When people stop using antiquatians like 'liberal', 'conservative', instead of clearly defined stances on real issues.. (legal, March)

[KRAMERCAT]

Maybe then Americans could have a real dialog.

[th3vault]

hehe... good idea, but I'm afraid it's a pipe dream.

Heck, even liberal and conservative are nice terms by today's standards. I hear "fascist" and "communist" more than conservative and liberal..

[KRAMERCAT]

Originally Posted by th3vault

hehe... good idea, but I'm afraid it's a pipe dream.

Heck, even liberal and conservative are nice terms by today's standards. I hear "fascist" and "communist" more than conservative and liberal..

When you listen to Ruch, Hannity, et al, they use the term 'liberal' in the same way that you would use 'serial killer', without any definition of the term, beside 'those liberals'.

[harborlady]

Originally Posted by KRAMERCAT

When you listen to Ruch, Hannity, et al, they use the term 'liberal' in the same way that you would use 'serial killer', without any definition of the term, beside 'those liberals'.

ROFL kramer, AMEN!

I'm believing that the traditional interpretations have far outlived their usefulness.

This topic was danced around in other threads as a sideline, but I'm wondering if the current political party system could be labeled not as dem, repub, liberal or conservative but rather based on truth in advertising principles.
Majority dems could rename themselves the bailout party and Paleoconservatives could be the nostalgia party. Majority neoconservatives could rename themselves the entitlement/ unmitigated greed party and fringe social liberals could be the entitlement/ reparations party.

Ut oh, I might have upset more than a few people!

I don't care for any party affiliated with religion on principle of separation of church and state. I have no idea why it's legal but it shouldn't be IMO. Wing nuts don't belong anywhere near politics because they can't manage to play well with others.

[KRAMERCAT]

Originally Posted by harborlady

ROFL kramer, AMEN!

I'm believing that the traditional interpretations have far outlived their usefulness.

This topic was danced around in other threads as a sideline, but I'm wondering if the current political party system could be labeled not as dem, repub, liberal or conservative but rather based on truth in advertising principles.
Majority dems could rename themselves the bailout party and Paleoconservatives could be the nostalgia party. Majority neoconservatives could rename themselves the entitlement/ unmitigated greed party and fringe social liberals could be the entitlement/ reparations party.

Ut oh, I might have upset more than a few people!

I don't care for any party affiliated with religion on principle of separation of church and state. I have no idea why it's legal but it shouldn't be IMO. Wing nuts don't belong anywhere near politics because they can't manage to play well with others.

Yes, the term 'liberal' is like a slander term, when used by guys like Rush and O'Reilly. But is the word liberal' really a bad word - doesn't it mean 'generous' or 'free-thinking'? Terms like 'pro-war' or 'pro-gun' make sense, even 'pro-life' defines a specific issue - abortion, and your stand on it. Blaming everything on the boogie-man 'liberal' means absolutely nothing.

[monkeywrenching]

Originally Posted by KRAMERCAT

Maybe then Americans could have a real dialog.

true, most liberals in the USA are actally socialists, and alot of republicans are actually moderates. alot of conservatives have floated over to the middle as well. when it is all said and done, most voters do not care at all for the republic and only want what is best for them. ala; another check from uncle sugar.

[LordBalfor]

Originally Posted by monkeywrenching

true, most liberals in the USA are actally socialists, and alot of republicans are actually moderates. alot of conservatives have floated over to the middle as well. when it is all said and done, most voters do not care at all for the republic and only want what is best for them. ala; another check from uncle sugar.

So you are saying that most American voters are Socialists.
Since Democracy is based on Majority Rule, doesn't that imply that America SHOULD be Socialist?

Hmmmmmm.....

Ken

[KRAMERCAT]

Originally Posted by monkeywrenching

true, most liberals in the USA are actally socialists, and alot of republicans are actually moderates. alot of conservatives have floated over to the middle as well. when it is all said and done, most voters do not care at all for the republic and only want what is best for them. ala; another check from uncle sugar.

'most liberals in the USA are actally socialists' - here is a prime example of what I am describing. It is a vast generalization with absolutely no facts to back it up - just a pathetically stupid statement. And you talk about 'conservatives have floated over to the middle as well' - 'conservative' in what regard, 'middle' of what?

What do you call a government that takes equity holdings in publicly traded companies, and probably a privately-held investment group (Chrysler)? Would you call it 'Socialist'? Most of those bailed out CEOs are most likely 'Conservative' Republicans, so if they aren't Socialist, they are being bailed out by a Socialist government.

[Greatday]

Originally Posted by KRAMERCAT

Yes, the term 'liberal' is like a slander term, when used by guys like Rush and O'Reilly. .

And when you and yours use the term "neo con"? Is that like a slander term???

[geos]

Simple minds prefer simple black and white labels. They can't think in subtleties. That's why F#X Nazi News is so successful. There's no shortage of simple minds so F#X Nazi News explains the world to them (in words of 2 syllables or less) into the simplest concepts: us vs. them. Then they manufacture phony outrage, whip the simpletons into a frenzy and have them march around with their pitchforks and torches.