxes so you have more extra money, for better food or supplies. You may also want to be given food and nesessities by the goverment so that you may have money to spend as you choose.

That doesn't apply to everyone of course, but if someone is potrayed as evil because he/she is rich and wants less taxes so he/she has more to spend or invest with, its not true, that conservative person simply wants what he/she thinks is best for him/herself.

[absol attacker]

Such a balance would not work in our modern society since most adherents of one of these ideologies is diametrically opposed to the other. Our government would stagnate due to endless filibustering and the inability to agree upon anything. It would be like being trapped in time, almost. :O
i have a large vocabulary, but i'm not a freakin' college student >.>;

i did not say that it should be 50/50, just that there should not be 100% once side or enough of one side to make the other's vote seem non-existant. also, take compromises and people who's political stance isn't as ridgid as Bush's into consideration.

reading about both sides, i believe there should be a third party that is more balanced. but then, there'd be that one president who'd abuse it and sit around on his a*ss all day without doing a lot of work in either field of issues. but i still don't like communist economies OR central governments controlling things like gay marriage and abortion, even though i like a free-enterprise economy AND central governments allowing people to choose their own lifestyle.

[Cipher]

Keep in mind that the Republicans and Democrats are actually both fairly moderate in the grand scheme of political ideologies.

[PsiUmbreon]

Not much to say here yet. I pretty much lean toward the left on almost every issue, although I'm not too hot on illegal immigration and affirmative action.

[Eszett]

i have a large vocabulary, but i'm not a freakin' college student >.>;

i did not say that it should be 50/50, just that there should not be 100% once side or enough of one side to make the other's vote seem non-existant. also, take compromises and people who's political stance isn't as ridgid as Bush's into consideration.What? When did I ever mention your vocabulary? :O

The difficulty with your plan is that balances must be maintained. Right now, the best way of maintaining balance has shown to be dividing the government into separate branches and letting different people run each branch, but nobody having supreme power over one branch. That system has failed us in recent times as the conservative Republicans maintain control in every branch of the government. This has shown that it is impossible to ensure that a balance is maintained in a regime.

reading about both sides, i believe there should be a third party that is more balanced. but then, there'd be that one president who'd abuse it and sit around on his a*ss all day without doing a lot of work in either field of issues. but i still don't like communist economies OR central governments controlling things like gay marriage and abortion, even though i like a free-enterprise economy AND central governments allowing people to choose their own lifestyle.Go ahead, you can start your own party if you wish. I certainly wouldn't the government to form one. :O

[absol attacker]

What? When did I ever mention your vocabulary? :O

The difficulty with your plan is that balances must be maintained. Right now, the best way of maintaining balance has shown to be dividing the government into separate branches and letting different people run each branch, but nobody having supreme power over one branch. That system has failed us in recent times as the conservative Republicans maintain control in every branch of the government. This has shown that it is impossible to ensure that a balance is maintained in a regime.
when you started using words that people don't normally use at leisure, let alone online.

okay, you lost me.


i'm just saying there should be a third political party in democracy that is a bit more balanced when it comes to the government's role in the economy and social issues. as we've seen, both branches are like a see-saw. heavy in one side, almost weightless on the other. what America has is about the best we can attain, except for the fact that Bush found the fatal flaw and is now essentally a monarch who's actions are delayed because he has to run it through the other government branches first. ands can you restate that last part so that it makes sense?

[Infinite Master Sceptile]

Go ahead, you can start your own party if you wish. I certainly wouldn't the government to form one. :O
I am part of the one-person ME party.
Just kidding.
I abhor these terms, as they have too many meanings to be used properly.
I don't believe in government, or in democracy, but it's the best we have. I suppose one might call me liberal. I call myself a pacifist, environmentalist, and a progressive. However, I don't think the Democratic Party represents my values very well, which is why I'm sorely tempted to join my state's Green Party.

[Eszett]

when you started using words that people don't normally use at leisure, let alone online.

okay, you lost me.


i'm just saying there should be a third political party in democracy that is a bit more balanced when it comes to the government's role in the economy and social issues. as we've seen, both branches are like a see-saw. heavy in one side, almost weightless on the other. what America has is about the best we can attain, except for the fact that Bush found the fatal flaw and is now essentally a monarch who's actions are delayed because he has to run it through the other government branches first. ands can you restate that last part so that it makes sense?I can't help that, I just have a incredulously large vocabulary, and I will use it as I please. Words are fun for me, don't look at me like that. :<

As I said before, I would certainly love three/ten/one billion parties, and I would probably go about killing people to see such a change if it were morally acceptable. However, thinking as a realist I do not envision that a third party will ever rise to become as prominent as the Democrat or Republican Party. These two leviathans (both, by the way, are on a global scale quite conservative) simply hold too much clout for any new party to arise to prominence. Something fantastic would need to happen, and I'm not counting on it occurring any time soon.

And to clarify the end of my last post, I merely stated that the Republicans taking control of all of the branches of government has shown that it is impossible to maintain a balance in our current system of government at all times.

[Cipher]

And to clarify the end of my last post, I merely stated that the Republicans taking control of all of the branches of government has shown that it is impossible to maintain a balance in our current system of government at all times.
Eszett hasn't used any words that normal people shouldn't know. Anyway, this is very true. In fact, our founding fathers feared a two-party system because of this. Of course, they were unable to prevent it for long. Different ideologies lead to different parties. The Republicans and Democrats are the two main parties in our country, and always will be, because they tow the line. Granted one is on the conservative side, and one the liberal, but they're neither one of them very extreme. By the way, the third biggest party in the U.S. is the liberal Green Party.

And it's not that there can't be a system with more than two parties. Many European countries have three or more main parties. The problem with this is that it creates great instability. If totally different parties rotated in and out of office every election, any long term plans for the country would be lost. It's instable and inneficient to have too many main parties.

[Ice Tyranitar]

Well, let's say Germany here, they have four major parties iirc, and all of theml form together to form different coalitions, so there's still the two-sidedness there. Still much better though.

[Eszett]

Ideally I believe that all parties should be abolished and we should adopt *gasp* our own political beliefs!

Instable? Perhaps. But more importantly, we will restore something that has been absent from politics since the times of the ancient empires: honesty.

[absol attacker]

I can't help that, I just have a incredulously large vocabulary, and I will use it as I please. Words are fun for me, don't look at me like that. :<

As I said before, I would certainly love three/ten/one billion parties, and I would probably go about killing people to see such a change if it were morally acceptable. However, thinking as a realist I do not envision that a third party will ever rise to become as prominent as the Democrat or Republican Party. These two leviathans (both, by the way, are on a global scale quite conservative) simply hold too much clout for any new party to arise to prominence. Something fantastic would need to happen, and I'm not counting on it occurring any time soon.

And to clarify the end of my last post, I merely stated that the Republicans taking control of all of the branches of government has shown that it is impossible to maintain a balance in our current system of government at all times.
eh, w/e.

it's wishful thinking :p

true, but Bush is a special case. he found the flaw in our government and used it to turn all three branches into klansmen conventions.

Eszett hasn't used any words that normal people shouldn't know.
normal people with how many years of education? i mean, i got it after a re-read, but seriously. i don't need any help getting 100s in english class, especially with words my teacher hasn't gotten to yet.

And it's not that there can't be a system with more than two parties. Many European countries have three or more main parties. The problem with this is that it creates great instability. If totally different parties rotated in and out of office every election, any long term plans for the country would be lost. It's instable and inneficient to have too many main parties.
okay, i'm not an expert in politics, but i said 3, not 30. and the third being a middle-ground of the two.

[Andy]

Liberals:
Want less government involvement in social issues, so they want people to be able to choose whatever lifestyle they want withouth the government telling them they can't.

Want more government involvement in economic issues. They lean towards the economic system of "socialism." The extreme form of socialism is "communism," a system in which the government owns and provides everything, no private assets. In a "socialist" system, the government provides basic needs to everyone in return for higher taxes, but people can still make money and have their own things. This ensures that everyone will at least have food, schooling, and medical help. In a "socialist" system, no one is extremely rich, but no one is extremely poor. They believe in tax cuts for the poor, and not for the rich, thinking if the rich have more money to give, they should use it for public projects.
-----------------------------------------------

I'm 110% liberal. By the way, communism isn't "evil", it just fails to work in a large society. I strongly support Democratic Socialism, however.

The liberals in the economy don't lean nowhere, near the socialism. The liberals say that the government shouldn't mess with the economy, if there's crisis the nature itself will solve it in a way or another(Invisible hand by Adam Smith).

[Dimitar]

Yes, the idea of a complete balance is impossible. Ever since man came about, either the progressives (I don't want to use the terem "liberal" since it is impure in this sense) have had the upper hand, or it has been a tie. And the times when it has been a tie were not very pleasant, being the Middle Ages, USSR, and some past empires, yet always progress has found a way to seep in through the cracks. The regressives have always fought for a losing cause, but they are needed to act as brakes in keeping society from getting radical, in which case it can fall apart.

[ottermi619]

I think there should be some definitions for people who aren't politically aware.

Conservatives:
Want more government involvement in social issues, such as gay marriage and abortion. Most often involving banning something. Back in the day it was blacks/women voting.

Want less government involvement in economic issues. Meaning they want America to be a "capitolist" economic system. A system based off of competition in the economy, which they believe will raise it over all. The most extreme form of capitolism is a "free market economy" in which the government provides nothing, and even police and such must be purchased. With a "capitolist" system, some people will be very poor, but some will also be very rich. They also believe in tax cuts for the rich, and not for the poor, believing that if the maximum pay is higher, the economy will go up. But it only helps the little people if the rich actually invest in public things, which they rarely do.

Liberals:
Want less government involvement in social issues, so they want people to be able to choose whatever lifestyle they want withouth the government telling them they can't.

Want more government involvement in economic issues. They lean towards the economic system of "socialism." The extreme form of socialism is "communism," a system in which the government owns and provides everything, no private assets. In a "socialist" system, the government provides basic needs to everyone in return for higher taxes, but people can still make money and have their own things. This ensures that everyone will at least have food, schooling, and medical help. In a "socialist" system, no one is extremely rich, but no one is extremely poor. They believe in tax cuts for the poor, and not for the rich, thinking if the rich have more money to give, they should use it for public projects.


In general, I fit in wanting less government involvement in economic issues. Sure, some people will be very poor, but some will also be very rich like you said. However, I belive in higher taxes on the rich, tax cuts for the poor.

I do oppose gay marriage and abortion. But I have always and will strongly support blacks/women voting. (In fact, I also support lowering the voting age to 16)
However, I would like less government involvement in educational (and many other) social issues (as long as the big-government media doesn't hound about abortion and gay marriage all the while).
I oppose socialised most anything, especially health care and education, the two biggest bureaucracies in the world.

ottermi619,
In my sense, I lean Losertarian, which takes less intervention from both sides of the spectrum together.

[The Big Al]

Instead of abolishing the government services, we should instead streamline them. There's a lot of waste that could be trimmed off which would lower and cause and make them more user friendly. The first think that should go is the corruption, you solve a lot of problems if you get rid of people taking money away from these programs and therefore away from the tax payer.

I personally don't mind paying taxes. I see it as an investment in our schools, roads, sewers, and whatever else the government provides. However, I would like to see my tax dollars being put to good use.

[Regret1017]

In general, I fit in wanting less government involvement in economic issues. Sure, some people will be very poor, but some will also be very rich like you said. However, I belive in higher taxes on the rich, tax cuts for the poor.

I do oppose gay marriage and abortion. But I have always and will strongly support blacks/women voting. (In fact, I also support lowering the voting age to 16)
However, I would like less government involvement in educational (and many other) social issues (as long as the big-government media doesn't hound about abortion and gay marriage all the while).
I oppose socialised most anything, especially health care and education, the two biggest bureaucracies in the world.

ottermi619,
In my sense, I lean Losertarian, which takes less intervention from both sides of the spectrum together.

So by going to school we are participating in the DOWNFALL OF WESTERN SOCIETY??? WICKED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111111111112!@

[Ice Tyranitar]

I oppose socialised most anything, especially health care and education, the two biggest bureaucracies in the world.

leik OMFG, T3H EV1L MEDICAID!!!!111

[vaerna]

Neither. They're both crooks for the most part.

[brockman5]

I am personally think Conservatives are right but both have flaws. The conservatives want tax money to spend on things like government, schools, government, roads etc. meanwhile the libreals take your tax money and don't change a thing. Yes, I think conservatives do focus on government more than the left but it's for good causes. I think Bush is doing a good job of President. Having the troops in Iraq etc. is good because we could end up stopping terrorism (Twin Towers, Pentagon etc.). If we pull them out now everything would go downhill again. My dad is in the Army and is in Iraq, sure I miss him but I know he is doing what not a lot of other people have the guts to do... Help fight for freedom. That helps Blacks/Women vote. I am against gay/ lesbian marraiges and Abortion. That is only my opinon so please don't take offense.

[ottermi619]

So by going to school we are participating in the DOWNFALL OF WESTERN SOCIETY??? WICKED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111111111112!@

It'd be nice if something could be done, but sadly, the system's broken beyond repair. (not that it was working to educate students as it is)

http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/

[Cipher]

Help fight for freedom. That helps Blacks/Women vote. I am against gay/ lesbian marraiges I respect your opinion, but please realise that you just gave your support for two previously oppressed groups, and condemend another one. And, although everyone wants to keep things PC now, it was the conservatives who would've resisted the rights of women and racial minorities back in the day. Not the Republican Party persay, but a major conservative value is keeping the status quo in social roles.

Neither. They're both crooks for the most part.I think you're trying to say that all politicians are crooks? You're mistaking liberal vs. conservative for Democrat vs. Republican. The two sides in discussion here are not political parties, but the two basic opposing political mindsets. You basically just said that anyone with an opinion is a crook. People can be politically inclined, and even be members of a party that supports their political views, and not be a "crook." Likewise, although the system is rather corrupt, not all actual politicians are crooks. We need to have people that actually try to make changes, and it's too bad that the politicans like that are surrounded by the excess of shady or unremarkable ones.

[Eszett]

I am personally think Conservatives are right but both have flaws. The conservatives want tax money to spend on things like government, schools, government, roads etc. meanwhile the libreals take your tax money and don't change a thing.Hm? I must have been high when I thought that Bush was reducing taxes and increasing spending. Now we can't even handle more important issues in our own nation when we need to resolve them. Geeze, I must have been high. ;[

Yes, I think conservatives do focus on government more than the left but it's for good causes. I think Bush is doing a good job of President. Having the troops in Iraq etc. is good because we could end up stopping terrorism (Twin Towers, Pentagon etc.).Why not focus on the well-being of our nation? Surely it would be better to promote the Clintonian policies which dug us out of the recession and made us a reach an incredibly low unemployment rate. Yet instead, Bush feels it necessary to conquer and defeat two nations that pose little threat to our nation.

If we pull them out now everything would go downhill again. My dad is in the Army and is in Iraq, sure I miss him but I know he is doing what not a lot of other people have the guts to do... Help fight for freedom. That helps Blacks/Women vote. I am against gay/ lesbian marraiges and Abortion.Fight for freedom? Why should we be diverting our resources into other nations when we can't even keep our own head up? All these missions serve no purpose in "fighting for freedom/democracy/whatever" when that system is failing us now, what with the PATRIOT Act and all.

Now that does seem awkward you would have those feeling, but very well, that's merely a statement of fact.

But wait, blacks can vote already. O_o;;

That is only my opinon so please don't take offense.Your ignorance offends me.

[Regret1017]

I am personally think Conservatives are right but both have flaws. The conservatives want tax money to spend on things like government, schools, government, roads etc. meanwhile the libreals take your tax money and don't change a thing. Yes, I think conservatives do focus on government more than the left but it's for good causes. I think Bush is doing a good job of President. Having the troops in Iraq etc. is good because we could end up stopping terrorism (Twin Towers, Pentagon etc.). If we pull them out now everything would go downhill again. My dad is in the Army and is in Iraq, sure I miss him but I know he is doing what not a lot of other people have the guts to do... Help fight for freedom. That helps Blacks/Women vote. I am against gay/ lesbian marraiges and Abortion. That is only my opinon so please don't take offense.

He is keeping troops in Iraq because it is a convenient way of convincing the public that he is stopping terrorism while not actually doing anything other than a few random cullings. He is fostering the belief that all terrorism emerges from the Middle East and Iraq, as you exemplified in your post. Apparently he uses the aphorism "no news is good news" when it comes to destructive weapons, as he seems convinced that countries proven to not have WMDs actually do, but totally ignores it when a country comes out with the news that they do have WMDs and are prepared to use them (North Korea), and even worse, claims that these threats are false.

"If we can't see WMDs, they must be there! If we do see them, they must be an illusion!"