The conservative label has become meaningless since neoconservatives hijacked the Republican party. Being liberal means you think money grows on trees and have no grasp of basic economics.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Fiscally, I am conservative. Socially, I am liberal.
I want the government to keep its paws off my money.
I want the government to stay out of peoples personal lives.
Business is an area where there needs to be a balance. While I’m against red tape and restrictions I am also against wanton disregard of the environment, employees or investors.[/quote]
You just described the Libertarian position.
[quote]tme wrote:
hedo wrote:
If you feel the government is there to provide a standard of living for you and your family and that they know best when it comes to spending your money…your most likely a liberal.
If you think you know what is best for your and your family and that a smaller government is best…your probably a conservative.
Well I definitely fall into the second category, so by your definition (and mine, incidentally) I’m a conservative. But I can’t think of a single thing to like about Bushit, and most Republican members of congress make me want to puke in disgust, so according to Zebbie I’m a “bottom-feeding liberal”.
So many people here seem to see things as purely black and white with no room for individual opinion. It’s all about us vs. them, with us or against us, conservative or liberal, republican or democrat. Accept the fact that in this world there is no absolute black or white, only infinite shades of gray.
Yes Bushit cut taxes and that’s a good thing. But then he nearly doubled federal spending, and that’s not so good. The main benefactors of Bushit’s second term will be big business and not me directly. But most of the stock I own is in big business, so I’ll still come out ahead and that’s a good thing. But most of those gains will be wiped out before I retire when the economy collapses under the weight of the Bushit deficit. Not so good.
But in the end I voted for Kerry, so I guess I’m a bleeding-heart tree-hugging baby-killing bible-banning flag-burning gun-confiscating gay-marrying bottom-feeding Liberal after all.
[/quote]
There is a gray area. But the idea is you pick the side that best supports your point of view. Someone might vote based solely on the politicians social or economic point of view and disregard the rest because they want to stop abortion, or have universal health care. Most people are in the gray, most politicians are not though. It all comes down to what YOU want more.
There are other parties that are crossovers between the two, but there not big so your vote would essentially do nothing. Its best just to pick the side you want more.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
www.rasmussenreports.com/Broadcast%20Bias.htm
I’ll prove your point for you.
Fox was viewed as having as much right wing bias as the other networks were viewed as being left-wing.
But does that make Fox any less a news org. that the other networks? A look at the ratings would suggest that people like this right-wing stuff exponentially more than they like the same-old same-old from the left wing shills.
[/quote]
I think the fact that fox viewers are most likely to be misinformed makes them less of a news org.
[quote]wirewound wrote:
vroom wrote:
Fiscally, I am conservative. Socially, I am liberal.
I want the government to keep its paws off my money.
I want the government to stay out of peoples personal lives.
Business is an area where there needs to be a balance. While I’m against red tape and restrictions I am also against wanton disregard of the environment, employees or investors.
You just described the Libertarian position.[/quote]
Join us.
[quote]belligerent wrote:
The conservative label has become meaningless since neoconservatives hijacked the Republican party. Being liberal means you think money grows on trees and have no grasp of basic economics.[/quote]
And what is your definition of neoconservative?
I ask only because every person who uses this term has a different definition.
One of the reasons the Republican party was voted out was due to the fact that nobody could tell the difference between them and the democratic party. So why vote for them?
[quote]The Mage wrote:
belligerent wrote:
The conservative label has become meaningless since neoconservatives hijacked the Republican party. Being liberal means you think money grows on trees and have no grasp of basic economics.
And what is your definition of neoconservative?
I ask only because every person who uses this term has a different definition.
One of the reasons the Republican party was voted out was due to the fact that nobody could tell the difference between them and the democratic party. So why vote for them?[/quote]
Neoconservatives, as the term was originally used, were simply ex-“liberals” which might explain some of what we see out of the so-called neocons these days.
To prevent confusion in terminology I actually tend to use the term pseudo-conservative - the “conservatives” that favor a restriction in personal freedom in exchange for a large, big-brother government that has its nose in every other nation’s business (and everything else for that matter).
I think that’s where the divide is - neocons (pseudo-conservatives?) seem to promote an agenda that requires a large and powerful national government and true conservatives, at least my view of true conservatives, think that a large and obtrusive government is destructive to the essential liberties of Americans.
[quote]Wimpy wrote:
The Mage wrote:
belligerent wrote:
The conservative label has become meaningless since neoconservatives hijacked the Republican party. Being liberal means you think money grows on trees and have no grasp of basic economics.
And what is your definition of neoconservative?
I ask only because every person who uses this term has a different definition.
One of the reasons the Republican party was voted out was due to the fact that nobody could tell the difference between them and the democratic party. So why vote for them?
Neoconservatives, as the term was originally used, were simply ex-“liberals” which might explain some of what we see out of the so-called neocons these days.
To prevent confusion in terminology I actually tend to use the term pseudo-conservative - the “conservatives” that favor a restriction in personal freedom in exchange for a large, big-brother government that has its nose in every other nation’s business (and everything else for that matter).
I think that’s where the divide is - neocons (pseudo-conservatives?) seem to promote an agenda that requires a large and powerful national government and true conservatives, at least my view of true conservatives, think that a large and obtrusive government is destructive to the essential liberties of Americans.
[/quote]
I believe that to be fairly accurate as well. Its the latter that holds true to the Eisenhower’s Republican way of doing things. Those are the republicans I can at least respect.
[quote]Wimpy wrote:
Neoconservatives, as the term was originally used, were simply ex-“liberals” which might explain some of what we see out of the so-called neocons these days.
To prevent confusion in terminology I actually tend to use the term pseudo-conservative - the “conservatives” that favor a restriction in personal freedom in exchange for a large, big-brother government that has its nose in every other nation’s business (and everything else for that matter).
I think that’s where the divide is - neocons (pseudo-conservatives?) seem to promote an agenda that requires a large and powerful national government and true conservatives, at least my view of true conservatives, think that a large and obtrusive government is destructive to the essential liberties of Americans. [/quote]
I have been repeatedly called a neocon, and have found more definitions then people on this forum.
Based on some definitions, I am a full blown neocon. Based on others, I am the complete opposite.
Your definition is similar to what some people call a RINO. Republican in name only.
I do believe the history is of liberals switching to the republican party, and their liberal friends started calling them neocons to make fun of them. (I believe this started on a collage campus.)
Anyway this term is so poorly defined that I need to know what the person means when they are bringing it up.
Now, getting back on topic of this ancient thread.
I have actually been thinking about this recently, before the bump.
It seems to me that the real definition of liberal and conservative hinges on one thing.
Wait, before I say what that is, I need to point out that I do not think being a liberal or conservative makes a person good or bad. Simply a definition of their political bent.
Now the key to liberal and conservative seems to be personal responsibility.
Letting it sink in… oh, some are getting pissed off.
Seriously. Is your retirement your responsibility or not? If not, then you believe in the Social Security system. If your like me, you would give up everything you have “earned” in the system simply to be free of it.
Is it your responsibility to feed your family? To house them? What about food stamps, housing?
It is so nice to care about people, but as I have said before, we cannot let the help turn into codependance. Are we helping the person, or holding them back?
Another example is in taxes. I used to mistakenly think that the left believed taxes were a way to finance the government. But that is not fully true. Many believe that if you have “too much” then a portion, or all of that excess should be taken away. And most likely be given to those who have less, or to supply necessities and services to them.
If you do not believe in personal responsibility, then your wealth was an accident, or luck, or came from those who are not wealthy.
And those who have less are not responsible for that lack of money. They just were not lucky, or born to the right parents. No personal responsibility.
When it comes to crime, again many point to “society”, not personal responsibility. It was the community, their parents, abuse, drugs, or something else.
Think about it, it makes sense.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Fiscally, I am conservative. Socially, I am liberal.
I want the government to keep its paws off my money.
I want the government to stay out of peoples personal lives.
Business is an area where there needs to be a balance. While I’m against red tape and restrictions I am also against wanton disregard of the environment, employees or investors.[/quote]
Well put. This describes my views as well.
[quote]wirewound wrote:
vroom wrote:
Fiscally, I am conservative. Socially, I am liberal.
I want the government to keep its paws off my money.
I want the government to stay out of peoples personal lives.
Business is an area where there needs to be a balance. While I’m against red tape and restrictions I am also against wanton disregard of the environment, employees or investors.
You just described the Libertarian position.[/quote]
…except for that last part. Libertarians don’t want the kind of “balance” vroom speaks of. They feel that if business disregards the environment, employees, or investors, that people will simply buy from other businesses, and thus enforce morality through their pocketbooks, and peace and harmony will therefore break out.
…and if people are unwilling to do business with the slightly more expensive, but morally tolerable alternative, well then, people get what they deserve.
Libertarians have it all worked out.