by Indy » Thu Jan 31, 2013 11:12 am
Right. Don't get me wrong, nothing wrong with the thread idea--it's sparked some good discussion.
But the definition of "liberal" and "conservative" has become completely subjective at this point.
Traditionally, "conservatives" are non-interventionists. Until Bush II came along, where they took it a step further and not only became interventionists/nation builders, but pre-emptive interventionists.
Traditionally, conservatives were, um, "fiscally conservative"--that started to decay with Reagan and climaxed with Cheney bringing Bush II to heel, saying "deficits don't matter." The same deficits being cited by the Paul Ryans of the world right now as why... Obama is wrong.
Liberals typically don't want war, period, much less open-ended wars--unless the president is Obama and then they're strangely silent (not completely, but noticeably).
Liberals went crazy (rightfully so) over the assault on liberties when Bush was president, exemplified by things like the Patriot Act. But when Obama continues most of those same practices, they say nothing.
Of course the "conservatives" rail about Obama's assault on liberties when it's the 2nd Amendment or...???... healthcare, but these same people supported everything Bush did.
"Conservatives" want a balanced budget and to cut spending... unless it's defense or senseless wars, where the credit card has no limit.
See what I mean? WTH is "liberal" or "conservative" anymore?