Paul Harvey says:

[KenHigg]

You're right. Once we had foolishly gotten into this mess it was to be a mess no matter who had charge of it but you bring up another interesting point of distinction between the right and left. I can't say I've totally embraced it or that I've internally shot this down, more or less that I haven't really analyzed it closely but it was pointed out to me that supposedly it's historically correct to say that the right traditionally seeks to make permanent changes in american life whereas the leftists, all too aware of their attempts to protect all, tend to move towards more temporary solutions. This was presented to me in the form of alaskan oil and how once it is allowed it is considerably more difficult to disallow after billions are put into infrastructure and how that resource will never be the same. I don't know enough political history to go digging for other examples but, if true, then the war would be a perfect example -- a choice, knowingly made when made, that it could not be undone or revoked when increased sanctioning, etc could have it's course altered mid-flight.

~Chad

Hum... Thinking about that for a moment, would you feel comfortable in saying that sometimes the left may tend to look at treating symptoms in some cases instead of addressing the root causes more than the right?

To be honest, I don't really like to be labled right or left. I think the opinon of others as to if I'm right or left is more of a function of the other persons experiences and view points than it is of mine...

 

[FoFa]

the new york city slum kids. Some of them aren't geniuses, most are just more or less 'normal' and to say that they have every opportunity every other kid in the US has is ludicrious.

THANK YOU, you made my point even thou you had to wrap it in abunch of dribble that really had nothing to do with anything. You made assumptions, and it comes off as dribble pretty much.
So what the real conservatives that I know (know being used loosely as know, read, listen, watch, what ever) want to know, is rather than just throwing money at them, what can we do to FIX it? I never said they had the same opportunity as everyone else (you assumed as liberals do), it is clear that is not so. We would all be better off if we can get them educated and in good jobs, but it seems clear the welfare state is not the answer, maybe part of the answer, but not the answer. It may take something like decreasing welfare (so it is not so attractive) while trying to bring the young out of the hole that seems to ever increase in depth.

 

[Kraj]

Hum... Thinking about that for a moment, would you feel comfortable in saying that sometimes the left may tend to look at treating symptoms in some cases instead of addressing the root causes more than the right?

I think it would be more accurate to say liberals give a higher priority to treating symptoms than conservatives do. I think both sides try to address the root, with conservatives believing if you address the root the symptoms will cease and the liberals believing the root and symptoms must both be addressed. I don't believe I've ever encountered a liberal who believed unemployement benefits should be paid without limiting the benefits and/or making job training, counseling, etc. available in conjunction. I think the conservative viewpoint is to provide job training, etc., with unemployment benefits at a minimum (or none at all).

To be honest, I don't really like to be labled right or left. I think the opinon of others as to if I'm right or left is more of a function of the other persons experiences and view points than it is of mine...

Elegantly stated. I agree completely.

THANK YOU, you made my point even thou you had to wrap it in abunch of dribble that really had nothing to do with anything. You made assumptions, and it comes off as dribble pretty much.

Considering this this thread is in the Watercooler instead of the Politics forum, I think we'd all appreciate if you'd take extra care to avoid being rude.

So what the real conservatives that I know (know being used loosely as know, read, listen, watch, what ever) want to know, is rather than just throwing money at them, what can we do to FIX it?

The problem is I've not heard any real solutions proposed. I agree that our current system needs fixing but (I apologize in advance for any over-generalization) the main theme I hear from the conservatives on this forum is that if we simply stop spending money on welfare programs, everything will work itself out. (ie., the hard working/deserving will reap the rewards and the rest will suffer the consequences of their own device.) That is not a solution.

 

[FoFa]

Considering this this thread is in the Watercooler instead of the Politics forum, I think we'd all appreciate if you'd take extra care to avoid being rude.

Rude? Not rude, just a statement. I was reading it and thinking to myself, what the heck is all this that has nothing to do with what I was talking about. A conservative would have seen it as a constructive statement

 

[FoFa]

The problem is I've not heard any real solutions proposed. I agree that our current system needs fixing but (I apologize in advance for any over-generalization) the main theme I hear from the conservatives on this forum is that if we simply stop spending money on welfare programs, everything will work itself out. (ie., the hard working/deserving will reap the rewards and the rest will suffer the consequences of their own device.) That is not a solution.

That is not what I hear. What I hear is crap coming from both ends, but the closer to an actual middle you get, it seems the conservatives are more looking for an answer, and the left is still trying blame. The farther right says it's because of the racist left, while the far left says conservatives want to throw them all out on the street to die. Seems to me there is some real middle ground here that could actually do some good. Problem seems to be politics.

 

[KenHigg]

Would this be an example of mild right vs left on welfare:

Right - People should get there own lives in order
Left - We should collectively help each other out


???

 

[Kraj]

but the closer to an actual middle you get, it seems the conservatives are more looking for an answer, and the left is still trying blame.

Good job. Keep telling yourself that.

Would this be an example of mild right vs left on welfare:

Right - People should get there own lives in order
Left - We should collectively help each other out

That's sounds about right.

 

[jsanders]

As Liberals think....

What do you think make me a liberal?

Hint:
Thinking GWB is an idiot does not qualify.
Nor does saying the republicans hoodwinked the American people with religious and moral propaganda.
And as far as I can see supporting banning assault rifles probably does not qualify me either.

 

[FoFa]

Thinking GWB is an idiot does not qualify.
Nor does saying the republicans hoodwinked the American people with religious and moral propaganda.
And as far as I can see supporting banning assault rifles probably does not qualify me either.

You can be anything you want of you disqualify the qualifing factors.

I am an astronaut, if you disqualify the fact that I don't work for the gov. or NASA, have never been higher than commercial jetliners fly, and never had one of them suits on.

I am king of the U.S.A., if you disqualify the fact that no one else knows it.

 

[Kraj]

You can be anything you want of you disqualify the qualifing factors.

I find it interesting how people's understanding of the distinction between "liberal" and "conservative" is more and more becoming purely about religion and "hot button" issues (which are usually religion-based). In actuallity, there is an extensive list of social and political ideological differences (ones that are actually relevant ) between the two. I found an excellent definition at - of all palces - urbandictionary.com:

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=liberal
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=conservative

I would like to specifically point out that a major "qualifying factor" of the liberal platform is the belief in the need for some fashion of federal welfare/wealth transfer system, like Medicare. That is something jsanders has vehemently argued against, so how can you claim he's a liberal?

 

[FoFa]

Ok but along those same lines it says this about conservatives:

One who believes in such "outmoded" ideas as civil liberties (freedom of speech, separation of church and state, right to keep and bear arms, that kind of thing)

Yet Freedom of Speech and seperation of church of state is more being yelled by the left than the right. And todays commonly held concept is conservatives are more to the right (how ever I think a true conservative is closer to the middle). And it also stated

One who believes in less government being better government.

which really, I think is correct, but if true than right wingers are not conservatives (or how would explain their wanting gov. to get envolved in the whole roew vs. wade thing). Now the Liberal one also says

Technically, someone who falls to the left in a political system

and since a few of the major issue jsanders is far left from the convservative view point, HE IS A LIBERAL
Any way I think the definition is flawed, so bringing one little piece out as an example is kin to the press taking something out of context and thereby giving it a different meaning.

 

[Kraj]

Yet Freedom of Speech and seperation of church of state is more being yelled by the left than the right. And todays commonly held concept is conservatives are more to the right (how ever I think a true conservative is closer to the middle). [...]And it also stated which really, I think is correct, but if true than right wingers are not conservatives (or how would explain their wanting gov. to get envolved in the whole roew vs. wade thing).

Real quick: a conservative is to the right, a liberal is to the left. That's part of the definition. Neither side can be defined as the middle.

Other than that small point, I agree with what you say and that's why I generally hate the Republican party. And I mean it. There are issues where I disagree with the Democrats and agree with the Republicans. More often than not I agree with the Democrats but I still respect the reasoning behind the Republican postion, even though I personally disagree. However, in recent years the Republican party has become more and more hypocritical - which you more or less identified in your analysis above - and I absolutely cannot stand that.

BTW, I actually didn't look at the definition for conservative - I assumed it was equally as good a discussion as liberal and it is not. My apologies.

Any way I think the definition is flawed, so bringing one little piece out as an example is kin to the press taking something out of context and thereby giving it a different meaning.

Isn't it equally flawed to choose a portion of issues and apply a label to a person based on that? If jsanders is very liberal in some issues and very conservative on others, doesn't that mean he's both? Or in the middle? Isn't is wrong to say he's one or the other?

 

[FoFa]

Real quick: a conservative is to the right, a liberal is to the left. That's part of the definition. Neither side can be defined as the middle.

True, but the right defines conservatives typically closer to the middle, while the left typically defines liberals as far left. Then there are those that define middle as undecided, goes the way the wind blows, can't make up their mind, etc.

 

[Kraj]

True, but the right defines conservatives typically closer to the middle, while the left typically defines liberals as far left.

I'm very confused here. The right are the conservatives, so you're saying that the right defines itself as the middle?