Here's a flamefest: When did "liberal" become such a dirty word?

[Zardoz]

...I think of a bunch of assmunches that think they know whats good for me and everyone else and are willing to spend every cent I have to prove it...

You just described the Bush administration, except that you would need to add "...and are borrowing TWO BILLION DOLLARS A DAY from the global financial markets because they need far more than every cent I have to finance their runaway spending insanity."


Scroll down a little and watch that baby go!

This one updates every few minutes Scroll down for some eye-opening articles.

From the horse's mouth. Check the increases since 2000......and note the four years just before that. Uh-huh, that's right: Bill Clinton came within an eyelash of getting us back in the black. Then we elected Dubya, and the central banks of Japan and China began licking their chops.

Dubya quietly bumps the national debt limit by a trillion bucks!

Dubya bumps it again. Say hello to another 700 billion!

Check the totals on the projected increases. Another $1.6 trillion will be added to the debt just between 2006 and 2010! Woo hoo!

The Bush administration: Compulsive-spending shopaholics. They're like the rich women who, when they see a shoe they like, buy one in every color it comes in.

 

[niky]

This is very informative guys... keep going.

I'd like to point out a logic for the contradictions of the "liberal" position in different countries... Where liberals are seen as "centrist", like in Canada, the government is more socialist (more focused on public welfare systems, and the like)... while in the US, "liberal" is seen as being far more to the left than it really is. Which is logical, since a "wartime" government, like the Bush administration is often far to the right of right.

By the way, I hate the use of "left" and "right", calling one side "right-ist" implies that the other is, err... wrong. And going back to danoff's comments on page 1 (very good first post, I might add...) neither side gives you very many rights.

And, at Viper... it's not just liberals that think that liberal has become a "dirty" word. I've seen it thrown around a lot on boards by people who don't like to hear bad news. They dismiss any bad news about the war, the environment or the economy as liberal propaganda. I think it obscures the truth. Instead of trying to filter through the arguments and counter-arguments for the political situation today, people are just slapping a label on anything and everything and disregarding the fact, factoid, opinion, etcetera if it has the wrong label.

That's how come I think, for example, that leaving Iraq is WRONG. Even if that's what the "liberals" want, it's not a very good decision to make, in light of the current situation... this is despite the fact that I took the "liberal" stance of opposing the war in the first place.

 

[James2097]

Actually, the Australian Liberal Party is using the term "liberal" in its classical sense.

Ya.

In Australia we still get crazies though (I'm not saying its just in America) on both sides of politics, its just waaay less extreme (in my circles and in our media at least) than what I've seen of American media (Fox News, New York Times, Rush Limbaugh )...

We have John Laws and Derryn Hinch, they are crazy radio guys that are hardcore insane right wing (that help instigate stuff like THIS: http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/SYD272430.htm). I am really in shock that Aussies are rioting like this, its really un-australian and not what I thought we could do...

 

[Pupik]

To me, throwing the words "liberal" or "conservative" in an argument is like adding water soup; it just dilutes the statement to hot button words. Whenever you're out of ideas, just brand them "liberal" or "conservative", and you know that Mr./Mrs. X just "isn't playing on our team".

I love our current 2-party system: It's essentially Vanilla and French Vanilla.

 

[ledhed]

You just described the Bush administration, except that you would need to add "...and are borrowing TWO BILLION DOLLARS A DAY from the global financial markets because they need far more than every cent I have to finance their runaway spending insanity."


Scroll down a little and watch that baby go!

This one updates every few minutes Scroll down for some eye-opening articles.

From the horse's mouth. Check the increases since 2000......and note the four years just before that. Uh-huh, that's right: Bill Clinton came within an eyelash of getting us back in the black. Then we elected Dubya, and the central banks of Japan and China began licking their chops.

Dubya quietly bumps the national debt limit by a trillion bucks!

Dubya bumps it again. Say hello to another 700 billion!

Check the totals on the projected increases. Another $1.6 trillion will be added to the debt just between 2006 and 2010! Woo hoo!

The Bush administration: Compulsive-spending shopaholics. They're like the rich women who, when they see a shoe they like, buy one in every color it comes in.

you forgot this part ....if your going to quote me ...

honestly ..they all bite

 

[Kent]

Just wanted to mention that Bob Dole is not a wuss.

I'm pretty sure all of us would agree on that if it had been one of us who was saved by him in the great war.

For that matter, he wouldn't have a bad arm if he hadn't done that heroic act (saved a man's life and got torn up by a machine gun at the same time ).

In anycase, regarding the thread title...

Remember, it's not the right or the left that changed what liberal and conservative mean in America... It's a combination of Time and both parties.

 

[FoolKiller]

These two strike me as inconsistent.

I can give you the perfect example to help make his point.

My wife thinks that Bill and Hillary are the greatest thing to happen to politics. She considered paying $300 to go to a fundraising dinner just so she could meet Hillary. She didn't get to go because I told her that there is no person worth paying that much money just to shake their hand and eat a ham sandwhich in the same room. If she did go I told her I would keep a count of how many other fun things she wanted to do until she didn't do $300 worth of other stuff. She realized she was looking at nearly a year of fun wasted.

Anyway, she gets angry anytime anyone makes an insulting comment about President Clinton and has already decided that Hillary will be the next president, and if she doesn't win then someone will have definitely cheated.

I thought this was odd and an almost "deer in the headlight" type attitude toward the Clintons. If they declared themselves king and queen of the planet she would celebrate it. So, I occasionally bring up a political issue and ask what she thinks. At least 90% of the time she disagrees with their policies and stances. When I pointed this out to her she brushed it off with, "Yeah but Hillary is awesome. Don't p!ss me off."

I fear this is a sign of my wife being simple-minded and the Clintons having some sort of Jedi-style charisma power over her, but I see it all around me. I have seen die-hard Bush supporters say they would definitely vote for Hillary and that while they disagreed with President Clinton a lot that they still think he was a great president.

Apparently if you talk a good talk and walk a good walk then no one cares what your policies are.

 

[Swift]

I can give you the perfect example to help make his point.

Anyway, she gets angry anytime anyone makes an insulting comment about President Clinton and has already decided that Hillary will be the next president, and if she doesn't win then someone will have definitely cheated.

I thought this was odd and an almost "deer in the headlight" type attitude toward the Clintons. If they declared themselves king and queen of the planet she would celebrate it. So, I occasionally bring up a political issue and ask what she thinks. At least 90% of the time she disagrees with their policies and stances. When I pointed this out to her she brushed it off with, "Yeah but Hillary is awesome. Don't p!ss me off."

Apparently if you talk a good talk and walk a good walk then no one cares what your policies are.

That's really true. Why do people like the Clinton's so much? Hillary is a tool. She can't even keep her husband happy. Why would I want to trust her with a nation? Not to mention Bill is just about as dumb as dirt. But he's got what it takes to be a politician. Looks, charisma and was one of the few presidents to span the generation gap. But still..

Just wanted to mention that Bob Dole is not a wuss.

I'm pretty sure all of us would agree on that if it had been one of us who was saved by him in the great war.

For that matter, he wouldn't have a bad arm if he hadn't done that heroic act (saved a man's life and got torn up by a machine gun at the same time ).

You're quite right. But he was a political wuss in the eyes of the nation. That's all I was saying.

 

[Duke]

From the horse's mouth. Check the increases since 2000......and note the four years just before that. Uh-huh, that's right: Bill Clinton came within an eyelash of getting us back in the black.

I'm never going to defend the Republicans' spending policies - certainly not in the last 5-6 years - but, really, what did Clinton have to spend money ON?

He did virtually nothing overseas - his foreign policy was nonexistant. Major war efforts happened just before his terms and just after his terms, so of course his spending numbers look good in comparison.

He faced no major domestic crises of the scale that have come since he left office, neither natural, economic, nor man-made.

 

[Zardoz]

...Not to mention Bill is just about as dumb as dirt...

...about women.

You are aware that he was a Rhodes Scholar, right? Those guys are "dumb as dirt"?

 

[Swift]

...about women.

You are aware that he was a Rhodes Scholar, right? Those guys are "dumb as dirt"?

So I guess they don't teach anything about common sense huh? Like, locking the door? I shouldn't have said dumb. I should've said stupid. When I say stupid, I mean not using the intellegence that you do have versus dumb meaning not having intelligence to begin with.

 

[Zardoz]

...common sense...

I'll never forgive him for Monica Lewinsky. Washington is overrun by hordes of some of the finest young ladies on this planet, and he fools around with that pitiful loser Monica???

Give us a break, Billy Jeff...

 

[Danoff]

I can give you the perfect example to help make his point.

My wife thinks that Bill and Hillary are the greatest thing to happen to politics. She considered paying $300 to go to a fundraising dinner just so she could meet Hillary. She didn't get to go because I told her that there is no person worth paying that much money just to shake their hand and eat a ham sandwhich in the same room. If she did go I told her I would keep a count of how many other fun things she wanted to do until she didn't do $300 worth of other stuff. She realized she was looking at nearly a year of fun wasted.

Anyway, she gets angry anytime anyone makes an insulting comment about President Clinton and has already decided that Hillary will be the next president, and if she doesn't win then someone will have definitely cheated.

I thought this was odd and an almost "deer in the headlight" type attitude toward the Clintons. If they declared themselves king and queen of the planet she would celebrate it. So, I occasionally bring up a political issue and ask what she thinks. At least 90% of the time she disagrees with their policies and stances. When I pointed this out to her she brushed it off with, "Yeah but Hillary is awesome. Don't p!ss me off."

I fear this is a sign of my wife being simple-minded and the Clintons having some sort of Jedi-style charisma power over her, but I see it all around me. I have seen die-hard Bush supporters say they would definitely vote for Hillary and that while they disagreed with President Clinton a lot that they still think he was a great president.

Apparently if you talk a good talk and walk a good walk then no one cares what your policies are.

Foolkiller,

It scares me that people like your wife are out there - voting. Voting for those morons the Clintons. The ONLY thing to consider in politics is the message. Charisma should have virtually nothing to do with it (except in the foreign diplomatic sense, which they can delegate a lot of the time).

The only reason the Clinton presidency wasn't a complete and total dissaster (which I think we might actually be able to claim because he should have stopped 9/11), is because the congress was controlled by republicans - keeping him from spending and enacting his pet legislation. Otherwise we'd have a health care crisis that would make social security look like a walk in the park. We'd lay awake at night dreaming of the days when social security was a big financial problem.

Bush hasn't had the luxury of opposition in congress. He's been hampered by a congress of the same party as him - which is why he spends and spends and spends. His presidency might have had a chance if he'd had democrats in congress to oppose him.

When politicians get their way, spending almost always goes up. When they're fighting, spending goes up less.

(in no instance does it go down)

 

[Zardoz]

...It scares me that people like your wife are out there - voting...

Be afraid. Be very afraid.

The pundits all seem to agree that Senator Hillary actually has a shot in 2008. However, now she's pissing off even far-leftists, so we'll see about that:

http://villagevoice.com/news/0550,lombardi,70931,6.html

 

[FoolKiller]

Foolkiller,

It scares me that people like your wife are out there - voting.

I agree with you 100%. Half the time she doesn't know who she is voting for or what the issues are. I asked her why she even bothers voting and she said, "Because it's my right." That was when it occured to me that she and I will never have a good conversation about politics.

 

[Zrow]

I agree with you 100%. Half the time she doesn't know who she is voting for or what the issues are. I asked her why she even bothers voting and she said, "Because it's my right." That was when it occured to me that she and I will never have a good conversation about politics.

Yeah, that sucks. I have certain friends of mine that I save for the political debate myself.

 

[Plague.Ghost]

Hillary is a tool. She can't even keep her husband happy.

I am shocked and appalled that the wife is to blame for this one.

 

[ShobThaBob]

I'll never forgive him for Monica Lewinsky. Washington is overrun by hordes of some of the finest young ladies on this planet, and he fools around with that pitiful loser Monica???

Give us a break, Billy Jeff...

All females look the same under the desk sir.

 

[ShobThaBob]

I agree with you 100%. Half the time she doesn't know who she is voting for or what the issues are. I asked her why she even bothers voting and she said, "Because it's my right." That was when it occured to me that she and I will never have a good conversation about politics.

I'd have to say that the majority of america is probably like this.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

When politicians get their way, spending almost always goes up. When they're fighting, spending goes up less.

(in no instance does it go down)

Inflation? Oh no... that's the Federal Reserve, sorry.

I don't mind spending increases. It entirely depends on what the money is being spent on.

I'd have to say that the majority of america is probably like this.

Conservatives wouldn't want it any other way.

 

[James2097]

I respected Clinton more after Monica, I thought he was a pretty soft before that.

Doing it in the Oval office wasn't too smart though, he should've ram-ped up the oil rig and head-ed out to do some off-shore drilling. That would be more interesting than a desk job. Away from prying eyes. MANY presidents have been real womanisers (Marylin Monroe anyone?) anyway, I don't see the biggie.

Hilary could be blamed a little IMO, she was a fair testicle lock box according to some. Using the power of NOT sleeping with Bill to get what she wants... she is very manipulating like that.

 

[Danoff]

I am shocked and appalled that the wife is to blame for this one.

Certainly not. It's Bill's fault for marrying her. He should have realized she was frigid. But that's not why they're together is it?

 

[Plague.Ghost]

Certainly not. It's Bill's fault for marrying her. He should have realized she was frigid. But that's not why they're together is it?

That doesn't give Bill the excuse to cheat and Swift the right to make sexist remarks.

 

[Danoff]

That doesn't give Bill the excuse to cheat and Swift the right to make sexist remarks.

If you were married to Hillary, I'd bet you'd cheat on her.

Comeon!!! Are we really talking about these people's private lives?? Who cares!

 

[Swift]

I am shocked and appalled that the wife is to blame for this one.

Whoa, I didn't say she was totally to blame. And that's NOT a sexist statement. It's a fact. Bill cheated on Hillary because, what? Husbands that are happy in their marriage do not cheat on their wives.

She's a tool because she's the embodyment of the liberal movement while trying to ride the fence on the big issues, like the war.

 

[Plague.Ghost]

"She can't even keep her husband happy."

Ever thought maybe Bill's just a cheating dick? If you're not happy, then you get a divorce, you don't resort to infidelity. And from of all people, a Christian.

 

[James2097]

"She can't even keep her husband happy."

Ever thought maybe Bill's just a cheating dick? If you're not happy, then you get a divorce, you don't resort to infidelity. And from of all people, a Christian.

I agree, Swift's bias against Hilary has really made him say something VERY un-christian.

 

[Zardoz]

It's hard not to be biased against Hillary these days:

Oh, like nobody will be able to see right through this?

"It’s not just the left-right thing that could slow Hillary’s march to the nomination. It’s the transparency of what she’s doing that has even her biggest fans worried. It doesn’t look authentic."

Tell me about it...

 

[niky]

Just a time-out from the dragon-lady discussion:

I agree with you 100%. Half the time she doesn't know who she is voting for or what the issues are. I asked her why she even bothers voting and she said, "Because it's my right." That was when it occured to me that she and I will never have a good conversation about politics.

I'll have to agree with Bob on the fact that most Americans... hell, most people who live in "democratic" countries are like this. I'd have to say voting is not a right... it is a privelege, bought with the blood, sweat and toil of your forebearers, who fought tooth and nail to create the country you live in... or if your parents were immigrants, they fought tooth and nail to get in... to let you lead the life you lead.

Although it's fascist in a way, the political system postulated by Robert Heinlem (who is as far to the right as any writer can be... who says intellectuals are all "liberal"? ) in his classic "Starship Troopers" (forget the ****ty movie, the book is a terrific read for any military buff) holds some fascination for me.

Here, he puts forward that military and civil service should be fully voluntary with minimal benefits (remember, he served in the big one, WWII, where the draft made it mandatory) for all citizens upon reaching a certain age. If you don't want to serve, you don't.

The kicker is, if you don't serve in the government in any way, shape or form, you don't get to vote. The theory behind this is, if you've been made to work hard to acquire the right to vote, and by this work, gain awareness of the workings and needs of the government and military, you'll vote more wisely.

Oh, of course, "civilians" don't get to run for office, either. Unless, they're ex-military or ex-civil service.

 

[FoolKiller]

Conservatives wouldn't want it any other way.

Oddly enough, my wife tends to vote Democrat. It's mostly because her parents do and despite her opinion she votes the same way. She is aware of politics enough to be able to say they are all just a bunch of pompous ****.

I know more people who consider themselves liberal that think this way, but it could just be regional. I suspect whatever the majority is locally will cause a bias for more of that group to appear to be uninformed.

The kicker is, if you don't serve in the government in any way, shape or form, you don't get to vote. The theory behind this is, if you've been made to work hard to acquire the right to vote, and by this work, gain awareness of the workings and needs of the government and military, you'll vote more wisely.

Oh, of course, "civilians" don't get to run for office, either. Unless, they're ex-military or ex-civil service.

It sounds nice because only informed people can vote, but in the event that the government begins to lean a certain way, and only those involved with government in some form can vote/work in government, that leaning has the ability to become a trend and a mindset and before long you might as well have a one-party system. At that point you might as well have a dictator and do away with voting at all.