quote:

---

It's just that the majority of fools seem to gravitate to Extreme Liberalism... or Fundamentalism.

---

And extreme conservtism. Fools are everywhere and are easy to spot on the extremes...left and right.

And Omega, while you answered the specific question (which was really rhetorical), you missed the forrest. What I wanted comment on was this:

quote:

---

Let's make it a multi-national, heck even global effort so that every country in the world is protected from these from rouge ICBMs.

---

Feel free to reopen the thread to answer....it really doesn't belong here.

And Mr. Snay. At what point in the process of banging one's head against a wall do we figure out that there is nothing to be gained?

Thing is, with various people on these boards, and in the world in general, it is easy to be an ideologue. It is easier to fall back on the harangues of pundits in place of thinking and not feel the world to be be a complicated place.

Omega clearly has no idea what liberal or progressive thought entails. And just as clearly he has made the decision not to find out.

It's easier to insulate than to investigate.

[ October 11, 2001: Message edited by: Jay the Obscure ]

quote:

---

If every country in the world had minimal government, how many wars would we have seen this century? Any at all?

---

Let me rephrase that sentence for you, Ommie.

quote:

---

If every country in the world had minimal religion, how many wars would we have seen this century? Any at all?

---

Certainly, the number of overzealous fundamentalist fruitcakes (does the name Princip ring a bell?) populating this planet would be a lot smaller. It'd be much harder for them to hide behind religious convictions, in any case.

I suppose you have also conveniently 'forgotten' the fact that liberalism (of which clear definitions exist, by the way - yours isn't one of them) helped establish the stable western governments of today. But you'd rather live under authoritarian rule, wouldn't you?

Shades of grey, Omega, not just black and white.

[ October 12, 2001: Message edited by: IDIC ]

It's all about propaganda, which can come in many forms.

On the other hand, I totally agree with your "rephrasing", just that it does not apply to China. The Soviet Union? I really cannot say. Clearly, more atrocities have to do with ethnic minorities and religion more than anything else. China seems to be the exception.

[ October 11, 2001: Message edited by: Tahna Los ]

I'd say around 90% of them. Both world wars would still have happened. The Soviets would still have killed eighty or ninety million of their own people. Same for the Chinese. Same for Sadaam, and almost every other dictator on the planet.

Jay:

Let's make it a multi-national, heck even global effort so that every country in the world is protected from these from rouge ICBMs

Um... I DID answer that.

Omega clearly has no idea what liberal or progressive thought entails.

I've never quite figured this out: progressive in what direction? Progress towards what, exactly? It's another one of those meaningless terms.

Hitler was not a liberal.

Yes, he was, because he believed in a large government. When you're discussing politics within the US, you need to use terms that apply here to avoid confusion. Hitler may not have been a liberal in the sense that the term was used in 1930's Germany, but he's certainly a liberal by the definitions of 2001 America.

Think about it: the Democrats are liberal. You don't disagree with that, I presume. But the liberals never want to change ANYTHING. Notice how nothing major happened during the Clinton administration without GOP support? Thus the definition of liberal must be different than what you think it is.

A word means what people mean when they say it.

But I notice...

"Liberals want to change things to increase personal freedom and tolerance, and are willing to empower government to the extent necessary to achieve those ends."

The definition is contradictory. They want to increase personal freedom, but they also want to increase the power of the government over people. Impossible. Also stupid, as history has repeatedly shown.

Yes, Castro is a socialist/Communist Dictator. But that does not imply that All Out Socialist = Dictatorship.

Quite correct, it merely implies a still undesirable totalitarian government. I stand corrected.

Ontario had a Socialist government at one point. Were they labelled Dictators? No. What about the present Conservative government? References to Dictator are being made on Mike Harris.

quote:

---

Pick your definition. Liberal and conservative don't mean the same thing in Canada (or pretty well anywhere else) as they have here since ~1930-40.

---

quote:

---

but he's certainly a liberal by the definitions of 2001 America.

---

By your definition.

quote:

---

the Democrats are liberal. You don't disagree with that, I presume.

---

For the most part, they're more-so then Republicans, but less so then the Green Party.

quote:

---

Notice how nothing major happened during the Clinton administration without GOP support?

---

Gee, you don't think it had anything to do with the GOP majority shooting down any and all bills they didn't like, do you? GASP!

quote:

---

Yes, he was, because he believed in a large government. When you're discussing politics within the US, you need to use terms that apply here to avoid confusion.

---

*GASP!* Somebody better tell George W. Bush. You may not be aware of this, but he's taken the very liberal (by your definition) step of Federalizing airport/plane security. Or did you miss that?

quote:

---

The definition is contradictory. They want to increase personal freedom, but they also want to increase the power of the government over people.

---

Then I guess George W. Bush is a liberal ... or have you failed to notice the power the government has recently gained? Oh, of course, as you already said, you don't care if it doesn't effect you.

But, because you're in desperate need of a real education ...

quote:

---

Once upon a time (in the 1800s), "liberal" and "libertarian" meant the same thing; both were individualist, distrustful of state power, pro-free-market, and opposed to the entrenched privilege of the feudal and mercantilist system. After 1870, models of of society were being refined in terms of the structural effects of group interaction; the social environment came to be seen as a significant factor in determining the ability of large numbers of people to succeed in attaining their goals (and indeed in determining what those goals were). Libertarians felt that any attempt to solve social problems had to depend on private, voluntary effort, and that modifying social factors would inevitably lead to worse problems. Liberals felt that the problems were too serious to be passively left to chance in this way, and that government should have a role in influencing the social framework within which people act. Economically, liberals came to believe that pure free markets led to systematic abuse, so that a limited amount of regulation was needed; libertarians continued to favour the caveat emptor approach. By this time, conservatives had become comfortable with the free-market, capitalist system, so they joined forces with the libertarians on the economic (though not the social) front.

Liberals see the role of government as providing a framework within which individuals can develop their lives and contribute to society. Regulation of private industry is needed to ensure integrity and safety, with respect to customers and workers. Equal opportunity should be a goal, which entails a level of provision to ameliorate the effects of poverty and discrimination. Health care and education should be universally available, since without either, individual choice is severely limited. Liberals do *not* want the government to protect people from themselves, or to interfere in individual interaction, except insofar as to prevent systematic actions that cause harm.

---

quote:

---

We would also have missed out on the Holocaust and the Soviet and Chinese attrocities.

---

::sigh:: Read:

quote:

---

Communists understand society as interactions of groups, to the extent that they largely ignore the value and effect of individual action. Socialists, while advocating individual rights, see property-owning structures in society as inevitably leading to corruption and the ill-treatment of the poor by the rich. Both groups arose as a reaction to the abuses of capitalists, and so feel that individual acquisitiveness is the primary cause of social injustice and poverty. [This is over-simplified.] Liberals feel that when properly regulated, self-interest is a powerful and useful motivation; it should be harnessed, rather than erased.

---

All quoted sections referenced from Chris Holt's webpage.

[ October 11, 2001: Message edited by: Malnurtured Snay ]

1. I enjoy Rush Limbaugh because he is entertaining. I think he's quite humorous. Occasionally, I'll find out about some bit of news that happened that the general media either missed or wouldn't report.

2. He is definitely conservative but he is by no means an extremist. To call him a racist sexist bigot is ignorance on your part.

3. He has a listening audience of over 20 million people- the most listened-to radio show in existence. He's gotta be doing something right.

4. I mentioned to one of my professors about Rush's ailment, and thusly a fellow classmate cheered. I can't believe anyone would cheer such a fate.

5. People too often here confuse liberal with "democrat" and conservative with "Republican." There are a great deal of conservative democrats and liberal Republicans. Be careful when flapping these terms about.

quote:

---

1. I enjoy Rush Limbaugh because he is entertaining

---

Yes, I remember you said he wasn't to be taken seriously.

quote:

---

He is definitely conservative but he is by no means an extremist. To call him a racist sexist bigot is ignorance on your part.

---

Not sexist?

"Now I got something for you that's true--1972, Tufts University, Boston. This is 24 years ago--or 22 years ago. Three year study of 5000 co-eds, and they used a benchmark of a bra size of 34C. They found that the--now wait. It's true. The larger the bra-size, the smaller the IQ." (TV show, 5/13/94)

Dr. Burton Hallowell, president of Tufts in the '60s and '70s, had "absolutely no recollection" of such a study, according to Tufts' communications office. "I surely would have remembered that!" he exclaimed. Limbaugh's staff was unable to produce any such study. A search of the Nexis database--while revealing no evidence of a Tufts study--did produce a number of women theorizing that the presence of large breasts caused a lowering of IQ in some males.

Now that we've got "sexist" down, I'll find some "racist" and "bigot" remarks he's made to disprove that. Do you recall by any chance the .sig I had for awhile -- his quote, about women choosing orgasms over brains?

quote:

---

He has a listening audience of over 20 million people- the most listened-to radio show in existence. He's gotta be doing something right.

---

Yes, he's making lots of people laugh. He's funnier then Comedy Central. But, hey, no-one's supposed to "take him seriously", remember?

quote:

---

I mentioned to one of my professors about Rush's ailment, and thusly a fellow classmate cheered. I can't believe anyone would cheer such a fate.

---

Perhaps they're admiring the irony of someone who blasted the ADA becoming disabled himself. Then again, if Bill Clinton got his penis chopped off, I'd have a hard time believing you wouldn't be a bit happy about it.

quote:

---

People too often here confuse liberal with "democrat" and conservative with "Republican." There are a great deal of conservative democrats and liberal Republicans. Be careful when flapping these terms about.

---

quote:

---

Let's make it a multi-national, heck even global effort so that every country in the world is protected from these from rouge ICBMs.

Um... I DID answer that.

---

Did you? Perhaps you could point me to your stealth answer then.

quote:

---

I've never quite figured this out: progressive in what direction? Progress towards what, exactly? It's another one of those meaningless terms.

---

Thank you for proving my point.

quote:

---

Yes, he was, because he believed in a large government. When you're discussing politics within the US, you need to use terms that apply here to avoid confusion. Hitler may not have been a liberal in the sense that the term was used in 1930's Germany, but he's certainly a liberal by the definitions of 2001 America.

---

That is, without a doubt, one of the most confused and uneducated passages I've had the pleasure to read. Thank you Omega for bringing a smile to my face and a chuckle to my lips.

I would, however, seek clarification on one or two points.

Hitler was a liberal. Ok, would you care to offer up anything in the way of proof for that statement?

Let me see if I can anticipate a couple of things you might have brought up had you had the time.

Hitler expanded the infulence of the German government to include road building programs. Why did Hitler build roads? To move troops? To further his military aspirations? Heck, even the Romans figured that out. They must have been the most "liberal" bunch in history!

That would certainly make Eisenhower...damn him and those interstate highways.

Military expansion and massive military work projects must therefor be a hallmark of liberalism. As a result, Frederick the Great was a liberal; Alexander the Great was a liberal; Abraham Lincoln was a liberal; Hideki Tojo was a liberal; Charlemagne was a liberal.

But this takes the cake:

quote:

---

Think about it: the Democrats are liberal. You don't disagree with that, I presume. But the liberals never want to change ANYTHING. Notice how nothing major happened during the Clinton administration without GOP support? Thus the definition of liberal must be different than what you think it is.

---

Democrats are liberal. Some are. Some are not. But I imagine that's a bit too complicated a way to view the world.

As for not wanting to change anything. *shrug* I would conjecture that you are purposefully not reading and understanding history before posting.

Since it seems that your memory only goes back to Clinton, then you can bring to mind the attempt to change the health care system. As for members of the opposition party working with president....well, that's the system we have isn't it.

[ October 11, 2001: Message edited by: Jay the Obscure ]

This is one of those times. I am SOOOOOO sick of 'War of the Definitions.'

So, I wanna smack both the UberConservative and the ArchLiberal. Does that make me a Moderate?

quote:

---

Originally posted by First of Two:
So, I wanna smack both the UberConservative and the ArchLiberal. Does that make me a Moderate?

---

Jay, you said, let's give the shield to any country that wants to help pay for it, to which I replied, I believe that's the current plan. Go read the thread, would you? It's on the first page, half way down, give or take a post.

Gee, you don't think it had anything to do with the GOP majority shooting down any and all bills they didn't like, do you?

Clinton never PROPOSED anything major. Nothing to save SS or Medicare, for example. All that he proposed was Nafta, et al., which is an external issue, not subject to current US definitions of libereal and conservative. That and his budgets, which slashed the military and hiked funding for social programs.

Somebody better tell George W. Bush. You may not be aware of this, but he's taken the very liberal (by your definition) step of Federalizing airport/plane security.

No, that is NOT liberal, because the federal government gains no new power over anyone's life.

Liberals felt that the problems were too serious to be passively left to chance in this way, and that government should have a role in influencing the social framework within which people act.

BINGO! Liberals think that government is the solution to our problems. Thank you.

Liberals do *not* want the government to protect people from themselves

Coulda fooled me.

Liberals feel that when properly regulated, self-interest is a powerful and useful motivation; it should be harnessed, rather than erased.

Again, give the government power, and it'll fix everything. Read a history book, man, 'cause that's been disproven time and again.

People too often here confuse liberal with "democrat" and conservative with "Republican." There are a great deal of conservative democrats and liberal Republicans.

Yes, but when talking about the democrats, one can also be refering to the democratic party as an institution, which is most certainly liberal.

"Now I got something for you that's true--1972, Tufts University, Boston. This is 24 years ago--or 22 years ago. Three year study of 5000 co-eds, and they used a benchmark of a bra size of 34C. They found that the--now wait. It's true. The larger the bra-size, the smaller the IQ."

Did it ever occur to you that he may have had a bad source?

Here's a game: make a list of all the eronius statements that Rush Limbaugh has made in his career. Eliminate the jokes. The rest are presumably due to bad sources. You wanna know how long that list will be, after a 14-year career, plus some TV and a couple books? About three pages.

See, someone already did that, in a book called "The Way Things Aren't: Rush Limbaugh's Reign of Error". It was already a very small book in all dimensions (we're talking little kiddie size, here), and half the stuff in it was obviously intended as humor. The rest added up to about two real pages of text. Toss in a generous extra page for the years since this was published, and Rush is still far more accurate than most school textbooks out there.

Go ahead. Try it.

I'll find some "racist" and "bigot" remarks he's made

Five bucks. Anyone?

Of course, Jeff has enough bucks, what with that deer-killing machine he rides around in...

Perhaps they're admiring the irony of someone who blasted the ADA becoming disabled himself.

He still won't support the ADA, because it's still a bad federal law.

And it looks like he'll be getting his hearing back, at least in part, BTW. Not that anyone probably cares about the original topic of discussion at this point.

Hitler was a liberal. Ok, would you care to offer up anything in the way of proof for that statement?

Stupid Browser crash. I was writing a nice blurb for you to consider.

The Nazis were an Authoritarion Government. Authoritarian Governments have power over people. It has nothing to do with Liberalism or Conservatism.

Liberalism and Conservatism is a collection of economic and social ideas. Taxes, Gun Control, Social Programs, Medicare, The ideas on Chris Holt's site do not mention the size of government, only the fact that the citizens expect the government to make their lives easier. They do not expect the Government to abuse its power and make their lives a living hell.

These ideas are basically the same as your federal government taking over aviation security. Yes, it is the government's constitutional obligation to protect its citizens from threats, but why did this not include Aviation security? (If you say the Democrats or Liberals were responsible, I swear I'll smack you.)

One of the Liberal Ideas here is the Canadian Human Rights Commission, which mediates disputes and allegations of racism, sexism, and other forms of discrimination which prevents the complainant's right to equal service. Bigger government, right? Fine, I'll accept your argument there. But this is an example of how Liberalism is supposed to work. Same with Medicare. The thing is, the CHRC and Medicare ARE NOT instruments of Authoritarianism.

The difference between Chretien and Hitler is that Chretien was given governmental power to help its citizens and give them what they want. Hitler was given governmental power, but abused it to force many of its citizens to live in perpetual hell. Did Hitler have these programs in his government? No. (Human rights during the Holocaust? right) And you still think he is a Liberal?

Omega, I'll tell you straight, if you present these ideas to ANY political science class in ANY university, I will tell you that you will fail miserably. Then of course you will blame it on the Universities being under the power of the "liberal" government.

Finally, from Chris Holt's site, the definition of "Liberalism" was derived from "Libertarianism". Of course, you know what Libertarianism is, so how the hell do you associate Hitler with Liberalism?

To sum it up for your ahem.... thick skull....
Hitler = Authoritarianism.
but Liberalism != Authoritarianism.

[ October 12, 2001: Message edited by: Tahna Los ]

quote:

---

No, that is NOT liberal, because the federal government gains no new power over anyone's life.

---

Yes, obviously they do, although your brain-dead self is too stupid or too ignorant to watch the news becuase you're too busy screaming "THOSE LIBERAL BIASED FUCKS!"