So...what is a liberal...what is a conservative?

For the record, Clinton totally screwed up the Somalia effort with the UNs concerns, as depicted in Black Hawk Down. Then alot of good americans died.

Kosovo was an action i supported. When you are the most powerful country in the history of the planet you can just stand around while some assholes gun down women and children. He did right here.

Somalia opens the whole can of worms on UN incompetancy. The biggest loser organization in the history of the universe and maybe the most corrupt. Everyone should encourage their politicians to help us leave the UN as soon as possible.

 

A conservative is a liberal who hasn't yet experienced a billy club in his back.

 

Yes, I believe that this is an essential aspect to the question. My best example is that of taxation and how our tax money is used. I, personally, would like to be able to put more of my income aside for my daughter. Perhaps for her education, perhaps just as a nestegg. However, I am not allowed to do this because my money is taken from me by the government and this is done with the benefit of some substantial coercion. If I do not pay my taxes I will be jailed. And so, I am forced to give my money to another person rather than being allowed to care for my own family. The "obligation" is forced. Some may not mind but even if you do mind you are given no choice. I understand that this is a matter of law and elective representatives but this system of taxation is so entrenched that even the Republicans are not seriously trying to change it.

I know also that there is another side to the story. I understand, for example, that aid to foreign nations keeps the world safer (sometimes) and is a benefit to me and my family in ways that are less than obvious in our daily lives. This is part of the bind. In some ways it's a good idea and in some ways it sucks. I can tell you one thing though, I'd feel better about giving he money to other people if I saw that it actually made a positive difference.
Maybe it's sad for a Social Worker to be saying this but I've seen zillions of dollars spent on "programs" and things don't seem much better to me.
Jack

 

Most of the social improvements I've noticed are economic and have come from techolological advances. Some legal changes have benefitted people formerly exluded from schools, jobs, etc. but social programs have, IMO, locked many of the same people into positions of dependency and despondency.

 

decimon - I'm not disagreeing with you but I'm thinking about it in a somewhat different way. For example, we've pumped zillions of dollars into substance abuse programs, drug enforcement programs, etc. and I'm totally unconvinced that there is less drug abuse now than 20 years ago. Similarly, there are "teen pregnancy" programs everywhere yet the rate of teen pregnancy has increased exponentially over the last 20 years (sorry, no data). I don't mind giving up my tax dollars for programs that work but I've become increasingly intolerant of programs that don't work. If the government must take my money I think it's reasonable that I request that they not waste it.
Jack

 

I'm not an ideologue so I am also accepting of programs that work. Or I would be if I could find any that work.

The problems you mentioned follow demographic and cultural trends that defy intervention. One of the best things I heard Clinton say was that the youth demographic (low relative percentage) was giving us a window of opportunity of a lowering crime rate. I loved hearing a President effectively say a lessening crime rate was due to something beyond his control or that of any politician or bureaucrat. Course he blew it with midnight basketball and 100,000 Caspar the Ghost cops but that's another story.

A reasonable request if there is any historical basis for believing they won't waste-steal-pander-embezzle your money.

 

Prohibition did not stop people from drinking either. I say if someone wants to fry his/her brain let him/her. I say let's go the Amsterdam way.

There is more sexual freedom than there was 20 years ago. Furthermore, you can be sure that 20 years ago there were more teen pregnancies than 20 years before that and so on.

These are just signs of the times. (Please do not read any Apocaliptic references here.)

 

Does anyone really have any hard numbers when they bitch and complain about how now is so much worse than 20 years ago in terms of teen pregnancy, drug abuse, or whatever?

 

I have to say im a conservative, have experienced it, and refused to be a victim. Alot, not all, of libs i know have a victim mentality.

 

I use this example often about abortion. I am against abortion, not just for moral reasons, but for Human resource reasons. How many GREAT people from the history of mankind start like this: We were REAL poor, had nothing, blah, blah, blah. In modern times people abort these kids and we MAY have missed the next Einstein.

The unwed birth rate is the same now as it was almost 30 years ago, or in the case of some minorty groups higher. The Census shows that an incredible 73% of black children are born out of wedlock in the US. But i think the problems in that social group have been made signifigantly worse by the welfare system.

Drug use is higher, but ODs (by percent) are down. More people smoke pot now than ever, but up untill the recent explosion in the heroin market, hard drug use was down. BUT keep in mind, there are more DUI deaths now than ever. I love how the judicial system totally condons being a drunk moron (alot of Cops and Judges are), but if someone smoke a joint they are a criminal.

I still dont understand how the govt has power over drug use via the Interstate commerce clause. I understand the distrabution part, but not this.

 

Numbers going down

Actually, I am pretty certain the teen birth rate has gone down over the past couple of years...

http://www.agi-usa.org/pubs/state_pregnancy_trends.pdf

 

I think that seems to be so for how statistics are now compiled. Mad Mothers Against Driving and their ilk have had their political effect. I'm pretty sure the national automotive death rate is lower than a few decades ago despite there being many more cars and many more miles driven.

 

That's correct. I worked in state government during the nineties and this is one of the areas I worked in. The overall death rate per mile driven has been declining for just about as long as records have been kept. This is most likely due to safer roads and vehicles.

I personally supplied statistics to MADD and other groups. There are various ways to quantify the number of alcohol related crashes. You can count all crashes in which a driver had a trace of alcohol, or you can count crashes in which a driver was above the legal limit. When I worked there the state's legal limit for BAC was .10%. Since then I believe the limit has been lowered to .08 or maybe lower. By lowering the limit, more crashes can be attributed to "legally" drunk drivers.

 

Thanks, I really did not want to scrounge up the info.

As for legal limits:

dui.com

 

Not true.

http://www.alcoholalert.com/drunk-driving-statistics.html

 

Mother of all Mothers leaves MADD mad.

Alcofactual

 

I think in some small sense, a billy club in one's back makes one a victim (at least for awhile, even though certainly not for life). Of course, the question remains whether one was a victim of a cop who had wrong ideas about what the "victim" was doing or whether the "victim" of a billyclub was basically a victim of his own stupidity for doing something he shouldn't have been. But, generally, that experience tends to push one into the ACLU category.

 

Why, naturally.

 

Conservative = Against the Killing of children.

Liberal = For the Killing of children.

 

Every time this inflammatory and intentionally-misleading falsehood is repeated it just gets more and more absurd. Being "pro-choice" does not mean that one is "for the killing of children." Liberals, just like conservatives, are against the "killing of children."

(Sheesh!)