Liberals can't defend America

POSTED BY: Hero
UPDATED: Saturday, July 15, 2006 16:08
VIEWED: 13702
PAGE 10 of 11

PREV PAGE 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 NEXT PAGE

EXODUS

Friday, July 7, 2006 7:51 PM

Being a Moderate does not necessarily mean you are unbiased. It could mean that your conservative ethics and your liberal ethics balance out making you a person in the middle (as are mine when it comes to politics).

CITIZEN

Friday, July 7, 2006 7:56 PM

Having a couple of socialist political views thrown in with your Conservative ideology doesn't make you a moderate.

For a moderate you sound a hell of a lot like a conservative.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

SOUPCATCHER

Friday, July 7, 2006 9:23 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Exodus:
I never stated I was accurate, I stated Hero was accurate. That being said who is to say that your conservative/liberal accuracy is better than mine? I know a lot about both sides and I think I can determine which is which with 99% accuracy. Anyways, here is my list.

-Citizen
-SergeantX
-Fremdfirma
-Soupcatcher

There were some others who made liberal comments but I do not deem them liberal because at the same time they made some conservative comments as well.

Your claim to accuracy was in making the claim that someone else was accurate. Else how to judge? 99% accuracy? Well, you're right about me. Citizen is from the UK where liberal means something different than here in the states. SergeantX is a libertarian. Fremdfirma is an anarchist. At least, I'm pretty sure on the last two, but I've been wrong before. So according to my calculations you're at 25% accuracy. So you're either an okay baseball hitter or a lousy student. In either case you're nowhere near 99%.

Quote:
Quote:
Some more questions. Which Senators and Congressmen (or Congresswomen) are liberals? What are some standard liberal policies?

Beats me, I'm not American.

So you can't identify prominent liberals. You can't identify liberal policies. You can't even identify who here self-identifies as liberal. And we're supposed to accept your judgement that someone is accurate in identifying who is or isn't a liberal? I'm not buying it.

Quote:
Quote:
The reason why I ask these questions is because I have often found people use liberal as a very broad category. Many people consider Democrats as liberals. Maybe yes, maybe no. Many people consider anyone who doesn't agree with President Bush a liberal. Maybe yes, maybe no.

I sometimes disagree with Bush yet I still affiliate myself with conservatism. Does that make me a liberal?

To some people, yes. To me, no.

SERGEANTX

Friday, July 7, 2006 9:43 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
Quote:
Originally posted by Exodus:
I never stated I was accurate, I stated Hero was accurate. That being said who is to say that your conservative/liberal accuracy is better than mine? I know a lot about both sides and I think I can determine which is which with 99% accuracy. Anyways, here is my list.

-Citizen
-SergeantX
-Fremdfirma
-Soupcatcher

There were some others who made liberal comments but I do not deem them liberal because at the same time they made some conservative comments as well.

Your claim to accuracy was in making the claim that someone else was accurate. Else how to judge? 99% accuracy? Well, you're right about me. Citizen is from the UK where liberal means something different than here in the states. SergeantX is a libertarian. Fremdfirma is an anarchist. At least, I'm pretty sure on the last two, but I've been wrong before. So according to my calculations you're at 25% accuracy. So you're either an okay baseball hitter or a lousy student. In either case you're nowhere near 99%.

This is a great illustration of how meaningless the terms have become. SoupCatcher is pretty accurate about my ideological leanings. I'm currently a small 'l' libertarian (no longer affiliated with the official party), but I'm usually tagged as either a right-wing nut job, or a starry-eyed hippie. Just depends on who I'm talking to and the context.

The labels have changed over time as well. By the standards of 'presidential candidate' Reagan, GW is a classic, big-government, nation-building, tax-and-spend liberal. By the standards of sixties liberals, Clinton was a corporate stooge. It's all relative, and relatively silly. The level of duplicity and political strategizing seen at the top levels of government sort of make ideologies moot. They're little more than marketing.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

EXODUS

Friday, July 7, 2006 10:35 PM

Quote:
Your claim to accuracy was in making the claim that someone else was accurate. Else how to judge? 99% accuracy? Well, you're right about me. Citizen is from the UK where liberal means something different than here in the states. SergeantX is a libertarian. Fremdfirma is an anarchist. At least, I'm pretty sure on the last two, but I've been wrong before. So according to my calculations you're at 25% accuracy. So you're either an okay baseball hitter or a lousy student. In either case you're nowhere near 99%.

You clearly have never studied Political Sciences (or never paid attention in class at the least).

Liberal: Showing or characterized by broad-mindedness; "a broad political stance"; "generous and broad sympathies".

Note the words broad and tolerant in there. Regardless if Citizen is from the UK or not, he still has liberal ideology since ideology is fairly universal (more so in the UK since they are more liberal there than in the US). Now I am at 50%. SergeantX is a Libertarian. According to what I learned in English class, that word's history has something to do with liberalism. Let me pull up a definition.

Libertarian: Someone who believes in the doctrine of free will.

Sounds pretty liberal to me, 75% now. Allow me to keep going. Anarchism is considered a liberal ideology as it is part of the "broadness" in the above definition. If you study political science you will learn about the political scale of left and right. Anarchism is on the far left of the scale therefore making it a liberal practice. I think it is safe to say I am at 100% accuracy right now.

I know there will be some comments trying to rebuttle my post or trying to flame me but either way, I am just showing you what I have learned in two semesters worth of Political Science. I am not trying to really argue anyone here, just trying to clarify things up for both sides before you continue arguing with eachother.

CITIZEN

Friday, July 7, 2006 11:07 PM

Quote:
I know there will be some comments trying to rebuttle my post or trying to flame me but either way, I am just showing you what I have learned in two semesters worth of Political Science. I am not trying to really argue anyone here, just trying to clarify things up for both sides before you continue arguing with eachother.

No you're changing definitions of words because the accepted definitions don't suit your purposes.

Carry on with your oh so great knowledge of political science all you want, Libertarian doesn't equal Liberal, Liberal is a greatly different term in the UK than it is in the US and you don't need two semesters of political science to work that out.

Anarchy is a Liberal ideology? Firstly isn't it the right-wing that's supposed to like small government? You don't get much smaller than Anarchy. So is Communism a Liberal ideology? By your reasoning that must make Fascism a Conservative ideology.

You obviously misunderstood this part of the course: Left and Right, not Liberal and Conservative

.

Oh just wondering you say I'm a Liberal because I have 'a Liberal ideology' but you know little of my political leanings, where as you have a Conservative ideology which makes you a Moderate, how does that work exactly?

Obviously you didn't understand what you learnt during those two semesters, or you're convienently misrepresenting it.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

SERGEANTX

Friday, July 7, 2006 11:37 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Exodus:
I know there will be some comments trying to rebuttle my post or trying to flame me but either way, I am just showing you what I have learned in two semesters worth of Political Science. I am not trying to really argue anyone here, just trying to clarify things up for both sides before you continue arguing with eachother.

Thanks for clarifying things up. I won't rebuttal your post, as you've made it very clear where you stand.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

EXODUS

Friday, July 7, 2006 11:47 PM

Quote:
No you're changing definitions of words because the accepted definitions don't suit your purposes.

Or I got them from online dictionaries and the definitions are quite contrary to what you thought.

Quote:
Carry on with your oh so great knowledge of political science all you want, Libertarian doesn't equal Liberal, Liberal is a greatly different term in the UK than it is in the US and you don't need two semesters of political science to work that out.

Did you even read what I posted or did you just read the first two sentences? The doctrine of "free will" is a liberal idea. It means you can do whatever you want without any restrictions. How can anything get much more liberal than that?! Also, if you read carefully, I stated that the UK's and the US' idea of liberalism are different (with the UK being generally more liberal than the US for the most part).

Quote:
Anarchy is a Liberal ideology? Firstly isn't it the right-wing that's supposed to like small government? You don't get much smaller than Anarchy. So is Communism a Liberal ideology? By your reasoning that must make Fascism a Conservative ideology.

Let me put it into retrospect for you. Imagine the Republican Party Of America and the the punk-rock group Antiflag. They are the total opposite of eachother so how would they both be conservative?

Quote:
You obviously misunderstood this part of the course: Left and Right, not Liberal and Conservative.

Right = Conservative views.
Left = Liberal views.

Disagree? Go take it up with your local University.

Quote:
Oh just wondering you say I'm a Liberal because I have 'a Liberal ideology' but you know little of my political leanings, where as you have a Conservative ideology which makes you a Moderate, how does that work exactly?

I have read enough of your statements to know that you are a liberal. Also, if you read my earlier posts, you would know why I deemed myself a Conservative/Moderate. Since you probably won't go to revisit my post I will just state it again. Ideologically I am a conservative. I am religious, I am quite introverted, I enjoy intellectual studies, and I like watching appropriate movies. I called myself a moderate as well because I am a Socialist for the most part. I believe in the classes, but less separation between them and less of a broad class-system if you know what I mean (tell me in your next post if you do not understand I will further clarify).

Quote:
Obviously you didn't understand what you learnt during those two semesters, or you're convienently misrepresenting it.

A 91% and a 90% final grades can speak for themselves.

SOUPCATCHER

Friday, July 7, 2006 11:55 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
This is a great illustration of how meaningless the terms have become. SoupCatcher is pretty accurate about my ideological leanings. I'm currently a small 'l' libertarian (no longer affiliated with the official party), but I'm usually tagged as either a right-wing nut job, or a starry-eyed hippie. Just depends on who I'm talking to and the context.

The labels have changed over time as well. By the standards of 'presidential candidate' Reagan, GW is a classic, big-government, nation-building, tax-and-spend liberal. By the standards of sixties liberals, Clinton was a corporate stooge. It's all relative, and relatively silly. The level of duplicity and political strategizing seen at the top levels of government sort of make ideologies moot. They're little more than marketing.

SergeantX

I definitely agree that the terms have lost their meaning when we use them to label others. However, I think there is still meaning when they are used as self-identification. It's kind of what I was getting at by asking Exodus to label who he or she thought were liberals. When someone says that they are ideologically liberal I have a decent idea of the types of policies they support. When someone labels another person as a liberal I have no clue about the types of policies they support.

EXODUS

Saturday, July 8, 2006 12:01 AM

Quote:
I definitely agree that the terms have lost their meaning when we use them to label others. However, I think there is still meaning when they are used as self-identification. It's kind of what I was getting at by asking Exodus to label who he or she thought were liberals. When someone says that they are ideologically liberal I have a decent idea of the types of policies they support. When someone labels another person as a liberal I have no clue about the types of policies they support.

I agree as well that the terms have lost their meanings (as I have stated in an earlier post) but they are essential for finding out what kind of person someone is. It is also essential in politics since politics is pretty much about the never-ending struggle between right and left. In the end, liberalism is still broad as it pretty much occupies anyone who is not conservative, regardless of their ideology stance. This is why I believe that the political scale is in need of a major revamp in order to get more accurate results from it (and as we can see in this thread, the political scale is not that accurate anymore).

PREV PAGE 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 NEXT PAGE