BF2S Forums True Definition of Liberal Please?

whittsend wrote:

Ok, let me see if I have this straight...

Equatorial Guinea is a nasty dictatorship?  Given that their president has been in power since 1979, I can see that they are far from the ideal democracy...so ok.  But I do find myself wondering what makes them worse than others.  You also clam that the US is to be criticized for giving them on the order of $10E7?  Well, that is a pretty piss poor aid package, but whatever, I guess I can see that.

that is only one form of aid for one year.  And that is only one country.  You asked me to provide examples, because maybe you were to busy to look examples up yourself or whatever, but it is common knowledge that this dictator, while elected "democratically" in 1979, has been ruthless since then.  Any aid should be criticized.  We (the US) don't give direct economic aid to Fidel Castro, seemingly because he does not promote democracy.  Why should we give this country aid?  Furthermore, why does this country need aid?  According to that site and the CIA World Factbook site, this country has a higher GDP than the U.S.   

whittsend wrote:

Yet, the US is also to be criticized for opposing the "democratically elected" government of Venezuela?  Wow.  That's pretty generous, given the number of irregularities in that 'democratic election.
Why is it bad to support one questionable regime, and still bad to oppose a different questionable regime?  You seem to have a preference for one regime that a lot of people find oppresive and nasty, over another.  This is the same thing you accuse the US of doing.
Your viewpoint is inconsistent.  You have an axe to grind with respect to US policy.

Yes, there were irregularities reported in the latest election of Hugo Chavez, and I admit I didn't pick a shining example here.  However, the US did not try to circumvent the election process in Equatorial Guinea like they did in Venezuela.  There, the US government tried to oust Chavez in a coup, in direct violation of the Organization of American States.  Breaking international law to place a political figure in power to benefit US interests is incredibly heinous in my opinion.  So yes, while I did not pick the best example, I believe it was adequate for the point I am trying to make.  And I agree, I do have an axe to grind.  I am just showing the true intentions of our government as a whole, and this encompasses both the Democrats and Republicans in government.  Our system has run amok.  Instead of debating in society what we can do to help our government help us, we are arguing over immigration policy and social welfare.  This is exactly what those in power want.  If they (people in power) keep us (citizens) arguing over illegal immigration, abortion, welfare, social security, terrorism, etc., they don't have to worry about us questioning why they are taking insane amounts of money from lobby groups.  Keep us bickering amongst ourselves, and keep us just happy enough to keep going, and give us those great $300 tax refund checks, and everyone will be happy and they can keep dragging the American name through the mud internationally. 

And I am not a liberal or a conservative, I am a human being.  I don't subscribe to one theory or another, I look at each issue and try to come up with a realistic way to solve/develop that issue.  What I do not agree with is conservatives calling people liberals like they are lepers.  I don't agree with people (everyone, not just people in these forums) saying that if you are liberal you are a communist, because that is simply not the case.  One can have political beliefs that are in line with one party or another without agreeing with that party across the board.  Having progressive traits does not make you a liberal that wants to increase government handouts.  That is all.

Marconius wrote:

Alright, so let's say a lower class person has gained personal responsibility and wants to start bettering himself.  In your own political ideology, how will they do that?  If you start with nothing, what options does your personal conservative government give you to be able to enter the workforce to pull up out of squalor?.

The Conservative government  doesn't cripple a potential employer with excessive Regulations and Taxes.

Notice I used the words Cripple and excessive.

With less hindrances, this potential employer has enough going on so they can ( Need to ) hire some one.  Business's will hire when  Business is good, not when they are breaking even. Big companies hire most of the people in the U.S.A.

or you can

Hurt the Rich people ! Ha ha ha They suck !

Tax the Phone company ( an Evil Fourtune 500 company ) 3 million extra,
and they cut 3 million worth of salaries. The End.
You see these things When you are in the Field working.
That's when you see Ex Coworkers being laid off in the Lobby.

You don't See it in Economics Class.  Even if you get a B+


This may sound familiar because I know I told you this in some previous post.

1. Take a job, any job in food service industry. Cash Tips. Lots of chances to eat free.
It is not beneath you if you are poor and no one owes you anything.

2.Take night job as security guard. You will make even more money. You cant spend money you already made at empty office building. So your not bored, bring library books magazines etc. for entertainment and educational betterment.
It is not beneath you if you are poor and no one owes you anything.

3.Take weekend job at Clothing store. Lots of chances to get employee discounts on free stuff. You cant spend money while at work. It is not beneath you if you are poor and no one owes you anything.

4.This also puts you out in the work force where you can be observed as a "hustler " You can become known for good things. You are in fact building a resume.

5.No place to live? 12 to 8 at Gas station. Free heat, Plenty of sleep. Will you be tired? Yes.
It is not beneath you if you are poor and no one owes you anything.

Marconius wrote:

A second question, if you feel the government is not obligated to do this, then how does this stop the growing gap between the rich and the poor?  .

I don't see " a growing gap ",

It depends on your perspective or how you want to look at the Numbers.
Example
When G. Bush Sr was President. Homelessness was number one issue in the News every night.

When b.clinton was elected they never ran a homeless story again.
The problem real or imagined disappeared over night.

Also

As other countries develop and want a piece of the pie, it stands to reason we will have to compete with them. Sometimes this stresses our own economy when we have to share the trade market with other developing nations.

Don't you like to share?

Cant we work a little harder if it means some child in India can eat regular meals ?

Some people think Liberals want to keep people down so they have a bigger base of support by having more people dependent on them.

Marconius wrote:

Most poor people are stuck in that state because of a severe lack of opportunity along with a lack of resources to get them to points of opportunity...

At the best it seems the " They are stuck " argument is open for debate.

I know I wasn't. I don't know anyone else who is. I also live in the Bronx ( next 60 days anyway, It seems I will be making it out hmmm.. )
But you don't meet the kind people who are " stuck " when you work nights, weekends, take the kids to baseball practice, attend night school etc.

Who is telling the Truth ?

A conservative politician says

" Poor people wont vote for me but people with money will. I want to keep my Power and Office. Go make your own money. I will not help or interfere with you and if I have to I will keep it to a minimum. But my interest is only in me, not your welfare. You will make it on your own if you want to. If my plan works there will be less poor people  You will have your own money. You will become a Tax payer and a Conservative too, My very base of support.

So I will still keep my Power and Elected Office "

A Liberal Politician says

" Rich people won't vote for me but poor people will. You can't do it with out me. You need my help. I will get you on your feet. I have to help you. But my interest is only in you, not my own welfare. When you make it you won't need me. When my plan works there will be no more poor people. My very base of support.

But I don't care if I lose my Power and Elected Office .

Which one sounds more plausible  or even has a true ring to it.

Last edited by Horseman 77 (2006-04-06 13:59:09)

whittsend wrote:

I'm not going to defend every US action or policy, frequently I disagree with them.  But frankly, your ideas regarding the conduct of international relations are idealistic and probably impossible in practice.  Strategic reality requires access to materials, some of which are only available from unsavory sources.  To expect the US to forgo those materials in such cases isn't realistic.  Furthermore, you will find that the US is hardly unique in turning a blind eye in such cases.  The only alternative is to actively promote regime change, but as you have indicated, you find that repugnant.  In most cases, I agree.

I know the US is not alone in acting in their own self interests.  And I agree that my ideas on the way the US govt. handles foreign relations is idealistic.  However, not impossible in the least.  Yes, we need access to oil, because we need oil.  Eliminate the need for oil, and we don't need developing countries' oil.  Energy companies can make profits from renewable resources, but it seems they are resistant to change.  Might as well go with what is working, right?  I think it is realistic to get the US to forgo natural resources that we don't *need* because applying pressure to the government has worked before to a certain extent.  Remember the big deal with "blood diamonds?"  Enough pressure was applied to get some sort of regulation and certification for the diamond trade.  Sure, there is still corruption there, but not nearly as bad as it was.  Baby steps.

whittsend wrote:

(The idea that we are going to apply meaningful pressure through US corporations has three problems: It is historically unsuccessful; It relies upon corporations to act against their own interests; It hobbles US corporations with respect to foreign competetors.  As a result, this policy would have a uniformly negative impact on the US, the corporations in question, and the careers of the politicians who implemented it).

Just because it has not worked before does not mean that it will not work now.  If the US government were to say to Chevron, "hey, we are not going to buy/sell your oil from oppressive regimes," it would apply pressure to Chevron.  Chevron can decide what they are going to do-keep producing oil from oppressive regimes, and not sell to the US, not produce oil from those regimes (unlikely), or say, "hey US, fuck you, we aren't selling you any oil."  Now, whether or not the US needs oil from those companies or those companies need US revenue is something that I am not familiar with, but some action is better than none.  In the end, it is not about the economic impact of corporations or the US, but about promoting democracy and Peoples' right to live.  That is the problem with US foreign policy; it is all about money and relationships.

whittsend wrote:

To be perfectly honest, I see Hugo Chavez as a much greather threat to stability and peace than anything Equatorial Guinea can muster.  Allegations of US misconduct are unproven, and quite possibly fabricated by Chavez's government itself.  Even so, here is a man who is fomenting armed insurrection in neighboring countries.  You will forgive me, I hope, if I don't shed a tear for him.

That's fine, your opinion versus mine.  I admit some of what I said is allegations, but it seems very likely that the US was somewhat responsible, given the statements made by the administration during the time.  Regardless, yes, Hugo probably is a bigger threat to US economic stability than E.G. is, if not for any other reason than the size of their economy.

whittsend wrote:

As far as your political affiliation goes, you claim not to be Conservative or Liberal, yet you seem to apply yourself a bit more in defending the Liberals.  I agree that being Liberal does not make one a Communist (or a leper), regardless, Liberals (in the US at any rate) espouse policies (in general) which I cannot help but feel are harmful to our country.

Yes, I have a hard time defending policies I do not agree with, and I do not agree with the majority of the current administration's policies.  If they were Democrats, it would be the same thing.  There are many things I do not agree with, it just seems that on these forums the Conservatives are the ones dominating the discussion, and I like to add my $.02 (Not to mention I love to debate, been doing it for years and plan on doing it for my career).

whittsend wrote:

Don't misunderstand, I have no love for Conservatives.  I abhor their social policies, and their words on economics rarely translate into deeds.  On the whole, I see both sides clubbing each other to implement virtually the same statist policies.

One thing you said that I absolutely agree with:  Both sides go out of their way to obfuscate the true issues.

Yep.  So what do *we* do?  Do we continue supporting a two-party system where the two parties are virtually the same, aside from certain social issues?  Or do we demand change, try to implement a coalition based multiparty system?  Or continue supporting our current system with hopes that it will eventually evolve into something different?

On a totally different note, I saw in another forum you mentioned you are a History/Poli Sci guy.  I am currently working on my MA in International Relations, and wonder, is what you are doing now what you are going to do for income, or do you see yourself becoming involved in politics (not necessarily running for office) in any way?  I am of the personal opinion that this country has too many businessmen, and not enough artists/philosophers/people of the mind.

Last edited by KEN-JENNINGS (2006-04-06 13:56:19)

whittsend wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

http://hdr.undp.org/reports/global/2003/indicator/cty_f_GNQ.html
Scroll down to #16, Flows of Aid....
Just one example.  Use the power of the internet and research some for yourself if you are so interested.

I suggest applying political pressure to the companies doing business with the dictatorships.  Yes, we removed the tyrannical government of Iraq.  But thats not why we went there my friend (at least not the reason given to the US public).  Now, after the fact, we say we are implementing democracy.  My point being that as long as tyrannical, totalitarian/authoritarian governments are of a benefit to the US, we do nothing.  Further, we try to subversively dismantle democratically elected governments (Venezuela) when they are not in line with US interests.
But I digress.  Back to the orginal topic.  Sorry guys

Ok, let me see if I have this straight...

Equatorial Guinea is a nasty dictatorship?  Given that their president has been in power since 1979, I can see that they are far from the ideal democracy...so ok.  But I do find myself wondering what makes them worse than others.  You also clam that the US is to be criticized for giving them on the order of $10E7?  Well, that is a pretty piss poor aid package, but whatever, I guess I can see that.

Yet, the US is also to be criticized for opposing the "democratically elected" government of Venezuela?  Wow.  That's pretty generous, given the number of irregularities in that 'democratic election.'

Why is it bad to support one questionable regime, and still bad to oppose a different questionable regime?  You seem to have a preference for one regime that a lot of people find oppresive and nasty, over another.  This is the same thing you accuse the US of doing.

Your viewpoint is inconsistent.  You have an axe to grind with respect to US policy.

Marconius wrote:

Anyways...I present the political spectrum:

http://content.answers.com/main/content … ectrum.PNG

Marconious, those charts are not good.  They represent no legitimate depiction of the political spectrum I have ever seen before.  The diamond shaped one you posted before was much better.

By the way, the 'Social Contract' is a myth perpetrated by statists.  It basically says we 'owe' the government for what it gives us (simplistic, but I'm trying to keep this short).  The flaw is that I don't accept it, it is forced upon me whether I like it or not.  The entire concept is like that of the 'Original Sin.'  One is born into the Social Contract; just as one is born with sin and must be saved by God, one is born into debt to one's government for the benefits it provides.  Sorry, but I don't accept either.  I have no sins other than those I have committed myself, and I do not owe for benefits I  have not explicitly accepted.

As far as this whole argument with lowing goes, he is not the best representative of his argument, but he has a point.   I  suspect many of you know it, and are deliberately ignoring it to undermine that point.  That is a debate technique (and a good one), but that doesn't change the truth of it.  I'm not going to pick up the gauntlet for him because I don't entirely agree with him (although I don't entirely disagree). 

Nevertheless, I have posted here twice regarding Classical Liberalism (which is the philosophy of Thomas Pain, Jefferson, Mill, Smith etc.)  Let's not make any mistakes here:  Classical Liberalism has absolutely nothing to do with modern Liberalism.  Modern Liberalism tends toward redistribution of wealth and government solutions to problems.  Classical Liberalism regards the rights of the individual as greater than those of the state, and frowns upon government solutions which require compulsion of the individual.  The two philosophies are AT ODDS.

The problem with lowing's argument is that he takes the Conservatives at their word.  They claim to be for limits on the authority of government, but in practice they are no better than the Liberals (who at least make it very clear they intend to use government to solve problems, regardless of any Constitutional obstacles).  Both trample the rights of the individual and make a shambles of the clear intent of the Constitution.  See Kelo vs. New London for an egregious example.  Look at any Federal Budget since 1988 for more.

Let me ask what it is that I said about the liberal agenda that you disagree with?

Also, no I do not take the conservatives at their word for anything, by their outragious spending, they have gone against their own doctrine. The whole thing boils down to having to choose sides, and I simply choose the lesser of 2 evils.

Spark wrote:

This may be a bit better

Wow, again the gospel of wikipedia....thank you Spark for giving us the fountain of all wisdom.

Horseman 77 wrote:

I really think a lot of Rapper shootings are staged.

Whatever.  Maybe in the same way that a normal hit is 'staged.'  Someone wants you dead because you pissed them off, so they pay someone to shoot you.  Or are you saying that if it was someone else in your record company who stands to gain by your death that makes it 'fake'.  I think like most of this things it usually traces back to money (and publicity, but for the benefit of the victim, just those who profit from the death).

lowing wrote:

Let me ask what it is that I said about the liberal agenda that you disagree with?

I had more of a problem with your espousal of Conservative views.  I don't have any problems with criticisms of the Liberal agenda.  Liberals are mostly wrong, except insofar as they advocate social freedoms.  Trouble is, they are about as good at being socially liberal, as the Conservatives are at being Fiscally Conservative.  That is, not very good at all.

In any case, if you want specifics, I'd have to go back and do some reading, and to be honest, I just don't want to read all of that stuff again, so I'll concede the point.  I'll try to be more specific in the future.

As I said before, I think you have some very valid points, and I think some of the folks you are discussing it with are deliberately ignoring them because you aren't the most articulate advocate of your position (that is not meant to be a criticism, that is just how it comes across in my reading of your posts - it isn't my intention to offend you).

It's a sad fact of life.  Stupid pretty people get jobs on TV.  Stupid articulate people get jobs as politicians.  Smart ugly and smart inarticulate people get ignored (although, that's not entirely true either; some of the ugly and inarticulate ones seem to slip through - have you ever heard Mayor Menino of Boston speak?  Holy crap.  As Robin Williams once said, "Rented Lips.")

Last edited by whittsend (2006-04-07 09:23:40)

whittsend wrote:

lowing wrote:

Let me ask what it is that I said about the liberal agenda that you disagree with?

I had more of a problem with your espousal of Conservative views.  I don't have any problems with criticisms of the Liberal agenda.  Liberals are mostly wrong, except insofar as they advocate social freedoms.  Trouble is, they are about as good at being socially liberal, as the Conservatives are at being Fiscally Conservative.  That is, not very good at all.

In any case, if you want specifics, I'd have to go back and do some reading, and to be honest, I just don't want to read all of that stuff again, so I'll concede the point.  I'll try to be more specific in the future.

As I said before, I think you have some very valid points, and I think some of the folks you are discussing it with are deliberately ignoring them because you aren't the most articulate advocate of your position (that is not meant to be a criticism, that is just how it comes across in my reading of your posts - it isn't my intention to offend you).

It's a sad fact of life.  Stupid pretty people get jobs on TV.  Stupid articulate people get jobs as politicians.  Smart ugly and smart inarticulate people get ignored (although, that's not entirely true either; some of the ugly and inarticulate ones seem to slip through - have you ever heard Mayor Menino of Boston speak?  Holy crap.  As Robin Williams once said, "Rented Lips.")

No offense taken, I find it very difficult to argue rationally against an irrational arguement. And you are correct with your observation about them ignoring, or re-directing, or purposely misconstruing points made. They ALL have done that in other threads as well that I have engaged in debate. When the heat is on them, they turn their attacks to my spelling, or my grammar or my intellect, instead of answering the damn questions. Kinda like in the REAL political arena. IE Mckinney turning the fact that she assaulted a police officer into a RACE issue. Boy oh boy, haven't we had a belly full of that race card bullshit already?

Last edited by lowing (2006-04-07 11:19:40)

Nutter Butter Peanut Butter Sandwich Cookies.

Spark wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

Nutter Butter Peanut Butter Sandwich Cookies.

I'll let that one pass throught to the keeper...

Hey, look at that Spark, we agree on something!

Darth_Fleder wrote:

Spark wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

Nutter Butter Peanut Butter Sandwich Cookies.

I'll let that one pass throught to the keeper...

Hey, look at that Spark, we agree on something!

O_o