Mia, as you say, liberal/conservative is not black/white. You can’t just pick a party and go with it. Leaving aside all the mud-slinging, you need to decide what you are comfortable with. Personally, I don’t want to decide your life and I don’t want you deciding my life. Therefore, I make certain choices. Those who like others to make the decisions or who like to make decisions for others will make other choices.

IN GENERAL (yes, I’m shouting) conservatives tend to let me make my own decisions. IN GENERAL, liberals tend to want to make those decisions for me.

IN REALITY, no one political party, organization, or other person will EVER agree 100% with what I personally feel is best for me, and the corollary is true. This is where compromise needs to step in. Consider two political candidates. I may only (probably!) agree with a small part of either candidates publicly avowed positions. I then need to decide which is the lessor of two evils and vote accordingly.

Crumbunist, I don’t know where you are coming from. I do know that my Father-in-law and his wife now live in England rather than the US because they liked it’s health care system. However, I would NEVER personally care to give up that much of my personal volition for that kind of security. And right now I’m living in constant pain with a chipped tooth. I’m making payments to a dentist, and when I get halfway paid he will fix the tooth and then I will make payments until paid off. My son has impacted wisdom teeth. He’s making payments also. Is it painfull? Hell yes! Would I like to be able to wave a magic wand & fix the teeth? Hell yes! But I’m not willing to pay the price.

I won’t even try to engage you on the “science in schools” piece. Obviously, the news you are hearing wherever you are is NOT about the schools where I live, where science is no longer taught and the youngsters that I work with think that “Science” is what they see on CSI.

Personal Choice.

Also I don’t care if you’re a homophobe? It’s a free country.

“rabidly devoted citizens” implies that they are rabidly devoted in the field of citizenry i.e. being American.

Love your site–both well-thought and well-said. I work for www.outloudopinion.com. We create and host professional recordings of Creators Syndicate columns, including articles by Dennis Prager, Michelle Malkin, and David Limbaugh. The podcasts are free to download, and we update five times a week. Check us out–we’d love for you to link to our site, too!

Crumbunist you idiot, the most “rabidly devoted citizens” in our country are the far left liberals, and they are not patriotic. They hate America and what it stands for. FREEDOM.
And, although Jim would not say it, I will, but I’m speaking for me and no one else. Homosexuality is immoral and wrong. Why? Two reasons. 1)Because the bible tells us so. 2) No matter what your beliefs (or non beliefs) are, there are two sex’s for a reason.

Also keeping in mind that the most rabidly devoted patriotic citizens of any country tend to be conservative.

I did engage your Stalin argument. You cited his sexual policy as “to break down society’s moral fiber which holds allegiance to God and resists unethical dictate promulgated by the state. Only by creating an immoral class can government wrestle allegiance from God.” I asked how that logically follows. Are religious people somehow not obedient to the state by virtue of believing in God? Is there something wrong with acting according to one’s own will and not a religious commandment? How does atheism lead to statism? How does religion remove the issue? Keeping in mind that the conservative parties in the West, especially the Republicans in America and the Christian Democrats in Europe, get empowered by the Religious Right! Keep in mind that the Republicans have been steadily increasing state power since their election!

I am NOT saying that the conservatives are the only ones at fault for increasing state power. I am saying that conservatives AND liberals do it, but they do it for different reasons.

Crumb,

You say you won’t investigate my facts because the burden is on me and I am a school child, then you spew out an argument acting as if it is fact I must believe. (You’re not a school child or a hypocrite, but I am? Breathtaking!)

How can anyone prove anything? It is impossible to argue with someone who has no integrity and will not engage a subject.

Canada has rationed care. You cannot get any medical procedure anytime you like, but in the US you have a much better chance of doing so. Why do Canadians keep coming down here for medical care? You will reply that’s not true.

Governments which interfere with the free market have less access to all services and have a lower standard of living than governments that embrace the free market. You’ll disagree with that too.

As for the sex comment about Stalin, you have tried to move the argument to make me answer why homosexuality is immoral or wrong. I never suggested it was. The comment was included to demonstrate a method used by communist regimes to steal citizen loyalties to a religious devotion, and force them dependent upon the state, similar to the liberal position attacking religious devotion in American culture. This is the third time I have reiterated it and you will not engage. I am beginning to wonder if you know how to read.

I am sure I will look forward to three more unintelligible replies because you cannot engage arguments and your only weapons are confusion and obfuscation.

The real truth is people like you are envious haters who will do anything to try and bring down people more successful than yourself. You don’t engage arguments because arguments are beside the point. Your method is to lie and pry at the emotional strings of fellow losers whether or not the policies you promote make your own lives worse.

They call that biting off your nose to spite your face.

1) Morality is not absolute. Muslims believe that drinking alcohol is wrong and evil, does that mean that every working man who drinks a beer at the end of the day is “breaking down society’s moral fiber”? Many of them also think that women having equal rights is morally wrong and evil, is it? People, unsurprisingly, have had sex for millions of years, and yet, society never broke down! Morality never broke down! In fact, sex has been happening since before “society” was ever created!

Address this; what is wrong with liberal sexuality and other expressions of individual freedom, such as homosexuality or never going to church?

Another thing: here is proof that you cannot be arguing with “superior logic and wisdom”:

“The fact that so many school boards (supposedly, but I am not aware of such a rapacious movement) are “trying to ban evolution in the science class” is clear indication liberals ALREADY control the science class; you prove my point.”

1) You pay less attention to American news than non-Americans are are not aware of the huge push to denounce evolution in public schools and replace it with intelligent design. You are not wise enough to see the trends in the country around you.

2) You are saying that “Liberalism attempts to usurp the Constitution by infiltrating our educational and government institutions”. You insinuate that Liberalism is corrupting America through the school boards because schools try to teach science [evolution] in science class. You blame Liberals for Science teachers who teach Science. Do you see the problem here? Science doesn’t NEED “liberals” to force it to be logical and teach the logical theories. Science does that by itself! That’s what science is!

You go so far as to say that “Liberals” are already in control of the classroom, and, according to your rhetoric, they must be removed. But according to you, Science class is some sort of weird Liberal propaganda! I’m sorry, but if conservatism rejects logic [science] and wisdom [being informed about the world around me], then I want no part of it!

“I’m getting quite tired of instructing you when you don’t even bother to investigate my facts and prove me wrong.”

Here’s the most important comment anyone will ever leave on this site: the burden of proof is on the person making the claim [i.e. you] not anyone else. Schoolchildren know this.

Re: Stalin. You were not using Stalin as an example of anti-religion, but an example of “corrupting morals”.

You are a hypocrite to tell me to address your arguments when you ignore my rebuttals to your arguments. I questioned why “morality” [i.e. 1950’s White Anglo-Saxon Protestant morality] is important at all, when more important and universal ethical violations are being caused by the conservatives you hold up as champions of individual rights.

Furthermore, the rest of your response to me is a retread of your own argument that completely ignores what I said. You do not address anything I said at all. For example, when I pointed out the small fact that every other nation in the First World has a functioning public health care system that treats all citizens without bankrupting them, you told me that I was an idiot because DUH THIS TEXTBOOK SAYS YOU ARE WRONG!!! Nevermind the fact that I have stated, over and over, that I live in one of these nations and have first-hand experience of the system! Your textbooks clearly do not describe reality, because I live in that reality, and everyone around me can see quite clearly that it is real!

Address my points before you go telling me or anyone off.

One more thing Matt.

They do pay a lot more than an impoverished mother who actually gets money back, and pays nothing.

The richest 1% pay 39% of all taxes, and guess what?

That’s 2% higher after the dastardly George Bush took office and lowered the tax rates.

Once again:

Go get an economics book.

Matt,

Marx was a bitter loser who dreamed up a pitiful ideology to encourage other bitter losers to join together against all the people who figured out how to succeed and provide bitter losers with jobs.

And you’re probably right, I’m surely not so well read as you…I have no desire to contemplate all the ways I might not succeed.

“Matt’s that rich people are criminals for not paying more in taxes shows neither of you have ever picked up an economics book.”

I don’t think they are criminals for not paying taxes. I don’t blame them for keeping all their money to themselves. I just think they can afford to pay a lot more than an impoverished single mother, that’s all.

I have read aconomics books, thankyou very much. But you seem to think all of these books will tell you only one thing, which would appear to indicate that you aren’t particularly well-read yourself. Surely your view of economics depends what economics book you pick up. Read Marx’s ‘Das Kapital’ and you’ll get something rather different than if you read Hayek’s ‘Road to Serfdom’.

Crumb,

You are quite adept at copying my words. As usual, however, you do not engage my points. It was not the point to recognize Stalin to suggest sex is immoral; it was the point to recognize that Stalin’s regime immediately subjugated the Church and persecuted religious devotion in order to gain allegiance to the state. That quote was representative of the tactic.

Liberals clearly control most parts of the media and most upper positions in academia. Even liberals won’t argue that point.

The fact that so many school boards (supposedly, but I am not aware of such a rapacious movement) are “trying to ban evolution in the science class” is clear indication liberals ALREADY control the science class; you prove my point.

You and your buddy Matt clearly don’t seem to possess the ability to recognize cause and effect, and you guys dream up your own realities.

Your insistence that health care works so great in all the other countries and Matt’s that rich people are criminals for not paying more in taxes shows neither of you have ever picked up an economics book.

Here is a quick primer:

If you want health care cheaper turn it over to the free market. Wal-Mart is having greater effect on lowering health care costs than all politicians in the United States by using the free market.

If you want the rich to pay more taxes, drop their rates. This is why revenues surged to the federal government, after Coolidge, Kennedy, and Bush dropped income tax rates.

In other words, lower rates brought more money.

Finally, my whole column was directed not at liberals who are mostly confused emotional people who don’t really understand the ideology, but LIBERALISM which has no interest in helping the poor but subjugating the successful to government’s bureaucrats. The fact that they want to raise income tax rates is proof of that.

I’m getting quite tired of instructing you when you don’t even bother to investigate my facts and prove me wrong.

You’re very good with that copy and paste button though.

“Socialism, Communism, and Statism, the ideologies embraced by Mao, Stalin, Hitler, and today’s liberalism gave us the Holocaust in Germany, history’s greatest state sponsored eradication of citizens in China and Russia, and a modern United States, militarily impotent, economically teetering, morally bankrupt, and financially desperate.”

What the hell are you talking about? Which party opposed Guantanamo bay? Which party opposed the Patriot Act? I think you’ll find it was those hated oppressors the liberals. And which party decided to override the ancient liberty of free and fair trial for all humans? Why, it was your heroic champions of freedom the neoconservatives of course!

Lastly: The United States was doing very well militarily, economically, “morally” and financially during the 1990’s. Then the “liberals” were ousted from congress in 1998 and Gore was kicked to the curb in 2000, and things changed. Things like the military being stretched too thin thanks to total war in two countries. Things like the treasury being raided to finance occupations. Things like industries and pollution being deregulated, allowing the mortgage crisis to begin and the environment crisis to continue. Things like torture and the suspension of habeas corpus being declared “moral” goods. Things like slashing taxes, reducing government income during an economically weak period, and at the same time driving America into bewildering record debt to Mao’s successors. I think it was worth it!

“Liberalism says business is evil and it subjugates the little guy. Investigate McDonalds, Microsoft, or Amway and see how many millionaires those businesses have created; then do the same investigation of our federal government to see how it stacks up. ”

The government is not in the business of making millionaires. If the government was only interested in turning a profit then it could never serve the best interests of “the people”; as soon as the People’s interests clash with making the most money, the People would lose. It is an unfair argument to say that profit-oriented businesses make more money than the government - they’re supposed to.

What’s wrong with taking God out of the public schools? Religion is a private matter, not a public one; that’s one of the central concepts of the Reformation.

The only party whose members tow the party line is the Republicans. The Democrats are splintered and ineffective.

The biggest, most worthless bureaucracy in years is the Department of Homeland Security. Thanks a lot, President Bush! Wait, sorry, I meant liberals.

You create exaggerated effigies of “Liberals” to joust with. For “liberals” to be as bad as you imagine them, the world would have to be a carbon copy of the film Brazil - and that would have to change completely every four years when a venerated worshipper of the individual [such as Ronald Reagan with his war on drugs/individual liberty] comes to power.

“Liberalism wants to “takeover” healthcare from “unethical” insurance companies because healthcare is too expensive and not available to all. All examination shows that when government controls healthcare it still is not available to all because it is still too expensive. It then becomes rationed and bureaucracy dictates for who and when healthcare shall be dispensed.”

Where are the conclusive studies? You don’t seem like a healthcare industry professional. EVERY OTHER COUNTRY IN THE FIRST WORLD has government-run health insurance, and they are all doing quite well! Naturally there are problems here and there, but not problems as significant as a large section of the population being completely uninsured! You’re exaggerating this into some sort of mid-eighties dystopic film plot.

“Liberalism says it wants to eradicate poverty yet the more it spends the more dependent souls government creates.”

Prove that this is a cause-and-effect relationship, and not a mere correlation. Actually, prove that it’s a correlation first!

This post reminds me of something that’s always bothered me about your arguments. Even though I disagree with some of it, most of what you put forward is ideal theory and philosophy. The only time you really move past ideology, though, is when you remind everyone of the harsh, non-ideal truth that the super-wealthy break the law, get away with it, and WE SHOULD EXPECT THAT. You never condemn it, you never say that it’s wrong, you always blame the middle class for increasing their own tax burden.

Even if the tax rate was 10% [which it never, ever will be because the army costs so damned much] the rich would STILL squirrel away as much money as they want. The problem isn’t that taxes are too high, it’s that powerful people break the law and get away with it. Can a middle-class worker cheat on his taxes and hide his money? Yes! Can he get away with it? Not bloody likely, how’s he going to afford the best [read: crookedest] lawyers?

““Sex should include no more consideration than drinking a glass of water.” Stalin advocated such ideology not bent on promoting some liberating philosophy, but to break down society’s moral fiber which holds allegiance to God and resists unethical dictate promulgated by the state. Only by creating an immoral class can government wrestle allegiance from God.”

1) Morality is not absolute. Muslims believe that drinking alcohol is wrong and evil, does that mean that every working man who drinks a beer at the end of the day is “breaking down society’s moral fiber”? Many of them also think that women having equal rights is morally wrong and evil, is it? People, unsurprisingly, have had sex for millions of years, and yet, society never broke down! Morality never broke down! In fact, sex has been happening since before “society” was ever created!

2) Using Stalin as your example is a dirty way to smear “liberals” and does not actually prove your point - It’s like comparing Bush to Hitler.

3) You might be putting words in his mouth, too. How do we know Stalin actually believed that? For that matter, if he did, should we listen to a man who intentionally starved millions of people?

4) How does the “contemporary liberal position” on sexual freedom “subjugate morality in favor of the state”? Excuse me if I don’t understand how “Sex is not a sin” translates to “The government owns you”.

“Liberalism attempts to usurp the Constitution by infiltrating our educational and government institutions encouraging those institutions’ officials to make law and skew policy without consenting the governed. ” I had no idea that Liberals controlled the education systems. Could that be why so many school boards are trying to ban evolution being taught in science class? Could that be why so many school boards, and the federal government, are trying to ban sex education and replace it with [chortle and guffaw] abstinence education?

I just wanted to say that I am impressed by some of the information in this blog. There are points that I strongly disagree with, and others that I may be slightly swayed. However, I am glad that you addressed many of the basic differences between the conservative and liberal ideologies. I just feel a little hopeless in my endeavor to decide how I feel about them. I don’t think I can back either way of thinking fully. When it comes down to it, I just need to address each topic individually. I can’t make my decisions based on what a conservative or a liberal would recommend. I guess what I always believed is true, at least for me. I can’t just pick a party and go with it. As people love to say, things are not black and white; liberal and conservative. I can only go with what I Know And with what I Feel. We are seeing and feeling human beings, and I don’t think you should choose one over the other when it comes to politics. Thanks again for the info.