I was a liberal, but then I grew up....

Only reason I'll shift is because I'll slowly grow to dislike any change in my old age and become cranky. "Get off my lawn".

 

I know a lot of guys who were peace loving anti war liberals when it was their time to serve and as soon as the draft ended they became chicken hawk neoCON Republicans. The only party that supports freedom and smaller government is the Libertarians and they can't seem to get any more than 2-3% of the vote. Both the Democrats who used to support unions and working people in general have become whores to lobbyists. The Republicans who were at least reasonable a few decades ago have sold out to the war profiteering scum and have done their best to bust unions and kill the middle class with their pro billionaire anti worker policies. The state of our politics is a joke. Bunch of whores with their hands always stuck out waiting for a bribe.

 

I was a liberal but volunteered during Vietnam. as matter of a sense of duty as both parents served during WWII and my uncle received a Silver Star during the Battle of the Bulge.

I am a card carrying Libertarian but have to side with Republicans in most things since the Democratic Party is the party of big and authoritarian government. The current Republican Party is almost indistinguishable from the Democratic Party.

 

I think it started with seeing the hypocrisy of the moralizing conservatives. The more they moralized, the worse their personal behavior. And the other conservatives gave them a free pass on it.

That was just the seed. It got me researching whether those people were telling the truth. Invariably, when I researched it, they were usually lying about whatever topic was being discussed. As a person of integrity, I couldn't be associated with that.

Aging also brings empathy, and I noticed conservatives tended to be cruel even when the cruelty served no purpose. As a person of morality, I couldn't be associated with that.

I paid more attention to liberty. On nearly every issue, conservatives took the authoritarian side and tried to restrict liberty. As a patriot, I couldn't be associated with that.

I paid more attention to reality. I saw conservative policies fail, and liberal policies work. As a realist, I couldn't be associated with conservative policy.

I toyed with libertarianism a bit, until it became clear that most libertarians were just conservatives who weren't honest about being conservatives. They care only about their own money, and nothing about liberty.

Conservatism has only gotten worse in all of those categories over the years.

 

I knew quite a few very left-leaning vietnam vets. They saw that war (police action?) as being a huge waste for no apparent reason. Why not let those vietnamese be communists if they want? It's their country and they can fight for it if they want.

The question I would ask them now is why did they become lefties? There's no reason to think that the democrats are any less war-like than the republicans. I grew up around old hippies and now they're the ones who are the most staunch socialists.

I just don't get it.

 

And the most big government supporters after railing against government.

 

LBJ chose not to seek reelection in 1968 to concentrate all his efforts on ending the VIET NAM war,so if you got drafted as a 17 year old, which is bullshit, it was not LBJ who did it.

 

Okay, you found some lies that conservatives tell. What lies? You mention empathy, and I agree that as you age, you can empathize with people better. That comes from experience. However, wouldn't that empathy translate into tangible results? If you can empathize with a drug addict's plight, this doesn't mean you give him money so he can use that to become a better person. Maybe it means giving him drugs so he can continue being a drug addict, I guess. Or maybe making it legal to use his drug of choice.

This doesn't really address the core issue of that empathy which is that he is a drug addict. It just makes it more comfortable for him to be a drug addict.

A conservative can feel the same empathy, but we want to address the core issue, which is that being a drug addict is a terrible waste of life. Maybe instead of spending his time getting high and then looking for ways to get money to buy more drugs to get high, etc. etc. etc, there's a way to change a drug addict's life by getting rid of the addiction.

We both feel empathy, but I'm not going to be handing out heroin and free needles in the park. Democrats are the ones doing that.

Sorry, but I think we arrived at opposite sides of the tracks, and yes, I think my position is the virtuous side.

 

Yes, and the tangible results from the liberals tend to be better. For example, treating addicts has better tangible results than a tougher war on drugs. Conservatives tend to reject the policies that give better results for emotional reasons.

I think it's not, being the results are worse. After a certain point, good intent is not an excuse. A drunk driver may honestly think he's not harming anyone, but his actions are still immoral because of the outcomes. I see conservatism as similar to that.

 

You should consider that again. True conservatives are not that way at all- and I know, I am one. The more of our people become strong, independent, and successful in the way they define, it the better off we all are. However, you cannot give those qualities to anyone, it's just not possible. A conservative knows that you make yourself what you are- and you don't blame the world for not supporting you, not making you happy, not making things easy. Small children do that- mature adults do not. Those who expect that are the ones with the chips. They take from the system, resent their own dependence and hate the people who are paying their bills.

Anyone can be respectable- it's a choice of how you chooses to live. If you accept responsibility for your choices in life and their consequences, then you know if it hasn't turned out well- you have no one but yourself to blame. Accepting that gives you the motivation and the power to change and grow- rejecting it strips you of that power.

IF you have not earned respect from yourself, you probably aren't respected because you aren't respectable and it shows far more than you think it does. People do become inferior and superior in terms of their value to society and themselves- but that is the product of their own choices, not being taken unfair advantage of and being cheated out of their chances.

Those who find themselves in that position, no matter what point in life- can decide to act differently right now, and begin building a new life that they can honestly respect- and invariably, that earns the respect of others, and they are no longer socially inferior. They were never inferior as humans, just in character and maturity.
Life is what we make it, and the person with the vast majority of control over your life is you- whether you see it or not, that is true.

 

i do not believe comment one is accurate at all. I recall when Nancy Reagan went nationwide with JUST SAY NO, Democrats were livid with rage declaring that is not a policy at all. They called for serious action.

What serious action do you want done for the drunk driver issue? Saying no is not an option as I learned from Democrats.

 

As a Democrat that voted for LBJ, do not believe that comment you made. He knew he was going to be defeated so he quit. I do not recall his point being underage when he got drafted. I got drafted under Kennedy so know we were still getting drafted until Nixon was elected. Democrats will act like cats that got boiling water poured on them before they blame Johnson for Vietnam. They will shift the blame all over rather than have Johnson take the blame.

 

Being a conservative means that it's ok for someone to obtain welfare IF they contributed to the system and require assistance for a short period of time to get back on their feet.

A liberal is gullible in believing people don't milk the system and increasingly try to penalise those who made an effort in life by robbing them of tax to pay for the lazy element of society.

The greater someone is a liberal is in direct proportion of a lack of economic knowledge.

Liberal's ideas have good intentions but are Utopian in design.

 

And how successful was Nancy's program ?

We had the worst drug epidemic in our nation's history after that.

Not surprised one bit that you endorse that failed idea.

 

Tangible results? I truly wish that you were telling the truth about this, and that you could really provide evidence for all of these positive results that democratic policies have provided. Maybe in other threads on other subjects, but honest true results that can be measured would be a breath of fresh air than the unmistakable stench of a Turkish urinal that I've become accustomed to.

You mention treating addicts as better than a tougher war on drugs. I'm not sure, but I doubt either party has the answer to that particular problem as drug abuse rises no matter which side of the aisle the politicians sit. The tangible results are not there for either of us. Homelessness? We sure don't want to go there because urban camping seems to be a national past time.

I wish there were some tangible results, which is why I'm finished with expecting politicians to provide them. That's what makes me a conservative.

 

Obviously a few people didn't take Nancy's advice.

 

I do not plan to try to verify that you told the truth.

Since you do not want the Nancy program to operate, what do you want operational?

 

I was going to give my "journey" from agnostic to liberal...and then I realized.

No one really gives a ****.

I'm a liberal because it's the party of pragmatism and far more truth than the Republican Party.

Trump by the way...is the Republican response to finally realizing that they have been hoodwinked for all these years

 

WTF?

Are you implying that Nancy's "program" worked in any way at all?

 

It's the leftists who want to restrict our liberty.

The left wants to grow government. Since freedom is a zero sum game (the larger government becomes, the less freedom we have) the left is actively working toward reducing our liberty.

It's the left that outlawed fireplaces in new home construction in California. It's the left that tried to limit the size of soft drinks sold in New York. It's the left that wants a nanny state, dictating our every movement.

 

It wasn't a program. It was an advertising campaign that simply gave a few suggestions on how to say no to pressure to use drugs. Obviously you think that's a terrible thing to do.

 

I don't see how any person can be both of these.

 

Name a single liberal policy that has worked. It has made us soft and an easy target for an invasion, like is happening now!

 

Do you want someone to come in and live in your house without your permission? When it comes to your home, you are an authoritarian. When I comes to my nation, I am an authoritarian. When it comes to personal behavior within the united states, I am a libertarian. No problem and far from a contradiction.

Anyone here love illegal aliens, by all means public your address and we will sent a few 100 to live with you and make you happy!

 

My house isn't a country, it is my personal property. Because it is my property, I have a right to exclude use by others. To state that property ownership is "authoritarian" demonstrates a misunderstanding of the basis of property ownership and I've seen it before made with a hard core communist. Just like then, this comparison is arbritary and nonsensical.

And I have allowed homeless to stay in my home. If I wish to allow another to stay in my house their nationality be damned, that is no business of yours.

This is based upon the libertarian belief called freedom of association. You should learn it, live it and love it if you wish to enjoy being a libertarian.