Page 3 of 3 [ 45 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3

Yupa
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 May 2005
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,520
Location: Florida

12 Feb 2012, 10:24 pm

There are liberals (definbition 1), liberals (definition 2) and liberals (definition 3)

I am a liberal (in one context of the word "liberal") in that I believe in the importance of intergovernmental organizations. I am also socially liberal (in a completely different context of the word "liberal") in that I believe that marijuana should be legalized, prostitution should be legalized, and abortion is a right.



Mummy_of_Peanut
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Feb 2011
Age: 47
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,564
Location: Bonnie Scotland

13 Feb 2012, 10:41 am

In recent times I've become very confused about the whole thing, but it's not me at fault, it's the party leaders who've changed the whole ethos of their parties. In the UK, we basically had 3 main parties (plus some others and ones that are specific to certain parts of the UK, e.g. SNP, PC, SF). I was a traditional Labour supporter. It was always a socialist party, for the masses, linked to the Unions. So, I voted for them at the time when Labour finally go into power, after 18years under the Tories (Conservative). But, much to my dismay, this party was not Labour, it was New Labour and history has spoken for itself about that.

As I got a bit older, I realised my politics were really liberal/democratic and Labour was no longer what it was. So I became a supporter of the Liberal Democrats. Their policies (except a few) spoke to me and I adored some of their leaders, especially Charles Kennedy. But, they got rid of him, amidst a cloud of alcholism claims and we eventually ended up with Nick Clegg. I voted for them at the last election, only to find them going into cahoots with the Tories (whom I despise and equate them with demons, the 'I'm alright Jack' party who care about no-one but themselves and other rich folk). The LibDems have done nothing to temper the Tory policies and I'm one of the millions of angry Libdem voters who will never vote for them again, unless things change drastically.

So, now I'm a little bit lost. My way of thinking about how things should be has not changed, just the parties.


_________________
"We act as though comfort and luxury were the chief requirements of life, when all we need to make us really happy is something to be enthusiatic about." Charles Kingsley


misswoofalot
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 42
Gender: Female
Posts: 670
Location: London

13 Feb 2012, 12:09 pm

Mummy_of_Peanut wrote:
In recent times I've become very confused about the whole thing, but it's not me at fault, it's the party leaders who've changed the whole ethos of their parties. In the UK, we basically had 3 main parties (plus some others and ones that are specific to certain parts of the UK, e.g. SNP, PC, SF). I was a traditional Labour supporter. It was always a socialist party, for the masses, linked to the Unions. So, I voted for them at the time when Labour finally go into power, after 18years under the Tories (Conservative). But, much to my dismay, this party was not Labour, it was New Labour and history has spoken for itself about that.

As I got a bit older, I realised my politics were really liberal/democratic and Labour was no longer what it was. So I became a supporter of the Liberal Democrats. Their policies (except a few) spoke to me and I adored some of their leaders, especially Charles Kennedy. But, they got rid of him, amidst a cloud of alcholism claims and we eventually ended up with Nick Clegg. I voted for them at the last election, only to find them going into cahoots with the Tories (whom I despise and equate them with demons, the 'I'm alright Jack' party who care about no-one but themselves and other rich folk). The LibDems have done nothing to temper the Tory policies and I'm one of the millions of angry Libdem voters who will never vote for them again, unless things change drastically.

So, now I'm a little bit lost. My way of thinking about how things should be has not changed, just the parties.



This could have been me writing this, my views are so similar to the above.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 83
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

13 Feb 2012, 1:40 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
As far as I'm concerned, the notion that liberals are anti-religion is propaganda invented by Republicans to get the vote of evangelicals by demonizing the left. After all, the leftists who led the Civil Rights movement were in many cases black ministers, who had organized resistance to segregation in their churches. But because Democrats believe that civil rights should be extended to homosexuals, and have allowed atheists into their ranks is used by the right to make their case. Republicans have created this myth that true Christians have to sanctimoniously drone on about their faith and their personal virtues, all the while pointing an accusing finger at everyone else who doesn't fit their definition of a true Christian. If anything, by their affiliation with the political right, the religious right has lost touch with Christ's true message.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


The Liberal agenda as we know it today is the lineal descending of Progressive-ism a movement that group up in the latter part of the 19 th century. Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson were rival Progressive. They viewed their program as practical muscular Christianity. The Word made Flesh so to speak. To originally the Progressive movement invoked a religious justification for equalizing the unjust inequalities in the society. In a word, there is nothing inherently anti-Christian in Progressive thinking. It is a practical way (so it is thought) of making Christianity actually happen. Unfortunately the side effects of government trying to make people Good far outweigh the benefits so Progressive-ism is by and large a failure. But it is not a failure because of being contrary to Christianity. It is a failure because it cannot cope with Original Sin. It comes down to this: in a pinch who are you going to feed (if you had to make the choice) your kid or your neighbor's kid? Do you see what the problem is?

ruveyn



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 40,951
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

13 Feb 2012, 3:38 pm

ruveyn wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
As far as I'm concerned, the notion that liberals are anti-religion is propaganda invented by Republicans to get the vote of evangelicals by demonizing the left. After all, the leftists who led the Civil Rights movement were in many cases black ministers, who had organized resistance to segregation in their churches. But because Democrats believe that civil rights should be extended to homosexuals, and have allowed atheists into their ranks is used by the right to make their case. Republicans have created this myth that true Christians have to sanctimoniously drone on about their faith and their personal virtues, all the while pointing an accusing finger at everyone else who doesn't fit their definition of a true Christian. If anything, by their affiliation with the political right, the religious right has lost touch with Christ's true message.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


The Liberal agenda as we know it today is the lineal descending of Progressive-ism a movement that group up in the latter part of the 19 th century. Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson were rival Progressive. They viewed their program as practical muscular Christianity. The Word made Flesh so to speak. To originally the Progressive movement invoked a religious justification for equalizing the unjust inequalities in the society. In a word, there is nothing inherently anti-Christian in Progressive thinking. It is a practical way (so it is thought) of making Christianity actually happen. Unfortunately the side effects of government trying to make people Good far outweigh the benefits so Progressive-ism is by and large a failure. But it is not a failure because of being contrary to Christianity. It is a failure because it cannot cope with Original Sin. It comes down to this: in a pinch who are you going to feed (if you had to make the choice) your kid or your neighbor's kid? Do you see what the problem is?

ruveyn


Well, can I feed both?

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 44
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

14 Feb 2012, 1:43 am

Kraichgauer wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
As far as I'm concerned, the notion that liberals are anti-religion is propaganda invented by Republicans to get the vote of evangelicals by demonizing the left. After all, the leftists who led the Civil Rights movement were in many cases black ministers, who had organized resistance to segregation in their churches. But because Democrats believe that civil rights should be extended to homosexuals, and have allowed atheists into their ranks is used by the right to make their case. Republicans have created this myth that true Christians have to sanctimoniously drone on about their faith and their personal virtues, all the while pointing an accusing finger at everyone else who doesn't fit their definition of a true Christian. If anything, by their affiliation with the political right, the religious right has lost touch with Christ's true message.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


The Liberal agenda as we know it today is the lineal descending of Progressive-ism a movement that group up in the latter part of the 19 th century. Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson were rival Progressive. They viewed their program as practical muscular Christianity. The Word made Flesh so to speak. To originally the Progressive movement invoked a religious justification for equalizing the unjust inequalities in the society. In a word, there is nothing inherently anti-Christian in Progressive thinking. It is a practical way (so it is thought) of making Christianity actually happen. Unfortunately the side effects of government trying to make people Good far outweigh the benefits so Progressive-ism is by and large a failure. But it is not a failure because of being contrary to Christianity. It is a failure because it cannot cope with Original Sin. It comes down to this: in a pinch who are you going to feed (if you had to make the choice) your kid or your neighbor's kid? Do you see what the problem is?

ruveyn


Well, can I feed both?

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

In a country with one of the biggest bread baskets in the world, one would hope so. And not just with cola, fries, and twinkies.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 40,951
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

14 Feb 2012, 1:51 am

LKL wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
As far as I'm concerned, the notion that liberals are anti-religion is propaganda invented by Republicans to get the vote of evangelicals by demonizing the left. After all, the leftists who led the Civil Rights movement were in many cases black ministers, who had organized resistance to segregation in their churches. But because Democrats believe that civil rights should be extended to homosexuals, and have allowed atheists into their ranks is used by the right to make their case. Republicans have created this myth that true Christians have to sanctimoniously drone on about their faith and their personal virtues, all the while pointing an accusing finger at everyone else who doesn't fit their definition of a true Christian. If anything, by their affiliation with the political right, the religious right has lost touch with Christ's true message.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


The Liberal agenda as we know it today is the lineal descending of Progressive-ism a movement that group up in the latter part of the 19 th century. Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson were rival Progressive. They viewed their program as practical muscular Christianity. The Word made Flesh so to speak. To originally the Progressive movement invoked a religious justification for equalizing the unjust inequalities in the society. In a word, there is nothing inherently anti-Christian in Progressive thinking. It is a practical way (so it is thought) of making Christianity actually happen. Unfortunately the side effects of government trying to make people Good far outweigh the benefits so Progressive-ism is by and large a failure. But it is not a failure because of being contrary to Christianity. It is a failure because it cannot cope with Original Sin. It comes down to this: in a pinch who are you going to feed (if you had to make the choice) your kid or your neighbor's kid? Do you see what the problem is?

ruveyn


Well, can I feed both?

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

In a country with one of the biggest bread baskets in the world, one would hope so. And not just with cola, fries, and twinkies.


Isn't just a load of crap that the things that taste the best are the worst for you? :lol:

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 83
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

14 Feb 2012, 2:32 am

LKL wrote:
In a country with one of the biggest bread baskets in the world, one would hope so. And not just with cola, fries, and twinkies.


You missed the point, but that is my fault, not yours. Let me try again. Your kid and the neighbor's kid or both drowning and you can only save one. Whose kid do you save? Yours or your neighbor's. The answer is clear. Humans are motivated in some ways by egotism and selfishness. It is our nature to be selfish and we will always favor our flesh and blood over that of other people. In a pinch one will always favor his own interests.

ruveyn



LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 44
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

14 Feb 2012, 2:36 am

ruveyn wrote:
LKL wrote:
In a country with one of the biggest bread baskets in the world, one would hope so. And not just with cola, fries, and twinkies.


You missed the point, but that is my fault, not yours. Let me try again. Your kid and the neighbor's kid or both drowning and you can only save one. Whose kid do you save? Yours or your neighbor's. The answer is clear. Humans are motivated in some ways by egotism and selfishness. It is our nature to be selfish and we will always favor our flesh and blood over that of other people. In a pinch one will always favor his own interests.

ruveyn

If I can only save one, yes: I save my own kid. But how often do we have to make that choice? More often, I save my own kid and then I have to choose between wading saving the other one or walking off with my kid and pretending the other one isn't there, ignoring the screams for help that grow fainter and fainter.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 83
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

14 Feb 2012, 2:41 am

LKL wrote:
If I can only save one, yes: I save my own kid. But how often do we have to make that choice? More often, I save my own kid and then I have to choose between wading saving the other one or walking off with my kid and pretending the other one isn't there, ignoring the screams for help that grow fainter and fainter.


If you are forced to set exclusive priorities you will favor yourself. Guaranteed. That is the point. Note the word "exclusive". It is precisely because each person puts himself first in line (so to speak) that Utopian schemes of Goodness always and invariably fail.

ruveyn



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 40,951
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

14 Feb 2012, 2:52 am

ruveyn wrote:
LKL wrote:
If I can only save one, yes: I save my own kid. But how often do we have to make that choice? More often, I save my own kid and then I have to choose between wading saving the other one or walking off with my kid and pretending the other one isn't there, ignoring the screams for help that grow fainter and fainter.


If you are forced to set exclusive priorities you will favor yourself. Guaranteed. That is the point. Note the word "exclusive". It is precisely because each person puts himself first in line (so to speak) that Utopian schemes of Goodness always and invariably fail.

ruveyn


"Utopian schemes of Goodness" may be flawed in real life, but they don't have to fail all the time. And at least by caring for others, we get to keep our humanity, which only withers and dies when selfishness and disregard for your fellow human beings is your primary motivation in life.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 44
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

14 Feb 2012, 4:38 am

socialism is not a 'utopian scheme of goodness' any more than freedom of the press is is a utopian scheme of goodness (though communism on a large scale probably fits that description). Just as we allow others to speak freely so that no one will restrict our own free speech, so we contribute to a safety net because we do not know when some unfortunate accident will cause us or our children to need it ourselves. Even if we live blessed lives, It is in our own interests to have a healthy, happy, stable society.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 83
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

14 Feb 2012, 7:55 am

Kraichgauer wrote:

"Utopian schemes of Goodness" may be flawed in real life, but they don't have to fail all the time. And at least by caring for others, we get to keep our humanity, which only withers and dies when selfishness and disregard for your fellow human beings is your primary motivation in life.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


So far, they have failed each and every time. Sorry, sport. The way back to the Garden of Eden is barred by an angel wielding a flaming sword.

Humans are what they are. Regardless of what they utter and profess they live for their own sakes. Even the Wicked Witch of Altruism, Mother Therresa as a vicious power tripper. She lived to rule her acolytes.

ruveyn



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 40,951
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

14 Feb 2012, 11:10 am

ruveyn wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:

"Utopian schemes of Goodness" may be flawed in real life, but they don't have to fail all the time. And at least by caring for others, we get to keep our humanity, which only withers and dies when selfishness and disregard for your fellow human beings is your primary motivation in life.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


So far, they have failed each and every time. Sorry, sport. The way back to the Garden of Eden is barred by an angel wielding a flaming sword.

Humans are what they are. Regardless of what they utter and profess they live for their own sakes. Even the Wicked Witch of Altruism, Mother Therresa as a vicious power tripper. She lived to rule her acolytes.

ruveyn


Meh, I still believe to "do unto others as they would do unto you" is still the best policy.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



Tequila
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Feb 2006
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 28,897
Location: Lancashire, UK

14 Feb 2012, 1:33 pm

Mummy_of_Peanut wrote:
I was a traditional Labour supporter. It was always a socialist party, for the masses, linked to the Unions. So, I voted for them at the time when Labour finally go into power, after 18years under the Tories (Conservative). But, much to my dismay, this party was not Labour, it was New Labour and history has spoken for itself about that.


I think you'd have to look back at history but when Labour was a proper socialist party (i.e. in 1983), it was considered unelectable. The party had to ditch its redness and move to the right in order for the UK public to find them electable.

I agree with you that there are only three major UK political parties but there are also the Greens (who have one MP and one or two MEPs) as well as UKIP (who polled nearly a million votes last time, and are very popular at European level) and the BNP (who have a few MEP seats). Interestingly, UKIP polled twice the number of votes of the SNP in the last general election but won no seats (the SNP won 6 Westminster seats).

Quote:
As I got a bit older, I realised my politics were really liberal/democratic and Labour was no longer what it was.


Do you mean social liberalism?

Quote:
The LibDems have done nothing to temper the Tory policies and I'm one of the millions of angry Libdem voters who will never vote for them again, unless things change drastically.


The thing is, the LDs have both gone into coalition nationally and have always hinted that they would do so. Furthermore, they got their referendum on proportional representation, which they lost. The LDs will never again attain power in the UK and that is really what they were after - power (the last time the Liberals were in power was in 1904). I don't like the LDs and I wouldn't vote for them (nor would I ever vote Conservative or Labour) but you can't really have a go at them for it. You must understand that the Liberal Democrats was a broad coalition even before they took power - i.e. they were right-wing and left-wing elements. Some Lib Dem-voting areas are more conservative than social liberal/social democratic in any case - i.e. in Cornwall.

Quote:
So, now I'm a little bit lost. My way of thinking about how things should be has not changed, just the parties.


That's sort of how I feel. I have abandoned the three main parties altogether. So I look at my options. First of all, I have never and will never vote BNP. I refuse to be sullied by that bunch of racists and I disagree with them on nearly every part of their manifesto - i.e. the ones they haven't watered down to try to make themselves look electable. The Greens are far too left-wing and authoritarian for my taste. Which leaves UKIP. I vote for them and reside on their classical liberal wing (UKIP is really a bunch of different people, with differing political opinions, that have put aside their differences in order to oppose European Union). If you have an anti-EU bent, joining for/voting for UKIP may be a good option although they are not strong in Scotland (there are a few left-wingers in UKIP who are there, again, due to their dislike of the EU). So those are your options. There are other smaller parties that are unique to Scotland but they don't garner much attention or many votes.