Well, They're Actually Going Through With It

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

In terms of defining a political liberal, you'd have to define their positions relative to conservatism.

 

However, traditional liberal ideas are inherent in conservatism, and vice versa with the current parties, so it's somewhat skewed.

 

Modern (true) liberals value equality first, then liberty, then order. Conservatives value order, then liberty, then equality.

[The Czech Republic 0]

Conservatives value order, then liberty, then equality.

Would freedom-order-equality make me a libertarian?

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

Yeah.

[Guest SP-1]

Uhh . . . a born-again Christian is generally a protestant. So . . . that's a pretty weird way to put things.

[Guest Cerebus]

Liberal: a. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.

Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.

I perfer Orwell's definition "Liberal: A power worshiper without power."

You would.

Orwell > You

 

Acutally, not to overdo the quotations, but

 

"Conservative, n: A statesman who is enamored of existing evils, as distinguished from the Liberal who wishes to replace them with others." - Ambrose Bierce

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

Both of the authors you suggested were actually talking about a different breed of conservatism and liberalism, being that they were both around in the first half of the 1900s.

 

Since then, the definitions of liberalism and conservatism have, generally, switched places and become their opposites.

 

Tyler > cerebus316

[Guest Wildbomb 4:20]

Uhh . . . a born-again Christian is generally a protestant. So . . . that's a pretty weird way to put things.

 

Guess I'm one of the exceptions then. Episcopalian, I am.

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

Episcopalian IS Protestant. If you're suggesting it's not, you're uh, wrong.

[Guest Wildbomb 4:20]

No, I know I'm a Protestant. Just not a born-again Christian.

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

Oh, fair enough. Teaches me not to read the thread.

[Guest Cerebus]

Both of the authors you suggested were actually talking about a different breed of conservatism and liberalism, being that they were both around in the first half of the 1900s.

 

Since then, the definitions of liberalism and conservatism have, generally, switched places and become their opposites.

How so?

 

Tyler > cerebus316

 

Oh that's just wrong

[Guest SP-1]

For some reason, I'm wanting to cross up Episcopalians with Anglicans. I'm unable to recall any info on Episc.'s. What's the basic belief system? Do you not acknowledge Christ's deity and complete work on the cross? Are you works-based? (Not asking to judge, I'm just trying to recall the info. myself and I'm curious).

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

Because modern liberalism came into being with LBJ, who was president after Orwell died. Previously, "liberalism" was, more or less, what we consider "libertarianism." That is, as we both know, the basis of modern conservatism.

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

For some reason, I'm wanting to cross up Episcopalians with Anglicans. I'm unable to recall any info on Episc.'s. What's the basic belief system? Do you not acknowledge Christ's deity and complete work on the cross? Are you works-based? (Not asking to judge, I'm just trying to recall the info. myself and I'm curious).

You'd be correct to equate Episcopalians to Anglicans.

[Guest Wildbomb 4:20]

Basic beliefs: Think Catholicism. On the whole, we don't use the King James Bible. Instead, we have the Common Book of Prayer, which is a newer translation, which is supposedly more accurate. Anyways, Episcopalians tend to be more liberal and open to ideas; i.e. homosexuality. We also tend to not believe the Common Book of Prayer word for word, we instead use the themes of it.

 

In all honesty, I think you could call it Catholic-lite.

[Vyce 0]

The New York Times? Liberal? Beats me.

 

.........what?

 

Seriously........

 

......WHAT?!?!

 

I'm going to assume you're joking.

 

As for the Washington Post, speaking as a Washingtonian - they're liberal. The BEST you can describe them as is "left of center", rather than hardcore, diehard liberal.

 

And while we're playing this little game, Me > all y'all bitches.

[Guest Cerebus]

Because modern liberalism came into being with LBJ, who was president after Orwell died. Previously, "liberalism" was, more or less, what we consider "libertarianism." That is, as we both know, the basis of modern conservatism.

Define your terms young fellah. What do you define as "modern liberalism" "libertarianism" and "modern conservatism"?

[Guest Kamui]

A few things I saw in this thread that I want to comment on (too lazy to quote every single person's thread who made a point about it, as there's a lot):

 

First off, on the high school education thing- far too many of you are making way too broad statements. I don't know if you're too far out of high school to remember or whatever the hell it is, but as a high school senoir I can tell you that I've had teachers who fit both types that people are talking about. I'll use my science teachers as an example, so this doesn't go on forever.

 

When I was a Freshman and trying to figure out the religious/science connection and whether one negates the other, I tried to ask my science teacher. He, however, told me in no uncertain terms that he refused to influence my opinion with his, and he never did.

 

Meanwhile, my sophmore Biology teacher was a huge enviormentalist, and used to talk about it with us almost everyday, including politics and how conservatives are ruining the enviornment. Now, this is central New Jersey so most people here are liberal anyway (check the results of our recent election- Democrats literally won everything), but I know this was an example of what Mike and others were talking about.

 

My Junior Chemistry teacher would be somewhere in-between, as he'd occasionally share his political views with us (also liberal), but that was more because the class was a very tight-nit one (read: it was an honors class with a bunch of geeks in it), where we'd talk about whatever we wanted. He didn't make a daily rant about conservatives like my Biology teacher did, but it was there.

 

So yeah, from my personal experience there's high school teachers like what all of you were talking about- no single person is right here.

 

 

Anyway.....now, on the subject of the post, I don't care about the political stuff (to be honest, liberal or conservative propaganda just plain puts me to sleep), but as a huge fan of the Daily Show the entertainment ideas really excite me. Can't wait to see what they do with that- I'd love to have Daily Show-style programming on my radio, and I can't believe no one's thought of that before with how easy it is to pull off via radio anyway.

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

Because modern liberalism came into being with LBJ, who was president after Orwell died. Previously, "liberalism" was, more or less, what we consider "libertarianism." That is, as we both know, the basis of modern conservatism.

Define your terms young fellah. What do you define as "modern liberalism" "libertarianism" and "modern conservatism"?

...I already did. Read the thread above.

 

Modern liberal = equality, liberty, order.

Libertarian = liberty, order, equality

Modern Conservative = Mostly Libertarian

Old liberal = Libertarian

 

Tyler = Too tired to repeat this a hundred times.

[Guest SP-1]

Okay. I think I know where/why I was confusing things now.

 

Though, heck if I'd know where to group those beliefs. Catholic-lite does seem to fit best.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

That sure beats the liberal stranglehold on high school education

Huh? My local high school has a Conservative Club, but ohhkay.

 

, college education,

 

This is true. But I think the conservative think tanks produce more politically active partisan extremists than the colleges do. The college liberals just tend to burn out soon after graduating

 

basic television, the rest of cable television, Time magazine, NY Times, LA Times, Newsweek, Reuters News wire

 

Bullshit. Pure bullshit. Except the NY and LA Times. I'll give you those.

[NoCalMike 0]

Ok as far as a liberal media goes. I just don't buy it. I'd say the media is more corporate then anything. The media's entire definition of Liberals/Conservatives is based almost entirely on Abortion stance, Gun Control stance, and (currently) the war on terrorism stance. Pretty much every program is dictated night and day on these three issues or issues related. There are a million more constructive stories that networks could be doing to be "liberal-friendly" however a lot of liberal ideals go against the very fabric of the way the media is being run by corporate interests, which of course will never be discussed. Not to say conservatives are represented any better besides the top 3 issues either.

[Vern Gagne 0]

That sure beats the liberal stranglehold on high school education

Huh? My local high school has a Conservative Club, but ohhkay.

 

 

basic television, the rest of cable television, Time magazine, NY Times, LA Times, Newsweek, Reuters News wire

 

Bullshit. Pure bullshit. Except the NY and LA Times. I'll give you those.

People where refering to the teachers.

 

Pure Bullshit? Newsweek has a definite bias against President Bush's administration. Read the article about Dick Cheney a few weeks back. Rueters is a International News service, those make the Liberal Media here look pretty conservative.

 

Plus they're the ones who won't call them terrorist, anymore. Would anything other than a Liberal news service do something like that?

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

Pure Bullshit? Newsweek has a definite bias against President Bush's administration. Read the article about Dick Cheney a few weeks back.

 

They also did nasty stuff about Clinton, and I presume they did the same about Bush I and Reagan as well.

 

Any more Coulter nuggets?

 

Rueters is a International News service, those make the Liberal Media here look pretty conservative.

 

Yeah, nice generalization. Back it up.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Modern (true) liberals value equality first, then liberty, then order. Conservatives value order, then liberty, then equality.

I see somebody's been reading their textbooks. (That is where I found out about this, too.)

 

Order, liberty, equality here...

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

Yeah, basically

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

I still have that government textbook where I read about these lists in storage.

 

I also have a psych book where they present lists of racial stereotypes -- TO THOSE THAT GET OFFENDED EASILY STOP READING -- and some of the entries are just brutal, especially regarding blacks (not concerned with being on welfare), hispanics (lazy), Jews (greedy) and the irish/polish (drunks/stupid).

 

But then the final stereotype group, WASPs, had just about every stereotype of them being a positive one (hard-working, loyal, etc.)

 

It was funny as hell, and since we didn't cover in class the chapter that this chart was in, I decided to show it to my prof. because I knew it would get a rise out of her. She got so enraged by it she said she would never teach with books from that textbook company again...

Edited December 3, 2003 by kkktookmybabyaway

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Plus they're the ones who won't call them terrorist, anymore. Would anything other than a Liberal news service do something like that?

They call them accused terrorists. Is that incorrect? Are they not being accused of being terrorists?

[Guest Kamui]

Modern (true) liberals value equality first, then liberty, then order. Conservatives value order, then liberty, then equality.

I see somebody's been reading their textbooks. (That is where I found out about this, too.)

 

Order, liberty, equality here...

You mean equality's not important to you? *gasp* Color me surprised.

 

Equality, liberty, order is how I would order them. While I can *kind of* get valuing liberty over equality and order, valuing order over liberty and equality just seems like you'd be more happy with a dictator. Hey, there's plenty of order there, and none of that bothersome "liberty" or "equality" stuff to get in the way!

Edited December 3, 2003 by Kamui

[Guest croweater]

I'd put: equality, liberty and order in that order. However though it sounds like I don't want order and would rather live in a lawless society, that's not the case. I consider them all to be very important. Just like someone who had order, liberty, equality would not want to live in a dictatorship because all of those values are important to them.

 

If I rated my friends 1. Marco, 2. Steve and 3. Belinda, it does not mean I want to live in a world full of steve and want Belinda to die.

........... That was a stupid analogy.

 

One of the funny things I find reading this folder is that I get confused by who's on what side. In Australia the Liberal party are our right winged party and most other parties are to the left.