Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Neocon who wrote (85787)	8/19/2000 12:49:26 PM
From: cosmicforce	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

These broad classifications suffer from the same lack of precision that I object to in racial identifications. I'm a "white" guy with a brother and father who have type-S (as in Sickle cell proteins). In Louisiana, not so long ago, that would have made me "black" and I'd be entitled to all the "rights" and "privileges" bestowed upon such people. I have blue eyes, and when in High School, had long blonde hair. Ah yes, something was definitely "right" back then. Sure, that's something we need to embrace - old values. Your conservative definitions sound reactionary. A reaction to a movement. A movement that embraces the individual and individual rights. Conservatives are always whining about the restriction of individual rights, yet want to promote Christian-centered science and secular agenda that seek to push faith-based principles on people without that faith. That's just inconsistent. Hillary Clinton wants a liberal vote base so she touts such causes (that she may somewhat believe), yet her financial dealings in Whitewater seem more like the Smoke Filled Room politics of Tammany. People are what they do. It's that simple. So I'm a moderate in your three star political constellation? Well so are the vast majority of people. We just want a system that works. One that doesn't promulgate a religious agenda but does solve real social problems in a way that is measurable. We want systems that encourage people to rise and not stagnate. Ones that lead people to ask "Is there a better way?" yet demand evidence that the ways we try are truly better. These simplistic labels just aren't on my "path to truth".

To: Neocon who wrote (85787)	8/19/2000 6:49:34 PM
From: Dayuhan	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 108807

conservatives tend to think that something went wrong in the past, and that society as a whole was better before that occurred. Do you think that is the case? If so, when was the "better time"? Moderates", as it is currently used, are those without a coherent set of principles who sometimes agree with conservatives, sometimes with liberals You seem to think this a bad thing. To me it's the only intelligent way to proceed: who wants to buy into a pre-packaged, shrink-wrapped ideology? Just because a set of principles doesn't conform to the generic "liberal" or "conservative" positions doesn't mean it isn't coherent. In fact, both of those generic positions embrace serious inconsistencies of their own, inconsistencies at least as grave as any displayed by moderates.

To: Neocon who wrote (85787)	8/20/2000 1:46:23 AM
From: jbe	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 108807

...Conservatives are pretty easy to identify, in a general sense; conservatives tend to think that something went wrong in the past, and that society as a whole was better before that occurred. No, Neo, it is reactionaries who "tend to think that something went wrong in the past," that there was some preceding Golden Age. Reactionaries -- whether they masquerade as "conservatives" or as "revolutionaries" -- want to change things back. Conservatives, as commonly defined historically, tend to support the status quo; they are content with things as they are, and don't want change of any sort. And speaking of malleability of terms, I notice a certain disjunction between 1) the definition of liberalism you offer in this post, and 2) your equation of liberalism with "extremism" in an earlier post: 1) Liberalism, as it is used now, refers to those who want to use the power of government to speed social change and bring about greater equality. 2)...the Clinton Administration, far from being a moderate administration, was extremist, contemptuous of self- government, and not terribly democratic. In other words, it was a liberal administration........ I find even your less partisan definition (#1) much too narrow. I won't try to redefine it now; it would take too much time & thought , and would hardly be worth the bother, anyway. Let me just say that most individuals who apply the term "liberal" to themselves know very well the root of the word -- liberalis (of liberty), and think of themselves primarily as defenders of liberty, and only secondarily of equality (whether you think they are mistaken or not). Originally, as you know, liberals did not look to government to protect liberty; that changed when the development of events persuaded many of them that the central government could and/or would defend the rights of individual citizens better than private interests or local governments (e.g.,in the case of "legal" segregation). And I am puzzled by your definition of "moderates" and "extremists": Moderates", as it is currently used, are those without a coherent set of principles who sometimes agree with conservatives, sometimes with liberals, and who tend to try to split the difference. Extremist" refers to those who are outside of the underlying consensus which permits discussion between Left and Right, like a basic allegiance to democratic norms, or market mechanisms. Now, wait a minute, Neo. In the post quoted above, which started this discussion, you said that the Clinton Administration was NOT "moderate" (considered good, rather than wishy-washy in that first post ), but "extremist" - i.e., "liberal." But here you are saying that extremists are "outside of the underlying consensus which permits discussion between Left and Right" (i.e., liberals and conservatives). So, which is it: are the liberals "inside" the consensus, or "outside" it? Dear me! I say, dump the buzzwords. Arguing over them produces sound and fury, signifying nothing.