Bush Wins!!!!!

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Kung Lek
Chris, I don't see a variation between "liberal" and "classical liberal"

'Classical liberal' refers to the ideology of people like Adam Smith, whose book The Wealth of Nations is the classic defense of free markets and free trade -- ideas which modern liberals find abhorrent.

It's not clear what kind of ideology Martin espouses, since he made completely different and contradictory campaign promises depending on his audience. His actions as finance minister put him, I think, a little right of most of his party -- but that's not unusual, considering the position. I don't think they put him right enough to be in Conservative/Alliance/Reform territory.

[Andy62]

Yea and all of the guys who said Bush was not smart are sitting there wondering what happened.. As a martial artist you should know that the best stragegy in the world is to get your adversary to underestimater you. You beat them in their own minds. Look at the election -the other side is decimated and in disarray how can you say he isn't smart? Wiining is better than losing. That is the guy you want against the terrorists.

[Toby]

Originally posted by Andy62
As a martial artist you should know that the best stragegy in the world is to get your adversary to underestimater you.

Don't worry, I won't underestimater you Andy62 . Who said you have to be smart to win anyway? You just need a majority vote (and in some cases not even that ). You could be the world's biggest ******* and still win provided you get enough support. I might believe that Bush has a smarter team behind him, but I would never believe he was the smarter man.

As to "against the terrorists", sure, if the terrorists had invaded my country and/or committed acts of terrorism on my soil. But I wouldn't want to follow a guy like Bush (or my country's leader) in a pre-emptive invasion of a foreign country.

[David Jamieson]

Originally posted by Christopher M
'Classical liberal' refers to the ideology of people like Adam Smith, whose book The Wealth of Nations is the classic defense of free markets and free trade -- ideas which modern liberals find abhorrent.

It's not clear what kind of ideology Martin espouses, since he made completely different and contradictory campaign promises depending on his audience. His actions as finance minister put him, I think, a little right of most of his party -- but that's not unusual, considering the position. I don't think they put him right enough to be in Conservative/Alliance/Reform territory.

Um, I don't think that's totally true about how liberals abhor free trade.
I think socialist radicals abhor it, but they abhor lots of things.

Look at recent talks with Mexico's Prez for instance. And there is a definite call for more open trade with even the US. And who really are the stalwarts anyway? Is it a political ideology that is driving how trade flows or is it business? I would think that many countries would look out for their own interests first and be concerned with fair dealings on a secondary level to that. And those decisions are driven by the people who fill the war coffers. Pretty much common knowledge that a lot of politicians are in a lot of other peoples pockets and some of them are entrenched.

It's all legal of course.

Martin is all business and of the fiscal responsibility set. However, it is notable that his company went from a relatively small business of some < 1/2m per yr to government contracts amounting to > 300m per yr after making his strides into politics. But what modern politician doesn't have a story like that to tell ? Most of that big dough comes from gov contracts too! who am i kidding it pretty much all came from gov contracts To be fair his business is being run by others while he sits as pm as is the law.

I wouldn't throw him in with reform, but I wouldn't say that the Canadian conservatives are really conservative either judging by the deficits they leave in their wake which is not a conservative trait at all.

anyway... sleep is upon me.

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Kung Lek
Um, I don't think that's totally true about how liberals abhor free trade.

Could you give an example of what you mean by "liberal", then?

Look at recent talks with Mexico's Prez for instance. And there is a definite call for more open trade with even the US.

Certainly. But what's your point?

Is it a political ideology that is driving how trade flows or is it business?

I don't understand how 'politics' and 'business' are being juxtaposed here.

Martin is all business

That doesn't make him conservative. Big business types tend to favor a planned economy, rather than a free one, because the former can be more easily weighed in their specific favor.

Martin is... of the fiscal responsibility set.

As suggested by his aforementioned actions as finance minister; yes, he may be. (We can hope.)

[Merryprankster]

modern conservatism

I would like to note, for the perpetually impaired, that when Chris M speaks of modern conservatism, his is NOT talking about Bush II.

Bush II is a neo-conservative. Different animal. Modern Conservatives, say, of the George Will and William F. Buckley types have, on the whole, been highly critical of this administration.

Oh, and LOL at Kung Lek telling people to check their history, then getting schooled by Chris M with the Wealth of Nations.

Also LOL at the idea that Bush is going to reduce the size of the government. This is big-government "conservatism" - not an opinion, a simple fact. Just look at the numbers and his proposed budget over the next four years. You'll get a shiny new government for a shiny new agenda. The liberals and neocons both have the same view about government activism - it's a good thing. The only difference is what they want government to be more or less involved in.

[Christopher M]

You know, Orwell claims that any struggle against the abuse of language is a sentimental archaism.

That said, my suspicion is that what most people mean by "liberal" and "conservative" is, precisely, "benevolent" or "malign" -- with the association depending on their bias. This is far graver than a mere semantic dispute -- so long as this perspective dominates, political improvement will never arise lawfully from any democratic process.

Because to improve, we must know the preferable action to take; and to know this we must know the various possible actions and have the means to judge between them. But the above perspective immediately and inalterably judges an alternative in the same breath as it distinguishes it -- preventing any and all rational assessment.

One's only hope is either that the ideological sources making these distinguishments are trustworthy and always correct, or that people will abandon that perspective -- and I don't have much faith in the former, so I suppose we ought to work towards the latter.

Ok, that's all just excuse-making. Really, I'm just plain fond of sentimental archaisms.

[Spark]

KL are you talking about Liberals as in the catch phrase for "left wing hippies", or Liberals as in the Liberal Party of Canada?

[Andy62]

Toby, Bush is like Churchill was before WWII, He sees the threat and is responding to it anead of others. The terrorists threat is world wide in will go on for decades. They will go for the softer targets where ever they may be and there are a lot of them out there. The hit on iraq was brillitant strategy and took unbieveable courage. Life belongs to the risk taker-there is genius in boldness. Sadam was sterring up the whole gulf and the gulf is the secret to winning the war on terrorism. Nothing can move forward until the Palestinian/ Israel conflict is solved. Now that Yassar Arafat is gone the door is open precarious as it may be. The timing is interesting. All of the forces of the universe come to back the positive thinker.

[David Jamieson]

chris-

lib·er·al ( P ) Pronunciation Key (lbr-l, lbrl)
adj.

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.
Of, relating to, or characteristic of liberalism.
Liberal Of, designating, or characteristic of a political party founded on or associated with principles of social and political liberalism, especially in Great Britain, Canada, and the United States.

Tending to give freely; generous: a liberal benefactor.
Generous in amount; ample: a liberal serving of potatoes.
Not strict or literal; loose or approximate: a liberal translation.
Of, relating to, or based on the traditional arts and sciences of a college or university curriculum: a liberal education.

Archaic. Permissible or appropriate for a person of free birth; befitting a lady or gentleman.
Obsolete. Morally unrestrained; licentious.

n.
A person with liberal ideas or opinions.
Liberal A member of a Liberal political party.


merry-

i don't see how anyone is "schooling" anyone here. Frankly I am of the thinking that the words and ideas of liberalism are being demonized for some reason by various spinsters and people like Chris who seem to enjoy twisting what the truth is.

One book by Adam Smith is only that, One book. But I would rather hear what people really think for themselves as opposed to regurgetated thoughts coming from somewhere else. (which is common amongst uni students due to all that new reading they are getting into and all those new ideas and principles that they are exposed to in their studies). You guys are uni students right? no offense, to uni students, but digest the info before you give it outright buy in just because its giving verbiage to some unconnected thoughts you had before. Who knows, you may even change your mind once you start using it for yourself.

Chris loves to work in circles, go nowhere with his arguments and put up paper walls to take the topic in any number of directions except where it was going. LOL And he also loves to inundate with info that takes you down a bunny trail and off topic.

But then, Merry, you do this to. I find both of your arguing styles to be like thise and often itr frustrates you. Here's the thing. YOu should just try getting to the point and say what "you" believe and not what someone else wrote. See, it's easy. Oh, and when you say what is in your mind, don't be afraid to be wrong or right, it's all good.

[Christopher M]

Ok. I don't see how your paste from a dictionary helps matters.

But then again, I also don't see how the paragraphs of contempt help matters either.

Perhaps it's all my fancy-schmancy edjamacation gettin in the way though.

[David Jamieson]

Ok. I don't see how your paste from a dictionary helps matters

I figured that would be the quickest way to show you what I thought a Liberal was Chris. I tend to agree with the dictionary version... as opposed to teh american conservative idea of what a liberal is, which i find highly skewed, but I think we can all come back to the drawing table with a simple dictionary definition.

as for your other comment, well, circle your wagons dude. Youw ere going to go off on another tangent into an ever broadening looping circle that goes no where weren't you...just now?? I could swear you were, seeing as that is what you do with all that fine edjumication most of the time, as opposed to expressing yourself concisely. I am certain that is now beyond you.

Anyway, make it simple:

I am a secular Humanist with Fairly liberal views. I subscribe to a liberal political ideology as defined in a base way by the dictionary definition I have given you.

I think that to try and throw in modern conservatives with the liberal founders of North Amnerica both British Pats, the French, the Spanish and the Americans is a bit skewed and I also think that Conservatism is trying to fit in wherever it is populart and trying to sell themselves to a huge liberal minded populace who don't care for the direction that conservatism is going under the Bush Regime, or otherwise.

Pretty simple eh. What do you believe. And I mean you, not some book you read last week that you like the sound of.

[MasterKiller]

Originally posted by Andy62
Yea and all of the guys who said Bush was not smart are sitting there wondering what happened.. As a martial artist you should know that the best stragegy in the world is to get your adversary to underestimater you. You beat them in their own minds. Look at the election -the other side is decimated and in disarray how can you say he isn't smart? Wiining is better than losing. That is the guy you want against the terrorists.

Two words: Karl Rove.

This election was won on the gay marriage and abortion issues. Even Republicans don't think his foreign policy or economic policy is working. I guess when people say they voted on morals, they don't consider fire-bombng innocent brown people immoral.

[David Jamieson]

I guess when people say they voted on morals, they don't consider fire-bombng innocent brown people immoral.

This has always been a sore point with not only me but a host of others. How is it possible that someone can call themselves Christian and at the same time be pro-war?

Just a touch of Janus there imo and something ain't right about it.

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Kung Lek
I figured that would be the quickest way to show you what I thought a Liberal was Chris.

The problem with the dictionary is it doesn't tell us what you meant. We were using these words in specific contexts with specific examples which you ought to be able to refer to in clarifying your meaning, but which a dictionary quote can't. As a wise man once said, "I would rather hear what people really think for themselves as opposed to regurgetated thoughts coming from somewhere else."

The other problem with the dictionary is that it was not intended to accurately cover the meanings of terms in specialized fields, of which political science is an example.

I am a secular Humanist with Fairly liberal views. I subscribe to a liberal political ideology

Since it's not clear what you intend these words to mean, this is a purely meaningless remark -- although it might have some personal utility in giving you a sense of identity, even if you're not clear on what that identity means.

If I were to call myself a "classical liberal," someone, at least someone familiar with the topic -- like MerryPrankster (who I am flattered you compared me with) -- would have a very good idea as to what my positions would be on some very specific political issues. Other than the very last definition ("A member of a Liberal political party"), this is entirely untrue of the definition you have just given. In the former case, the words are meaningful, in the latter case, they are meaningless.