"Bleeding-Heart Liberal" is a Misnomer

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Arrian
Demonization = "What is true, very true, is that the left are, on the whole, arrogant snobs because they think there "compassion" entitles them moral superiority."

Well truth be told he did say "on the whole", so not all of them are nasty snobby pretentious twits. In fact I'ld say a good portion of them are moronic blue collar union lovers.

[Provost Harrison]

Does this mean Ozzy hates kids?

[Ned]

On the whole, Arrian, you seem to be a reasonable person, not a socialist at all. I would hope to convince you to reassess your politics and consider the Republican Party in the future. The Democrat Party today is dominated by the far left, just as much as the Dems say the Republican Party is dominated by the far right (meaning the religious right). But there are middle grounders, such as Nixon, Guiliani and others that are, in truth, the classic liberals of yesteryear. Republicans favor, as I have said, a robust economy above all else, integration as opposed to welfarism as the way forward for the poor, and security through strength and vigilence.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison
Does this mean Ozzy hates kids?

Yes we've estalbished that. In fact his new platform is indentured servitude is good for character building.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Ned
On the whole, Arrian, you seem to be a reasonable person, not a socialist at all. I would hope to convince you to reassess your politics and consider the Republican Party in the future. The Democrat Party today is dominated by the far left, just as much as the Dems say the Republican Party is dominated by the far right (meaning the religious right). But there are middle grounders, such as Nixon, Guiliani and others that are, in truth, the classic liberals of yesteryear. Republicans favor, as I have said, a robust economy above all else, integration as opposed to welfarism as the way forward for the poor, and security through strength and vigilence.

Ned hate to tell you but I think the Repubs are beyond that. They are dabbling with the big tent and as a conseqeunce have found like the Dems before them buying votes is a way to increase the party numbers. We'll see if a stint in the wilderness gets them back to small government principles. So far I have been anything but impressed from the choice of Senate and House leadership.

[Arrian]

Originally posted by Ned
On the whole, Arrian, you seem to be a reasonable person, not a socialist at all. I would hope to convince you to reassess your politics and consider the Republican Party in the future. The Democrat Party today is dominated by the far left, just as much as the Dems say the Republican Party is dominated by the far right (meaning the religious right). But there are middle grounders, such as Nixon, Guiliani and others that are, in truth, the classic liberals of yesteryear. Republicans favor, as I have said, a robust economy above all else, integration as opposed to welfarism as the way forward for the poor, and security through strength and vigilence.

In some ways, I'm a Republican at heart, Ned. But the current Republican party has alienated me to such an extent that it will be very difficult for them to convince me to vote Republican (in national elections, anyway) again. They betrayed many of the principles I generally like, and also clung to the principles that I generally don't like. They pushed me far enough to switch my registration from Independent to Democrat, though I will most likely switch back. I don't like the Dems much either. Anyway, for the time being, I can honestly say to hell with the Republican party. Talk is cheap: look at their record in power since 2000. It's a nearly unmitigated disaster, IMO.

I think that it's ridiculous to asser that the Democrats are dominated by the "far left." That's pretty funny, as any true far leftist would tell you. Many of them are moderate Clinton-type Dems. Clinton was the guy signing welfare reform bills and whatnot, remember that? Of course the Republicans had a lot to do with all that - one example that occasionally, the clash of ideas results in something resembling useful compromise.

The Republicans have a few people who might qualify as moderates - Guiliani is one example. But they've been marginalized for some time now. One would hope that the last election results in the Repubs moderating and finding more such candidates, much like the Dems (for the most part) sought out more moderate candidates this time 'round (unfortunately, IMO, much of that moderation was vis-a-vis social issues, but that couldn't be helped, really. The population is more conservative than I am socially).

But they've got a LONG way to go to win me back, to the extent they even want to try.

-Arrian

[Ned]

Well, Arrian, I understand.

Actually, Giulliani is the current leader for the nomination. McCain, another "moderate," is second. Schwarzennegger won a landslide victory in Kalifornia and would be right there if he could run. What does this tell us about the Republican Party right now?

Ogie, yeah Bush and Congress really lost control of themselves didn't they? Clinton, with a Republican Congress, actually did a better job at controlling spending it seems.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Ned
Well, Arrian, I understand.

Actually, Giulliani is the current leader for the nomination. McCain, another "moderate," is second. Schwarzennegger won a landslide victory in Kalifornia and would be right there if he could run. What does this tell us about the Republican Party right now?

Guilliani is a front runner in meaningless opinion polls that measure name recognition among voters regardless of party affiliation. Should he choose too run, the real Republican party will savage him to within an inch of his life for his pro-gay and pro-choice positions. the South Carolina primary, in particular, will look like a GOP-produced snuff film.

McCain is a deeply conservative politician who can get away with calling himself moderate because he's a hair's breadth to the left of Dick Cheney.

Schwarznegger's victory in California tells you that a Republican can win in Cali if he repudiates his own party and runs as a Democrat in all but name.

The Democrats, by contrast, will probably have only moderates running in 2008, unless Obama does run. Otherwise, bayh, Vilsack, edwards, and even Hillary are closer to the DLC wing of the party than to its left flank.

[Ned]

Rufus, we shall see.

Actually, Obama is looking real strong. Hillary better watch her back.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Arrian


Yes, our country is severely ****ed up.

The basic (very general) positions I laid out for (US) liberals and conservatives regarding charity/social services are correct. I didn't make any particular moral judgments about them (in that particular post). The idea behind my post was: ok, assuming the statistics are correct, they may be a simple reflection of people's rational actions in accordance with their political beliefs.

Generally speaking, a liberal will likely support social welfare type programs funded by taxation, whereas a conservative will prefer to leave that to charity. I think that various posts in this thread from US conservatives and liberals bear that out.

-Arrian

I think this is exactly what the OP article is all about.

Long held assumptions now commonly accepted as correct, or fact.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ned
They oppose vouchers, for example, that would allow the poor to go to any school on government funds. This would end the ability of white liberals like Clinton to send their kids to all white private schools.

Anyone who cares about the quality of education opposes vouchers. All they are is a hand out to private schools. Your faulty assumption is that private schools won't raise their rates by exactly the amount the amount of the voucher, thus still preventing the unwanted classes from attending their schools.

For example, if it cost $10,000 to attend Le Snooty School for Rich Boys and Girls, and every family gets a $10,000 voucher, then Le Snooty will raise its rates to $20,000. The parents are still paying the same $10,000 out of pocket they were before, and the school has doubled its revenue. There is a reason these schools are exclusive in the first place. They aren't about to allow the unwashed masses to attend just because of a windfall in voucher monies.

Meanwhile, the public school has lost all of the money that is now going to the private school in the form of vouchers. How this helps anyone but the owners of the private school is beyond me.

[DinoDoc]

I dunno. People seem to buy the theory when it comes to financial aid given out by the government for college.

[chequita guevara]

State schools are exclusive as well.

[Kuciwalker]

[Jaguar]

Spoiler:

chegitz is a moron