Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The one thing I can say about Peoria is there is little political tension unless one looks fo it. I suppose because of the many factions represented. There is a niche for everyone.
Yeah. I mean, there always seems like there are loads of political signs around Bradley but generally I don't feel like there is a lot of tension politically.
This debate over whether some place is "liberal" or "conservative" is not going to end until everyone agrees on what "liberal" and "conservative" means. And, that's not really going to happen. There are dichotomies between the official meaning of the words , the characteristic behaviors claimed by those who claim the labels, and their historical meanings, which makes any discussion using the labels inaccurate and confusing.
The dictionary definitions have already been posted, and their application to politics today is starkly obvious. For instance, if you use the word "liberal", many would sum up the notion of "live and let live", yet, today's political "liberals" don't even slightly resemble it.
If you use the word "conservative", you could probably sum it up as "resistant to change, careful, prudent, skeptical of new and unproven things being forced onto the individual. Yet, today's conservatives also don't even vaguely resemble that definition.
So, as soon as we debate the "blueness" or "redness" of a state, we apply the labels as if it meant "political party". Yet, political parties are the most inconsistent entities ever, when we're discussing principles or ideologies. So, how can it be a standard of measurement?
For instance, those who provide the ideas and principles for today's solidly conservative / libertarians quite closely resemble those of, say, Thomas Jefferson, who in his day, was very much a liberal. Why was he a liberal? Because in his day, the Revolution was all about the individual being sovereign over himself, not the state or king. What the revolution was over was considered "liberal", because in his view not only was the state "permissive", it, in fact, had no claim of ownership, control, or supremacy. While the King of England not only claimed those things, it was a declared divine right. Nobody had a right to even question it, much less assert self rule, self ownership, and be the master of their own destiny in all things.
Today's conservatives assert that the individual has the right to be free of state control. That historical, personal, religious, and cultural institutions are also not subject to state control. That's how a cultural institution like marriage (precedes not only our nation, but even all western nations) is viewed as something that's not subject to being redefined by vote or political process or the exercise of political power / control.
Todays liberals see the state as the means by which to enforce "majority", that the individual is inferior to the will of the state, as the state embodies the will and wish of the majority. Todays "liberals" subscribe to academic and philosophical theories that are deemed superior to the freedom of the individual to do as he sees fit.
Thus, you have supposedly "liberal" cities which have immense numbers of very precise and restrictive rules about your business, your home, your property, enforce rigid rules in education, commerce, and so on, which is, by definition, extremely illiberal.
Which why when we talk about whether or not Illinois is liberal or conservative, you have to define what it is you actually mean.
I use the following definition: What does the government and the people do in regards to the freedom of the individual? If it conserves or increases that, then it is conservative. If it or they believe in the liberal use of authoritarian structures power and believe that the individual is subservient to the power of the collective, then I label it "modern conservative".
And, for the record, I am not just conservative, I am "red as red can get", an absolute and unwavering believer in individual freedom in ALL things.
This debate over whether some place is "liberal" or "conservative" is not going to end until everyone agrees on what "liberal" and "conservative" means. And, that's not really going to happen. There are dichotomies between the official meaning of the words , the characteristic behaviors claimed by those who claim the labels, and their historical meanings, which makes any discussion using the labels inaccurate and confusing.
The dictionary definitions have already been posted, and their application to politics today is starkly obvious. For instance, if you use the word "liberal", many would sum up the notion of "live and let live", yet, today's political "liberals" don't even slightly resemble it.
If you use the word "conservative", you could probably sum it up as "resistant to change, careful, prudent, skeptical of new and unproven things being forced onto the individual. Yet, today's conservatives also don't even vaguely resemble that definition.
So, as soon as we debate the "blueness" or "redness" of a state, we apply the labels as if it meant "political party". Yet, political parties are the most inconsistent entities ever, when we're discussing principles or ideologies. So, how can it be a standard of measurement?
For instance, those who provide the ideas and principles for today's solidly conservative / libertarians quite closely resemble those of, say, Thomas Jefferson, who in his day, was very much a liberal. Why was he a liberal? Because in his day, the Revolution was all about the individual being sovereign over himself, not the state or king. What the revolution was over was considered "liberal", because in his view not only was the state "permissive", it, in fact, had no claim of ownership, control, or supremacy. While the King of England not only claimed those things, it was a declared divine right. Nobody had a right to even question it, much less assert self rule, self ownership, and be the master of their own destiny in all things.
Today's conservatives assert that the individual has the right to be free of state control. That historical, personal, religious, and cultural institutions are also not subject to state control. That's how a cultural institution like marriage (precedes not only our nation, but even all western nations) is viewed as something that's not subject to being redefined by vote or political process or the exercise of political power / control.
Todays liberals see the state as the means by which to enforce "majority", that the individual is inferior to the will of the state, as the state embodies the will and wish of the majority. Todays "liberals" subscribe to academic and philosophical theories that are deemed superior to the freedom of the individual to do as he sees fit.
Thus, you have supposedly "liberal" cities which have immense numbers of very precise and restrictive rules about your business, your home, your property, enforce rigid rules in education, commerce, and so on, which is, by definition, extremely illiberal.
Which why when we talk about whether or not Illinois is liberal or conservative, you have to define what it is you actually mean.
I use the following definition: What does the government and the people do in regards to the freedom of the individual? If it conserves or increases that, then it is conservative. If it or they believe in the liberal use of authoritarian structures power and believe that the individual is subservient to the power of the collective, then I label it "modern conservative".
And, for the record, I am not just conservative, I am "red as red can get", an absolute and unwavering believer in individual freedom in ALL things.
No, they don't. Currently the government doesn't allow gays to get married and conservatives want to keep it that way. Making something legal isn't government interference. Saying gay marriage is government interference is like saying kicking someone off welfare is government interference. Conservatives want illegal drugs to stay illegal, abortion to become illegal, to build more prisons and to increase surveillance. Regulation of business is state control of business NOT state control of the INDIVIDUAL. If someone were to suggest less censorship on TV, it would be a liberal agenda not a conservative agenda. You know, government control of culture..
Conservatives want less government control of business and less social programs but MORE state control of the individual.
Liberals want more government control of business and more social programs but LESS state control of the individual.
Modern conservatives are just idiots who call an economically moderate president a "socialist". It would appear that modern conservatives have never even talked to an actual socialist.
No, they don't. Currently the government doesn't allow gays to get married and conservatives want to keep it that way. Making something legal isn't government interference. Saying gay marriage is government interference is like saying kicking someone off welfare is government interference. Conservatives want illegal drugs to stay illegal, abortion to become illegal, to build more prisons and to increase surveillance. Regulation of business is state control of business NOT state control of the INDIVIDUAL. If someone were to suggest less censorship on TV, it would be a liberal agenda not a conservative agenda. You know, government control of culture..
Conservatives want less government control of business and less social programs but MORE state control of the individual.
Liberals want more government control of business and more social programs but LESS state control of the individual.
Modern conservatives are just idiots who call an economically moderate president a "socialist". It would appear that modern conservatives have never even talked to an actual socialist.
Actually, nobody on earth is stopping gays from getting married. After all, "marriage" is a cultural institution, and anyone at all can have a ceremony of any kind with their friends, and call it a wedding. The only thing missing, is that it doesn't have legal implications. Those legal implications are NOT "marriage" at all - because marriage is cultural, like birthdays and Thanksgiving.
Over time, the state and laws have come to recognize both of these institutions. Laws were written to accommodate the social and cultural value of marriage. Law FOLLOWED marriage, custom, and culture, it did not CREATE it. And arguments like yours above are insensible in that light.
From the perspective of many, it's that a few people are simply attempting to use law to force cultural acceptance of a sexual deviance and accusing those of resisting that of various and sundry cultural sins of "hate" and "prejudice", etc.
Nice to know you have prejudices against people who think differently than you. Apparently "diversity" only extends to skin pigmentation, not intellectual enrichment.
Actually, nobody on earth is stopping gays from getting married. After all, "marriage" is a cultural institution, and anyone at all can have a ceremony of any kind with their friends, and call it a wedding. The only thing missing, is that it doesn't have legal implications. Those legal implications are NOT "marriage" at all - because marriage is cultural, like birthdays and Thanksgiving.
Over time, the state and laws have come to recognize both of these institutions. Laws were written to accommodate the social and cultural value of marriage. Law FOLLOWED marriage, custom, and culture, it did not CREATE it. And arguments like yours above are insensible in that light.
From the perspective of many, it's that a few people are simply attempting to use law to force cultural acceptance of a sexual deviance and accusing those of resisting that of various and sundry cultural sins of "hate" and "prejudice", etc.
Nice to know you have prejudices against people who think differently than you. Apparently "diversity" only extends to skin pigmentation, not intellectual enrichment.
The problem is that the modern day Republican Party kills brain cells. There is no intellectual enrichment.
The Republican party has claimed Barrack Obama is a secret Muslim, a follower of a Christian preacher named Jeremiah Wright AND has declared war on religion. Somehow he is a socialist too. I must have missed his speech about overthrowing capitalism. 8 years ago, Republicans called you "Un American" for not supporting the president. But now, they changed the definition and CALL the president "Un American".
Listening to the Republican Party turns brain tissue to fat.
Making something legal isn't government interference. Saying gay marriage is government interference is like saying kicking someone off welfare is government interference. Conservatives want illegal drugs to stay illegal, abortion to become illegal, to build more prisons and to increase surveillance. Regulation of business is state control of business NOT state control of the INDIVIDUAL. If someone were to suggest less censorship on TV, it would be a liberal agenda not a conservative agenda. You know, government control of culture..
Modern conservatives are just idiots who call an economically moderate president a "socialist". It would appear that modern conservatives have never even talked to an actual socialist.
Let me get this straight... Nazi Germany called itself "socialist" and the former Soviet Union called itself "socialist", and you seem to say it's something very different than those two (presumably), so, exactly who is an "idiot" for having a different definition? Are you wrong, or are they wrong?
Quote:
Liberals want more government control of business and more social programs but LESS state control of the individual.
I'm very curious about how you came to believe this. Could you provide some sort of reasoning to back this up?
For instance, "single payer" medicine about total control over an individual's health care and removing ALL free market choices - allowing only that approved by government. Public education has come to mean the removal of parental involvement. Recent "liberal" activism has asserted that children are wards of the state, not the parents, with the former having supremacy over parental decisions. It's definitely a "liberal" agenda to create speech codes on every university and college campus. It's liberals who protest the idea of a conservative speaking somewhere. High taxation has, at it's premise, that government control over your earnings is superior and desirable, as opposed to individual economic freedom and voluntary social cooperation.
Nowhere do I see any significant example of "liberal" activism, except in terms of vices, that adds to the freedom and autonomy of the individual. "Liberal" activism has resulted in "sin" taxes on liquor, tobacco, vehicles, even energy and resource development, with a stated goal of controlling said behaviors on the part of individuals.
So, please... enlighten us as how your statement above is true. I'm all ears (eyes?).
Quote:
Conservatives want less government control of business and less social programs but MORE state control of the individual.
Again, like the insensible quote above, nothing about "more control" seems in any signficant way to be true. Control of business is not "control of business", it is "control of people engaging in commerce".
So, again, I'm asking you to explain to me how any of this is true.
The problem is that the modern day Republican Party kills brain cells. There is no intellectual enrichment.
The Republican party has claimed Barrack Obama is a secret Muslim, a follower of a Christian preacher named Jeremiah Wright AND has declared war on religion. Somehow he is a socialist too. I must have missed his speech about overthrowing capitalism. 8 years ago, Republicans called you "Un American" for not supporting the president. But now, they changed the definition and CALL the president "Un American".
Listening to the Republican Party turns brain tissue to fat.
I see. Well, I have no interest in defending political parties. I'm sure you could say listening to the Democrat Party turns your brain cells into inert matter.
None of that, however, is, in any way, relevant to the discussion of ideas and ideals.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Conservatives want illegal drugs to stay illegal, abortion to become illegal, to build more prisons and to increase surveillance. Regulation of business is state control of business NOT state control of the INDIVIDUAL. If someone were to suggest less censorship on TV, it would be a liberal agenda not a conservative agenda. You know, government control of culture..
