The original question really is, why is someone who believes in these things characterized as evil, or a hypocrite b/c they don't live out to the nth degree all of the ideas.

 

I see nothing inherently bad in any of those positions. They are positions of love and caring for your fellow human and yet . . . but let me paint them in another light:

 

1. Climate change - liars

2. Socialists

3. Attackers of religion

4. Secularists

5. Pacifist, soft on terror wackos

6. Gay

7. Attackers of traditional marriage

8. Pro-Abortion

9. Anti-Business

10. Socialized medicine promoters

11. Soft on crime (which is really a misnomer since the death penalty has been proven NOT to deter crime)

 

I don't really understand what you want. Are you asking if, I as a conservative think you are a hypocrite for not believing wholehartedly the above principles? If so, no I don't think you are a hypocrite nor do I think you are evil. Just becaue I don't agree with you does not mean that I think you are evil.

So you're saying Jesus got that whole give your treasure to the poor thing wrong?

 

Well, now, anyone who says his words are to be interpreted exactly as you liberals seem to want to interpret them would be less than realistic. I don't think He was calling for the same type of socialism as are you boys. I believe that He was aware of the difference between the needy and the parasites. Liberals don't differentiate because they need the votes of the latter to win elections. Thus, it is no wonder that they support the illegals. After all, once they become citizens, their first action will be to register as Democrats followed quickly be applying for all of those "entitlements" that such people seek.

 

On the other hand, I also don't agree whatsoever with all of these "get rich" evangelists who claim that, if we give (to them, of course)), we will prosper.

 

I would believe that both approaches are nothing more than scams. I will give as I choose and that will not include the parasites on either end of the spectrum.

The general nuts and bolts taught to me a long time ago:

 

Liberals would rather give someone a fish and feed them for a day, while conservatives would rather teach them to fish and feed them for a lifetime.

The general nuts and bolts taught to me a long time ago:

 

Liberals would rather give someone a fish and feed them for a day, while conservatives would rather teach them to fish and feed them for a lifetime.

 

I agree.

 

I just can't comprehend how someone who works hard for what they have, should have to help support someone who doesn't.

The general nuts and bolts taught to me a long time ago:

 

Liberals would rather give someone a fish and feed them for a day, while conservatives would rather teach them to fish and feed them for a lifetime.

 

Well stated. That's it in a nut shell.

The general nuts and bolts taught to me a long time ago:

 

Liberals would rather give someone a fish and feed them for a day, while conservatives would rather teach them to fish and feed them for a lifetime.

 

I always thought of it more along these lines:

 

Liberals would rather give someone a fish and feed them for a day, then spend the rest of his or her life reminding the person just how indebted he/she is to the government for that help, over time convincing him that he and everyone else is incapable of a good life without the free fish while conservatives would rather teach them to fish and feed them for a lifetime; whether or not they catch anything is their own fault for being either too feeble-minded or otherwise too pathetic to properly wield a fishing pole, besides, that's more fish for the rest of us.

I always thought of it more along these lines:

 

Liberals would rather give someone a fish and feed them for a day, then spend the rest of his or her life reminding the person just how indebted he/she is to the government for that help, over time convincing him that he and everyone else is incapable of a good life without the free fish while conservatives would rather teach them to fish and feed them for a lifetime; whether or not they catch anything is their own fault for being either too feeble-minded or otherwise too pathetic to properly wield a fishing pole, besides, that's more fish for the rest of us.

 

:thumb:

Keep in mind that none of what we've been talking about here has the first thing to do with "liberalism" or "conservatism." What Ace has raised is a slate of issues he asserts bear the imprimatur of liberals. Whether or not you agree with his characterization of the issues, or whether or not you agree that they are polestar issues for liberals, the fact remains that issues belong to political parties. "Liberalism" and "conservatism" are more general ideologies that cannot be pigeonholed so easily.

 

The classical understanding of "liberalism" derives from the Latin "to be free." Liberals emphasize individual autonomy and freedom above all else, and freedom from government oppression and slavery. Classical liberals would support some government intervention in a free market to prevent the occlusion of individual rights.

 

The classical understanding of "conservatism" derives from the Latin conservare, "to keep, guard, and observe." Conservatives classically favor the preservation and status quo of traditional cultural, religious, and political values above all else. Conservatives would be resistant to change, except in an incremental fashion.

 

Trying to define liberals and conservatives beyond these definitions is IMHO useless.

 

According to the classical understanding of the terms, I am a liberal. So to the extent that Ace is trying to get an admission that the word "liberal" has become perjorative, I will so admit, so long as he admits that being called a "conservative" has also become perjorative.

 

Anytime, though, that we start talking about who generally falls down on what side of the environmental, gay marriage, abortion, health care issue, understand that we are not talking about liberal-conservative, we are talking about political parties and nothing more.

I always thought of it more along these lines:

 

Liberals would rather give someone a fish and feed them for a day, then spend the rest of his or her life reminding the person just how indebted he/she is to the government for that help, over time convincing him that he and everyone else is incapable of a good life without the free fish while conservatives would rather teach them to fish and feed them for a lifetime; whether or not they catch anything is their own fault for being either too feeble-minded or otherwise too pathetic to properly wield a fishing pole, besides, that's more fish for the rest of us.

Well, I can fish..

Anytime, though, that we start talking about who generally falls down on what side of the environmental, gay marriage, abortion, health care issue, understand that we are not talking about liberal-conservative, we are talking about political parties and nothing more.

We para-phrase all the time..obviously

Classic definitions and root origins of terms are one matter. How those terms are defined and applied in modern life is something else.

Classic definitions and root origins of terms are one matter. How those terms are defined and applied in modern life is something else.

 

I like classic definitions. They give you something to work from. In fact, one of my biggest beefs with "liberals" is that they attempt to re-define things that I believe are fixed, liked "truth" and "morality." It is the hallmark of the post-modernist liberal.

According to the classical understanding of the terms, I am a liberal.

 

What?:scared:

 

I understand what you are saying. But, we all know that not wanting government overseeing everything is now attributed to the conservative side not the liberals. So, to that end, I think the classical definitions are no longer of use, The two terms, liberals and conservatives, have been re-defined over time.

 

I respectfully disagree about abortion, gay marriage, and other issues being only indicative of political party issues. I think those issues derive from ones liberal/conservative tendencies. Most of those issues are about government control, or religious beliefs. One can be of a conservative nature and be a registered Democrat, such as many of my friends. In fact many people argue that their conservative beliefs are that of the Democratic party, ignorant of the the party's stance of such issues. Conversely, one can be of a liberal nature and be a registered Republican, which I personally find less common.

 

In summary, I believe that a persons stance on just about every issue is derived from their liberal/conservative beliefs, that is why, for the most part, a person would consider themselves Democrat or Republican, due to there stance on many issues. I believe from what you said, you believe that a persons stance on the above issues is independent of the fact that a person is liberal or conservative. I believe that a persons stance on the above issues are the essence of them being liberal or conservative.

I disagree to an extent. More than liberal/conservative beliefs, I believe a person's faith or lack of a faith plays more into their decisions on political matters than people want to believe.

 

I don't believe you can truly stay faithful to your faith and divorce it from making political matters.

 

I think what Ace has listed shows that. Ace's view of the rich based on his beliefs has affected what he believes is a view of "liberals." Maybe even unknowingly, he let his view on what Jesus says about the "rich" to color his view of how government handles the "rich."

What?:scared:

 

I understand what you are saying. But, we all know that not wanting government overseeing everything is now attributed to the conservative side not the liberals. So, to that end, I think the classical definitions are no longer of use, The two terms, liberals and conservatives, have been re-defined over time.

 

I respectfully disagree about abortion, gay marriage, and other issues being only indicative of political party issues. I think those issues derive from ones liberal/conservative tendencies. Most of those issues are about government control, or religious beliefs. One can be of a conservative nature and be a registered Democrat, such as many of my friends. In fact many people argue that their conservative beliefs are that of the Democratic party, ignorant of the the party's stance of such issues. Conversely, one can be of a liberal nature and be a registered Republican, which I personally find less common.

 

In summary, I believe that a persons stance on just about every issue is derived from their liberal/conservative beliefs, that is why, for the most part, a person would consider themselves Democrat or Republican, due to there stance on many issues. I believe from what you said, you believe that a persons stance on the above issues is independent of the fact that a person is liberal or conservative. I believe that a persons stance on the above issues are the essence of them being liberal or conservative.

 

You and are saying the same thing, but coming from different angles. I am trying to respond to Ace. One of Ace's theorem's is that, over time, the term "liberal" has been turned into a bad word. And he's right. Now, it may be the liberal's FAULT that the word "liberal" is now perjorative, but the fact remains that if you, Ram, want to be truly conservative, than you should not accept the "re-defining" of the term and should instead stick to its traditional meaning. That is why I prefer to look at the issues as party measuring sticks, not the "re-defined" ideological measuring sticks.

 

Let me use a case in point: the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). Here is an organization that, at its root, has as its guiding mission the preservation and defense of the Bill of Rights and individual freedom from government intervention and intrusion, even in times of national emergency. In the 1940's and 50's, the ACLU was the organization MOST likely to defend your right to own and use a weapon, speak on the courthouse steps, or have a lawyer defend you in court. Things you and I believe in. However, like many organizations, it has been overtaken by zealots with no understanding or respect for truth or institution, and it has become the organization we hate so much today. However, the ACLU was classically "liberal" in the 40's and 50's because they espouse individual rights over government intrusion, and that is to be heralded. Today, I would argue they are merely a mouthpiece for the issues espoused by the far-left faction of the Democratic Party.