PDA

View Full Version : Are You Liberal or Conservative??



mike M.
10-21-2005, 06:27 PM
Liberal or Conservative

A young woman was about to finish her first year of college. Like so many
others her age, she considered herself to be a very liberal Democrat, and
was very much in favor of the redistribution of wealth.


She was deeply ashamed that her father was a rather staunch Republican, a
feeling she openly expressed. Based on the lectures that she had
participated in, and the occasional chat with a professor, she felt that
her father had for years harbored an evil, selfish desire to keep what he
thought should be his.


One day she was challenging her father on his opposition to higher taxes on
the rich and the addition of more government welfare programs. The
self-professed objectivity proclaimed by her professors had to be the truth
and she indicated so to her father.


He responded by asking how she was doing in school.


Taken aback, she answered rather haughtily that she had a 4.0 GPA, and let
him know that it was tough to maintain, insisting t hat she was taking a
very difficult course load and was constantly studying, which left her no
time to go out and party like other people she knew. She didn't even have
time for a boyfriend, and didn't really have many college friends because
she spent all her time studying.


Her father listened and then asked, "How is you friend Audrey doing?"


She replied, "Audrey is barely getting by. All she takes are easy classes,
she never studies, and she barely has a 2.0 GPA. She is so popular on
campus, college for her is a blast. She's always invited to all the
parties, and lots of times she doesn't even show up for classes because
she's too hung over."


Her wise father asked his daughter, "Why don't you go to the Dean's office
and ask him to deduct a 1.0 off your GPA and give it to your friend who
only has a 2.0. That way you will both have a 3.0 GPA and certainly that
would be a fair and equal distribution of GPA."


The daughter, visibly shocked by her father's suggestion, angrily fired
back, "That wouldn't be fair! I have worked really hard for my grades! I've
invested a lot of time, and a lot of hard work! Audrey has done next to
nothing toward her degree. She played while I worked my tail off!"


The father slowly smiled, winked and said gently, "Welcome to the
Republican Party."

Bladensburg
10-21-2005, 06:35 PM
Americans seem to confuse the concepts of "liberal" and "communist", God knows why, there is quite a difference between the two.

I could say they also confuse the concepts of "conservative" and "religious fundamentalist warmonger" but there you go.

Panzerknacker
10-21-2005, 07:39 PM
If I live is the U.S I probably be a die hard Republican, anti-abortive, anti gun-control guy....but without the religious charge because I am not Christian.

1000ydstare
10-21-2005, 08:13 PM
The yanks could surely open a few programes for the masses, for example free health care?

There is far too much, I have got it, you haven't, unlucky.

temujin77
10-21-2005, 09:11 PM
Hurray for conservatives :)

I'm no Republican though, however I do tend to vote Republican. I like the general Republican belief that government should be small, centralized, and powerful. However I don't like how the Bush administration is introducing religion into the mix, and stopping life-saving research on stem cells. I rarely see myself siding on the Democrat side; I just don't see the United States as a socialist-leaning country...

I guess I'm a centrist leaning on the Republican side?

mike M.
10-21-2005, 09:38 PM
If I live is the U.S I probably be a die hard Republican, anti-abortive, anti gun-control guy....but without the religious charge because I am not Christian.

Panzerknacker, My self Im a republican, Im pro gun..NOT religious and pro womans choice, she and one other person are the only ones who should make a decision like that. I agree, Religion belongs nowhere in government. :?

StalingradK
10-21-2005, 09:47 PM
Honestly, being a Liberal, or being a Conservative does not mean you are put into a certain part... I mean there are some Republicans that think Liberal like, and in Vice versa. I am Libertarian now, OH, WHO GOT OWNED BIATCHES :D

And if you are wondering I am independent in the Liberal, Conservative thing, I am my own sub-party :/

mike M.
10-21-2005, 09:52 PM
Americans seem to confuse the concepts of "liberal" and "communist", God knows why, there is quite a difference between the two.
I could say they also confuse the concepts of "conservative" .

Bladensburg...What I posted is a simple story, what does being communist have to do with that? Answer one.... question do you want to share your grade point average with the student who does not study hard like you? Me I dont.. :)

Sturmtruppen
10-21-2005, 10:10 PM
The father slowly smiled, winked and said gently, "Welcome to the
Republican Party."
"Welcome to the autoritary Party!,let's celebrate,kill mexicans and kick african-americans from usa,let's have a democratic elected dictatorship,and make the rich richer and the poor more poor,isn't ok?,
yes Audrey,you too,come with us and have an american "junta militar".

in this case,im going then to join to the "Argentine Republican Party"

the candidates are:
http://www.ateneohyv.com.ar/Galeria/02/galtieri.perfil.mejor.jpg
our dear ex-dictators
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/3/3d/Ongania.jpg/180px-Ongania.jpg.

Join to the argentine republican party!,and a bonus track,help usa to be ruled again by GEORGE BUSH!!! :D .


THIS IS ALL IRONY,i just prevent you from thinking that i want to kill mexicans,vote dictators,AND BE REPUBLICAN.

http://theducks.org/pictures/vote-kerry.gif


Günter Schätzer,Erwin's Cousin says:
Vote clinton or **** off.

StalingradK
10-21-2005, 10:29 PM
LMAO, I love this forum... And Erwin's "might"

DerMann
10-22-2005, 12:04 AM
Vote clinton or **** off.

Ermm, Clinton cannot run for President anymore because of the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution. I do believe the only person to have been elected more than twice was Franklin Roosevelt, and that amendment was passed after his fourth term. Would've been nice though, he would have been a much better candidate than Kerry.

I'm a moderate, but I'm leaning towards liberal.

One should not confine Republicans as Conservatives and Democrats as Liberals. It has gone back and forth throughout the years. In the begining, the Democratic party was for the common man, then during the latter half of the 19th century the Republicans became more liberal than the Democrats (Abraham Lincoln was a Liberal Republican). It continued untill Theodore Roosevelt, then I believe the Republicans stopped being liberal and the Democrats were more liberal once again.

"I am a man who believes with all fervor and intensity in moderate progress. Too often men who believe in moderation believe in it only moderately and tepidly and leave fervor to the extremists of the two sides -- the extremists of reaction and the extremists of progress. Washington, Lincoln . . . are men who, to my mind, stand as the types of what wide, progressive leadership should be."
—Theodore Roosevelt

He was a devout believer in military might who won the Nobel Peace Prize, a proud hunter of wild game who helped found the modern conservation movement, a reformer among politicians, and a politician among reformers.

*Edited* Added another quote.

Sturmtruppen
10-22-2005, 12:19 AM
Vote clinton or **** off.

Ermm, Clinton cannot run for President anymore because of the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution. I do believe the only person to have been elected more than twice was Franklin Roosevelt, and that amendment was passed after his fourth term. Would've been nice though, he would have been a much better candidate than Kerry.

Clinton cannot,but the laws can be changed,also Kerry would have been much better candidate than Bush.

I don't know why i am so interested on this,im argentine,but my cousin is interested,thanks to this ****ing guy,he is living in the urban no man's land called NY.

greetings

DerMann
10-22-2005, 12:25 AM
I forgot where I saw it on, but I think it might have been The Daily Show with Jon Stuart. Someone was saying "Alright, here's the deal. The Republicans can run Arnold Schwarzenegger if the Democrats can run Clinton again. It would be the Terminator vs. the Sperminator."

If laws would be changed to allow Clinton to run a third time, they would eventually pass a law allowing Ahnold to be President (bad thing).

I'll agree that John Kerry was a better candidate than George W. Bush, but then again who isn't a better candidate than Dubyah?

Sturmtruppen
10-22-2005, 12:27 AM
I forgot where I saw it on, but I think it might have been The Daily Show with Jon Stuart. Someone was saying "Alright, here's the deal. The Republicans can run Arnold Schwarzenegger if the Democrats can run Clinton again. It would be the Terminator vs. the Sperminator."

If laws would be changed to allow Clinton to run a third time, they would eventually pass a law allowing Ahnold to be President (bad thing).

I'll agree that John Kerry was a better candidate than George W. Bush, but then again who isn't a better candidate than Dubyah?

Terminator vs. the Sperminator :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: LMAO.
they would allow arnie to be president?,shit!,then vote kerry.

DerMann
10-22-2005, 12:33 AM
they would allow arnie to be president?,shit!,then vote kerry.

Too late :\

I'm a Democrat and one thing that seems to annoy me about other Democrats is that they refuse to take the "Kerry Edwards '04" stickers off of their bumpers. It's almost a year later, I think Dubyah's won by now ;)
It's as if we cannot move out of the past :shock:

Sturmtruppen
10-22-2005, 12:39 AM
they would allow arnie to be president?,shit!,then vote kerry.

Too late :\

I'm a Democrat and one thing that seems to annoy me about other Democrats is that they refuse to take the "Kerry Edwards '04" stickers off of their bumpers. It's almost a year later, I think Dubyah's won by now ;)
It's as if we cannot move out of the past :shock:

Mate,i prefer the worst democrat candidate instead of the best republican candidate but as you said,i will think in Dubyah :D ,but i don't know who is him,i don't talk to my cousin a long time ago :(

Dani
10-22-2005, 12:46 AM
Dubyah??
Ask Gen. Sandworm!! Or better, look at his sig. :D

Sturmtruppen
10-22-2005, 12:47 AM
Dubyah??
Ask Gen. Sandworm!! Or better, look at his sig. :D
http://www.noordzeefm.nl/data/media/manual_upload/bush%20disco.JPG

DISCO :D

Firefly
10-22-2005, 05:38 AM
Over here, you would probably find YOUR version of a Liberal classed as a right winger.

Although I believe that most politicians these days are exactly the same lying self serving scum.

So I would say that in any true Democracy there should be a place for all views, be it communist or fascist, its when opne dominates all the others that the trouble starts.

1000ydstare
10-22-2005, 05:47 AM
I'd just like to point out as well, that the example used in the first post as a reason for the way the system is, is utter tosh.

In a country, if one person loses we all lose.

Thus there should be provisions in place to give those who weren't lucky enough to be born in to wealthy families to fight there way up.

The example shows two people at the same school, with the same oppurtunities. One has chosen to throw their good fortune to the dogs.

What of an example in which one is working hard at a good school, with all the resources, to get a 4.0 grade.

At a school across town, another student is working just as hard if not harder at a school where all the IT equipment is broken or stolen. The testtubes have been replaced by empty coke cans because there are no funds to replace them, they are only on a 2.0 grade?

Or who gets the atheltics scholarship?

The one who went to a school with good running track, whose parents could afford to buy the best trainers or the one whose school had a mud track around the playing field, who runs in the same trainers they use for other tasks and are old and tatty.

Thus that example used is a load of tonk that only someone who already has "it" would use as a reason why someone who hasn't got "it" shouldn't get "it".

pdf27
10-22-2005, 06:20 AM
Back on topic, I'd describe myself as a Classical Liberal (somewhat similar to Stoaty). That means in the UK I'm politically homeless, and in the US I'd be more or less a Republican (with some reservations).

Bladensburg
10-22-2005, 09:19 AM
Americans seem to confuse the concepts of "liberal" and "communist", God knows why, there is quite a difference between the two.
I could say they also confuse the concepts of "conservative" .

Bladensburg...What I posted is a simple story, what does being communist have to do with that? Answer one.... question do you want to share your grade point average with the student who does not study hard like you? Me I dont.. :)

The redistribution of wealth is a communist/socialist fantasy - the "equality of result" philosophy. This is not to be confused with the liberal concept of "equality of opportunity". My point is that in modern America "liberal" is used (mainly by republicans) as synonymous with "communist" which it is not.

We don't have "grade point averages", we have classifications (first, upper second, lower second, third). I got the same classification as people who worked much harder than I did.

mike M.
10-22-2005, 10:12 AM
I got the same classification as people who worked much harder than I did.

Thus there should be provisions in place to give those who weren't lucky enough to be born in to wealthy families to fight there way up.



I dont understand this system but I now understand why you feel the way you do towards certian things.
There are provisions in the United States..Its called public school and its FREE TO ALL even kids who are not legal here. The only thing we cannot figure out is we cannot make people want to learn. :wink:
Im a product of public school's and have little college but with hard work I have a nice home and make a good living wage.
Im all for helping people out when they need a hand but in the US welfare goes from generation to generation to generation..But then again..The democrats have to get the votes from somwhere.. :D :D

mike M.
10-22-2005, 10:14 AM
"Welcome to the autoritary Party!,let's celebrate,kill mexicans and kick african-americans from usa, Vote clinton or **** off.


Erwin..your just a waco!!!!! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

1000ydstare
10-22-2005, 10:15 AM
We have state schools, our public schools are actually private!!!!

What should happen is that the brightest students regardless of background should be able to compete for the better schooling/grades on a playing field devoid of social or similar obstacles.

Edit to add.

It's not about the redistribution of wealth, just the chances to achieve. Many people are held down by systems of education that just don't do this.

Rudolf Stiener schools for example benefit some children, but you have to pay to go there.

If you have little money, then state school is all you get.

Firefly
10-22-2005, 11:05 AM
There are however some excellent state schools. Im not an advocate of wealth re--distribution per se, more, re-allocation to where it is needed, so that the under-developed can be ancouraged to develop, not sit around on their arses all day sucking up my taxes, but not abandoned either.

Sturmtruppen
10-22-2005, 12:13 PM
"Welcome to the autoritary Party!,let's celebrate,kill mexicans and kick african-americans from usa, Vote clinton or **** off.


Erwin..your just a waco!!!!! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
thankyou

http://www.willieboats.com/Bin%20Ladin%20Images/BUSH.jpg

StalingradK
10-22-2005, 12:26 PM
:D :lol: :D

Omg... THAT WAS SO PRICELESS :D ROFL

Sturmtruppen
10-22-2005, 12:51 PM
:D :lol: :D

Omg... THAT WAS SO PRICELESS :D ROFL
http://www.subgenius.com/bigfist/pics6/bushism/priceless-Codini.jpg
and this is priceless too

Bladensburg
10-22-2005, 06:50 PM
Firefly, 100yd I was recently reading about Christ's Hospital and how the majority of it's pupils don't pay fees yet it still manages to provide one of the best educations in the country.
It got me thinking about the whole State School/Public School debate, I was once told (by a Bryanstone worker) that if you took out all the expensive extras like boarding, CCF, riding school etc the actual education of a pupil there was not enormously more expensive than the total budget for a state pupil from Blandford Comprehensive (or what ever it's called). The difference is that while Bryanstone has the Headmaster, bursar and a few assorted assistants and secretaries to run it there are several times as many people involved in running the Comprehensive when you factor in all the school secretaries, local council/LEA workers and Civil servants.
The Left wingers want to strip the Public schools of their charitable status out of pure spite because they provide a better quality education for about the same actual cost. I just wish the Tories would go the whole hog and either reinstate the Assisted Places scheme or give any parent that wants it a voucher to be spent on any school (with a few basic provisos) regardless of what the fees are. Unti this sort of radical action is taken to allow people to vote with their (children's) feet State education will continue to get worse because all the useless minions know that they have acaptive audience.

1000ydstare
10-23-2005, 12:43 AM
I have heard that yes, but that only applies to the local kids that attend. They add the bills on as the year progresses.

My Mrs was educated in a paid for school, although paid for by her dads company, and it was £18,000 a year all in (board, riding, etc.)

Agree, what we need to do is give a school £X and let the school and Headmaster decide how to spend it. All these wishy washer do gooder jobs need to go where ever they may be.

(Oh by the way use real nappies, they are better for everyone!!!!)

Iron Yeoman
10-23-2005, 05:08 AM
I myself am a product of one of Britian's excellent public (independent/private) schools. Some of my friends there were on assisted places, I was horrified to learn that these were stopped by the current shower of bastards. IMHO the government has a duty to make up where it fails to provide, e.g. exceptionally bright children should be sent to the top schools. If this isn't done the government are robbing the nation of some very fine minds.

Crab_to_be
10-23-2005, 06:15 AM
I was educated on the assisted places scheme, which I have benefited from enormously. My younger brother did too, because the school was prepared to offer him a bursary (like the assisted places, but paid for by the school, not the taxpayer). The bursary existed because the school recognised that many parents couldn't afford to pay for two children to be privately educated and so offered various bursaries to make sure that the younger child didn't miss out through being born second.

I'm very much in favour of a voucher scheme, where the government pays up to the cost of state education and parents are then free to pay more for private education if the voucher doesn't cover the cost. It will benefit those rich enough to afford private education outright, but it will also benefit those who can't afford it at the moment. Unfortunately, the present government is very much in favour of spiting the upper classes, regardless of how much a policy would benefit others.

Bladensburg
10-23-2005, 07:31 AM
I think the important thing is to break the state monopoly on mass education in such a way as to shock the useless time-servers of the NUT etc out of their complacency. It's telling that teachers call themselves a "profession" and yet have unions rather than a professional body (like a Royal College/Charter) and that those unions are some of the most radical and strident - look how much an NUT conference is like a class full of the most obnoxious brats.

Firefly
10-23-2005, 09:00 AM
Interesting points, I wasnt a product of the English system and dont really understand it. Up here our education is vocationally based and does not bear direct comparison. Mind you we still have our fair share of Shite schools too. But it does appear to be a bit worse down south, still as I say, Im not really qualified to judge it.

mike M.
10-23-2005, 12:52 PM
I'm very much in favour of a voucher scheme, where the government pays up to the cost of state education and parents are then free to pay more for private education if the voucher doesn't cover the cost.

Crab, I agree with you 100% on this, I wish they would do this where I live. We also have scholarships where the tuition is paid for gifted students that may not have the cash to pay themselves. BUT you have to earn it. :shock:

mike M.
10-23-2005, 01:00 PM
Or who gets the atheltics scholarship?

The one who went to a school with good running track, whose parents could afford to buy the best trainers or the one whose school had a mud track around the playing field, who runs in the same trainers they use for other tasks and are old and tatty.



What should happen is that the brightest students regardless of background should be able to compete for the better schooling/grades on a playing field devoid of social or similar obstacles.


IM not sure if I understand you here. I think the athletic scholarship should go to the best players.
Are you saying an athlete who is not as good as someone else because he didn't have the same opportunities should also get a scholarship??

The other issue...we have that in the USA..its called scholarships..

1000ydstare
10-23-2005, 01:45 PM
You pretty much answer it yourself Mike.

They should go to the best player but how do you define the "best"?

Think about the montage in Rocky when he fights the Russian. The Ruski gets all the breaks Rocky punches frozen meat.

All right in this particular thing the underdog wins but this is the sort of thing I'm getting at.

Someone in a crap school/establishment may have to work a dam sight harder than someone in in a better establishment to get to a similar standard.

It's all about the means rather than the end.

pdf27
10-23-2005, 04:12 PM
Someone in a crap school/establishment may have to work a dam sight harder than someone in in a better establishment to get to a similar standard.

It's all about the means rather than the end.
Remember when schools/universities are selecting people they're looking for the ones who will be best when they leave, not who are best when they arrive. Two of my friends at university were I suspect selected on that principle - one did fantastically well, another did very badly.