Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

What Does it Mean to Be a Liberal?Follow

#152 Sep 09 2012 at 10:29 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,184 posts
How prestigious can it really be if he's not indoctrinated by the bias liberal academia?

Don't particular care whose sock this it, but is it too much to ask them to bring something new to the table?
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#154 Sep 09 2012 at 11:46 PM Rating: Good
Sage
****
4,041 posts
I can't really come back with anything, because I mistyped prestigious twice.
#155 Sep 10 2012 at 8:46 AM Rating: Good
Needs More Smut
Avatar
******
20,088 posts
Just remembered my poly-sci class at my (slightly more prestigious than a community college) state uni.

The prof had won a grammy award for his piano CD; it was a hobby, it seemed. Other than that, all I remember was Marbury vs Madison when we learned what all great Americans do when they're pissed off at fellow Americans - they sue!
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck. Once again a top bard on the server: Dardaubla 90 on 1/6/2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest on Lamia - Member of The Swarm and the League of Extraordinary Crafters
#157 Sep 10 2012 at 9:28 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
11,877 posts
Omegavegeta wrote:
Samira wrote:
As opposed to stealth oligarchy or stealth theocracy. Of course.

I think it is fair to say that liberals tend to look to the government for solutions in more scenarios than do conservatives. I think that the perception that liberals just love big government is a deliberate misinterpretation meant to impugn. I could just as easily assert that all conservatives just love big military and big religion; but I don't believe that's true.

Sadly, much of the political discourse in the current climate is bereft of nuance.


Whore!

/irony off


You can't see him, but mister winky is there. Watching. Waiting.

He's a stealth totalitarian
____________________________
"Observe what happens when you force a man to change"
Just as Planned.
#158 Sep 10 2012 at 9:30 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,537 posts
SwaziSpring wrote:
Samira wrote:
Quote:
Well the first part of my post is quite literally the definition they teach us in political science class at my college;

I'm not sure if it's in the book, but it was part of his lecture and powerpoint presentation about the various political ideologies. I somewhat suspect that the professor is secretly a socialist. He hasn't come out and expressly stated his political views, but some of the things he's said have been rather left-wing though.

Edited, Sep 10th 2012 11:16am by SwaziSpring


Just to remind you what you wrote and now claim was taught to you in college....

Quote:
Someone who thinks that big government is almost always a good thing;

Did 'he' define big or clarify this definition at all?

Big buildings, big lawmakers, big laws, big flags???

In this community place of higher level learning did you think to question your 'left' leaning professor on what he means?
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#159 Sep 10 2012 at 10:02 AM Rating: Good
Unforkgettable
*****
13,163 posts
Debalic wrote:
Or, the Western Sonoma University and Burrito Palace.
I'm majoring in chimichangas.
____________________________
Banh
#160 Sep 10 2012 at 10:06 AM Rating: Excellent
******
43,184 posts
Spoonless wrote:
Debalic wrote:
Or, the Western Sonoma University and Burrito Palace.
I'm majoring in chimichangas.
Should have thought about it a little longer.
Screenshot
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#161 Sep 10 2012 at 10:10 AM Rating: Decent
******
21,717 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Spoonless wrote:
Debalic wrote:
Or, the Western Sonoma University and Burrito Palace.
I'm majoring in chimichangas.
Should have thought about it a little longer.
Screenshot



lol @ "jet packs"
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#163 Sep 10 2012 at 6:06 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,372 posts
Is anyone really confused about what conservatives mean when they say "big government"? Cause I (or any of a hundred other sources if you want) can clarify that for anyone who's unsure. It just seems like a pretty weak deflection rather than a legitimate question.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#164 Sep 10 2012 at 6:18 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Is anyone really confused about what conservatives mean when they say "big government"?

Not really, no. It means the speaker is at least adequate at parroting empty talking points.

Alternately, the speaker is one of the conservative elite who is giving the rest of the masses their talking points to parrot.

Edited, Sep 10th 2012 7:21pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#165 Sep 10 2012 at 6:42 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,372 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Is anyone really confused about what conservatives mean when they say "big government"?

Not really, no. It means the speaker is at least adequate at parroting empty talking points.

Alternately, the speaker is one of the conservative elite who is giving the rest of the masses their talking points to parrot.



I honestly have no clue what you are talking about. What does this have to do with Elinda asking if a teacher adequately explained what was meant by "big government"? It's unclear if that was the phrase used by the teacher, or the person relating what the teacher said though, which I guess makes it even more tenuous, but at the end of the day, do we really not know what this means? Big government vs small government is a well enough understood concept. Or at least I though it was.

Hence, my question. Is anyone really not sure what is meant by the phrase "big government"? Or do people just pretend to for some reason? And if the latter, then what's the reason? Why would Elinda suggest that big government could mean "big buildings", or "big flags"?


And what's with your response about empty rhetoric. I don't see how saying "I'm against big government and my opponent is for it" is empty at all. Again, assuming we all understand what is meant, then the claim is quite clear and quite to the point. Also, it's a claim that his opponent is free to dispute if he wishes. I don't see that as empty at all. Now, empty rhetoric would be saying something like "I plan to work to make America a better place for all Americans". Sounds great, but doesn't really say anything, does it? Hence, why it's empty.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#166 Sep 10 2012 at 6:52 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
I honestly have no clue what you are talking about

Smiley: laugh
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#167 Sep 10 2012 at 6:55 PM Rating: Good
Repressed Memories
******
20,558 posts
gbaji wrote:
I don't see how saying "I'm against big government and my opponent is for it" is empty at all.

Because "big government" is a meaningless buzzword. It's specifically supposed to be vague so that the audience will hear whatever they want and the speaker can retroactively argue it meant whatever is most convenient for her at the moment.
#168 Sep 10 2012 at 9:10 PM Rating: Excellent
Lunatic
******
29,166 posts

Hence, my question. Is anyone really not sure what is meant by the phrase "big government"? Or do people just pretend to for some reason? And if the latter, then what's the reason? Why would Elinda suggest that big government could mean "big buildings", or "big flags"?


People pretend. They pretend because real critique of government is complex. Complexity and nuance looses elections. Hence Paul Ryan (not that he understands complexity, he's an empty suit) arguing that big government threatens medicare. Hence Obama campaigning on Hope and Change. Who could be against that? From a political science perspective "big government" is most commonly slang for the argument around federalism in the US, but we pretty much settled that for all intents and purposes around 1866. If you're for a strong national defense, like say, a standing army, you're for "big government." If you're against "big government" you hate the troops.

Do you hate the troops? Have you stopped raping puppies yet?
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a whore. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. @#%^ off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#169 Sep 11 2012 at 7:12 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,537 posts
SwaziSpring wrote:

He did clarify, he talked about how classical liberalism (modern conservatism/libertarianism) is the exact opposite of modern liberalism (Democratic Party). He then elaborated by saying that Democrats think that the government should be used as a power to push through "social justice" and use the government to legislate what they view as "good" and "bad."
What do you or did your liberal professor mean by social justice?

At the risk of turning this thread into Alma's litter box I'd ask if same sex marriage is considered a social justice issue and what your liberal professor or your own perspective might be. Is SSM marriage good or bad, or perhaps simply neutral?









Edited, Sep 11th 2012 3:14pm by Elinda
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#170 Sep 11 2012 at 7:32 AM Rating: Good
******
43,184 posts
gbaji wrote:
I honestly have no clue what you are talking about.
Don't worry, you always make it painfully obvious.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#173 Sep 11 2012 at 9:21 AM Rating: Excellent
Needs More Smut
Avatar
******
20,088 posts
Actually, most people are too stupid to make their own investment retirement decisions (or to save for retirement at all.) Even smart investors make dumb decisions, as evidenced by the disastrous Facebook IPO, and everyone who got swindled by Bernie Madoff.

Social Security exists to ensure those who are unable or unwilling to put away for their own retirement aren't forced to eat cat food and there's not old people dying in the streets like there was a hundred years ago.
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck. Once again a top bard on the server: Dardaubla 90 on 1/6/2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest on Lamia - Member of The Swarm and the League of Extraordinary Crafters
#174 Sep 11 2012 at 9:30 AM Rating: Excellent
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,537 posts
SwaziSpring wrote:
Elinda wrote:
SwaziSpring wrote:

He did clarify, he talked about how classical liberalism (modern conservatism/libertarianism) is the exact opposite of modern liberalism (Democratic Party). He then elaborated by saying that Democrats think that the government should be used as a power to push through "social justice" and use the government to legislate what they view as "good" and "bad."
What do you or did your liberal professor mean by social justice?

At the risk of turning this thread into Alma's litter box I'd ask if same sex marriage is considered a social justice issue and what your liberal professor or your own perspective might be. Is SSM marriage good or bad, or perhaps simply neutral?









Edited, Sep 11th 2012 3:14pm by Elinda

He didn't use the word "social justice" iirc. Basically what he was getting at, and he did say this (in regards to Social Security), that liberals believe people are too stupid to make their own decisions, so they need the government (legislation) to choose for them. I'm assuming he would consider gay marriage a social justice issue, especially since on the first day of class he played a clip by the Westboro Baptist Church and then asked the class whether or not their "bigoted hate speech" should be protected under the First Amendment.
Are you ready to take responsibility for your own opinion yet?

Do you think the Westboro Baptist Churches speech is protected under the 1st Amendment or not? Under what caveats would it not be protected? How would a liberals view and a conservatives view differ here?

I'll go. I hate the hate speech but unless or until it measurably infringes on someone else's activities it falls under free speech. So if their speech incites violence, inhibits other from acting on their freedoms (ie getting to the funeral in this case) is defamatory or slanderous, and stays within municipal ordinance (noise, public gatherings etc) they're perfectly within their rights to stand and shout at our dead service-peoples.

Now you....






Edited, Sep 11th 2012 5:35pm by Elinda
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#175 Sep 11 2012 at 9:57 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
SwaziSpring wrote:
Is it though?

Yes.
Quote:
he played a clip by the Westboro Baptist Church and then asked the class whether or not their "bigoted hate speech" should be protected under the First Amendment.

Sure, but everyone hates Westboro Baptist so that don't mean much.

Edited, Sep 11th 2012 11:01am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#176 Sep 11 2012 at 10:41 AM Rating: Excellent
Lunatic
******
29,166 posts


He did clarify, he talked about how classical liberalism (modern conservatism/libertarianism) is the exact opposite of modern liberalism (Democratic Party). He then elaborated by saying that Democrats think that the government should be used as a power to push through "social justice" and use the government to legislate what they view as "good" and "bad."


Community college, right? So just to be clear the term "professor" in this context means random douche with a masters degree who couldn't find a real job, as opposed to professional academic. Which is fine and all, but most of your posts primarily indicate that your instructor is biased and sucks at his job. That happens at real university, too, but this seems a little clumsier.

Wait, are you sure this wasn't an EPISODE of "Community" you saw?
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a whore. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. @#%^ off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#177 Sep 11 2012 at 10:55 AM Rating: Excellent
Not enough hijinks.
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#178 Sep 11 2012 at 11:12 AM Rating: Excellent
******
43,184 posts
SwaziSpring wrote:
Big government would be the opposite of small government;
Two meaningless buzz terms, and a phrase you could learn off Seseme Street. Your school sounds amazing.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#179 Sep 11 2012 at 11:26 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
******
26,720 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
SwaziSpring wrote:
Big government would be the opposite of small government;
Two meaningless buzz terms, and a phrase you could learn off Sesame Street. Your school sounds amazing.
If the government would only hire skinny people, would that make it a smaller government? Or would you need to hire midgets for that?




Also, you misspelled Sesame Street, I fixed it for you.
____________________________
Theophany wrote:
YOU'RE AN ELITIST @#%^ AETHIEN, NO WONDER YOU HAVE NO FRIENDS AND PEOPLE HATE YOU.
someproteinguy wrote:
Aethien you take more terrible pictures than a Japanese tourist.
Astarin wrote:
One day, Maz, you'll learn not to click on anything Aeth links.
#180 Sep 11 2012 at 11:31 AM Rating: Excellent
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,537 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
SwaziSpring wrote:
Big government would be the opposite of small government;
Two meaningless buzz terms, and a phrase you could learn off Seseme Street. Your school sounds amazing.

To be fair, I think big government is envisioned as a government with lots of employees, lots of regulation, lots of oversite and spending lots of our taxes

In that respect our government is boringly average.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#181 Sep 11 2012 at 2:46 PM Rating: Good
Sage
****
4,041 posts
Obviously the biggest problem with the term "big government" is that you can't have a "small government" and "the largest and most powerful military in the world".
#182 Sep 11 2012 at 3:12 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,372 posts
Allegory wrote:
gbaji wrote:
I don't see how saying "I'm against big government and my opponent is for it" is empty at all.

Because "big government" is a meaningless buzzword.


No, it's not. It has a far more specific meaning than nearly any other phrase that might be used in political circles.

Quote:
It's specifically supposed to be vague so that the audience will hear whatever they want and the speaker can retroactively argue it meant whatever is most convenient for her at the moment.


I think you're confusing the phrase "big government" with phrases like "move America forward", and "health care reform", and "help the poor".
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#183 Sep 11 2012 at 3:16 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,372 posts
catwho wrote:
Actually, most people are too stupid to make their own investment retirement decisions (or to save for retirement at all.) Even smart investors make dumb decisions, as evidenced by the disastrous Facebook IPO, and everyone who got swindled by Bernie Madoff.


So what? We take away their freedom to make those dumb choices? Not sure how that's a win here.

Quote:
Social Security exists to ensure those who are unable or unwilling to put away for their own retirement aren't forced to eat cat food and there's not old people dying in the streets like there was a hundred years ago.


I'm always amused by that expression given that cat food is typically much more expensive pound for pound than human food.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#184 Sep 11 2012 at 3:21 PM Rating: Excellent
gbaji wrote:
catwho wrote:
Social Security exists to ensure those who are unable or unwilling to put away for their own retirement aren't forced to eat cat food and there's not old people dying in the streets like there was a hundred years ago.


I'm always amused by that expression given that cat food is typically much more expensive pound for pound than human food.


When that expression came about that wasn't the case. You seem dumber lately, Did you suffer a traumatic brain injury?
____________________________
gbaji wrote:
I'm smarter then you. I know how to think. I've been trained in critical thinking instead of blindly parroting what I've been told.

#185 Sep 11 2012 at 3:26 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,372 posts
Guenny wrote:
Obviously the biggest problem with the term "big government" is that you can't have a "small government" and "the largest and most powerful military in the world".


Isn't it odd that the only people who actually seem confused about what "big government" refers to are liberals? One might suspect a deliberate attempt to remain ignorant in order to avoid discussing the issue.

Small government refers to the scope of government more than the actual dollars spent (although less dollars is good as well obviously). I know for a fact that I've explained this on this forum at least a dozen times. And I know that I've responded to that precise "why support the military" argument that the left weakly tosses out there at least as many times as well.

The constitution defines a set of things that the federal government is required to do. Maintain some form of military is one of them. So while we can argue about the size of the military itself, and whether its actions are ones we agree with, in the terms of the "scope" of government, it's in scope. Health care, is not. Social Security is not. Income assistance is not (that's welfare btw). Education is not. At least half of what we spend money on at the federal level is on things that are *not* in the scope of the (necessary) federal powers of our government. Can the federal government do them? Yes. Should it? That's a matter of political position.

Those who are against "big government" believe that the federal government should not involve itself in those extra areas (or should do so to a much lesser degree). Those who are for big government believe that the federal government should involve itself in those extra things. So when Obama says that "we need to help ensure that every child receives the best education possible, with the best health care possible, and the best nutrition possible", he's clearly an advocate of the big government side of things.


Again: Is this really something people don't understand? Or is it something people just pretend not to so they can make those silly "but why do conservative support the military" arguments?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#186 Sep 11 2012 at 3:31 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,372 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
catwho wrote:
Social Security exists to ensure those who are unable or unwilling to put away for their own retirement aren't forced to eat cat food and there's not old people dying in the streets like there was a hundred years ago.


I'm always amused by that expression given that cat food is typically much more expensive pound for pound than human food.


When that expression came about that wasn't the case. You seem dumber lately, Did you suffer a traumatic brain injury?


By dumber you mean "more wise and all knowing than normal", right? Smiley: grin

Cans of cat food (which is what's usually referred to) have always been more expensive than human food. Compare the price of a can of cat food to that of a can of tuna, for example. And that's far and away not the most inexpensive thing you could buy for human consumption. Even when looking at bulk bags of dry cat food, you'd still be better off buying bags of flour, rice, and beans. Yes. Even when the expression became common.


It was a silly joke back then. It was (and really still is) a play on the stereotype of the elderly woman with a house full of cats, who uses all her money to feed the cats, but has none left for herself, so she'd eat the cat food. It was always more of a mythical statement than reality.

Why the hell am I needing to explain this? Smiley: oyvey
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#187 Sep 11 2012 at 3:35 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
Avatar
*****
11,441 posts
gbaji wrote:
Again: Is this really something people don't understand? Or is it something people just pretend not to so they can make those silly "but why do conservative support the military" arguments?


When someone says "big government" it seems to imply size to me; irregardless of what powers that government has taken on. Number of people employed or money spent seem to a natural measure of that. If that's not what y'all mean, then you probably what to try using a phrase that wouldn't be so easily misinterpreted. Might I suggest the phrase 'Broad Government' instead of 'Big Government'. Worst case there I'm picturing a hot blonde or something; win/win in my book.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#188 Sep 11 2012 at 4:08 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Those who are against "big government" believe that the federal government should not involve itself in those extra areas (or should do so to a much lesser degree).

Right. Typically exemplified through throwing big temper tantrums over government spending and then saying "Gimme gimme gimme gimme!!!" once there's district money on the table while people like Gbaji spin themselves in circles defending it.

I like watching Gbaji play the role of True Believer though. I really hope it's sincere naivety on his part because that sort of childlike wonder is a joy to behold in this cynical age Smiley: smile
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#189 Sep 11 2012 at 4:26 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,184 posts
gbaji wrote:
Isn't it odd that the only people who actually seem confused about what "big government" refers to are liberals?
Probably has more to do with how it's such an ambiguous term that you constantly change it's meaning to suit yourself than it being a "liberal" thing.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#190 Sep 11 2012 at 4:31 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Maybe the only people who stop to question the Daily Buzzword are liberals. Conservatives just smile, nod and add it to their talking point lexicon without question.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#191 Sep 11 2012 at 4:35 PM Rating: Good
Sage
****
4,041 posts
It's just obvious!!!!
#192 Sep 11 2012 at 5:21 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,372 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Again: Is this really something people don't understand? Or is it something people just pretend not to so they can make those silly "but why do conservative support the military" arguments?


When someone says "big government" it seems to imply size to me; irregardless of what powers that government has taken on.


I'm not sure how you separate those two though. If a government takes on more things, then it can be said to have grown in "size". Everything else being the same, right?

Quote:
Number of people employed or money spent seem to a natural measure of that.


It's *a* measurement of it, but not the whole picture. Certainly, a big government will employ more people and will spend more money, but that's not the sole reason it's "bad". It's also about what the money is being spent on and what those people are employed to do. If we were talking about personal finances, you'd certainly make a distinction between money spent on groceries and rent/mortgage versus money spent on 5 premium cable channels and a trip to Vegas. One set are things you actually need, while the others are extras you might want, but are not necessary.

Both spending on rent and spending on a trip to Vegas increase the total amount of money you're spending. But when looking at cutting spending out of your budget, most sane people would cut the trips out first, right?

Quote:
If that's not what y'all mean, then you probably what to try using a phrase that wouldn't be so easily misinterpreted. Might I suggest the phrase 'Broad Government' instead of 'Big Government'. Worst case there I'm picturing a hot blonde or something; win/win in my book.


Why? Because you imagine that Big means size and then assume a very narrow meaning for the word "size"? It's a phrase that has a very specific meaning in politics. Why go out of your way to ignore the meaning of the phrase meant by those who use it? Does every term in your field make perfect literal sense? But you use them anyway, right? So isn't it basically a form of denial for some to pretend that "big government" means something different?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#193 Sep 11 2012 at 5:22 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,372 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Isn't it odd that the only people who actually seem confused about what "big government" refers to are liberals?
Probably has more to do with how it's such an ambiguous term that you constantly change it's meaning to suit yourself than it being a "liberal" thing.


I have never used the term big government in any other meaning that that which I described earlier.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#194 Sep 11 2012 at 5:31 PM Rating: Good
Sage
****
4,041 posts
So only according to your painstakingly made up definition, got it.
#195 Sep 11 2012 at 5:47 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,372 posts
Guenny wrote:
So only according to your painstakingly made up definition, got it.


Except that even Wiki has more clue that you guys do:

Quote:
Big government (sometimes capitalized as Big Government) is a term generally used by political conservatives, laissez-faire advocates, or libertarians to describe a government or public sector that they consider to be excessively large, corrupt and inefficient, or inappropriately involved in certain areas of public policy or the private sector. The term may also be used specifically in relation to government policies that attempt to regulate matters considered to be private or personal, such as private sexual behavior or individual food choices.[1] The term has also been used to define a dominant federal government that seeks to control the authority of local institutions - an example being the overriding of state authority in favor of federal legislation.[2]

Big government is primarily defined by its size, a criterion that incorporates variables such as the number of employees, relative costs, and the "spheres of involvement"[clarification needed]. The concept can also be defined by the perceived role of government in society, the quality of services (that is, the impact of government effort), and the degree of democracy and societal representation.[3][4]



While I think the wiki page glosses over some key points, it at least gets right that this includes more than just dollars spent. Hence why I wonder when I run into people who seem to revel in this idea that it's just about dollars, so one dollar here is no different than a dollar there.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#196 Sep 11 2012 at 5:49 PM Rating: Good
Sage
****
4,041 posts
I'm sorry, but a wiki page article on an abstract concept does not a definition make. Try again.
#197 Sep 11 2012 at 5:51 PM Rating: Decent
******
21,717 posts
gbaji wrote:
Except that even Wiki has more clue that you guys do:

Quote:
Big government (sometimes capitalized as Big Government) is a term generally used by political conservatives, laissez-faire advocates, or libertarians to describe a government or public sector that they consider to be excessively large, corrupt and inefficient, or inappropriately involved in certain areas of public policy or the private sector. The term may also be used specifically in relation to government policies that attempt to regulate matters considered to be private or personal, such as private sexual behavior or individual food choices.[1] The term has also been used to define a dominant federal government that seeks to control the authority of local institutions - an example being the overriding of state authority in favor of federal legislation.[2]

Big government is primarily defined by its size, a criterion that incorporates variables such as the number of employees, relative costs, and the "spheres of involvement"[clarification needed]. The concept can also be defined by the perceived role of government in society, the quality of services (that is, the impact of government effort), and the degree of democracy and societal representation.[3][4]



While I think the wiki page glosses over some key points, it at least gets right that this includes more than just dollars spent. Hence why I wonder when I run into people who seem to revel in this idea that it's just about dollars, so one dollar here is no different than a dollar there.


See what happens when you emphazise other contexts? Smiley: rolleyes
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#198 Sep 11 2012 at 5:58 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
So Wiki says "big government" means 'a government someone thinks is too big'?

Holy shit, that's like a fuckin' laser in its focus. No way could that be used as a vague catch-all buzzphrase.

Edited, Sep 11th 2012 7:00pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#199 Sep 11 2012 at 6:15 PM Rating: Good
Prodigal Son
*****
19,833 posts
ITT: the only things our government should be responsible for are collecting taxes, and bombing people.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#200 Sep 11 2012 at 6:23 PM Rating: Excellent
Don't forget making sure women never get an abortion! Gotta have all kinds of government in them wombs!
____________________________
Come on Bill, let's go home
[ffxisig]63311[/ffxisig]
#201 Sep 11 2012 at 6:49 PM Rating: Excellent
******
21,717 posts
Technogeek wrote:
Don't forget making sure women never get an abortion! Gotta have all kinds of government in them wombs!

There's no womb for dead baby jokes around here, Mr.
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 85 All times are in CDT