Ahh, now we agree! There is no relationship here. It's the person.
Clinton to offer health care plan, only $110,000,000,000 a year
- Thread starter STIBROKER
- Start date
Ahh, now we agree! There is no relationship here. It's the person.
"Spreading misinformation?"
Calm down SMAN. Is Zell Miller's Democrat-ness a major concern to you?
Just because he stated that, then that's it, end of story? So, Hillary gets held to a different standard. When she says something then it needs to be questioned a cross checked and not taken at face value. But, when holy Zell Miller says something, then it must be so.
I don't know whether he almost converted so you are correct about that. It was rumored. It seemed appropriate actually. However, nobody can say for sure. Only he knows if he considered it. Bottom line: supporting Bush on nearly every important Senate vote does not equal centrist. Period.
Oh I'm calm. But nice of you to be concerned. I never said I liked Zell. Just that he's more of a centrist than Hillary. I'm in Georgia and never voted for him for Governor nor Senate. I'm sure he'd be grateful for you considering him to be holy, though. What an honor.
As far as him "almost" converting, all I can do is repeat what he stated on national television. I do know that there was tons of pressure coming from the GOP to get him to convert since Jeffords (Vermont senator) was considering leaving the GOP. In response to that pressure and questions from the media he stated that he is a life long Democrat and would never switch parties, but he was concerned about how far left the Democratic party was leaning.
If that's a problem for you, take it up with Mr. Miller.
You say you don't necessarily care for Hillary, but you keep defending her. I wonder why? Oh well, to each his own.
- 307
Alright. We can end it on that note. Look forward to discussing health insurance w/ you guys again soon.
- 2,152
So James,
You said:
"It is like the idiots that fall for the Corporation is Conservative and only give too conservative candidates! That is basically showing your ars' and openly admitting you don't know what the HILL you are talking about!"
No clue what you're saying here due to extremely poor grammar.
Is Bush then a liberal? You said that Corps. thrive in a big government economy. Does that make the Bush administration Big government since he's somewhat favorable to them? What about unconstitutional wire tapping, major war spending and the Patriot Act? Is that small gov't?
Your broad concept that big government is a liberal thing needs to be re-examined. Ever heard of Mussolini, Hitler or Franco? Big right wing gov't.
Issues are complex. Everything isn't just narrowed down to Big Gov't = Liberal and Small Gov't = conservative. And please re-state your quote above in regular english so I can better understand how you were trying to insult me there.
Obviously your understanding of Big Business and Government is sorely lacking and I doubt we could have a good discussion over it.
Bush's as in nearly the whole family including Daddy comes from the liberal side of the Republican Party as we use that word, obviously today liberalism is basically define as Big Government where Conservatives are equated to smaller Government, now is that a perfect way too express these matters, no, but it is, what it is. In fact if you understand the meaning behind Neo-Con you would see the logic of it, the Bush Doctrine.
Yes, Hitler, Mussolini and Franco just like Mao and Stalin were Facsist or Government control of Business in its purist form. Outside of that they were obviously nuts or madmen, yet all basically rose to power using the inticements of how Big Government would right the wrong over the rich and powerful as in, lets say the Ruling Family of Russia or in Hitler's case came too power with the, National Socialist Party.
There is only one thing that challenges big business, that is smaller business becoming bigger then they, such as K-Mart and Walmart. What Big Government assures to the Big Business is that no challengers will be able to overtake them as in a over-regulation preventing it or the oligarchs system of Russia.
As far as your grammar comments, I understand when you have or show basic ignorance, that is a good place to attempt some show of intelligence.
Ps in fact if my memory serves me the expression "A car in every driveway and two chickens in every pot" was a slogan originally use by Hitler, of course in the German language.
Last edited:
- 307
Obviously your understanding of Big Business and Government is sorely lacking and I doubt we could have a good discussion over it.
Bush's as in nearly the whole family including Daddy comes from the liberal side of the Republican Party as we use that word, obviously today liberalism is basically define as Big Government where Conservatives are equated to smaller Government, now is that a perfect way too express these matters, no, but it is, what it is. In fact if you understand the meaning behind Neo-Con you would see the logic of it, the Bush Doctrine.
Yes, Hitler, Mussolini and Franco just like Mao and Stalin were Facsist or Government control of Business in its purist form. Outside of that they were obviously nuts or madmen, yet all basically rose to power using the inticements of how Big Government would right the wrong over the rich and powerful as in, lets say the Ruling Family of Russia or in Hitler's case came too power with the, National Socialist Party.
There is only one thing that challenges big business, that is smaller business becoming bigger then they, such as K-Mart and Walmart. What Big Government assures to the Big Business is that no challengers will be able to overtake them as in a over-regulation preventing it or the oligarchs system of Russia.
As far as your grammar comments, I understand when you have or show basic ignorance, that is a good place to attempt some show of intelligence.
Ps in fact if my memory serves me the expression "A car in every driveway and two chickens in every pot" was a slogan originally use by Hitler, of course in the German language.
James,
No offense but you're way off here in certain spots. I have a M.A. in Political Science so I don't think you should "...doubt we could have a good discussion over it."
It is what it is? What it is is actually completely wrong. In academia (the scholars who actually research this stuf), liberal or neo-liberal actually refers to keeing the government out of the economy and promoting free trade between countries. Conservative refers to government using mechanisms to keep economic class structures in place (limiting upward economic mobility) and using protectionist measures on international trade. This big gov't = liberal, small gov't = conservative is too simplistic and does nothing but mislead.
Putting Mao and Stalin in the discussion of Fascism is simply wrong. Period. That was Totalitarian Communism. The government controls the economy and there is no private enterprise. The government is the economy. With Fascism, Big Business is enticed to go along with the lack a civil liberties in return for being more profitable. The government and Big Business are in collusion and free enterprise actually can blossom for Big Business. There is still a high level of free market activity. Mao and Stalin are actually almost complete opposites on the economic spectrum. Fascism is Big Extreme Right Wing Government. Its the Libertarian's nightmare almost as much as Communism because small business has an uphill battle and there are no civil liberties.
So you're analysis that Fascism is an enticement of government offering to right the wrong over the rich and powerful could not be further from the truth. It makes the rich and powerful all the more so. The very rich and powerful usually benefit from Fascism. That was the irony of the Nazi name being 'National Socialist Party.' It wasn't Socialist at all. Socialism is watered down communism with more free enterprise mixed in and usually a democratic electoral process.
And, you're grammar still sucks.
Last edited:
In your definitions, liberal means little government influence, conservative would mean lot of government influence in trade and business. Under this definition, I can see the confusion.
Under more generally accepted definitions (not saying academia is wrong, just misguided, but then, I'm probably misinterpreting your statement, since it's not the same as I learned in school) liberals are more about progress and open to change, conservative is more about less and a bit more opposing change. This is not in relationship only to economic class structures. In my view, the conservative model provides a lot more freedom for an individual to move through economic classes, the liberal model tries to eliminate the classes.
I had an interesting conversation with a friend once, I ended up describing the difference as a liberal would gladly feed a fish to the hungry, a conservative would simply teach them to fish, but not necessarily feed them. Both have a place, but its a different approach to life.
Within the scope of politics, I have a fairly simplistic view of conservative vs liberal (eliminating party platform statements)
Conservative = more about individual responsibility. The federal governments job is somewhat restricting to foreign affairs, national defense, protect the borders and making the states play nice together. In general, have little government influence on commerce (some is necessary) or social events at a federal level. This leads to economic classes since a person can keep what they earn to some degree.
Liberal = more about social responsibility. Feed the hungry, treat the sick, take care of the ederly. These are all good things. This tends to lead to the removal of economic classes (to a minor degree) since the only way to do this is by the robin hood method, take from the well to do, and give to those less well off. Within limits, this is a good thing.
Given this view, something like government mandated healthcare is a liberal issue, since it is about social responsibility, and puts the federal government more in control of everyones lives. Since this has a huge impact of the government on the economy, you would argue it's a conservative agenda based on your definition above.
I do have a question though....
If conservative implies keeping economic classes (and I agree with this) and liberal implies removing economic classes, how does conservativism limit upward mobility compared to liberalism? Based on this, liberalism would not have a class to move up to.
Dan
P.S. I tend to be more 'liberal' at a local level, more 'conservative' at a federal level.
P.P.S. This thread is boring.... Politics on an insurance forum doesn't mix past post 3.....
I don't understand how insurance companies can stay in business under this formula. Unless the government wants (READ: government FORCES taxpayers) to fit a huge bill, we won't be able to cover claims. I have gone and talked with several families where one of the two spouses can't/won't join the family on the coverage either because they are rated so high or because they are just uninsurable. What happens when everyone with cancer, AIDS, STDs, and other serious cronic illnesses is allowed to hop on coverage. Sure, it's painful that they will have to die earlier than they otherwise would b/c they can't get the coverage they need. That's life - and that's death. You know what else was bad -- African kids fighting over food and water we gave to them. We can't afford to feed everyone. Likewise, we can't afford to make sure everyone lives until 80 either.
- 142
As far as your grammar comments, I understand when you have or show basic ignorance, that is a good place to attempt some show of intelligence.
Uhhh, OK James...keep those Mensa dues up to date!
Anyway, I think NewMind took you out to the woodshed pretty much here in this debate...whether you agree with his, or anyone's more "liberal" view, it's important to know when you're in over your head in an arguement and boy, you are drowning!
- 307
"you would argue it's a conservative agenda based on your definition above."
Dan,
Not exactly. Let me clarify. Its not my definition. That's how academics look at liberal v. conservative in the area of political economy.
When social and foreign policy issues come into play, its gets even more complex. A liberal economic state such as the USA (i.e. little gov't economic intervention) is more likely to act more aggressively to keep trade open for its free economy. A conservative one (a la Pat Buchanan style conservatism) is more likely to want to stay out of some international conflicts as was the case with the GOP during the FDR years.
My point is the current lexicon has gotten twisted upside down and no longer makes much sense. We need third and fourth categories to explain where people really stand. To make matters even worse, conservatives (through the mainstream media, talk radio and Fox) have managed to paint the other side as actually being bad. Liberal has been a bad word/insult for 20+ years now without anyone adequately explaining how its bad and how conservative is somehow a good thing.
By existing defintions, many conservatives are actually liberal in many areas and many liberals are quite conservative in many areas with all but a few die hards running from the tag of "liberal" anything.
The country has a very bad political dialogue at this point. Conservatives have a holier than thou attitude on anyone who is liberal as if they have a lock on God, patriotism and being American. This in turn has pissed off all liberals since the Reagan years/Bush-Dukakis Election and now they're on the attack in retaliation to their side being smeared for so long and their last president being impeached for essentially a sex scandal. Nobody is willing to admit they're liberal even when they are.
I'm done for good this time. Gotta go market Bush-endorsed HSAs to CT and NH liberals.
Dan,
Not exactly. Let me clarify. Its not my definition. That's how academics look at liberal v. conservative in the area of political economy.
When social and foreign policy issues come into play, its gets even more complex. A liberal economic state such as the USA (i.e. little gov't economic intervention) is more likely to act more aggressively to keep trade open for its free economy. A conservative one (a la Pat Buchanan style conservatism) is more likely to want to stay out of some international conflicts as was the case with the GOP during the FDR years.
My point is the current lexicon has gotten twisted upside down and no longer makes much sense. We need third and fourth categories to explain where people really stand. To make matters even worse, conservatives (through the mainstream media, talk radio and Fox) have managed to paint the other side as actually being bad. Liberal has been a bad word/insult for 20+ years now without anyone adequately explaining how its bad and how conservative is somehow a good thing.
By existing defintions, many conservatives are actually liberal in many areas and many liberals are quite conservative in many areas with all but a few die hards running from the tag of "liberal" anything.
The country has a very bad political dialogue at this point. Conservatives have a holier than thou attitude on anyone who is liberal as if they have a lock on God, patriotism and being American. This in turn has pissed off all liberals since the Reagan years/Bush-Dukakis Election and now they're on the attack in retaliation to their side being smeared for so long and their last president being impeached for essentially a sex scandal. Nobody is willing to admit they're liberal even when they are.
I'm done for good this time. Gotta go market Bush-endorsed HSAs to CT and NH liberals.
Last edited:
- 2,152
Text book written by academia is basically useless esp. defining todays political stances. You can say Liberal is really this and that but the fact is, Liberalism today is defined by the characters who are active in it such as Conservatism. I think I made a point saying that these terms today do not in any way reflect their textbook meanings, textbook meanings are basically useless.
Hitler rose under the National Socialist Party, now you are trying to say that it was a shell? No duh, just like Stalin and Mao coming to power, Stalin used the writing of Trostky as our founders use the writings of Paine to stir the revolution. Yet the big lie of your academia is basically simple, there is no real world difference between the Hitler's and Mao's, they both rule the private sector and were basically mad. In other words I suggest there is no difference between the ultra Left or Right just as in Democracy in its purist form is Tyrannical Rule. Lets face it, most today can not identify the actual form of Governence they are under, now you want to muddy the waters by some elitist textbook meanings that have no real bearing on crap.
Neo-Con, basically the 60's liberals such as Kennedy that were Hawks on Foriegn Affairs. They lost their home in the Democratic Party so they migrated over to the Republican Party, and low and behold you have today the Neo Con. Oh, lets not forget the Jewish babble that today's academia will obviously throw in, as that is any suprise.
Oh, by the way, Mao never actually ended private ownership of businesses, in the end it was no more than what we seen in Russia/USSR or the Third Reich of Germany. Maybe that was Mao's idea and I understand that academia has a soft spot for Mao, but that doesn't replace the reality.
Similar threads
