BREAKING: Margaret Thatcher dead at age 87

[Flint]

Dude, we've had this discussion a few times. Everyone who votes for the democrats or in this case lives in Boston is not a liberal. Being liberal means being free from prejudice and/or restraint in your thought or actions, which normally leads to being open to reform or improvement, not both on a personal level but for society as a whole.

I am afraid you are defining a term for yourself. Liberalism today is not what was meant in the 19th century. I agree with you that the textbook definition of liberal is what you say but that is not the reality in the US anyway. And this distinction between fiscal conservative and socially liberal is without merit. Modern liberalism was built on advocating for government-run social programs. That is their signature. You can't be for spending billions with no results and call yourself fiscally conservative. It is not about just helping the poor either. They want a government program to help the poor. When was the last time they fought for lower taxes so you can make your own charitable contributions. Never.

 

[Bi-honar]

To Kaz, Flint and Behrooz,

If you guys are all going to insist that we define who we are and what we believe, in terms of political parties - may I suggest that we at least not be limited to letting 3 political parties in one country redefine common terms for the entire world and the centuries' old history of where these terms come from and what they really mean. I just don't understand why we all have to define ourselves and each other by some murky lines drawn in the fast moving sands of the political world by a few politicians in the US. For the sake of discussion and not causing confusion by statements that are often completely contradictory to people outside the US, can we agree with that? If yes, may I ask what party did you vote for in the last elections in Australia Kaz?

I am afraid you are defining a term for yourself. Liberalism today is not what was meant in the 19th century. I agree with you that the textbook definition of liberal is what you say but that is not the reality in the US anyway. And this distinction between fiscal conservative and socially liberal is without merit. Modern liberalism was built on advocating for government-run social programs. That is their signature. You can't be for spending billions with no results and call yourself fiscally conservative. It is not about just helping the poor either. They want a government program to help the poor. When was the last time they fought for lower taxes so you can make your own charitable contributions. Never.

I am not defining the term - that's what it means and that's where it comes from. The whole left-right definition goes back to 250 years ago and the separation of nobles and commons in the French parliament. The term liberal has just as long a history. Why does everything have to be redefined in terms of what they've become in the US? There is nothing liberal about the Democrats as far as I'm concerned and we've talked about that quite a few times - because they're just as rigid with their fiscal policies as the conservatives are with their social policies.

And NO modern liberalism was not built on advocating government-run social programs - maybe that's the democrats' platform in the US and that shows their departure from liberalism and what it means - not redefine what the term liberal or liberalism mean. You guys keep putting the cart before the horse! Most other countries have socialist parties way to the left of the spectrum with that platform - just because you guys are lacking that and the democrats have filled that space, it doesn't mean that they're or that liberals in other countries are now socialists and socialists have become communists - which is another misconception I see day in day out here.

 

[Kaz]

Behrou jan, if I mention a term then the context I mention it will probably give a good hint as to what I mean. I understand that there have been changes to the definitions of some words but when I say left/liberal I am usually talking about the current stance of progressives. Whether we want to define ourselves or not we fall in some place in the political spectrum.

For elections I tend to almost always vote for the smaller parties in Australia. Simply because if the smaller parties get any type of power or are seen to become more popular, it will disintegrate the power of the two bigger parties and force them into consideration of the minorities.

 

[Bi-honar]

Behrou jan, if I mention a term then the context I mention it will probably give a good hint as to what I mean. I understand that there have been changes to the definitions of some words but when I say left/liberal I am usually talking about the current stance of progressives. Whether we want to define ourselves or not we fall in some place in the political spectrum.

Well, why don't you just use the term Democrat then? I mean I read a lot of the stuff you guys write and it has nothing to do with the terms liberal or liberalism. What you described a couple of posts above, is liberalism. If they've coined it libertarian in the US to describe the same thing, because their general population is not educated enough to make the distinction between a liberal and a democrat, it doesn't mean that the definition of liberalism has changed. There is a wide range of views within the Libertarianism school as well and the freedom to decide is at the core of liberalism (otherwise libertarianism would simply become a rigid school of thought and end up being the exact opposite of what it was meant to be - which is in fact what happened to it in Canada). You're a liberal if that's what you believe in. But you go to say that being a liberal is bad. What you really mean to say is that you don't agree with the democratic platform in the US. Does that make sense?

For elections I tend to almost always vote for the smaller parties in Australia. Simply because if the smaller parties get any type of power or are seen to become more popular, it will disintegrate the power of the two bigger parties and force them into consideration of the minorities.

Aren't all the smaller parties in Australia socially conservative and economically left-wing (i.e. the opposite of libertarianism)?

 

[Kaz]

A Democrat is a person who is a part of the Democrat party. It is more precise to say someone is "left" when you argue about economics because regardless of their political affiliations their economic persuasions are the same. It is like saying X is a midfielder, as opposed to saying X is a goal scorer. Anybody can be a goal scorer but only midfielders are midfielders.

The liberalism discussed on these boards generally refer to the American meaning. Even there, the classic liberal was basically what a Libertarian is. That's not the case anymore (basically the opposite). There are, like any ideology really, different strands here and there in libertarianism but they're probably more alike/differ less than other sects of other political ideologies.

[video=youtube;QmeeMYrnweg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QmeeMYrnweg[/video]

In Australia the smaller parties generally are left when it comes to economics, except for the National party. I am in a dilemma though since I don't think either the big parties are good and it is mandatory to vote in Australia . I generally vote Greens or National party.

 

[Behrooz_C]

Behrou jan, I don't have a blanket right wing or Libertarian belief on every issue. I am mostly to the right but on certain issues I remain unconvinced. For example, I am strongly against gun ownership by private citizens and although I am well aware of the arguments in favour, I can not see how it makes everyone safer. I am also in favour of some state provision for healthcare, kind of like the Australian model. On most other things I am in favour of privatisation and on the side of the individual rather than the state. I am a colourful sort of conservative!

But I have been accused of lacking empathy or compassion for the poor simply because I oppose welfare and benefits. Leftists tend to assume that simply believing in a system makes them more compassionate and empathists. But it's easy to be philanthropic with someone else's money. When you ask them what they themselves have done to help the poor they can not answer. It's like a social bribe in which they are prepared to hand money over to the state to look after the poor so the latter don't get on their way and aren't sleeping rough which is not a nice sight. They are just not aware of it. They are cop-outs because deep down they know if it was left to them to look after the needy they couldn't care less.

 

[Bi-honar]

A Democrat is a person who is a part of the Democrat party. It is more precise to say someone is "left" when you argue about economics because regardless of their political affiliations their economic persuasions are the same. It is like saying X is a midfielder, as opposed to saying X is a goal scorer. Anybody can be a goal scorer but only midfielders are midfielders.

The liberalism discussed on these boards generally refer to the American meaning. Even there, the classic liberal was basically what a Libertarian is. That's not the case anymore (basically the opposite). There are, like any ideology really, different strands here and there in libertarianism but they're probably more alike/differ less than other sects of other political ideologies.

In Australia the smaller parties generally are left when it comes to economics, except for the National party. I am in a dilemma though since I don't think either the big parties are good and it is mandatory to vote in Australia . I generally vote Greens or National party.

Great post Kazem jaan and good clip.

Yeah, I'm totally cool with using the terms "left" or "right" with respect to economic policy and those are in fact the right terms to use because they're very descriptive and would not be confusing regardless of the location of the reader (I actually even used that in the post above yours). The confusion only arises when the economic left or socialism are equated to liberalism by Americans because of the common but incorrect redefinition of the words in the US.

The National Party seems like a decent choice - the Greens like the ones in Canada are just too obsessed with the environment, although I thought about voting for them in the last election - opted not to vote for anyone, because I didn't really agree with any of them! I didn't know voting was mandatory in Australia. They talked about doing that in Canada too and I wasn't too sure how I feel about it. Do they let you hand in an empty ballot if you don't agree with any of the parties and if so, how do they report those?

 

[Bi-honar]

Behrou jan, I don't have a blanket right wing or Libertarian belief on every issue. I am mostly to the right but on certain issues I remain unconvinced. For example, I am strongly against gun ownership by private citizens and although I am well aware of the arguments in favour, I can not see how it makes everyone safer. I am also in favour of some state provision for healthcare, kind of like the Australian model. On most other things I am in favour of privatisation and on the side of the individual rather than the state. I am a colourful sort of conservative!

But I have been accused of lacking empathy or compassion for the poor simply because I oppose welfare and benefits. Leftists tend to assume that simply believing in a system makes them more compassionate and empathists. But it's easy to be philanthropic with someone else's money. When you ask them what they themselves have done to help the poor they can not answer. It's like a social bribe in which they are prepared to hand money over to the state to look after the poor so the latter don't get on their way and aren't sleeping rough which is not a nice sight. They are just not aware of it. They are cop-outs because deep down they know if it was left to them to look after the needy they couldn't care less.

You sound like a pretty free thinking individual bro which is great and if our American friends had not screwed up the definition of the term liberal, I'd call you just that.

But it has almost become insulting to call someone a liberal on ISP, which is why I'm always trying to encourage everyone to use left/right for economic policy and liberal/conservative for social policy. That way you can be a free thinker (i.e. a liberal) and still agree with the argument, instead of being insulted by it - lol

I'm with you on almost everything there. Our healthcare and welfare systems need a serious overhaul and I'm 100% for privatization without creating monopolies of course. Personally, I don't think compassion has anything to do with funding expensive and useless programs or people that are leeching the system. Gun control is a toughie for me too. I never was a huge fan of the 2nd amendment in the US, but I have to admit that FP has made some great points in its support over the years. Overall though, I think that it has outlived its usefulness. A Glock is not going to give you protection from a government armed with stealth bombers, drones and armored personnel carriers - it's just creating that illusion. Of course, things were very different at the time the 2nd amendment was written. And if any of the successful revolutions in the past 5 decade are an indication, they have all been in countries were citizens didn't have the right to bear arms. Access to guns and even much heavier weapons can always be provided by other countries (as Syria and Libya have shown) - the logistical issues of 200 years ago simply don't exist any more to justify the benefits of having an armed population for a probability rather than an eventuality IMHO.

 

[Flint]

I would like to defend gun ownership independent from the Second Amendment, resisting government tyranny etc. My question is very simple. Why not? We do have an existing system to declare someone as "prohibited person", which means they cannot legally own a firearm for a variety of reasons. Outside that circle, what do you care if I own a gun? You say people get murdered with guns? OK, but they are not MY guns. You go and grab the illegal guns. Chicago is red in gun murders. Have you read one story where the guns come from? Have you read one story that Chicago police conducted a sweep of the crime ridden neighborhoods to confiscate illegal guns? I haven't. So they go after the easy targets. They knock on Joe Sixpack's door and ask him to hand over his gun.

 

[Kaz]

@ Behrou

I think you can spoil your ballot if you want on purpose if you disagree with everyone. I think that's a way around voting for anyone but not getting your vote counted.

 

[Bi-honar]

My question is very simple. Why not?

My personal feeling about that is the availability of guns makes it easier to obtain guns either illegally or for evil purposes. I'm just going to argue the point in the extreme, but if guns were illegal altogether, it would make it extremely difficult for perpetrators of armed violence to obtain guns, particularly in those numbers. In Ontario you can not legally carry a gun, unless you are on your way to a shooting range - even then you can not stop anywhere else or have the gun loaded. The bullets have to be in the trunk. The guns have to be stored in a locked shelf at home with the bullets in a separate locked space. Do we still have gun violence? Yes, but not to the extent as you do in the US and because of illegal guns are making their way here from the US. Look at the UK. How much gun violence do you see there?

 

[Behrooz_C]

I would like to defend gun ownership independent from the Second Amendment, resisting government tyranny etc. My question is very simple. Why not? We do have an existing system to declare someone as "prohibited person", which means they cannot legally own a firearm for a variety of reasons. Outside that circle, what do you care if I own a gun? You say people get murdered with guns? OK, but they are not MY guns. You go and grab the illegal guns. Chicago is red in gun murders. Have you read one story where the guns come from? Have you read one story that Chicago police conducted a sweep of the crime ridden neighborhoods to confiscate illegal guns? I haven't. So they go after the easy targets. They knock on Joe Sixpack's door and ask him to hand over his gun.

That's not the problem. The issue is that guns can kill many in a short space of time when they fall in the wrong hands. The school shootings were carried out by kids whose parents had guns in the house quite legitimately. Don't tell me guns don't kill. If guns don't kill then what DO they do? And don't compare them to knives simply because you can't stab and kill 20 people in 10 seconds the same way as you can with a machine gun.

Here in the UK we have strict gun laws and the gun crime rate is very low. So tell me, would you say we can bring the gun crime rate even lower if we allowed more people to have guns for protection? I don't think so.

I am not saying the US should become like Europe because it is almost impossible now given the number of people that have them but the reasons for having them just don't register with me. The legal right under the second amendment I can register, but anything else I have yet to hear any other convincing argument.

 

[jspworld]

Sooooo, did any of you get to see the funeral on the telly? Was it worth the £10m? I didn't see it. I had better things to do such as play Snooker on Facebook. I'm glad it was a peaceful service. Goodness, I didn't want to see another riot in London...

I know George Galloway is very much loved in this discussion board (!) (sarcasm?!), but here is what he had to say about Thatcher. Obviously, he has one or two negative thoughts about her...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2gelNFCLH8

 

[ahmad-a]

@BH:

Look how quickly the enlightened liberal Bostonians behave like a "racist", paranoid, southern Republican when put in the same position.

"A plane headed to Chicago was brought back to the gate at Logan Airport, after some passengers — who also participated in the marathon — expressed concern over two men, who were apparently not sitting next to each other but were speaking in Arabic, Fox 25 reports. The men were escorted off the plane.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/04/boston-marathon-logan-airport-90146.html#ixzz2QeKNC6s6"

What??? Do you really think all the people who "participated in the marathon" were liberal because the race was in a blue city?

 

[Behrooz_C]

Sooooo, did any of you get to see the funeral on the telly? Was it worth the £10m? I didn't see it. I had better things to do such as play Snooker on Facebook. I'm glad it was a peaceful service. Goodness, I didn't want to see another riot in London...

I know George Galloway is very much loved in this discussion board (!) (sarcasm?!), but here is what he had to say about Thatcher. Obviously, he has one or two negative thoughts about her...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2gelNFCLH8

First ofall, where do you and others get the figure of £10m from? It's all press speculation.

Second, George Galloway? Are you serious? The guy who gets paid by IR on press TV to praise Assad, North Korea, and the Supreme Leader? He is now talking about the process of democracy? And you come here and report his rubbish?!!!!!!!!!!! and you call yourself a journalist? !!!!!!!

My jaw just hit the floor.

 

[masoudA]

Brits unhappy with Obama for snubing Thatcher!!

http://www.libertynews.com/2013/04/...administration-snubs-todays-thatcher-funeral/

 

[Bi-honar]

Brits unhappy with Obama for snubing Thatcher!!

Obviously. How does the servant dare not show up to the master's funeral!

 

[masoudA]

Obviously. How does the servant dare not show up to the master's funeral!

The servant is taking himself too seriously apparently.....
But I said the Brits are mad - Not the Queen!! and the Lords...i.e. masters.

 

[jspworld]

Brits unhappy with Obama for snubing Thatcher!!

http://www.libertynews.com/2013/04/...administration-snubs-todays-thatcher-funeral/

Not too sure if he decided on this before or after Boston bombing but I think the Texas explosion pretty much confirmed the fact he's had a crap week in office. That and his failed attempt to get a law enforced to tighten gun laws.

 

[jspworld]

First ofall, where do you and others get the figure of £10m from? It's all press speculation.

Second, George Galloway? Are you serious? The guy who gets paid by IR on press TV to praise Assad, North Korea, and the Supreme Leader? He is now talking about the process of democracy? And you come here and report his rubbish?!!!!!!!!!!! and you call yourself a journalist? !!!!!!!

My jaw just hit the floor.

I'm in PR now (your jaw will probably hit the floor harder). But I think Galloway makes great television. I love it when Scottish people are angry. It's one of my many guilty pleasures.

My highlight of the funeral was Thatcher's granddaughter.
http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgu...i=HXVwUYUPiIw4xoOBmAg&ved=0CE8Q9QEwBA&dur=882

£10m isn't press speculation, honest. I wished I showed you a proper link but I'm not subscribed to The Times website. So here's the Evening Standard's version.
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/t...d-cost-of-security-and-pageantry-8576331.html