|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: What is Liberal? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Yaro Member (Idle past 6495 days) Posts: 1797 Joined: |
Clean Skies Initiative -- More cole and poluttion
No Child Left Behind -- Educational budget slashed Patriot Act -- Civil liberties curtailed, bigger government Nah, they don't twist words. And FOX news really IS fair and balanced! This message has been edited by Yaro, 07-22-2005 01:05 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kjsimons Member Posts: 821 From: Orlando,FL Joined: Member Rating: 6.7 |
LOL! I was going to try and rebut Faith, but you did a much better job than I could!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 411 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Many moons ago - I think it was during the Nixon administration - I read something similar in a Canadian newspaper editorial:
A liberal thinks everybody in the world wants to be an American. A conservative wants to make eveybody in the world an American. People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 411 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Faith writes: The right does not use lying terminology. They say what they mean. Unfortunately, you don't know what the words mean. You don't know the meaning of the word "liberal", you don't know the meaning of the word "conservative", you don't know the meaning of the word "left", you don't know the meaning of the word "right", you don't know the meaning of the word "murder".... People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
We have both. Majority is always the primary principle. A representative government should reflect the will of the majority if it's truly representative.
It reflects the will of the majority with respect to the minority. The SCOTUS is one body who oversees the descisions made by our elected representatives. As I said, during civil rights, the majority was racist. The SCOTUS protected the minority from the will of the majority. The framers were smart enugh to engeneer this self-correcting mechanisim into the structure of our govt. No, what they did was completely unConstitutional. The SCOTUS was LEGISLATING when it did that, and USURPING the will of the people. Sometimes the majority will is wrong, but in a representative government you don't pre-empt their will, you work for change through democratic means. For instance, Wilberforce was a lone voice in Parliament against the slave trade in England, and over time his views finally prevailed. That is how a representative democracy rightly works, by persuasion, not force. Lincoln was opposed to slavery but he had the good sense to respect the will of the Southern people and be patient with them for the sake of the Union. The MO of the left, however, is to arrogantly cram their moral standards down everybody's throats, and only ONCE in a while are they right, and it doesn't matter, they are wrong to do that to anyone ever, whether they are right about the moral issues or not. They are usurping the Constitutional processes. They are much wronger about their attitude to people, this snarky sneering self-righteous contempt for the average citizen of this country that is heard on this site as well as all over this land since the Left started calling the shots in the Culture War. It is wrong for the SCOTUS to impose their own morality on others so highhandedly. That is exactly what is leftist and unConstitutional about them. The human race is fallen and the genius of democratic systems, especially the American system, is to allow people to be wrong. Again, we should work by PERSUASION, not FORCE, and disrespecting the will of the people and in fact treating the people with that leftist elitist contempt I'm talking about, that superior air of the blue states, is arrogance and it is tyranny. What the judiciary does is exactly NOT what the framers had in mind. Yes I know about Marbury v Madison -- they certainly may determine the constitutionality of laws, but that is not what they did, they created a new law and forced it on the people. That is also what they did in Roe v Wade. Before you accuse me of saying this because I'm a racist or something, I have to say that I'm happy with the RESULTS they achieved in the civil rights battle. My problem is with the hideously dangerous precedent they set by going over the heads of the people. Means and ends and all that. The judiciary has become a monster of abuse of the citizenry and the Constitution. We don't have a government that is reliably of, by and for the people any more because of this leftist arrogance. This message has been edited by Faith, 07-22-2005 01:23 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Yaro Member (Idle past 6495 days) Posts: 1797 Joined: |
Can you provide me with evidence that the US was founded to impose the will of the MAJORITY on the MINORITY. I can bring you lots of quotes from our founders on the subject where they say otherwise.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 393 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
The simple fact that the government is organized as it it, with the Judiciary appointed for life and Impeachment being the only way to remove a Justice, shows that the founding fathers were VERY concerned to make sure that the Majority did not determine control. In fact, the existence of the Senate is yet another clear proof in support of protection against the tyranny of the majority. There is also the restriction that a Presidential and Vice-Presidential candidate may not come from the same state.
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
However, the point I was making was in response to your claim that the United States was founded to be a Christian nation. My point is that even if the founding fathers did intend the US to be a Christian nation, and even if they intended the US to be a Christian nation in perpetuity, their own ideology absolves us, today in the 21st century, of any obligation to follow their intentions. The right way to go about it then would be to follow the democratic constitutional methods they laid down for making such changes. Instead the judiciary has been forcing the secularist view on the nation against the will of the Christians who are still a huge proportion of the population of this country and that is unconstitutional and in fact tyrannical. And if we dare to have a voice in any of this the secularists treat us as if we aren't even citizens of this nation, with an amazing sneering contempt.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I admit that I don't like "pro-choice" any more than I like "pro-life" (even though I will often use both terms). They are euphemisms, and I tend to distrust eupemisms. Pro-life is not a euphemism. The aim is to save the life of the unborn child, so it may be too broad, but it is not a lie. Anti-abortion would be more precise, but in opposition to abortion as murder pro-life is certainly true. Pro-choice is a lie because it whitewashes killing an innocent human being as respectable.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4032 Joined: Member Rating: 9.2 |
It is wrong for the SCOTUS to impose their own morality on others so highhandedly. Think about that statement. Think long and hard. It is wrong for Christians to impose their morality on others so highhandedly.
The human race is fallen and the genius of democratic systems, especially the American system, is to allow people to be wrong. Again, we should work by PERSUASION, not FORCE, and disrespecting the will of the people and in fact treating the people with that leftist elitist contempt I'm talking about, that superior air of the blue states, is arrogance and it is tyranny. Can you not see your own hypocracy?! You want Christian morality to be legislated...and then argue against doing exactly that! I don't think you've thought hings through very far. Either that, or you've seperated "us" (Christains) from "them" (everybody else) so far in your head that you honestly don't see what a bigotted tyrranical fascistic evil idea you're spouting.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4032 Joined: Member Rating: 9.2 |
The right way to go about it then would be to follow the democratic constitutional methods they laid down for making such changes. Instead the judiciary has been forcing the secularist view on the nation against the will of the Christians who are still a huge proportion of the population of this country and that is unconstitutional and in fact tyrannical. And if we dare to have a voice in any of this the secularists treat us as if we aren't even citizens of this nation, with an amazing sneering contempt. You assume that all Christans agree with you. I consider myself a Christian. I don't agree with nearly anything you have said in this thread. Christians may constitute a majority in this country, but the majority of Christians are not like YOU.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Enjoy your time in Bristol. Meanwhile:
The whole point with my post is that it is not emotional bluster. Pragmatism is the point. The emotional bluster and adherence to doctrine is your thing. As for being interested or understanding different frames of reference, well, that would be novel. You really think so? I mean the bluster part not the frames of reference part. Well let me analyze that earlier post then:
Reading through this topic I am glad that my topic did not get off the ground. Thanks to Faith and the other conservatives for making me realise that I am a control freak, wanting to legislate in everybody's personal life, controlling business and generally bossing people about. I'm sorry your topic did not get off the ground, as this rendition of the situation is nothing but the usual battle cry without a bit of light on the subject. I was trying to define the conservative point of view here in America so we could sort out all the positions relative to one another. There are other conservatisms than my own but I do best spelling out my own. I see what is normally called liberalism as best called leftism, for reasons I've given, and its tendency to curtail freedoms. Liberalism sees itself as the champion of freedom. These are very rough beginnings but obviously the term is being used in different senses. These are things that could be thought about usefully. Maybe.
I am heartily sick of the right wing telling me what my agenda is. I certainly will not try to second-guess what the right's agenda is, probably due to my guessing being far too liberal for a mainly US debate. Here's the emotional bluster. Heartily sick of. You were ready to pop a vein when you composed your topic proposal in the first place. I am personally very interested in what the differences between the British and American views are. I don't want to just "tell you what your agenda is" but I can make a case for why I associate liberalism with leftism, and if your liberalism fits the profile there we are. You may not like it, but certainly you DO have ideas what conservatives think despite your denial, and I'm not going to be happy with your assessment of my views am I?
Being liberal to me suggests steering a moderate course between left and right and not ascribing to a specific political dogma, rather a pragmatic approach that tries to balance the needs and wants of the individual with the needs and wants of the society in which the individual resides. Whether legislation is required or not required is not part of any doctrine, rather a needs must situation. Well, to test the truth of this -- how well you actually succeed at steering this moderate course -- and its relation to other political positions we'd need to begin a list of concepts you embrace versus those you reject and your reasons and go from there. "Moderate" with respect to what other positions for instance? Pragmatism may be your aim but you obviously have moral opinions as well, and in any case I thought the point was to sort out all the DIFFERENT views, not just declare your own in broad terms. This message has been edited by Faith, 07-22-2005 02:06 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4032 Joined: Member Rating: 9.2 |
And if we dare to have a voice in any of this the secularists treat us as if we aren't even citizens of this nation, with an amazing sneering contempt. What law makes Christians second-class citizens?! What unlegislated POLICY makes Christians second-class citizens? Did Christians lose the right to vote at some point? Did they lose the right to life, liberty, or the persuit of happiness? How about free speach (with the exception of speach supported by the government, which would be a violation of the First Amendment)? Have you lost the right to practice your religion (again, outside of state-sponsored activities)? I must have missed all of that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
quote: It is in fact "constitutional". It is a simple fact that the US constitution is a hybrid constitution; it is partially a written constitution, reflected in the document adopted in 1786 and subsequently amended, and it is partially an "unwritten" constitution, like our British comrades enjoy, consisting of political compromises occurring so long ago as to become traditional, and consisting of Supreme Court decisions. I would prefer a totally written contract as envisioned by the founding fathers, but I don't get to make the decisions in this matter. I have to accept the world I do, in fact, live in. Nor is it of itself tyrranical. The only time anyone makes this claim is when a court decision goes against that person's wishes; that same person will invariably claim that the court is protecting democracy when the decisions go in her favor. The members of the judicial branch is appointed by the elected executive branch with the approval of the elected legislative branch. Many judicial decisions can be and have been modified by subsequent legislation. In the cases where the Supreme Court has made definitive interpretations of the Constitution, there are procedures that can be used to amend the Constitution. Since you yourself have advocated to people who disagree with you that they should use these mechanisms, maybe you should be the one to avail yourself of these procedures. Very recently the House of Representatives have once again approved an amendment to prohibit desecration of the national flag, and this amendment is a response to an earlier Supreme Court ruling. Furthermore, it is not tyrranical since the majority of Americans accept this situation. The majority of Americans are evidently comfortable living under a hybrid constitution. I don't like it, I would advocate a purely written constitution, and I would like see the opinions of the majority of Americans change in this regard. However, I do believe in democracy, and as long as a majority of Americans finds the current situation acceptable I have no choice but to accpet it. I do not call something "tyrrany" just because I happen to disagree with it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
Of course it is a euphemism. Who the hell is not "pro-life"? Everyone is "pro-life". I am a vegetarian because I am "pro-life". To use the term "pro-life" to characterize the anti-abortion position implies that everyone else is somehow "anti-life", which is not only untrue but ridiculous.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024