30-07-2002 04:52									#61
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Republicans pre-socialists? Huh? They broke up strikes. Like you said, they subsidized big business. They stole from poor people. That isn't socialism.

You could make an argument that the Republicans were close to socialism before the mercantilists hijacked the party in 1860, but I'd say that what they advocated was basically liberalism, but less extreme.

Again, feudalism is about as far from liberalism as you can get...

	30-07-2002 05:01									#62
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

Less extreme liberalism? They wanted a MASSIVE federal government... no states rights.. great amount in investment. And they did have a lot of socialist roots in the beginning, universal sufferage. You had plenty of the founders even considering sufferage for women. There is a reason that Harry Turtledove in his alternate fiction (where the South won Antietam) had Lincoln as a Socialist after he lost.

And no, the Democrats weren't farther from liberalism than the Republicans. They were the liberal party! I mean, they still considered Jefferson as a main pillar of the party. And Thomas Jefferson is one of the greatest liberals in history.

	30-07-2002 05:08									#63
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

Mr. Fun,

When you're an extreme liberal, or an extreme conservative, you are more likely to have bigoted misperceptions of certain groups of people.

Against who would the liberal have his misperceptions - and why do you apply this to every and all extreme liberal?

Yup, the liberals all believe man is fundamentally good, which obviously isn't true, they think the gov't knows better than the people, how stupid they are, case closed. At these times I'd wish a symbolic amount of socialists would make their way into established politics in America, like they've managed to here in Europe. I'm wishing it just because they'd put a couple things into perspective - the most important one being just how minor the differences between the ideas of the "liberal" Democrats and that of "conservative" Republicans are.

Don't get me wrong, I reckon significant differences do exist - for instance, there's the view on abortions. But when it all comes down to the choice between the two, there just isn't enough for me to accept the notion we're talking about different ideologies here.

	30-07-2002 05:12									#64
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

Doesn't matter. Feudalism ain't liberalism. Liberalism was the movement to oppose feudalism. You can't throw the two together.

quote: And they did have a lot of socialist roots in the beginning, universal sufferage. You had plenty of the founders even considering sufferage for women.

Like I said, the initial few years of the Republican party (before the industrialists took over the party), you could probably call the Republicans pre-socialists. Although liberal would be a better word. Fremont was a shitload closer to a liberal than any Democrat.

quote: There is a reason that Harry Turtledove in his alternate fiction (where the South won Antietam) had Lincoln as a Socialist after he lost.

And Turtledove was on some pretty strong stuff when he came up with that idea. Lincoln sure as hell wasn't a socialist.

IIRC, he used one of Lincoln's misquotes as a basis for this idea.

	30-07-2002 05:34									#65
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Fremont was a shitload closer to a liberal than any Democrat.

*cough* Jefferson
*cough* Madison

quote: Liberalism was the movement to oppose feudalism. You can't throw the two together.

Yet people on your side manage to throw mercantalism and capitalism together.

Explain to me how the Democratic PARTY (not just a few individuals, but the party) was a feudalistic party. It was based on liberal roots, remember.

	30-07-2002 05:54									#66
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: *cough* Jefferson *cough* Madison

Yes, they owned slaves. They weren't liberals, even if they had SOME liberal ideas...

quote: Yet people on your side manage to throw mercantalism and capitalism together.

Because capitalism in action (unless the economy was socialist) has always implied the existence of certain attributes of the mercantilist system...

Free enterprise is invariably socialistic.

quote: Explain to me how the Democratic PARTY (not just a few individuals, but the party) was a feudalistic party. It was based on liberal roots, remember.

It was based on feudal roots, combined with some liberal ideas. Look at the agenda of the Democratic party early on. The Fugitive Slave Act, for instance, wasn't a liberal law.

	30-07-2002 06:24									#67
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Yes, they owned slaves. They weren't liberals, even if they had SOME liberal ideas...

Then NO ONE was a liberal in the US. Jefferson is basically considered one of the founders of liberal thought.

quote: Because capitalism in action (unless the economy was socialist) has always implied the existence of certain attributes of the mercantilist system

Liberalism in action has always implied the existance of certain attributes of feudalism . What's your point? Everything builds from what came before it.

It doesn't show me that the party of Jefferson wasn't liberal in nature with some feudal aspects thrown in.

	30-07-2002 06:41									#68
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by Monk Mr. Fun, When you're an extreme liberal, or an extreme conservative, you are more likely to have bigoted misperceptions of certain groups of people. Against who would the liberal have his misperceptions - and why do you apply this to every and all extreme liberal? Yup, the liberals all believe man is fundamentally good, which obviously isn't true, they think the gov't knows better than the people, how stupid they are, case closed. At these times I'd wish a symbolic amount of socialists would make their way into established politics in America, like they've managed to here in Europe. I'm wishing it just because they'd put a couple things into perspective - the most important one being just how minor the differences between the ideas of the "liberal" Democrats and that of "conservative" Republicans are. Don't get me wrong, I reckon significant differences do exist - for instance, there's the view on abortions. But when it all comes down to the choice between the two, there just isn't enough for me to accept the notion we're talking about different ideologies here.

But you only pointed out one issue where you believe there is significant differences; there are others as well:

gun control

welfare systems

affirmative action

fiscal management of Social Security

These are other issues where there seems to significant differences between the two sides.



As for the ideological changes that occured in the Republican party and Democratic party.

In antebellum America, the Republican party was based on the platform of restricting slavery; not abolishing slavery.
They were also for more federal government involvement in internal improvements and development of the nation's economic/transportation structure.

In antebellum America, the Democratic party was based on the platform of anti-bank system, and (supposedly) pro-working/yeoman class during the Jacksonian era.
The Democratic party was also more of an extreme white man's party (along with the Know-Nothing).

The Radical Republicans pushed through revolutionary amendments and legislation during Reconstruction, in an attempt to change our nation's race relations. Unfortunately, Reconstruction failed in that aspect.

It was the period of 1890's, that the Republican party completed its change, away from its founding principles, and it was the 1930's, when the Democratic party began to change towards a more liberal platform.

	30-07-2002 06:55									#69
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

These are other issues where there seems to significant differences between the two sides.

Sure there are. My point was that said differences are nothing more than cases of two parties disagreeing. They are NOT sufficiently large for me to accept the notion that we're talking about different ideologies. So in conclusion, let's talk Democrats vs. Republicans instead of liberals vs. conservatives.

	30-07-2002 06:58									#70
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Then NO ONE was a liberal in the US.

No one with any real power, yes. People like Thoreau were liberals.

quote: Liberalism in action has always implied the existance of certain attributes of feudalism .

Huh?
There are plenty of instances of liberal societies where there were no serfs/slaves.

quote: It doesn't show me that the party of Jefferson wasn't liberal in nature with some feudal aspects thrown in.

The characteristic aspect of feudalism is serfdom, therefore the Democrats advocated a feudal system.

The characteristic aspect of liberalism is the reduction of state authority. The Democrats believe government should hold millions of people in bondage. That certainly isn't a reduction in state authority.

	30-07-2002 07:01									#71
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by Monk These are other issues where there seems to significant differences between the two sides. Sure there are. My point was that said differences are nothing more than cases of two parties disagreeing. They are NOT sufficiently large for me to accept the notion that we're talking about different ideologies. So in conclusion, let's talk Democrats vs. Republicans instead of liberals vs. conservatives.

Ok, so you do not see Democrats as being liberal, and Republicans as being conservative??

	30-07-2002 07:06									#72
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: People like Thoreau were liberals.

People like Thoreau were nuts.

If we go further, than no one in power belongs to any real ideology. No one was a Communist, because a true Marxist has never come to power, or hasn't been 100% that way.

quote: There are plenty of instances of liberal societies where there were no serfs/slaves.

That's not the ONLY characteristic in feudalism. The class structures are basically the same, if you want to get Marxist about it .

quote: The characteristic aspect of feudalism is serfdom, therefore the Democrats advocated a feudal system.

And you seem to group all Democrats into one mold. Just like there were Northern and Southern Whigs (which led to the breakup of that party and the creation of the Republicans) there were Northern and Southern Democrats. Some Democrats were even adamantly against slavery.

quote: The characteristic aspect of liberalism is the reduction of state authority. The Democrats believe government should hold hundreds of thousands of people in bondage. That certainly isn't a reduction in state authority.

Most Whigs didn't want to tinker with slavery either. And slavery isn't simply a government activity, though it may seem that way now. The Democrat position was that the government should not get involved in the private business affairs of the people, of which slavery was a part. Hence they were MUCH more lassez-faire than the Whigs or Republicans.

	30-07-2002 07:10									#73
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

Mr. Fun,

By popular definition, yes, most Democrats are liberals (again - liberals by popular, American definition) etc. etc. I should have made myself more clear - it's not really the use of these terms I object to as much as the discussions of liberalISM and conservatISM and the applying of these terms to, say, Al Gore and George Bush. Especially the use of the former one is annoying for someone like me who was taught in school liberalism means a free market and features the strong, independent individual as the ultimate ideal. I can accept that there are two definitions of "liberal", but when we're talking about the definition of liberalism, there can be only one, IMHO.

	30-07-2002 07:14									#74
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

Mr. Fun,

Maybe you should explain the major ideological differences as you regard them - then we can see if we're speaking the same language, so to speak.

	30-07-2002 07:38									#75
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: If we go further, than no one in power belongs to any real ideology. No one was a Communist, because a true Marxist has never come to power, or hasn't been 100% that way.

Not really. If the Democrats supported Liberalism, any medieval society with little central authority was liberal.

A Noble's rights over serfs, and central government intervention in the relationship, can be seen in the same context as a plantation owner's rights over slaves.

quote: That's not the ONLY characteristic in feudalism.

Right, but it's the main one.

quote: The class structures are basically the same, if you want to get Marxist about it .

How is the class structure the same, other than there being classes at top and at the bottom?

quote: And you seem to group all Democrats into one mold. Just like there were Northern and Southern Whigs (which led to the breakup of that party and the creation of the Republicans) there were Northern and Southern Democrats. Some Democrats were even adamantly against slavery.

Yeah, and the Southern Democrats usually maintained leadership in the party, and the pro-serfdom Democrats, certainly.

quote: Most Whigs didn't want to tinker with slavery either.

I believe we were discussing Republicans...

quote: And slavery isn't simply a government activity, though it may seem that way now. The Democrat position was that the government should not get involved in the private business affairs of the people, of which slavery was a part.

So? You can say the same about serfdom in a medieval context.

The Democrats said that the plantation owners were equivalent to governments themselves, and had absolute authority over their subjects.

quote: Hence they were MUCH more lassez-faire than the Whigs or Republicans.

So was the Holy Roman Empire during its last centuries a liberal government?

	30-07-2002 08:58									#76
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by DinoDoc This is a full listing of what she advocated: 1) "questionable" lyrics were printed and provided with their respective recordings

Not censorship.

quote: 2) "objectionable" album covers were sold in plain brown wrappers (or sold in areas segregated from other albums)

Don't have a problem with that. We do the same with books, movies and magazines. Why should it be different for music? We fully accept the idea, as a society, that certain material is objectionable to young recipients. Making sure minors don't have access to them without parental permission isn't censorship.

quote: 3) rock concerts were rated

Not censorship. And so? We rate movies and video games. Again, just a tool whereby parents can control what their children are seeing/listening to. I don't think any conservative would object to the parental right to do just that.

quote: 4) MTV segregated "questionable" video recordings into specific late night viewing slots

This might be the best argument you got, but it doesn't meet the "censorship" bar I'm afraid. Television does it with their programs, which is why NYPD Blue is on at 10 PM instead of 8 PM. It's been a standard practice that material that may be objectionable for minors be aired later.

quote: The group she founded has also argued that argued that virgin minds were being poisoned by "hidden messages and backward masking."

She and Al also distanced themselves from that group once it adopted far more extreme views than they thought were appropriate, making public statements as such. The group was also populated by staunch conservatives far more so than liberals.

Sorry, but nothing above equals censorship. And frankly, I support most of the things she tried to do as giving parents reasonable tools with which to monitor what their kids listen to and watch. If I were a parent, you can bet I'd be glad to have them.

	30-07-2002 09:27									#77
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

I watched porn as young as 11, saw violent movies when I was 7, and used foul language when I was 5 (and the soap didn't taste good). But look at how great I turned out (prepares for flames). The rating systems in this country are stupid. A 16 year old kid can be responsible for a 3000 pound vehicle, but can't see a horror movie in the theatre without parental permission?

Any type of rating system that restricts the privilage of someone is nothing more than someone pushing their morals on to other people. In effect, the MPAA wants to parent your kids. Ratings should accurately state the content of the media, and nothing more. I don't know about everyone else, but when I was 13, I had no car, I had no money, so everything I did was at the mercy of my parents, if they didn't want me to see a movie, they didn't give me money, or they didn't give me transportation to the theatre.

I'm still waiting for proof that shows that a 5 year old who sees a porno is going to grow up to be a criminal. If anything, that kid will be desensitized to such material, so seeing boobs, shlongs, and whatnot would be routine, and wouldn't be something that would upset that person, or cause that person to commit a sex crime.

	30-07-2002 09:37									#78
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: I don't know about everyone else, but when I was 13, I had no car, I had no money, so everything I did was at the mercy of my parents, if they didn't want me to see a movie, they didn't give me money, or they didn't give me transportation to the theatre.

As it should be.

	30-07-2002 09:38									#79
	Inflate your Upload Space

yup

	30-07-2002 15:26									#80
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

Siro my friend... you started a monster..