Must liberals be pro choice?

[Pandora]

I thought that was clear. I'm the one saying that Bush is a liberal. I've said so before as well.



He is a flaming conservative, of course.

No, just kidding. Obama is a liberal Democrat in the LBJ tradition.

so they are both liberals to you but they seem so different to me

one pro abortion one anti, one pro second amendment one anti
one for tax cuts one not, one for more money in social programs one not, one for more money for military one not

how can they both be liberals?

McCain is a moderate, so you are saying President Bush is more liberal than McCain? or is McCain a liberal too?

Who in your mind is a conservative?

and I have been meaning to ask you

who are you voting for Boxer or Florina?
and who are you voting for gov?

 

[PLC1]

so they are both liberals to you but they seem so different to me

I'm not sure why that might be. You already know that Republican and conservative are two different things, just as Democrat and liberal are.

one pro abortion one anti,

So, is it really necessary to be pro choice to be a liberal? anyway, the pres can't do anything about abortion one way or the other, so that is a non issue.

one pro second amendment one anti

Has either one advocated ending the second amendment?

one for tax cuts one not, one for more money in social programs one not, one for more money for military one not

Tax cuts without corresponding spending cuts is conservative now?

Remember Medicare part D?

Has military spending been reduced?

how can they both be liberals?

Because they both believe in the power of big government to solve problems.

McCain is a moderate, so you are saying President Bush is more liberal than McCain? or is McCain a liberal too?

Who in your mind is a conservative?

They're both about the same.

and I have been meaning to ask you

who are you voting for Boxer or Florina?
and who are you voting for gov?

1. Fiorina. Boxer has been in office way too long as it is.
2. Between the aging hippie who has never done anything but politics, and the billionaire who wants to buy the governorship, I'll choose the latter as the lesser of the evils. If either of them can solve the problems facing this state, I'll be surprised.

 

[Pandora]

I'm not sure why that might be. You already know that Republican and conservative are two different things, just as Democrat and liberal are.



So, is it really necessary to be pro choice to be a liberal? anyway, the pres can't do anything about abortion one way or the other, so that is a non issue.



Has either one advocated ending the second amendment?



Tax cuts without corresponding spending cuts is conservative now?

Remember Medicare part D?

Has military spending been reduced?



Because they both believe in the power of big government to solve problems.



They're both about the same.



1. Fiorina. Boxer has been in office way too long as it is.
2. Between the aging hippie who has never done anything but politics, and the billionaire who wants to buy the governorship, I'll choose the latter as the lesser of the evils. If either of them can solve the problems facing this state, I'll be surprised.

I personally think it takes more than just wanting big government to be a liberal.


George Bush Social conservative moderate republican

McCain Left leaning moderate

obama liberal

Boxer liberal

Romney right leaning moderate

Rudy physical conservative social liberal

huckabee social conservative physical moderate tipping left

Pelosi liberal

Harold Ford right leaning moderate

Evan Bayh right leaning moderate

Sarah Palin right leaning conservative socially (unsure physically)

To me a liberal would be left on all or at least most all of the issues.
Same for a conservative. Other wise I would break the title up to socially liberal physical conservative

Though Bush spent too much he didn't do it like most conservatives or republicans. He spent as much or almost as much on liberal things (to appease the left) as he did right wing issues, where someone like obama spends too much all on left wing ideas. (with the exception of the war that he is stuck in)

If all of Bush's big spending were on right wing issues I wouldn't have used moderate when describing him, he willingly spent millions on left wing ideas.

There are only a few cut and dry liberals and conservatives everyone else has some other description IMO

I am surprised you are voting for Fiorina But I am glad, I hate boxer even more than I hate obama

 

[PLC1]

I personally think it takes more than just wanting big government to be a liberal.


George Bush Social conservative moderate republican

McCain Left leaning moderate

obama liberal

Boxer liberal

Romney right leaning moderate

Rudy physical conservative social liberal

huckabee social conservative physical moderate tipping left

Pelosi liberal

Harold Ford right leaning moderate

Evan Bayh right leaning moderate

Sarah Palin right leaning conservative socially (unsure physically)

To me a liberal would be left on all or at least most all of the issues.
Same for a conservative. Other wise I would break the title up to socially liberal physical conservative

Though Bush spent too much he didn't do it like most conservatives or republicans. He spent as much or almost as much on liberal things (to appease the left) as he did right wing issues, where someone like obama spends too much all on left wing ideas. (with the exception of the war that he is stuck in)

If all of Bush's big spending were on right wing issues I wouldn't have used moderate when describing him, he willingly spent millions on left wing ideas.

There are only a few cut and dry liberals and conservatives everyone else has some other description IMO

I am surprised you are voting for Fiorina But I am glad, I hate boxer even more than I hate obama

Most political labels are inaccurate, IMO. If you lump all of the following unrelated issues under the term "liberal", then you could make a case that one person is "more liberal" than the other.

pro choice
pro arms control
pro big government
pro deficit spending
pro amnesty for illegals
pro gay marriage

but it is more accurate to describe some of those issues as being more on the libertarian/authoritarian continuum than on the liberal/conservative one.

 

[Pandora]

Most political labels are inaccurate, IMO. If you lump all of the following unrelated issues under the term "liberal", then you could make a case that one person is "more liberal" than the other.

pro choice
pro arms control
pro big government
pro deficit spending
pro amnesty for illegals
pro gay marriage

but it is more accurate to describe some of those issues as being more on the libertarian/authoritarian continuum than on the liberal/conservative one.

ah yes, if you label people as libertarians and authoritarians you can separate them pretty easy in almost all cases except

abortion and war

 

[PLC1]

ah yes, if you label people as libertarians and authoritarians you can separate them pretty easy in almost all cases except

abortion and war

Abortion is a libertarian vs authoritarian issue. War is more on the neoconservative to isolationist continuum than either of the other two.

 

[Pandora]

Abortion is a libertarian vs authoritarian issue. War is more on the neoconservative to isolationist continuum than either of the other two.

But the problem with abortion is both have a valid point on the issue


I say the child has rights, especially the right to life

you say the woman has a right to rid herself of the "thing" because you do not see them as a human.

both points are valid, mine is just more valid than yours


Where did WW2 fit ? neoconservative to isolationist?

 

[PLC1]

But the problem with abortion is both have a valid point on the issue


I say the child has rights, especially the right to life

you say the woman has a right to rid herself of the "thing" because you do not see them as a human.

both points are valid, mine is just more valid than yours


Where did WW2 fit ? neoconservative to isolationist?

Yes, both sides have a valid point in the issue of abortion. Authoritarians have decided that abortion is immoral, and want to outlaw it. Libertarians may or may not have decided that it is immoral, but want the individual, rather than the government, to make the decision.

If you have decided that life begins at conception, then it follows that aborting a zygote is tantamount to killing a baby, and therefore, infanticide. An authoritarian will want to impose their opinion on society by force of law.

The Libertarian realizes that passing a law that can't be enforced doesn't accomplish anything. An authoritarian just wants to increase the penalties.

In WWII, we had no choice. It was a matter of survival. In Korea, Vietnam, Afganistan, and Iraq, it was another matter.

 

[Pandora]

Yes, both sides have a valid point in the issue of abortion. Authoritarians have decided that abortion is immoral, and want to outlaw it. Libertarians may or may not have decided that it is immoral, but want the individual, rather than the government, to make the decision.

If you have decided that life begins at conception, then it follows that aborting a zygote is tantamount to killing a baby, and therefore, infanticide. An authoritarian will want to impose their opinion on society by force of law.

The Libertarian realizes that passing a law that can't be enforced doesn't accomplish anything. An authoritarian just wants to increase the penalties.

In WWII, we had no choice. It was a matter of survival. In Korea, Vietnam, Afganistan, and Iraq, it was another matter.

Authoritarians would at best be saying a persons life is not for another to take. By the time someone knows they are pregnant and schedules an abortion the baby is not a zygote as I am sure you know. Its like you are saying if a person feels that all humans have a right to life they are an authoritarian.

I agree with you about ww2, but I wonder had some of those other wars not been fought would that effect how things are today, something we will never know.

 

[PLC1]

Authoritarians would at best be saying a persons life is not for another to take. By the time someone knows they are pregnant and schedules an abortion the baby is not a zygote as I am sure you know. Its like you are saying if a person feels that all humans have a right to life they are an authoritarian.

I agree with you about ww2, but I wonder had some of those other wars not been fought would that effect how things are today, something we will never know.

We can only speculate. What if the Congress had acted on the Gulf of Tonkien incident as the hoax it was, and put an end to having troops in Vietnam at that time? What if we had simply stayed out and allowed that nation to have the independence it had won from France in '54? What if our paranoia of the Communist menace had not led us to take sides in a civil war in a faraway nation? Our society would be a lot different than it is now, that's for sure, but different how? Now, that is a matter for speculation.

 

[Pandora]

We can only speculate. What if the Congress had acted on the Gulf of Tonkien incident as the hoax it was, and put an end to having troops in Vietnam at that time? What if we had simply stayed out and allowed that nation to have the independence it had won from France in '54? What if our paranoia of the Communist menace had not led us to take sides in a civil war in a faraway nation? Our society would be a lot different than it is now, that's for sure, but different how? Now, that is a matter for speculation.

Without our help communism would have gotten stronger not weaker it seems but since communism is doomed to fail its a possible argument that it would have gotten stronger then puttered out sooner than it did in the USSR and other places.

But our lack of involvement could be why there is a rise in dictators like chaves, but its not a point that could be argued since no one can ever know what may or may not have been if we did things differently.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Without our help communism would have gotten stronger not weaker it seems but since communism is doomed to fail its a possible argument that it would have gotten stronger then puttered out sooner than it did in the USSR and other places.

But our lack of involvement could be why there is a rise in dictators like chaves, but its not a point that could be argued since no one can ever know what may or may not have been if we did things differently.

yea we should be more involved so there are more Dictators ( by the way Chavaz...was Elected into power...i) like Pinochet...good old fashin right wing dictators ( Coup no election) because we hate dictatorships...well only liberal ones, right wing ones we support ...right?

also in vietnam...the will of the people...was pretty well on the Communist side...so had it been a demoracy ( both sides where not) it would have most likely ended up...communist...

 

[Pandora]

yea we should be more involved so there are more Dictators ( by the way Chavaz...was Elected into power...i) like Pinochet...good old fashin right wing dictators ( Coup no election) because we hate dictatorships...well only liberal ones, right wing ones we support ...right?

also in vietnam...the will of the people...was pretty well on the Communist side...so had it been a demoracy ( both sides where not) it would have most likely ended up...communist...

North Vietnam and I bet the people liked communism as much as the Russians did.... not much

 

[PLC1]

North Vietnam and I bet the people liked communism as much as the Russians did.... not much

Do you think we won the war in Vietnam?