Liberal versus Socialism?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Give me a real man or a real woman to vote for. Somebody who has a moral code and beliefs and will stand by what they believe in. I don't care if the French or European 'intellectuals' call him a 'cowboy.' The French in France are not voting for the US president.

And I really don't care anymore (and have not cared for a long time) if he is a Democrat or a Republican or whatever. Just give me somebody who can do the job and be a real CEO for the country.
 
I must admit that I am very conservative person.I have very conservative beliefs.I believe that Modern Democrats are very socialistic.At our church there used to be a very wise and very respected Deacon(gone on now)and he once said that "socialism is not far from communism and that communism is not far from atheism".I believe this.The democratic party as a whole is becoming very socialistic,if not in some respects communist.If I have 50 Dallas,the democrats want to take half of it and give it to some one else.Christians cant pray at PUBLIC events that are on PUBLIC grounds any more,i.e.,school sporting events and graduations.This is wrong.According to surveys that have been done in the US,the majority are Christian.It is not fair to expect a Christian US citizen to keep silent because you don't want a Muslim,atheist or someone else to get offended.If I went to Saudi Arabia,I would not expect them to keep their prayers private when they have always been public and open.It has not been long ago that a school in California was teaching about Islam to the students.You cant wear necklaces with crosses on them at certain jobs.This is wrong.This is in my opinion communism at its very beginning.Democrats want to outlaw guns,make them at least almost impossible to get.In a city about 40-45 miles from me,the government there banned smoking in ALL of the restaurants in that county.This is not right.The government should not be allowed to ban smoking in a privately owned business,this is communism.If I own a business and allow people to smoke there,then that is my right and government should not be allowed to tell me that I cant allow smoking.The city government is controlled by democrats in the city mentioned.
 
Guys,
great thread, and I have little to add


except

I have the privilige of having an actual independent federal politician that I can vote for. Both parties hate him (which I consider to be a good, rather than a bad point). He has answered my e-mails within a week, and has been prepared to listen to my pints of view.

THAT is what I think we should be supporting in a politician, not some right/left (apparent) ideology.
 
Well, Shannow, don't keep us in the dark here. Let us behold this pillar of political piety ..this dynamic defender of the democratic process.


Give me your choice of the button/lever I push/throw when I choose my third party candidate in my protest against "politics as usual".

I really wish that they had the option "None of the Above" on the ballet.
 
Gary,
I don't think the independent for my electorate is likely to end up your side.

Gotta make do with what you've got unfortunately.

(I DO like the "none of the above" option, as that's how I feel in state elections)
 
The only difference between a socialist/communist and a Nazi is the colour of the shirt.

Todays "liberals" know exactly what is good for you and will force it down your throat whether you like it or not.

Note I qualified that statement by saying today's liberals
 
quote:

Originally posted by Mystic:
How many people here think that the Democratic Party is now kind of a Socialistic Party? I am a Democrat and I consider myself a liberal. I believe in personal freedom (with reasonable laws and reasonable control of human behavior).

But the Democratic Party of today to me seems like a Socialistic Party that tries to control human behavior and everything that people do. Anybody agree?


You know.....my stepdad is a 67 year old man and once told me the Democratic party was actually a Socialist party with a desguise name to keep their true identity from the people. I didn't put much stock into that since he argued with me that the U-2 spy plane was nicknamed "The Blackbird" when I knew it was the SR-71.
I had to show him an actual SR-71 to convince him otherwise; but know I'm finding he was right about the Democrats. I guess when it comes to politics, I better listen to him
wink.gif
tongue.gif
 
Most countries have a degree of socialism. European nations have more. Social security/Welfare and the progressive tax system are all socialistic examples. My Swedish friends at work tell me that what we consider "socialistic" here in the U.S., like a Kerry type, would be conservative over their. Sweden is very socialistic, but does have capitalism working underneath.

Liberal means open minded, tolerant, progressive.

There are Conservative Liberals. You can be Liberal on social issues, yet conservative fiscal issues. Bush has been Liberal
on gov. expenditures and foreign policy, but Conservative on moral/social issues like Gay Marriage etc. Lets just say Bush has been far from Conservative on Gov. spending. Ouch. **** Cheney thinks Deficits don't matter. Sure ****, whatever.
rolleyes.gif


Both Liberal/Conservative are used to often and too generally. You can be a mixed bag of both.
 
I agree with you Buster. I like to think of myself as a liberal but I am conservative in some ways. For example, personally I feel that homosexuality (can I use that word here?) is abnormal. But I totally do not believe in the harassment of gay people.

I like your concept of what a liberal should be. I like to think that I am progressive, open-minded, and tolerant. But some people today have a very strange concept of what it is to be a liberal. I don't think it is liberal to force viewpoints on other people.

I do think the Democratic Party has lost its way and that makes me sad. Because really I am a dyed-in-the-wool Democrat. For several years now I have voted for whoever I thought the best candidate was for any political office, no matter what their political party is.
 
quote:

I like your concept of what a liberal should be. I like to think that I am progressive, open-minded, and tolerant

That's the side that most of us think of...the positive points. What we aren't prepared for is the flip side of the coin slipped through the back door (pardon the pun) that our contemporary left wingers attach to those ideals as "riders".

Tolerance of those who are different (good)

Teaching kids in school that being gay is an acceptable alternative lifestyle. (not so good)

and so on...
 
Buster: how right you are. Life is rather more complicated than the socialist equals atheist brigade would have it! I won't comment on your political parties but hope the outcome is that America is respected again. As it should be.
 
quote:

Originally posted by GSV:
... yet I've heard no candidates offer any prescription for some serious belt tightening on behalf of the govt.
...


The Libertarian candidates have...
 
motorguy222 - Stopping smoking in restaurants isnt COMMunism it's COMMon sense. The law suites aginst passive smoking from employees working in those restaurants will stop this practice. More sestaurants worldwide are becoming non-smoking every day. Same for the workplace and public areas.
 
quote:

Stopping smoking in restaurants isnt COMMunism it's COMMon sense.

Sure, you're correct...but to what degree is the reaction comenserate with the regulation? That is, in regard to this item in particular, it appears to be a well for social "displaced anxiety". People who never had a complaint about smoking now get to scream "herotic!!!! blasphemer!!!!. It provides another avenue for those who want to consider themselves "victims" of societies ills and ..."it's not their fault" type rational`.

Basically it further social compensatory action for those who "decompensate" (for those of you who haven't worked in mental health - the term "decompensate" is used to describe an individual's inability to "cope").

No one forces people to work in resturants that allow smoking. No one forces non-smokers to eat there either. Is this something that requires law suits? No ..it requires an MSDS and "informed risks" of employment/patronage. I worked in a chemical plant for 15 years. When the work place smoking laws were enforced we all laughed. The free radicals that we were probably exposed to on a daily basis made the introduction of second hand smoke pale in comparison. Did we quit working our $40 - 50k a year jobs? I don't think so. I accepted the risks of working in a "regulated unfavorable environment".
 
OK, then a simple, very simple question.

How can the smoker's "right" to smoke in public be considered even remotely equal to or greater than non-smoker's right to be free of the nuisance? Especially since, if the non-smokers prevail, everyone is better off, while if the smokers prevail, everyone is worse off?

I grew up with the idea that a persons "rights" end where someone else's start. The smoker has not lost anything by not smoking for the few minutes he is in a restaurant. He can wait until after eating, or walk outside during the meal to smoke. The non-smoker has no such choice, and accumulates the second hand smoke so that the smoker is not made to suffer even minor inconvenience.

The idea that there is a public sphere which should not be defiled, polluted, or otherwise taken advantage of has been completely lost. The best example of this is people who litter, thinking either that they or not hurting anyone, or that their "right" not to transport their litter to an appropriate receptacle is more important than other peoples' right to pleasant surroundings.

I will also add that in a down economy, the economy itself in fact forces people to work in non-smoking environments, due to lack of options. Those who elect to put long term health over short term benefits are commonly labeled slackers, by people who think it is perfectly reasonable to shaft the people at the bottom of the economic heap.

[ May 26, 2004, 01:39 AM: Message edited by: TooManyWheels ]
 
Driving to work in Dallas-ft Worth, Chicago, New York, or on the California freeways will cause youy to inhale far more pollutants than smoking cigarettes, or being near a smoker, yet nobody wants to buy an all electric car. That goes for any big city.
However if you think banning smoking will work, remember the Volstead Act and how successful that was? I get the impression you absolutely know whats good for the rest of us and you intend to force it down our throats whether we like it or not. Welcome to the "Brave New World" Sieg Heil!
 
I don't get you people.

Yes, everyone has a right to smoke. No-one has a right to force anyone else to breathe their smoke.

Do what you want with regard to it, just don't force me to breathe it.

The fact that "I can go somewhere else" to avoid your second hand smoke is cr@p, when it means that I no longer have a right to visit a restaurant without breathing your smoke.

If I see you smoking in the street, I can elect to walk though your pall, of move to the other side of the footpath....fair enough.

I've a right to urinate/defecate, but you don't see me carrying out these activities at the table next to you, giving you the option to change restaurants.......which is good, for the health of the public at large, not just me.
 
Smoking is 20% of the population here and I heard even more socially unacceptable in the States? Manly and Bondi Beach councils just banned smoking on their beaches with almost total public support. Reduced envirnmental impact from billions of butts getting into waterways AND less beach cleaning, less beach cleaners so reduced costs to council so lower rates. More money stays in the publics pockets and that's what everybody wants.
 
quote:

Originally posted by Mystic:
How many people here think that the Democratic Party is now kind of a Socialistic Party? I am a Democrat and I consider myself a liberal. I believe in personal freedom (with reasonable laws and reasonable control of human behavior).

But the Democratic Party of today to me seems like a Socialistic Party that tries to control human behavior and everything that people do. Anybody agree?


Maybe you should check out the libertarians. They believe in a lot of freedoms.
http://www.lp.org/

I'm sort of liberal myself, but don't consider the myself a democrat. If I have to make a choice and I usually do I'll side with Republicans. Even though I'm not religious, I'm for Strong Military, low tax(what is that) strong business.

Though I don't think either party is right for the US anymore.
 
My bottom line is the Second Amendment, If they can take that away then no "right" is safe, either the ones in the constitution or the other imaginary ones created by the left wing supreme court. As far as moving business out of the country goes, the Greens have become a most effective weapon against the USA, this is why we haven't built a refinery in 20 years. The Environmental (EPA) and social (OSHA) regs get more expensive and complicated every year. In the meantime the Lawyers (core of the Democrats along with the Teachers union) will pick the bones of the businesses clean. Oh yea, now the doctors are leaving Illinois due to the law suits forcing them into poverty. One interesting note to those in Illinois: I am a director on a credit union and our president was down at Springfield talking to a Lobbyist who is 88 years old and has been working at the Capitol for over 40 years. He said he has never seen a governor who is hated by both parties so much as our dear Blago. Looks like a one termer.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top