Where are the Belief Corner Liberals?

[Faithfulee]

There seems to be quiet on the socialist front.
We are not hearing as much from our liberal friends as used to be the case.

The result is a kind of quiet, and reasoned discussion.

But I miss the contact, a little anyway

Let us make Beliefcorner the place for solid conservative thinking but where liberals can add their opinions.  Not in the typical venue where liberal views are accepted without question, but where they are met with intelligent opinions and facts from the "right" point of view.

[SquirleyWurley]

I always thought there were differences between liberals and socialists.  Liberals need not be socialists, and many socialists will tell you they are not liberals.

I'm not even sure what is meant by 'liberal', the term has morphed so much.  Certainly the term 'conservative' has morphed.  The morphing has happened sometimes by opponents, sometimes by the proponents themselves.  Both terms have become very weird to me over the last decade.

I remember a time when Democrats and Republicans could argue in a much more friendly way and the terms 'liberal' and 'conservative' weren't typically used with such venom.

I remember a time when 'conservative' meant basically a sort of fiscal and social caution, and 'liberal' meant basically a willingness to reach out to others and to change and improve conditions, and people could speak of being liberal in this sort of way and conservative in that sort of way, and discuss things with less rancor.

But 10 years ago a lot of nastiness and rancor arose in the House, with Newt and ultimately with the Lewinsky scandal.  Since 9-11, disagreements over the President and his policies have increasingly been an excuse for the dismantling of a culture of discussion and dialog.  Both parties played their parts, but Republicans in particular have stoked the fire to a degree that is really disgusting, being quick to imply that almost any disagreement with Bush, almost any critical concern, was treason, that the other side (democrats) were evil incarnate, etc.  They took any and every chance to do so.  Disgusting.

[Acumen]

There seems to be quiet on the socialist front.
We are not hearing as much from our liberal friends as used to be the case.

The result is a kind of quiet, and reasoned discussion.

But I miss the contact, a little anyway

Let us make Beliefcorner the place for solid conservative thinking but where liberals can add their opinions.  Not in the typical venue where liberal views are accepted without question, but where they are met with intelligent opinions and facts from the "right" point of view.

I understand your sentiment.  I heard some of our liberal posters comment that BC was like Bnet, but reversed.  Instead of liberal posters dominating the discussions, we have conservative posters dominating.  I don't see it that way -- I never did. 

I saw a good balance.  In fact, for a while, there were more liberal posters in here than conservative, however in the past week, some of them appear to be on vacation.

Beliefcorner, believe it or not, is not meant to be a conservative website.  Yes, we have some conservative administrators, but our moderators are not conservative.  Unless of course, we consider Howiedds and Allthegoodnames conservative, but I don't.   

Beliefcorner is meant to provide a balanced approach with a vision of academic discussion rather than tit for tat posts like on Bnet -- that's it in a nutshell.  Of course, this is more difficult to do than it appears. 

For the most part, I hope some of more liberal posters return.  I enjoy their contributions.

[Faithfulee]

I  also hope liberals return.

The moderators here are quite fair,  and most of the contributors are both intelligent,  informed and make serious comments that I appreciate.

The liberals left because the were confronted with firm opinions of the opposite pole,  and they couldn’t get their silly message accepted, at least by me.

While it would be nice, there is much to say for a conservative  website.  After all Rush has made a fortune promoting the conservative point of view.  He also does get dome calls from liberals,  and of course  ex-liberals.

But conservatives need not be monolithic in their opinions and we can have some discussions on our differences that would help us all.

What is needed at this time and place is to develop ways of combating the onslaught of  Obama. .

[Claret1995]

I always thought there were differences between liberals and socialists.  Liberals need not be socialists, and many socialists will tell you they are not liberals.

I'm not even sure what is meant by 'liberal', the term has morphed so much.  Certainly the term 'conservative' has morphed.  The morphing has happened sometimes by opponents, sometimes by the proponents themselves.  Both terms have become very weird to me over the last decade.

I remember a time when Democrats and Republicans could argue in a much more friendly way and the terms 'liberal' and 'conservative' weren't typically used with such venom.

I remember a time when 'conservative' meant basically a sort of fiscal and social caution, and 'liberal' meant basically a willingness to reach out to others and to change and improve conditions, and people could speak of being liberal in this sort of way and conservative in that sort of way, and discuss things with less rancor.

But 10 years ago a lot of nastiness and rancor arose in the House, with Newt and ultimately with the Lewinsky scandal.  Since 9-11, disagreements over the President and his policies have increasingly been an excuse for the dismantling of a culture of discussion and dialog.  Both parties played their parts, but Republicans in particular have stoked the fire to a degree that is really disgusting, being quick to imply that almost any disagreement with Bush, almost any critical concern, was treason, that the other side (democrats) were evil incarnate, etc.  They took any and every chance to do so.  Disgusting.

 Sorry SW

 You must go back alot farther to find the division that made rancor acceptable. Roe v Wade was the start. The right was not prepared for the decision by Scotus. They pledged never to let this happen again. The split could have remained over abortion until the late eighties with the Bork and Thomas hearings.

 The left with the help of the media and some very fringe left groups attempted to "lynch" two very good men. Succeedcing in one and failing in the other. The fact that the left tried to KILL the reputations of these men brought the fierce anger to the surface. You may wish to argue this but 'IT IS 100% true".

 Ya see the right learned the ART of SMEAR POLITICS from the left

[Thorolf]

Wow, SW... if you remember a time when Democrats and Republicans could argue in a much more friendly way, you must be old...  


In all seriousness, nothing changed during Clinton's terms in office - at least not with respect to the contentiousness between DC republicans and democrats.

[TENAC]

I always thought there were differences between liberals and socialists.  Liberals need not be socialists, and many socialists will tell you they are not liberals.

I'm not even sure what is meant by 'liberal', the term has morphed so much.  Certainly the term 'conservative' has morphed.  The morphing has happened sometimes by opponents, sometimes by the proponents themselves.  Both terms have become very weird to me over the last decade.

I remember a time when Democrats and Republicans could argue in a much more friendly way and the terms 'liberal' and 'conservative' weren't typically used with such venom.

I remember a time when 'conservative' meant basically a sort of fiscal and social caution, and 'liberal' meant basically a willingness to reach out to others and to change and improve conditions, and people could speak of being liberal in this sort of way and conservative in that sort of way, and discuss things with less rancor.

But 10 years ago a lot of nastiness and rancor arose in the House, with Newt and ultimately with the Lewinsky scandal.  Since 9-11, disagreements over the President and his policies have increasingly been an excuse for the dismantling of a culture of discussion and dialog.  Both parties played their parts, but Republicans in particular have stoked the fire to a degree that is really disgusting, being quick to imply that almost any disagreement with Bush, almost any critical concern, was treason, that the other side (democrats) were evil incarnate, etc.  They took any and every chance to do so.  Disgusting.

Thats interesting.

It appears that you feel the democrats have taken the high road here.

The Lewinski thing was real.  It happened.  No question.  Bill Clinton had impeachment brought and was acquitted.  He was disbarred.

Everything rancor wise in regard to the repubs has to do with Bush lied.  No liberal have any proof of such.  I have debunked so many Bush lies theories  it is safe to assume accusations brought are false.

The problem here isnt democrat or republican.  Its politicians.  Period.

Clinton never received the unwarranted press that Bush has.  While the commander in chief is conducting a war (that you may not agree with), he is still the commander in chief and due that respect.  The democrats did no such thing.  While Clinton was bombing aspirin factories, the repubs bit their tongues.  But not so with the democrats and this war.  They couldnt run to a microphone and TV camera fast enough.  Do you think that helped or hurt the war effort?

Right now, everything rolling out in regard to this war on terror is winding down to the administrations favor, but you wont hear that from the msm.  I dont think the country has been safer since 911 than it is today.  No thanks to the democrats who continually try to compromise this country either by defunding the war or taking elements away from the administration that appear to impede our safety.  Sometimes I wonder who's side they are on.

[allthegoodnamesweretaken]

Ok, Ok, I'm here. 

 

[Faithfulee]

Right now, everything rolling out in regard to this war on terror is winding down to the administrations favor, but you wont hear that from the msm.  I dont think the country has been safer since 911 than it is today.  No thanks to the democrats who continually try to compromise this country either by defunding the war or taking elements away from the administration that appear to impede our safety.  Sometimes I wonder who's side they are on.

They are on the side of regaining power and that means electing Obama.

To do so they are willing to surrender in Iraq,  put environmentalism before the needs of poor people to afford fuel and food here in the US.

the hypocracy of Obama and the absurdity of his claims and statements is a reason why I would like to have some libs here.  Their positions are so easilly refuted that it would be fun.  Unfortunately,  the few libs we had here got tired of having their arguments refuted with common sense and intelligence.

[VLinvictus]

What do "liberal" and "conservative" mean these days, any way?

There do not appear to exist any coherent ideologies in either camp. Rather, it appears to be just such a division of camps: an almost tribal personal hatred -- like that between rival football clubs.

What is the point of "reasoned debate" and "thinking" between people who already agree with each other?

Indeed, what is the point of political debate among people who have no real say in politics, anyway? Is there anyone on this forum who is actually in any position to influence the course of national events? I could be wrong, but I doubt it. One would hope such people would have much better things to do with their time.

That's what internet forums like this, like Bnet, like FreeRepublic, like any other political and religious debate forum are: venues for the impotent to vent their spleens and pretend their views matter.

They don't. Our views, our opinions, our thoughts do not matter in the slightest to the power that be. It's fun to argue, just like it's fun to shoot computer-generated aliens or invade Yakutsk. It's just as relevant in the real world, too.

[VLinvictus]

BTW, as was explained earlier, "liberal" and "socialist" are not coterminous. Not all so-called "liberals" are socialists and not all socialists are "liberals."

I, for example, am a socialist and I hate "liberals." However, I am forced into bed with them because I hate "conservatives" more.

[Faithfulee]

What is the point of "reasoned debate" and "thinking" between people who already agree with each other?

There is never full agreement on complex issues, even between conservatives.  Issues like abortion, gay marriage, environmentalism, etc It is the monolithic liberals who take firm unbending positions and hold the minor disagreemts against us conservatives.  

I have more faith in the political process.  We all vote, I hope.  And these discussions help my dealings with others.  I liked the liberals here because it helped in my discussions with my liberal wife.  She also found some of the BC lib arguments pretty ridiculous.

[Faithfulee]

BTW, as was explained earlier, "liberal" and "socialist" are not coterminous. Not all so-called "liberals" are socialists and not all socialists are "liberals."

I, for example, am a socialist and I hate "liberals." However, I am forced into bed with them because I hate "conservatives" more.

"hatred" is a debilitating attitude.

If you are a socialist,  the closesest you can get is to listen to the liberals because he bottom line of their plans for America is for the government to control everything, and that is the essence of socialism. 

[VLinvictus]

There is never full agreement on complex issues, even between conservatives.  Issues like abortion, gay marriage, environmentalism, etc It is the monolithic liberals who take firm unbending positions and hold the minor disagreemts against us conservatives.  

I have more faith in the political process.  We all vote, I hope.  And these discussions help my dealings with others.  I liked the liberals here because it helped in my discussions with my liberal wife.  She also found some of the BC lib arguments pretty ridiculous.

"Liberals" are "monolithic" and have "firm unbending positions?" Wow. What planet do you live on?

What "BC lib arguments" are you referring to? Also, if your wife is allegedly liberal and she finds some of these arguments "ridiculous," doesn't that mean then that she and they are not part of the same firm, unbending monolith and therefore negate your contention that liberals are monolithic, firm, and unbending?

Moreover, you lot like to point out how much Obama "flip-flops." He's a liberal, so shouldn't it therefore be impossible for him to "flip-flop" since liberals or monolithic, firm and unbending?

And if you think voting actually has any real effect in the destiny of our nation, you truly are naive. I vote because its one of the few privileges the Powers That Be allow me. If I'm going to be given the illusion of participation in the political process I might as well take it. But all voting does is change which team gets to go on offense for a time. It never changes the game, and both teams have the same owners.

[VLinvictus]

"hatred" is a debilitating attitude.

No it isn't. Hatred is powerful, primal. It is hate that drives history.

If you are a socialist,  the closesest you can get is to listen to the liberals because he bottom line of their plans for America is for the government to control everything, and that is the essence of socialism.

Wrong, on both counts.

"Liberals" do not want "the government to control everything." They want the government to control some things, just as conservatives do. They just differ on what the government should control: "liberals" tend to want the government to control the economy and stay out of private life; "conservatives" tend to want the governemtn to control private life and stay out of the economy.

You further betray your ignorance when you claim that "the essense of socialism" is for "the government to control everything." The essense of socialism is for the means of production to be owned collectively by the workers who operate them.

Your arguments are not grounded in reality.

[SquirleyWurley]

I won't defend liberals or liberalism as good or principled, etc., but I certainly can't applaud Republicans on these things.

So I contest those who have derided liberals on this thread: the same things can certainly be charged against Republicans, to one degree or other, sometimes more sometimes less depending on who you are looking at and how you look.

Re: Limbaugh.  He and Ann Coulter are demagogues.  They represent the tyrannical and mindless voice of the mob, the demogoguery of populism foreshadowed by Buchannan, etc.  They are voices for the worst aspects of the House (that is, the tyrannical aspects of Democracy which we should hope would be wisely checked and balanced by other mechanisms, powers, branches) (I know of course there are left-wingers who are like them)

Some time around the early 90's, this populist toxicity started to accumulate and boil, on the left and the right, but with prominent right-wing spokespeople.  Things were fomenting and changing, it was not good for conservatism generally, nor was it good for America generally.

This does not change by simply criticizing liberals and various left-wingers (who may or may not be liberals)

When I read Voegelin and Leo Strauss (both of whom I sympathize with and find valuable despite certain critical differences and respectful disagreements), or Karl Popper (whom I prefer as far as modern philosophers go, i.e., the Open Society and It's Enemies, Conjectures and Refutations; he was also a close friend of the free-market economist Hayek), I see thinking.

I do not see such thinking in the political nonsense of the talking heads/media figures/Administration spokespeople.  I see rhetoric and nonsense, garbage, and toxicity.  (Of the defenders of the War in Iraq, I admire Kristol, Wolfowitz, and Hitchens.  On the other hand, Rumsfled and Cheney and various right wing pundits disgust me.)

I cannot and will not stand idle if anyone suggests that Republicans are thinkers, independent of mind, good, principled, etc., compared to 'liberals'

No criticism of liberals absolves Republicans (and their supporters) of criticisms directed towards Republicans.  And likewise.  But still, it need be repeated.  Conservative culture has degenerated.  The mob has asserted its head, the worst aspects of populism has infected the nation, and conservatism has been quite at the forefront of this tendency.  One manifestation was in the House with the Lewinsky thing.  The House is the place where the tyranny of the mob would tend to assert itself, and it ought to be wisely checked by various powers/branches/mechanisms which are in fact less democratic, because we are a Republic.

In many ways the Republican Party absorbed the worst of what was going on in Democratic culture/circles, and out-did Democrats in degrading the culture.

[TENAC]

BTW, as was explained earlier, "liberal" and "socialist" are not coterminous. Not all so-called "liberals" are socialists and not all socialists are "liberals."

I, for example, am a socialist and I hate "liberals." However, I am forced into bed with them because I hate "conservatives" more.

Well, in order for socialism to succeed you by necessity would have to be a liberal in this country.  It would be an extremely liberal position to wish to adopt socialism and abdicate captialism.

In 1960 USSR, were I among those citizens, I would be a liberal there wanting to overthrow the socialist system in place while you would be the conservative, more in tune with the status quo.

[TENAC]

I won't defend liberals or liberalism as good or principled, etc., but I certainly can't applaud Republicans on these things.

So I contest those who have derided liberals on this thread: the same things can certainly be charged against Republicans, to one degree or other, sometimes more sometimes less depending on who you are looking at and how you look.

Re: Limbaugh.  He and Ann Coulter are demagogues.  They represent the tyrannical and mindless voice of the mob, the demogoguery of populism foreshadowed by Buchannan, etc.  They are voices for the worst aspects of the House (that is, the tyrannical aspects of Democracy which we should hope would be wisely checked and balanced by other mechanisms, powers, branches) (I know of course there are left-wingers who are like them)

Some time around the early 90's, this populist toxicity started to accumulate and boil, on the left and the right, but with prominent right-wing spokespeople.  Things were fomenting and changing, it was not good for conservatism generally, nor was it good for America generally.

This does not change by simply criticizing liberals and various left-wingers (who may or may not be liberals)

When I read Voegelin and Leo Strauss (both of whom I sympathize with and find valuable despite certain critical differences and respectful disagreements), or Karl Popper (whom I prefer as far as modern philosophers go, i.e., the Open Society and It's Enemies, Conjectures and Refutations; he was also a close friend of the free-market economist Hayek), I see thinking.

I do not see such thinking in the political nonsense of the talking heads/media figures/Administration spokespeople.  I see rhetoric and nonsense, garbage, and toxicity.  (Of the defenders of the War in Iraq, I admire Kristol, Wolfowitz, and Hitchens.  On the other hand, Rumsfled and Cheney and various right wing pundits disgust me.)

I cannot and will not stand idle if anyone suggests that Republicans are thinkers, independent of mind, good, principled, etc., compared to 'liberals'

No criticism of liberals absolves Republicans (and their supporters) of criticisms directed towards Republicans.  And likewise.  But still, it need be repeated.  Conservative culture has degenerated.  The mob has asserted its head, the worst aspects of populism has infected the nation, and conservatism has been quite at the forefront of this tendency.  One manifestation was in the House with the Lewinsky thing.  The House is the place where the tyranny of the mob would tend to assert itself, and it ought to be wisely checked by various powers/branches/mechanisms which are in fact less democratic, because we are a Republic.

In many ways the Republican Party absorbed the worst of what was going on in Democratic culture/circles, and out-did Democrats in degrading the culture.

And all the while you say this while in the current past democrat administration, it was the Democrat that degraded the oval office as never before, DEFENDED the one who denigrated it until the evidence was undeniable.

Yet it was the republicans that went to their President and demanded he resign in the 1970's.

And you admire Bill Kristol?  It is he and those like him that have led the conservative movement astray.

You seem to confuse republican, conservative, liberal and democrat.  They are very different things.

[VLinvictus]

Well, in order for socialism to succeed you by necessity would have to be a liberal in this country.  It would be an extremely liberal position to wish to adopt socialism and abdicate captialism.

Wrong. Transitions between modes of production are not effected by campaigns and legislation. Consider how capitalism rose to dominance through the annihilation of feudalism and how feudalism itself arose out of the ashes of slavery. Liberals are impotent when it comes to that: just look at the SPD in Germany after WWI or the Mensheviks in pre-revolutionary Russia. Liberals are identical to conservatives in the sense that they both depend on and derive their power from the maintenance of the current political status quo which is necessarily based on the preservation of capitalist property relations relative to the means of production. Moreover, a "liberal" operates within the constitutional structure of the existing political establishment. Since that political establishment is necessarily dependent on the preservation of capitalist proprietary relations, it would impossible and absurd for any soi-disant "liberal" to advocate, as you so childishly put it, that the nation "adopt socialism and abidcate capitalism."

I hate liberals because they are all counterrevolutionary hypocrites -- claiming to speak for the people when in reality they are nothing but the "good cop" to the conservative "bad cop" and just the other face of Janus or another head on the hydra. I hate conservatives more than I hate liberals because conservatives seem obsessed with limiting what few liberties remain to us in the conduct of our private lives and penalizing those who choose not to adhere to the rigid monolith of bourgeois morality.

In 1960 USSR, were I among those citizens, I would be a liberal there wanting to overthrow the socialist system in place while you would be the conservative, more in tune with the status quo.

Wrong. The system in place in the USSR in the 1960's was not a socialist system, regardless of how much the CPSU wanted people to believe it was. You're right that I would probably be "more in tune with the status quo" but not for any ideological sympathy with the regime: I'm just a sucker for uniforms, medals, flags, and parades.

You, a supposed liberal wanting to overthrow the "socialist system [sic]" would most likely have been in a gulag or dead.

[VLinvictus]

And all the while you say this while in the current past democrat administration, it was the Democrat that degraded the oval office as never before, DEFENDED the one who denigrated it until the evidence was undeniable.

Bill Clinton did not degrade the Oval Office. The MSM did. Presidents long before him had had illicit affairs, yet we didn't have the obsessive and invasive "news" media that we have today so we didn't know about it -- and if we did, it was an "open secret" that didn't affect the running of the country.

You seem to confuse republican, conservative, liberal and democrat.  They are very different things.

What do "liberal" and "conservative" mean in your vocabulary?