O B A M A

[spence]

Originally Posted by Cool Beans

I've always been curious about this one, "who are the hero's of liberalism?"....

I don't know...FDR seems to be highly regarded.

But the numbers of people who would consider themselves a "liberal" is really very small in this country, perhaps well under 20%.

What's interesting is that typically 50+% of people will consider themselves to be "conservative". Does this mean that there are more conservatives? Not really...everything from evangelicals to libertarians are lumped together as "conservatives" even though they often share few values.

The words liberal and conservative are just ends of a spectrum. To apply them to real people isn't ever going to provide a realistic picture of what one believes.

-spence

[Cool Beans]

and FDR is famous for what? taking a managable recession into a deep depression and dragging it out with huge government programs, and increased government spending. I believe a Reagan type approach in the time of FDR would have kept it a recession and never would have been a great depression.

There is pride in private sector success, which increases productivity. Depending on Uncle Sam to bail us all out, is silly. We need to knuckle down and work harder and if we fail, we get back up, and try again... Each time we fail, we learn and improve ourselves.
Failure is one of the steps we take on the road to success, few hit a home run their first time at bat.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Cool Beans

and FDR is famous for what?

You must have been sleeping through history class. You're not serious are you?

taking a managable recession into a deep depression and dragging it out with huge government programs, and increased government spending. I believe a Reagan type approach in the time of FDR would have kept it a recession and never would have been a great depression.

It's funny how most (not all I agree, but most) have given praise to FDR for his handeling of the Depression for the past 50 years, yet it's not until we have another liberal President and a bad recession that had Reagan been in charge things would have cleaned themselves up right quick!

Sounds like revisionist history to me.

There is pride in private sector success, which increases productivity. Depending on Uncle Sam to bail us all out, is silly. We need to knuckle down and work harder and if we fail, we get back up, and try again... Each time we fail, we learn and improve ourselves.
Failure is one of the steps we take on the road to success, few hit a home run their first time at bat.

There's nothing in this statement that anyone, regardless of party of idiology is going to disagree with.

-spence

[Cool Beans]

Originally Posted by spence

There's nothing in this statement that anyone, regardless of party of idiology is going to disagree with.

-spence

So why did the Bail Out Bill get passed? Most Americans opposed yet, the All Knowing, All Caring Obama and a Democrat Congress and Senate passed the stupid thing.

When we were already in over our head in debt, we take out a huge loan, so we can make it all better. Kinda like getting 5 new credit cards, because your Sears card is maxed out...

I just get frustrated with the way most in government think. If we ran our household like that, we'd go bankrupt and lose the house and the boat........

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by Cool Beans

When we were already in over our head in debt, we take out a huge loan, so we can make it all better.
Kinda like getting 5 new credit cards, because your Sears card is maxed out...

Ya, forget about finding ways to cut your budget first, just spend your way out of debt.

Economics 101.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Cool Beans

I just get frustrated with the way most in government think. If we ran our household like that, we'd go bankrupt and lose the house and the boat........

There are plenty of fiscal conservatives in both parties, they are just not very influential or spineless.

-spence

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by spence

The words liberal and conservative are just ends of a spectrum. To apply them to real people isn't ever going to provide a realistic picture of what one believes.

-spence

Don't tell a Republican that though. To them, a liberal is any person who even slightly disagrees with them.

The word Conservative is a neutral term - neither insulting or complimenting. However, the Republican based has successfully coined the word liberal to be an insult, and as such, they throw it around every chance they can get.

Just watch any commentary on FoxNews, or any post on here by buckman.

The breadth of ignorance does amuse me though.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

Don't tell a Republican that though. To them, a liberal is any person who even slightly disagrees with them.

The word Conservative is a neutral term - neither insulting or complimenting. However, the Republican based has successfully coined the word liberal to be an insult, and as such, they throw it around every chance they can get.

Just watch any commentary on FoxNews, or any post on here by buckman.

The breadth of ignorance does amuse me though.

Is an "extreme conservative" extremely neutral?

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Is an "extreme conservative" extremely neutral?

Nope, neither is a true liberal or a conservative or a democrat or a republican.

I don't see your point.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

Nope, neither is a true liberal or a conservative or a democrat or a republican.

I don't see your point.

My point is that you had previously used the phrase Extreme Conservatives in a negative context in your Marijuana thread--gratuistously tying them to "law enforcement" and against Marijuana decriminalization, against what you say is their "founding principle" of "less government, less regulation." Does the latter refer to the Founding Fathers and is that really their founding principle? Now, in this thread you claim that Conservative is a neutral term and that Liberal is used by Republicans as an insult. Actually, Conservative IS often used as a pejorative--as in Neo-Con, as in this quote in a major newspaper: "the Bush presidency destroyed the Republican Party and turned Conservative into a pejorative" . . . as in Helen Thomas on George Bush speaking with a disapproving frown "his CONSERVATIVE views on everything" and what else should a reporter be but a Liberal? and implying that conservatives are not thinking or caring people--which is a widely held view of liberals.

But your view, on the other hand, is that Conservative is a neutral term. So, is Extreme Conservative an extremely neutral term, or does it reveal what you really feel about conservatives when you use the word?

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by detbuch

My point is that you had previously used the phrase Extreme Conservatives in a negative context in your Marijuana thread--gratuistously tying them to "law enforcement" and against Marijuana decriminalization, against what you say is their "founding principle" of "less government, less regulation." Does the latter refer to the Founding Fathers and is that really their founding principle? Now, in this thread you claim that Conservative is a neutral term and that Liberal is used by Republicans as an insult. Actually, Conservative IS often used as a pejorative--as in Neo-Con, as in this quote in a major newspaper: "the Bush presidency destroyed the Republican Party and turned Conservative into a pejorative" . . . as in Helen Thomas on George Bush speaking with a disapproving frown "his CONSERVATIVE views on everything" and what else should a reporter be but a Liberal? and implying that conservatives are not thinking or caring people--which is a widely held view of liberals.

But your view, on the other hand, is that Conservative is a neutral term. So, is Extreme Conservative an extremely neutral term, or does it reveal what you really feel about conservatives when you use the word?

When I stated "Conservative" is a neutral term, "neutral" was not intended to mean "politically neutral." It was meant to mean, "Neither insulting nor complimenting."

In general political discussion, be it on the news, in the print or watching Congress on CSPAN, the word "liberal" is thrown around by Republicans to mean "Any person that leans even slightly to the left and disagrees with my opinion." Also, because of the context the word "liberal" has been used in for so long, it has taken on a derogatory connotation. On the other hand, use of the word "Conservative" does not take on the same connotation.

When I talk about "Extreme Conservatives," I'm referencing people on the absolute end of the Right-Wing political spectrum. Of the Law Enforcement Officers that I am friends with or have met, a large percentage of them fit in the "Absolute end of the Right-Wing political spectrum" category.

None of it has anything to do with the Founding Fathers. It has to do with the Founding Principle of the Republican/Conservative Party - the principle of less government is always better than more regulation.

I do find it a bit silly that you're harping on 6 words that I put in a parenthesis.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

When I stated "Conservative" is a neutral term, "neutral" was not intended to mean "politically neutral." It was meant to mean, "Neither insulting nor complimenting."

In general political discussion, be it on the news, in the print or watching Congress on CSPAN, the word "liberal" is thrown around by Republicans to mean "Any person that leans even slightly to the left and disagrees with my opinion." Also, because of the context the word "liberal" has been used in for so long, it has taken on a derogatory connotation. On the other hand, use of the word "Conservative" does not take on the same connotation.

When I talk about "Extreme Conservatives," I'm referencing people on the absolute end of the Right-Wing political spectrum. Of the Law Enforcement Officers that I am friends with or have met, a large percentage of them fit in the "Absolute end of the Right-Wing political spectrum" category.

None of it has anything to do with the Founding Fathers. It has to do with the Founding Principle of the Republican/Conservative Party - the principle of less government is always better than more regulation.

I do find it a bit silly that you're harping on 6 words that I put in a parenthesis.

Neither was I speaking about "politcally neutral". I also mean pejorative.

I don't see what is pejorative about saying a liberal is any person that leans to the left (even slightly) and disagrees with my position. It sounds like a personal definition/description of positions from a given point of view. BTW, how do you know what Republicans "mean"? Is that a direct quote from some Republican lexicon or one you made up? And left of what? Would it be derogatory if a Democrat said"a conservative is someone that leans (even slightly) to the right of my position and disagrees with my position? Or would that just be a discription? The idea that Republicans/Conservatives use the word liberal strictly as a pejorative and never as a descriptive, and that, conversely, Democrats/liberals always use the word Conservative as a neutral description and never a pejorative is ridiculous. Conservative has OFTEN been used as a put-down.

And the founding principle of the "Republican/Conservative" party was not "less government is always better than more regulation." The Republican Party was founded in opposition to slavery. The name was supposed to reflect the idea of a Republic dependant on civic virtues and "the people" as opposed to the upper class.

And I "HARP?" not on six words but your demeaning tone when referring to "Republicans/Conservatives" while pretending to be semantically neutral.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

But your view, on the other hand, is that Conservative is a neutral term. So, is Extreme Conservative an extremely neutral term, or does it reveal what you really feel about conservatives when you use the word?

No, extreme is often seen as a negative in any political arena and as such is a perfectly acceptable modifier.

People often describe religion in a similar way. There may be no issue with evangelicals, but a fundamentalist evangelical could be seen as a negative.

JohnnyD brings up a good point and one that I've made many times.

The word Liberal is used quite liberally by some to denote a common set of beliefs that most people don't really completely associate with. I've seen numbers that show only about 15% of Americans would even consider themselves a "liberal" while 50% would consider themselves "conservative".

You rarely hear people making generalizations about conservatives all being warmongers for instance, yet if the Liberal label is used the person is assumed to be a pacifistic. Usually there's some modifier put on the conservative, evangelical conservative, isolationist conservative, neo-conservative, libertarian conservative, Goldwater conservative etc... so someone actually know which of the conservative flavors you're really talking about.

Neo-con is another label that applies to a very small number of people, and it's mostly seen as a negative due to the recent policy blunders their leadership helped to create. Otherwise most people wouldn't even know what one was.

To say that neo-con is using conservative as a perjorative isn't really in the same spirit, in that it's just a way to call out liberal values held by someone who pretends to be a conservative, and not placing a negative on what most would consider mainstream conservative values.

It is interesting though how so many who would consider themselves conservatives readily embrace neo-con principals when they think they are conservative principals. Not all conservatives do this of course, but a lot of people I've known have.

It just goes to reinforce the notion that labels only apply to the extremes and most all of us live somewhere in the middle.

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

No, extreme is often seen as a negative in any political arena and as such is a perfectly acceptable modifier.

People often describe religion in a similar way. There may be no issue with evangelicals, but a fundamentalist evangelical could be seen as a negative.

JohnnyD brings up a good point and one that I've made many times.

The word Liberal is used quite liberally by some to denote a common set of beliefs that most people don't really completely associate with. I've seen numbers that show only about 15% of Americans would even consider themselves a "liberal" while 50% would consider themselves "conservative".

You rarely hear people making generalizations about conservatives all being warmongers for instance, yet if the Liberal label is used the person is assumed to be a pacifistic. Usually there's some modifier put on the conservative, evangelical conservative, isolationist conservative, neo-conservative, libertarian conservative, Goldwater conservative etc... so someone actually know which of the conservative flavors you're really talking about.

Neo-con is another label that applies to a very small number of people, and it's mostly seen as a negative due to the recent policy blunders their leadership helped to create. Otherwise most people wouldn't even know what one was.

To say that neo-con is using conservative as a perjorative isn't really in the same spirit, in that it's just a way to call out liberal values held by someone who pretends to be a conservative, and not placing a negative on what most would consider mainstream conservative values.

It is interesting though how so many who would consider themselves conservatives readily embrace neo-con principals when they think they are conservative principals. Not all conservatives do this of course, but a lot of people I've known have.

It just goes to reinforce the notion that labels only apply to the extremes and most all of us live somewhere in the middle.

-spence

Indeed, since Iraq, I've heard many people making generalizations about Conservatives being warmongers, especially when, as Johnny does, using Conservative and Republican interchangeably. Slick trick.

And isn't it amazing that your 5 different qualified conservatives, etc., and Johnny's Extreme Conservatives, are a way to dissect the simple, supposedly "neutral" Conservative into whatever portion of conservatism you don't like and use the Qualified, Modified, Conservative as a pejorative so as to leave the sacred simple Conservative unsullied and still "neutral"? Another slick trick. AND TOTAL NONSENSE. It's all a pejorative use of Conservative and it is as constantly, if not more, used to denigrate Conservatives as Liberal is used to denigrate.

[buckman]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

Don't tell a Republican that though. To them, a liberal is any person who even slightly disagrees with them.

.

That is dead wrong, again JD. You liberal you