I agree with the Republican mantra of small gov't. I just don't believe they practice what they preach.

Nor his heirs. :)

Parties today have all of the integrity of a crack whore. To try & keep up with what either one is espousing at any point in time is difficult to keep up with. Philosophies are a little more static.

Liberal, The general population is incapable of taking care of themselves. They should give the proceeds of their labor to smarter, more capable people, i.e. Al Gore, Obama. These people should have the capability to spend the money in a fashion that will best promote the common good.

Conservative, People will prosper most when allowed to benefit from the fruits of their labor. The government that governs least governs best. Government should be relegated to the functions outlined by the constitution. Times & technology require some variances, but those should be kept to a minimum.

The so-called religious right is actually the religious left. They want to control many things that real conservatives know are outside the role of govt. They glommed on to the Republican party to broker their vote block in exchange for the Republicans selling out their principles in order to get elected.

Bring back the Whigs, just to make things lively. ;)

"A pox on all your houses"

Agreed.

I believe that's unduly insulting to crack whores.

Believe it or not, your post is the first time I've heard the statement "the government that governs least governs best". I love that. So true.

And I want religion completely and totally out of my politics and I want politics completely and totally out of my religion. You know, like the FF intended. . .

- - -

It's also probably worth pointing out that the most true-to-the-word "conservatives" out there are probably Libertarians. Most want government to perform Constitutionally-mandated tasks ONLY and strict interpretation of the Constitution - two things I completely agree with.

When liberals say "society has an obligation to...", they actually mean "government must mandate that society...".

When conservatives say "society has an obligation to..." they mean they have a personal responsibility to take care of it themselves.

Ideals near and dear to the liberal heart can only be implemented under force of law. Implementation is usually preceded by much protest, maybe even some violence, and generally a great deal of foot stomping, arm waving, and breath holding.

Ideals near and dear to the conservative heart are implemented with no such government mandate, simply because they are the moral, ethical thing to do. No fanfair, no protests, no demonstrations, no marches, not little fits and attention whoring.

Liberal positions are established by emotion and promoted by such highly touted experts in their field as Alec Baldwin, Barbara Streisand, Sean Penn, Rosie O'Donnel, and Michael Moore.

Conservative positions are established by facts and data and promoted by experts in the field, with no celebrity status.

Liberals screem and yell about social responsibility, then get busted driving solo in the carpool lane in their Suburban while yammering on their cell.

Conservatives quietly drive to the park and ride, then take the bus.

I would throw my support behind the "Keg Party" (and it's been a LONG time) before either of the two we currently have to choose from :)

I believe Thomas Jefferson gets the credit for that as well as my all time favorite. "Your right to swing your arm stops where my nose starts."

Can you believe that the dems call this guy the father of their party?

Liberals support more and ever more law governing our personal behavior. When passed, they themselves feel somehow above those very laws. Those laws are for the less sophisticated, educated, and good looking.

Liberals will get away with whatever they can whenever they can. They behave rather poorly, in a rather self centered fashion when they feel no one is watching. So, they naturally assume, does everyone else. Hence their perceived need for ever more law governing that behavior. In their world, if it is not specifically illegal, they can do it.

In their world, folks are entitled to things they have not worked for. Not that a liberal would willingly give them anything of his own, nor would a liberal ever expect anyone else to give willingly. That is why they want laws mandating such giving. That, and so the recipients will vote their leaders into power. Lazy losers will always vote for free stuff. Liberals quite cynically take advantage of that.

Conservatives do the right thing even if no one is watching. They let the morals their mothers and fathers (and unlike most liberals, they know who both of them are) taught them guide their personal behavior, and assume others would as well. They see no need for law to specify any of their personal behaviors for them. They won't push the letter of that law (they know what "is" is...); they are guided in such matters more by morals than by law. They don't require nearly as much governing, as much oversight, as liberals.

Conservatives don't believe anyone deserves anything for free. They will happily help anyone willing to help themselves, but they won't help the freeloaders. The freeloaders think they are mean, and these thoughts are encouraged by the liberals seeking the freeloaders' vote. Conservatives, essentially, would like to be able themselves who it is they would like to help. They help through their local churches and civic organizations, endeavoring to keep their help local and actually have some idea of who they are helping. And they don't need the government mandating who gets heled; they can see who needs it. And who does not.

I call myself an "Orwellian" (no surprise considering the topic of my first book). This means that I have progressive ("liberal") beliefs in terms of national and international politics, but am somewhat culturally conservative. You see, Orwell came from a very conservative "Tory" background, called himself a Socialist, yet hated most Socialists as much as... well, as much as many hard-working liberals hate hippies.

I tend to think of Neoconservatives (who, like it or not, have been running the Republican Party for a number of years) as greedy, power-hungry, solipsistic, Imperialistic; the Democratic Party, on the other hand, is run by spineless, litigious, overly-PC idealists who are afraid of offending anybody. My attraction to Orwell's politics is easy to see.

The problem with your post is that your biases are RIDICULOUSLY transparent. Are many liberals swine? Of course. Are many conservatives good people? Naturally. But you can't go and say that "Liberals will get away with whatever they can whenever they can. They behave rather poorly, in a rather self centered fashion when they feel no one is watching" and expect to get away with it. This is selective blindness. What about all the MAJOR scandals that have rocked the Republican party over the past decade? Surely you cannot posit that your team is clean just because it's your team. There are heroes and villains on both sides.

The difference between liberalism and conservatism is simply perspective. There are differences of beliefs. The people on both sides are generally the same - mostly well-meaning, but fatally fallible; in other words, human.

I think Jeff had tongue firmly in cheek, or he was drunk and speaking what he really felt.

Wait...he's Irish. Saying he was drunk would be redundant.

Much to Jeff's chagrin, he obviously has a lot in common with Ted Kennedy!

On what planet is this? Let's see, liberalism has produced Soviet Russia, Red China, Viet Nam at the top of the list. Compare that to USA, GB, Germany, Austrailia, Canada, and all the other free market republics. Not even close!

Irish/German, actually. Higgins/Backensfeldt, to be precise. "Beer is for breakfast..."


About the only thing we have in common is that he was drunk, too.