I am NOT a Conservative.

[GoodSpeak]

Folks,

I take a position based upon it's merit.

I do not examine who said it or who supports it.


I just react to the sentiment.


I have no love for the republican party, but I will not....no, I f***ing REFUSE to blindly rubberstamp the Left, either.


It had better make sense or I am all over it.



Make it happen, Lefties or I'm going to attack your point of view, too.






Please excuse me for being real.




I am a Man.


I have a point to be made.


I have feelings.


I am NOT stupid.




No how, no freakin' way.






Get off me.

[jesus marion joseph]

You hittin' the bottle tonight, or what?

[GoodSpeak]

Nope.


Hitting bottom.


Sometimes this place just gets to me.






Sue me.

[tippy]

Goodspeak, I agree. Katrina has been used at JC in a way that trivializes the suffering of those who had to endure it. Impeach Bush for lying or for not being a winner in 2000, but not over a natural disaster that NOLA's not been prepared for for 3 decades now. That's just ridiculous.

But it also shows how desperate and helpless people feel. If Bush goes down for Katrina that's okay because he does deserve to go down and nothing else has stuck.

Weak, Tippz.

[rollhead]

Goody: I am not a conservative, either. Are we the only two left who aren't?

[crawjo]

Originally Posted by rollhead

Goody: I am not a conservative, either. Are we the only two left who aren't?

What are you, then?

[rollhead]

Originally Posted by crawjo

What are you, then?

Ah! That's easy. I have been defined by Scott Dolan and Sonic1 as a boring, freedom-hating liberal.

Originally Posted by sonic1

Whatever rollie, ramble on. I just get bored with people who are so completely predictable in their opinions. You take the leftist ideas hook and sinker, and question nothing, and think yourself a big thinker.

While you guys wallow in your cool, self-congratulatory irony -- I am out "completely predictably" kicking The Man's ass!

[rollhead]

Originally Posted by GoodSpeak

Nope.

Hitting bottom.


Sometimes this place just gets to me.

Sue me.

Hey, GoodBuddy.

Illegitimi non carborundum!

[jesus marion joseph]

Originally Posted by rollhead

self-congratulatory irony -- I am out "completely predictably" kicking The Man's ass!

[crawjo]

Originally Posted by rollhead

Ah! That's easy. I have been defined by Scott Dolan and Sonic1 as a boring, freedom-hating liberal.

But how would you define yourself? I'm not asking this question to be annoying. I am interested in how you would label your political views. Also, if liberal, how do you define liberal? One thing that I think gets confusing about this whole liberal/conservative thing is that it's not entirely clear what these terms mean. If for instance, somebody told you in 1999 that the next president would raise discretionary spending as much as this one has, you probably wouldn't have described that as conservative. For me, to be "conservative" means that you favor tax cuts, smaller government, states' rights over federal rights, and a hawkish foreign policy. You also place a great deal of importance on "family values" and oppose Roe v. Wade and affirmative action while supporting the rights of gun owners and favoring some religion in the public sphere. And you are in favor of the death penalty.

Based on that definition, in some respects George W. Bush is conservative, in others he is not. In some respects Bill Clinton was conservative. Hell, George Galloway is pro-life, so if you were just looking at that you could call him a conservative. Almost everybody is conservative about something.

[rollhead]

Oh, you were being SERIOUS. Sorry.

Hmmm... I would describe myself as being a traditional liberal in the Thomas Paine sense.

And I wouldn't exclude someone from being a liberal if that person was against the legalization of abortion, or balancing the budget or even in favor of a limited government. Hell, Thomas Paine was for a limited government. I think liberals just have a different set of priorities.

A lot of the so-called "expensive" liberal programs are essentially worthwhile investments (The G.I. bill is one of the best economic development programs in the history of liberalism), and they probably cost far less than something like the Reagan-initiated, useless "Star Wars" program.


I just pulled a couple of definitions off of Wikipedia that I think I mostly agree with:

American liberalism (also called modern liberalism) is a political current, mainly in the United States, which claims descent from classical liberalism in terms of devotion to individual liberty, but generally rejects the laissez faire economics of classical liberalism in favor of institutions that promote social and economic equity. It is generally seen as beginning in the first decades of the 20th century, and achieving a political hegemony in the New Deal years that began to decline in the 1970s.

I think that it is fair to say that today that "institutions that promote social and economic equity" are under assault in this country, most especially under Bush.

Thomas Paine is considered by many to be one of the earliest proponents of American liberalism. Paine advocated a liberal world view, considered radical in his day. He dismissed monarchy, and viewed all government as, at best, a necessary evil. He opposed slavery and was amongst the earliest proponents of social security, universal free public education, a guaranteed minimum income, and many other radical ideas now common practice in most democracies.

Wikipedia says that liberal ideas are "now common practice in most democracies," but I see it as being under assault in the U.S., and, in my judgment, they are worth fighting for.

Here are other ideas that are considered "liberal," most of which, (within the limitation of having a well funded, balanced budget and strong economy).

Support for government social programs such as welfare, medical care, unemployment benefits, and retirement programs.

Support for increased funding for public education.

Support for trade unions, teachers' unions, and government protections for organized labor.

Regulation of business - OSHA, against child labor, monopolistic practices, etc.

Support for civil rights (examples):
Support laws against discrimination based on gender, race, age, religion, sexual orientation, or disability.
Support laws guaranteeing rights of women and minorities, particularly racial and religious minorities, the disabled, and homosexuals.
Support for such programs as affirmative action and transitional multi-lingual educational programs for children whose first language is not English.

Support broad voting rights.

Support for the legality of abortion.

Support for effective environmental regulations.

Support for public transit.

Support for minimum wage requirements.

Support for government funding to alternative energy research.

Opposition to the death penalty.

Support for a progressive tax system.

[crawjo]

Thanks for the lengthy reply. I agree about Paine being, in a sense, the founding father of American liberalism. I support nearly everything you listed. I am completely opposed to the death penalty, in all circumstances. I support environmental regulation, tougher regulations for the poultry and beef industries. I do support increased funding for education, universal health care...almost everything you named.

The two things that I hesitate on are abortion and taxes. I am definitely pro-life, but over the past year I've come to think that the pro-life movement should concern itself less with overturning Roe and more with reducing the number of abortions in the United States through education and improving social services for single mothers. The abortion rate in this country is much higher than it is in most other countries that allow abortion, and it seems to me that the pro-life movement should be most concerned with saving lives, and not with imposing legal barriers against abortion.

As far as taxes go, I'm not sure. It's a delicate balance between raising revenue for the government while also encouraging economic growth, and I don't know enough about economics to figure it out for sure.

Two more questions. What would you say is the "liberal" approach to foreign policy? And what is the difference between liberalism and radicalism?

[clinthopson]

Conserve a few 'gars for me ok?

[Sergio Zamora]

Originally Posted by GoodSpeak

Please excuse me for being real.




I am a Man.


I have a point to be made.


I have feelings.


I am NOT stupid.




No how, no freakin' way.






Get off me.

This is exactly what a right-wing neo-con republican would say. Boy, you sure are conservative.

[moneyp]

Goody, who gives a shit what you are or aren't? Are you so freakin' important in the grand scheme of things that you need to start threads about your beliefs?



Ego stroking on sale in the lobby, BABY.

[rollhead]

Well, i don't blame your concern about taxes -- during the so-called era of "liberal hegemony" up until the end of the 70s, taxes no doubt got out of hand. I think in a nation in which competition and the market is so valued, the system has to be structured in a way that enforces the best and most efficent expenditure of taxes. That means you have to inject some level of competition the system. I work for a public employees union, but I don't hesitate to advocate that public employees should compete, when necessary, for public services/jobs. But the problem is that we've gone to the opposite extreme when companies like Halliburton are getting enormous, no-bid jobs. That isn't supporting the marketplace -- that is supporting cronyism, plain and simple.

Originally Posted by crawjo

Two more questions. What would you say is the "liberal" approach to foreign policy? And what is the difference between liberalism and radicalism?

This is a lot tougher question. You might know that some of the most famous neo-cons today -- Paul Wolfowitz and Elliot Abrams -- were both "Demcratic aides" to Sen. Scoop Jackson, D. WAsh.

But I will take a shot at it:

Detente, while not necessarily a "liberal" notion, was supported my most Americans who called themselves liberal.

The neo-cons hated detente because they think that it was Reagan's confrontation of the Soviet Union that caused it to collapse. It is my view that the Soviet Union would have come to an end -- in one fashion or another.

I am not sure if there is a "liberal" approach to public policy, but you could certainly say that today's liberals are more concerned about trying to build a global concensus on the projection of U.S. power. The neo-cons reject that.

While I am sure many liberals -- if not most -- would acknowledge that the UN isn't especially efficient or effective -- they don't want to destroy it.

Neo-cons think that American best interest and moral positions shouldn't be hindered by the UN's democratic processes.

I am afraid to say the best I can do is direct you to articles by Lawrence Korb, a former assistant secretary of defense who is a kind of de facto spokesperson for the liberal view of foreign policy:
http://www.americanprogress.org/site...JRJ8OVF&b=2486

Finally, I am not sure you can really compare the terms "liberal" and "radical."

Liberal seems to be to be more of a political policy, and radical seems to me to be more of an attitude on how fast you want political/social change. Radicals want dramatic change fast.

I might take a very strong position, for example, on the preservation of Social Security -- that's a liberal position, but it is not "radical" regardless of how strongly I fight for my view.

Liberals -- given what might be considered a more philosophical bent -- would be more open to gradual change or evolution.

You can have 'radical conservatives," for example, who might want to abolish all federal taxes, etc., overnight.

[Pete C]

Originally Posted by rollhead

during the so-called era of "liberal hegemony" up until the end of the 70s, taxes no doubt got out of hand.

Compared to what? We still paid a lot less in taxes than most of Europe and got a WHOLE lot less in return.

[rollhead]

Originally Posted by mone peterson

Goody, who gives a shit what you are or aren't? Are you so freakin' important in the grand scheme of things that you need to start threads about your beliefs?



Ego stroking on sale in the lobby, BABY.

Goody is just following the American dream, BABY!

First, threads about himself ... next reality TV shows ... finally, his own line of aftershave!

[rollhead]

Originally Posted by Pete C

Compared to what? We still paid a lot less in taxes than most of Europe and got a WHOLE lot less in return.

touche.

I only added this because public employees unions have been on the defensive now since Reagan -- and they have had to open themselves up to competition to survive.

[Enforcer]

Enjoy reading your posts a great deal, rollhead. Most of us aren't that willing or able to elucidate our positions, or to answer complex questions so directly. I appreciate that, and the fact that you're able to do it without making it seem like an exercise in self-indulgence. It's a lot easier to just make a smart assed comment and not reveal much (an approach you could probably trace authorship of to me if you spent enough time researching its origins). I agree with a lot of your opinions, and when I disagree, I still have to spend some time thinking about what you've said, which impresses me.

[rollhead]

Thanks, Larry.

You are gracious for putting up with me after the s**t I threw your way a while back.

[Sergio Zamora]

Originally Posted by Larry Nagel

It's a lot easier to just make a smart assed comment and not reveal much

Fun too.

[frankiepop]

Originally Posted by GoodSpeak

Folks,
....

I am NOT stupid.




No how, no freakin' way.






Get off me.

i beg to differ...

[jesus marion joseph]

Not trying to brown-nose, but I agree with Larry's post as well.

[rollhead]

Originally Posted by rollhead

Thanks, JMJ.

You are gracious for putting up with me after the s**t I threw your way a while back.

Not trying to brown nose.

[GoodSpeak]

Originally Posted by tippy

Goodspeak, I agree. Katrina has been used at JC in a way that trivializes the suffering of those who had to endure it. Impeach Bush for lying or for not being a winner in 2000, but not over a natural disaster that NOLA's not been prepared for for 3 decades now. That's just ridiculous.

But it also shows how desperate and helpless people feel. If Bush goes down for Katrina that's okay because he does deserve to go down and nothing else has stuck.

Thanks, Tip.



Yer OK in my book.

[GoodSpeak]

Originally Posted by clinthopson

Conserve a few 'gars for me ok?

Can do

[GoodSpeak]

Originally Posted by mone peterson

Goody, who gives a shit what you are or aren't? Are you so freakin' important in the grand scheme of things that you need to start threads about your beliefs?



Ego stroking on sale in the lobby, BABY.

Mone,

Why do people start threads about their trips to Mexico? Why do people start threads about their kids? About hockey, their favorite music, on and oin and on....Ego?


Maybe it just a place to put thoughts down and/or a place to inform people on this BBS about various aspects of their own lives.



Maybe that is why this place exists.

*BELCH*