Are you a liberal in thought or in name only?

[RMNIXON]

One of the big problems I have with left ideologues who masquerade as liberal thinkers is the way they act like they invented everything. Free thinking in religion and politics, rebellion of youth, open homosexuality, even Gays in the Military predates Christ! Human societies go through countless cycles of freedom and oppression, religious dogma and open expression, more government and less government. What you think of as todays liberalism has more to do with Freemasonry, the Protestant reformation which forced the Catholic Church to mellow, and an information society that has cripled the ability to blindly control mass populations. It has nothing to do with political hacks who are still reading Marx and Engles and dream of a society controled through economic drudgery into their mold of a perfect Egalitarian society. They might call themselves liberal, but I wonder how much thinking they have done?

Don't trust people who proclaim freedom and then lecture about how human nature is not to be trusted, that free will is an illusion, and that only a good natured powerful government can make a just society. Without the United States and the brighter spots of Europe I would hate to see the state of the world as it would be today. Change will happen. And conservatives won't like all of it. But viewing historical change as some myopic progression owned by one political outlook is a road even fools would not travel.

Can a conservative clearly think about what are considered liberal policies, see where they don't work, and where the facts don't hold up the best laid plans, and then look for answers elsewhere? Can they also find some of the more militant views of religion, grass roots U.S. economic protectionism, and some elements of xenophobia among people who call themselves conservatives both wrong and embarrassing?

I think there are plenty of classical "Liberal" thinkers in the so-called left and right camps. But they also a heavy dose of intolerant and rather militant people who rally around conservative values or liberal causes to suit there own ends.

No wonder we have so many sign ups as independents.

[Kytro]

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

Don't trust people who proclaim freedom and then lecture about how human nature is not to be trusted, that free will is an illusion, and that only a good natured powerful government can make a just society.

There is a conflict in there anyway. If human nature can't be trusted, then nor can a government. If free will is an illusion then no choices matter.

[Jas0n]

Genuine liberals are just pragmatists in disguise, and pragmatism is, as far as I'm concerned, a disease.

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by Kytro

There is a conflict in there anyway. If human nature can't be trusted, then nor can a government. If free will is an illusion then no choices matter.

Human nature is obviously a mixed bag and that is why we have limited government and a seperation of powers. It is also why we do have some legal restraint and regulation of the business sector. That has to do with legal practice however. Not what taxes or wages should be paid or what level of profit the government thinks is fair.


That is unless you buy the notion that good natured people are somehow driven to work for non-profit groups and the government and the bad people are drawn to run those greedy capitalist enterprizes. And I have a bridge to sell you......

[R-Type]

Originally Posted by Jas0n

Genuine liberals are just pragmatists in disguise, and pragmatism is, as far as I'm concerned, a disease.

Yes because intolerant idealists are just so functional themselves. .

[R-Type]

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

Human nature is obviously a mixed bag and that is why we have limited government and a seperation of powers. It is also why we do have some legal restraint and regulation of the business sector. That has to do with legal practice however. Not what taxes or wages should be paid or what level of profit the government thinks is fair.

money is the blood of business.. How else would regulation be effective without some taxation? Unless of course what you're really getting at is your desire for ineffective, 'blue-ribbon' regulation that doesn't do anything.

It's ok to limit the powers of government, but it shouldn't be neutered in all business transaction. Lack of any market controls will trigger a harsh self-organization which will mimic exactly the thing that 'classical' conservatives fear from the left: fascist totalitarianism. That which can be approached from the left can also be approached from the right. Just look at the UK to see what hardcore authoritarian mindsets bring, right or left.

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

That is unless you buy the notion that good natured people are somehow driven to work for non-profit groups and the government and the bad people are drawn to run those greedy capitalist enterprizes. And I have a bridge to sell you......

..and there are some corporates who fit that stereotype exactly. These people are the ones who want to take the reigns of oppression from government and keep them for self-benefit at others' expense, liberty be damned...just as there are authoritarian left wingers who fit orly-esque conservative stereotyping perfectly. Lately, this forum's been full of stereotyping and not-so-subtle partisian shitflinging. I'm not really sure why because it's all counterproductive.

[Thorgrim]

In your response to mentioning Jesus
Jesus was a radical liberal
As was Buddha before him, and so forth, liberalism is as old as mankind, and it always advanced, every setback has proven to be just that...a setback...liberalism always wins, I only support them because I want my children in particular to enjoy America the best it can be, not because I have any doubt of who is going to win in the long run

courtesy Kangas:
On defense: Jesus said "Love your enemies" and "Blessed are the peacemakers." "If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also." (Matthew 5:44; 5:9; 5:39.)

On social programs: "If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven." (Matthew 19:21.)

On rugged individualism and the pursuit of self-interest: "Love your neighbor as yourself." "So in everything, do to others as you would have them do to you." (Matthew 22:39; 7:12.)

On financial success: "Truly, I say unto you, it will be hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven." "You cannot serve both God and Money." (Matthew 19:23; 6:24.)

On the philosophy that "greed is good": "Watch out! Be on your guard against all kinds of greed; a man's life does not consist in the abundance of his possessions." (Luke 12:15.)

On paying taxes: "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's." (Matthew 22:22.)

On crime and punishment: "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." "Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you." (John 8:7; Matthew 7:1,2.)

On climbing the social ladder: "The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, 'Behold, a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!'" (Matthew 11:19.)

On money-hungry televangelists: "In the temple courts [Jesus] found men selling cattle, sheep and doves, and other sitting at tables exchanging money. So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple area, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables." (John 2:14,15.)

On the free lunch: "Taking the five loaves and two fish and looking up to heaven, he gave thanks and broke the loaves… The number of those who ate was about five thousand men…" (Matthew 14:19,21.)

On the perks and privileges of power: "After that, [Jesus] poured water into a basin, and began to wash the disciples' feet, drying them with the towel that was wrapped around him." (John 13:5.)

On moral absolutes: "If any of you has a sheep and it falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will you not take hold of it and lift it out?" "The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath." (Matthew 12:11; Mark 2:27.)

On family: "If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters - yes, even his own life - he cannot be my disciple." Also: "'Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?' Pointing to his disciples, he said, 'Here are my mother and my brothers.'" (Luke 14:26; Matthew 12:48,49.)

On race relations: In the parable of the Good Samaritan, Jesus praised the morality of a hated foreigner over his own countrymen. (Luke 10:30-37.)

On the superiority of one's native country: "These twelve Jesus sent out with the following instructions: 'Do not go among the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans. Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel.'" (Matthew 10:5,6.)

On letting others pull themselves up by their own bootstraps: "But when you give a banquet, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind, and you will be blessed. Although they cannot repay you, you will be repaid at the resurrection of the righteous." (Luke 14:13,14.)

Modern Christian conservatives may be horrified, but there is no getting around the fact: Jesus was not just a liberal, but a radical liberal! In fact, except for one pronouncement on divorce, there is not one text in all four Gospels which even remotely supports or resembles the conservative's most cherished beliefs. It is a standing challenge to the religious right to find a list of Gospel texts, as I have provided here, which advocates the conservative's philosophies. Not one Christian can give a single example, because these texts do not exist.

And if anyone remains unconvinced about the deep liberal slant of Jesus and the early Christian Church, a review of their economic policies should remove all doubt forever. The early Christian Church actually serves as history's second example of pure communism! (The first was the Essenes, who wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls.) In Paul's Christian Church, the fruits of everyone's labor went into a collective pool, which was then divided evenly among everyone in the group. The following passages from Acts of the Apostles are remarkable in this description:
"All the believers were together and had everything in common. Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need." (Acts 2:44-45).

"All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they shared everything they had… There were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned lands or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to anyone as he had need." (Acts 4:32,34,35)
The New Testament itself is filled with countless calls for a redistribution of wealth from the rich to the poor. As for the rich, they are clearly portrayed as wicked; both Jesus and his apostles condemned them in the harshest terms possible:
"But woe to you who are rich, for you have already received your comfort. Woe to you who are well fed now, for you will go hungry." (Luke 6:24,25)

"Indeed, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." (Luke 18:25)

"People who want to get rich fall into temptation and a trap and into many foolish and harmful desires that plunge men into ruin and destruction. For the love of money is the root of all evil." (1 Timothy 6:9,10)

"Command those who are rich in this present world not to be arrogant nor to put their hope in wealth, which is so uncertain, but to put their hope in God, who richly provides us with everything for our enjoyment. Command them to do good, to be rich in good deeds, and to be generous and willing to share." (1 Timothy 6:17,18)

"Listen, my dear brothers: Has not God chosen those who are poor in the eyes of the world to be rich in faith and to inherit the kingdom he promised those who loved him? But you have insulted the poor. Is it not the rich who are exploiting you? Are they not the ones who are dragging you into court? Are they not the ones who are slandering the noble name of him to whom you belong?" (James 2:5-7)

"Now listen, you rich people, weep and wail because of the misery that is coming upon you. Your wealth has rotted, and moths have eaten your clothes. Your gold and silver are corroded. Their corrosion will testify against you and eat your flesh like fire. You have hoarded wealth in the last days. Look! The wages you failed to pay the workmen who mowed your fields are crying out against you. The cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord Almighty. You have lived on earth in luxury and self-indulgence. You have fattened yourself in the day of slaughter. You have condemned and murdered innocent men, who were not opposing you." (James 5:1-6)
Giving to the poor was not just an act of kindness, it was a Christian duty, and Paul ended his letters with a reminder to send money to the poor in Jerusalem. It was this identification with the poor that led them to attack usury, or the loaning of money for interest, in the bitterest terms, for this was seen as exploitation of the poor. In the end, one cannot read the New Testament and escape the conclusion that the Early Christian Church condemned inequality of wealth as one of the greatest of human sins.

[Jas0n]

Originally Posted by R-Type

Yes because intolerant idealists are just so functional themselves. .

At least they can tell you why they're right.

[SpicyMcVoodoo]

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

It has nothing to do with political hacks who are still reading Marx and Engles and dream of a society controled through economic drudgery into their mold of a perfect Egalitarian society. They might call themselves liberal, but I wonder how much thinking they have done?

Such liberals don't really exist in American politics, so I don't even know why you're talking about them. You think John Kerry and Hillary Clinton are Marxists? Can you name one serious Democratic politician (i.e., not the comptroller of Bumblefuck, Rhode Island) who's against capitalism?

The real hacks are the people who think anything left of Bush is "liberal," and anything "liberal" is Marxist. Talk about not being able to move into the future...

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo

Such liberals don't really exist in American politics, so I don't even know why you're talking about them. You think John Kerry and Hillary Clinton are Marxists? Can you name one serious Democratic politician (i.e., not the comptroller of Bumblefuck, Rhode Island) who's against capitalism?

The real hacks are the people who think anything left of Bush is "liberal," and anything "liberal" is Marxist. Talk about not being able to move into the future...

[Diamond Cross]

The real hacks are anybody who blindly believes only one side and will say anything to support their idealism and any lie about the people who oppose them or who're different than them, just because.

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by Diamond Cross

The real hacks are anybody who blindly believes only one side and will say anything to support their idealism and any lie about the people who oppose them or who're different than them, just because.

Since I am still a registered Republican my concern in 2008 would be the harm the far right might do to a McCain/Guiliani ticket? The party needs to put the social policy issues aside long enough to understand that real leadership in the Crisis world we have now is far more important that throwing red meat around over Gays or Abortion.

[R-Type]

Originally Posted by Jas0n

At least they can tell you why they're right.

...especially when they're wrong..or at best, right in the very narrowest of contexts, usually making their conclusions useless or even detrimental to the situation. Their arrogance clouds any decent sense of judgment they may have. Being 'right' is meaningless unless the sense of right is congruent with the objective reality of the situation. That is what pragmatics try to do. 'Right' is a subjective concept.

[Diamond Cross]

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

Since I am still a registered Republican my concern in 2008 would be the harm the far right might do to a McCain/Guiliani ticket? The party needs to put the social policy issues aside long enough to understand that real leadership in the Crisis world we have now is far more important that throwing red meat around over Gays or Abortion.

Not exactly what I mean.

For example, take racism. It's a very commonly used tactic to declare on the other team in order to make them look bad.

But those that use the race wll forgive members of their own team to no end for exactly the same thing they're denouncing in the other team.

If a member of the press will critique them, they'll try to discredit him then proclaim themselves victims of whatever.