What is a Conservative? What is a Liberal?

[thorough9]

I've asked this question before, but I can never get a clear answer? Why are you a conservative? Why are you a Liberal? Why aren't you a moderate? I would like to know personal reasons, not a parroted regurgitation of party-line doctrine.

[deacon]

a moderate is a wait and see which way the political winds blowing. do you think any of the founding fathers were moderates? if so which ones.

[Cheaper2buyit]

defcon are you a modarate is that what your saying. because, this could be a good thread if just says what they and explains why.

Me I am a indy I look for what effects me and mine. I am more concern with state gov than fed gov. I dont like people telling me how tall my fence can be or what color my home can't be.

[SinsOfTheFlesh]

The disconnect between the theory and definition of liberalism and conservatism, and the actual reality of the two has become so great as to completely blur all definitions.

According to Merriam-Webster, the definition of liberalism as it relates to politics is:

c : a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties; specifically : such a philosophy that considers government as a crucial instrument for amelioration of social inequities (as those involving race, gender, or class)

Conservatism meanwhile:

b : a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change; specifically : such a philosophy calling for lower taxes, limited government regulation of business and investing, a strong national defense, and individual financial responsibility for personal needs (as retirement income or health-care coverage)

Ok, so those are the textbook answers. Look at how similar they are. Liberals stand for personal liberty, while conservatives stand for smaller gov't. Sort of six one way, half a dozen the other, right? If the goal of both is to limit the role of gov't - either in preservation of individual liberty, or in the interest of limited gov't, one would think the end results would be the same.

But, the reality of both parties differs vastly from their philosophic underpinnings. Conservatives lose the right to call themselves the party of limited gov't when they want the gov't to decide who is allowed to get married and who isn't, when they want to micro-manage our schools and tell a science teacher what is "real" science and what isn't or insert pseudo religious dogma into scientific discussion and call it anything-ism to make it sound good. Conservatives can't claim the small gov't high ground when they fancy themselves better able to make medical decisions than the patient and her doctor. Conservatives can't claim to be all about small gov't when the United States Congress attempts to pass emergency legislation to stop a doctor in Florida from complying with a court order to remove a feeding tube. Yes, that is some very small gov't you got there!

Liberals though, are supposedly the defenders of individual liberty. Liberty though, comes at a cost, and oh what a cost it can be. Liberals say its ok to smoke cigarettes, but we will raise the taxes on your coffin nails until a single pack of smokes requires you to take out a mortgage. Same thing for sugar based drinks, chips, candy, and basically any other lifestyle decision they don't like. I hate halogen bulbs. They hurt my eyes, give me headaches, and if you break one you need a Hazmat kit to clean it up because mercury is used in the making of it. But starting sometime next year, incandescent bulbs will be banned and the only thing you can buy are the new halogen bulbs. Thank you liberals for that one. Where exactly is my personal liberty there? If you go to NYC, better go now. There is a proposal to ban the use of salt in all restaurants. Thank you liberals for that one too. If you live in Hollywood, CA and want to own a cat, you will need to take your cat to a vet outside of Hollywood if you want to have your cat declawed. Thanks liberals, no I don't need that particular personal liberty! I'll get along fine without it! So basically, liberals believe in the essential goodness of the human race, as long as we do exactly what they think we should be doing. Got it?

As you might guess, I'm not much of a fan of either party. Neither party lives up to their own standards. I'm more of a moderate/libertarian than either conservative or liberal. I like my liberties. If I want to smoke, I'm damned well going to smoke. If my incandescent bulbs are not as environmentally friendly, I don't give a crap. They don't give me headaches. If (god forbid) I ever need an abortion, I'll be damned if some idiot in a suit and tie is going to tell me he knows my body and my circumstances better than I do.

Having said all that, I tend to vote Republican, though I've voted for my share of Democrats. More often than not, I go to the polls and vote for whichever candidate I hate the least. For me, the ideal candidate will seek to preserve individual liberty whenever possible while not actually plunging us into total anarchy, one who will not vote in favor of ANY deficit spending period, and remember that his primary duty is to serve the people who elected him/her. Yeah I know, fat chance of that!

[deacon]

Having said all that, I tend to vote Republican, though I've voted for my share of Democrats. More often than not, I go to the polls and vote for whichever candidate I hate the least. For me, the ideal candidate will seek to preserve individual liberty whenever possible while not actually plunging us into total anarchy, one who will not vote in favor of ANY deficit spending period, and remember that his primary duty is to serve the people who elected him/her. Yeah I know, fat chance of that!
__________________
i am in love with you..nail on the head once more..thank you sins.happy easter.

[thorough9]

Originally Posted by deacon

a moderate is a wait and see which way the political winds blowing. do you think any of the founding fathers were moderates? if so which ones.

I disagree. A moderate is one who agrees with certain positions presented by both ends of the spectrum without going to the extremes offered by either. I think that moderates, from either side, have more in common with each other than with the extremists of either side. Moderates, then, have more in common with independents. but the two pary system doesn't give much wiggle room. Moderates are the politicians who are most capable of compromise.

The founding fathers, while creating a starting material(constitution) that is capable of growth and flexibility, did not get it all right, so I really don't look to them as measuring sticks. I have greater respect for the politicians who work to amend the constitution so that it keeps to the ideals of freedom and fairness.

[thorough9]

I'm not a big fan of states' right because there are too many differences between the states. I think that a national standard should be set, voted upon by three-fouths of the states, a clear majority, and adhered to by the states. If, and only if a 3/4 majority can't be reached, then local governments make and enforce the rules, with their dollars. Too many times, states insist upon states rights, but also insist that they need federal tax dollars. I don't think that you should have it both ways. Local issues should be decided by local governments, unassisted by federal dollars. Hello Mississippi!!!

Larger issues, already expressly protected by the constitution and the Bill of rights, should be strictly interpreted as written, unless/until amended, and judges should be held to the stricter interpretations not to appointment loyalties.

I think that there should be mandatory sentencing guidelines, FOR ALL CRIMES. That would eliminate daddy's money and daddy's friends saving your little spoiled, inconsiderate ass and also eliminate about say.....50% of the legal bureacracy i.e. appeals. It would also eliminate parole in most instances.

I think that crooked cops, dirty lawyers, and incompetent judges should be disbarred/fired and prosecuted, and upon conviction placed into the same penal systems, without prejudice, that they prosecute/sentence average Joe's to. There should be a more active judicial oversight commissions, at every level of the government.

I think that federal income tax should be at the same rate for everyone. Say XX% of every dollar made by US citizens, unless it's made on foreign soil, is taxed.

I think that dummy corporations set up to skirt federal taxes should be dismantled, have their assets seized and placed into a federal pot for lending to credible businesses who want to expand/initiate new businesses. A percentage should also be applied directly to the deficit.

I think that U.S. companies that outsource jobs should have to pay an extra tax rate that is directly proportionate to the differences in domestic vs foreign salaries.

I think that prices of certain essential commodities should be capped by a national limit. I'm thinking food, gasoline, utilities. I personally don't see anything wrong with nationalizing all of the above to remove the greedy stink of speculators who drive up the prices of said commodities so that they can take "ass models to Switzerland" LOL.

I think that 2 years of enlisted service in the military followed by 2 years as an officer, 4 years total minimum, should be mandatory for presidential candidates.(maybe congress too)

I think that since gays are allowed in the military, there should also be co-ed showers, dorms, etc.

I think that re-instituting the draft, conscription, should be mandatory before/during a formal declaration of war, with exceptions being constitutionally defined.

I don't think that presidential pardons should apply to members, current and former, of said president's staff. What, Up Scooter!!!

[Longermonger]

Originally Posted by SinsOfTheFlesh

The disconnect between the theory and definition of liberalism and conservatism, and the actual reality of the two has become so great as to completely blur all definitions.

According to Merriam-Webster, the definition of liberalism as it relates to politics is:

c : a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties; specifically : such a philosophy that considers government as a crucial instrument for amelioration of social inequities (as those involving race, gender, or class)

Conservatism meanwhile:

b : a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change; specifically : such a philosophy calling for lower taxes, limited government regulation of business and investing, a strong national defense, and individual financial responsibility for personal needs (as retirement income or health-care coverage)

Ok, so those are the textbook answers. Look at how similar they are. Liberals stand for personal liberty, while conservatives stand for smaller gov't. Sort of six one way, half a dozen the other, right? If the goal of both is to limit the role of gov't - either in preservation of individual liberty, or in the interest of limited gov't, one would think the end results would be the same.

But, the reality of both parties differs vastly from their philosophic underpinnings. Conservatives lose the right to call themselves the party of limited gov't when they want the gov't to decide who is allowed to get married and who isn't, when they want to micro-manage our schools and tell a science teacher what is "real" science and what isn't or insert pseudo religious dogma into scientific discussion and call it anything-ism to make it sound good. Conservatives can't claim the small gov't high ground when they fancy themselves better able to make medical decisions than the patient and her doctor. Conservatives can't claim to be all about small gov't when the United States Congress attempts to pass emergency legislation to stop a doctor in Florida from complying with a court order to remove a feeding tube. Yes, that is some very small gov't you got there!

Liberals though, are supposedly the defenders of individual liberty. Liberty though, comes at a cost, and oh what a cost it can be. Liberals say its ok to smoke cigarettes, but we will raise the taxes on your coffin nails until a single pack of smokes requires you to take out a mortgage. Exaggeration. Non smokers don't care for the second hand smoke, cancer, smell, or healthcare costs that they have to pay for smokers' bad life choices. If you keep all of those negative affects to yourself, liberals will happily let you smoke yourself to death. Also, there are a lot of liberal pot smokers...so your whole concept that Liberals want to take your smokes away is laughable. Same thing for sugar based drinks, chips, candy, and basically any other lifestyle decision they don't like. I hate halogen bulbs. They hurt my eyes, give me headaches, and if you break one you need a Hazmat kit to clean it upLIE because mercury is used in the making of it. You mean fluorescent, not halogen. You have no idea what you're talking about. Please research and discover that a Republican was 50% responsible for the incandescent 'ban' and that it doesn't cover every incandescent bulb. Don't be a dim bulb. Shine 6000K like I do! But starting sometime next year, incandescent bulbs will be banned and the only thing you can buy are the new halogen bulbs. Thank you liberals for that one. Look up the efficiency difference between the two kinds of bulbs.Where exactly is my personal liberty there? If you go to NYC, better go now. There is a proposal to ban the use of salt in all restaurants. Thank you liberals for that one too. If you live in Hollywood, CA and want to own a cat, you will need to take your cat to a vet outside of Hollywood if you want to have your cat declawed. Thanks liberals, no I don't need that particular personal liberty! I'll get along fine without it! So basically, liberals believe in the essential goodness of the human race, as long as we do exactly what they think we should be doing. Got it?Halogen! HA!

As you might guess, I'm not much of a fan of either party. Neither party lives up to their own standards. I'm more of a moderate/libertarian than either conservative or liberal. I like my liberties. If I want to smoke, I'm damned well going to smoke. If my incandescent bulbs are not as environmentally friendly, I don't give a crap. They don't give me headaches. If (god forbid) I ever need an abortion, I'll be damned if some idiot in a suit and tie is going to tell me he knows my body and my circumstances better than I do.

Having said all that, I tend to vote Republican, though I've voted for my share of Democrats. More often than not, I go to the polls and vote for whichever candidate I hate the least. For me, the ideal candidate will seek to preserve individual liberty whenever possible while not actually plunging us into total anarchy, one who will not vote in favor of ANY deficit spending period, and remember that his primary duty is to serve the people who elected him/her. Yeah I know, fat chance of that!

Penis

[SinsOfTheFlesh]

[QUOTE=thorough9;1235595]I'm not a big fan of states' right because there are too many differences between the states. I think that a national standard should be set, voted upon by three-fouths of the states, a clear majority, and adhered to by the states. If, and only if a 3/4 majority can't be reached, then local governments make and enforce the rules, with their dollars. Too many times, states insist upon states rights, but also insist that they need federal tax dollars. I don't think that you should have it both ways. Local issues should be decided by local governments, unassisted by federal dollars. Hello Mississippi!!!

You have WAY more faith in the gov't than I do my friend. The problem with centralizing gov't is that different states do indeed have different agendas, different needs, different strengths and weaknesses, etc. What works in Rhode Island may not necessarily work here, and vice versa.

I do agree that some issues are simply too complex, or have too much significance to our national interests to be managed at the local level. Education is a perfect example. Our children must compete in a global market, and we are lagging far behind. Every child from coast to coast needs a quality education that will prepare them to compete in an increasingly advanced global market. While some of our school districts are still wrangling over Evolution, children in other countries are reaching maturity well trained in the technologies that will make them leaders in technology and innovation.

So yes, some issues need to be handled at the Federal rather than state or local level. But I would argue that our country functions best when the greatest amount of liberty is reserved to the states. When ten states have the same problem, and each state dedicates its brightest minds to solving it, that is ten times more opportunity to come up with a workable solution. Compare that to passing the buck and expecting the federal gov't to come up with a solution, and if you are lucky, the one and only solution settled on actually does something meaningful. When it comes to innovating creative solutions, more is better and you don't get that at the federal level.

Larger issues, already expressly protected by the constitution and the Bill of rights, should be strictly interpreted as written, unless/until amended, and judges should be held to the stricter interpretations not to appointment loyalties.

I concur

I think that there should be mandatory sentencing guidelines, FOR ALL CRIMES. That would eliminate daddy's money and daddy's friends saving your little spoiled, inconsiderate ass and also eliminate about say.....50% of the legal bureacracy i.e. appeals. It would also eliminate parole in most instances.

I think that crooked cops, dirty lawyers, and incompetent judges should be disbarred/fired and prosecuted, and upon conviction placed into the same penal systems, without prejudice, that they prosecute/sentence average Joe's to. There should be a more active judicial oversight commissions, at every level of the government.

Mandatory minimums feel sexy, because they gives the appearance of being tough on crime. The problem is, they are a plain and simple bad idea. If we need mandatory minimums, then we just don't need judges. Basically what you are saying is that judges can't be trusted to be fair and objective, dispensing even handed justice. If that is the case, then lets just fire them all and save ourselves some tax dollars.

Sentencing guidelines serve some important purposes. First, they assure us a more fair and balanced justice system. Lets say two guys get in a barfight. The first guy punches a guy in the nose because the guy tried to hit on his girlfriend. The second guy just walks in and picks a fight because he's drunk and stupid, and he beats the crap out of the first victim he finds. Both are guilty of assault. But would you really argue they deserve the exact same sentence? I wouldn't. Mandatory sentencing leaves no room for either mitigating circumstances, nor for aggravating circumstances.

More importantly, sentencing guidelines are an extremely useful bargaining tool. They help prosecutors get convictions, and help keep overloaded court dockets clear. Much of the legal system boils down to Lets Make a Deal, and the offer of a lenient sentencing recommendation to Defendant A, is often the carrot used to get a conviction on Defendant B. Moreover, with mandatory minimums, defendants are less likely to plead out a case, and take their chances with a jury trial. What have they got to lose? If they plead out, they will be subject to the same sentence they would be subject to if they go to trial. So why not gamble on a not guilty verdict, no matter how open and shut a case is? Just to give you an idea of how overcrowded a docket can be, several years ago my car was stolen. The car was later recovered, and the thief (who will never be mistaken for Einstein) was arrested while driving it. It took over a year before he was finally sentenced. I had to go to court three different times over it before he finally got sentenced. What a PITA!

I totally agree with you though, on the matter of greater oversight, and stiffer penalties for corrupt cops, lawyers, and judges. These people are public servants, entrusted to uphold and defend our laws. When they themselves break the laws they are appointed to uphold, their betrayal of our trust is a far greater crime than the crime itself. In my opinion though, this is an aggravating circumstance, and exactly what sentencing guidelines are designed for. Sentence them to the maximum, regardless of whether its a first time offense.

I think that federal income tax should be at the same rate for everyone. Say XX% of every dollar made by US citizens, unless it's made on foreign soil, is taxed.

Bad, bad, bad idea. We simply can't afford it at our current spending levels. In order to maintain our current budge obligations, we would need to raise taxes to a minimum of 24-25%. Somewhere in that range. The wealthy would die of joy right there on the spot, because this would represent a massive tax cut for them. On the other end of the spectrum though, can you imagine a worker who earns $15K a year having to pay $3K in taxes? The lowest paid among us struggle just to keep a roof over their heads and food on the table. They could not possibly shoulder such a tax burden.

However, it IS possible to implement a flat tax, if we dramatically reduced our spending. I'm not talking merely balance our budget, but balance our budget, and continue reducing spending to levels that are manageable and sustainable. This, of course is a pipe dream, but it would be the only possible way to implement any sort of fair tax system.


Wow, my response was so long that I had to break it up into two separate posts......to be continued.....

[SinsOfTheFlesh]

I think that dummy corporations set up to skirt federal taxes should be dismantled, have their assets seized and placed into a federal pot for lending to credible businesses who want to expand/initiate new businesses. A percentage should also be applied directly to the deficit.

I've got a better idea. Lets slash our corporate tax rate to compete with the countries who attract our corporations. When companies set up dummy corps in foreign countries, they are paying taxes to that country. But if they can pay only 9% corporate taxes over there, versus a whopping 35% over here, you bet they'll do it. So rather than collect $0.00 in taxes here at our 35% rate, why not compete with those countries and collect 9% in taxes instead of those countries.

Furthermore, we NEED to lower our corporate tax rates. Badly. Taxing corporations is like siphoning your own gas tank to get a gallon of gas. Every dollar a corporation pays in taxes is one less dollar they could be spending on new innovations to improve their product or launch new product lines, increase advertising to open new markets, etc. I would prefer to see corporations expanding and growing their businesses, which fuels job growth, rather than see taxes bleed them dry and stifle growth. The gov't has never created a single job. Bureaucracy does not count, because that job lasts only as long as the funding at tax payer expense lasts. Gov't neither creates nor produces anything, corporations do.

Now, I realize the counter argument will be that too many corps reward CEO's and board members with sweet bonuses and perks, even as their business fails. True. We see headlines about it. But for ever one company making headlines because a greedy CEO looted it, there are thousands out there continuing to invest profits into their companies to keep them competitive and growing. One of my favorite quotes from Reagan was his philosophy of how to deal with the USSR on nuclear disarmament. Trust but verify he said. Those words were true then, and they are true now. The smart policy is to get out of the way of business as much as possible, while at the same time overseeing and regulating them enough to keep them honest. Admittedly, not an easy balancing act.

I think that U.S. companies that outsource jobs should have to pay an extra tax rate that is directly proportionate to the differences in domestic vs foreign salaries.

Not all outsourcing is bad. I agree that companies who outsource high tech jobs like IT and engineering, should be subject to sky high tax rates and tariffs. But to be blunt, we need to outsource the manufacture of our tennis shoes, soccer balls, and toys. Let other countries produce our cheap, replaceable goods. Business is in a constant state of evolution, and destruction is as vital a part of evolution as creation is. Not only do we not need to protect dying job sectors, it is in our best interest not to. As new innovations and technologies become available, we need our workforce ready and able to adapt to new products and technology. They can't do that if we are still making our own socks, and soap.

So yes, I agree that through taxes we can slow down outsourcing, but our approach to outsourcing can't be one size fits all. Policy needs to be crafted based on the industries affected, and the workforce available to meet the needs of a given industry.


I think that prices of certain essential commodities should be capped by a national limit. I'm thinking food, gasoline, utilities. I personally don't see anything wrong with nationalizing all of the above to remove the greedy stink of speculators who drive up the prices of said commodities so that they can take "ass models to Switzerland" LOL.

Woah! Bad idea! Again, you have WAY more faith in gov't than I do! Price freezes absolutely do not work. They didn't work during the Depression, they didn't work in the USSR, they aren't working now in Argentina. They are the antithesis of a free market, and will never work in a free market system.

Lets look at gas prices. Say we freeze gas prices at $3.50 a gallon. A few months from now, or a year from now, when the price of oil - which will be in no way affected by our price freeze - spikes the impact of a price freeze here would simply mean that oil exporters would sell their oil at premium rates to some other countries. Our oil companies would be unable to compete for oil because when the price of oil goes high enough, they can't make a profit off of it. The price freeze would basically freeze the price point at which oil companies can buy oil and make a profit off of it. Why should Canada, who we buy most of our oil from, sell it to us at lower prices than they can get from China, who's thirst for oil is growing at an even faster pace than our own?

The only effect price caps have is to create shortages of the commodities being capped. I don't think we want to see people fighting in the local Price Chopper over the last gallon of milk.


I think that 2 years of enlisted service in the military followed by 2 years as an officer, 4 years total minimum, should be mandatory for presidential candidates.(maybe congress too)

Well, military service is definitely a plus, but please lets not make it mandatory. Ulysses S. Grant was not just a veteran, he was perhaps one of the finest generals we've ever had. He made a downright crappy President though. Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Abe Lincoln, and good old Ronnie Reagan never served. Well ok, technically Reagan did serve, in a limited capacity. They all made damned fine Presidents though. Bush Jr was a veteran, and I'll leave it to you to decide whether he was a good president or not. I'd place him at just above mediocre. Good, but could definitely have been better.

No President can be an expert on every issue that he has to deal with as CIC. The best presidents were those who surrounded themselves with the best and brightest, and heeded their counsel on matters they weren't experts in.

I think that since gays are allowed in the military, there should also be co-ed showers, dorms, etc.

Now THAT, is a damned good idea! When I was in boot camp in the Navy, they actually did have co-ed companies. Alas, I was one of the last women to have an all female company. The I Companies as they were called were berthed separately, but they did everything else together.

But co-ed showers.....damned good idea! Would have made my basic training days a hell of alot more fun!

I think that re-instituting the draft, conscription, should be mandatory before/during a formal declaration of war, with exceptions being constitutionally defined.

In theory, good idea. Knowing that their son or daughter may be called on to serve would serve as a great deterrent toward declaring unnecessary wars. In practice though, I'd rather have a fighting force made up of volunteers rather than those forced to be there. All volunteer forces have far better group cohesion and team dynamics than units made up drafted individuals. Ask any service member and they'll tell you they'd rather have someone who volunteered to be there watching their back.

I don't think that presidential pardons should apply to members, current and former, of said president's staff. What, Up Scooter!!!

Agreed! In my opinion the case against Scooter Libby was a load of unmitigated crap. Someone needed to fall on the grenade to make the story go away, and Libby was just the poor bastid who was chosen to be the sacrifice. In spite of that though, his immediate pardon stunk to high heaven. It made a mockery of our justice system. Right or wrong, he was found guilty, and duly sentenced. His pardon ranks high on my list of reasons why Bush will never be considered to be a great president in my eyes.


Great post, great thoughts. I enjoyed writing a response!

[BigMikeinKC]

Conservatives are those who think I'm a liberal and liberals are those who think I'm a conservative.

[catnipdipper]

My experience has been that a progressive usually has a 30+ spread in IQ vs a conservative.

[Kshunter]

Originally Posted by catnipdipper

My experience has been that a progressive usually has a 30+ spread in IQ vs a conservative.

My experience has been that progressives are typically educated far beyond their own intellectual capacity to comprehend the lessons taught.

[Kshunter]

Ultimately, here's how it works in the real world:

Liberalism is a political philosophy based on the idea that there is this small group of really smart people who can do a better job of planning everyone's lives than they can themselves, so we need to turn as much power as possible over to those really smart people. Example - the 15 person panel that is exclusively appointed by the President that will for all intents and purposes control Obamacare (and thus the entire health care of the country). The bigger the government and the more central planning, the better.

Conservatism is a political philosophy that suggests that, most of the time, people will make decisions that are in their own best interests, and that we ought to allow them as much individual freedom as possible (until it infringes upon said freedoms for others) to do so. Hence, the smaller government and the less central planning the better.

Since liberalism presumes that most people are incapable of running their own lives, the so-called 'social safety net' is a big part of the philosophy in order to insulate people from the consequences of the bad decisions that they are bound to make.

Since conservatism emphasizes freedom, it is acknowledged that freedom to succeed must come with freedom to fail; hence conservatives are more willing to allow people to deal with the consequences of their own bad decisions.

Liberalism views business as the enemy because it is an expression of economic freedom; hence confiscatory government policies are both 'morally' justified as well as necessary to pay for their expansive programs and planning.

Conservatism recognizes the right to earn and succeed as the ultimate example of individual freedom so it seeks policies that stimulate economic growth and do not punish achievement.

Liberalism seeks "fairness" as the opiate for the masses. Since 'fairness' can only be achieved by lowering the common denominator, liberal seek ways to lower standards and again, punish high achievers. Witness the 'everyone gets a trophy' philosophy.

Conservatism suggests that the winners should be held up as an ideal of the society and motivate others to maximize their talents.

Ultimately, liberalism is a Ponzi scheme. There is never enough money to pay for the central planning that liberals want (especially since centrally planned economies tend to be less productive and grow less than non-centrally planned economies), and thus liberal governments always end up in collapse. The collapse of the Soviet Union should have been the canary in the coal mine, but the current collapses of the Irish and Greek economies are more leading indicators. The problem with liberalism is that the welfare state ruins the self reliance of people, so it's harder and harder to move away from it.

Ultimately, we must have a conservative society to prosper as a nation. There simply isn't enough money to finance the liberal wants. Our current President seems to believe that you can run annual deficits higher than any overall BUDGET submitted by the previous Democratic President and somehow prosper. Anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of mathematics can run numbers and figure out that we can't.

[john_galt]

Catnip you want to cite those sources? How do you make a liberal frustrated? Have him try to find the facts that he has been told are true.

I will get to this but as you can see from some posts this is a large topic. I've been out of town this weekend.