The never ending liberal-conservative debate

[ticbeast]

I've been paging through Political Analysis for the past hour or so and have read many of ClayBarham's threads. While intelligently written, they always looks like (at least from my perspective) an attempt to glorify the conservative, and to, in a non aggressive way, bash the liberal ideology. ClayBarham: Please do not get me wrong, I'm not attempting to point fingers or anything. I am curious as to how you would define both a liberal and a conservative. After reading your threads I've realized that our ideas of both concepts are very different. I find myself in disagreement with some of your definitions of a liberal. As someone who can be identified as a liberal, I would not like to have my philosophy under fire because of misunderstandings or misconceptions. I'm sure you feel the same way; thats why I asked you to define a conservative as well. I don't want to have a debate about the two ideologies if we're not on the same page.

So.

Would you be able to do this?

[Pookie]

This was quite aptly titled: "The Neverending Liberal-Conservative Debate." Indeed, it is neverending and it is multi-faceted in that this ongoing debate has so much to it: health care, the Iraq war, the environment, the economy and taxes, and of course the list goes on.
So do the debates. I read the debate parts, and sometimes skip over the insults. But when I think the insults are funny -- like myself actually being fat and braless -- I'll make fun of what was said, not the person who wrote it. And debating is ideal here in this forum.
We'll never agree 100% with everything said here. But a good, healthy debate makes people think, and often people might go away with something new and better to think about; say for example, a different viewpoint that they didn't think of before. Or, as often happens to me here: "Dang! I'm glad I'm not the only one who sees that!" Debate is healthy and it can be fun.
And it's often a challenge, when we have to defend our viewpoints, when someone says, "Hey, where did you get that idea?" or something like that. Sometimes it even gives us a chance to look at what we've written and perhaps even think, "Hmmm. Maybe that's not right..." and one idea leads to the next and so on. That's where learning happens, and it's neat. Good for the brain LOL!
And simply put, as long as there are conservatives, liberals, libertarians, independents, Federalist Whigs or whatever, there will always be:
You got it.
The Neverending Debate.
Good post, Tic. You made me think about that.
Purrs,

[ECW]

I've been paging through Political Analysis for the past hour or so and have read many of ClayBarham's threads. While intelligently written, they always looks like (at least from my perspective) an attempt to glorify the conservative, and to, in a non aggressive way, bash the liberal ideology. ClayBarham: Please do not get me wrong, I'm not attempting to point fingers or anything. I am curious as to how you would define both a liberal and a conservative. After reading your threads I've realized that our ideas of both concepts are very different. I find myself in disagreement with some of your definitions of a liberal. As someone who can be identified as a liberal, I would not like to have my philosophy under fire because of misunderstandings or misconceptions. I'm sure you feel the same way; thats why I asked you to define a conservative as well. I don't want to have a debate about the two ideologies if we're not on the same page.

So.

Would you be able to do this?


Unless you have a view of history that facts cannot support, a duality theory which brooks no variances in your political outlook, and an inability to defend critical dissections of your posts, you will never be on the same page as Clay, Ticbeast. Every one of his threads is what we call a variation on the theme and the theme is the same: Liberals=bad, Conservatives=good. There is no debating with Clay because he cannot defend his posts. It's a take it or leave it proposition with him. I chose to leave it. Good luck getting an answer to your query.

(BTW, Pookie hit the nail on the head with her comments about Libertarians, independents, et al, because they are sides of the political coin that Clay cannot account for in his limited political outlook.)

[moses2792796]

Democracy means that there will never be a consensus on who actually has the better system, people will blame the other side whenever anything goes wrong and nothing ever really changes, problems cannot be rectified if they are caused by democracy itself because people deliberately find scapegoats for everything that is wrong with society.

[davo]

IMHO the concept of a "liberal" vs "conservative", left vs right, is a divide and conquer technique used by an extremely wealthy and corrupt elite to shield themselves from the rest of the people. Things that are popular and unpopular with the people are often split evenly 'left' and 'right' so these factions keep fighting each other over trivial issues, and ignore things such as the national debt and the federal reserve.

For example, I'm in the following basket for likes and dislikes - some of them are considered left-wing and others right-wing, but my positions are generally everything the banks hate.

I support:
- Traditional values - Christian morality, families, freedom of religion
- Vastly lower taxes
- Sound money; government control of monetary supply
- Tariffs on imports from non-allies
- Corporal and capital punishment, law & order
- National sovereignty and strong national defense
- Home schooling and private schooling
- Civil liberties, habeus corpus, due process etc
- Gun rights (within reason)
- Genetic engineering and stem cell research
- Freedom of speech, freedom of the internet
- Legalization of soft drugs such as marijuana

I oppose:
- Mass surveillance
- Central banks
- National ID cards / microchips in the future
- United Nations and intergovernmental superstates
- Undeclared, pre-emptive or un-winnable wars
- War on drugs
- Multiculturalism and forced racial equality
- Censorship
- Homosexual marriages and adoptions
- Illegal immigration and/or mass third world immigration
- The use of torture


Some of these things I've mentioned are left-wing and others are right-wing, but generally they're against what the powers-that-be seem to want. If we keep dividing ourselves into liberals and conservatives, the banks will always get their way and the people will always lose.

[Anti-Racism]

This was quite aptly titled: "The Neverending Liberal-Conservative Debate." Indeed, it is neverending and it is multi-faceted in that this ongoing debate has so much to it: health care, the Iraq war, the environment, the economy and taxes, and of course the list goes on.
So do the debates. I read the debate parts, and sometimes skip over the insults.


I wonder how useful it is.

Left and right are arbitrary. Talk about the issues.

[Scorpion]

I define liberal and conservsative in the simplest terms.

Conservatives address and solve the country's problems whereas liberals point out problems and lay blame.

[ClayBarham]

Ticbeast: The quickest way I can do this, is to suggest you bring up my site, www.ClaysAmerica.com, which is all about defining the two sides. I understand both sides. The liberal side, as it is defined today (not classical liberalism), is the oldest, most experienced political philosophy, though applied under different names and leaders. Most people in this world are familiar only with what I would generally call the liberal side, again, under many different names and leaders. The American conservative side is unique to the world, and is difficult to accept by those not familiar with it, which includes many in America. Just read the numbered paragraphs and you should get the gist of it.

[I Like Beer]

I define liberal and conservsative in the simplest terms.

Conservatives address and solve the country's problems whereas liberals point out problems and lay blame.

Can you point out an example of an issue the conservatives have addressed and solved?

Thanks in advance.

[Scorpion]

I define liberal and conservsative in the simplest terms.

Conservatives address and solve the country's problems whereas liberals point out problems and lay blame.

Can you point out an example of an issue the conservatives have addressed and solved?

Thanks in advance.


Certainly. An excellent example was the the proposed privatization of social security, a move which would have reinvigorated social security were it not for the Democrats defeating any such action.

[Buck Laser]

I define liberal and conservsative in the simplest terms.

Conservatives address and solve the country's problems whereas liberals point out problems and lay blame.

That's just about as helpful as Clay's "republicans good, democrats bad" equation. I think you can do a good bit better than that. :sadly:

[ClayBarham]

Ticbeast: You see what I mean? Buck Laser and ECW are prime examples of those who read into a post what they want, which is to block anyone's examining anything beyond their beliefs. They are the ones to whom I never waste time responding, as I do better talking to the wall.

[Buck Laser]

Ticbeast: You see what I mean? Buck Laser and ECW are prime examples of those who read into a post what they want, which is to block anyone's examining anything beyond their beliefs. They are the ones to whom I never waste time responding, as I do better talking to the wall.

And the wall is a bit more on your level, too..:drool:

[I Like Beer]

I define liberal and conservsative in the simplest terms.

Conservatives address and solve the country's problems whereas liberals point out problems and lay blame.

Can you point out an example of an issue the conservatives have addressed and solved?

Thanks in advance.


Certainly. An excellent example was the the proposed privatization of social security, a move which would have reinvigorated social security were it not for the Democrats defeating any such action.


Okay, but that didn't happen (it may have been a panacea as you claim but we don't know). I want something that we can look back on and say, 'yes,that solved the issue'.

A liberal example would be the civil rights movement of the 50's and 60's - that solved the problem of racial segregation. A legal right to medical abortion moved women away from back alleys and unsafe proceedures. Liberalization of religion meant that Catholic women who are being beaten by their husbands can leave them without going to hell.

[AnnEsthesia]

Ticbeast: You see what I mean? Buck Laser and ECW are prime examples of those who read into a post what they want, which is to block anyone's examining anything beyond their beliefs. They are the ones to whom I never waste time responding, as I do better talking to the wall.

And the wall is a bit more on your level, too..:drool:


ROFL. Ok, that one was good Buck. ;)

[Buck Laser]

Ticbeast: You see what I mean? Buck Laser and ECW are prime examples of those who read into a post what they want, which is to block anyone's examining anything beyond their beliefs. They are the ones to whom I never waste time responding, as I do better talking to the wall.

And the wall is a bit more on your level, too..:drool:


ROFL. Ok, that one was good Buck. ;)

One does what one can...:evil:

[moses2792796]

I define liberal and conservsative in the simplest terms.

Conservatives address and solve the country's problems whereas liberals point out problems and lay blame.


Actually conservatives do that too, they blame the liberals. The foundation of democracy means that people have to find someone to blame when a mistake is made, because there is no leadership to take responsibility, if the people make the wrong decision by electing Bush then they can't be held responsible and have their voting power removed. So everyone craps on Bush, he was the scapegoat in this instance. That is why democracies always need to find an 'evil' (eg. terrorists) to focus on, otherwise it becomes obvious that the majority are incapable of making consistently good decisions.

[ECW]

Ticbeast: You see what I mean? Buck Laser and ECW are prime examples of those who read into a post what they want, which is to block anyone's examining anything beyond their beliefs. They are the ones to whom I never waste time responding, as I do better talking to the wall.

And the wall is a bit more on your level, too..:drool:


ROFL. Ok, that one was good Buck. ;)

One does what one can...:evil:


The real reason that Clayboy doesn't respond to the criticisms leveled at him and his simplistic posts is that he cannot. His grasp of history is tenuous, the duality he spends post after post delving into doesn't exist in the reality of today's political life and there is no substantive debate in his responses, just anger that his words and ideas were rejected. I didn't dub him the Petulant Pontificator for nothing.

Referring Ticbeast to your website did not answer his question even though you think it did.

[Anti-Racism]

A liberal example would be the civil rights movement of the 50's and 60's - that solved the problem of racial segregation.


And has actually increased racial strife and problems.

[ticbeast]

Ticbeast: The quickest way I can do this, is to suggest you bring up my site, www.ClaysAmerica.com, which is all about defining the two sides. I understand both sides. The liberal side, as it is defined today (not classical liberalism), is the oldest, most experienced political philosophy, though applied under different names and leaders. Most people in this world are familiar only with what I would generally call the liberal side, again, under many different names and leaders. The American conservative side is unique to the world, and is difficult to accept by those not familiar with it, which includes many in America. Just read the numbered paragraphs and you should get the gist of it.


Thank you for responding, but what ECW said in his last post is correct. I was asking for a solid definition of both sides. I would like to make sure that you have the right idea of what liberalism is so that false critisisms don't surface. Many a heated arguement can be avoided if both sides are sure they are informed of the other's position.

[Buck Laser]

A liberal example would be the civil rights movement of the 50's and 60's - that solved the problem of racial segregation.


And has actually increased racial strife and problems.

This is truly ironic coming from you. Anyone who's actually observed what's happened in the US over the last five decades will realize that discriminatory laws and behaviors have changed radically. It requires a special kind of ideology to maintain that the integration of society increases strife.

That there are problems, no one denies--during that same 50 years, the population of the US has doubled, bringing the stresses and the behavior that inevitably occur in tightly packed areas. But by any traditional means of measuring discrimination or injustice will show that conditions are better today than they've been, at least in the time I've been around.

One rough-and-ready measure makes this perfectly clear: just look at the increasing frequency of social interactions among people of differing "races"--or the widespread acceptance of intermarriage, which was strictly proscribed by law in a great many states up until just a few years ago.

So what it comes down to is that "Anti-Racism" is promoting strife every way he can, even to the point of perpetrating outright lies about the effects of civil rights legislation. In my opinion, that puts him squarely in the ranks of the "professional" haters here, like December and Lasher.

[Scorpion]

I define liberal and conservsative in the simplest terms.

Conservatives address and solve the country's problems whereas liberals point out problems and lay blame.

That's just about as helpful as Clay's "republicans good, democrats bad" equation. I think you can do a good bit better than that. :sadly:


Your pretty much spot on in your understanding that liberals are a nemesis to sound political progress.

[Buck Laser]

I define liberal and conservsative in the simplest terms.

Conservatives address and solve the country's problems whereas liberals point out problems and lay blame.

That's just about as helpful as Clay's "republicans good, democrats bad" equation. I think you can do a good bit better than that. :sadly:


Your pretty much spot on in your understanding that liberals are a nemesis to sound political progress.

And you're not even trying to hod a discussion, are you. If you wanna go bash liberals (or anybody else), why don't you just go stand on some street corner somewhere?

[Scorpion]

I define liberal and conservsative in the simplest terms.

Conservatives address and solve the country's problems whereas liberals point out problems and lay blame.

That's just about as helpful as Clay's "republicans good, democrats bad" equation. I think you can do a good bit better than that. :sadly:


Your pretty much spot on in your understanding that liberals are a nemesis to sound political progress.

And you're not even trying to hod a discussion, are you. If you wanna go bash liberals (or anybody else), why don't you just go stand on some street corner somewhere?


Easy laddie. Don't get all silly buggers just because I see the liberal folly in the current political scene. My definition of liberal and conservative is a simple truth. I don't need to bash liberals since they're doing such a good job of embarassing themselves.

[Elrathin]

Your pretty much spot on in your understanding that liberals are a nemesis to sound political progress.


Really so conservatives are just perfect little angels right? :rolleyes:

It's all the liberals fault eh? And this folks is a perfect definition of what partisan is all about with conservatives.

[ECW]

I define liberal and conservsative in the simplest terms.

Conservatives address and solve the country's problems whereas liberals point out problems and lay blame.

That's just about as helpful as Clay's "republicans good, democrats bad" equation. I think you can do a good bit better than that. :sadly:


Your pretty much spot on in your understanding that liberals are a nemesis to sound political progress.


Conservatives are the antithesis of sound political progress. Every conservative I've seen wants to "go back to the way it was" in some illusional good old days. Progress is not in their lexicon. It appears that you and Clay have more in common than I first believed.

[I Like Beer]

Easy laddie. Don't get all silly buggers just because I see the liberal folly in the current political scene. My definition of liberal and conservative is a simple truth. I don't need to bash liberals since they're doing such a good job of embarassing themselves.

But you can't (or haven't) pointed to a problem that conservatives have addresses and solved (past tense).