Liberals vs Conservatives

Iraq Forum

I posted this on one of CJ's threads then it occurred to me that I was interested in the answers to these questions enough to start a seperate thread.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ya know all of this reminds me of a kinda scruples question me and some of my friends would ask back in University.

Would you rather be led by an earnest right wing conservative...?

Or a dishonest left wing liberal....?

All politicians lie...

The right wing conservative { RWC } will lie about why, where and how he is using the military. The RWC will lie about cutting taxes { really we won't cut services, we just want to let you keep your money }. The RWC will lie about the environment, they will water down any conservation/anti pollution legislation that stands to cost big business cause big business is what they are.

The RWC though is clear where it stands on morality. It is the bastion of the bible belt. This is not all bad. Morality is important in a civilized world. Life is precious, and the RWC is also the party that defends it by opposing abortion, euthenasia etc.
This is an area that swings many of the undecided centre over to them. If I were a USA citizen it would be hard for me to choose.. I am pro- life and anti-war.... to me they are synonymous.

The left wing liberal { LWL } will lie about investments... The LWL will lie about not raising taxes { really we know we promised a billion dollars worth of new programs.. but we won't have to ask for more money }....The LWL will lie about sex { cause while gettin some is fun gettin caught by the press ain't }...

The LWL is clear where it stands on a secular world.They support a women's right to choose. They want seperation of church and state. This is not all bad. North America has a diverse populous that may feel second class if we were to have an official faith. Life is precious, and the LWL is also the party that defends it by opposing the death penalty, war etc.
This is an area that swings many of the undecided centre over to them. If I were a USA citizen it would be hard for me to choose... I am pro-life and anti-war....to me they are synonymous..


So the earnest RWC will be a good family man .. but march you out to war....

The dishonest LWL will be gettin some from the interns... but more interested in a good time than war...

Neither are the epitome of perfection...not by a long shot.

But what bothers you more?

A LWL leader's scandalous sexual escapades.....

A RWC leader's scandalous violent wars...

As already written in this other thread ... these are pretty good questions. Unfortunately they won't raise any doubt in some cealed minds - too comfortable to live with blind certainties.

Would not the development of a more diverse multiple party system be a possible solution?

It seems that in a 2 party system whichever side lures the centre { which I maintain is the majority } they will hold sway... and then proceed to institute non-centrist political wing policies.

If a true party of the centre were to emerge in the USA and was considered legitimate { I am not talking about protest parties like Perot and Nader who only serve to rock the vote... not to gain office }.... Would not such a party be able to represent the vast majority of average citizens who appreciate compromise?

That's a valuable question. Indeed the balance of votes is the same in Europe and elections are won "at the centre". Our politicians know it pretty well, so those who gain the majority of the ballots are generally the ones who propose the best equilibrium.
In France we have a diversity of parties, and votes are dispatched between them but two major parties get most of them. They lean to different sides of the centre and oppose to each other, but they need this undecided bulge of the population between their own electorate. Without this centre they wouldn't be in office, and they have to set alliances with little parties to build a government. So diversity is the rule and that's the case in most european countries.

Exactly in Canada we once again have a minority Gov't { the party in power won the greatest # of seats in the House of Commons .... but is outnumbered by the combined total of various opposition party seats.

This forces Our Prime Minister to forge alliances and reach compromises.

It is , in my opinion, a true check and balance.

It also limits the dramatic political shifts the population has to live thru when either the left or right wins in a 2 party system.

LWL- voted to go to war. They could have voted no.

Without a doubt they could have voted no... but would it have mattered?

Bush has a clear majority... would he heve needed the left?

I am curious as to how these types of votes would have worked out in a minority Gov't.

Would Bush, for example, have been able to negotiate with multiple parties in order to move forward on certain policies? Do you think he has diplomatic skills to bridge party lines and reach compromises to get work done?

Minority government? How does that work?

I think he has the skills. The Dems just need to pull their tale out from between their legs and get back to work. If they don't it will just be another example of why they can't lead this country.

I think what he means by minority government is if the right hadn't had a clear cut majority, or no majority at all.

Yes , a Minority Gov't is one in which more than 2 parties win seats { ie) representatives} in the main legislative body. { In the USA I believe House of Representatives, here in Canada House of Commons}. AND while the party in power has more Rep's than any other it can be collectively outnumber by the total # of Reps from opposition parties.

In this case the Minority gov't leader, while still having executive power and discretion... must get votes from opposition Rep's in order to pass legislation. This forces an atmosphere of cooperation and compromise in the legislative process and steers public policy away from ideological wings towards the centre.

While there does exist many different parties in the USA these parties fail to elect Rep's to Congress ... thus they exist as little more than a protest vote instead of a legitimate voice in government.

I would have to disagree with the fact that pro-life and anti-war go hand in hand. Pro lifers kill people. This is a rediculous but realistic account of pro lifers. They only claim to be pro life, then go and bomb abortion doctors. This is not pro life, this is pro death. Life is what has been born, whereas pro lifers define life as that that is not born. When did you last read of a pro choice bombing? So called "pro lifer's" kill people. Real people that have been born.

I think the problem with the pro lifer's is at what point is a person a person? Is it when the sperm joins the egg, or is it when the featus grows a hand, or is it when the sperm gets ejaculated? Basically, am I killing a human when I jerk one off? Also, the fact that the "pro lifer's" want rape victims to give birth, quite frankly makes me sick. For instance, that nasty little man, Jeb Bush, made a mentally ill woman give birth to a baby created through raping the said mentally ill woman. This is not pro life, this is pro *******. Ultimately, a female is the one giving birth. That female is the one who can decide whether to give birth, not the governor of the state.

Completely false....

I am pro-life.. I have peacefully protested abortion.

The pro -life movement long ago conceded that we would not oppose abortions if they were solely for cases where rape, incest or the woman's life was in danger.

The horrific truth is stats show these account for less than 1% of all abortions performed in North America!! Therefore abortion exists as themost disturbing and violent form of birth control one could imagine.

I would never advocate killing.. read my posts I have been quite clear on this. War, Abortion, Death Penalty, Euthenasia I am against all of these concepts.

When confronted with this position most pro-abortioners have nothing but falling back on the "women's choice " platform. They are not interested in any form of compromise because they have this scientifically unsound faith in a magical transformation taking place in the birth canal.. apparently the few inches between the birth canal and the hands of the doctor are a mystical barrier in which "life " exists on one side ... and "nothing" on the other. How selfish and ridiculous is this?

So for me any activity that exists as a means of killing is wrong. And to suggest that I would bomb to prove my stand against killing is a farce. Are there fringe lunatics on any side of any issue... yes. Pro- abortionists express their inhumanity not with bombs but with 100,000's of murders every year.....

How is that not HORRIFIC????

That is not horrific because it is LEGAL. Like it or not, that is the fact. Women DO have the right to choose, and whether you like it or not, that is the fact. It is also legal to slaughter thousands of people in the name of "freedom", now this is what is really a terrible problem. Tens of thousands of Iraqi people have been killed because of GW. These are people that have actually been born. People who are people because they have been born. That is the point at which a person becomes a person. These people apparently do not matter in Georges America. Only people that have not been born matter in GW's America.

The fact is that the woman does have the right to choose. If you make this right illegal, the woman will go to a back street abortionist to do the same. This is dangerous. You nasty little religious right people would prefer back street abortions to happen because you disagree with abortion full stop.

So anyway, the woman has the right to choose. What would you prefer, this right being excercised, or the nutters succeeding in blowing up people? Answer this question please?