in your own terms.

And name politicians that would fall under the 2 categories.

[Edited on December 29, 2005 at 6:40 AM. Reason : .]

12/29/2005 6:39:46 AM

tradition v. progress

12/29/2005 8:11:57 AM

real world vs dream world

12/29/2005 9:22:57 AM

So tell me what you think of the situation in Iraq, GGMon


And as for my original statement, it should probably be

"tradition v. change"

12/29/2005 9:26:26 AM

no, progress was right

12/29/2005 9:26:56 AM

vague and meaningless terms vs vague and meaningless terms

12/29/2005 10:58:55 AM

Jesus v. Progress

12/29/2005 11:01:17 AM

social/economic/environmental darwinism
vs.
progressivism

12/29/2005 11:17:53 AM

my take:

Conservative: wants government to play a minimalist role. Let folks chose what they do and how they spend their money (I'm a real conservative. You want to be gay? go for it. I dont' think the government should have any role in judging what people do in their own homes).

Liberal: thinks government has a larger role to equalize society/help the downtrodden/do more for the people. Essentially, there are some people that can't make their own decisions and that's where government would make it for them.

I would say a true conservative (as close as it gets) would be Ronald Reagan. On the liberal side? Charlie Rangel or maybe Lyndon Johnson/FDR

12/29/2005 11:19:44 AM

I would say that the liberal view isnt that people can't make their own decisions, but that no matter what decisions they make, even if they are the right ones, their social/economic/other situation is such they can't better it without help

12/29/2005 11:38:17 AM

fair enough. The general gist is

Left: more government
Right: less government.

The current administration isn't nearly as right as I would like them to be (fiscally speaking)

12/29/2005 11:54:15 AM

Adults vs Children

12/29/2005 12:06:06 PM

intelligent.

12/29/2005 12:09:58 PM

realist vs. idealist

12/29/2005 1:08:15 PM

these terms depend on where you live.

12/29/2005 1:22:20 PM

Quote :

"real world vs dream world"

Quote :

"realist vs. idealist"

ha ha

in a "dream world" or "ideal" world, everyone would go to college, get PhD's, become well-paid specialists in their fields, and robots would do all the menial labor and service jobs that are necessary to keep our society intact.

in the "real world," even if everyone had PhD's, someone would still be getting paid $6.50/hr to sweep the floor at McDonalds. there's nothing "realistic" about writing legislation that hurts the working poor, when they're a vital part of society.

12/29/2005 1:45:07 PM

It's obvious GGMon is being an idiot and a troll. At least everyone else is trying to come up with a real answer.

I think tradition v. progress (or change) is about the most concise answer I could agree with.

12/29/2005 1:51:10 PM

Spoken like someone who knows they will never have to be part of the working poor Crooden

12/29/2005 1:53:02 PM

you are all missing the 2 big points


"conservative" and "liberal" have textbook meanings, and then they have taken on other meanings through common use, so there is confusion over what someone means when they use one of those terms


and classifying politicians into those two categories is a futile effort. you need at LEAST four different categories.

12/29/2005 1:55:04 PM

^^ nah, i've worked my share of menial labor jobs

will probably go back to working one this summer

12/29/2005 1:58:49 PM

I mean you know you wont have to do that for the rest of your life...you may have worked those jobs but you are not in that class...basically, you don't care if there is legislation tht hurts the working poor because it won't affect you negatively

12/29/2005 2:02:37 PM

GGMon is 28.

theres the traditional "liberal" definition ("free") and the current political one ("change"). "conservative" doesnt have that real division of past/present, it always stands for "retaining" or "tradition".

either way, textbook definitions mean almost nothing when it comes to real politics (or shouldnt).

12/29/2005 2:07:04 PM

^^
nah dude, i care.

i was approaching the topic from an analytical standpoint rather than a emotional one, because some people think that economic politics and compassion don't mix.

the "robots" comment was just coming to terms with reality; more automation is coming, like it or not.

12/29/2005 2:11:51 PM

Gotcha...looks like I read your comment wrong then...my mistake

I think I like Tradition / Progress the best of what's been said so far...sorry I can't be more original

12/29/2005 2:20:04 PM

people that do vs people that teach

12/29/2005 2:29:43 PM

those who have paid taxes vs those who get refunds

12/29/2005 2:30:56 PM

^^ive done both, so that makes me...moderate?

youre 28

[Edited on December 29, 2005 at 2:38 PM. Reason : .]

12/29/2005 2:37:58 PM

I am 28, very good - do you want a cookee to eat while you watch wrestling?

winners vs losers

12/29/2005 4:02:58 PM

Quote :

"there's nothing "realistic" about writing legislation that hurts the working poor, when they're a vital part of society."

I think this is a bit silly.

For one, I'm willing to bet that you equate "not actively helping" with "hurting," which is ludicrous. I don't see a lot of legislation coming down that actively seeks to harm the poor.

For another, your reason for wanting to not hurt the working poor is terrible. They're still going to exist and still play their part in society regardless of how much we hurt them (up to the point of violent revolution, but we could do a hell of a lot more "hurting" before that became an issue).

12/29/2005 4:09:15 PM

Quote :

"They're still going to exist and still play their part in society regardless of how much we hurt them (up to the point of violent revolution, but we could do a hell of a lot more "hurting" before that became an issue)."

Haha, that's something I would only envision a Republican saying.

(I realize it's quoted a bit out of context...)

ha

12/29/2005 4:23:54 PM

Well, it was to some extent a "Devil's Advocate" thing.

It also wasn't a statement to the effect that we should hurt/should not help the working poor. There are very good reasons for doing so. It's just that his wasn't one of them.

12/29/2005 4:38:29 PM

death vs destruction

12/29/2005 4:43:23 PM

Oh, and the answer is

old rich white people vs. young rich white people

12/29/2005 4:44:45 PM

nazis vs communists




Seriously, its probably along the lines of status quo vs reform



this is assuming we are talking about classic conservatism not any of the neo/religious and anti-intellectual flavors

[Edited on December 29, 2005 at 5:01 PM. Reason : ]

12/29/2005 4:58:41 PM

its also assuming we arent talking about any of our insane communist anti-god lefties

12/29/2005 5:35:11 PM

Quote :

"For one, I'm willing to bet that you equate "not actively helping" with "hurting," which is ludicrous. I don't see a lot of legislation coming down that actively seeks to harm the poor."

no, i don't equate the two, but yes, that was a pretty weak part of my argument. i was thinking of bills like the recent one that cuts funding to medicaid. but "conservatism" is such a broad term, it extends well beyond the realm of economics.

also, i guess there's the fact that many of the working poor consider themselves politically "conservative," however that works.

12/29/2005 5:59:38 PM

Quote :

"I am 28, very good - do you want a cookee to eat while you watch wrestling? "

wow, you win at life. 28 and you troll a college message board.

kill yourself now.

12/29/2005 6:21:31 PM

wow...but pinkandblack....all you do is troll 28 year old messege board trollers....uhhhh.....

12/29/2005 6:36:18 PM

more like...stating the obvious

12/29/2005 6:42:06 PM

The big difference is that he's actually in college.

12/29/2005 6:42:38 PM

Quote :

"wow, you win at life. 28 and you troll a college message board. kill yourself now."

Didn't know TWW had an age limit. Thanks for telling me. You say I suck at life but you are over the age of 11 and still watch wrestling. Kill yourself now.

12/29/2005 10:18:45 PM

GGmon just turned this into a stalemate

12/29/2005 10:58:01 PM

wait, i watch wrestling? what?

oh, bret hart. that picture. yeah, i used to. havent in a few years, but it was a big part of my life till like 10th grade. the user name? comes from my website title, ive been using it for years.

so i guess you agree that youre a troll. thanks. now go back to making fun of people's photo galleries or something. the fact that you came back 4 hours later to retaliate is pretty silly in itself. shouldnt you be starting a family or something?

^ way to give an idiot credit for nothing.



[Edited on December 29, 2005 at 11:55 PM. Reason : .]

12/29/2005 11:50:51 PM

Quote :

"I am 28, very good - do you want a cookee to eat while you watch wrestling?"

You're 28. You would think that a 28 year old could spell cookie.

V Good point

[Edited on December 30, 2005 at 12:14 AM. Reason : !]

12/30/2005 12:09:07 AM

^ You give age too much credit... just look at Bush, and he's the President of the US.

12/30/2005 12:13:52 AM

Quote :

"Any man who is under 30, and is not a liberal, has not heart; and any man who is over 30, and is not a conservative, has no brains. -Winston Churchill"

12/30/2005 12:25:25 AM

Please forgive me for not directly answering your question because it has already been stated.

Not that anyone above a 1st grade education gives GGFag's thoughts an ounce of credibility other than for a good chuckle, but the "Dream world vs. Real world" thing perplexes me.

In his summation I am assuming that he means the liberals live in the dream world. Curious. Considering it is the conservatives who categorically think that preaching abstinance from an incomplete and mistranslated text will somehow stop people from having sex and engaging in very natural and biological processes. Now I wouldn't expect him to understand this considering he has probably never had sex nor seen a woman naked (no, sorry, your mom doesn't count). But it has been well documented that healthier relationships stem from both a complete emotional and physical relationship. So, why do conservatives perpetually fool themselves into thinking that sexual feelings are some kind of act of Satan and should be abolished at every turn unless it is within the contexts of a church sanctioned marriage?

Another fantasyland that I have often viewed conservatives strolling through is the notion that our planet has an unlimited supply of fossil fuels and that continuing to burn them unabated will have zero ramifications on the overall health of our atmosphere. The "dream world" is one where you trick yourself into thinking that man is above the cause and effect relationships that exist on this planet.

12/30/2005 6:04:27 AM

Wow - some classic schoolyard smack going on right here. How can someone with the name “hockey” in his or her nic be such a neutered little pussy? Your "takes" on how you think conservatives view sex and the environment are just left wing talking points - I actually feel embarrassed your view is so simplistic. Don’t worry – you will understand how the world works in a few years.

Q - When does a liberal die?
A - When he turns 25.

12/30/2005 7:31:47 AM

Optimism vs. pessimism

12/30/2005 8:07:10 AM

If that isn't the conservative take on sex then what is?

12/30/2005 8:36:13 AM