so for no-liberal minded people...

[Vietvet]

Originally Posted by thatguyoverthere

Excellent thread with excellent responses so far. I hope this discussion will continue, more members will comment, and we'll be able to explore in detail why we feel the way we do toward each other.

Well, here's my two cents for what it's worth:I think the terms "liberal" and "conservative" have been thrown around way too much as buzzwords, in order to simplify things and/or demonize people.Especially where the term "liberal" is concerned, for whatever reason. Maybe someone can explain this to me. Is it a hold-over from the McGovern days? The most glaring recent example of that would be painting John Murtha as "liberal", simply because of one issue-his opposition to the war in Iraq. Here is a guy who has been a hawk most of his political life, has voted for just about every military spending bill ever thought of, has the respect of the military leaders and many higher ups within the Pentagon. Now, because he wants to bring our troops home, he's a "liberal" all of a sudden. I'm slightly left of center myself, and would no doubt be considered "liberal"by anybody who listens to and believes the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity. I'll give them one thing, it seems they've succeeded in turning "liberal" into a four letter word. Why, I'll never understand.

On the other side of the coin, I don't see anything "conservative" about Bush, unless you consider the fact that he is a "born again Christian", or that he pays lip service to the evangelicals who get all hopped up over Roe V Wade, flag burning, and school prayer. Conservative used to indicate knowing how to be fiscally responsible. Does anybody here seriously think these clueless wonders now running the country know anything about balancing a budget? How in the world can they be called "conservative" with a straight face?

If terms such as these have to be used (and I don't think they do, really), it would be more accurate to label Democrats "progressives" and Republicans "regressives". Why? Because I believe Democrats, for the most part, are looking towards solutions for future threats such as global warming and energy shortages. They want to develop alternative energy sources, for example. Bush now says he wants to do the same, but he wasn't talking that way before he was elected.He and other Republicans talk about "traditional" values, and seem to want to return to the "good old days" of the 50s, which never were. Unless one considers the days of blacks and other minorities having to "sit at the back of the bus" good.If that's not "regressive", I don't know what is. "Leave It to Beaver" was never based in reality, but try telling a die-hard right winger that.

I think what is going to happen is a return, by both parties, to the middle ground. That would be a much more effective political environment, because it would enable both parties to work for realistic, common-sense legislation, rather than have everything based on ideology. The "neo-con" idiot-ology hasn't worked out that well. Neither will across-the-board socialism. The real answers lie in compromise and common sense brainstorming. Those are the kinds of leaders we need in this country, now more than ever.Policy should be based on reality, not ideology.

[Kytro]

The issues involved with government as I see it.

No government wants to reduce the amount of influence it has. Even when idealogical positions dictate that it should.

While the liberals and conservatives (from government, not always the group) both approach the task slightly differently they both go for "we know better than you."

The entire system tend towards growth, not limitation.

The more rules that are made, the more work the government has in every branch and the more power they hold in order to do this work. No-one wants to give up power and new law keeps getting made requiring yet more administration, money and power.

The only way I can see to easily avoid this is to allow law to expire (though it can be renewed) on a regular basis.