The Blue "L's" and the Red "C"'s

[Beavah]

Lisa'bob offers da followin, as an admitted, card-carrying Liberal. It's rational and coherent, so it merits the same response. Perhaps dat will show where we all may care about da same principles, but politely disagree about (or modify?) methods.

 

So, on that note: Here are some things that I believe as a liberal. Personally I think these beliefs fit rather well with the ideals embodied in the Boy Scout Oath and Law. If you don't think so, by all means, let's talk about it.

**I believe in standing up for freedom of speech, of the press, of assembly, and of petition, both when in support of and when criticizing those in power. And just because such freedom is uncomfortable for some isn't a sufficient reason to curtail it. (A scout speaks the truth)

 

No problems here. But both sides, especially many L's in academia and education, don't always live by this credo. So I sympathize with Christians and others who feel that their freedoms of speech and of assembly are often unjustly curtailed, discounted, or ridiculed under the guise of "wall of separation between church and state." It isn't a freedom if you have to do it behind a wall.

 

**I believe government can be an effective instrument to reduce social ills like poverty, homelessness, lack of access to quality education and medical care, hunger, etc. (A scout is concerned about other people.)

 

You can believe what you want, but this question has an answer that is objective and independent of whatever you believe. Is the government bureaucracy and enforced taxation really effective at these things? Despite huge "investments," the evidence is mostly lacking. (A scout is Thrifty and Mentally Awake).

 

**I believe that government can and should intervene in society to improve relations between majority and minority groups of all kinds, and that governments have a responsibility to also protect minority rights, not just majority rights. (A scout is a friend to all.)

 

The mistake here is believing that government is separate from society (can intervene), rather than a part of society. The founding fathers believed that minority rights were protected by limiting, rather than increasing, the scope of (majority-elected) government. Again, there is an effectiveness test: other than providing real equality under the law (colorblind), the evidence does not suggest success in other areas.

 

**I believe that there's an important difference between national pride, which citizens have every right to feel and express, and national arrogance, which is to be avoided, and that it is important to try to understand other viewpoints, even if one disagrees. (A scout is true to his ...nation; and, He seeks to understand others. He respects those with ideas and customs other than his own.)

 

Yah yah. I think it's possible to respect a person but think his/her ideas are manure and actions wicked. There are plenty of ideas that have been held by a lot of people that were less than valuable. Soviet communism. National Socialism. Slavery and segregation. Robber-baron capitalism. British colonialism. Fundamentalism in many forms. Some ideas, after having been understood, need to be opposed. A Scout is Brave.

 

**I believe that one of the best remedies for discontent with government actions and policies is to get involved and work for change. To sit back and wait for others to do it is unacceptable. (If [a scout] thinks these rules and laws are unfair, he tries to have them changed in an orderly manner rather than disobey them.)

 

Sure, one of. Other possible actions are to ignore the blokes and just do what's right yourself, work to curtail the power and influence of government as a whole so it won't be so destructive, or to go burn the stamps and dump the tea in the harbor.

 

Da biggest difference between your Blue-L and the Red-C's is this repeated notion that "government" is something separate, independent, and more powerful than "neighbor."

 

Should some of your neighbors be given enforcement powers and allowed to take away your property (taxation) because they feel they can do a better job for society with your money than you can? That's a very different thing than taking money for roads, bridges, and defense that everyone uses. It creates huge divisiveness, because it leads to debates over whose view of "just society" should be promoted at others' expense. Christian "just society?" Islamic "just society?" And it creates huge waste, because by forcibly concentrating resources in "government" it attracts leeches and villians, and then generates bureaucracy to try to protect against leeches and villians. It eventually reaches the point that the leeches, villians, and those seeking a "better society" are spending other people's children's and grandchildren's money.

 

Yah, how'd I do there, Red?

 

 

 

[acco40]

Ideas should and can be debated. Why the need to label them as either liberal or conservative by so many? They do this only to use these labels in a pejorative context IMO. Take for example abortion. Most label the "pro-life" or "anti-abortion" stance as conservative and the "pro-abortion" or "pro-choice" stance as liberal. But, I thought conservatives wanted a less intrusive government, which would then reverse the labels.

 

Christianity, is one of the biggest socialist movements on Earth. So why are the so called "right wing Christian fundamentalists" labelled as conservative?

 

So, feel free to debate issues but don't waste your time trying to give them a label.(This message has been edited by acco40)

[scoutingagain]

Lisabob also said, "whereas most conservatives tend to see government as part of the problem and not the solution."

 

If only that were true.

 

SA

[TheScout]

"Government is not the solution to our problem, government is our problem." -Ronald Reagan

[Kahuna]

Amen.

[SR540Beaver]

Yet all of the people currently in charge who lay claim to Reagan's legacy are delivering an ever increasing government.

[TheScout]

True, but just by claiming to follow Reagan's legacy doesn't mean they ARE following it.

 

People (especially politicians) may claim whatever they want.

[Rooster7]

Beavah,

 

As Mr. Smithers says, "Excellent!" That was a very astute evaluation. As a certified Red C, I must say - Bravo...and Amen.

 

[johndaigler]

It all goes round and round -- so now we're not even "Conservatives" or "Liberals". Now, let's chunk it even more like kindergarden -- now we're red C's, and blue L's, and pink H's, and green E's and ... perhaps we should wear our little tags pinned to our shirts to make it easy for the grownups to identify us.

 

Beavah, what could be a good conversation between you, lisabob and others will slowly slip into colored letter mud, because you couldn't stand on your own feet with your own ideas. You had to jump behind the giant fuzzy team mascot and stick your tongue out at her. (Yah, how'd I do there, Red?) The disappointing thing is: you were pretty close, but you just couldn't close the deal and trust yourself.

 

What a shame . . .

 

And just in case you want to think I'm just some overly snesitive blue L trying to read the above into your post -- go back and read Roosters' response.

 

jd

 

 

Here's a challenge for ya -- try dat again and just speak for yourself - just to lisabob. Lisa doesn't speak for other liberals -- she labeled herself "liberal" in the context of that other thread. She starts every comment with "I believe" and she doesn't comment or judge what "others" think, maybe that will work for you.

 

jd

[Lisabob]

Hey Beavah, last I checked I didn't have a "liberal card" to carry - though I do have my scout card, a couple library cards, my ID card for work...a voter registration card & SSN card...(rummaging around in my wallet to see what else)...nope, no "liberal" card.

 

Are the conservatives issuing cards to themselves these days? Let me know so I can start asking for them. (kidding, tongue in cheek, don't anyone fly off the handle here).

 

Seriously, I'd like to answer your post in a thoughtful way but my kid brought home the flu and I've got it now too. So I'll come back when I have more than three working brain cells to rub together. In the meantime - jd - huh? It might be that I'm a little off kilter 'cause of that flu bug but I did not read into Beavah's post what you did.

 

Lisa'bob

 

 

[Rooster7]

johndaigler,

 

Beavah's retort to Lisabob was a well thought out response. It was intelligent and addressed the issues point by point as defined by Lisa. On the other hand, your response ignores all reason, makes a baseless emotional plea, and then accuses Beavah of some how lowering the bar of debate. Can you spell H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-S-Y? To add insult to injury you propose that my compliment of his post is proof of the same. Unbelievable.

 

I don't know if you're overly sensitive or not. However, you're definitely not responding with reason, to reason.

 

[GernBlansten]

Should some of your neighbors be given enforcement powers and allowed to take away your property (taxation) because they feel they can do a better job for society with your money than you can? That's a very different thing than taking money for roads, bridges, and defense that everyone uses. It creates huge divisiveness, because it leads to debates over whose view of "just society" should be promoted at others' expense. Christian "just society?" Islamic "just society?" And it creates huge waste, because by forcibly concentrating resources in "government" it attracts leeches and villians, and then generates bureaucracy to try to protect against leeches and villians. It eventually reaches the point that the leeches, villians, and those seeking a "better society" are spending other people's children's and grandchildren's money.

 

Talk about hypocrisy. If I read that last paragraph correctly, Beavah was extolling the virtues of conservatism by laying the down the failures of liberalism. Yet his final paragraph defines the current conservative movement to a tee.

[Beavah]

Yah, yah, jd. Dat was courteous, eh? One of the things I think is really lacking in these discussions is the ability to laugh at oneself. Lighten up. Blue-L and Red-C were of course humorous kindergarten cariacatures. No need to go all Danish-embassy on me.

 

 

[TheScout]

I got to admit I really don't understand the "L" and "C" thing. It seems a bit childish and only seems to confuse intelligent debate.

[Rooster7]

GernBlansten,

 

Okay, so now youve made an accusation against the current conservative movement. Fine, so now lets see how you substantiate that claim. Explain to us how the conservative movement is guilty of this charge. Otherwise, your words are just another slur.