You're right about one thing. Liberal means desiring change from whatever system you're using to a different system. If you're working under a monarchy or dictatorship, more power to ya. But here it just doesn't work. The US constitution is the ultimate in implementable (admittedly, true Marxist communism would be better, but human nature prevents that from working on any large scale) forms of human government. It is very near the pinnicle of sociatal evolution. It could use some tweaks (define when life begins, kill that "promote the general welfare" clause, etc.), but that's what ammendments are for. The point: the basic system we have is very nearly as perfect as human beings can make it. I oppose basic changes to the system because I believe that basic changes to the system can only be bad. When you're at the top, there's nowhere to go but down.

I also tried to ensure that each definition was not what "they" thought they were, but what the opposite side percieved them as.

That's the problem with the terms "Liberal" and "Conservative". Neither side is willing to examine the other in objective terms. A Liberal automatically assumes his methods will make society a better place, and that a Conservative's aim is to preserve the status quo (oe restore a former status quo). A Conservative believes that he is trying to preserve the freedoms and responsibilities he percieves the Liberals as trying to tear down. Both positions are reactionary. Neither is quite correct.

--Baloo

------------------
If you believe in love at first sight, you need glasses.
If you already have glasses, get a guide dog.
www.geocities.com/Area51/Shire/8641/

Funny, I was thinking that this was the problem with the CONSERVATIVE POV.

I suppose it just depends on WHOSE version of morality you're trying to legislate, eh?

And both sides DO try to legislate their version of morality, something I don't rightly agree with. I would rather believe in a policy of "you let me alone, I'll let you alone, and everything will be fine." You read your books watch what you want to watch on TV, teach your kids what you want at home and in the Church of Your Choice, and I'll do the same. Leave MY kid out of YOUR life, though. IF I don't want him reading Harry Potter or watching "The Last Temptation of Christ," that's MY business, and MY decision, not yours. If you don't like what's on TV, TURN IT OFF. If you don't like what those consenting adults are doing in their bedroom, QUIT PEEKING THROUGH THE DRAPES. If there ARE no drapes, THEN maybe you could complain. But you'd be better off giving them some drapes, so they get the hint.

------------------
'In every country and in every age the priest has been hostile to Liberty; he is always in allegiance to the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection of his own." ---- Thomas Jefferson

I've never yet heard of a "liberal" group trying to get a book removed from a school or public library. It's usually conservative "church" or "family values" groups.

I've never heard of a "liberal" organization shutting down a prom because the kids wanted to use Queen's "We are the Champions" as the theme (oh, heavens! A song by a gay person/band! It might turn our kids gay! o_0)
or invite the Indigo Girls or Melissa Etheridge to play.

------------------
Fool of a Took, throw yourself in next time!!
Gandalf

Point to be made: Say you have a single mother with two kids. Due to a medical condition, she is unable to obtain employment. Conservatives would ignore her and the plight she is in. Liberals would try to make life easier for her and her two children. Conservatives are more likely to remove any or all the stepping stones and leave them out to rot and die.

No, I'm not a socialist, as many people may think. But I do not believe in doing things that make the rich richer and the poor poorer.

------------------
"Stirs a large iron pot. Casting a spell on Vermont."
--
John Linnell

What's in a name? People can call themselves conservative and still do many liberal things (Pat Buchanan, for example, has a number of liberal ideas). I would call trying to keep certain books or musics out of schools liberal, no matter who's trying to do it. Now if a parent wouldn't let their own kid go to a prom because of the music, that's their own business, and they shouldn't try to force that on everyone else.

Tahna:

"No wonder why Conservatives just do things that only benefit the wealthy and punish the less fortunate."

Uh, excuse me? No. Name one thing that true conservatives have done to help the "rich get richer while the poor get poorer".

OK, here's the deal in the hypothetical situation you stated. No matter how much compassion you have for the woman, there is absolutely no constitutional basis for the government giving her money. I, as a private citizin, would do everything I could to help her, but there is no legal basis for the US government doing so. That should be the individual states' business (unless you would care to try and pass an ammendment). And instead of just giving her money for the rest of her life, they should try to find a job that she CAN do. The conservative view in such a situation would be to help her help herself, whereas the liberal view would be to just give her a handout and walk away. "Give a man a fish" as opposed to "teach a man to fish", as it were. Funny, how the liberal position doesn't require any thought on the part of the person helping the woman. Just give her money and walk away.

"No, I'm not a socialist, as many people may think. But I do not believe in doing things that make the rich richer and the poor poorer."

So what do you propose? Making the rich poorer and the poor richer by force of law? I hate to tell you this (well, actually, no, I don't : ), but that's socialism. I suggest that the government tax everyone equally and let everyone do as they please with their property.

In which case, your definitions of "conservative" and "liberal" differ from everyone else in the known universe's. Which is what I've come to expect... o_0

True, but since that isn't going to happen, I suggest that the government stay out of it. Why should a person who makes ten million a year have to pay more taxes relative to his total income than someone who makes ten thousand a year? They both get an equal say in government, so why should one pay more than the other? A question comes to mind. Can you have your voting rights temporarily revoked for not paying your taxes? I should hope so. No representation without taxation.

1/2:

I'll take that as a complement.

Do you have the chicken, OR the beef OR the pasta OR the salad OR some combination OR do you just skip lunch altogether and go for a walk cause you're too fat anyway?

There's no way you can reduce that to binary. Same with anything in which there may be more than one solution, or more than two sides to pick from. Anyone using "binary thinking" would be stupified by "lateral thinking" problems, since it would be impossible for them to think along those lines.

Jeff Raven: "The only way to stop the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer is for mankind as a whole to turn its pursuits not to the accumulation of money and objects, but to the pursuits of Knowledge... Only then can we all be economically equal."

Jeff, Jeff, Jeff. When was the last time you tried to eat an idea? Of course, once we're all starving I suppose we'll all be equal -- at least until the strong start devouring the weak.

The sad fact is that too many equate knowledge and wisdom. Having been in the military and seen scads of second lieutenants (each and every one of them with at least a four-year degree) I do not share that view. Mind you, I do believe that people with knowledge are less likely to be stupid, but for some, that ability comes only with practice.

Just how do the rich get richer? Well I suppose some just rob from the poor, but there's more profit in robbing from the rich. Unless you're an enterpreneur, your best bet for survival (apart from going off into the wilderness to live off the land) is to get a job.

Questions:

Who is most likely to require employees?
Who is most likely to pay them?
Who is going to require places of business?
Who is going to pay for someone to build these places?
Who is going to pay the people who maintain these places?
Who is going to buy office supplies and electricity and water and send mail and packages?

Business creates jobs and "rich" people run businesses. The federal government passed a luxury tax a few years ago, taxing any non-essential item (boats and cars, for instance) that cost over $30,000. Did it hurt the rich? Did it generate revenue? No.

What that tax did was to reduce the quantity of taxable items over $30,000 that were purchased. Rather than pay an outrageously huge tax on something they didn't need, but only wanted, many rich folks just waited for prices to come down. Or they postponed the purchase until they felt they could afford the additional tax. Companies that manufactured such luxury items downsized or folded. The amount of additional revenues brought in by the new tax were dwarfed by the cost of administering it. The rich got richer (because they were saving their oney and not spending it) and the poor got poorer, precisely because someone wanted to stick it to the rich.

If you feel that people with too much money should have it taken away, what you are contemplating is theft. It's more honest to make the rich poorer by selling them something than it is to just take their money through taxation. Trust me. I am not rich, but I will shortly be looking for a job. I'm not going to apply to work for some poor guy, either.
</tangent>

--Baloo

------------------
Welcome to the museum of really dangerous things.
Feel free to pick up and handle any of the displays.
www.geocities.com/Area51/Shire/8641/

Two words, Robber Barons.