BF2S Forums True Definition of Liberal Please?

Now, yes, they are getting their body armor.  AFTER it has been publicized for the last 2-1/2 years that they were having to buy their own armor, and outfit humvees with protective plating found in junkyards/old military vehicles.  I simply stated that GW did not send his troops properly equipped for battle, thus not supporting the troops.  So yes, after this was publicized, 2 and 1/2 years later they are getting the armor they need.

Like I said before, Bush sent the troops into war.  Congress gave him the authority to go to war, it did not make him.  Bush is in charge of our nation's armed forces.  That is why he is the "Commander in Chief."  $40 and $80 billion dollar war authorizations, but no body armor?  Congress approved much spending for the war efforts.  GW, being the ultimate authority when it comes to making these decisions, is the one to blame, not congress.

I agree completely.  Why send troops that are not properly equipped for war?  I think it is because he (GW)wanted to go to war no matter what, and some trivial issue like troop protection was not on the list of priorities.  But hey, that's just my opinion.

Last edited by KEN-JENNINGS (2006-04-04 15:19:13)

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Not necessarily responsible, but the government should take steps to help those that it (the government) and the citizens have repeatedly exploited.

Noted: but the word you did use was "Responsible " You also slipped the word exploited in. I caught it. Who did we exploit in the last 40 years?

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

I get the idea, and agree that the US system is full of bureaucracy that puts a drain on financial resources.

also noted: But you said school, which I have personal experience with "I should say I am speaking of NYC ONLY! maybe in Ohio for instance they kik ass "

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

There is no bureaucracy in the Military?  I find it hard to believe that the only arm of government that has needless spending is Public Education.  I think your statement about school spending is relevant to the Military as well.  I recommend the movie "Pentagon Wars" about the Bradley Fighting Vehicle to better illustrate this point.

I alluded to that, See >   " Give $1000 to the military They buy $600 worth of crap that works "  1000 : 600 get it ! But Still

Missiles go in windows, Burrow 300 feet down into bunkers while our fighting men strike at much safer distances. 
Our people stay Safer then ever before in a WAR.
Our enemies collapse before us and are reduced to planting a bomb at roadside and hoping they hurt "someone/anyone "
Our enemies Going full force cannot produce the same number of American casualties as the Los Angels crime element can.
The guy that makes the missile buys a new car gets his kid a pony and goes out to dinner once a month.
The money circulates and boosts the economy.
I would rather waste a couple Billion on an MX missile Program, Submarines and Space based Technology research that may never be used in the Hopes that it will prevent a Nuclear ( Nuke ya ler *) Show Down with The USSR and maybe even eventually Cause the USSR to Collapse .. ohh wait a minute.

Also, At the time they were developing it, I was against the Bradley too, however actual combat seems to have proven it to be worth while.
Look into the (Ammo for the Gun the A10 carries) or (the Switch from " Rapid ignition powder " the M16 was designed to use, to The Extruded ball Powder it ended up using ) for scandals. I am thinking of writing a book on the later.

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

It was not the excessive military buildup by the US that contributed to the fall of the soviet union.

Yes it was, Yes it was, Yes it was, Yes it was, Yes it was, Yes it was, Yes it was, Yes it was,

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

If you would like, I will explain the reasons behind the fall of the USSR.  Let me know.

Sounds a bit condescending, why ?
And Don't, I grew up in that era and watched the whole thing happen live time.
Ask Gorbachev. See what he said on the Topic.

" I will get them into an Arms Race that they Cannot Win " Ronald Reagan 1979

atlvolunteer wrote:

Why is this Bush's fault?  Isn't it the military's responsibility to buy the equipment they need?  If anything, you'd have to blame congress for not giving them the funds they need to buy the stuff.

blame lack of funds lol
at 750 billion dollars it NOT a lack of funds

Well the body armor issue is off topic so I will attempt to put us back on topic. I asked this question to a few liberals on this forum and it keeps getting side stepped, so I will ask again. Bottom line

What is it about Socialism or Communism that doesn't adhere to the liberal agenda??

Marconius wrote:

Socialism and Communism are two political ideologies that stem off the liberal left line of thought, just as totalitarianism and authoritarianism stem off the conservative right line of thought.  Left and Right being defined as the Economic polar extremes here, not the Social extremes.

This is not saying that a liberal democracy would equal Socialism, but more of the programs and actions of the government would become more social, rather than more privatized.  It favors maximum individual liberty in political and social reform.  When given enough time to evolve politically, it can turn into a social democracy (which is really what all of the worldwide Socialist parties have been envisioning, as Socialism itself is a step between capitalism and communism; a system of social organization where capital is owned and regulated by society as a whole, rather than by private companies).

I am not speaking in absolutes here, mind you.  I did a little more digging into the subject and found how these ideologies are being separated by current political scientists, redveloped out of such a Black and White stance:
Pretty interesting article on it here

I think we need to realise just how radically different communism especially is from the rest of left wing thought.

Despite the important differences from other left-wing ideologies, the Communism of the USSR and China is almost universally considered to be a part of "the left." This is somewhat parallel to the customary inclusion of fascism (and, in particular, that of Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy) in "the right." Nonetheless, communism differs significantly from other politics that are usually classified as left wing, and most left-wingers (even many far left groups) reject any association with it on the grounds that communism is too totalitarian to be politically humane or egalitarian. The argument that communism should be viewed independently of the conventional left-right spectrum has perhaps been made by Karl Popper, through his development of the concept of totalitarianism. There are, however, many communists (most notably Trotskyists and council communists) who regard the totalitarianism of the former Soviet Union to be the result of Stalinism and its betrayals of genuine communist ideology. Likewise, most right-wingers (including many nationalists) reject any association with Nazism and fascism.

Why is this?

Liberalism: the government and law should recieve LESS power.

Commusim: the government and the law have TOTAL power.

Also, I think we need to dissect 'liberalism' a bit more.

There is: Political and Cultural liberalism. These are the ones that most people follow anyway, whether they are 'Liberal' or not.

The more contentious ones are: economic and social liberalism. These are the ones you hear about, as these are the radical ones. Especially social liberalism/socialism.

The main problem with socialism is that it is based on total utilitarianism. The problem with THAT is that not everybody follows it, so it don't work.

And again Marconius, your definitions are anti-American I am sorry.

Marconius wrote:

Socialism and Communism are two political ideologies that stem off the liberal left line of thought, just as totalitarianism and authoritarianism stem off the conservative right line of thought.

Not to mention that that statement is completely false. Are you trying to say that Soviet Russia and today's China are/were NOT totalitarian and authoritarian? These two countries were/are completely sprung from left line os thought. The Nazi's which you are also trying to insinuate are right-wing referred to themselves as "National Socialists". The acronym from which Nazi was derived was Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei. Their guiding philosophy was to create a "Volk" community. In theory, a "Volk" community united all social classes and regions of Germany behind Hitler. Marconious, this sounds more in line with your left wing ideals than with conservatives.

Marconious wrote:

When given enough time to evolve politically, it can turn into a social democracy (which is really what all of the worldwide Socialist parties have been envisioning, as Socialism itself is a step between capitalism and communism; a system of social organization where capital is owned and regulated by society as a whole, rather than by private companies.

Hitler also had the same goal and you are dreaming to think that such an economy can just evolve without the measures taken by all who have tried it.

Just to illustrate where else you share ideological leanings with Hitler here is a passage from his infamous book dealing with social classes and wages.

Adolph Hitler wrote:

Of course the objection will be made that in general it is difficult to differentiate between the material and ideal values of work and that the lower prestige which is attached to physical labour is due to the fact that smaller wages are paid for that kind of work. It will be said that the lower wage is in its turn the reason why the manual worker has less chance to participate in the culture of the nation; so that the ideal side of human culture is less open to him because it has nothing to do with his daily activities. It may be added that the reluctance to do physical work is justified by the fact that, on account of the small income, the cultural level of manual labourers must naturally be low, and that this in turn is a justification for the lower estimation in which manual labour is generally held.
There is quite a good deal of truth in all this. But that is the very reason why we ought to see that in the future there should not be such a wide difference in the scale of remuneration. Don't say that under such conditions poorer work would be done. It would be the saddest symptom of decadence if finer intellectual work could be obtained only through the stimulus of higher payment. If that point of view had ruled the world up to now humanity would never have acquired its greatest scientific and cultural heritage. For all the greatest inventions, the greatest discoveries, the most profoundly revolutionary scientific work, and the most magnificent monuments of human culture, were never given to the world under the impulse or compulsion of money. Quite the contrary: not rarely was their origin associated with a renunciation of the worldly pleasures that wealth can purchase.
It may be that money has become the one power that governs life today. Yet a time will come when men will again bow to higher gods. Much that we have today owes its existence to the desire for money and property; but there is very little among all this which would leave the world poorer by its lack.
It is also one of the aims before our movement to hold out the prospect of a time when the individual will be given what he needs for the purposes of his life and it will be a time in which, on the other hand, the principle will be upheld that man does not live for material enjoyment alone. This principle will find expression in a wiser scale of wages and salaries which will enable everyone, including the humblest workman who fulfils his duties conscientiously, to live an honourable and decent life both as a man and as a citizen. Let it not be said that this is merely a visionary ideal, that this world would never tolerate it in practice and that of itself it is impossible to attain.
http://www.hitler.org/writings/Mein_Kampf/mkv2ch02.html

I, as a conservative, have two uses for the government. To protect me and my family from other countries and to to protect me and mine from you (that is a collective you).

Great job Godwin'ing the thread, Fleder...only 7 pages into it.  Did you guys look at the article I posted?  Evidently not, as there is quite a difference between Social Liberalism/Conservativism and Economic Liberalism/Conservativism.

A little help on the idea to better illustrate it

Horseman 77 wrote:

UnOriginalNuttah wrote:

You're sarcasm detector is way out of whack there.  .?

sarcasm doesn't work well here as emoticons are absent. Also, You are creating a circular argument because you came in late, Most of your angle has been hammered out. Its getting tedious.

I came in when lowing starting saying that liberals are communists. The first use of the word facist in this thread was (you guessed it) in my post on page 4! I came in after fully reading the thread because I felt that the statement lowing made was so ridiculous I couldn't let it stand unchallenged.   Not only that he starting to make by point that it wasn't the same by discrediting my obviously inflamatory statement  , which just proved my point that what he said about liberalism=communism was completely untrue and ridiculous.   

If someone can't tell that me saying that being a conservative is the same as being a facist control freak was a sarcastic retort to the statement that being a liberal was the same as being a rob-the-rich-communist because I didn't use an emoti-fucking-con then sorry.  Maybe if there was a good working example of a non-totalitarian communist system then I would have taken less offense at his statement, but since he implied that liberalism implied communism, I made the same statement in reverse.

Geddit yet?

Last edited by UnOriginalNuttah (2006-04-05 10:06:34)

Horseman 77 wrote:

I believe we must have completely different views and Ideas of what costly, cheap, long and short are.
I think if handled properly this War could be short. To me this means 6 to 10 years.

So a war possibly twice as long as WWII is short?  I want to know your opinion on why terrorists are fighting against the US, and to tell me what we can do in the next 5 years (we have been fighting them since late 2001) to get them to stop.  Concrete answers, not abstract.

Horseman 77 wrote:

As for costly I think our Casualties will top out at about 10000. In a War for our existence over ten years this is nothing.

Seeing as the war in Iraq has taken around 2400 US lives in close to three years, I highly doubt 10000 over ten years is a reasonable number. 

Horseman 77 wrote:

It may cost us year after year after year.  These people may remain our enemies forever.  That is the Hand Bush was Dealt, a hand clinton would not pick up.

I agree Clinton did not take action when he could have.  Neither did Bush.  There is countless testimony and evidence in the 9/11 Commission Report that shows the administration was well aware of impending terrorist attacks.  Please do not use Clinton as an excuse.

Horseman 77 wrote:

In my experience what money we send to social programs is wasted and squandered, with no results to show for it what so ever. Let them get their act together and spend what they already have correctly before they waste even more money. You have to see these people in action to believe the level of incompetence they an achieve.

Again, how can you be so narrow minded to think that social programs are the only ones that money is wasted on?  I know you are more intelligent than that, based on some of the discussion we've been having.

Horseman 77 wrote:

You missed my point, This is how we are handling this war. We are fighting it early. Though with less popular support. I guess we needed more people to die before Every last " Deep thinker" would get onboard. If we had started in 1993 when they attacked the WTC then, it would have been easier still. The past Administration had no back bone for it and turned a blind eye. He had other things on his mind no doubt. It cost us all.

So we are fighting this war earlier and with greater efficiency than WWII, and it will still take us (the US) twice as long?

Horseman 77 wrote:

We need to be the worlds foremost power because we cannot trust anyone else with this responsibility.  We do carry the weight better than anyone else is or has. I do not believe we are colonizing anyplace nor are we controlling their resources.

Who is to say that we (U.S.A.) are more trustworthy than anyone else in this regard?  And as far as colonization and exploitation of resources, yes we have been doing it and currently are in a number of places.  Look at any oil rich country in Africa.  We (the US government) support their dictatorships because they give us cheap access to their natural resources.  The same thing we did in Afghanistan with the Taliban before 9/11.  Look at African countries rich in Coltan, an essential metal used for superconductors in all sorts of electronics.  We support their dictatorships because they give us (US companies) cheap access to their natural resources.  So maybe not colonization in the 21st century, but definitely exploitation.

Horseman 77 wrote:

Noted: but the word you did use was "Responsible " You also slipped the word exploited in. I caught it. Who did we exploit in the last 40 years?

Actually, someone else posted on this, and I was offering my opinion.  40 years is not a valid time frame in my opinion either.  Look at blacks in the U.S; persecuted and treated inhumanely for over 150 years, then we pass the Civil Rights Act outlawing discrimination, but it still was (and is in some parts of the country) socially acceptable.  We as a country have been exploiting Latinos for at least the last 40 years.

Horseman 77 wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

It was not the excessive military buildup by the US that contributed to the fall of the soviet union.

Yes it was, Yes it was, Yes it was, Yes it was, Yes it was, Yes it was, Yes it was, Yes it was,

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

If you would like, I will explain the reasons behind the fall of the USSR.  Let me know.

Sounds a bit condescending, why ?
And Don't, I grew up in that era and watched the whole thing happen live time.
Ask Gorbachev. See what he said on the Topic.

" I will get them into an Arms Race that they Cannot Win " Ronald Reagan 1979

Not trying to be condescending, but I know a good deal about the subject.  There is a difference in what you hear on the news, and what is reality.  There were a few reasons the USSR unraveled, and in the interest of not boring you to death, here are the main three: Lack of centralized control over the vast amount of land and resources; Increasing ethnic tensions between the majority Russians and minority groups; The incredible mismanagement of production and manufacturing on the part of the Russian government.  So no, despite Reagan's statements on the contrary, it was not because of an Arms Race.  But thanks Reagan and future presidents for using the military-industrial complex to put us further into debt.

lowing wrote:

lol the difference is........You were being sarcastic........I wasn't........I asked you many times before to tell me what ideals todays liberals hold that are any different than socialist or communist. you refused to answer the question but instead ran away with your "sarcasm".


SO once again I pose THE SAME question........tell me here and now what communism/socialism holds as a doctrine that liberals don't?

Do I need to, really?  Fine, here's some wikipedia that clarifies the difference between liberalism and communism and socialism. 

"Socialism is a social and economic system (or the political philosophy advocating such a system) in which the economic means of production are owned and controlled collectively by the people. This control may be either direct, exercised through popular collectives such as workers' councils, or it may be indirect, exercised through a State. A primary concern of socialism (and, according to some, its defining feature) is social equality and an equitable distribution of wealth that would serve the interests of society as a whole."

Hmm, state/worker controlled production and fair distribution of wealth?  Private enterprise is a part of liberal beliefs.  And I don't think Michael Moore would argue for that, seeing as he is now quite well off.  Argues that the government should not give big tax breaks to the ultra rich, but I don't think he'd like to see the end of private enterprise that allowed him to get rich from pointing out the obvious.  Social Equality and no classes, eh?  Bit different from just wanting the basic human rights of the poor and of minorities to be guarantee, methinks.

"Communism refers to a conjectured future classless, stateless social organization based upon common ownership of the means of production, and can be classified as a multivariant branch of the broader socialist movement."

Now, let's look at Marxism:

"Ever since Marx's death in 1883, various groups around the world have appealed to Marxism as the theoretical basis for their politics and policies, which have often proved to be dramatically different and conflicting. One of the first major political splits occurred between the advocates of 'reformism', who argued that the transition to socialism could occur within existing bourgeois parliamentarian frameworks, and communists, who argued that the transition to a socialist society required a revolution and the dissolution of the capitalist state. "

So the Marxist communists want to pull the state apart completely and start over... doesn't fit my image of liberalism, sorry.  Let's try Leninism:

"Leninism holds that capitalism can only be overthrown by revolutionary means (i.e. that any attempt to reform capitalism from within is doomed to fail). According to Lenin, the revolution should be followed by a period of dictatorship of the proletariat (a system of workers' democracy, in which workers would hold political power through councils known as soviets; see also soviet democracy)."

Nope, still no good.  Let's keep going though:

"The term "Stalinism" is sometimes used to denote the brand of communist theory that dominated the Soviet Union and the countries within the Soviet sphere of influence during and after the leadership of Joseph Stalin by anti-communists and trotskyists. The term used in the Soviet Union and by most who uphold its legacy, however, is "Marxism-Leninism", reflecting that Stalin himself was not a theoretician."

Since it is a combination of Leninism and Marxism, it still doesn't quite fit, does it?  Let's try another:

"Maoism or Mao Zedong Thought (Chinese: 毛泽东思想, pinyin: Máo Zédōng Sīxiǎng), is a variant of Marxism-Leninism derived from the teachings of the Chinese communist Mao Zedong."

Still doesn't work for me, still stuck with the revolution thing.  We've almost run out now.  Let's just try one more:

"Trotskyism is the theory of Marxism as advocated by Leon Trotsky. Trotsky considered himself a Bolshevik-Leninist, arguing for the establishment of a vanguard party. He considered himself an advocate of orthodox Marxism. His politics differed greatly from those of Stalin or Mao, most importantly in declaring the need for an international "permanent revolution". Numerous groups around the world continue to describe themselves as Trotskyist and see themselves as standing in this tradition, although they have diverse interpretations of the conclusions to be drawn from this."

Damn, back to othodox Marxism again.  Guess we should take a look at liberalism in case you somehow think you can still argue this point:

"Liberalism is an ideology, philosophy, and political tradition which holds liberty as the primary political value. Broadly speaking, liberalism seeks a society characterized by freedom of thought for individuals, limitations on the power of government, wealth, and religion, the rule of law, the free exchange of ideas, a market economy that supports private enterprise, and a transparent system of government in which the rights of minorities are guaranteed. In modern society, liberals favour a liberal democracy in the form of either a republic (e.g. France, Germany and India) or a constitutional monarchy (e.g. the Netherlands, Sweden, the United Kingdom and the countries of the Commonwealth realm), with open and fair elections, where all citizens have equal rights by law and an equal opportunity to succeed."

Not quite the same thing really, is it?  I'm sure you won't drop the dead donkey yet though.

Last edited by UnOriginalNuttah (2006-04-05 11:03:46)