Africa for the Africans,Asia for the Asians,white countries for EVERYBODY!
Maybe if Saddam Hussein had just flooded the Kurdish villages with non-Kurds and ordered the Kurds to "assimilate" with the non-Kurds to "celebrate diversity" he could have waited a few decades,wiped out the Kurds as an ethnic group,and no one would have accused him of committing genocide?
Being a conservative in America means conserving the principles of the American Revolution. Paradoxically, American conservatism seeks to conserve a certain kind of liberalism. IT means fighting to uphold the classical liberalism of the founding from assault by liberalism of a different sort.
There's a few other things missing from this definition... like "lazy thinker", "bitter", "hate Obama more than they love America", "unpatriotic" and "prone to bringing loaded assault weapons to public meetings".
LOL!!!
Oh, and "may attempt to put a creationist bimbo in the whitehouse who believes that Africa is a country, and that humans coexisted with dinosaurs"...
Whoa...this is deep. Definition of conservatism in the dictionary does not correlate with conservatism in the political arena. Conservatism is the belief in less gov't. It is the belief in self reliance. It is the belief in the competitive free market system to bring prices down and make products and services better. Take a look at the public schools for example. $45,000 per year to educate one child. Private or parochial schools can do it for much less.
@neobootsonious The national average of education spending per pupil per year is $9500. Where in the world do you get $45000? Most states spend under $9,000 per year per pupil. Arizona spend $3500 per year per pupil now.
Conservatism is the belief in less government in areas they think aren't important, and more government in areas they do think is important. At least by the American definition.
Also, the closer our public universities get to a free market system, the worse they get.
@NoisyPiper The average cost per pupil in my state is $16,000.00 per pupil. This doesn't take into account the costs to fund the bloated pension and healthcare benefiits teachers, principals and administrators receieve while working and long after they're retired. Also add in the entire federal bureaucracy i.e the Dept. of Education and you'll wind up with around 45 g's per pupil. The sad fact is most of the money doesn't get to the kids. It goes to the useless politicians and bureaucrats
@neobootsonious The national average is $9500 as of 2009, and is estimated to be roughly $10,700 in 2010 (due to stimulus money getting into the system at that time). Cost per pupil is spending per pupil, it is the overall state budget for non-university educated divided by the number of students. If your state's cpp is $16000, then that is your cpp.
Finally, most of the money in a private school goes to the administrators, not the students. Switching to the marketplace won't fix that problem.
@Cenamark2 Obama has continued the war spending, and has in fact increased it. And most of that "Domestic spending" has gone to banks and kingpin industrial corporations in their respective markets - that hasn't gone to individual citizens - in fact under Obama "welfare", apart from healthcare, has seen a decline in spending. And healthcare costs would have gone up with or without Obama.
I guess being conservative with our natural resources is a bad thing? Lets not conserve the forests and oceans. Lets clear cut and over fish because conservatism is bad.
um - who is more likely to be an environmentalist and support preserving natural resources and who is more likely to support whatever business wants to make a profit our of them and the hell with the consequences? If you can explain to me what conservatives have ever wanted to conserve other than the wealth and power of corporations and a greedy and selfish elite - I'd love to hear it.
The point of my statement was to point out how stupid it is for the video to judge Liberal and Conservative based on the dictionary's definition of the two words because as political ideologies they are more complicated to explain.
In short I was joking. But I shouldn't expect a liberal to have a sense of humor.
Why not? Almost every creative comedian and comedic television and movie writer/.producer/actor is/was a liberal. Liberalism by its very nature is free and creative and sees the humor in truth and the truth in humor.
I'm trying but I can't think of a humorous conservative. Help me out here, name a few.
I can't believe that you know any liberals, at least any liberal I know would have nothing to do with you.
Now you are being really ignorant. As far as health care goes, I believe it is an essential human right. Just as we have a police force to protect us (ideally) from crime and violence and a fire department to rescue us when our houses burn down and we have basic education - all the above paid for from taxes...
...so we should have a public health system to help us when we are sick paid for by all of us with our taxes. Government By, For and Of The People.
But for some strange reason you want health care to be a for profit industy like selling toasters or cars. Please explain how it will ever be in your interest to have a for profit health insurance company decide which treatments you should receive. It is for profit. It will decide to treat you as little as possible.
There is such thing as a free market. If my insurance company sucks I'll take my business elsewhere. Insurance companies don't get their jollies screwing people over. Screw people over and you lose business. You've bought the anti-business tripe Nancy Pelosi and Obama have been trying to sell the people.
Please explain how it will ever be in your interest to have government decide which treatments you should receive. It is for power. They will decide to treat you as little as possible.
The facts speak for themselves. There are thousands of documented cases in the US of people being refused treatment no one pretext or another. Also you cannot get insurance if you have a pre-existing condition. Your health insurance companies are very happy to take your money when you are young and healthy. Just try actually getting sick. Fact - 50% of all bankruptcies in the US are due to medical costs and those people have insurance. I have never heard of a Canadian being refused necessary...
So the Canadians get to spend two or three years more than Americans being old farts (weeeee!) And they're 36th for Baby mortality rates. Looks like they're prenatal care isn't so hot either.
Plus there are other factors that drag down the American life expectancy like higher rates or violent crime. I'm not privy to my own facts, but you can't just state mere simple facts and expect them to explain a large broad concept with clarity and nuance.
Its not spite. Its hard truth. The Dems are the spiteful ones. Just look at how they're handling the "You lie." out burst. Suddenly everybody is racist.
The important point to remember, though, is that attitudes like yours tend to be destructive. I mentioned a job I once lost because a jury of poor folks decided to award a plantif a 100 times what he sued for. Make no mistake about it: This was an effort to exact their revenge upon an "immoral" wealthy person, and it ultimately destroyed the livelyhood of thousands of ordinary people. A desire to make the greedy rich "moral" by bringing them down financially harms everyone, including the poor.
My experience with poor friends and family members has been constant resentment and envy--even in response to charity from others. Instead of being thankful that someone stepped in to help when they were in need, they bellyache about how "immoral" it is that other family members are better off than they are.
Marginally charitable wealthy people, however immoral, do more good for the less fortunate than a bunch of angry, whining poor people.
This is patently false. Nearlly everyone knows some who are wealthy and some who are poor, including me.
The wealthy people you have known personally may be scoundrels, but when you make a sweeping generalization that all wealthy people are invariably the same way, you have indeed become biggoted.
My experiences have been the opposit: Wealthy family members have been endlessly charitable. Poor family members are hateful and destructive.
Democrats have a patent on all the good words. Kind of sucks. For example, C.A.R.E. Sounds good right? I'll make a donation. One problem, the Council on American Islamic Relations gives money to terrorists. Ouch, I think I'll hold on to my cash for now.
It's amazing that so many people are blinded by class-envy induced hatred. This form of bigotry prevents them from seeing that we are all connected: Currently, unemployment it high. What this really means is that the economy is not doing well. And when we say the economy is not doing well, we are really saying that businesses are not doing well. There is a direct link: When businesses do well, ordinary people do well. Unfortunately, class envy dupes people into believing just the opposite.
The real problem still though is that the wealthy are inherently immoral. If they were truly moral, they would share the vast amount of their wealth. But the reality is they do not. They hoard it. My opinion has nothing to do with envy, and everything to do with justice.
I once worked for an "immoral" rich person who actually did something greedy and illegal: He backed out of a purchase agreement. He was sued for $5 million. The trial was held in a poor area of Mississippi, and the prosecutor ginned up as much resentment as he could for the exploitation of this greedy capitalist and won a $500 million, not $5 million, judgment, which put our company out of business. 1000s of ordinary people lost their jobs for sentements like yours--socialistic schadenfreude.
The most hateful and socially destructive people I have known have been failures economically. And the people who have been the most charitable and giving and who have made the biggest difference in my life and the lives of my family members have been people of significant financial means. When you characterize all wealthy people as being immoral and greedy, you are indeed being bigoted. People like you contribute little, if anything, to the collective well-being of ordinary people like me.
I know about this first hand. You do not. I have members of my family who are extremely wealthy. They are also racist, ignorant, right-wing christian, and closed-minded. In addition they are only charitable because they have to be (they have to give away a certain amount yearly through their foundation). Also Mississippi isn't the most
@jgaarsoe "And when we say the economy is not doing well, we are really saying that businesses are not doing well. There is a direct link: When businesses do well, ordinary people do well."
So why is it that, today, major corporations are bringing in record profits - and have been for several quarters now - and unemployment rates are still hovering around 9%? Businesses are doing very well, ordinary people are not.
1. a belief that individual rights are for persons and corporations who can afford political lobbyists and finance political campaigns of persons who'll vouch on their behalf (corporations are persons by American business law; you'll never see a corporation in jail)
2. the concept of an aristocratic oligarchy to run all aspects of government on behalf of corporate/nationalist interests (See: 'fascism') and to protect those interest from "mob rule" (<- Con slang for Democracy)
Class envy, a form of bigotry, is rooted in ignorance: We are the corporations! The hated Exxon, for example, is not owned by some greedy capitalist. It is owned by ordinary individuals, working class people, and orphans and widows. The largest stake holders in companies like Exxon are pension plans that provide an income for working class people when they retire. Exxon also employs 85,000 working class people. Liberalisms bloodlust for corporations hurts millions of ordinary people.
Forgot to add: Conservatives: Narrow minded-greedy idiots who destroy the moral structurec and the U.S. economy by imposing their dictatorial and thoughtless rules and regulations on open-mided democtars.
George Soros: Democrat & wealthiest ever currency trader.
Warren Buffet: Democrat, Wall Street tycoon & wealthiest man on earth.
Most Democrat politicians come from privilege.
The wealthiest cities in the US--e.g., New York City, San Francisco and Boston, are liberal.
The idea that greed and wealth are the domain of conservatives is a carefully cultivated myth used by liberals to obtain power. They cry "corporate greed" and thousands of useful idiots line up to do their bidding.
OH guess what this definition of theirs is a flat out lie "typical" I looked up the definition my self and its not 10 lines long like they make the definition out to be conservative simply means "preservative, preserve in a safe or entire state from loss, waste or injury."
"preserve in a safe or entire state from loss, waste or injury" that's the definition of conserve...not conservative. It's pretty sad that you don't know how to use a dictionary.
your definition is innacurate.. it displays your inadequate knowledge... nice blanket statement.. goldwater would be a good place to begin your studies..
Humans seem to need labels. We label everything and everyone. I seriously think it comes down to this: You're either part of the solution, or part of the problem. I like to think of myself as part of the SOLUTION. I'm educated, caring, diplomatic, open-minded, loving...all things that are beneficial to the greater good.
Liberals have great ideas that are detached from reality. They're completely clueless about the origins of civilization and the necessities of its sustained viability. Not necessarily bad people but extremely naive when examining the pitfalls of human nature.
Real Conservatives want to the stall the world from self-destruction. Theres a difference. Liberals don't believe in an enduring truth so they're susceptible to anything. They'll gladly dance near the precipice of extinction in their quest to create a false utopia of self-worship and overindulgence. Modern day Icaruses who can't comprehend the folly of their ways.
Conservatives want to stall the world, period. They value the bible above the law and the constitution. You conservatives are the ones who are unwilling to see your own flaws. The self-worshipping people here, are you. conservatives go as far as saying that fascism is to the left, WOW.
The bible is a guide based on the collective experiences of those who supposedly were influenced by a higher power. Conservatives don't advocate the implementation of a theocracy based on the total submission to the bible. Thats utter rubbish. The adherence to principles outlined by the constitution & rule of law take priority over the selfish delusions of the few.Which core group is consistently railing against the revisionist interpretation of the U.S. Constitution?
"Conservatives don't advocate the implementation of a theocracy". Sure, I'm Mel Brooks.
"The adherence to principles outlined by the constitution & rule of law take priority over the selfish delusions of the few"- This country is based on the constitution whether you lke it or not.
what's wrong with being intolerant? it means you have an opinion and you don't approve of certain things. That gay porn thing is one huge inaccuracy. CONSERVATIVES hate faggots so it doesn't follow that they would be into gay porn. This whole definition is based on anger which is what most liberals seem to operate on.
The LBJ comparison is valid, and, certainly, the Bush administration is preposterously (and sadly) remote from Goldwater. The comparison between Hobbes and Locke is, IMO, tenuous - a generation made quite a difference. But what about this generation? Do they even know who we're talking about?
Gentleman or women, I suspect that the issue lies not with age, but with education. It is interesting to see you discuss whether Hobbes was liberal or conservative. I think that Hobbes was a sort of social Darwinist who would be regarded today as a supporter of dictatorships,neither liberal or conservative. I do see some of his beliefs mirrored in the beliefs and practices of both neo-cons and fundamentalist Christianity though.(I don't believe they would know that though!)
Careful my liberal friends, conservatism isn't what you think it is. Conservatism rightly understood promotes diversity of ways. True conservatives believe that the very by-product of human freedom is diversity of ways. Please don't take what little freedom I have left.
'Conservatism rightly understood promotes diversity of ways (sic)' is a bit like saying the human hand immersed in boiling oil will occasionally develop minor scaring. Maybe if the hand was Adam Smith's and the oil, well, we shouldn't go there. Seriously though, gentlemen such as Hobbes and Oakshot who penned genuine and interesting conservative thought can only be rolling in their graves at the hash that America's current conservatives have made of the world.
Hobbes was a 17th century classical liberal and yes, he would be rolling in his grave. But considerate individuals know that diversity is critical in developing a meaningful
political discourse. As a conservative, it makes no sense to have a monopoly on political ideas. Liberalism to me is an opposing philosophy which I occasionally agree with.
You're about halfway there on Hobbes, my friend. As you may well know those one-time leftists who got 'mugged by reality' and now constitute the neo-con pantheon - I'm referring to Herr Strauss and his intellectual progeny - are quite fond of situating Hobbes at the nucleus of their conservative thought. Anyways, that's all part of a rather sad history that is, unfortunately, quite devoid of 'considerate individuals' - for instance, I can't think of one in the Bush administration.
Frankly, the Bush administration reminds me more of LBJ's administration than any other. Out of control spending, an unsupported war, nation building, etc. I have blogged many times that the Neo-Cons of today were the Dixiecrats of yesterday. The Bush administration has little to do with the conservatives like Robert Taft or Barry Goldwater. Regarding Hobbes, "Leviathan" doesn't compare to Locke's "An Essay Concerning Human Understanding" in the field of social contract philosophy.
marcparella, you sound like my best consevative friend. The problem I see is that too many self described conservatives are not at all civil or capable of true debate. All too often they aren't really conservative either. Perhaps you and those like you should take back the word and your parties. I will try to do the same from the liberal side. Together, we can solve the problems we all face. I wish us all luck.
wow. you brain dead liberal. pitifull. you are so damn open minded that your fucking brain has fallen out of your head. get your head out of your ass.
It's like with conservative mediccare, keep on praying not to get sick. Though it's important to take action while you're praying.
Socialists needs to stop drinking alcohole and smoke, while conservatives needs to stop eating junk food, and tons of meat. Stop eating candy and sugar related cakes, cola etc... Try to eat fruit vegetables for a change.
How's socialism working out for you in Europe? Is it everything it's cracked up to be? I here many European countries are starting to revert back to capitalism because of the poor quality of the socialized healthcare over there. If you get sick how long do you have to wait to see a doctor?
Liberals are for reform, and the reform would be reform from conservative ideas. another reason liberals would be for reform is because they want to change things and make them better. Isnt that reform?
Democrats are taking care of their own citizens, when republicans are "taking care" of the citizens over sea...
Would I mabye be a conservative if I actually lived in US? Mabye I would have been a socialist if I lived in Europe?, oh wait, I do... but i'm still not a socialist.
Conclusion; I'm a liberal, and able to think for myself. Being able to think for yourself, is liberal.
The political debates in Europe, are between socialists and liberals... and in US, it's between C and L.
Well, I just said that I don't know everything that's going on over there. I'm keeping myself updated though, so I suppose I know more than most of the americans...
I've been a lot on vaications in US, and it seems nice. What isn't nice, is your mind rotting television, and that the average people are junk food eating fattys.
Fattys are mostly the poorest in a society, and that's to bad when you have no health care.
Since you're not from the US, why do you feel you know everything that goes on here? For a foreigner you seem to know alot of negative things about republicans and only positive things about democrats. You would probably see it a different way if you actually lived here.
Of course you would see it a different way if you lived in the States because your conservatives are censoring and paying off all the news and media. If you live anywhere else in the world (I'm in Canada, eh), you get unfiltered, unbiased news and media coverage.
I hate to break this to all the citizens of the U.S., but you are living in a dictatorship.
A dictatorship? It's called a Republic. Bush doesn't dictate the rules of life for every living person here.
To contradict your statement about republicans paying off the media. It's actually the other way around. Believe it or not, a gross majority of the media is... democrat/liberal. Why else would there be negative things about republicans?
The republican speciality is to make up lies and false accusations, and on top of that, they usually accuse people for things that are fitting in very well at themselves.
Clinton really DID search for Osama, and for what I've heard, US nearly catched him, under the command of Bill.
Terrorists are winning on the republicans unleagal and unconstotutional war.
New terrorists are recruiting like never before.
It's not easy to fight terrorism, by becomming a terrorist.
Liberals saved socialist europes ass, in WW1 and WW2. The Vietnam war was started in the 60s, but derapped in the 70s, when republicans were in charge.
bunchron:
Democrats should definately stay liberals, and not become socialists. Not only because socialism is a fucked up fiasco ideology, but also because the conservatives would have won easily, if the american people were only to choose between to parties.
A struggle between pest and colera, won't give any good results.
This is ridiculous! Where do you people come up with these outlandish conspiracy theories? Is it so hard to believe that republicans can succeed, that you have to make up lies and false accusations to demean them? If being a republican is wrong, than I don't want to be right.
Wow, it seems that the democrats live in some kind of dream world where their ideologies are completely opposed to the republicans. In reality however, there is a huge ideological overlap between the democrats and the Republicans. Although the democratic party IS considered slightly more to the left there has been this recent tendency for democratic candidates to represent right-wing policies. I think the Democratic party, in reality, needs to further seperate itself from the Republicans.
The dictator Saddam Hussein got captured, thanks to republicans... but it still doesn't prove much, sience the current situation in Irak is a lot worse, than before the invasion.
This Irak war has made america weak. Republicans are making america spend billions of dollar on that war, who has shown to be a complete fiasco.
Republicans are screwing up in the middle east, wich makes the world hate or dislike you... and the lefties are now even supporting dictator terrorist nations like Iran.
HOW HOW HOW do they do it? I'd like to know since republicans seem to be such failures. Exactly what did Bill Clinton do as President? He was offered Osama on a silver platter and turned him down. He also bombed an aspirin factory. Any other glorious successes for this DEMOCRAT president?
How exactly do the democrats hunt the terrorists? All you have said is the same crap I hear from just about every liberal democrat who spews about the war. THEY ARE AFRAID OF VIOLENCE! Tell me, how does taking the initiative to track down the people who plot your destruction make them weak. Who captured Saddam and toppled his regime? I'll tell you. Your OWN commander-in-chief, a REPUBLICAN named George W. Bush. Who freed thousands of actually opressed civilians? George Bush.
Democrats DO hunt terrorists, things were done properly when they were in charge.
Unlike now... starting a war, based on lies and greed. A war where the terrorists grow stronger for each day, and with the US dollar collapsing, because of all the unnessessary spended money.
Democrats don't support killing poor and opressed civilians. Democrats are the one hunting terrorists, and republicans are the one trying to steel the oil, and other resources.
... between beeing a republican, and an american.
Voting republican is like STARTING a war. Boath are self destructive.
Democrats are hunting terrorists, republicans are creating them. If the republicans wouldn't hide anything, of course less people would vote for them, and the liberals would have won easily.
That's why the republicans need excuses to start imperialistic and unconstitutional wars.
Are you kidding me? Democrats don't hunt terrorists. They are afraid of violence or anything that makes a loud noise! They don't support killing terrorists. I really don't know where you come up with this stuff.
@AllepMrSONY Ohhh, the Democrats are creating terrorists, too. The foreign policies of Democratic and Republican administrations are shockingly similar.
Gee....I can't help but wonder what political ideology that dictionary follows! I love how the liberal definition was so POSITIVE and glowing....and the conservative one amounted to an outright insult. How about these descriptions: careful, cautious, believer, one who has faith in something greater than himself, having the courage to stand up to and fight evil in the world"???????
I'm guessing you watch CNN or something like that. You see Democrats(liberals) have invested in defeat. The only way they can keep their credibility is if we lose this war. That is why they say that. They can't have a republican succeeding. It would be devastating. People are getting sick of their pessimism and constant whining.
Reoublicans are not really searching for terrorists, sience they cooperate with them, (Saudi Arabia).
Irak has nothing to do with 9/11, and besides... The invasion was planned long before the twin tower collapse.
Terrosist hunting is the excuse for the republicans to go in to the middle east where there is oil, so that they can fight their imperialistic war, grounded on fictisious reasons.
If we wanted oil, we could have gotten it in about 2 years, killed everyone like the brutes we are and gas would not cost 4 bucks a gallon. USE YOUR COMMON SENSE.
Terrorists are fundamentalists who wants to solve issues with violence. That means they are opposed to liberals. It's the complete differnece.
Liberals are straight to the pont, and don't even come close to lie as much and hard, as socialists and conservatives.
Socialist and conservative countrys have brought up many more wars, curruption, and illnes to the civilians. Boath ideoligies have always hightened the cleft between rich and poor.
Liberals ARE Socialists. They want bigger government, higher taxes, no morals. Got it? Do you actually believe all that stuff you say? To me it sound like a load of crap.
"Glorifying war is sick" and so is trying to bring down your own country for defending itself. What's past is past and you can't change that. We are dealing with the mistake about those weapons. How on earth was the gov't to know that the Saudis would use the weapons on them and other free nations.
You know what they say, Retrospect vision is 20/20.
Terrorists are not like Liberals. They don't lie all the time. Say if a man corners you and says he's going to kill you, would you say, "oh that's okay I don't believe you."
If he endorses someone who he knows will surrender to him, doesn't it follow logically that he's not good for the job?
I'm sure that his goal is to help the republicans politcally. After all, what terrorist would want a democrat in office? One who they know will turn tail and run at the sound of a bomb.
Etymological fallacy.
dragknuckle 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Africa for the Africans,Asia for the Asians,white countries for EVERYBODY!
Maybe if Saddam Hussein had just flooded the Kurdish villages with non-Kurds and ordered the Kurds to "assimilate" with the non-Kurds to "celebrate diversity" he could have waited a few decades,wiped out the Kurds as an ethnic group,and no one would have accused him of committing genocide?
Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white.
dungeoncrawler55 8 months ago
If you ever want to see why liberals hate conservatives, read the comments on this page.
Samples.
"Hitler was a socialist"
"CARE Center for Islamic Relations is a Democrat organization funding terrorists."
"Warren Buffet who's given away the majority of his wealth, & who constantly argues for raising taxes for the rich, proves Democrats are greedy"
"The usual union busting, deficit runner, terrorist weapon supplying Reagan was the bests President ever"
Fuctmentality 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Being a conservative in America means conserving the principles of the American Revolution. Paradoxically, American conservatism seeks to conserve a certain kind of liberalism. IT means fighting to uphold the classical liberalism of the founding from assault by liberalism of a different sort.
willmickel71 1 year ago
Somebody definately made this up. Liberals want the Government to control everything in their lives.
jeremyoyer 2 years ago
@jeremyoyer
And conservatives want Businesses to control everything.
Here in America though, government is a business and care about the population that they reside over very little.
In America you do have a choice. You can vote for bourgeois business or bourgeois government.
Our government system is horrible and candidate that could even have a chance of winning will change that.
UNR3S7 1 year ago
There's a few other things missing from this definition... like "lazy thinker", "bitter", "hate Obama more than they love America", "unpatriotic" and "prone to bringing loaded assault weapons to public meetings".
LOL!!!
Oh, and "may attempt to put a creationist bimbo in the whitehouse who believes that Africa is a country, and that humans coexisted with dinosaurs"...
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!
.
IncomingMonkeyTurd 2 years ago
Conservatism means invading other countries based on lies about "nukular" weapons and nonexistent Al Qaida connections.
Conservatism means letting your Wall Street cronies rape the banking system.
Conservatism means tax cuts for the oil companies and trust fund babies who pay for your political campaigns.
.
AtlasShruggery 2 years ago
what a dumbass ad, keep up the good work
robert120987 2 years ago
Whoa...this is deep. Definition of conservatism in the dictionary does not correlate with conservatism in the political arena. Conservatism is the belief in less gov't. It is the belief in self reliance. It is the belief in the competitive free market system to bring prices down and make products and services better. Take a look at the public schools for example. $45,000 per year to educate one child. Private or parochial schools can do it for much less.
neobootsonious 2 years ago
@neobootsonious Agreed. This is democrat propaganda.
Darkrift777 1 year ago
@neobootsonious The national average of education spending per pupil per year is $9500. Where in the world do you get $45000? Most states spend under $9,000 per year per pupil. Arizona spend $3500 per year per pupil now.
Conservatism is the belief in less government in areas they think aren't important, and more government in areas they do think is important. At least by the American definition.
Also, the closer our public universities get to a free market system, the worse they get.
NoisyPiper 8 months ago
@NoisyPiper The average cost per pupil in my state is $16,000.00 per pupil. This doesn't take into account the costs to fund the bloated pension and healthcare benefiits teachers, principals and administrators receieve while working and long after they're retired. Also add in the entire federal bureaucracy i.e the Dept. of Education and you'll wind up with around 45 g's per pupil. The sad fact is most of the money doesn't get to the kids. It goes to the useless politicians and bureaucrats
neobootsonious 8 months ago
@neobootsonious The national average is $9500 as of 2009, and is estimated to be roughly $10,700 in 2010 (due to stimulus money getting into the system at that time). Cost per pupil is spending per pupil, it is the overall state budget for non-university educated divided by the number of students. If your state's cpp is $16000, then that is your cpp.
Finally, most of the money in a private school goes to the administrators, not the students. Switching to the marketplace won't fix that problem.
NoisyPiper 8 months ago
There's nothing sadder than a bunch of nerds arguing over a dictionary on a Saturday night.
FatherChrismas 2 years ago
Today's definition of a conservative:
Someone who abhors any domestic spending on their own citizens, but supports spending limitless billions overseas.
FranzHess 2 years ago
Barack Obama's domestic spending already dwarfs the war spending. The war spending will look like pocket change compared to his welfare plans.
Cenamark2 2 years ago
@Cenamark2 Obama has continued the war spending, and has in fact increased it. And most of that "Domestic spending" has gone to banks and kingpin industrial corporations in their respective markets - that hasn't gone to individual citizens - in fact under Obama "welfare", apart from healthcare, has seen a decline in spending. And healthcare costs would have gone up with or without Obama.
NoisyPiper 8 months ago
Oh wow, I didnt know a dictionary could be that biased.....
ianthebain 2 years ago
No, the word Liberal and conservative come from the policies that they were formed around.
The definition of liberal is translated from the Latin word.
Cheshirecat55 2 years ago
Conservative for me
chevelle3429 2 years ago
I guess being conservative with our natural resources is a bad thing? Lets not conserve the forests and oceans. Lets clear cut and over fish because conservatism is bad.
Cenamark2 2 years ago
Conservatism is economic, it means to conserve money and in social views, to conserve traditional values.
Cheshirecat55 2 years ago
Yes but this video is using the dictionary definition.
Just pointing out how stupid this video is.
Cenamark2 2 years ago
um - who is more likely to be an environmentalist and support preserving natural resources and who is more likely to support whatever business wants to make a profit our of them and the hell with the consequences? If you can explain to me what conservatives have ever wanted to conserve other than the wealth and power of corporations and a greedy and selfish elite - I'd love to hear it.
TheRadicalLiberal 2 years ago
The point of my statement was to point out how stupid it is for the video to judge Liberal and Conservative based on the dictionary's definition of the two words because as political ideologies they are more complicated to explain.
In short I was joking. But I shouldn't expect a liberal to have a sense of humor.
Cenamark2 2 years ago
Why not? Almost every creative comedian and comedic television and movie writer/.producer/actor is/was a liberal. Liberalism by its very nature is free and creative and sees the humor in truth and the truth in humor.
I'm trying but I can't think of a humorous conservative. Help me out here, name a few.
TheRadicalLiberal 2 years ago
Sure liberals have big names who are comedians, but your average liberal is too uptight to make a sense of humor.
Here's how most libs I know act.
Guy: So a Jew and a black man enter a bar...
Liberal: This sounds offensive, your a racist, I want free health care from the government.
Cenamark2 2 years ago
I can't believe that you know any liberals, at least any liberal I know would have nothing to do with you.
Now you are being really ignorant. As far as health care goes, I believe it is an essential human right. Just as we have a police force to protect us (ideally) from crime and violence and a fire department to rescue us when our houses burn down and we have basic education - all the above paid for from taxes...
TheRadicalLiberal 2 years ago
...so we should have a public health system to help us when we are sick paid for by all of us with our taxes. Government By, For and Of The People.
But for some strange reason you want health care to be a for profit industy like selling toasters or cars. Please explain how it will ever be in your interest to have a for profit health insurance company decide which treatments you should receive. It is for profit. It will decide to treat you as little as possible.
TheRadicalLiberal 2 years ago
There is such thing as a free market. If my insurance company sucks I'll take my business elsewhere. Insurance companies don't get their jollies screwing people over. Screw people over and you lose business. You've bought the anti-business tripe Nancy Pelosi and Obama have been trying to sell the people.
Please explain how it will ever be in your interest to have government decide which treatments you should receive. It is for power. They will decide to treat you as little as possible.
Cenamark2 2 years ago
The facts speak for themselves. There are thousands of documented cases in the US of people being refused treatment no one pretext or another. Also you cannot get insurance if you have a pre-existing condition. Your health insurance companies are very happy to take your money when you are young and healthy. Just try actually getting sick. Fact - 50% of all bankruptcies in the US are due to medical costs and those people have insurance. I have never heard of a Canadian being refused necessary...
TheRadicalLiberal 2 years ago
...treatment. If such a thing happened it would be a national scandal. You cannot hide from the facts.
Life expectancy ranking in the world:
Canada 4th
USA 50th
Infant Mortatlity (lower number = fewer deaths)
Canada 36th
USA 45th
The above 2 statistics are often used as general indicators of a countries populations health.
They come from that well known socialist organization the CIA in its World Factbook.
You are welcome to your beliefs and your opinion but not your own facts.
TheRadicalLiberal 2 years ago
So the Canadians get to spend two or three years more than Americans being old farts (weeeee!) And they're 36th for Baby mortality rates. Looks like they're prenatal care isn't so hot either.
Plus there are other factors that drag down the American life expectancy like higher rates or violent crime. I'm not privy to my own facts, but you can't just state mere simple facts and expect them to explain a large broad concept with clarity and nuance.
Cenamark2 2 years ago
Well--Ben Stein is pretty funny, And isn't he an arch reactionary?
FatherChrismas 2 years ago
"But I shouldn't expect a liberal to have a sense of humor."
...spiteful.
FatherChrismas 2 years ago
Its not spite. Its hard truth. The Dems are the spiteful ones. Just look at how they're handling the "You lie." out burst. Suddenly everybody is racist.
Cenamark2 2 years ago
I can name a couple excellent conservative comedians: Brad Stine and Ben Stein. (wow...two different "st(e)ines!")
reaperman2010 2 years ago
Here are some selected definitions of Liberal. lacking moral restraint : licentious
: not literal or strict : loose
Cenamark2 2 years ago
U BET! Thats ME! CONSERVATIVE ALL THE WAY BABY!!!! WHOOT!
FrogTie79 2 years ago
Can't read the entire cover. Is that deliberate?
kvwann 2 years ago
Conservative: a. A preservaer; having power to preserve in a safe or entire state, or from loss, waste, or injury
- Webster's 1828
Hughganaught 3 years ago
1828?? LOL!!...
monster2802 3 years ago
haha you got pwned
GonzoTheGreat3000 2 years ago
So the statement is invalid; however, you claim there is no god with no proof whatsoever. So, who are the ignoramuses now??
btsilver6191 3 years ago
This is the typical uneducated and lazy thinking I mentioned originally.
I can't prove there aren't martians living in my basement either, so does that mean there must be some living down there?
.
monster2802 3 years ago
There's a few words missing from the definition. Like "lazy thinking", "uneducated" and "ignorant".
monster2802 3 years ago
You are what educated people call a hypocrite. Do you believe their is a God???
btsilver6191 3 years ago
Man created God... not the reverse.
-
monster2802 3 years ago
Do you see the irony in a being claiming absolute knowledge that there isn't a being that has absolute knowledge?
btsilver6191 3 years ago
I suggest you look up the term "formal fallacy".
monster2802 3 years ago
other way around God created you.
AngelusofDeus 3 years ago
Brilliant argument. I'm a believer now...
If I could do it over again, I would vote McCain/Palin so we could have a creationist bimbo in the whitehouse.
.
monster2802 3 years ago
yes
AngelusofDeus 3 years ago
lol thats true.
AngelusofDeus 3 years ago
The important point to remember, though, is that attitudes like yours tend to be destructive. I mentioned a job I once lost because a jury of poor folks decided to award a plantif a 100 times what he sued for. Make no mistake about it: This was an effort to exact their revenge upon an "immoral" wealthy person, and it ultimately destroyed the livelyhood of thousands of ordinary people. A desire to make the greedy rich "moral" by bringing them down financially harms everyone, including the poor.
jgaarsoe 3 years ago
"I know about this first hand . . ."
My experience with poor friends and family members has been constant resentment and envy--even in response to charity from others. Instead of being thankful that someone stepped in to help when they were in need, they bellyache about how "immoral" it is that other family members are better off than they are.
Marginally charitable wealthy people, however immoral, do more good for the less fortunate than a bunch of angry, whining poor people.
jgaarsoe 3 years ago
"I know about this first hand. You do not . . ."
This is patently false. Nearlly everyone knows some who are wealthy and some who are poor, including me.
The wealthy people you have known personally may be scoundrels, but when you make a sweeping generalization that all wealthy people are invariably the same way, you have indeed become biggoted.
My experiences have been the opposit: Wealthy family members have been endlessly charitable. Poor family members are hateful and destructive.
jgaarsoe 3 years ago
"The real problem still though is that the wealthy are inherently immoral . . ."
The real problem still, though, is that the blacks are inherently . . .
The real problem still, though, is that the Jews are inherently . . .
The real problem still, though, is that the Mexicans are inherently . . .
Your opinion has nothing to do with envy and everything to do with justice? Really? You sound pretty much like a typical bigot to me.
jgaarsoe 3 years ago
Democrats have a patent on all the good words. Kind of sucks. For example, C.A.R.E. Sounds good right? I'll make a donation. One problem, the Council on American Islamic Relations gives money to terrorists. Ouch, I think I'll hold on to my cash for now.
FreeCapital 3 years ago
It's amazing that so many people are blinded by class-envy induced hatred. This form of bigotry prevents them from seeing that we are all connected: Currently, unemployment it high. What this really means is that the economy is not doing well. And when we say the economy is not doing well, we are really saying that businesses are not doing well. There is a direct link: When businesses do well, ordinary people do well. Unfortunately, class envy dupes people into believing just the opposite.
jgaarsoe 3 years ago
The real problem still though is that the wealthy are inherently immoral. If they were truly moral, they would share the vast amount of their wealth. But the reality is they do not. They hoard it. My opinion has nothing to do with envy, and everything to do with justice.
tonygem 3 years ago
I once worked for an "immoral" rich person who actually did something greedy and illegal: He backed out of a purchase agreement. He was sued for $5 million. The trial was held in a poor area of Mississippi, and the prosecutor ginned up as much resentment as he could for the exploitation of this greedy capitalist and won a $500 million, not $5 million, judgment, which put our company out of business. 1000s of ordinary people lost their jobs for sentements like yours--socialistic schadenfreude.
jgaarsoe 3 years ago
The most hateful and socially destructive people I have known have been failures economically. And the people who have been the most charitable and giving and who have made the biggest difference in my life and the lives of my family members have been people of significant financial means. When you characterize all wealthy people as being immoral and greedy, you are indeed being bigoted. People like you contribute little, if anything, to the collective well-being of ordinary people like me.
jgaarsoe 3 years ago
I know about this first hand. You do not. I have members of my family who are extremely wealthy. They are also racist, ignorant, right-wing christian, and closed-minded. In addition they are only charitable because they have to be (they have to give away a certain amount yearly through their foundation). Also Mississippi isn't the most
progressive or aware place in the USA.
tonygem 3 years ago
@jgaarsoe "And when we say the economy is not doing well, we are really saying that businesses are not doing well. There is a direct link: When businesses do well, ordinary people do well."
So why is it that, today, major corporations are bringing in record profits - and have been for several quarters now - and unemployment rates are still hovering around 9%? Businesses are doing very well, ordinary people are not.
NoisyPiper 8 months ago
What did Michael Moore right that entry give me a break. Im a Conservative because i promote life and freedoms.
marcello728 3 years ago
Had to twist the words around for your benefit and the confusion of others?
Context. Context. Context.
Jocieness 3 years ago
i'm conservative fuck u liberal sissies
fighter4life914 3 years ago
there are 3 types of conservative... xenophobes, greedheads and religionists
kennny732 3 years ago
Yes, and proud of it!
BIGDANRD 3 years ago
Conservatism, n.:
1. a belief that individual rights are for persons and corporations who can afford political lobbyists and finance political campaigns of persons who'll vouch on their behalf (corporations are persons by American business law; you'll never see a corporation in jail)
2. the concept of an aristocratic oligarchy to run all aspects of government on behalf of corporate/nationalist interests (See: 'fascism') and to protect those interest from "mob rule" (<- Con slang for Democracy)
localhost008 3 years ago 5
Conservatism, n:
belief that individuals and corporations should be able to do absolutely anything they want, except for when it contradicts the bible.
Democratskids 3 years ago
Class envy, a form of bigotry, is rooted in ignorance: We are the corporations! The hated Exxon, for example, is not owned by some greedy capitalist. It is owned by ordinary individuals, working class people, and orphans and widows. The largest stake holders in companies like Exxon are pension plans that provide an income for working class people when they retire. Exxon also employs 85,000 working class people. Liberalisms bloodlust for corporations hurts millions of ordinary people.
jgaarsoe 3 years ago
Forgot to add: Conservatives: Narrow minded-greedy idiots who destroy the moral structurec and the U.S. economy by imposing their dictatorial and thoughtless rules and regulations on open-mided democtars.
Galaor55 3 years ago
George Soros: Democrat & wealthiest ever currency trader.
Warren Buffet: Democrat, Wall Street tycoon & wealthiest man on earth.
Most Democrat politicians come from privilege.
The wealthiest cities in the US--e.g., New York City, San Francisco and Boston, are liberal.
The idea that greed and wealth are the domain of conservatives is a carefully cultivated myth used by liberals to obtain power. They cry "corporate greed" and thousands of useful idiots line up to do their bidding.
jgaarsoe 3 years ago
Comment removed
irateyourvideo1 2 years ago
@jgaarsoe Democrat =/= liberal, liberal =/= leftist, Democrat =/= leftist.
NoisyPiper 8 months ago
@localhost008 Oh brother...what did you just get back from your lecture on the beauties of marxism?
neobootsonious 8 months ago
No dude we definatly are but in a good way
DudeFromHaverhill 3 years ago
Since when are Conservatives materialistic?
Godzillafan93 3 years ago
its kind of silly to have this definition on here since it doesnt apply to the political philosophy. another uneducated person.
drewrock2000 3 years ago
I'm sick of Bible nut concervatives. They are destorying this world as fast as any war.
ThePolishLover868 3 years ago
Show the meaning of the word "Liberal" wait I know "Liberal not having testicular fortitude" cut and run white flag waving hippies.
sweetpoison71 3 years ago
OH guess what this definition of theirs is a flat out lie "typical" I looked up the definition my self and its not 10 lines long like they make the definition out to be conservative simply means "preservative, preserve in a safe or entire state from loss, waste or injury."
jle1981 3 years ago
"preserve in a safe or entire state from loss, waste or injury" that's the definition of conserve...not conservative. It's pretty sad that you don't know how to use a dictionary.
Atrix3349 3 years ago
your definition is innacurate.. it displays your inadequate knowledge... nice blanket statement.. goldwater would be a good place to begin your studies..
crapvids 3 years ago
there are extremes to being liberal, and there are extremes to being conservative
I am in the middle.....moderate, MOST PEOPLE ARE.......you can not be 100% liberal, or 100% conservative-its not possible.
TommyUsername101 3 years ago
i agree.. whoever made this video apparently only gets their news from television
crapvids 3 years ago
Humans seem to need labels. We label everything and everyone. I seriously think it comes down to this: You're either part of the solution, or part of the problem. I like to think of myself as part of the SOLUTION. I'm educated, caring, diplomatic, open-minded, loving...all things that are beneficial to the greater good.
So which are you?
PeaceIsRad 3 years ago
Conservatives are stuck in the past and are unwilling to try something new.
Liberals are willing to try something else when the current policies are not working.
Conservatives......Change with the times or get left behind.
teasea3152 3 years ago
wat would u say about liberals if u were conservative????
TommyUsername101 3 years ago
lets get nuked!
crapvids 3 years ago
Liberals have great ideas that are detached from reality. They're completely clueless about the origins of civilization and the necessities of its sustained viability. Not necessarily bad people but extremely naive when examining the pitfalls of human nature.
mod9mods 3 years ago
how so?
fistofsteel97 3 years ago
Conservatives want to stall the world.
545lljkr 3 years ago
Real Conservatives want to the stall the world from self-destruction. Theres a difference. Liberals don't believe in an enduring truth so they're susceptible to anything. They'll gladly dance near the precipice of extinction in their quest to create a false utopia of self-worship and overindulgence. Modern day Icaruses who can't comprehend the folly of their ways.
mod9mods 3 years ago
Conservatives want to stall the world, period. They value the bible above the law and the constitution. You conservatives are the ones who are unwilling to see your own flaws. The self-worshipping people here, are you. conservatives go as far as saying that fascism is to the left, WOW.
545lljkr 3 years ago
The bible is a guide based on the collective experiences of those who supposedly were influenced by a higher power. Conservatives don't advocate the implementation of a theocracy based on the total submission to the bible. Thats utter rubbish. The adherence to principles outlined by the constitution & rule of law take priority over the selfish delusions of the few.Which core group is consistently railing against the revisionist interpretation of the U.S. Constitution?
mod9mods 3 years ago
"Conservatives don't advocate the implementation of a theocracy". Sure, I'm Mel Brooks.
"The adherence to principles outlined by the constitution & rule of law take priority over the selfish delusions of the few"- This country is based on the constitution whether you lke it or not.
545lljkr 3 years ago
Please read some Barry Goldwater. The religious right is a portion of the conservative coalition. They're one of the 3 wings. Get your facts right.
mod9mods 3 years ago
I already know about barry Goldwater. You're the one that needs to get your facts straight, if you generalize libs then I'll generalize cons.
545lljkr 3 years ago
Well. Where are the classical libs? They've been run out of power like the paleos the right.
mod9mods 3 years ago
Meaning?
545lljkr 3 years ago
now do one for neocon. i'll help you:
neo-con means hostility, ignorance, intolerance, and secretly loving gay porn.
darwinx0101 3 years ago
what's wrong with being intolerant? it means you have an opinion and you don't approve of certain things. That gay porn thing is one huge inaccuracy. CONSERVATIVES hate faggots so it doesn't follow that they would be into gay porn. This whole definition is based on anger which is what most liberals seem to operate on.
woolookout 3 years ago
hahaha, and conservatives don't operate on anger? gimme a fuckin break. lol
fistofsteel97 3 years ago
You skipped over half the definitions.
bill1148 3 years ago
Look at them yourself. You won't find anything good, I promise.
ajua25 3 years ago
The LBJ comparison is valid, and, certainly, the Bush administration is preposterously (and sadly) remote from Goldwater. The comparison between Hobbes and Locke is, IMO, tenuous - a generation made quite a difference. But what about this generation? Do they even know who we're talking about?
Grinmann 3 years ago
Gentleman or women, I suspect that the issue lies not with age, but with education. It is interesting to see you discuss whether Hobbes was liberal or conservative. I think that Hobbes was a sort of social Darwinist who would be regarded today as a supporter of dictatorships,neither liberal or conservative. I do see some of his beliefs mirrored in the beliefs and practices of both neo-cons and fundamentalist Christianity though.(I don't believe they would know that though!)
ruralpotter 3 years ago
Careful my liberal friends, conservatism isn't what you think it is. Conservatism rightly understood promotes diversity of ways. True conservatives believe that the very by-product of human freedom is diversity of ways. Please don't take what little freedom I have left.
marcparella 3 years ago
'Conservatism rightly understood promotes diversity of ways (sic)' is a bit like saying the human hand immersed in boiling oil will occasionally develop minor scaring. Maybe if the hand was Adam Smith's and the oil, well, we shouldn't go there. Seriously though, gentlemen such as Hobbes and Oakshot who penned genuine and interesting conservative thought can only be rolling in their graves at the hash that America's current conservatives have made of the world.
Grinmann 3 years ago 2
Hobbes was a 17th century classical liberal and yes, he would be rolling in his grave. But considerate individuals know that diversity is critical in developing a meaningful
political discourse. As a conservative, it makes no sense to have a monopoly on political ideas. Liberalism to me is an opposing philosophy which I occasionally agree with.
marcparella 3 years ago
You're about halfway there on Hobbes, my friend. As you may well know those one-time leftists who got 'mugged by reality' and now constitute the neo-con pantheon - I'm referring to Herr Strauss and his intellectual progeny - are quite fond of situating Hobbes at the nucleus of their conservative thought. Anyways, that's all part of a rather sad history that is, unfortunately, quite devoid of 'considerate individuals' - for instance, I can't think of one in the Bush administration.
Grinmann 3 years ago
Frankly, the Bush administration reminds me more of LBJ's administration than any other. Out of control spending, an unsupported war, nation building, etc. I have blogged many times that the Neo-Cons of today were the Dixiecrats of yesterday. The Bush administration has little to do with the conservatives like Robert Taft or Barry Goldwater. Regarding Hobbes, "Leviathan" doesn't compare to Locke's "An Essay Concerning Human Understanding" in the field of social contract philosophy.
marcparella 3 years ago
marcparella, you sound like my best consevative friend. The problem I see is that too many self described conservatives are not at all civil or capable of true debate. All too often they aren't really conservative either. Perhaps you and those like you should take back the word and your parties. I will try to do the same from the liberal side. Together, we can solve the problems we all face. I wish us all luck.
ruralpotter 3 years ago
wow. you brain dead liberal. pitifull. you are so damn open minded that your fucking brain has fallen out of your head. get your head out of your ass.
lokidafool 3 years ago
Wow, you brain dead neo-con...fuck off.
scottymeade 3 years ago
It's like with conservative mediccare, keep on praying not to get sick. Though it's important to take action while you're praying.
Socialists needs to stop drinking alcohole and smoke, while conservatives needs to stop eating junk food, and tons of meat. Stop eating candy and sugar related cakes, cola etc... Try to eat fruit vegetables for a change.
AllepMrSONY 3 years ago
woolookout: You're american, and yet you seem to be aware of that Europe is not a country, that's good.
There are about 40 countrys in Europs, and all countrys does not have the same politics. The health care systems are a bit different.
In socialist countrys, where there are barely any or none private hospitals, it can take a while before you can go and see a doctor, that's correct.
AllepMrSONY 3 years ago
HowardTCo:
Someone who makes liberal ads is probably not stupid... and compared to a conservative, he'd be a genius.
woolookout: - "Believe it or not, a gross majority of the media is... democrat/liberal. Why else would there be negative things about republicans?"
There are republicans in US, you know... why else would there be bad things about democrats?
Not very strong arguments...
AllepMrSONY 3 years ago
Not sure what you are getting at.
woolookout 3 years ago
Cough cough bias cough cough.
Emcmillin09 3 years ago
yes, bias. Im sure we've never seen conservative bias before...
Strayerdog 3 years ago 2
Yeah, it's called truth.
woolookout 3 years ago
How's socialism working out for you in Europe? Is it everything it's cracked up to be? I here many European countries are starting to revert back to capitalism because of the poor quality of the socialized healthcare over there. If you get sick how long do you have to wait to see a doctor?
woolookout 3 years ago
With over 70 per cent of the population, who is overweight, you sure need healthcare.
Not only the ones who were born in a silver spoon, should have the right to succeed in life. That opportunity should be given to everyone.
The government should compete with the private sector. That's when a society beomes effective.
AllepMrSONY 3 years ago
It is written in the dictionary, that liberals favor proposals for reform.
Your definition is false, and therefore worse.
AllepMrSONY 3 years ago
Liberals are for reform, and the reform would be reform from conservative ideas. another reason liberals would be for reform is because they want to change things and make them better. Isnt that reform?
Strayerdog 3 years ago
No. They want to change things for their own political agenda.
Emcmillin09 3 years ago
sweet dictionary...
heres a better definition for liberal:
"open to new ideas, but opposed to old ideas"
Albyiscool 3 years ago
Democrats are taking care of their own citizens, when republicans are "taking care" of the citizens over sea...
Would I mabye be a conservative if I actually lived in US? Mabye I would have been a socialist if I lived in Europe?, oh wait, I do... but i'm still not a socialist.
Conclusion; I'm a liberal, and able to think for myself. Being able to think for yourself, is liberal.
The political debates in Europe, are between socialists and liberals... and in US, it's between C and L.
AllepMrSONY 3 years ago
Yeah theyre takin care of em by takin their money and using it on programs they think you need.
woolookout 3 years ago
Well, I just said that I don't know everything that's going on over there. I'm keeping myself updated though, so I suppose I know more than most of the americans...
I've been a lot on vaications in US, and it seems nice. What isn't nice, is your mind rotting television, and that the average people are junk food eating fattys.
Fattys are mostly the poorest in a society, and that's to bad when you have no health care.
AllepMrSONY 3 years ago
Fire should be fought, but NOT with fire itself.
It's effective to fight fire with water though, and that's what makes liberals supperior to socialists and conservatives.
AllepMrSONY 3 years ago
Since you're not from the US, why do you feel you know everything that goes on here? For a foreigner you seem to know alot of negative things about republicans and only positive things about democrats. You would probably see it a different way if you actually lived here.
woolookout 3 years ago
Of course you would see it a different way if you lived in the States because your conservatives are censoring and paying off all the news and media. If you live anywhere else in the world (I'm in Canada, eh), you get unfiltered, unbiased news and media coverage.
I hate to break this to all the citizens of the U.S., but you are living in a dictatorship.
leesetvoannesr 3 years ago
A dictatorship? It's called a Republic. Bush doesn't dictate the rules of life for every living person here.
To contradict your statement about republicans paying off the media. It's actually the other way around. Believe it or not, a gross majority of the media is... democrat/liberal. Why else would there be negative things about republicans?
woolookout 3 years ago
The republican speciality is to make up lies and false accusations, and on top of that, they usually accuse people for things that are fitting in very well at themselves.
Clinton really DID search for Osama, and for what I've heard, US nearly catched him, under the command of Bill.
Terrorists are winning on the republicans unleagal and unconstotutional war.
New terrorists are recruiting like never before.
It's not easy to fight terrorism, by becomming a terrorist.
AllepMrSONY 3 years ago
You are precise.
AdamantEthos 3 years ago
Sience I don't live in US, I don't exactly know every detail of what he did. But I do know that he didn't lie over important issues, like Bush did.
Bill Clinton lied over a blow job, or something like that. The Bush administration lied over a invasion.
Bill clinton was very close in succeding of the settings to a eternal peace agreement, wich would result in a palestinian state.
Unfortunately, the republicans took over, and only answered to the zionist demands.
AllepMrSONY 3 years ago
Liberals saved socialist europes ass, in WW1 and WW2. The Vietnam war was started in the 60s, but derapped in the 70s, when republicans were in charge.
bunchron:
Democrats should definately stay liberals, and not become socialists. Not only because socialism is a fucked up fiasco ideology, but also because the conservatives would have won easily, if the american people were only to choose between to parties.
A struggle between pest and colera, won't give any good results.
AllepMrSONY 3 years ago
This is ridiculous! Where do you people come up with these outlandish conspiracy theories? Is it so hard to believe that republicans can succeed, that you have to make up lies and false accusations to demean them? If being a republican is wrong, than I don't want to be right.
woolookout 3 years ago
Wow, it seems that the democrats live in some kind of dream world where their ideologies are completely opposed to the republicans. In reality however, there is a huge ideological overlap between the democrats and the Republicans. Although the democratic party IS considered slightly more to the left there has been this recent tendency for democratic candidates to represent right-wing policies. I think the Democratic party, in reality, needs to further seperate itself from the Republicans.
bunchron 3 years ago
Way to go, republicans... who know nothing about how to build up peaceful relations with other countrys.
Enjoy your sinking ship.
AllepMrSONY 3 years ago
The dictator Saddam Hussein got captured, thanks to republicans... but it still doesn't prove much, sience the current situation in Irak is a lot worse, than before the invasion.
This Irak war has made america weak. Republicans are making america spend billions of dollar on that war, who has shown to be a complete fiasco.
Republicans are screwing up in the middle east, wich makes the world hate or dislike you... and the lefties are now even supporting dictator terrorist nations like Iran.
AllepMrSONY 3 years ago
Typical republicans, who want to prove they're tuff, by sending other people to war.
Glorifying it like propaganda.
How brave is it to slaughter small rock throwing kids with a machine gun? You tell me...
Taking down terrorists who plot your destruction is good. That's what democrats do.
Invading a country because of their resources is NOT good. That's what republicans do.
AllepMrSONY 3 years ago
HOW HOW HOW do they do it? I'd like to know since republicans seem to be such failures. Exactly what did Bill Clinton do as President? He was offered Osama on a silver platter and turned him down. He also bombed an aspirin factory. Any other glorious successes for this DEMOCRAT president?
woolookout 3 years ago
And look at the "glorious successes" of George W. Bush.
leesetvoannesr 3 years ago
WWI, WWII, Vietnam... started by democrats... how many of our men and women were killed in those wars??
waukee3523 3 years ago
How exactly do the democrats hunt the terrorists? All you have said is the same crap I hear from just about every liberal democrat who spews about the war. THEY ARE AFRAID OF VIOLENCE! Tell me, how does taking the initiative to track down the people who plot your destruction make them weak. Who captured Saddam and toppled his regime? I'll tell you. Your OWN commander-in-chief, a REPUBLICAN named George W. Bush. Who freed thousands of actually opressed civilians? George Bush.
woolookout 3 years ago
Voting republican is self destructive though. Enjoy your sinking ship!
Republicans makes america weak.
Spending millions of dollar on war, every day... wich makes other countrys around the world, do the same.
With democrats at charge, the world will definately be more peaceful.
Mabye the terrorist hunting will be able to finally start, after 2008?
AllepMrSONY 3 years ago
Democrats DO hunt terrorists, things were done properly when they were in charge.
Unlike now... starting a war, based on lies and greed. A war where the terrorists grow stronger for each day, and with the US dollar collapsing, because of all the unnessessary spended money.
Democrats don't support killing poor and opressed civilians. Democrats are the one hunting terrorists, and republicans are the one trying to steel the oil, and other resources.
AllepMrSONY 3 years ago
You're an idiot. I'm sorry, but nothing I say can change your so called "open mind", so I have to call it as I see it.
woolookout 3 years ago
Liberals are protectionistic socialist nannys, as much as they are cold hearted conservative capitalist pigs.
If you ask a conservative, the first would be correct.
If you ask a Socialist, the second would be correct.
Talking about seeing the world in black and white...
I believe what I say is true. But for a closed minded conservative like you, the "truth" is so obvious, that you don't even have to think.
No questioning, no woundering... just keep believing in religion.
AllepMrSONY 3 years ago
... between beeing a republican, and an american.
Voting republican is like STARTING a war. Boath are self destructive.
Democrats are hunting terrorists, republicans are creating them. If the republicans wouldn't hide anything, of course less people would vote for them, and the liberals would have won easily.
That's why the republicans need excuses to start imperialistic and unconstitutional wars.
AllepMrSONY 3 years ago
Are you kidding me? Democrats don't hunt terrorists. They are afraid of violence or anything that makes a loud noise! They don't support killing terrorists. I really don't know where you come up with this stuff.
woolookout 3 years ago
@AllepMrSONY Ohhh, the Democrats are creating terrorists, too. The foreign policies of Democratic and Republican administrations are shockingly similar.
NoisyPiper 8 months ago
I watch Fox "news", more than any other american channel...
What the people are getting sick of, (all over the world), is the destructive war in the middle east who's getting worse and worse.
US had the chance to get popular by other nations after 9/11, many countrys were actually offering their help to US after the attac...
but now, after the pointless war in Irak, you're hated world wide, more or less.
It's to bad that most of the non-american people don't know the difference...
AllepMrSONY 3 years ago
Being one or the other is personal ideology and has nothing to do with party affiliation. Yes, Faux News is wrong about that too!
stopmojim 3 years ago
Gee....I can't help but wonder what political ideology that dictionary follows! I love how the liberal definition was so POSITIVE and glowing....and the conservative one amounted to an outright insult. How about these descriptions: careful, cautious, believer, one who has faith in something greater than himself, having the courage to stand up to and fight evil in the world"???????
Nice...uh...."definition".
brianscorp05 3 years ago
... but sience George W Bush is a religious nut, with eyes who sit tight together and a small forhead, he strongly reminds of a monkey.
But republicans do not believe that humans have any sort of connection with monkeys...
The Irak war has been an ultra loss, not only ecomomiccly but also in killed civilians.
Democrats are hunting terrorists. Republicans are hunting resources, and those whith a different point of view...
Republicans and terrorists believe that violence solves...
AllepMrSONY 3 years ago
I'm guessing you watch CNN or something like that. You see Democrats(liberals) have invested in defeat. The only way they can keep their credibility is if we lose this war. That is why they say that. They can't have a republican succeeding. It would be devastating. People are getting sick of their pessimism and constant whining.
woolookout 3 years ago
Reoublicans are not really searching for terrorists, sience they cooperate with them, (Saudi Arabia).
Irak has nothing to do with 9/11, and besides... The invasion was planned long before the twin tower collapse.
Terrosist hunting is the excuse for the republicans to go in to the middle east where there is oil, so that they can fight their imperialistic war, grounded on fictisious reasons.
AllepMrSONY 3 years ago
If we wanted oil, we could have gotten it in about 2 years, killed everyone like the brutes we are and gas would not cost 4 bucks a gallon. USE YOUR COMMON SENSE.
woolookout 3 years ago
Terrorists are fundamentalists who wants to solve issues with violence. That means they are opposed to liberals. It's the complete differnece.
Liberals are straight to the pont, and don't even come close to lie as much and hard, as socialists and conservatives.
Socialist and conservative countrys have brought up many more wars, curruption, and illnes to the civilians. Boath ideoligies have always hightened the cleft between rich and poor.
Neither of them are open for new ideas...
AllepMrSONY 3 years ago
Liberals ARE Socialists. They want bigger government, higher taxes, no morals. Got it? Do you actually believe all that stuff you say? To me it sound like a load of crap.
woolookout 3 years ago
fuck liberals
invisamitch 3 years ago
"Glorifying war is sick" and so is trying to bring down your own country for defending itself. What's past is past and you can't change that. We are dealing with the mistake about those weapons. How on earth was the gov't to know that the Saudis would use the weapons on them and other free nations.
You know what they say, Retrospect vision is 20/20.
woolookout 3 years ago
Terrorists are not like Liberals. They don't lie all the time. Say if a man corners you and says he's going to kill you, would you say, "oh that's okay I don't believe you."
If he endorses someone who he knows will surrender to him, doesn't it follow logically that he's not good for the job?
I'm sure that his goal is to help the republicans politcally. After all, what terrorist would want a democrat in office? One who they know will turn tail and run at the sound of a bomb.
woolookout 3 years ago
Usama Bin Laden is probably a man with extraordinary high IQ. I'm NOT writing it justies his actions.
Bin Laden probably work for the US government, in one way or another.
Anway; he's certainly aware of that his endorsements to the US democrats won't help them in getting more votes.
His endorsements to the democrats, will help the republican party, and I bet that he is 100per cent aware of that. All according to the plan...
Two faces for the same coin...
Glorifying war is sick.
AllepMrSONY 3 years ago
northgrand and woolookout:
You're saying that Osama Bin Laden has endorsed the US democrats, so what?
... and you believe it means that he wants the democrats to win? That means YOU guys, trust what a terrorist says.
No wounder though, giving tons of weapons to Saddam Hussein, making buissness with Saudi Arabia, (headquarter of the terrorists) etc etc.
Two faces for the same coin... and the civilians are the victims who will have to pay your wealth.
AllepMrSONY 3 years ago
Liberal: A "man" who's so open minded that they're brains have fallen out and they enjoy being sodomized regularly by big Joe.
Northgrant 3 years ago