From: williams@herky.cs.uiowa.edu (Kent Williams)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: "Liberal" - A Misnomer
Date: 8 Sep 92 22:48:54 GMT
Organization: University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA

From article <JASON.92Sep8151229@ab20.larc.nasa.gov>, by jason@ab20.larc.nasa.gov (Jason Austin):
> 
> 	Words mean things, and the terms liberal and conservative
> designate a general politcal philosophy.

So far so good ....

> A conservative believes in a
> reduction of government and traditional values

1. In the last 12 years, the size of government has increased, spending
   has increased, the deficit has increased.  This is not the fault
   of a Democratic Congress exclusively;  the problem is that we've
   shifted from a "Tax and Spend" philosophy to a "Borrow and Spend"
   philosophy.

> while a liberal
> believes in the expansion of government to supply everyone with
> everything they need.

2. Bullshit.  This is a conservative straw man argument.  Name one case
   in which the stated position of a 'liberal' was that government
   should provide everything anyone needs?

> Both of these terms are more extreme than most
> people are, but they give a direction and philisopical background to
> making moderate decisions.

Most people are 'middle of the road' which is to say they have
some positions that might be labeled 'liberal' and some that might be
labeled 'conservative.'

> Picking a side and calling them
> label-throwing is label-throwing in itself and completely void of any
> issue discussion.

Bullshit.  Perverting the language in the name of politics is precisely
the issue, and that is precisely what the Republicans are doing.

> 	Here's my general reasoning for believing it's time for a more
> conservative government:
> 
> 	Historically, a left wing society is economically inefficient
> and is much too permissive of criminal and anti-social behavior.  A
> right wing society is highly efficient but is too inflexible in
> defining morality.
> 

How can you take yourself seriously when you make such broad sweeping
generalizations without anything to back it up?  For that matter, has
the United States ever really had a "left wing" society, when compared
to, say Sweden?  And for that matter if you take Sweden as an example
of a country that is "left wing", they have much less violent crime, a
healthier population and at least as high a standard of living as we
do.

> 	Looking at the problems in the US, my conclusion is that the
> government is a little bit left of where it should be.  The economy is
> lacking in efficiency, the crime rate has soared due to lack of crime
> deterrents,

So all the millions of dollars we pour into the DEA and FBI are, in
essence wasted, is that your point?  Compared with Western European
countries we have much tougher laws, and we still have more crime.

> and kids are failing out of school and getting involved in
> drugs, because it is socially acceptable to do so.

But it isn't socially acceptible.  Not to me, and not to any kids I
know.  Poor people in urban areas drop out of school and take drugs
because their schools suck, and their lives seem shitty and hopeless.
What have you (or the government) done to fix that lately, if ever?

> This tells me it's
> time to push the government a little to the right; voting for Bush may
> not do this, but it will prevent the government from sliding even
> farther in the wrong direction.

Voting for Bush perpetuates an oligarchy of pussbags.  The Republicans
have been in charge except for 4 years since 1968.  Since 1980 the
Republicans have tried to dismantle anything useful in the government
and line the pockets of their cronies.  Their political rhetoric is
Orwellian in the extreme.

Get a fucking clue Jason.
--
Kent Williams -- williams@cs.uiowa.edu
"I'm tired of being nice to people who're full of shit" -- Me