FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Man Flies Plane into Building





jmi256
It seems a guy has flown his small plane into the IRS building in Austin, Texas. According to the Smoking Gun and some other sites, the pilot was a guy named “Joe Stack”, and he left behind an online letter/rant that can be found at the link below:
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2010/0218102stack1.html

It’s probably still too early to know definitively whether this guy was the pilot or not, but here are some excerpts from his letter. He seems to be very angry, and his comments echo a lot of the left-wing garbage we hear. Granted he also makes some comments that can be seen as coming from the right, but to me he sounds like a left winger who finally realized that he was being played for a fool by the liberalism he put his trust in. Regardless of his ideological affiliation, however, this guy obviously was a tortured soul. I hope everyone got out of the building.

Quote:
Why is it that a handful of thugs and plunderers can commit unthinkable atrocities (and in the case of the GM executives, for scores of years) and when it’s time for their gravy train to crash under the weight of their gluttony and overwhelming stupidity, the force of the full federal government has no difficulty coming to their aid within days if not hours? Yet at the same time, the joke we call the American medical system, including the drug and insurance companies, are murdering tens of thousands of people a year and stealing from the corpses and victims they cripple, and this country’s leaders don’t see this as important as bailing out a few of their vile, rich cronies. Yet, the political “representatives” (thieves, liars, and self-serving scumbags is far more accurate) have endless time to sit around for year after year and debate the state of the “terrible health care problem”. It’s clear they see no crisis as long as the dead people don’t get in the way of their corporate profits rolling in.



Quote:
In particular, zeroed in on a section relating to the wonderful “exemptions” that make institutions like the vulgar, corrupt Catholic Church so incredibly wealthy. We carefully studied the law (with the help of some of the “best”, high-paid, experienced tax lawyers in the business), and then began to do exactly what the “big boys” were doing (except that we weren’t steeling from our congregation or lying to the government about our massive profits in the name of God).

The intent of this exercise and our efforts was to bring about a much-needed re-evaluation of the laws that allow the monsters of organized religion to make such a mockery of people who earn an honest living. However, this is where I learned that there are two “interpretations” for every law; one for the very rich, and one for the rest of us… Oh, and the monsters are the very ones making and enforcing the laws; the inquisition is still alive and well today in this country.



Quote:
The recent presidential puppet GW Bush and his cronies in their eight years certainly reinforced for all of us that this criticism rings equally true for all of the government. Nothing changes unless there is a body count (unless it is in the interest of the wealthy sows at the government trough). In a government full of hypocrites from top to bottom, life is as cheap as their lies and their self-serving laws.
deanhills
This guy must have been severely depressed. Wow! Sounds like a very normal person who has been irritated with the IRS for too long and wanted to make a very serious point in a very intense and extreme moment! Just sorry that two others had to pay with their own lives as well.

Sort of worrying, as one wonders how many fifty-something people out there who are severely depressed, have the appearance of normal and OK, however have the capacity to explode similarly to what Stack did.
Nick2008
It was a dramatic way to show the IRS his opinion, I must say.

Though it is unfortunate that something as simple as taxes has evolved into a complex-process which now even requires trained tax advisors to work with you. The way the IRS has treated some people is unacceptable in my opinion, I believe that the IRS should be helpful in the tax process; that's obviously not always the case.

Now, it has gotten to the point of suicide bombers in their own airplanes crashing into federal buildings on our own soil simply because of taxes. What's next? Homemade missiles?
deanhills
Nick2008 wrote:
Though it is unfortunate that something as simple as taxes has evolved into a complex-process which now even requires trained tax advisors to work with you. The way the IRS has treated some people is unacceptable in my opinion, I believe that the IRS should be helpful in the tax process; that's obviously not always the case.
Canada, and probably many other countries in the "developed" world, are the same. In Canada, even your guy who works in the gas station makes use of an accountant to complete his tax return. During tax season you see all kinds of temporary offices mushrooming every where to get their cut in preparing tax returns. I can't believe people really allowing this to happen though. Taxes were supposed to be temporary when they were first started, but seems to have become a "right" to the extent that people are being "milked" left right and centre and they just grin and bear it. We probably should be more in fear of the people compliance system, of "grin and bear" and "don't sweat it", than the IRS. It is the "grin and bear it" people compliance which is empowering the IRS, and keeping it in power.
ocalhoun
deanhills wrote:
Nick2008 wrote:
Though it is unfortunate that something as simple as taxes has evolved into a complex-process which now even requires trained tax advisors to work with you. The way the IRS has treated some people is unacceptable in my opinion, I believe that the IRS should be helpful in the tax process; that's obviously not always the case.
Canada, and probably many other countries in the "developed" world, are the same. In Canada, even your guy who works in the gas station makes use of an accountant to complete his tax return. During tax season you see all kinds of temporary offices mushrooming every where to get their cut in preparing tax returns. I can't believe people really allowing this to happen though. Taxes were supposed to be temporary when they were first started, but seems to have become a "right" to the extent that people are being "milked" left right and centre and they just grin and bear it. We probably should be more in fear of the people compliance system, of "grin and bear" and "don't sweat it", than the IRS. It is the "grin and bear it" people compliance which is empowering the IRS, and keeping it in power.

Quite agreed with you both on that count.
There are some extremely gruesome horror stories from IRS enforcement... And this from an agency that understands the tax code so poorly that 50% of the advice it gives is erroneous. (Not that the current tax code could possibly ever be understood by anyone.)
Fortunately, I have a solution.

FairTax:
Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FairTax
Quick, basic description: http://useconomy.about.com/od/fiscalpolicy/p/Fair_Tax.htm
FAQ from official FairTax website: http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=about_faq_answers
handfleisch
To take a tragedy like this to start yelling "liberal" and use it to Obama-bash (totally erroneously of course) is a new low on Frihost forums. Shame.
Bikerman
jmi256 wrote:
It’s probably still too early to know definitively whether this guy was the pilot or not, but here are some excerpts from his letter. He seems to be very angry, and his comments echo a lot of the left-wing garbage we hear. Granted he also makes some comments that can be seen as coming from the right, but to me he sounds like a left winger who finally realized that he was being played for a fool by the liberalism he put his trust in. Regardless of his ideological affiliation, however, this guy obviously was a tortured soul. I hope everyone got out of the building.
Can you tell me what he wrote that is left wing? I see nothing at all.
He complains about executives and bankers - well the Right wing are generally the ones most upset about the bailout, not the left. He complains about your health system - I don't think that is a 'right-left' issue. He complains about politicians. Well, I'm sure I don't need to point out who complains most about politicians on these forums, and I'm also sure that it isn't the 'left'.
He complains about the Catholic church. That isn't a political issue. He complains about the 'small' guy being done over by the 'big' guy. Again that isn't a party political point, and if it could be considered so then it would be RIGHT not left, since leftists are generally in favour of a bigger state.

I think you have let your own prejudices show here....
handfleisch
Bikerman wrote:
jmi256 wrote:
It’s probably still too early to know definitively whether this guy was the pilot or not, but here are some excerpts from his letter. He seems to be very angry, and his comments echo a lot of the left-wing garbage we hear. Granted he also makes some comments that can be seen as coming from the right, but to me he sounds like a left winger who finally realized that he was being played for a fool by the liberalism he put his trust in. Regardless of his ideological affiliation, however, this guy obviously was a tortured soul. I hope everyone got out of the building.
Can you tell me what he wrote that is left wing? I see nothing at all.
He complains about executives and bankers - well the Right wing are generally the ones most upset about the bailout, not the left. He complains about your health system - I don't think that is a 'right-left' issue. He complains about politicians. Well, I'm sure I don't need to point out who complains most about politicians on these forums, and I'm also sure that it isn't the 'left'.
He complains about the Catholic church. That isn't a political issue. He complains about the 'small' guy being done over by the 'big' guy. Again that isn't a party political point, and if it could be considered so then it would be RIGHT not left, since leftists are generally in favour of a bigger state.

I think you have let your own prejudices show here....


Just here? You've got to be the politest moderator in cyberville.

More seriously, FYI the Catholic Church is often the target of hatred and conspiracy theories in the USA by extremist Protestants and the far right.
Bikerman
handfleisch wrote:
More seriously, FYI the Catholic Church is often the target of hatred and conspiracy theories in the USA by extremist Protestants and the far right.
Well, it has to be said that the Catholic Church fully deserve much of it. The handling of the paedophile Priests was a scandal which will not quickly be forgotten over there (or over here - Ireland was even worse).
handfleisch
Bikerman wrote:
handfleisch wrote:
More seriously, FYI the Catholic Church is often the target of hatred and conspiracy theories in the USA by extremist Protestants and the far right.
Well, it has to be said that the Catholic Church fully deserve much of it. The handling of the paedophile Priests was a scandal which will not quickly be forgotten over there (or over here - Ireland was even worse).


Since you're a rational person you see rational reasons for these things. But the far right and extremist Christians in the US who hate the Catholic Church and see conspiracies there have done so for a long time before the pedophile priest scandal, charging the Church is the "mother wh-re" warned of in the bible, that the Pope is the antiChrist, and that the Church was secretly running the USA via the Kennedys. I kid you not.

p.s. I am surprised that "wh-re" is a expletive to be automatically deleted on Frihost.
jmi256
handfleisch wrote:
To take a tragedy like this to start yelling "liberal" and use it to Obama-bash (totally erroneously of course) is a new low on Frihost forums. Shame.


Ahhhh, you’re showing your hypocrisy at its best. You’ve never tried to use a “tragedy” to forward your liberal slant or attack that person as a conservative, right? Actually, I posted this to make a point. Very often you (and other liberals, so don’t think I’m picking just on you) try to post something that an individual does and then try to denounce an entire group of people based on that one person’s actions. But when it’s shown that the person doing the bad thing is a liberal, it’s now a matter of exploiting a “tragedy.” I actually think that this guy (as well as many people who do bad things like this) are just disturbed. I don’t think disturbed people are automatically attracted to a certain ideology, as much I don’t think certain ideologies are geared toward disturbed people. There just are bad people in the world who will commit crimes/do bad things. We’re all individually responsible for our own actions.



Bikerman wrote:
Can you tell me what he wrote that is left wing? I see nothing at all.

Really? Nothing at all? Did you read any of it? For example I guess you missed his rant against Bush (i.e. “puppet GW Bush and his cronies.” yeah, lefties would never say something like that, huh?), his embrace of the Communist creed (lefties hate that too, right), his rant against Capitalism (didn’t I see a thread from a certain someone arguing that Capitalism was “evil”?) or his rant that “drug and insurance companies, are murdering tens of thousands of people a year and stealing from the corpses and victims they cripple”. While not verbatim, it sounds pretty similar in spirit to what we’ve been hearing from liberals on this board, such as “people are dying because of how our health care system is being run” or “Exactly. And the bodies are stacking up”, all found at: http://www.frihost.com/forums/vt-111263.html. But I guess if you “see nothing at all” that means it’s not there, huh?



Bikerman wrote:
He complains about executives and bankers - well the Right wing are generally the ones most upset about the bailout, not the left.

You’re right to say that conservatives are upset about the bailouts, but that’s not what this guy is saying. If you read his letter, the issue isn’t that he opposed the bailouts, but that he felt that if the federal government came to the aid of those bankrupt companies, why wouldn’t it also not ‘bailout’ everyone with other handouts. That’s typical liberal language, while as a conservative I would argue that both handouts to bankrupt companies and socialized _______fill in the blank______ are equally off-putting. As a conservative I’ve argued many times that I reject the “too big to fail” doctrine, while as a liberal you have argued that you embrace it.



Bikerman wrote:
He complains about your health system - I don't think that is a 'right-left' issue.

Really? Obama and the rest of the liberals aren’t trying to force government-run healthcare down our throats? Are you trying to say that is coming from the right? The reason this debate is even going on is because Obama and the other liberals have made this their key initiative.



Bikerman wrote:
He complains about politicians. Well, I'm sure I don't need to point out who complains most about politicians on these forums, and I'm also sure that it isn't the 'left'.

Wow, people talk about politicians on a “Politics” board. Must be a conspiracy. I could go into this point more, but I don’t think it really warrants wasting any time on.



Bikerman wrote:
He complains about the Catholic church. That isn't a political issue.

Actually it is. Again if you look at what he wrote he was talking about how religious organizations and other charities are exempt from taxes, and he complains about “the wonderful ‘exemptions’ that make institutions like the vulgar, corrupt Catholic Church so incredibly wealthy.” He uses the Catholic Church as an example, but he’s basically was railing against how churches receives exempt status, and it’s no secret that many liberals are upset that churches receive any type of what they call “special” treatment. Most liberals would love to see religious institutions run out or at least marginalized. I’m not saying that some conservatives aren’t more secular than others, but it’s interesting that in your and handfleisch’s denial that liberals attack the Catholic Church, that you then turn around and attack it with charges of pedophilia and say something like “the Catholic Church fully deserve much of it”. While I’m not trying to get into the debate on that particular subject, you only need to browse liberal sites and comments to find a very negative posture toward Christianity. Do I find pedophilia wrong? Yes. Do I condemn an entire religion based on the acts of some of its members? No. It’s interesting, however, that liberals are quick to use this issue to attack Catholics, but have come out in support of such organizations as NAMBLA (North American Man/Boy Love Association). If pedophilia really was the issue, and not the religion, why the hypocrisy?

Obama appointee lauded NAMBLA figure
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Obama-appointee-lauded-NAMBLA-figure-63115112.html



Bikerman wrote:
He complains about the 'small' guy being done over by the 'big' guy. Again that isn't a party political point, and if it could be considered so then it would be RIGHT not left, since leftists are generally in favour of a bigger state.

I’ll concede the point that this is a matter of perspective. But at the heart of it is where the difference in political ideology lives. Conservatives see protecting the little guy as just letting individuals who just want to be free alone. Protecting the small guy involves the removal of excessive government intrusion and regulation. Government is a necessary evil that must be severely limited. Liberals on the other hand claim that protecting the little guy means doing everything they can to remove any sense of competition or reward/punishment based on ability through the state since they assume people can’t hack the real world without the help of the state. As you pointed out, this is done through a bigger state, with more power and control over everyone’s lives.



Bikerman wrote:
I think you have let your own prejudices show here....

As opposed to what? Seems like a weak attempt at an insult. Have I ever claimed to not have an opinion?



The real point of posting this was to expose liberal hypocrisy, which Bikerman and handfleisch most graciously confirmed. Liberals love to twist ‘scandals’ (some legit, some not so much) that involve conservatives to claim that all conservative ideology or members in a group are then somehow ‘tainted’. But when a liberal is involved in one of these scandals, now they claim it’s a matter of ‘exploiting a tragedy’, they try to claim it’s a “vast right-wing conspiracy” or that the person really wasn’t a liberal/was a closet conservative. I would argue the opposite. Just as this example shows (and there are others), individuals from both sides of the political spectrum do bad things. But that does not mean that an entire movement or group of people is implicated.
handfleisch
jmi256 wrote:
handfleisch wrote:
To take a tragedy like this to start yelling "liberal" and use it to Obama-bash (totally erroneously of course) is a new low on Frihost forums. Shame.


Ahhhh, (followed by semi-incoherent ramblings)


Um, about that smear that you forwarded, that an Obama appointee praised a NAMBLA supporter:

You cite something called the "Washington Examiner", which I've never heard of it before, looks like a fake news site. It cites for proof a weird bloggish thing "Regular Folks United" (wow, there's a hard news source, good job JMI!). They cite a single half-sentence taken out of context from transcript from a website "Americans For Truth", but the link to the transcript is dead, and you just get this:

Quote:
americansfortruth.com has been suspended

You are seeing this web page because the hosting account that owns this domain has been suspended. A suspension occurs when a user violates the terms of service.

If you are the owner of the account that hosts this web site, please check your email, or log into your control panel to examine the reason for the suspension. You can correct billing issues immediately from that page or contact support for additional assistance.


Fail. Ahd guess what, the person he's praising was not a NAMBLA supporter at all, and he was being praised for founding the first Gay rights organization ever.

Here is what that person said way back when:
Quote:

"I am not a member of NAMBLA, nor would it ever have been my inclination to be one."
[Gay Community News, Fall 1994 via Nexis]

http://mediamattersaction.org/smears/200910020003

That person has passed away and cannot defend himself, but far from being a NAMBLA supporter, he was an important civil right leader.

The Free Republic is one of the main sites pushing this lie.

So, you smeared one person (Obama appointee) for praising a second person who was also falsely smeared (the civil rights leader). You should be ashamed for spreading lies, vicious propaganda and character defamation against the dead, even if it is your SOP.
Bikerman
jmi256 wrote:
Really? Nothing at all? Did you read any of it? For example I guess you missed his rant against Bush (i.e. “puppet GW Bush and his cronies.” yeah, lefties would never say something like that, huh?), his embrace of the Communist creed (lefties hate that too, right), his rant against Capitalism (didn’t I see a thread from a certain someone arguing that Capitalism was “evil”?) or his rant that “drug and insurance companies, are murdering tens of thousands of people a year and stealing from the corpses and victims they cripple”. While not verbatim, it sounds pretty similar in spirit to what we’ve been hearing from liberals on this board, such as “people are dying because of how our health care system is being run” or “Exactly. And the bodies are stacking up”, all found at: http://www.frihost.com/forums/vt-111263.html. But I guess if you “see nothing at all” that means it’s not there, huh?

a) Ranting against Bush doesn't make you a leftie. Most people in Europe hate the guy - whether they are conservative, liberal or communist.
b) He doesn't embrace communism - he merely contrasts a communist position with a capitalist one to make a point. It is perfectly clear from his message that he is not a communist - yes I did read it, thoroughly.
c) The fact that people die because of how your healthcare is run is simply a fact, not a political point. Many advocates of change are not left-wing in any sense I would recognise.
d) Your sarcasm is both unnecessary and rather juvenile.
Quote:
You’re right to say that conservatives are upset about the bailouts, but that’s not what this guy is saying. If you read his letter, the issue isn’t that he opposed the bailouts, but that he felt that if the federal government came to the aid of those bankrupt companies, why wouldn’t it also not ‘bailout’ everyone with other handouts. That’s typical liberal language, while as a conservative I would argue that both handouts to bankrupt companies and socialized _______fill in the blank______ are equally off-putting. As a conservative I’ve argued many times that I reject the “too big to fail” doctrine, while as a liberal you have argued that you embrace it.

That isn't left-wing AT ALL. Many right-wing commentators here have suggested that giving every householder $20,000 or so to pay of the mortgage would have been far better, financially, than the bailout.
Quote:
Really? Obama and the rest of the liberals aren’t trying to force government-run healthcare down our throats? Are you trying to say that is coming from the right? The reason this debate is even going on is because Obama and the other liberals have made this their key initiative.
He did that before the election and the fact that millions of your fellow citizens elected him on that mandate means he is simply doing what he said he would - something which politicians should not be condemned for.
Quote:
Wow, people talk about politicians on a “Politics” board. Must be a conspiracy. I could go into this point more, but I don’t think it really warrants wasting any time on.

Yes, I tend to agree, given the above.
Quote:
Actually it is. Again if you look at what he wrote he was talking about how religious organizations and other charities are exempt from taxes, and he complains about “the wonderful ‘exemptions’ that make institutions like the vulgar, corrupt Catholic Church so incredibly wealthy.” He uses the Catholic Church as an example, but he’s basically was railing against how churches receives exempt status, and it’s no secret that many liberals are upset that churches receive any type of what they call “special” treatment. Most liberals would love to see religious institutions run out or at least marginalized. I’m not saying that some conservatives aren’t more secular than others, but it’s interesting that in your and handfleisch’s denial that liberals attack the Catholic Church, that you then turn around and attack it with charges of pedophilia and say something like “the Catholic Church fully deserve much of it”. While I’m not trying to get into the debate on that particular subject, you only need to browse liberal sites and comments to find a very negative posture toward Christianity. Do I find pedophilia wrong? Yes. Do I condemn an entire religion based on the acts of some of its members? No. It’s interesting, however, that liberals are quick to use this issue to attack Catholics, but have come out in support of such organizations as NAMBLA (North American Man/Boy Love Association). If pedophilia really was the issue, and not the religion, why the hypocrisy?
You make sweeping generalisations rather than real points.
a) The catholic church is equally despised by left and right throughout the world.
b) I didn't make a charge of paedophilia - I stated a fact. The courts made the charge when the Bishops finally stopped moving the paedophiles from parish to parish to protect them and the image of the Church. This is not contentious, or even debatable. It is a matter of record. I certainly believe that any organisation that condones the sexual abuse of young children deserves every nasty thing that happens as a result, yes. If you think that is a political statement then you have a very weird view of politics. The catholic churches biggest critics over here have been of the right, not the left. Right-wing papers like the Daily Mail have been falling over themselves to stick the boot in.
c) What liberals have attacked the Catholics and supported Nambla? I don't know any.
Quote:
Obama appointee lauded NAMBLA figure
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Obama-appointee-lauded-NAMBLA-figure-63115112.html
Is that the best you can do?
a) The piece is slime journalism, and to generalise from it is pathetic. Did Obama support Nambla? No. Did Jenkins? No. Is Jenkins gay? Yes. So what? The fact that he didn't 'report' a sophomore who told him he had gay sex with an older man is an assertion - no evidence produced. The fact that he praised Hay - who LATER became an official in Nambla - is nothing new for ANY politician. How many slimeballs do you think right-wing US presidents have praised in the past? Want a list?
Quote:
The real point of posting this was to expose liberal hypocrisy, which Bikerman and handfleisch most graciously confirmed.
I do hope you are not charging me with hypocrisy?
jmi256
Bikerman wrote:
a) Ranting against Bush doesn't make you a leftie. Most people in Europe hate the guy - whether they are conservative, liberal or communist.
b) He doesn't embrace communism - he merely contrasts a communist position with a capitalist one to make a point. It is perfectly clear from his message that he is not a communist - yes I did read it, thoroughly.
c) The fact that people die because of how your healthcare is run is simply a fact, not a political point. Many advocates of change are not left-wing in any sense I would recognise.
d) Your sarcasm is both unnecessary and rather juvenile.


I could comment on each of these points, but my goal was to address your comment that you could see nothing at all that could be seen as left wing. Perhaps my sarcasm was bit over the top, but I think you can now at least agree that his some of his comments do parrot what we hear from the left.


Bikerman wrote:
jmi256 wrote:
You’re right to say that conservatives are upset about the bailouts, but that’s not what this guy is saying. If you read his letter, the issue isn’t that he opposed the bailouts, but that he felt that if the federal government came to the aid of those bankrupt companies, why wouldn’t it also not ‘bailout’ everyone with other handouts. That’s typical liberal language, while as a conservative I would argue that both handouts to bankrupt companies and socialized _______fill in the blank______ are equally off-putting. As a conservative I’ve argued many times that I reject the “too big to fail” doctrine, while as a liberal you have argued that you embrace it.

That isn't left-wing AT ALL. Many right-wing commentators here have suggested that giving every householder $20,000 or so to pay of the mortgage would have been far better, financially, than the bailout.

I’m sorry, but I disagree. Maybe your definition of a “right-wing commentator” is off. The very idea that the government “gives” anything is counter to conservative ideology. The government can only take and redistribute. Liberals seem think that the government gives them anything, however. A conservative would say they would be better off if the government didn’t take $xx,xxx from every household so they could pay their mortgage, etc.


Bikerman wrote:
jmi256 wrote:
Really? Obama and the rest of the liberals aren’t trying to force government-run healthcare down our throats? Are you trying to say that is coming from the right? The reason this debate is even going on is because Obama and the other liberals have made this their key initiative.

He did that before the election and the fact that millions of your fellow citizens elected him on that mandate means he is simply doing what he said he would - something which politicians should not be condemned for.

First of all, as I have said before I don’t think he was elected with a mandate other than not to be Bush. But that’s another story. I wasn’t condemning him, but rather pointing out another liberal talking point in his letter.


Bikerman wrote:
jmi256 wrote:
Wow, people talk about politicians on a “Politics” board. Must be a conspiracy. I could go into this point more, but I don’t think it really warrants wasting any time on.

Yes, I tend to agree, given the above.

Ok.


Bikerman wrote:
jmi256 wrote:
Actually it is. Again if you look at what he wrote he was talking about how religious organizations and other charities are exempt from taxes, and he complains about “the wonderful ‘exemptions’ that make institutions like the vulgar, corrupt Catholic Church so incredibly wealthy.” He uses the Catholic Church as an example, but he’s basically was railing against how churches receives exempt status, and it’s no secret that many liberals are upset that churches receive any type of what they call “special” treatment. Most liberals would love to see religious institutions run out or at least marginalized. I’m not saying that some conservatives aren’t more secular than others, but it’s interesting that in your and handfleisch’s denial that liberals attack the Catholic Church, that you then turn around and attack it with charges of pedophilia and say something like “the Catholic Church fully deserve much of it”. While I’m not trying to get into the debate on that particular subject, you only need to browse liberal sites and comments to find a very negative posture toward Christianity. Do I find pedophilia wrong? Yes. Do I condemn an entire religion based on the acts of some of its members? No. It’s interesting, however, that liberals are quick to use this issue to attack Catholics, but have come out in support of such organizations as NAMBLA (North American Man/Boy Love Association). If pedophilia really was the issue, and not the religion, why the hypocrisy?


You make sweeping generalisations rather than real points.
a) The catholic church is equally despised by left and right throughout the world.
b) I didn't make a charge of paedophilia - I stated a fact. The courts made the charge when the Bishops finally stopped moving the paedophiles from parish to parish to protect them and the image of the Church. This is not contentious, or even debatable. It is a matter of record. I certainly believe that any organisation that condones the sexual abuse of young children deserves every nasty thing that happens as a result, yes. If you think that is a political statement then you have a very weird view of politics. The catholic churches biggest critics over here have been of the right, not the left. Right-wing papers like the Daily Mail have been falling over themselves to stick the boot in.
c) What liberals have attacked the Catholics and supported Nambla? I don't know any.

I did make generalizations for the sake of brevity, but again I was highlighting typical liberal talking points, which as I pointed out that you and handfleisch then dug into. About the Catholic Church “being despised”, the difference is that a conservative might not agree with a person’s religion or lack of, but they if they really believe in individual rights over ‘progressive’/liberal ideology, they would defend any other individual’s right to his own religion.


Bikerman wrote:
jmi256 wrote:
Obama appointee lauded NAMBLA figure
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Obama-appointee-lauded-NAMBLA-figure-63115112.html

Is that the best you can do?
a) The piece is slime journalism, and to generalise from it is pathetic. Did Obama support Nambla? No. Did Jenkins? No. Is Jenkins gay? Yes. So what? The fact that he didn't 'report' a sophomore who told him he had gay sex with an older man is an assertion - no evidence produced. The fact that he praised Hay - who LATER became an official in Nambla - is nothing new for ANY politician. How many slimeballs do you think right-wing US presidents have praised in the past? Want a list?

I was making the point that while you and other liberals like to rail against organized religions for their imperfections, like pedophilia, you are quite silent when one of your own are charged with the same offense. I myself think pedophilia is wrong in any context, and the guilty individual, not an associated group should be condemned. In essence this is at the heart of why I started this entire thread to begin with. I think it’s hilarious that liberals are quick to condemn conservatives when someone at all connected to a conservative movement is in trouble, but fall all over themselves trying to deflect the same criticism they threw out when one of their own is just as guilty.



Bikerman wrote:
jmi256 wrote:
The real point of posting this was to expose liberal hypocrisy, which Bikerman and handfleisch most graciously confirmed.

I do hope you are not charging me with hypocrisy?

Since you ask, I do think you are hypocritical in some of your posts. In a sense we all are in some degree since no one is 100% consistent 100% of the time.
Bikerman
Well, since you seem to want to control definitions of words then there is little point in continuing. I don't know with what authority to claim to speak for 'conservatives' but I do know a fallacy when I see one. One of the many you indulge in is called the No True Scotsman fallacy.

If you want (and you obviously do) to define me as a liberal then I find your statements about them to be personally offensive, as well as rather stupid generalisations.* The notion that I would 'keep quiet' about a paedophile because he was 'one of my own' is so offensive that, were I not involved in this debate, it would be moderated. As it happens I try not to moderate any postings when I am directly involved, because it is important to keep my role as a moderator distinct. I am therefore withdrawing from this as a poster.

* And don't even THINK about trying to say that I have made similar generalisations. When I talk about the 'catholic church' I mean the official organisation through the offices of its Priests and Bishops. The FACT that paedophilia was both known about, and not reported, within the Church hierarchy in both the USA and Ireland is a matter of record. It is only since the Vatican decided to come clean, in the last few years, has the real extent become more widely appreciated.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_sex_abuse_cases
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic_sex_abuse_cases_by_country
jmi256
Bikerman wrote:
Well, since you seem to want to control definitions of words then there is little point in continuing. I don't know with what authority to claim to speak for 'conservatives' but I do know a fallacy when I see one. One of the many you indulge in is called the No True Scotsman fallacy.

My pointing out that your definition of a “right-wing commentator” is off does not mean I am ‘controlling the definition of words.’ I’m just pointing out that your understanding may be off. And I also didn’t claim to speak for anyone other than myself.

Bikerman wrote:
If you want (and you obviously do) to define me as a liberal then I find your statements about them to be personally offensive, as well as rather stupid generalisations.* The notion that I would 'keep quiet' about a paedophile because he was 'one of my own' is so offensive that, were I not involved in this debate, it would be moderated. As it happens I try not to moderate any postings when I am directly involved, because it is important to keep my role as a moderator distinct. I am therefore withdrawing from this as a poster.

You yourself have described yourself as a leftie. Am I mistaken? When I was using “you” I was speaking in the general “you.” I wasn’t saying Bikerman would keep “quite silent when one of your own are charged with the same offense”, but rather that liberals do. You can bow out of the debate if you want, but as a personal note I want to be clear that I’m not saying Bikerman endorses pedophilia or has been silent about it. I often wonder how you can post on the same forum you moderate while keeping clear boundaries. I’m probably one of the few people who isn’t concerned with sometimes pushing you too far, but I think the majority of the time you do a pretty good job of maintaining that boundary. I’m not kissing arse here, but just want to make sure my position is clear.

Bikerman wrote:
* And don't even THINK about trying to say that I have made similar generalisations. When I talk about the 'catholic church' I mean the official organisation through the offices of its Priests and Bishops. The FACT that paedophilia was both known about, and not reported, within the Church hierarchy in both the USA and Ireland is a matter of record. It is only since the Vatican decided to come clean, in the last few years, has the real extent become more widely appreciated.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_sex_abuse_cases
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic_sex_abuse_cases_by_country

I wasn’t commenting on whether the abuse allegations were valid (I think it’s clear they were), but rather that liberals’ reaction to those allegations as opposed to allegations toward their own was hypocritical.
Bikerman
I'll just add one last point...
You seem awfully confused about what is 'left wing', which is why I am surprised that you seem to want to classify me as 'liberal'. I know that Americans have different meanings for words, and because of the 'might' of the US this is sometimes perceived as 'standard', but this is a nonsense. Do you really think that 'liberal' defines whether you are left or right-wing? I would say that most liberals I know are fairly right-wing, and most of the 'hard left' that I know are certainly NOT liberal.
ocalhoun
Quote:
I would say that most liberals I know are fairly right-wing, and most of the 'hard left' that I know are certainly NOT liberal.

Are you using the antique definition of 'liberal'? If so, I do agree with that.
Bikerman wrote:
I know that Americans have different meanings for words, and because of the 'might' of the US this is sometimes perceived as 'standard', but this is a nonsense.

Likewise, trying to force European meanings on American politics is also nonsense.
Bikerman
It isn't 'antique'. I can't think of ANY definition of liberal that makes it synonymous with 'left wing'. A liberal is someone who is 'laissez faire' - believes in the power of the individual, not the state. In so far as this is a political stance it is more in line with capitalism than any controlled economic theory.
If Americans use it in the sense of 'left wing' then it isn't a case of being simply a difference in understanding - they are just wrong. I'm not interested in forcing anyone to do anything, but if people make a case that 'liberals' do this or that, and they either don't understand what a liberal is, or they use the word in a completely wrong way, then the debate is futile from the start.
ocalhoun
Bikerman wrote:
It isn't 'antique'. I can't think of ANY definition of liberal that makes it synonymous with 'left wing'. A liberal is someone who is 'laissez faire' - believes in the power of the individual, not the state. In so far as this is a political stance it is more in line with capitalism than any controlled economic theory.
If Americans use it in the sense of 'left wing' then it isn't a case of being simply a difference in understanding - they are just wrong. I'm not interested in forcing anyone to do anything, but if people make a case that 'liberals' do this or that, and they either don't understand what a liberal is, or they use the word in a completely wrong way, then the debate is futile from the start.

I wholeheartedly agree that they are using the word 'liberal' the wrong way... It used to mean what you said, but then the leftists appropriated it to the point where the definition has indeed changed. (Much like how the right wing has taken over the 'tea party' moniker.)
By this point, restrictive gun control is a liberal policy... Which wouldn't make sense at all under the original definition.

Trying to fix the problem though, and restore the old definition is just too difficult, and would just lead to more confusion, and more misquotes... So, I'll settle for using newer words that haven't been appropriated by either left or right yet, like 'libertarian'... (Though I've seen some unfortunate moves by rightists to appropriate this label as well... I may have to find yet another one soon.)

It rather confuses me that you'd say the old definition is still in use in Europe though... I've found rants about how leftists appropriated the 'liberal' label as early as the 50's... In a book by an English author about European politics.
Afaceinthematrix
Bikerman wrote:
It isn't 'antique'. I can't think of ANY definition of liberal that makes it synonymous with 'left wing'. A liberal is someone who is 'laissez faire' - believes in the power of the individual, not the state. In so far as this is a political stance it is more in line with capitalism than any controlled economic theory.
If Americans use it in the sense of 'left wing' then it isn't a case of being simply a difference in understanding - they are just wrong. I'm not interested in forcing anyone to do anything, but if people make a case that 'liberals' do this or that, and they either don't understand what a liberal is, or they use the word in a completely wrong way, then the debate is futile from the start.


In the United States, the words "left wing" and "liberal" aren't used synonymously, however they are used in a way that allows the definitions to overlap at many places. It isn't the original definition of the word, as you said, but Americans tend to just accept it while debating because it is easier to just use the commonly accepted term than to try to change the country's perspective on it.

There are also reasons for the term. Many "Left-wing" people in the United States believe in social liberalism.

And I agree with ocalhoun. It's better to use words with no ambiguity, even if the ambiguous words have no ambiguity in their actual definition, in order to make your overall point crystal clear. Of course if you're talking to an Englishman, then you don't have to worry about it anyways... Because most people in the U.K. probably aren't familiar with the unusual connotation that the word "liberal" has picked up in the states...
Bikerman
ocalhoun wrote:
It rather confuses me that you'd say the old definition is still in use in Europe though... I've found rants about how leftists appropriated the 'liberal' label as early as the 50's... In a book by an English author about European politics.
We don't see it as an 'old' definition in that sense. There used to be a 'liberal' party in the UK (Churchill was a famous member) but that merged some time ago to become the SDP - probably best described as a centrist social democrat party.
The history is HERE. Nobody here would use the words 'liberal' and 'left wing' interchangeably (or nobody with a decent education, at any rate), for the very good reason that THEY ARE DIFFERENT CONCEPTS.
You may be right, in that it is too late to persuade Americans to use words that make sense, but since I have no particular wish to encourage that rather daft redefinition I'll stick to using the word correctly, if its all the same to you.

PS - Social liberalism is not a left-wing ideology either, so that confuses things even more. Insofar as social liberalism is a feature of the left-right debate, it tends to be centre-right.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_liberalism
deanhills
Bikerman wrote:
You may be right, in that it is too late to persuade Americans to use words that make sense, but since I have no particular wish to encourage that rather daft redefinition I'll stick to using the word correctly, if its all the same to you.
Liberal has always meant "leftist" to me. And it has been confusing for me during our forum discussions as well, as one can be a liberal in the Republican and Democrat Parties, as well as in Rightwing Groups. I agree with Ocalhoun and Matrix, if the US comes up with a word like libertarian that is unambiguous in its meaning, I'm all for it. For me the English language has always been ambiguous in that there is always more than one meaning for a word, enough to create a lot of miscommunication between people of different countries who use the same "English" language. I can't see how one country can be regarded as using the "correct" definition above another country, the meanings are just differently applied and good to take note off for a better understanding of the political system of that country.
Bikerman
deanhills wrote:
Liberal has always meant "leftist" to me.
I am not particularly surprised.
Quote:
I agree with Ocalhoun and Matrix, if the US comes up with a word like libertarian that is unambiguous in its meaning, I'm all for it.

a) They didn't. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism
b) It isn't - or at least is certainly does NOT mean what you think it does (see above)
Quote:
I can't see how one country can be regarded as using the "correct" definition above another country, the meanings are just differently applied and good to take note off for a better understanding of the political system of that country.

a) The language is English
b) Any language relies on agreed definition of terms, otherwise the language is useless.
If I insist on using the word RED to mean GREEN then certain things follow..non of which are good.
ocalhoun
Bikerman wrote:
deanhills wrote:
Liberal has always meant "leftist" to me.
I am not particularly surprised.
Quote:
I agree with Ocalhoun and Matrix, if the US comes up with a word like libertarian that is unambiguous in its meaning, I'm all for it.

a) They didn't. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism
b) It isn't - or at least is certainly does NOT mean what you think it does (see above)

a) Not too familiar with the origins of the term, but if it didn't originate in the US, I wouldn't be surprised... If that's what you're getting at.
b) Well, what I thought it was agrees quite nicely with the wiki page... And of course there are many different flavors of it, as with any major political ideals system. Are you saying it is indeed ambiguous? No more ambiguous than the term 'socialist', for example.
Bikerman
No, not at all. Both terms : liberal and libertarian, are slightly ambiguous in that there are 'flavours' of both with different ideologies. Neither, however, can be said to be synonymous with 'left wing' - no matter WHAT interpretation you use. To equate the two (or three) is simply ignorant.
deanhills
Bikerman wrote:
deanhills wrote:
Liberal has always meant "leftist" to me.
I am not particularly surprised.

Why are you not surprised?

Bikerman wrote:
[a) The language is English
b) Any language relies on agreed definition of terms, otherwise the language is useless.
If I insist on using the word RED to mean GREEN then certain things follow..non of which are good.
English is definitely not the same in all countries, perhaps only in England? If it were, then the culture and language in the United States, Canada, Australia, England and New Zealand would have matched up 100%. People speak a different English in all those countries. If you travel to those countries and live there, you will find the equivalent of "walk like a duck but ain't a duck" situation. The differences are very subtle and especially noticeable in politics.

If you look at a survey that was conducted by Telegraph.co.uk and if you read the comment at the bottom of the Web pages of the survey on the liberals and the survey on the conservatives (at the links below), you will find a definite gap in what people consider liberals to be in England vs the States. The Survey had been right off the mark for the US, probably due to a different interpretation of what liberal and conservative means. So if English can only be English in England, they probably will get in situations like this. A compromise and some flexibility would probably have been advisable for this survey.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/6991000/The-most-influential-US-liberals-20-1.html
Quote:
So where are the liberals? Not a one was named in this article except for the somewhat left leaning Gore and slightly left of center Franks.
The rest are center or RIGHT of center (the most extremely RIGHT are Rahm Emanuel, Tim Geitner, ...and Gibbs? REALLY).
Where are Kucinich - a TRUE LIBERAL and Sanders - A TRUE liberal? Where is Franken and Greyson?


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/6990965/The-most-influential-US-conservatives-20-1.html
Quote:
The ter, "Conservative" is defined by what it is you want to "conserve". In this case, we are seeking to "conserve" the values of the American revolution - small limited and frugal government with low taxes accordingly, individualism with individual empowerment and responsibility for the consequences of ones actions, free enterprise butressed by strong protection of private property, freedom of conscience with no state religion or ideology being imposed on the population but rather each individual picking the religion or philosophy that most accords with their values, American exceptionalism reflecting the fact that America was the first nation born of a set of ideals and created in the likeness of the philosophy now known as "classical liberalism" to be distinguished from the subverted term of "modern liberalism", the opposite of classical liberalism with its total emphasis on the nanny state, on collectivist economics, on limitations on liberty imposed "for your own good" by an elite in government, with shackled and nationalized enterprise as the norm. Viewing the people on this list, some agree with some aspects of Conservativism but only a few are the real deal.

Bikerman
I haven't got a clue what you are trying to say.
a) Liberal does not mean left-wing. It doesn't matter how you try to twist it and it doesn't matter whether you use US english, UK english, Australian english or any other kind of english.
b) The comments of Telegraph readers in a blog are hardly worth citing, since they are anonymously posted and representative of nothing at all.
deanhills
Bikerman wrote:
I haven't got a clue what you are trying to say.
I asked a very specific question. You said that you were not surprised that I would think that Liberal means left-wing, and I was asking for your reasons for not being surprised. You still have not answered me.
Bikerman wrote:
a) Liberal does not mean left-wing. It doesn't matter how you try to twist it and it doesn't matter whether you use US english, UK english, Australian english or any other kind of english.
This portion has nothing to do with different English. I merely made a comment and acknowledged in my original posting that liberal could mean many things to many people. To me it used to mean leftist, and I would obviously be wrong. I'd rather use terms with unambiguous meanings such as suggested by Ocalhoun. Liberal and conservative are definitely not unambiguously used and can lead to problems such as with the survey of the Telegraph when it failed to grasp the subtle differences in meanings in US vs England.

Bikerman wrote:
b) The comments of Telegraph readers in a blog are hardly worth citing, since they are anonymously posted and representative of nothing at all.
We are also posting anonymously, however if you look at the top 20 characters in the liberal and conservative categories list, then something is obvious out of kilter. It is obvious that liberal and conservative is regarded differently by the Telegraph Newspaper than in the United States. I listed the Top 20 Conservatives and Liberals (according to the Telegraph.co.uk) in an earlier posting:
http://www.frihost.com/forums/vt-114166.html
Quote:
TOP 20 LIBERALS
1. Barack Obama
2. Hillary Clinton
3. Nancy Pelosi
4. Bill Clinton
5. Rahm Emanuel
6. Al Gore
7. Oprah Winfrey
8. Tim Geithner
9. David Axelrod
10. Harry Reid
11. Michelle Obama
12. Arianna Huffington
13. Sonia Sotomayor
14. Denis McDonough
15. Janet Napolitano
16. Mark Warner
17. Robert Gibbs
18. Barney Frank
19. John Kerry
20. Eric Holder

TOP 20 CONSERVATIVES
1. Dick Cheney
2. Rush Limbaugh
3. Matt Drudge
4. Sarah Palin
5. Robert Gates
6. Glenn Beck
7.Roger Ailes
8. David Petraeus
9. Paul Ryan
10.Tim Pawlenty
11. Mitt Romney
12. George W. Bush
13. John Roberts
14. Haley Barbour
15. Eric Cantor
16. John McCain
17. Mike Pence
18. Bob McDonnell
19. Newt Gingrich
20. Mike Huckabee
Bikerman
deanhills wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
I haven't got a clue what you are trying to say.
I asked a very specific question. You said that you were not surprised that I would think that Liberal means left-wing, and I was asking for your reasons for not being surprised. You still have not answered me.
My reason was quite simple. You often seem confused about the meaning of words and concepts, so it didn't surprise me that this was not an exception.
Quote:
Bikerman wrote:
a) Liberal does not mean left-wing. It doesn't matter how you try to twist it and it doesn't matter whether you use US english, UK english, Australian english or any other kind of english.
This portion has nothing to do with different English. I merely made a comment and acknowledged in my original posting that liberal could mean many things to many people. To me it used to mean leftist, and I would obviously be wrong. I'd rather use terms with unambiguous meanings such as suggested by Ocalhoun. Liberal and conservative are definitely not unambiguously used and can lead to problems such as with the survey of the Telegraph when it failed to grasp the subtle differences in meanings in US vs England.
I have already explained that Ocalhoun's term 'libertarian' no more means left wing than liberal does - in fact less so. Liberatarianism is almost the anti-thesis of Marxism and other left-wing philosophies, because it stands squarely for minimum government.
Quote:
We are also posting anonymously,
Which is one reason why you could not use these postings to draw general conclusions about the population.
Quote:
however if you look at the top 20 characters in the liberal and conservative categories list, then something is obvious out of kilter.

Not really, it just acknowledges that in the US the word Liberal refers pretty exclusively to social liberalism rather than classic political liberalism. As I have said before, the fact that the word is used differently in the US is true, but it still doesn't mean 'left wing'. American 'liberalism' probably dates, in its current formal, to the F.D.Roosevelt's 'New Deal'.

Kennedy described himself as a liberal and defined it thus:
Kennedy wrote:
someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people — their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties — someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a 'Liberal', then I’m proud to say I’m a 'Liberal'


Clearly he is referring exclusively to social liberalism rather than any political notion.
It really isn't very difficult to understand. Liberal is from the latin Liberalis meaning freedom. A liberal is someone who believes in the freedom of the individual. In political terms that means freedom in democratic elections, secularism rather than theocracy, and support for free trade. The only 'overlap' with classic Marxism is the 'secularism' part.
In social terms it means support for human rights, freedom of speech, a living wage etc.
ocalhoun
Bikerman wrote:

a) Liberal does not mean left-wing. It doesn't matter how you try to twist it and it doesn't matter whether you use US english, UK english, Australian english or any other kind of english.

Unfortunately, it can be and has been twisted to mean so... In the more partisan and less historically aware sections of American politics.
So twisted, in fact, that it trying to resurrect the old meaning is a lost cause.
handfleisch
ocalhoun wrote:
Bikerman wrote:

a) Liberal does not mean left-wing. It doesn't matter how you try to twist it and it doesn't matter whether you use US english, UK english, Australian english or any other kind of english.

Unfortunately, it can be and has been twisted to mean so... In the more partisan and less historically aware sections of American politics.
So twisted, in fact, that it trying to resurrect the old meaning is a lost cause.


Yes you are right. It started with that McCarthyite Reagan. Then his VP, the first George Bush based his ugly negative campaign on, among things, bashing "card-carrying liberals" (a clear reference to the phrase "card-carrying Communist"), firmly associating liberals with left wing. The terrible upshot was that any actual Left in US politics was long gone, and Reagan-Bush were essentially devoted to damaging the center at that point.

I think most Americans would gladly sign up for the real definition of liberal, via Bikerman:
Quote:

A liberal is someone who believes in the freedom of the individual. In political terms that means freedom in democratic elections, secularism rather than theocracy, and support for free trade. The only 'overlap' with classic Marxism is the 'secularism' part.
In social terms it means support for human rights, freedom of speech, a living wage etc.
ocalhoun
handfleisch wrote:


I think most Americans would gladly sign up for the real definition of liberal, via Bikerman:
Quote:

A liberal is someone who believes in the freedom of the individual. In political terms that means freedom in democratic elections, secularism rather than theocracy, and support for free trade. The only 'overlap' with classic Marxism is the 'secularism' part.
In social terms it means support for human rights, freedom of speech, a living wage etc.

Hm... And a Liberal, by this definition, would see 'big government' vs. 'small government' how?

(Not trying to be rhetorical, truly curious about this part of the stance of a Liberal by this definition.)
Bikerman
No. it is a fair question, and actually a revealing one as far as this debate goes.
The answer is that classic liberalism differs from libertarianism and neo-liberalism.
Classic liberalism wants a small state. and maximum freedom for the individual. I don't normally characterise people because I have no wish to offend with opinion, but I know it will not offend you to say that I have you in that category, and have had since long ago. It isn't meant pejoratively at all - I just think that this is the closest political ideology I could fit you into.
This, by the way, is why I expressed surprise when I was defined as a liberal earlier in this thread, because I 'aint.
Basically you are looking at the economics of Milton Freedman coupled to the politics of both Roosevelts. The extreme of classic liberalism would be classic libertarianism, which advocates NO state and which is actually quite close to anarchism in many respects.
Then you have modern (neo) liberalism. The best examples would be Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Regan. Emphasis on transfer of control, property and wealth from the state to the individual or private enterprise. Actually, John Williamson laid down a manifesto for neo-liberalism in 1970, so I can tell you precisely what it stands for:
Quote:
* Fiscal policy discipline; This neoliberal virtue helps diminish expectations for what the government can do to improve the lives of citizens. For example, NAIRU - the policy decision to maintain a reserve of unemployed as part of an inflation-fighting strategy combined with a public relations campaign that this unemployment is natural and cannot be defeated without huge deficits or inflation.
* Redirection of public spending from subsidies ("especially indiscriminate subsidies"[neutrality is disputed]) toward broad-based provision of key pro-growth, pro-poor services like primary education, primary health care and infrastructure investment;
* Tax reform– broadening the tax base by shifting the tax burden to the lower quintiles and adopting moderate marginal tax rates;
* Interest rates that are market determined and positive (but moderate) in real terms;
* Competitive exchange rates;
* Trade liberalization – liberalization of imports, with particular emphasis on elimination of quantitative restrictions (licensing, etc.); any trade protection to be provided by law and relatively uniform tariffs;
* Liberalization of inward foreign direct investment including commitment to unlimited extraction of earnings across foreign borders;[clarification needed]
* Privatization of state enterprises;This occurs not only in the sense of the transfer of companies from the public to the private sector, but also in the conversion of social rights into marketable objects. Health and education, traditionally considered to be citizens’ rights, become economic interests and, in many countries, are integrated into circuits of accumulation.[8]] In some cases, remaining public sector agencies and enterprises are encouraged to adopt commercial and corporate management and organizational structures (corporatization). With privatization of the public domain comes extractive fees for use of such resources and an increase in the overhead to the productive economy. The favouring of unearned income from rent and interest over earned income from labour and production, the favouring of the extractive over the productive, indicates a return to the values of feudalism.
* Deregulation – abolition of regulations that impede market entry or restrict competition, except for those justified on safety, environmental and consumer protection grounds, and prudent oversight of financial institutions;
* Legal security for property rights; and,
* Financialization of capital.

Source - Wiki
Finally you have what seems to be the definition of liberal used in this and similar threads. That is social liberalism - which we have already discussed.

I just wish that people would do the barest amount of research if they want to hurl insults against a political 'class' or 'ideology', since I get confused about who is annoyed with whom and for what reason.
Obama is social liberal in general outlook, and centre(ish) in terms of the left-right spectrum when considering economic policy.

PS - your original posting disappeared at the same time the server seemed to be glitching. I think it is clear from my quote what you wrote, so that should be OK.
deanhills
Bikerman wrote:

The answer is that classic liberalism differs from libertarianism and neo-liberalism.
The George Mason University Institute for Human Studies sees classic liberalism and libertarianism as one and the same:
Quote:
The libertarian, or "classical liberal," perspective is that individual well-being, prosperity, and social harmony are fostered by "as much liberty as possible" and "as little government as necessary."
There is no mention of "no Government". Although they share the same roots, liberals (Dems) and libertarians seem to be drifting apart in the United States. Refer article Liberals and libertarians finally break up
ocalhoun
deanhills wrote:
There is no mention of "no Government".

Well, in the very early days, 'libertarian' and 'anarchist' were used almost interchangeably.
They're still close; You could call a libertarian a 'moderate anarchist', who realizes that some government must still exist, but still wants to minimize its roll.
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
deanhills wrote:
There is no mention of "no Government".

Well, in the very early days, 'libertarian' and 'anarchist' were used almost interchangeably.
They're still close; You could call a libertarian a 'moderate anarchist', who realizes that some government must still exist, but still wants to minimize its roll.
Are you sure however that all Libertarians would agree with that however? There has to be an enormous leap from "as little as possible Government" to a very non-negotiable and firm principle of NO Government at all.
ocalhoun
deanhills wrote:
ocalhoun wrote:
deanhills wrote:
There is no mention of "no Government".

Well, in the very early days, 'libertarian' and 'anarchist' were used almost interchangeably.
They're still close; You could call a libertarian a 'moderate anarchist', who realizes that some government must still exist, but still wants to minimize its roll.
Are you sure however that all Libertarians would agree with that however?

Probably not. It's hard to get any group to unanimously agree on anything, especially the individualistic types.
Quote:
There has to be an enormous leap from "as little as possible Government" to a very non-negotiable and firm principle of NO Government at all.

It is a leap, but not an enormous one.
The only reason a government is required is the evil inherent in humans. "As little as possible" still holds true if it is possible to have none at all. Unfortunately, most people can't just leave each other alone, so having no government at all leaves room for tyrants and abusers to take power. If you could solve that problem without any kind of government, most libertarians would become anarchist.
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
The only reason a government is required is the evil inherent in humans.
I can't agree with this. One would still need Government for administrating Foreign Policy and have representatives consulting and dealing on International Committees. Also how would you visualize a Federal Government, as if there is no Government, then the States would have no Governments, there would only be one country. You would have to rename the United States of America? Smile
handfleisch
Bikerman wrote:
No. it is a fair question, and actually a revealing one as far as this debate goes.
The answer is that classic liberalism differs from libertarianism and neo-liberalism.
Classic liberalism wants a small state. and maximum freedom for the individual. I don't normally characterise people because I have no wish to offend with opinion, but I know it will not offend you to say that I have you in that category, and have had since long ago. It isn't meant pejoratively at all - I just think that this is the closest political ideology I could fit you into.
This, by the way, is why I expressed surprise when I was defined as a liberal earlier in this thread, because I 'aint.
Basically you are looking at the economics of Milton Freedman coupled to the politics of both Roosevelts. The extreme of classic liberalism would be classic libertarianism, which advocates NO state and which is actually quite close to anarchism in many respects.
Then you have modern (neo) liberalism. The best examples would be Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Regan. Emphasis on transfer of control, property and wealth from the state to the individual or private enterprise. Actually, John Williamson laid down a manifesto for neo-liberalism in 1970, so I can tell you precisely what it stands for:


Anyone remember this song by Phil Ochs?

Love Me, I'm a Liberal

I cried when they shot Medgar Evers
Tears ran down my spine
I cried when they shot Mr. Kennedy
As though I'd lost a father of mine
But Malcolm X got what was coming
He got what he asked for this time
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

I go to civil rights rallies
And I put down the old D.A.R.
I love Harry and Sidney and Sammy
I hope every colored boy becomes a star
But don't talk about revolution
That's going a little bit too far
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

I cheered when Humphrey was chosen
My faith in the system restored
I'm glad the commies were thrown out
of the A.F.L. C.I.O. board
I love Puerto Ricans and Negros
as long as they don't move next door
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

The people of old Mississippi
Should all hang their heads in shame
I can't understand how their minds work
What's the matter don't they watch Les Crain?
But if you ask me to bus my children
I hope the cops take down your name
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

I read New republic and Nation
I've learned to take every view
You know, I've memorized Lerner and Golden
I feel like I'm almost a Jew
But when it comes to times like Korea
There's no one more red, white and blue
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

I vote for the democratic party
They want the U.N. to be strong
I go to all the Pete Seeger concerts
He sure gets me singing those songs
I'll send all the money you ask for
But don't ask me to come on along
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

Once I was young and impulsive
I wore every conceivable pin
Even went to the socialist meetings
Learned all the old union hymns
But I've grown older and wiser
And that's why I'm turning you in
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal
deanhills
Wonder whether someone would be inspired to write a song about the guy who flew into the IRS building. Either serious metallic underground reflecting all the frustration and anger of the system, or it can go country western with a real sad story. Story/Ballad about Joe Stack. Could also be an angry RAP story.
ocalhoun
deanhills wrote:
ocalhoun wrote:
The only reason a government is required is the evil inherent in humans.
I can't agree with this. One would still need Government for administrating Foreign Policy and have representatives consulting and dealing on International Committees.

Each individual could have his/her own relationship with foreign governments... if those other countries were not also composed of evil individuals.
As for international committees, the ones that can't be abandoned would have to deal with the country as a group of millions of independent nations.
(Since we've removed all evil intentions, everybody will be negotiating in good faith, so there shouldn't be too much of a problem.)
Though, most international committees could just be abandoned; why should people who've gotten rid of their own government participate in a meta-government?
(The evil intentions of many other countries, and individuals within those countries, however, dictate the need for some unified body to deal with them.)
Quote:
Also how would you visualize a Federal Government, as if there is no Government, then the States would have no Governments, there would only be one country. You would have to rename the United States of America? Smile

'former United States of America' might do, or perhaps simply 'America'...
It wouldn't be very important though, because in that idealized situation, the name would mostly only refer to a geographical area.
handfleisch
handfleisch wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
No. it is a fair question, and actually a revealing one as far as this debate goes.
The answer is that classic liberalism differs from libertarianism and neo-liberalism.
Classic liberalism wants a small state. and maximum freedom for the individual. I don't normally characterise people because I have no wish to offend with opinion, but I know it will not offend you to say that I have you in that category, and have had since long ago. It isn't meant pejoratively at all - I just think that this is the closest political ideology I could fit you into.
This, by the way, is why I expressed surprise when I was defined as a liberal earlier in this thread, because I 'aint.
Basically you are looking at the economics of Milton Freedman coupled to the politics of both Roosevelts. The extreme of classic liberalism would be classic libertarianism, which advocates NO state and which is actually quite close to anarchism in many respects.
Then you have modern (neo) liberalism. The best examples would be Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Regan. Emphasis on transfer of control, property and wealth from the state to the individual or private enterprise. Actually, John Williamson laid down a manifesto for neo-liberalism in 1970, so I can tell you precisely what it stands for:


Anyone remember this song by Phil Ochs?

Love Me, I'm a Liberal

I cried when they shot Medgar Evers
Tears ran down my spine
I cried when they shot Mr. Kennedy
As though I'd lost a father of mine
But Malcolm X got what was coming
He got what he asked for this time
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

I go to civil rights rallies
And I put down the old D.A.R.
I love Harry and Sidney and Sammy
I hope every colored boy becomes a star
But don't talk about revolution
That's going a little bit too far
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

I cheered when Humphrey was chosen
My faith in the system restored
I'm glad the commies were thrown out
of the A.F.L. C.I.O. board
I love Puerto Ricans and Negros
as long as they don't move next door
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

The people of old Mississippi
Should all hang their heads in shame
I can't understand how their minds work
What's the matter don't they watch Les Crain?
But if you ask me to bus my children
I hope the cops take down your name
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

I read New republic and Nation
I've learned to take every view
You know, I've memorized Lerner and Golden
I feel like I'm almost a Jew
But when it comes to times like Korea
There's no one more red, white and blue
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

I vote for the democratic party
They want the U.N. to be strong
I go to all the Pete Seeger concerts
He sure gets me singing those songs
I'll send all the money you ask for
But don't ask me to come on along
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

Once I was young and impulsive
I wore every conceivable pin
Even went to the socialist meetings
Learned all the old union hymns
But I've grown older and wiser
And that's why I'm turning you in
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal


This song is a glimpse into how those called liberals were viewed in the early 1960s by those who favored faster change, freedom from police state tactics, racial egalitarianism and an end to immoral wars. They were considered much too centrist and beholden to the powers that be. Which indicates how the USA has changed -- now liberals are the target as being "left" when in fact they are not. It shows how the choice in politics is from the center to the right.
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
Each individual could have his/her own relationship with foreign governments... if those other countries were not also composed of evil individuals.
As for international committees, the ones that can't be abandoned would have to deal with the country as a group of millions of independent nations.
(Since we've removed all evil intentions, everybody will be negotiating in good faith, so there shouldn't be too much of a problem.)
Though, most international committees could just be abandoned; why should people who've gotten rid of their own government participate in a meta-government?
(The evil intentions of many other countries, and individuals within those countries, however, dictate the need for some unified body to deal with them.)

What then about nuclear missiles? Who gets to administrate that for and on behalf of everyone else?
ocalhoun wrote:
'former United States of America' might do, or perhaps simply 'America'...
Wouldn't America be a bit confusing, since there seems to be other countries in that make-up too?
ocalhoun wrote:
It wouldn't be very important though, because in that idealized situation, the name would mostly only refer to a geographical area.
Wonder how one would be able to describe that geographical area. We already have North America, Central and South America. So perhaps Central North America? Smile
ocalhoun
deanhills wrote:
ocalhoun wrote:
Each individual could have his/her own relationship with foreign governments... if those other countries were not also composed of evil individuals.
As for international committees, the ones that can't be abandoned would have to deal with the country as a group of millions of independent nations.
(Since we've removed all evil intentions, everybody will be negotiating in good faith, so there shouldn't be too much of a problem.)
Though, most international committees could just be abandoned; why should people who've gotten rid of their own government participate in a meta-government?
(The evil intentions of many other countries, and individuals within those countries, however, dictate the need for some unified body to deal with them.)

What then about nuclear missiles? Who gets to administrate that for and on behalf of everyone else?

If we've removed all evil intentions from the world, why do we need nukes? Dismantle them, destroy them as much as possible and forget about it.
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:

If we've removed all evil intentions from the world, why do we need nukes? Dismantle them, destroy them as much as possible and forget about it.
Ahhhh so a Libertarian Anarchist would then be something of an utopia, rather than working with present reality? Evil is an intrinsic part of ourselves and the world, I can't see it ever be removed, can you?
ocalhoun
deanhills wrote:
ocalhoun wrote:

If we've removed all evil intentions from the world, why do we need nukes? Dismantle them, destroy them as much as possible and forget about it.
Ahhhh so a Libertarian Anarchist would then be something of an utopia, rather than working with present reality? Evil is an intrinsic part of ourselves and the world, I can't see it ever be removed, can you?

Certainly not -- not until humans evolve into something better, or manage to destroy themselves and make room for something else.

That's why I'm a libertarian, not an anarchist, because we must have some kind of government to protect us from other people and other governments.
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
That's why I'm a libertarian, not an anarchist, because we must have some kind of government to protect us from other people and other governments.
I'm relieved to hear that. Not that anarchy is bad. I think people have found moments where anarchy actually worked, but only for a short duration at a time. Over the longer term people probably would need to be more selfless than they are as a rule for anarchy to be long lasting.
ocalhoun
deanhills wrote:
Over the longer term people probably would need to be more selfless than they are as a rule for anarchy to be long lasting.

Of course.
As soon as the first bully gathers a few friends in order to have the physical power to take advantage of other people, the system collapses.

That's why we need a bigger bully -- the government -- to keep the petty bullies from doing that. Ideally, we could keep that bigger bully in a cage when not needed (strictly limited government), and have some say about what the bigger bully does (representative/democratic government).
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
That's why we need a bigger bully -- the government -- to keep the petty bullies from doing that. Ideally, we could keep that bigger bully in a cage when not needed (strictly limited government), and have some say about what the bigger bully does (representative/democratic government).
Nice analogy. Plenty of caging needed in the present administration, starting with the IRS and Immigration Departments. I can't imagine a bigger bully than the IRS. Wonder how many people have committed suicide because of bullying by the IRS, would make for a very interesting study.
deanhills
handfleisch wrote:
deanhills wrote:
handfleisch wrote:
I don't think we have anything to learn from terrorists, from a madman murdering people in an act of suicide bombing, whether he's a religious zealot, an anti-tax wacko or whatever the reason.
If you studied his circumstances, you would have found a completely law abiding citizen whom everyone liked. He was your very normal average Joe. Not a terrorist. He was driven to extreme levels however because of the tax system. There is no doubt about that.

That is not the main discussion of my posting however.


No, he was deranged, you should do more research.

I was not trying to change the subject to terrorism, but you cited this man's actions as proof in your argument, so it was a legitimate reply.

From articles that I have read about Joe Stack, he was a very average person. His actions in flying into the IRS building were wrong, but I think he was driven to it out of sheer desperation. Does that make him a terrorist and a madman? Deranged, or just very frustrated and driven to his limits?

I did my research, however I could have missed something. What is it that I missed?
Related topics
A man walk into a bar!!!
Can anyone (preferrably a Republican fan-boy) splane this?
Bush spells out 'LA terror plot'
the 9/11 truth
America is you, no matter who you are
Christian radical says Amish girls deserved to be murdered
Plane hits building in NY
Did Man Stepped On Moon!!!
Man flies 5600km to no wedding
About Man's Heritage
Tech thread: Building a 210 Bass cabinet
State representative vs. Tea Bagger
Are Taxes Voluntary?
Questions for Christians
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Politics

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.