Thread: The GOP in Meltdown

Originally Posted by venturalaw

Libertarian ideals.

Conservatives who want to smoke pot.

Originally Posted by venturalaw

The term liberal to me is more geared to government involvement in limiting individual freedom.

An oxymoron surely.

Originally Posted by ItsRobsLife

Originally Posted by venturalaw

The term liberal to me is more geared to government involvement in limiting individual freedom.

An oxymoron surely.

You apparently haven't thought it through, Ventura. Do you include liberals like George Washington et al who fought to establish a government founded on liberal principals. Your conservative bretheren don't want limits on individual freedoms unless you're gay and want to get married, or a woman who wants to control her own body.

Originally Posted by MrG

Originally Posted by ItsRobsLife

Originally Posted by venturalaw

The term liberal to me is more geared to government involvement in limiting individual freedom.

An oxymoron surely.

You apparently haven't thought it through, Ventura. Do you include liberals like George Washington et al who fought to establish a government founded on liberal principals. Your conservative bretheren don't want limits on individual freedoms unless you're gay and want to get married, or a woman who wants to control her own body.

As I said, there are Republican positions that I do not support. Regarding two that you listed, the issues should be left to the individual states to decide and not determined either way by the federal government.

Originally Posted by venturalaw

At least you were entertained.

Give over.

You keep focusing on the source of the material instead of the actual statements contained therein. Nevermind. It's understandable.

What is there to focus on, the actual statements are nonsense too.

Again if you want to take your cues from a spam email chain letter go right ahead, nobody is stopping you. But if you expect it to be taken seriously in an informed debate then you're in the wrong place - there are already whole threads dedicated to this sort of nonsense.

Originally Posted by MrG

Do you include liberals like George Washington et al who fought to establish a government founded on liberal principals. Your conservative bretheren don't want limits on individual freedoms unless you're gay and want to get married, or a woman who wants to control her own body.

trusty copy of Capitalism and Freedom emerges from the desk of Shawn... Friedman says on page 5:

"It is exremely convenient to have a label for the political and economic viewpoint elaborated in this book. The rightful and proper label is liberalism. Unfortunately, "As a supreme, if un-intended compliment, the enemies of the system of private enterprise have thought it wise to appropriate its label",1 so that liberalism has, in the United States, come to have a very different meaning than it did in the nineteenth century or does today over much of the continent of Europe"

He goes on to say that it was hijacked in the 1930s by those who wanted "to rely primarily on the state rather than on private voluntary arrangements to achieve objectives regarded as desirable. The catchwords became welfare and equality rather than freedom." (5)

Kind of an old book... but still one of the wisest economists of all time...

Originally Posted by theudonshawn

Originally Posted by MrG

Do you include liberals like George Washington et al who fought to establish a government founded on liberal principals. Your conservative bretheren don't want limits on individual freedoms unless you're gay and want to get married, or a woman who wants to control her own body.

trusty copy of Capitalism and Freedom emerges from the desk of Shawn... Friedman says on page 5:

"It is exremely convenient to have a label for the political and economic viewpoint elaborated in this book. The rightful and proper label is liberalism. Unfortunately, "As a supreme, if un-intended compliment, the enemies of the system of private enterprise have thought it wise to appropriate its label",1 so that liberalism has, in the United States, come to have a very different meaning than it did in the nineteenth century or does today over much of the continent of Europe"

He goes on to say that it was hijacked in the 1930s by those who wanted "to rely primarily on the state rather than on private voluntary arrangements to achieve objectives regarded as desirable. The catchwords became welfare and equality rather than freedom." (5)

Kind of an old book... but still one of the wisest economists of all time...

lib⋅er⋅al 
–adjective 1.favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.2.(often initial capital letter) noting or pertaining to a political party advocating measures of progressive political reform.3.of, pertaining to, based on, or advocating liberalism.4.favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, esp. as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.5.favoring or permitting freedom of action, esp. with respect to matters of personal belief or expression: a liberal policy toward dissident artists and writers. 6.of or pertaining to representational forms of government rather than aristocracies and monarchies.

Undoubtedly the meaning between nineteenth century liberalism and today has changed, as all words evolve in meaning over time, but calling it hijacked in the 30s is his political spin. Liberalism and Conservatism are defined relative to their environment. (Mini skirts in Saudi Arabi are liberal).

Are you (and he) trying to say that "equality" is not a liberal idea. (Wonder if he would include the words "corporate bail-outs" as a liberal idea like welfare, or would that fall under the heading of sound fiscal policy?).

Are you equating liberalism with reduced regulation of "private voluntary arrangements"--code for just let the private sector take care of you? The whole idea of a liberal democracy "..by, for and of the people..." is to provide some balance to private forces, which "the People" cannot control, on the influence of laws governing society. There are large parts of the world that consider state guarantees of social services (health, education, clean water, etc.) as part of their freedoms, as in freedom from want. Capitalism has it's place. Many of the mechanisms of the system work to benefit society at large. At one time it was a liberal idea, still is in some places. But more is not better, and it needs to be balanced with some social responsibility.

Always remember, the goal of capitalism is not to make a profit, reasonable profit, or healthy profit. The goal is to Maximize Profit. And it doesn't matter how many people die from pollution, lack of healthcare, or unsafe practices. As far as Capitalism is concerned, as long as they maximize profits, it's a valid enterprise and the Govenment should keep hands off. And that's why, IMO, American liberalism is protection for people and society, even with government (ie laws) as the protector, as it was in George Washington's day.

^ Conservatives today view liberal as big government, which wants to meddle in business and screw with market forces -- take the auto industry as an example (largely due to union pressure). They also do not like this "redistribution of wealth" focus that Obama holds. His liberal stimulus bill has done zip to create jobs, and the people will have to pay for it anyway. We view the libs as a spending machine, bent on applying more and more controls on biz so eventually many that had or could prosper will just give up. And helathcare? If the single-payer item goes through, guess how many jobs that will create for the unions who backed Obama and his ilk. The unions see BIG dollar signs in that.

But the 'Voice' of the Republican party continues to be the arrogant Right, the Noise machine. Their tactics, lies, distortions are unworthy of a mature democracy, and an informed population.

Well said and a great post Sabang.

Originally Posted by sabang

the people in the centre of things who will decide the next election, facts do matter

GOP must to appeal to these folks. I would call them progressive conservatives or conservatives with a conscience a rare breed in today's GOP.

Originally Posted by Jet Gorgon

^ Conservatives today view liberal as big government

These are the fiscal conservatives.

They also view the Republican party as supporting big government as well.

The fiscal conservatives have been pushed aside by the GOP in the last administration.

They are on side-lines, and writing in the back of Op-Ed pages.

Originally Posted by MrG

or a woman who wants to control her own body

BTW that's a nice way of saying, "Murdering babies is fun!!" Why didn't you just say the "a" word? Why do you have to make it sound like a conservative ideal? Answer: More hijacking. Controlling her own body with BC of some sort is just too inconvenient isn't it? Taking responsibility for her own body isn't a realistic expectation, is it?

Not to mention that if the GOP was really serious about winning they'd make it easier to kill off babies... in fact they'd encourage it. Demographically, in a couple generations, the GOP would be doing pretty good.

Originally Posted by ItsRobsLife

By not allowing abortion future generations will see an increase in youth crime. More robberies, more homicides, more long term offenders, more victims, more taxpayers money, because those that are most likely to have an abortion are those that are least able to take care of their offspring.

There's been several studies on this, most notably concerning the reduction in crime in New York City, Giuliani may have taken the credit,
but the decline in active criminals was already happening due to the state introducing abortion in 1970.

You want to call it murder, most rational people would see it as a harsh but practical measure.

That's a very interesting perspective RobsLife. Taking that concept to the next level, we can start eliminating all of those that are a potential drag on society. Let's see, how about users of illicit drugs (of course this is only if the alternative of legalization, which I am for, does not occur). After eliminating drug users, how about those who are on welfare - which actually would have a more immediate effect on reducing taxes. What other groups could be targeted? How about the illegal aliens (undocumented workers for you libs out there). They are a tremendous cost. Yes, harsh but practical. I agree with you RobsLife.

Originally Posted by theudonshawn

Taking responsibility for her own body isn't a realistic expectation, is it?

Quite realistic. That's why they want to retain choice.

Originally Posted by venturalaw

That's a very interesting perspective RobsLife. Taking that concept to the next level, we can start eliminating all of those that are a potential drag on society. Let's see, how about...those who are on welfare - which actually would have a more immediate effect on reducing taxes. What other groups could be targeted? How about the illegal aliens (undocumented workers for you libs out there). They are a tremendous cost. Yes, harsh but practical. I agree with you RobsLife.

By welfare, do you mean the Wall Street Welfare Queens, who don't actually contribute labor or product to society, just make money off of other people's work. And illegal aliens come here to work. Which means they pay taxes and, studies show, pay their own way.

Another cliche bites the dust.

^ and VL:

Remember Welfare Reform in the 1990s. There is a 5 year limit.

Yes, reform was needed, and probably still is.

But now the welfare goes to the corporation, military, and MIC companies.

It's always been this way.

Originally Posted by venturalaw

we can start eliminating all of those that are a potential drag on society.

A potential drag on society? Well that would surely be everyone. After you.

Originally Posted by venturalaw

Originally Posted by ItsRobsLife

By not allowing abortion future generations will see an increase in youth crime. More robberies, more homicides, more long term offenders, more victims, more taxpayers money, because those that are most likely to have an abortion are those that are least able to take care of their offspring.

There's been several studies on this, most notably concerning the reduction in crime in New York City, Giuliani may have taken the credit,
but the decline in active criminals was already happening due to the state introducing abortion in 1970.

You want to call it murder, most rational people would see it as a harsh but practical measure.

That's a very interesting perspective RobsLife. Taking that concept to the next level, we can start eliminating all of those that are a potential drag on society. Let's see, how about users of illicit drugs (of course this is only if the alternative of legalization, which I am for, does not occur). After eliminating drug users, how about those who are on welfare - which actually would have a more immediate effect on reducing taxes. What other groups could be targeted? How about the illegal aliens (undocumented workers for you libs out there). They are a tremendous cost. Yes, harsh but practical. I agree with you RobsLife.

That is not taking the concept to the next level, there is no next level, you are simply being melodramatic.

And it's not a perspective, it's a well documented fact.

Originally Posted by ItsRobsLife

Originally Posted by venturalaw

Originally Posted by ItsRobsLife

By not allowing abortion future generations will see an increase in youth crime. More robberies, more homicides, more long term offenders, more victims, more taxpayers money, because those that are most likely to have an abortion are those that are least able to take care of their offspring.

There's been several studies on this, most notably concerning the reduction in crime in New York City, Giuliani may have taken the credit,
but the decline in active criminals was already happening due to the state introducing abortion in 1970.

You want to call it murder, most rational people would see it as a harsh but practical measure.

That's a very interesting perspective RobsLife. Taking that concept to the next level, we can start eliminating all of those that are a potential drag on society. Let's see, how about users of illicit drugs (of course this is only if the alternative of legalization, which I am for, does not occur). After eliminating drug users, how about those who are on welfare - which actually would have a more immediate effect on reducing taxes. What other groups could be targeted? How about the illegal aliens (undocumented workers for you libs out there). They are a tremendous cost. Yes, harsh but practical. I agree with you RobsLife.

That is not taking the concept to the next level, there is no next level, you are simply being melodramatic.

Now I understand. Perform abortions and improve society by lessoning the financial burdon, but stop there. Do not clean up the rest of it, just the unwanted pregnancies. BTW, I wasn't being melodramatic. I should have just asked you - if aborting unwanted babies was where you drew the line. Now we know.

Originally Posted by theudonshawn

Originally Posted by MrG

or a woman who wants to control her own body

BTW that's a nice way of saying, "Murdering babies is fun!!" Why didn't you just say the "a" word? Why do you have to make it sound like a conservative ideal? Answer: More hijacking...

And why didn't you just say the "a" word?

Is the answer the same?

^ Huh. I might agree, cause it's welfare low-lifes always wanting abortions.

That's simply not true, Jet.

It is a bit interesting that this pro life/ pro choice argument comes up on a thread about the GOP. This never was a political affiliation argument you know- it is only a function of the Republican courting of the religious right, which as I understand it was pretty much a tactical decision made by Karl Rove and cohorts. It was certainly a platform of the Bush administration.

Traditionally, ones views on abortion were not a matter of political affiliation. Catholics are anti abortion, and they were and are Democrat leaning, an example being Joe Biden. The more evangelistic religions that constitute the religious right are now staunchly Republican- but few if any Republicans I know actually give a toss about the matter.