WVBT Blog Landing Page

Home : Participate : Blogs :

butterfly5's Blog

by butterfly5 from KC Metro

Last Post 463 days, 4 hours Ago

Liberals vs Conservatives

Mar 26, 2008 | 4:26 PM
Category: Political

Report This Post

This will be short and I may be naive but here goes.

It seems to be a trend that people will elect Republicans for a few terms then elect Demacrats for a few terms (mostly to right what the other party has done). They blame eachother for everything bad and fight for the credit of what went right.

Also, it seems a politician has to be all right or all left. They can't just say ok I believe this way plain and simple even if it doesnt follow their party line. If they do they are crucified and not a true democrat or republican and a trader to their party. Look at whats happened to John McCain. He's not conservative enough sreams the likes of Rush. Oddly enough he is the Republican Party nominee.

To me it seems logical to come together, quit bickering, give a lil, and take a lil. I don't mean create a third party but just for a minute for the best intersts of our nation, GET OVER OURSELVES and act like adults.

17 Comments | Add a Comment

Mar 26, 2008 | 7:22 PM

I appreciate your sentiment but it is naive.whether you like it or not it is a blood sport and not for the faint of heart.What we lack on both sides is a leader that can articulate a message that all can understand and get behind. the last such leader was Ronald Reagan. I see no one on either side at this moment in time that can do that.

jstol3

Mar 26, 2008 | 10:13 PM

Not all Democrats are liberals and not all Republicans are conservatives. I consider myself a conservative but I come down on the liberal side on some issues. I do think that we need to come together and get away from being idealogues. There are so many of us and we have so many different ideas that it would be impossible to please all of the people all of the time. I believe that this nation cannot prosper without compromise and consensus. I don't believe in going overboard on "fad" issues without a whole lot of proof. We are about to do what a lot of people considered to be impossible - put another Republican in office. That is because the Democrats have some ideas that are so outrageous and their party is so divided. John McCain is a moderate Republican and I believe that he most closely fits the image of this country that most people want.

odessacon

Mar 26, 2008 | 11:45 PM

well put jstol.
That in conjunction with the fact that on the dem side we have a choice between a racist and a liar......Damn,I cant help but be partisan!lol.

butterfly5

Mar 27, 2008 | 9:01 AM

Ode- come on be nice!!! I believe you dislike your own canidate as well.

A question I pose: With the technology do you believe anyone can bring us together when all faults are exposed and lies run ranpent on the internet? Also, why do these things seem to come out when people are wanting something different?

jpbikerfreak

Mar 27, 2008 | 9:11 AM

You don't mean we should CREATE a third party?

Have you looked at a ballot lately? There are lots of them. The 3rd largest (and fastest growing) political party is the Libertarian Party.

We in the LP are both conservative and liberal. Fiscal conservatives and social liberals that is.

As for your comments about getting along, coming together and stopping the bickering: This one I don't understand.

Isn't it congress' and politicians' JOBS to bicker? If not, we should just have a dictator and rid ourselves of this trivial and obstructive distraction.

Besides, in most cases there isn't a whole lot of difference anymore between democrats and republicans. Dems are tax and spend, repubs are borrow and spend.

jpbikerfreak

Mar 27, 2008 | 9:14 AM

And the real issue here is control. Both the left and the right are fighting to control your life.

If people were just allowed to run their own lives we wouldn't have this problem.

RabidAnglophile

Mar 27, 2008 | 9:30 AM

Way back when I first registered to vote, I registered as a Republican. I have found I'm more like jstol though, in that I can, on occasion, come down on the liberal side. And, I have voted for Democrats before because I vote for the person who I feel at that time can deal best with the issues; NOT because of THE PARTY!

This election year I feel there is no good choice at all. I don't find Obama to be very forthcoming at all. Yes, he can make an impassioned speech, but read closely in between the lines. Hillary is just scary and wants to play both sides of the fence; not because she wants to bring people together, but because she wants votes. McCain is even scarier because he seems to want to start yet another war. We are in a terribly sad situation here regardless of conservative or liberal ideas.

butterfly5

Mar 27, 2008 | 9:31 AM

Could you expand on what you mean by saying people should be allowed to run their own lives? Are you saying their should be no laws at all?

jpbikerfreak

Mar 27, 2008 | 10:56 AM

Of course not, butterfly.

We have millions of laws on the books right now, and our social programs are bankrupt. In fact our entire federal government is bankrupt (see my other posts).

We have laws against gay marriage, laws against drug use, laws against gambling, prostitution, and many other victimless crimes.

We have oppressive taxes (average over 50% when all are included). We have rampant eminent domain abuse, smoking bans that ignore private property owners' rights... I could go on and on.

libertarian does not equal anarchist, despite what people may think. It just means you believe in both social and economic freedom. But in order for there to be a crime, there must be a victim.

butterfly5

Mar 27, 2008 | 11:21 AM

Drug use is not a victimless crime. It tears families apart because of its addictive nature. And can completely destroy someones life up to and including death. Druggies rob and kill in order to obtain money for their next fix. Victimless??? Condoning drugs would lead to an epidemic of abusers wich in turn further break our govt.

Prostitution- Victimless until you come home with a std and give it to your partner.

Otherwise, I agree with you.

odessacon

Mar 27, 2008 | 12:30 PM

Biker: The Libertarianism that I understand isnt socially liberal. They are for absolute limited government and therefore have no room for social programs.I think you mean liberally minded as to laws about drugs,hookers etc.?Am I reading you correctly?

As to drugs being victimless crimes...i agree with butterfly. i myself was addicted to marajuana for 20 years and my wife and kids suffered because of it. i wasnt violent or abusive but I was disconnected and impaired.i began to notice that my kids could tell when I was stoned and they knew ole Dad was not the same. Since Ive quit Ive noticed that they feel they have unfettered acces to me and they missed me when I was stoned.

Prostituion isnt victimless either,unless you believe young women REALLY want to sell their bodies and will have no long term sel-esteem issues from it.I have 2 daughters and somthing would have to had gone terrible wrong for them to feel they had no worth in society other than to pleasure men for a price.

open_eyed_liberal

Mar 27, 2008 | 1:12 PM

I think the reason people continue to switch back and forth between the two parties is because they grow tired of the same bull but forget that, just eight years prior, the other party was doing the exact same thing. Why would they not? Aside from online, few people I know have political knowledge. When they hear the party they align themselves with blame the other, they just go along with it without realizing they are both essentially the same party.

Now, as for the Libertarian Party, while I agree with social freedoms as it presents, I believe regulation of drugs for those who “must try” should be started. We should admit to ourselves that those who want drugs will find them anyway, so it makes sense, to me at least, to set up places they can go and get high while people regulate how much they receive and how often they do as such. If it appears as though they are becoming addicted help can be found immediately. Now for my disagreement with the Libertarians. I do not see how "capitalism" and "freedom" are synonyms. Capitalism requires and embraces a hierarchical system similar to that of a dictatorship, forcing the workers to be subordinate peasants. If you want freedom in markets, set up industry ran by shop meetings of the workers, overhaul and eliminate the monetary unit, communalize ownership and abolish capitalism. Laissez-faire capitalism, as the Libertarian Party calls for, was tried in the 1800s - early 1900s and left multiple depressions, including the Great Depression, in its wake. We don’t need to go through that again.

odessacon

Mar 27, 2008 | 1:26 PM

capitalism=choice=freedom!you can choose where you work,how much you work and you can base that on how much stuff you want to have. you can have as little or as much as YOU want. No one is telling you you have to do anything-but if you want stuf-YOU will have to work for it! Thats freedom!

As to switching parties. I dont see that happening. i SEE MOST PEOPLE MAKING THE MISTAKE (CAPS)of buying into moderates and centrist viewpoints that simply water down our convictions. Im a conservative because I believe in it. Pro-life,low taxes,secure borders,strong military,responsible limited government. I see no point in compromising my beliefs just so people can be proud of my compromise? Thats rediculous.If we pass laws that everyone agrees with what will we have? Ineffective laws that have ambiguous language that lawyers will be able to bastardize in courtrooms to meet their needs.
I've said it many times and it is an unpopular viewpoint but WE NEED LEADERS!LEADERS THAT WILL ARTICUALTE THEIR MESSAGE AND APPEAL TO PEOPLE ON BOTHS SIDES OF THE AISLE! Ronald Reagan was the last politician that was able to do this (Reagan democrats). Are there any Bush democrats? NO! Are there any Clinton republicans? NO! we need leadership or else we will end up with gridlock and benign legislation!

butterfly5

Mar 27, 2008 | 1:43 PM

Is it possible in this age of computers and media bliss for a canidate to ever articulate anything that isnt misconstrued, picked apart, and demonized. Their past is displayed for all people to scrutinize and gossip about, all the while, whats hiding in their closet.

Its people who are unwilling to comprimise that stand in the way of progress. Many didn't want to free blacks, let women vote, on so forth. History should teach a little bit of flexabilty goes along way.

jpbikerfreak

Mar 27, 2008 | 3:23 PM

Odessacon, at the risk of outing myself, I will tell you I am an officer of the Libertarian party. I know what we stand for.

We are all for ending the war on drugs. Most people confuse legality with morality. Just because a person thinks that something should be legal doesn't mean necessarily he thinks it's moral.

I'm not condoning drug use. I'm saying prohibition is worse than the problem itself. It's never worked, and isn't working now. Ask a vice cop how effective our drug laws are. they're a waste of time and money. And besides, addicts need treatment, not prison time.

Prostitution is the same way. legalize it, regulate it, tax it, and it works just fine. It's legal in Nevada and I don't hear any stories of rampant STDs.. the girls get tested every month and use safe sex methods.

jpbikerfreak

Mar 27, 2008 | 3:28 PM

liberal-

Government regulation in the form of the new deal actually prolonged the great depression. Employers were afraid to hire people and be fined for non-compliance because of the complicated new laws they faced.

And at the time we did not have caveat emptor capitalism. In fact I don't even really like the word, I prefer free market. There's a big difference.

For example, we now have the FTC rubber stamping all sorts of mergers, especially in the broadcast media. THAT is what allows the feudal system you describe. It's not a true free market.

I could pontificate ad nauseum about this but I'll stop here. In fact I could write entire books about it, but you get my point.

odessacon

Mar 27, 2008 | 4:26 PM

jp: Im not trying to ride you but I still dont think libertarians are socially liberal. To me socialy liberal means that you are willing to fund SOCIAL PROGRAMS such as welfare. This flys in the face of libertarianism.Please respond.
you guys ARE for deregulation of "morality laws" which is socially conservative. Conservative=conserve the constitution and limit government.
liberal=liberal use of government to cure social issues.Where am I missing this?

Page 1 of 1

Write your comment below: Email me when a new comment is added to this entry

butterfly5

I am a young mother of a strong-willed, beautiful, bright, all the good things in life four year old girl. She is the center of my world.

Member Since: 3/18/2008

ad link

View All Photos

RSS: What is RSS?

Username:
Password:
forgot password \| sign up