Reply
Thu 24 Jun, 2004 10:55 pm
In a nutshell,the difference can be described by the old saying..."give a man a fish,and he will eat for a day,teach him to fish and he will eat EVERY day"
In my opinion,that describes the biggest difference between the two ideologies.
A liberal seems happy with giving a man a fish and saying"see,I care.I fed you today",knowing that the man will have to return tomorrow for another fish.That man is dependent on the liberal to provide the fish,and the Liberal is happy,believing he is helping solve the problem.
A conservative,on the other hand,will give the man the fish,while at the same time teaching him to fish.
That way,the man can feed himself,and doesnt need anyone to provide for him.Once he learns to fish,a conservative will stop giving him fish,therefore the man is on his own.
As a conservative,I believe compassion is getting people off welfare,so they can provide for themselves.
Compassion is not determined by the number of people on welfare,but by the number of people that no longer need it.
So,the more people fishing for themselves,the better.
IMHO,the liberals look at it the other way around.
When republicans give fish to someone it usually means they already have 20 million of them.
rabel22 wrote:When republicans give fish to someone it usually means they already have 20 million of them.
I said nothing about republican or democrat.
I know that not every republican is a conservative,just like not every democrat is a liberal.
Dont try to put words where there arent any.
Republicans hate to share their wealth. That's the reason the rich keeps all the fish for themselves, and the saying "stinking rich" comes from.
again,I DID NOT SAY REPUBLICAN OR DEMOCRAT.
Not every conservative is a republican,and not every liberal is a democrat.
Why is that so hard to understand?
Forgive me. I thought that republican and conserative were synonymous.
Forgive me too! I always thought, left-right, liberal-conservative, democrat-republican were synonymous terms.
This is an oversimplification but I do appreciate it, mysteryman. We're all individuals who have from intellect and life experience established what we believe is a workable philosphy of life. Politics unfortunately doesn't have that much to do with philosophy. It's almost a always a case of action and reaction and seldom does it seem to be pragmatic but more like experimental. Or an adventure, like the rapidly failing experiment that is brewing in Iraq. We may not live to see the results.
This is a loaded comparison that simply seeks to say: "the difference between liberals and conservatives is that conservatives prefer a wiser policy."
It's disingenuous because it purports to be a simple comparison while in reality it assumes the most important point of contention: which preferred policies are best.
It's tantamount to saying: "the difference between my opinion and yours is that mine is better."
But it makes this case deceptively.
A more accurate statement would be to say that conservatives prefer smaller government with fewer services and less taxation while liberals prefer a larger government with more services and subsequently more taxation.
Which preferred policy produces the best results is the essense of the political debate between the two sides but this simplistic "comparison" is just a loaded attempt to assume which side is right.
It's a disingenuous way to discuss the economic policy and is on the level of some of the responses' underlying theme:
"The difference between liberals and conservatives is that conservatives are greedy."
This level of discussion is counterproductive in my opinion. It's barely a step above "na na na na na na, we are better, na na na na na na."
I agree, Craven, to an extent. There are really not enough true liberals in the country who have any influence. I can't name one, especially among politicians. There are too many who believe in mandates and they are out of the realm of comprehendible principals. We live in a malleable society (Proust was right) but that also means we live an a basically directionless society.
The wisdom contained in a nutshell often has as much meat in it as is contained in a nut.
I think it is possible we have a pine-nut here....
Plant it but I am not sure you'll get a tree.
deb, I've read about a dozen or so of your most recent posts and have come to the conclusion that you really ought to spend more time posting in the politics fora, especially when your wit grows its little barbs (as it has now).
A most enjoyable respite from the normally caustic give-and-take.
Keep going...
mysteryman wrote:A conservative,on the other hand,will give the man the fish,while at the same time teaching him to fish.
That way,the man can feed himself,and doesnt need anyone to provide for him.Once he learns to fish,a conservative will stop giving him fish,therefore the man is on his own.
Sometimes I get the feeling the conservative teaches a man to fish but meanwhile doesn't give him any fish. By the time the man knows how to fish, he's half-dead.
I've always thought that the difference was that liberals "feel" while conservatives "think".
Glad that you asked this question, mysteryman. I've wondered about a basic definition myself. As I recall, Conservatives are in favor of the status quo, while liberals pursue a progressive policy. How has that changed over the years?
If a group is for the status quo at any given time, they will probably no longer want the status quo once the status quo has changed.
McGentrix wrote:I've always thought that the difference was that liberals "feel" while conservatives "think".
I've always thought that the difference was that liberals "****" while conservatives could only "fart".
McGentrix wrote:I've always thought that the difference was that liberals "feel" while conservatives "think".
This explains why last election George Bush was accused of being too intellectual, and Gore's campaign was over emotional.