Are all comedians essentially Libreals

[mietla]

Originally posted by Sandman_SBM


This argument holds on both ends. To the left... communism and a more powerful governmetn. To the right... fascism and a more powerful government. In this regard, Lazs2 is correct  I think.

yes, and that's why I'm not crazy about the fascism either.


You did not answer the question

What is a liberal agende and how would you implement/enforce it?

[Sandman]

Originally posted by mietla


yes, and that's why I'm not crazy about the fascism either.


You did not answer the question

What is a liberal agende and how would you implement/enforce it?

Better government. How to implement and enforce? Hell, if I knew I'd run for president.

[mietla]

Originally posted by Sandman_SBM


Better government. How to implement and enforce? Hell, if I knew I'd run for president.

You did not say anything.

[Karnak]

mieleta,

There is nothing to impliment or enforce in regards to people.

The liberal agenda is, more or less, live and let live.

In regards to businesses the liberal agneda is concerned with businesses trampling on employees and the environment.

From my perspective it is the conservatives that are trying to write laws and police powers that control how I live my life and how I raise my (future) children.

As a Liberal Libertarian I want these things:
[list=1]

• For the Government to butt out of the "morality business".
• For a country in which people and families have value, not just business.
• For the environment to be protected from the excesses of big business.
• For as level a starting playing field as possible.  Where you go with it is based on your abilities and drive.
• For the Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Religion, Right to Bear Arms and Protections from Unreasonable Search and Seizure to be left alone by the Government.[/list=1]
  
  Of all these things the only one that the conservatives are better at is defending the right to bear arms.  All other points of freedom go to the liberals.

[midnight Target]

The way I see it in general:

Liberals want more assistance and less intrusion from Govt.

Conservatives want more intrusion and less assistance from Govt.

[Kieran]

Oversimplifictation.

Conservatives want less government intrusion, BUT they are also for a strong military- though this usually in an isolationist mindset. If conservatives are convinced there is a threat to national security in the long haul, they are far more likely to go ahead and get on with the fighting. As far as security is concerned, conservatives will allow more in the way of search and seizures.

Liberals want redistribution of wealth, peace at any cost, and the strictest adherance to personal liberties, even at the cost of common sense (airport security- how could anyone complain about it?). Ironically, they have no difficulty legislating away personal liberties of others they find offensive, despite crying "live and let live" all the while. Liberals think everything needs a government program, and these programs should be funded on the backs of hardworking citizens who have never asked for anything from anyone. Liberals told us it was a good idea to pass out condoms in our schools, that it was wrong to spank our children (and have made it perilous to do so, for fear of having the state come take your children away).

So... Conservatives want the government involved in matters of security, and Liberals want the government involved in the establishment of a welfare state.

Big business? Pfft... it is not party specific. Both sides have campaigns funded by powerful corporate lobbies.

[mietla]

Originally posted by midnight Target
The way I see it in general:

Liberals want more assistance and less intrusion from Govt.

Conservatives want more intrusion and less assistance from Govt.

nonsense.


Assistance to you (a handout), IS an intrusion to me (taxes/regulations).

Libertarians want less intrusion and therefore less assistance.

[mietla]

Originally posted by Karnak
As a Liberal Libertarian I want these things:
[list=1]

• For the Government to butt out of the "morality business".
• For a country in which people and families have value, not just business.
• For the environment to be protected from the excesses of big business.
• For as level a starting playing field as possible.  Where you go with it is based on your abilities and drive.
• For the Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Religion, Right to Bear Arms and Protections from Unreasonable Search and Seizure to be left alone by the Government.[/list=1]
   [/B]

How can you accomplish #2, #3 and #4 without an oppresive government. You can't!

Besides, what is the "level field"? It's just an open ended excuse for transfering the wealth from the achievers to those who not produce.

[Sandman]

Originally posted by mietla


You did not say anything.

Ran out of time...

[Holden McGroin]

Originally posted by lazs2
sandman... your graph is wrong.   It should be circular with the ends touching.

 

Actually the ends of the political spectrum should touch, but there should be a half twist into a mobius strip...  Don't know if it is politically significant or not, but it would look better.

[midnight Target]

Originally posted by Kieran
Oversimplifictation.

Conservatives want less government intrusion, BUT they are also for a strong military- though this usually in an isolationist mindset. If conservatives are convinced there is a threat to national security in the long haul, they are far more likely to go ahead and get on with the fighting. As far as security is concerned, conservatives will allow more in the way of search and seizures.

Liberals want redistribution of wealth, peace at any cost, and the strictest adherance to personal liberties, even at the cost of common sense (airport security- how could anyone complain about it?). Ironically, they have no difficulty legislating away personal liberties of others they find offensive, despite crying "live and let live" all the while. Liberals think everything needs a government program, and these programs should be funded on the backs of hardworking citizens who have never asked for anything from anyone. Liberals told us it was a good idea to pass out condoms in our schools, that it was wrong to spank our children (and have made it perilous to do so, for fear of having the state come take your children away).

So... Conservatives want the government involved in matters of security, and Liberals want the government involved in the establishment of a welfare state.

Big business? Pfft... it is not party specific. Both sides have campaigns funded by powerful corporate lobbies.

Of course I oversimplified. Work and all.....

First, I disagree regarding the national defense. I really don't think there is any distinction on this issue. Where cons and libs might digress is in the definition of a threat. But if the threat is considered real, like our current one, we can be just as hawkish as any conservative. The idea that liberals are doves comes from the Viet Nam era. That was a devisive time, but hardly a measure of the two sides support of national security.

I agree we want strict adherence to personal liberties. I don't understand why everyone wouldn't. What may be common sense to you may not be to someone else. Why should we pick and choose who's liberties we protect?

We do want additional assistance for those who are in need. Not a blank check, just a compassionate hand up when needed. We don't want the wealth redistributed, but we do want an equal opportunity to gain it.

Liberals want govt. out of their personal life. We feel too much time and money is spent trying to legislate a conservative morality. We feel people are intrinsically good and do not need big brother watching them inside their homes and bedrooms.

I think that if you were to look it up, there are more registered Democrats than Republicans (at least the last time I checked). So most of those "hard working folks" you mention probably agree that providing some assistance to the less fortunate in our society is necessary. The 'less fortunate' may be you some day.

I'm sure there is much more....

[Karnak]

mieleta,

An even starting field means that you aren't at a disadvantage because of your race, gender, orientation or lack of wealthy parents.

It has nothing to do with handing money out or keeping everybody on a level playing field (well, a bit of money in helping people with poor parents go to school).  Where they go from there is up to them, but the starting line should be as even as we can make it.  After all, we hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal...

Just because you are from a poor mining family shouldn't deny you a reasonable chance at higher education.

As to #2, well, you can have a Government that doesn't bend over backwards to favor Big Business.  Right now ours does.  A government that doesn't write laws tailored for business consortiums to bludgeon the people with.  The Founding Fathers did not intend this country to be run for and by corporations.  Thomas Jefferson expressed concern that there might not be enough limits on corporate power in the Constitution.  He decide that could be added latter, and I think it is time to add it.

#3 is just common sense.  We don't want to be so vigilant against an oppressive Government only to wake up one day and realize that the Corporations have taken the place of the oppessor.  We need to be vigilant against both.  The club we must wield against businesses to protect the environment in which we live is the government.  Either that or adapt to breathing, drinking and eating poisons.  Some level of government interference is required, there is no denying that, but the rights of tychoon Bob Doe are not unfairly infringed upon by a governemnt that is stopping him from dumping massive ammounts of polution into the biosphere.

[Karnak]

Kieren,

The parties have very little to do with Liberal/Conservative ideals.

The parties are a separate argument.

[mietla]

Originally posted by midnight Target

We do want additional assistance for those who are in need. Not a blank check, just a compassionate hand up when needed.

Not true. If this was what you want, you would advocate charities which give assistance but attach strings to it.

What you guys strive for is exactly a blank check. An unconditional assistance just for the asking with no strings an no limits attached.

As a result you validate and support socially negative behavior (illegitimacy, unwillingness to work, or just plain laziness), and to accomplish that you punish a socially positive behavior (hard eork and achievement).

We don't want the wealth redistributed, but we do want an equal opportunity to gain it.
 

Not true again. We all have the same rights and the same access to all public institutions, therefore the same opportunity to succeed already.

What you want is much more. You want the same circumstances. Since you assume that a poor guy has a lesser chance to succeed, you want to transfer the wealth from a richer one until they both have the same. Marxism, plain ans simple.

On top of it (what drives me up the wall), you were succesful in twisting terms around. You call a recipient of the loot virtuous, and the victim of theft selfish.

[Sandman]

Well... hell... if you already knew what the liberal agenda was, why did you ask?