• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Carville to GOP: You have a disaster on your hands

teamosil said:
No, liberal means placing more priority on individual liberty and being more accepting of economic intervention by government. Conservative means placing more priority on economic liberty and being more accepting of government intervention in people's personal lives.
Click to expand...

Economic liberty is nothing but code for let the strong overpower the weak, and the rich overpower the poor. Liberals have an honest view of human nature and realize that history has shown that to be unacceptable and nothing but a road to ruin. Govt. is nothing but a entity that exists to protect its citizens from all threats abroad and AT HOME. Why else would we love and cherish it so if not for that?
 
a pundit saying pundity things is not news.
 
Not a big fan of Crville, but I've been saying that unless the GOP gets a grip they will fail since about 2005 - and things have gotten worse since then. We need a third party to take the GOPs place - one with solid fiscal conservatives instead of solid conservationists of the wealthy who are wholly owned by corporate entities.
 
teamosil said:
I guess that instead of "individual liberty" I should say "personal liberty", but no it's not a contradiction or anything. That's how liberal and conservative have always been defined. That's why we always find Republicans fighting for less economic regulation and more social regulation and vice versa for the Democrats.



Wow, you aren't paying a ton of attention then. Read around this forum for a starter.
Click to expand...

Economic intervention is in direct conflict with individual (or personal) liberty, so yes...it is a contradiction.

As to me not paying attention...perhaps you can give me some examples...on a national level...to support your contention.
 
teamosil said:
If your theory was true, why did the number of hours worked go up during the massive tax cuts of the last 30 years?

How the resources are distributed affects everybody, so that is a type of decision we need to make together- what economic rules we all will live by.



Land use is economic freedom, not personal freedom.

Firearms is a weird one. In some ways it is personal freedom, but the same argument as for why liberals consider economic regulation- because it affects other people- applies to guns.

Right of association? You mean like OWS or what?
Click to expand...

the first point is absolutely inane.

right of association-like an owner of a business having the right to hire whom he wishes. Like the BSA having the right to hire only straight scout leaders.

LIberals want to concentrate power in the government. gun control is just a facet of that
 
Mycroft said:
Economic intervention is in direct conflict with individual (or personal) liberty, so yes...it is a contradiction.

As to me not paying attention...perhaps you can give me some examples...on a national level...to support your contention.
Click to expand...

the death tax-a major source of pride by the left-is an example of the left hating personal freedom
 
teamosil said:
There is no contradiction. Liberals feel that government has no place interfering in people's personal lives, since people's personal lives don't really affect other people, where economic dealings always involve society as a whole. Makes a lot more sense than the conservative position.
Click to expand...

That's BS ​
;)

Liberals seem to work tirelessly for more control. More laws. More rules and regulations. And since they never get the results the last set of rules were supposed to achieve, invariably there is another set waiting in the wings, another turn of the woodscrew.


​
 
ric27 said:
Liberals seem to work tirelessly for more control. More laws. More rules and regulations. And since they never get the results the last set of rules were supposed to achieve, invariably there is another set waiting in the wings, another turn of the woodscrew.
Click to expand...

Consider the distinction I made- liberals DO favor more regulation for economic stuff. But they are far more likely to oppose regulation of people's personal lives than conservatives are. And vice versa.
 
TurtleDude said:
right of association-like an owner of a business having the right to hire whom he wishes. Like the BSA having the right to hire only straight scout leaders.
Click to expand...

Oh, you mean the right to discriminate against... Yeah there is no such right. Intentionally going out to attack entire groups of people like that is, obviously, not within the boundaries of personal liberty.
 
Mycroft said:
Economic intervention is in direct conflict with individual (or personal) liberty, so yes...it is a contradiction.
Click to expand...

Well then is conservatives favoring laws that limit personal freedom a "contradiction" with their opposing laws that regulate economic activity? I don't see it that way at all. You can support some kinds of government involvement and not others... That's not a contradiction.

Mycroft said:
As to me not paying attention...perhaps you can give me some examples...on a national level...to support your contention.
Click to expand...

Well, for example, only 37% of Republican primary voters say that they are satisfied with the candidates in the primary. 58%, even after the primaries had started, say that they would like to see another candidate enter the race instead of one of the ones currently running.

Poll: 58% of Republicans want more presidential choices - Political Hotsheet - CBS News

That's just Republican primary voters.
 
Last edited:
teamosil said:
Well then is conservatives favoring laws that limit personal freedom a "contradiction" with their opposing laws that regulate economic activity? I don't see it that way at all. You can support some kinds of government involvement and not others... That's not a contradiction.



Well, for example, only 37% of Republican primary voters say that they are satisfied with the candidates in the primary. 58%, even after the primaries had started, say that they would like to see another candidate enter the race instead of one of the ones currently running.

Poll: 58% of Republicans want more presidential choices - Political Hotsheet - CBS News

That's just Republican primary voters.
Click to expand...

You example doesn't substantiate your statement:

Seems to me most of the Republicans are downright furious over the candidates they picked. Some of them are blaming the "liberal media" for their choices and whatnot, but I'm not aware of very many that are actually happy with how things turned out...
Click to expand...

At best, your statement is an exercise in hyperbole.
 
teamosil said:
Consider the distinction I made- liberals DO favor more regulation for economic stuff. But they are far more likely to oppose regulation of people's personal lives than conservatives are. And vice versa.
Click to expand...

Wrong

The difference is between maximum individual freedom vs. maximum government/state/societal control. Conservatives are on the side of individual freedom and a minimum of state control and power. Liberals are the opposite

Where did you go to school?
 
teamosil said:
Consider the distinction I made- liberals DO favor more regulation for economic stuff. But they are far more likely to oppose regulation of people's personal lives than conservatives are. And vice versa.
Click to expand...

ummm...

Yes. Regulation of people's personal lives. Like telling people they MUST buy health insurance? Show me a liberal who opposes that, eh?
 
Looks like we,ll need another baggage car for the victory parade.:lamo



Newt Gingrich wins South Carolina primary

<Reporting from Charleston, S.C.—
Newt Gingrich surged to victory Saturday in the South Carolina primary, riding a pair of strong debate performances to overtake Mitt Romney and stop his seemingly relentless march to the GOP nomination.>

Newt Gingrich wins South Carolina primary - chicagotribune.com
 
ric27 said:
Wrong

The difference is between maximum individual freedom vs. maximum government/state/societal control. Conservatives are on the side of individual freedom and a minimum of state control and power. Liberals are the opposite

Where did you go to school?
Click to expand...

Liberals favor less government control on issues like same sex marriage, abortion, the death penalty, the patriot act, the detainee system, etc. Personal freedom issues, it's almost always the Democrats opposing government control and the Republicans favoring it.

This isn't like some idea I just dreamed up. Do you have a political science book or a book from a high school government or civics class or anything in your house? If so, go check it out. Look for something called the Nolan graph in the index. It was designed by a libertarian and is the standard model for distinguishing between things that are liberal and conservative. It is almost certainly described in any text book on the topic.
 
teamosil said:
Oh, you mean the right to discriminate against... Yeah there is no such right. Intentionally going out to attack entire groups of people like that is, obviously, not within the boundaries of personal liberty.
Click to expand...

most things we do involve a level of discrimination. When I was single I asked out women I found attractive and sometimes I got lucky and slept with them!! I didn't try to bed women I found ugly. When I help hire law clerks for my office I discriminate in favor of kids on the harvard or columbia or Ohio State law review rather than ones who are at the bottom of their class at u of Cincinnati.

and if a private group like the boyscouts doesn't want to hire gay or "confused" scout leaders that is their right.

and if a business doesn't want to hire blacks or Jews or Asians that should be their right and if I refuse to shop at their business because of that discrimination that is my right as well.
 
Mycroft said:
ummm...

Yes. Regulation of people's personal lives. Like telling people they MUST buy health insurance? Show me a liberal who opposes that, eh?
Click to expand...

Again, that is ECONOMIC. To oversimplifiy it, the distinction is regulating things involving money or property or services = economic. Regulating things people do with their own personal lives = personal.
 
teamosil said:
Liberals favor less government control on issues like same sex marriage, abortion, the death penalty, the patriot act, the detainee system, etc. Personal freedom issues, it's almost always the Democrats opposing government control and the Republicans favoring it.

This isn't like some idea I just dreamed up. Do you have a political science book or a book from a high school government or civics class or anything in your house? If so, go check it out. Look for something called the Nolan graph in the index. It was designed by a libertarian and is the standard model for distinguishing between things that are liberal and conservative. It is almost certainly described in any text book on the topic.
Click to expand...

how is the death penalty related to personal freedom? and lots of conservatives oppose the death penalty and lots of conservatives oppose the government having increased power through the patriot act. there are libertarian conservatives and there are authoritarian conservatives (who are closely allied to religious conservatives)
 
TurtleDude said:
and if a private group like the boyscouts doesn't want to hire gay or "confused" scout leaders that is their right.

and if a business doesn't want to hire blacks or Jews or Asians that should be their right and if I refuse to shop at their business because of that discrimination that is my right as well.
Click to expand...

Hiring is obviously ECONOMIC, right? Liberals favor economic regulation. Hiring is a transaction that doesn't just affect you, it affects the job applicants against their will. So, like all economic transactions, it is within the realm of legitimate things for us to set rules for together.
 
teamosil said:
Again, that is ECONOMIC. To oversimplifiy it, the distinction is regulating things involving money or property or services = economic. Regulating things people do with their own personal lives = personal.
Click to expand...

Then you don't consider a decision whether to buy health insurance to be a personal choice?

How about a decision whether to buy a flat screen TV? Is that a personal choice?

Do either of these examples not encompass personal freedom?
 
Mycroft said:
Then you don't consider a decision whether to buy health insurance to be a personal choice?

How about a decision whether to buy a flat screen TV? Is that a personal choice?

Do either of these examples not encompass personal freedom?
Click to expand...

Those are economic transactions. Those are in the camp that liberals would be more inclined to regulate and conservatives more opposed to regulating.
 
teamosil said:
Look for something called the Nolan graph in the index. It was designed by a libertarian and is the standard model for distinguishing between things that are liberal and conservative. It is almost certainly described in any text book on the topic.
Click to expand...

Nolan chart is BS. Socialists have greater personal freedom? Absolutely the opposite.


Where did you go to school?​
 
TurtleDude said:
I guess you probably don't understand the massive contradiction between this

MORE PRIORITY ON INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY

and this

ACCEPTING MORE ECONOMIC INTERVENTION BY THE GOVERNMENT.

and half of us conservatives oppose government intervention in personal lives-be that gays being able to sleep with whom they want or NRA members being able to own the same handgun our tax dollars supply IRS agents
Click to expand...


It seems that you've identified, here, an example of classic Orwellian Doublethink. Teamosil's statement of “placing more priority on individual liberty and being more accepting of economic intervention by government” amounts to a long-winded way of saying “Freedom is slavery.”



“To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it, to believe that democracy was impossible and that the Party was the guardian of democracy, to forget, whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the moment when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it again, and above all, to apply the same process to the process itself — that was the ultimate subtlety; consciously to induce unconsciousness, and then, once again, to become unconscious of the act of hypnosis you had just performed. Even to understand the word 'doublethink' involved the use of doublethink.”
·
·
·​
“The power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them…. To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just as long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies - all this is indispensably necessary. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this knowledge; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead of the truth.”​
 
ric27 said:
Nolan chart is BS. Socialists have greater personal freedom? Absolutely the opposite.
Click to expand...

Maybe you're struggling with the distinction between personal liberty and economic liberty. Socialist countries do indeed tend to have high personal liberty, low economic liberty. For example, Scandinavia is generally considered to be the most free counties in terms of personal liberty and they are about as socialist as you find in the first world. You may be mixing up socialists with communists too. Not sure.

ric27 said:
Where did you go to school?
Click to expand...

I don't give out personal information on political forums, but I went to two very good schools. One for undergrad years ago and currently I'm in law school. One was in the top 20 the other in the top 5. Why?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom