Conservatives, Liberals, Republicans, Democrats - Page 2

DracIV · 02-23-2005, 01:26 PM

Osama was not just some random guy from some random group who became infamous overnight. He has been the leader of a well-know terrorist organization for decades. He was already a fairly infamous terrorist leader a decade ago, which is why several times countries that found him offered to hand him over to the US to be dealt with. Clinton refused the offers.

Mindfields · 02-23-2005, 02:55 PM

I know that he was big in the Taliban before that, but I don't see why Clinton would care. I would've heard something about it if he did.
I would also like to address Al Qaeda. My History Teacher was on her daily rant about how stupid Bush is (she's a HUGE hippie). And she told us that the reason Al Qaeda is so pissed at us is because we gave Saddam nukes. They're against dictatorship and monarchy just "like" we are! They don't like the King of Jordan, and they don't like Saddam Hussein very much either! Then the Shiites are pissed at us because we said we would come back and help them after the Gulf War! They both have a right to try to kill us, if you ask me!

nforcer06164 · 02-23-2005, 07:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mindfields

I know that he was big in the Taliban before that, but I don't see why Clinton would care. I would've heard something about it if he did.
I would also like to address Al Qaeda. My History Teacher was on her daily rant about how stupid Bush is (she's a HUGE hippie). And she told us that the reason Al Qaeda is so pissed at us is because we gave Saddam nukes. They're against dictatorship and monarchy just "like" we are! They don't like the King of Jordan, and they don't like Saddam Hussein very much either! Then the Shiites are pissed at us because we said we would come back and help them after the Gulf War! They both have a right to try to kill us, if you ask me!

Nobody has a right to kill or try to kill us, or anyone, for that matter. Someone may deserve death for inhumane acts that they may commit (again, a good topic for debate), but nobody gets the right to kill over a supposedly broken promise. It seems your teacher may be making things up....

And your teacher IS wrong on one point. We never gave Saddam nukes. It'd be kind of hypocritical to give them nukes and then demand them destroyed, wouldn't it? And why would Al Qaeda be angry even if we did? We practically dropped weapons into the hands of Bin Laden to help him when he was on our side at some point... and what did he do? He turned right around some time later and fired OUR OWN WEAPONS at us. So, would they be angry if we gave them the ammunition to try to kill us? Nah, I don't think so.

Mindfields · 02-23-2005, 08:50 PM

I admit to saying that we gave the nukes to Saddam. Thank God I'm not a history teacher cause nobody tells me anything anymore an I don't know whether to trust NBC or CBS...they look so much better compared to FOX and ABC...But how did Osama get the weapons?

DonCasablanca · 02-24-2005, 07:18 AM

To clear up some of the first post's confusion, and (I hope) address the topic at hand:

The labels "Conservative" and "Liberal" carry little of the meaning suggested by the adjectives "conservative" and "liberal". Not only are they inappropriate when linked to the Republican and Democratic parties, but moreover, they can be used interchangeably to describe views of any political persuasion:

Republicans believe in a conservative economic policy.
Republicans believe in a liberal economic policy.

We've read these statements countless times, and each are absolutely true: Republicans believe in a conservative economic policy -- lower taxes, less government spending (although beginning with Clinton it seems the Democrats are the party of fiscal responsibility). Republicans believe in a liberal economic policy -- when economists define liberal economics, they of course refer to a belief in the free market, unguided by government control; lower taxes, less government spending.

Perhaps most tellingly, "liberals" (colloquially) think of Libertarians as a party of the extreme right. A party that by every definition is the most liberal -- the most progressive, the most committed to preserving personal liberty, even approaching Anarchism for all practical purposes -- most people think of as a version of Republican "Conservative" extremism.

Thus, the labels "Liberal" and "Conservative" have utterly lost political meaning, and are now useless except for talk show name-calling. They don't make sense in their literal senses, nor in the sense Devnill suggests (this idea of the "traditional values of our country" is understood in literally millions of different, mutually exclusive ways; think of how often some vague idea of good ol' Americanism is abused by both parties). We have to stick with unique understandings of each party's platform, independent of this meaningless, one-dimensional, left to right spectrum.

blahblah18 · 02-24-2005, 10:44 AM

wow all the posters from the grave are back...
Don makes a very accurate point, but its even worse then he says it to be.... Liberal and Conservative have nwo become catchphrases for channels like CNN and Fox News to throw back and forth to each other with no actual meaning.

Also, Bush is considered NOT conservative enough for the republican party by most people, although recently he's been trying to change the image. His talks about the privatization of Social Security is basically the definition of the first step of the Libertarian movement.

Libertarian though really can't be defined in terms of democrat or republican, since its ideas are so different that it really can be taken as parts of both...
Its considered a liberal movement due to its complete basis on the preservation of individual rights and the protection of those rights, yet its considered a conservative movement because its trying to basically eliminated any government run business or operation, including the privatization of social security, school systems, hospitals, and basically everything that doesn't protect human rights or our personal and natinoal defense... Basically there would public police, fire, and military, with very few others.

Also, I am the first to say that Bush has been miserable in his presidential tenure, but the argument that he had advance warning of WTC and did nothing, I find quite ludicrous. We get hundreds of intelligence reports everyday, and if any of them ever come to fruition, then its leverage to say that it was predicted.

slimshdy425 · 02-24-2005, 12:10 PM

Wow, mega bump.

Thanks to all those who supported my original point.

nforcer06164 · 02-24-2005, 05:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mindfields

I admit to saying that we gave the nukes to Saddam. Thank God I'm not a history teacher cause nobody tells me anything anymore an I don't know whether to trust NBC or CBS...they look so much better compared to FOX and ABC...But how did Osama get the weapons?

NBC, CBS, and ABC are dominated by "liberals", and FOX is dominated by "conservatives". Basically, the former generally blow things up, and the latter mostly tells it like it is.

Please explain how NBC and CBS look better to you.

And we gave the weapons to Osama. Didn't I say that?

Mindfields · 02-24-2005, 05:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nforcer06164

Please explain how NBC and CBS look better to you.

I admit to this also: NBC has Conan O'Brien and Saturday Night Live. Who wouldn't like NBC? CBS just has the CSIs. To me, it's a nice switch off of comedy and drama/mystery. ABC just has the exact same crap that FOX does, I mean, didn't they both come up with the "Trading Spouses" dealie and the "Nanny 911" dealie at the same time? I like HOUSE though...

nforcer06164 · 02-24-2005, 06:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mindfields

Quote:

Originally Posted by nforcer06164

Please explain how NBC and CBS look better to you.

I admit to this also: NBC has Conan O'Brien and Saturday Night Live. Who wouldn't like NBC? CBS just has the CSIs. To me, it's a nice switch off of comedy and drama/mystery. ABC just has the exact same crap that FOX does, I mean, didn't they both come up with the "Trading Spouses" dealie and the "Nanny 911" dealie at the same time? I like HOUSE though...

Dude, the shows they display and their quality has nothing to do with their news, which is what I was referring to. You seemed to refer to that also. Please don't tell me that you forgot what you were talking about several posts ago.

navyseal101 · 02-25-2005, 05:19 PM

Just to make a point about all the people that don't like how Bush is spending government money and saying that we are in a huge national deficit.

America's GDP (gross domestic product) is over 9 trillion dollars. That kind of money alone almost inflates itself in value. The only way to make that amount of money worth something is to give it to other countries and/or invest it heavily into a diverse range of programs like military and privitizing things and medicine, etc.

since we are part of a world economy, it's good to be in debt, sometimes even in a big way. There are actualy some countries that base their revenue off the debt we owe them. If those countries ever go broke, it would hurt the "world economy" even if only slightly.

Now of course, there is a point were we could get into trouble if we spent too much, but I believe that point is far away and Bush isn't getting us there any time soon.

Money is ment to be circulated. The only reason you make a dollar is to give it to someone else and eventually it will come back to you anyway. Now I won't argue with anybody that says it could be spent more wisley but hey, people arn't perfect.

Mindfields · 02-25-2005, 09:20 PM

Ok, that post has nothing to do with the original post. I think that this has been bumped too far.

ayanepuck · 02-26-2005, 10:34 PM

Having a political discussion is about as pointless as arguing religion. There is not one here who will be swayed in his/her beliefs.

nforcer06164 · 02-27-2005, 05:56 AM

That's why it IS a political discussion, and not a political argument.

**alainbryden** · 02-27-2005, 08:52 AM

You people need to relax at the concept of an argument. An argument need not get personal or violent. The whole point of this topic and I daresay this forum is to have healthy and entertaining arguments. No one is expected to have their opinions swayed, that is nearly an impossible feat. The forums have nothing against arguments, only against violence. If you cannot keep arguments civil, then topics are locked, otherwise, this is all intellectual excercise. You shouldn't feel it amounts to nothing just because you aren't convincing anyone that you're right, again, that's not the purpose of this discussion.

QreepyBORIS · 02-27-2005, 01:50 PM

Bush is not exaclty completely conservative.

He is spending like a crazed liberal. Take a look at them deficits!

He's spent more money than almost ANY president--certainly more than any other Republican/Conservative.

It's just that the shit that he spends it on makes him a right-winger.

nforcer06164 · 02-27-2005, 03:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by QreepyBORIS

He's spent more money than almost ANY president--certainly more than any other Republican/Conservative.

Care to back that up with some kind of evidence?

GuidoHunter · 02-27-2005, 03:32 PM

What does Bush do that doesn't make him conservative? Sure, he spends money like Qreepy said, but every government needs to spend money, and it's on what the money's spent that shows conservatism or liberalism. Bush is an extremely conservative president in almost all realms (I qualify that because there probably is somewhere where he's a bit more liberal, but I certainly can't think of it, hence my question). My only problem with him is that he hasn't slashed government handout programs. I want massive social program reform, and he hasn't given that to me, but he's been otherwise occupied. Not that that's the best excuse, but still, not doing that doesn't make him liberal, just distracted.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

QreepyBORIS · 02-27-2005, 05:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nforcer06164

Quote:

Originally Posted by QreepyBORIS

He's spent more money than almost ANY president--certainly more than any other Republican/Conservative.

Care to back that up with some kind of evidence?

www.justfuckinggoogleit.com

And besides, you doubt that is true?

slimshdy425 · 02-27-2005, 06:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GuidoHunter

What does Bush do that doesn't make him conservative? Sure, he spends money like Qreepy said, but every government needs to spend money, and it's on what the money's spent that shows conservatism or liberalism.

Sure government needs to spend money, but not so much money that the value of the dollar is collapsing and the multi-trillion dollar surplus left by Clinton has fallen apart. Drastic changes are considered liberal, am I wrong?

02-24-2005, 07:18 AM	#25
DonCasablanca FFR Player Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Exeter, NH Posts: 21	To clear up some of the first post's confusion, and (I hope) address the topic at hand: The labels "Conservative" and "Liberal" carry little of the meaning suggested by the adjectives "conservative" and "liberal". Not only are they inappropriate when linked to the Republican and Democratic parties, but moreover, they can be used interchangeably to describe views of any political persuasion: Republicans believe in a conservative economic policy. Republicans believe in a liberal economic policy. We've read these statements countless times, and each are absolutely true: Republicans believe in a conservative economic policy -- lower taxes, less government spending (although beginning with Clinton it seems the Democrats are the party of fiscal responsibility). Republicans believe in a liberal economic policy -- when economists define liberal economics, they of course refer to a belief in the free market, unguided by government control; lower taxes, less government spending. Perhaps most tellingly, "liberals" (colloquially) think of Libertarians as a party of the extreme right. A party that by every definition is the most liberal -- the most progressive, the most committed to preserving personal liberty, even approaching Anarchism for all practical purposes -- most people think of as a version of Republican "Conservative" extremism. Thus, the labels "Liberal" and "Conservative" have utterly lost political meaning, and are now useless except for talk show name-calling. They don't make sense in their literal senses, nor in the sense Devnill suggests (this idea of the "traditional values of our country" is understood in literally millions of different, mutually exclusive ways; think of how often some vague idea of good ol' Americanism is abused by both parties). We have to stick with unique understandings of each party's platform, independent of this meaningless, one-dimensional, left to right spectrum. __________________

02-24-2005, 10:44 AM	#26
blahblah18 FFR Player Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: NOW BLAHTOPIA Posts: 1,662	wow all the posters from the grave are back... Don makes a very accurate point, but its even worse then he says it to be.... Liberal and Conservative have nwo become catchphrases for channels like CNN and Fox News to throw back and forth to each other with no actual meaning. Also, Bush is considered NOT conservative enough for the republican party by most people, although recently he's been trying to change the image. His talks about the privatization of Social Security is basically the definition of the first step of the Libertarian movement. Libertarian though really can't be defined in terms of democrat or republican, since its ideas are so different that it really can be taken as parts of both... Its considered a liberal movement due to its complete basis on the preservation of individual rights and the protection of those rights, yet its considered a conservative movement because its trying to basically eliminated any government run business or operation, including the privatization of social security, school systems, hospitals, and basically everything that doesn't protect human rights or our personal and natinoal defense... Basically there would public police, fire, and military, with very few others. Also, I am the first to say that Bush has been miserable in his presidential tenure, but the argument that he had advance warning of WTC and did nothing, I find quite ludicrous. We get hundreds of intelligence reports everyday, and if any of them ever come to fruition, then its leverage to say that it was predicted. __________________ but for now... postCount++

02-24-2005, 12:10 PM	#27
slimshdy425 FFR Player Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: lindenhurst, new york Posts: 88	Wow, mega bump. Thanks to all those who supported my original point. __________________

02-26-2005, 10:34 PM	#33
ayanepuck FFR Player Join Date: May 2004 Location: Waco, Texas Posts: 110	Having a political discussion is about as pointless as arguing religion. There is not one here who will be swayed in his/her beliefs. __________________ \"All the world is the birthday cake, so take a piece, but not too much.\" \"The Beatles saved the world from boredom.\" --George Harrison

02-27-2005, 08:52 AM	#35
alainbryden Seen your member Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: noitacoL Posts: 2,873	You people need to relax at the concept of an argument. An argument need not get personal or violent. The whole point of this topic and I daresay this forum is to have healthy and entertaining arguments. No one is expected to have their opinions swayed, that is nearly an impossible feat. The forums have nothing against arguments, only against violence. If you cannot keep arguments civil, then topics are locked, otherwise, this is all intellectual excercise. You shouldn't feel it amounts to nothing just because you aren't convincing anyone that you're right, again, that's not the purpose of this discussion. __________________ ~NEIGH

02-23-2005, 01:26 PM	#21
DracIV FFR Player Join Date: Nov 2003 Posts: 298	Osama was not just some random guy from some random group who became infamous overnight. He has been the leader of a well-know terrorist organization for decades. He was already a fairly infamous terrorist leader a decade ago, which is why several times countries that found him offered to hand him over to the US to be dealt with. Clinton refused the offers.

02-23-2005, 02:55 PM	#22
Mindfields Banned Join Date: Dec 2004 Age: 34 Posts: 1,566	I know that he was big in the Taliban before that, but I don't see why Clinton would care. I would've heard something about it if he did. I would also like to address Al Qaeda. My History Teacher was on her daily rant about how stupid Bush is (she's a HUGE hippie). And she told us that the reason Al Qaeda is so pissed at us is because we gave Saddam nukes. They're against dictatorship and monarchy just "like" we are! They don't like the King of Jordan, and they don't like Saddam Hussein very much either! Then the Shiites are pissed at us because we said we would come back and help them after the Gulf War! They both have a right to try to kill us, if you ask me!

02-23-2005, 08:50 PM	#24
Mindfields Banned Join Date: Dec 2004 Age: 34 Posts: 1,566	I admit to saying that we gave the nukes to Saddam. Thank God I'm not a history teacher cause nobody tells me anything anymore an I don't know whether to trust NBC or CBS...they look so much better compared to FOX and ABC...But how did Osama get the weapons?

02-25-2005, 05:19 PM	#31
navyseal101 FFR Player Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 43	Just to make a point about all the people that don't like how Bush is spending government money and saying that we are in a huge national deficit. America's GDP (gross domestic product) is over 9 trillion dollars. That kind of money alone almost inflates itself in value. The only way to make that amount of money worth something is to give it to other countries and/or invest it heavily into a diverse range of programs like military and privitizing things and medicine, etc. since we are part of a world economy, it's good to be in debt, sometimes even in a big way. There are actualy some countries that base their revenue off the debt we owe them. If those countries ever go broke, it would hurt the "world economy" even if only slightly. Now of course, there is a point were we could get into trouble if we spent too much, but I believe that point is far away and Bush isn't getting us there any time soon. Money is ment to be circulated. The only reason you make a dollar is to give it to someone else and eventually it will come back to you anyway. Now I won't argue with anybody that says it could be spent more wisley but hey, people arn't perfect.

02-25-2005, 09:20 PM	#32
Mindfields Banned Join Date: Dec 2004 Age: 34 Posts: 1,566	Ok, that post has *nothing* to do with the original post. I think that this has been bumped too far.

02-27-2005, 01:50 PM	#36
QreepyBORIS FFR Player Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: It is a mystery. Age: 35 Posts: 7,454	Bush is not exaclty completely conservative. He is spending like a crazed liberal. Take a look at them deficits! He's spent more money than almost ANY president--certainly more than any other Republican/Conservative. It's just that the shit that he spends it on makes him a right-winger. __________________ Signature subject to change. THE ZERRRRRG.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)