What do YOU think a liberal is?

[Wishing on a star]

Fitswimmer,
Thank you so much for taking the time to follow this thread and to post many of my views!

About that terrible analogy about Joe Conservative,

Yes, the opposit one would be like the Little Red Hen.
I sure wish I knew where to find one of these to post here.

How about an story about while Joe Conservative goes about his day and works hard, takes care of his family, and pays taxes, there are zillions of people who are not doing that becuause they are taking advantage of all the liberal programs that his hard earned money is paying for.

And, am sorry, but safe cars, clean water, etc... and not some miraculous liberal accomplishment. These things happened because of legislation on both sides of the aisle.

And, yes, liberals are constantly promoting control of education, health care, and everything else. As a conservative, I do not see good results on any of these fronts. Education and NCLB are the perfect example. Millions and Billions of dollars are poured into education every single year. More $$$ per student capita than ever before. Some states have such high property tax assesments to fund education, that it is just outrageous and infringes on the American dream of home ownership. You know what... the money is NEVER enough. It is time to stop throwing money at it and start demanding some accountability.

liberal - create a program and throw money at it... no accountability, just worse statistics every single year.

conservative - It's time for some accountability here.

 

[Planogirl]

This is interesting because Liberals use the COURTS to force their views on people: gay marriage, abortion, absence of religion, eliminating the death penalty, etc.

Liberals don't like to use the legislation approach because many of their ideas are unpopular and would never pass.

A portion of the courts' responsibilities include protecting minorities from the "tyranny" of the majority. Or at least I believe that.

 

[va32h]

The short answer for me is that someone from the liberal perspective believes that the government is the best solution to all of society's problems.

Which is why so many conservatives are lobbying for a constitutional amendment that defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman?

Or an amendment that bans flag-burning? Or legislation that controls women's fertility?

It seems to me that both liberals and conservatives want to use "government" to solve what they see as problems in our society. The difference is only in what we consider problems.

 

[Wishing on a star]

But that's just it. Liberals ARE NOT tolerant of people who don't share their opinions. It is a oneway street.

My thoughts exactly....

With Liberals, it is 'anything goes' UNTIL is a conservative viewpoint. Then, all of the sudden it isn't anything goes any more.

 

[Cantw8]

I'm mostly liberal, but I don't believe in welfare - either corporate or personal. I'm pro-choice - if you want to end abortion you should make it easier for a woman to have a baby, not make it illegal for a woman to end her pregnancy. I think gays should be allowed to marry. I think victimless crimes (prostitution, drugs, etc...) should not be crimes, there are better ways to spend that money. I'm for gun control. I think everyone is entitled to health care, and it's a disgrace that insurance companies can pick and choose whom they allow to purchase health insurance. I think education should be a priority. I agreed with the war in Afganistan; I never agreed with attacking Iraq, It's not our place to police the rest of the world and those resources should have been used to fight the Taliban and find Bin Laden. I'm for abolishing income tax and instead think there should be a national sales tax.

OMG...these are my views exactly

 

[dejr_8]

I'm glad the courts were used to properly give both Women and African Americans the right to vote in accordance with the Constitution, aren't you? After all, both of those concepts were unpopular with very large segments of the population at that time. Or are you against those as well? If you are, I would appreciate your telling us why.

Please correct me but I believe it was the 19th Admendment ( a legislative process) that gave woman the right to vote.

 

[TDC Nala]

Please correct me but I believe it was the 19th Admendment ( a legislative process) that gave woman the right to vote.

Did the 14th Amendment give blacks the right to vote?

 

[dejr_8]

Which is why so many conservatives are lobbying for a constitutional amendment that defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman?

Or an amendment that bans flag-burning? Or legislation that controls women's fertility?

It seems to me that both liberals and conservatives want to use "government" to solve what they see as problems in our society. The difference is only in what we consider problems.

But admendments are the CORRECT way to the change the constitution. Not some judge or judges "finding" some new right (i.e. privacy and abortion) in the constitution.

 

[Fitswimmer]

Seriously, they think this? They're not the norm, then.

Maybe not in Kentucky, but in my blue state of NJ that's what I hear. I work out at the Y every morning and most of my friends there are teachers. I'm not saying all teachers consider themselves liberal, but these folks do. I listen to them, how they comment on TV news stories and what they say about their jobs. I also have a few friends at work and outside of work that call themselves liberal, and I tease them about how well they fit the mold. Volvos, Birkenstocks, tye dye shirts...they've got em all! Their views on the importance of government involvement are where I get my impressions.

I'm guessing that liberals and conservatives are very different in different parts of the country. In the South, I would probably not fit in with the Conservatives because of my views on gay marriage, abortion and religion. Here, it's more the norm for Conservatives to be pro-choice and pro-gay marriage. (see Rudy Guiliani)

 

[SwedishMeatball]

Did the 14th Amendment give blacks the right to vote?

I thought it was the 15th??

 

[Mugg Mann]

Please correct me but I believe it was the 19th Admendment ( a legislative process) that gave woman the right to vote.

On that issue you are quite right and I humbly apologize.

 

[jodifla]

But that's just it. Liberals ARE NOT tolerant of people who don't share their opinions. It is a oneway street.

And you feel conservates are open-minded to the ideas of liberals? Or to people who feel differently than they do?

I'm tolerant of your views. I just don't want to see them put into law to discrimate against gays, women etc.

And I stand by my original post: For the conservative in America today, it comes down to religion and/or keeping their money away from "those" people, whomever you deem "those" people to be.

You see it on every conservative post on this thread: "Those" people (women who have children, poor people, etc.) are taking MY money!

Simplistic, but true.

 

[Fitswimmer]

Actually this isn't true. In the recent NJ case, for example, the polls showed that the majority of folks in NJ did favor gay marriage. Yet it took a court case to even get civil unions on the table and though the legislature had the option to do what their constituency wanted, they chose to only go with civil unions over marriage.

True, but I think this is more because of what I theorized above. A conservative in Blue NJ is more liberal than the stereotypical conservative. Most of my conservative friends want government OUT of things, we're against the marriage amendment, against the flag burning amendment and anything else that gives government more control over our personal lives.

 

[va32h]

But admendments are the CORRECT way to the change the constitution. Not some judge or judges "finding" some new right (i.e. privacy and abortion) in the constitution.

The claim I was responding to was that liberals want the government to interfere in our private lives and solve our problems.

The Constitution does establish what powers our government has.

My point was that conservatives also want the government to interfere in our private lives and solve our problems. We just have different ideas of what those problems are.

You are the one who keeps bringing up the court system, and I wasn't responding to you.

 

[Wishing on a star]

Which is why so many conservatives are lobbying for a constitutional amendment that defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman?

Or an amendment that bans flag-burning? Or legislation that controls women's fertility?

It seems to me that both liberals and conservatives want to use "government" to solve what they see as problems in our society. The difference is only in what we consider problems.

1. I am a conservative. I, and many other conservatives, do not agree that it is appropriate or constitutional to create this kind of constitutional amendment.

2. If hate-speech is illegal, and if cross burning is illegal, then so should flag-burning. (The question is whether flag-burning is hate-speech.) I feel that it is hate speech, just like cross burning, and should also be illegal. If cross burning is illegal, then so should flag burning.

3. I am a conservative, and a woman's 'fertility' is NOT what I am concerned about. A woman is free to do anything she wants to regarding fertility. Once there becomes another innocent life involved, then that is what it is all about. I am so tired of the 'right to choose' crap. A woman has every right to choose whether she will be sexually active, whether she will use birth control, etc.. Don't tell me that because I do not support abortion that I am against women's rights.

 

[Fitswimmer]

2. If hate-speech is illegal, and if cross burning is illegal, then so should flag-burning. (The question is whether flag-burning is hate-speech.) I feel that it is hate speech, just like cross burning, and should also be illegal. If cross burning is illegal, the so should flag burning.

I'm against hate speech legislation. Who decides what hate speech is? If this is "liberal" legislation, then how will those same people feel if the conservatives that they dislike so much are in a position to decide what hate speech is? As soon as you start regulating speech, you're getting into shaky territory. (see the McCarthy era for examples)
Cross burning is a criminal act of trespass. You have to go onto someone's property uninvited to burn a cross there, and you're going to cause damage. The trespass laws should cover that.

It really surprised me that liberals would be interested in criminalizing thought, since liberals were most often the victims of "thought police" discrimination in the past.

 

[va32h]

1. I am a conservative. I, and many other conservatives, do not agree that it is appropriate or constitutional to create this kind of constitutional amendment.

2. If hate-speech is illegal, and if cross burning is illegal, then so should flag-burning. (The question is whether flag-burning is hate-speech.) I feel that it is hate speech, just like cross burning, and should also be illegal. If cross burning is illegal, then so should flag burning.

3. I am a conservative, and a woman's 'fertility' is NOT what I am concerned about. A woman is free to do anything she wants to regarding fertility. Once there becomes another innocent life involved, then that is what it is all about. I am so tired of the 'right to choose' crap. A woman has every right to choose whether she will be sexually active, whether she will use birth control, etc.. Don't tell me that because I do not support abortion that I am against women's rights.

Once again, the point is being missed. Thank you very much for sharing your views on these issues.

However, that your views disagree, does not change the fact that yes indeedy - conservatives do want government control or interference over things that they view as society's ills.

I am not the least bit bothered by this - I just think it is silly and hypocritical to claim that it is liberals, and liberals alone, that want the government to tell us what to do. Conservatives also want the government to tell us what to do. The real difference is only in what each side wants the government to tell or compel us to do.

I am not debating any of the above issues, and don't plan to. They are beside the point. They are merely examples of ways in which conservatives would also like to use the power of government to control personal behavior.

 

[MushyMushy]

Have I mentioned that I think stereotypes suck?? I think people are way more complex for such simple labels. Don't have a conversation or two with me, much less just look at me, and try to determine who you think I am in a nutshell.

That was exactly why I wanted to post this. I know there's a huge dichotomy between what people perceive liberalism to be and what it actually is. People seem to think that they can tell just by looking at someone if they're liberal or conservative, and the thing is that we're all just far more complicated to pin it down to any one truth.

Oh my word, Mushy, you've just thrown the proverbial match into the fireworks factory!

Rich::

Hey, I really wanted to know, and I think there are some terrific posts here that demonstrate the popular views on what makes a liberal or a conservative.

 

[Soubrette]

I'm against hate speech legislation. Who decides what hate speech is? If this is "liberal" legislation, then how will those same people feel if the conservatives that they dislike so much are in a position to decide what hate speech is? As soon as you start regulating speech, you're getting into shaky territory. (see the McCarthy era for examples)
Cross burning is a criminal act of trespass. You have to go onto someone's property uninvited to burn a cross there, and you're going to cause damage. The trespass laws should cover that.

It really surprised me that liberals would be interested in criminalizing thought, since liberals were most often the victims of "thought police" discrimination in the past.

Sorry, I don't mean to be picking on your today, but your posts are just really striking a nerve. Maybe that's a complement?

But to respond...and personally, at that...Cross burning is WAY more than a criminal act of trespass. My grandfather had a cross burned in his yard, and the very last thing they were worried about was someone gaining access to their property. That cross was a visible threat of violence, not just to my family but to the whole neighborhood. It told everyone that my family was different because they were Arab immigrants and that violent treatment was acceptable because they weren't real American citizens. It wasn't just a "thought" that was placed burning in his yard; it was a threat of impending violence, what might happen to my great-grandfather if he hired another black man in his store.

Hate speech is a form of terrorism; it's meant to create terror among a whole community so "undesirables" will shrink from public view or leave altogether. Words matter and can inflict violence that should be unacceptable to a civilized culture.

 

[Fitswimmer]

Sorry, I don't mean to be picking on your today, but your posts are just really striking a nerve. Maybe that's a complement?

But to respond...and personally, at that...Cross burning is WAY more than a criminal act of trespass. My grandfather had a cross burned in his yard, and the very last thing they were worried about was someone gaining access to their property. That cross was a visible threat of violence, not just to my family but to the whole neighborhood. It told everyone that my family was different because they were Arab immigrants and that violent treatment was acceptable because they weren't real American citizens. It wasn't just a "thought" that was placed burning in his yard; it was a threat of impending violence, what might happen to my great-grandfather if he hired another black man in his store.

Hate speech is a form of terrorism; it's meant to create terror among a whole community so "undesirables" will shrink from public view or leave altogether. Words matter and can inflict violence that should be unacceptable to a civilized culture.

The cross burning was an act, nobody stood in front of the house and made a speech. Someone entered onto the property and DID something, they didn't SAY anything. Should cross burning be considered an act of violence? Yeah, I agree that it should be. Is it speech, no. I don't think that it should be under that umbrella.

I can define what I think hate speech is, you can define what you think hate speech is and we will probably overlap on a lot of things. I feel that minorities and homosexuals deserve protection and speech that is offensive to them has no place in civilized society-we'd probably agree there. However, there are many places where reasonable people will disagree about what words are hateful and what groups deserve protection. As long as the people in charge agree with you, hate speech laws aren't a problem. But what happens if that changes? Once you start saying what speech is ok and what speech isn't ok you're opening a door that you may not be able to close.

You're not picking on me-this is great. You're helping me to refine my thoughts!