Reticent Liberalism vs. Unabashed Liberalism

Page 2 of 5 [ 77 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next

Previous topic | Next topic

NeantHumain
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 24 Jun 2004
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,837
Location: St. Louis, Missouri

25 Aug 2010, 8:19 pm

Dox47 wrote:

NeantHumain wrote:

You know, I've often thought that Republicans could make themselves more appealing by dropping unnecessary, divisive, and often bigoted social stands and reign in their lust for privatizing absolutely everything and anything in sight.

Who are you talking to? Surely you know by now that I'm not a Republican, hell I'm not even conservative.....

I put right-libertarians in a similar camp to conservatives. Many right-libertarians are also socially conservative, but many of them are at least philosophically opposed to implementing those views through the law.

Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

25 Aug 2010, 9:26 pm

Dox47 wrote:

the threat of Democrat fueled zeal for government expansion.

If you think the Republicans are even slightly better than the Democrats in actually implementing "small government" policies, you have not been paying attention to reality at any point in the past fifty years.

_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

katzefrau
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Apr 2010
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,835
Location: emerald city

25 Aug 2010, 9:41 pm

bee33 wrote:

The underlying issue is that right-leaning ideology is supported by those who have all the power, because that's who it benefits -- corporations, the wealthy, the ruling class.

precisely.

i don't think it matters how loud anyone screams; big oil screams louder.

_________________
Now a penguin may look very strange in a living room, but a living room looks very strange to a penguin.

skafather84
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,848
Location: New Orleans, LA

26 Aug 2010, 1:26 am

Orwell wrote:

Dox47 wrote:

the threat of Democrat fueled zeal for government expansion.

But that's all on morality issues that Dox will never trespass on.

The problem is the "republican ballot" as it represents today sells more on Christian morality above the constitution and sacrifices that must be made in between for matters of national security are acceptable to most independents who regularly vote republican.
An individual's rights do not matter to the voting public.

Edit: god DAMNED that is an incoherent thought. But basically "conservatives" will sell out the rights of the individual for the sake of adhering to the "greater good" of the "moral" majority. I quote "moral" because they stand on no morals but rather abject speculation and nihilistic judgement with the intent that those who trespass on their moralities will fail on some level and will, thereby, justify their beliefs.

_________________
Wherever they burn books they will also, in the end, burn human beings. ~Heinrich Heine, Almansor, 1823

?I wouldn't recommend sex, drugs or insanity for everyone, but they've always worked for me.? - Hunter S. Thompson

Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,670
Location: Seattle-ish

26 Aug 2010, 5:33 am

For the last time people, I'm not a Republican, I'm not socially conservative, and the only "morals" I care about are the ones in my head (and they didn't come out of a boring old book). Historically, people holding my political views were the ones called liberals, the word has taken on it's present meaning only recently. It may be convenient for some members here to try to pigeon hole me as one thing or the other, but the fact is that I hold view that fall on both sides of the political divide, some farther from the center than others.

I came into this thread only to offer my advice about making "liberalism" more palatable to independent voters, not to hijack the thread with a pointless "point the finger" game about who's done what to whom lately. I'm not arguing with anybody about which mainstream party is worse; they both suck right now and any thinking person has to pick and choose individual candidates rather than rely on party affiliations.

To get back to my original point, as an independent who voted W in 2004 and Obama in 2008 and various ways in between, here are some of the negatives I think of when I hear the term "liberal"

Gun control
Smoking bans
NIMBY
Bigger government
Taxes
Nanny state (but I repeat myself)

Those are just off the top of my head, and don't change whether it's called liberalism, progressiveness, or Democratic. I can come up with a similar list for "conservative", and if someone cares to start a thread on that ideology that doesn't involve months of trolling in the guise of parody I'd be happy to provide that list.

On the positive side I think of:

Generally less religiously influenced (compared with conservative)
Less moralistic
More humanitarian
Anti-prison
More likely open minded (compared with conservative)

I won't lie, I had a harder time with the positives than the negatives, I put that down to living in a liberal town and being exposed to their faults day to day. Again, I'll happily provide an equivalent list for conservatives if someone starts an appropriate thread.

_________________
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.

- Rick Sanchez

Last edited by Dox47 on 26 Aug 2010, 11:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,670
Location: Seattle-ish

26 Aug 2010, 5:39 am

Orwell wrote:

Which is why I'm not a Republican. Would you object less if I phrased it as "liberal zeal for government expansion"?

_________________
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.

- Rick Sanchez

Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

26 Aug 2010, 7:58 am

Dox47 wrote:

To get back to my original point, as an independent who voted W in 2004 and Obama in 2008 and various ways in between, here are some of the negatives I think of when I here the term "liberal"
[*]Gun control

Fair enough.

Quote:

[*]Smoking bans

In public places where someone smoking has a definite negative health impact on the public at large? That seems completely legitimate to me.

Quote:

[*]NIMBY

Yeah, lots of libs are guilty of that.

Quote:

[*]Bigger government

But you're factually wrong on that one.

Quote:

[*]Taxes

And on that one. Taxes are lower under Obama than they were under Reagan.

Quote:

[*]Nanny state (but I repeat myself)

I'm not sure exactly what is meant by "nanny state."

_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

skafather84
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,848
Location: New Orleans, LA

26 Aug 2010, 9:51 am

Dox47 wrote:

For the last time people, I'm not a Republican,

What I meant was that the moral issue thing that most republicans go for doesn't apply for you. It probably didn't help that I used trespass twice.

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

26 Aug 2010, 10:56 am

Orwell wrote:

Dox47 wrote:

Quote:

[*]Nanny state (but I repeat myself)

I'm not sure exactly what is meant by "nanny state."

Lots of welfare "benefits" and redistribution of income.

ruveyn

skafather84
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,848
Location: New Orleans, LA

26 Aug 2010, 11:04 am

ruveyn wrote:

Orwell wrote:

Dox47 wrote:

Quote:

[*]Nanny state (but I repeat myself)

I'm not sure exactly what is meant by "nanny state."

Lots of welfare "benefits" and redistribution of income.

ruveyn

That's a welfare state. A nanny state is one that acts with the superficial intent of protecting the citizens from their own actions via either taxes (sin taxes are popular) or an outright ban.

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

26 Aug 2010, 11:10 am

skafather84 wrote:

ruveyn wrote:

Orwell wrote:

Dox47 wrote:

Quote:

[*]Nanny state (but I repeat myself)

I'm not sure exactly what is meant by "nanny state."

Lots of welfare "benefits" and redistribution of income.

ruveyn

That's a welfare state. A nanny state is one that acts with the superficial intent of protecting the citizens from their own actions via either taxes (sin taxes are popular) or an outright ban.

Point taken. In the Nanny State smoking is prohibited or restricted and throwing gum wrappers on the ground is severely punished.

ruveyn

skafather84
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,848
Location: New Orleans, LA

26 Aug 2010, 11:18 am

ruveyn wrote:

skafather84 wrote:

ruveyn wrote:

Orwell wrote:

Dox47 wrote:

Quote:

[*]Nanny state (but I repeat myself)

I'm not sure exactly what is meant by "nanny state."

Lots of welfare "benefits" and redistribution of income.

ruveyn

That's a welfare state. A nanny state is one that acts with the superficial intent of protecting the citizens from their own actions via either taxes (sin taxes are popular) or an outright ban.

Point taken. In the Nanny State smoking is prohibited or restricted and throwing gum wrappers on the ground is severely punished.

ruveyn

Yes...I neglected the ever-popular super-expensive fine.

Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

26 Aug 2010, 12:12 pm

ruveyn wrote:

skafather84 wrote:

ruveyn wrote:

Orwell wrote:

Quote:

[*]Nanny state (but I repeat myself)

I'm not sure exactly what is meant by "nanny state."

Lots of welfare "benefits" and redistribution of income.

ruveyn

That's a welfare state. A nanny state is one that acts with the superficial intent of protecting the citizens from their own actions via either taxes (sin taxes are popular) or an outright ban.

Point taken. In the Nanny State smoking is prohibited or restricted and throwing gum wrappers on the ground is severely punished.

ruveyn

Prohibitions against littering are a "Nanny state?" That doesn't seem worthy of the seething hatred I often see expressed toward a "Nanny state." Clean up after yourself, don't leave garbage or toxic gas in public places. That seems a reasonable enough requirement, unless you believe the world is your trash can/ashtray.

_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

26 Aug 2010, 2:01 pm

Orwell wrote:

In the Nanny State smoking is not prohibited to prevent damage to others, it is there to prevent self damage. Like wearing seat belts. Wearing a seat belt in a car holding only the driver will not prevent injury to second and third parties, only to the first party.

The thrust of the Nanny State is to put the state in the position of a parent who protects a child incompetent to look after its own interests. In short the Nanny State regards its citizens (or more correctly its wards and subjects) as children to be guarded against harming themselves.

ruveyn

skafather84
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,848
Location: New Orleans, LA

26 Aug 2010, 2:03 pm

ruveyn wrote:

Wearing a seat belt in a car holding only the driver will not prevent injury to second and third parties, only to the first party.

Actually it allows the driver better control over his car because they're more secure in their seat.

Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

26 Aug 2010, 2:22 pm

ruveyn wrote:

Ah. From that perspective, yes I oppose the Nanny State. Bike helmet laws, seatbelt laws, etc are silly and futile. But are the Democrats/liberals Nanny Staters? The left seems more interested than the right in legalizing pot, for instance, while marijuana prohibition seems like a fairly quintessential Nanny State policy.

_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

Page 2 of 5 [ 77 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next

Jump to:

Reticent Liberalism vs. Unabashed Liberalism Post Reply New Topic

Reticent Liberalism vs. Unabashed Liberalism