Is conservatism a choice?

[midcan5]

Is conservatism a choice?

This controversy has often puzzled me and there does not seem to be enough scientific information to decide one way or the other. If conservatism is genetic then our hopes for a free, generous, well adjusted, fair society are constantly in jeopardy. Characteristics:

* Fear and aggression
* Dogmatism and intolerance of ambiguity
* Uncertainty avoidance
* Need for cognitive closure
* Terror management

So the question I want to ask here of the conservatives, do you think you chose this way of life or was it inherited and you have always been this way?

http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2003/07/22_politics.shtml

PS I wasn't sure whether to place this thread in Religion/Ethics as controversial topics such as this have a greater impact on the type of society we have than even homosexuality.

[Little-Acorn]

Well, that's a new and different way of injecting lies and smears about conservatism into an innocuous-seeming post. Nice work!

To continue as though the original question had been intended seriously instead:
Yes, conservatism is a choice. You can choose to be honest, pull your own weight, help the people around you, learn from your mistakes, and place some societal goals above your own personal goals. Or you can be a modern liberal: Rob your neighbor, "protect" him from learning from his mistakes, remove his incentive to work hard and do better, charge him for the "privilege" of being "helped" in all these ways, punish him for going otside your "guidance", control more and more of his life until he becomes completely dependent on you and afraid to use his own judgement on anything, and force people at gunpoint to do all these things themselves whether they think it's a good idea or not.

Conservatism is absolutely a choice, one that we all make. Only the consequences of that choice, are inevitable.

[stang56k]

Is conservatism a choice?

This controversy has often puzzled me and there does not seem to be enough scientific information to decide one way or the other. If conservatism is genetic then our hopes for a free, generous, well adjusted, fair society are constantly in jeopardy. Characteristics:

* Fear and aggression
* Dogmatism and intolerance of ambiguity
* Uncertainty avoidance
* Need for cognitive closure
* Terror management

So the question I want to ask here of the conservatives, do you think you chose this way of life or was it inherited and you have always been this way?

http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2003/07/22_politics.shtml

PS I wasn't sure whether to place this thread in Religion/Ethics as controversial topics such as this have a greater impact on the type of society we have than even homosexuality.

That isnt conservatism. That is what the Bush regeme has tainted conservatism to seem like by going against the traditional conservatism views. This is the true conservatist www.ronpaul2008.com/ by stritly adhereing to the constitution.

[stephanie]

* Fear and aggression
* Dogmatism and intolerance of ambiguity
* Uncertainty avoidance
* Need for cognitive closure
* Terror management

All liberal traits as far as I can tell..:laugh2:

[mundame]

Is conservatism a choice?


* Fear and aggression
* Dogmatism and intolerance of ambiguity
* Uncertainty avoidance
* Need for cognitive closure
* Terror management




Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm......................http://macg.net/emoticons/smileevil.gif

I don't think you have figured out the essence of conservatism, midcan. Conservatism is the drag on change in society; it's the opposite of radicalism. Conservativism slows change down, and a good thing, too, or we'd be running madly in all directions constantly.

[theHawk]

So the question I want to ask here of the conservatives, do you think you chose this way of life or was it inherited and you have always been this way?


How on hell would a way of life be "inherited"? Everyone makes their own choices in how they want to live their life.

[avatar4321]

Is conservatism a choice?

This controversy has often puzzled me and there does not seem to be enough scientific information to decide one way or the other. If conservatism is genetic then our hopes for a free, generous, well adjusted, fair society are constantly in jeopardy. Characteristics:

* Fear and aggression
* Dogmatism and intolerance of ambiguity
* Uncertainty avoidance
* Need for cognitive closure
* Terror management

So the question I want to ask here of the conservatives, do you think you chose this way of life or was it inherited and you have always been this way?

http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2003/07/22_politics.shtml

PS I wasn't sure whether to place this thread in Religion/Ethics as controversial topics such as this have a greater impact on the type of society we have than even homosexuality.

Glad to see liberals are looking for a way to explain common sense away as some genetic disorder that will requires the elites to commit genocide against anyone with this "disorder".

And we are supposed to be the nazis. What bullcrap.

[avatar4321]

How on hell would a way of life be "inherited"? Everyone makes their own choices in how they want to live their life.

cant accept that premise or else the Gay agenda will be invalidated. Besides this justifies widespread murder of conservatives.

[theHawk]

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm......................http://macg.net/emoticons/smileevil.gif

I don't think you have figured out the essence of conservatism, midcan. Conservatism is the drag on change in society; it's the opposite of radicalism. Conservativism slows change down, and a good thing, too, or we'd be running madly in all directions constantly.


Conservatism has nothing to do with preventing change in society. That is the most idiotic definition I've ever heard.
Conservatism seeks to change from immoral to moral, from wrong to right. Or if something is already done right, to keep it that way and preserve it.

[DragonStryk72]

Is conservatism a choice?

This controversy has often puzzled me and there does not seem to be enough scientific information to decide one way or the other. If conservatism is genetic then our hopes for a free, generous, well adjusted, fair society are constantly in jeopardy. Characteristics:

* Fear and aggression
* Dogmatism and intolerance of ambiguity
* Uncertainty avoidance
* Need for cognitive closure
* Terror management

So the question I want to ask here of the conservatives, do you think you chose this way of life or was it inherited and you have always been this way?

http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2003/07/22_politics.shtml

PS I wasn't sure whether to place this thread in Religion/Ethics as controversial topics such as this have a greater impact on the type of society we have than even homosexuality.

Unlike Clinton's blatant fear mongering?

Do you think it's a choice for you to completely keep skipping over what I've said previously, or are you purposely being this ignorant? I've answered every question you've had on this point, but apparently, I'll never be anything but the same conservative as the other ones you keep slapping me as. I would think you would have had more moral integrity than to keep at an argument after it's been shot down.

[actsnoblemartin]

I dont have a clue what your point is.

Being gay a choice ... yes

if being straight is a choice

believing in a religion or political party, thats a choice

again, what is your point my friend ?


Is conservatism a choice?

This controversy has often puzzled me and there does not seem to be enough scientific information to decide one way or the other. If conservatism is genetic then our hopes for a free, generous, well adjusted, fair society are constantly in jeopardy. Characteristics:

* Fear and aggression
* Dogmatism and intolerance of ambiguity
* Uncertainty avoidance
* Need for cognitive closure
* Terror management

So the question I want to ask here of the conservatives, do you think you chose this way of life or was it inherited and you have always been this way?

http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2003/07/22_politics.shtml

PS I wasn't sure whether to place this thread in Religion/Ethics as controversial topics such as this have a greater impact on the type of society we have than even homosexuality.

[Hobbit]

If anything, I'd say liberalism, not conservatism, is the mental disorder. They hate Christians for claiming that homosexuality and fornication are sins, with modesty being a virtue, yet cozy up to Muslims who execute people for fornication, homosexuality, and a lack of modesty. They decry anybody who even knows OF any white supremacists, but make excuses for any non-white racist. Or how about the very definition of insanity, as liberals continually promote and vote for policies and practices that have repeatedly been tried (here or elsewhere) and have failed utterly, all thinking that they might just work this time. Isn't the very definition of insanity trying the same thing over and over, expecting different results.

[Little-Acorn]

I dont have a clue what your point is.

Being gay a choice ... yes

if being straight is a choice

believing in a religion or political party, thats a choice

again, what is your point my friend ?

He doesn't really have a point. That's not unusual for him.

He was merely tryng to find a way to call conservatism names and attribute false characteristics to it, while disguising his post as somehow intelligent discourse.

[avatar4321]

He doesn't really have a point. That's not unusual for him.

He was merely tryng to find a way to call conservatism names and attribute false characteristics to it, while disguising his post as somehow intelligent discourse.

im not sure building a case for genocide can really be considered intelligent. atleast in my book its not.

[gabosaurus]

Anyone can criticize liberals. It's all this forum. But try to go the other way and you are a crazy idiot who makes no sense.

Doesn't anyone ever get tired of the whole "conservative vs. liberal" bullshit? Or is that simply a catch all to dump all problems and situations that you don't understand?

If you response to pretty much all political/social arguments is "well, liberals suck!", then your cranial cancer has spread far beyond all hope for remission.

[actsnoblemartin]

Legitimate criticism is one thing, criticism for the sake of criticism is another.

Make a legitimate criticism, and we'll discuss it



Anyone can criticize liberals. It's all this forum. But try to go the other way and you are a crazy idiot who makes no sense.

Doesn't anyone ever get tired of the whole "conservative vs. liberal" bullshit? Or is that simply a catch all to dump all problems and situations that you don't understand?

If you response to pretty much all political/social arguments is "well, liberals suck!", then your cranial cancer has spread far beyond all hope for remission.

[manu1959]

* Fear and aggression
* Dogmatism and intolerance of ambiguity
* Uncertainty avoidance
* Need for cognitive closure
* Terror management



if you answer yes to these then you too can join code pink

[actsnoblemartin]

Youre not stopped from making threads about conservative, but for my liberal friends on the board,

here is a thread to give legitimate criticism of conservative belief and philosophy (not the republican party)

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=238874#post238874


Anyone can criticize liberals. It's all this forum. But try to go the other way and you are a crazy idiot who makes no sense.

Doesn't anyone ever get tired of the whole "conservative vs. liberal" bullshit? Or is that simply a catch all to dump all problems and situations that you don't understand?

If you response to pretty much all political/social arguments is "well, liberals suck!", then your cranial cancer has spread far beyond all hope for remission.

[avatar4321]

Anyone can criticize liberals. It's all this forum. But try to go the other way and you are a crazy idiot who makes no sense.

Doesn't anyone ever get tired of the whole "conservative vs. liberal" bullshit? Or is that simply a catch all to dump all problems and situations that you don't understand?

If you response to pretty much all political/social arguments is "well, liberals suck!", then your cranial cancer has spread far beyond all hope for remission.

I'm going to see if I understand this:

Midcan starts a thread claiming conservatives are genetically insane. Offers no support whatsoever.

We come in and state that such assertions are not only stupid but dangerous citing numerous examples and somehow we are simply arguing "liberals suck"?

How do you figure? What makes this so amusing you are accusing conservatives of doing what all of you guys do all the time.

"Youre racist"
"Youre a nazi"
"Youre stupid"
"Youre a liar"

Seriously, it would be nice if you guys could construct a single intellectual argument from time to time.

[stephanie]

Anyone can criticize liberals. It's all this forum. But try to go the other way and you are a crazy idiot who makes no sense.

Doesn't anyone ever get tired of the whole "conservative vs. liberal" bullshit? Or is that simply a catch all to dump all problems and situations that you don't understand?

If you response to pretty much all political/social arguments is "well, liberals suck!", then your cranial cancer has spread far beyond all hope for remission.

:lol:
coming from someone who themselves think all Republican ideas and Conservatives...SUCK..

[midcan5]

Such thin skin, you guys do realize that I hear liberal used in worst terms every day on this site. So when a little comes back at you, you all start crying foul. But seriously there is a conservative component to personality, it has been studied often and the Berkeley study is just another. I read the "Open and Closed Mind" years ago and it studied the same elements. I love how some posters jump to conclusions and say I said something or implied something I didn't. That alone is a strange element of personality. Avatar4321 does it constantly. Gabosaurus got it right.

Any replies that don't just turn the subject around? I have to think on this a bit before I reply again.

[actsnoblemartin]

Well, does one justify the other?


Such thin skin, you guys do realize that I hear liberal used in worst terms every day on this site. So when a little comes back at you, you all start crying foul. But seriously there is a conservative component to personality, it has been studied often and the Berkeley study is just another. I read the "Open and Closed Mind" years ago and it studied the same elements. I love how some posters jump to conclusions and say I said something or implied something I didn't. That alone is a strange element of personality. Avatar4321 does it constantly. Gabosaurus got it right.

Any replies that don't just turn the subject around? I have to think on this a bit before I reply again.

[stephanie]

Such thin skin, you guys do realize that I hear liberal used in worst terms every day on this site. So when a little comes back at you, you all start crying foul. But seriously there is a conservative component to personality, it has been studied often and the Berkeley study is just another. I read the "Open and Closed Mind" years ago and it studied the same elements. I love how some posters jump to conclusions and say I said something or implied something I didn't. That alone is a strange element of personality. Avatar4321 does it constantly. Gabosaurus got it right.

Any replies that don't just turn the subject around? I have to think on this a bit before I reply again.

Where is there any thin skins here? Because we don't agree with this study.

And I got to thinking...Where in the hell would they find ANY CONSERVATIVES to study.......in Berzerkly:laugh2:

[DragonStryk72]

Such thin skin, you guys do realize that I hear liberal used in worst terms every day on this site. So when a little comes back at you, you all start crying foul. But seriously there is a conservative component to personality, it has been studied often and the Berkeley study is just another. I read the "Open and Closed Mind" years ago and it studied the same elements. I love how some posters jump to conclusions and say I said something or implied something I didn't. That alone is a strange element of personality. Avatar4321 does it constantly. Gabosaurus got it right.

Any replies that don't just turn the subject around? I have to think on this a bit before I reply again.

You started a thread as an insult, then wonder why people are rolling up on you? That's like slapping a bear, and then being, "But why'd he attack me?"

When you put up a legitimate thread, there will be a legitimate answer. But since I don't think you have the stones for that, I don't see it happening. Instead, you'll pull another dodge, or ignore legitimate points being made.

Oh, and btw, you are in fact part of the problem, not the soultion. you may want to consider that, since you seem addicted to starting troll threads for the sole purpose of causing division.

[Kathianne]

Glad to see liberals are looking for a way to explain common sense away as some genetic disorder that will requires the elites to commit genocide against anyone with this "disorder".

And we are supposed to be the nazis. What bullcrap.

Yep, Goldberg is right. The left are the fascists.

[avatar4321]

Such thin skin, you guys do realize that I hear liberal used in worst terms every day on this site. So when a little comes back at you, you all start crying foul. But seriously there is a conservative component to personality, it has been studied often and the Berkeley study is just another. I read the "Open and Closed Mind" years ago and it studied the same elements. I love how some posters jump to conclusions and say I said something or implied something I didn't. That alone is a strange element of personality. Avatar4321 does it constantly. Gabosaurus got it right.

Any replies that don't just turn the subject around? I have to think on this a bit before I reply again.

One simply has to be knowledgible of political rheotic leading up to the two world wars to see where your train of thought leads people. It's called education.

That's the beauty of learning things. You can see when problematic patterns arise.

[midcan5]

Glad to see liberals are looking for a way to explain common sense away as some genetic disorder that will requires the elites to commit genocide against anyone with this "disorder".

And we are supposed to be the nazis. What bullcrap.

Anyone who can read that and figure out who one comes to that conclusion please explain it to me. Fascism is of the the right that is a fact regardless of attempts to hide from it.

But still read the line, 'elites to commit genocide against anyone with this "disorder"' if you can arrive there from what I wrote you can go anywhere as that is a mind trip only.

More on fascism for anyone interested in a bit of reality late.

[glockmail]

From MC5's link (he's not making this shit up):


BERKELEY – Politically conservative agendas may range from supporting the Vietnam War to upholding traditional moral and religious values to opposing welfare. But are there consistent underlying motivations?

Four researchers who culled through 50 years of research literature about the psychology of conservatism report that at the core of political conservatism is the resistance to change and a tolerance for inequality, and that some of the common psychological factors linked to political conservatism include:


Fear and aggression

Dogmatism and intolerance of ambiguity

Uncertainty avoidance

Need for cognitive closure

Terror management


"From our perspective, these psychological factors are capable of contributing to the adoption of conservative ideological contents, either independently or in combination," the researchers wrote in an article, "Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition," recently published in the American Psychological Association's Psychological Bulletin.


It's pretty amazing that a liberal researcher actually sought to redefine "conservative" in this manner. That makes the entire study worthless.

Wouldn't it make sense to use a conservative's own definition if you are going to perform a study? Here's the ACU statement of principles (http://www.conservative.org/about/principles.html):


The following statement was adopted in December 1964.

• We believe that the Constitution of the United States is the best political charter yet created by men for governing themselves. It is our belief that the Constitution is designed to guarantee the free exercise of the inherent rights of the individual through strictly limiting the power of government.

We reaffirm our belief in the Declaration of Independence, and in particular the belief that our inherent rights are endowed by the Creator. We further believe that our liberties can remain secure only if government is so limited that it cannot infringe upon those rights.

• We believe that capitalism is the only economic system of our time that is compatible with political liberty. It has not only brought a higher standard of living to a greater number of people than any other economic system in the history of mankind; more important, it has been a decisive instrument in preserving freedom through maintaining private control of economic power and thus limiting the power of government.

• We believe that collectivism and capitalism are incompatible, and that when government competes with capitalism, it jeopardizes the natural economic growth of our society and the well-being and freedom of the citizenry.

• We believe that it is the responsibility of the individual citizen, whenever his inherent rights are threatened from within or without, to join together with other individuals to protect these rights, or, when they have been temporarily lost, to regain them.

• We believe that any responsible conservative organization must conduct itself within the framework of the Constitution; in pursuance of this belief we refuse to countenance any actions which conflict in any way with the traditions of the American political system.

• The American Conservative Union is created to realize these ends through the cooperation in responsible political action, of all Americans who cherish the principles upon which the Republic was founded.

• The American Conservative Union will welcome all Americans who are prepared to fight for the realization and preservation of these principles through political action at the local, state and national level.

[PostmodernProphet]

* Fear and aggression
* Dogmatism and intolerance of ambiguity
* Uncertainty avoidance
* Need for cognitive closure
* Terror management


actually, I can live with the essence of what they say, though I might have tweaked the statements a bit to make them more accurate....

it isn't "fear and agression", it's being worried about where liberals want to take the country and being pissed off about it......

it isn't "Dogmatism and intolerance of ambiguity", it's having standards and rejecting the ideas of those who have none....

it isn't "Uncertainty avoidance", it's being willing to make decisions....

it isn't "Need for cognitive closure", it's the belief that once you make up your mind on something you need to stop waffling and act.....

it isn't "terror management", it's terror elimination......

[glockmail]

Yes, that would be fine. Isn't it a more rational baseline to have your subject decribe his or her basis?

[midcan5]

Sorry, didn't read all above but will when I have some time. I may post this Acts' thread.

My faults with conservatism (C) are many, chief among them is C has caused a decline in the values that used to be part of America and are at its foundation. Among these values are open government, individual freedom, a respect for law, tolerance, and an decrease in social justice.

Now one of the biggest kick backs I get when I use examples is 'but they aren't conservatives.' I don't buy this excuse as it is conservatives who have supported these people and brought them to power. If conservatives had strong values that respected for instance individual freedoms, they would be criticizing many of the negatives I will put forth. They don't. Conservative politics has placed people who are either incompetent or rigid ideologues into positions of power and then gloss over unacceptable and I'll clearly state un American behavior.

I'll give just one example at a time. The Bush administration has engaged in a government of secrecy that excludes not only media but the other branches of government. When Cheney meet to discuss energy he excluded us. The energy taskforce is just one example. Or check out Waxman report. Open government is a key part of a democracy, it is constantly usurped by republican conservatives. Think Delay.

And if anyone's argument consists in 'but the others are worse,' or but they aren't C (you elected them) please refrain from posting. The others are worse may be my next topic.

[glockmail]

....

My faults with conservatism (C) are many, chief among them is C has caused a decline in the values that used to be part of America and are at its foundation. Among these values are open government, individual freedom, a respect for law, tolerance, and an decrease in social justice.

....
I think that you are mixed up in the definitions of modern conservatism v. modern liberalism. What disagreement do you have with the 1964 statement of principles that I posted from the ACU?

[mundame]

Anyone who can read that and figure out who one comes to that conclusion please explain it to me. Fascism is of the the right that is a fact regardless of attempts to hide from it.

More on fascism for anyone interested in a bit of reality late.


Here's more on fascism: you are incorrect that it is a rightist system.

Fascism first developed in 1919 (because of WWI and it's terrible losses) and lasted as public movements in many states and government of two states, Italy and Germany, till 1945. (Spain is not generally counted as fascist now; Franco was basically authoritarian and used the fascist movement to gain power, then suppressed it.)

The essence of fascism is that it is totalitarian, and historians nowadays are classing the Soviet system right in with the Nazis; their totalitarian system of the state controlling all of the lives of its subject that it possibly could were identical in purpose to fascism and often identical in tactics. Right and left is not the point; total control of individuals was the point in both Soviet and Nazi systems.

"Rightwing" is a word we use to mean conservative and authoritarian, and those two systems hark backward to older systems.

Fascism was definitely not conservative!! It was wildly new and radical and its whole point was this: World War I showed that the state could take total control and wage total war, involving and controlling all the citizenry for the war effort. So a number of bright, immoral people right after the war (Mussolini first, he invented it) thought ------------- why not do that ALL the time? Control society totally, and make a "perfect" society, the way *I* want it to be?

So they did that.

There are a number of interesting characteristics of fascism, notably for me its setting up of parallel government systems intended to undermine the invested state bureaucracies from the top -- the fascist SS troops were quite separate from the Army, as were many Nazi parallel systems, for instance.

I recommend "The Anatomy of Fascism" (http://www.amazon.com/Anatomy-Fascism-Robert-O-Paxton/dp/1400033918/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1209649840&sr=1-2)by Robert O. Paxton for interested readers.

[manu1959]

My faults with conservatism (C) are many, chief among them is C has caused a decline in the values that used to be part of America and are at its foundation. Among these values are open government, individual freedom, a respect for law, tolerance, and an decrease in social justice.



open government: i always find this one interesting......everything the government does is in the open.....what you really want is proof of conspiracy theories.....like sors and clinton selling weapons technology to the chinese and blaming it on bush.....

individual freedom: which group wants to restrict religion and guns both of which are rights under the founding documents of this country......

respect for law: which group wants to appoint justices that pass down ruling which do not follow the law and legislate from the bench.....

tolerance: which group wants to pass laws to make people tolerate social behaviour that they think is wrong.....

social justice: which group wants to take from one group of contibutors and give to a group of non contributors.....

[avatar4321]

open government: i always find this one interesting......everything the government does is in the open.....what you really want is proof of conspiracy theories.....like sors and clinton selling weapons technology to the chinese and blaming it on bush.....

individual freedom: which group wants to restrict religion and guns both of which are rights under the founding documents of this country......

respect for law: which group wants to appoint justices that pass down ruling which do not follow the law and legislate from the bench.....

tolerance: which group wants to pass laws to make people tolerate social behaviour that they think is wrong.....

social justice: which group wants to take from one group of contibutors and give to a group of non contributors.....

You have to understand that Midcan's definitions of each of those concepts is completely different than the actual definition.

Just reading the last few posts makes it clear that we are dealing with someone whose views are so polar opposite to reality that actual discussion is difficult if not impossible.

[mundame]

open government: i always find this one interesting......everything the government does is in the open.....what you really want is proof of conspiracy theories.....like sors and clinton selling weapons technology to the chinese and blaming it on bush.....

Not this government! Much of what it does is secret and lying. That has little to do with left or right, however, and much to do with bad characters at the top.



individual freedom: which group wants to restrict religion and guns both of which are rights under the founding documents of this country......

Equally dirty. The right wants to stop abortion; the left has PC and has torn up our meritocracy in favor of promoting people because of their race.


respect for law: which group wants to appoint justices that pass down ruling which do not follow the law and legislate from the bench.....

Both want what they want from the bench as far as I can tell. Not much to choose, surely?


tolerance: which group wants to pass laws to make people tolerate social behaviour that they think is wrong.....

Nothing wrong with tolerance. The more tolerance the better, IMO. That's basically the Libertarian point of view: if it's not injuring you personally, butt out. And Libertarianism is not leftwing.



social justice: which group wants to take from one group of contibutors and give to a group of non contributors.....

That would be the leftists........

[DragonStryk72]

Sorry, didn't read all above but will when I have some time. I may post this Acts' thread.

My faults with conservatism (C) are many, chief among them is C has caused a decline in the values that used to be part of America and are at its foundation. Among these values are open government, individual freedom, a respect for law, tolerance, and an decrease in social justice.

Now one of the biggest kick backs I get when I use examples is 'but they
aren't conservatives.' I don't buy this excuse as it is conservatives who have supported these people and brought them to power. If conservatives had strong values that respected for instance individual freedoms, they would be criticizing many of the negatives I will put forth. They don't. Conservative politics has placed people who are either incompetent or rigid ideologues into positions of power and then gloss over unacceptable and I'll clearly state un American behavior.

I'll give just one example at a time. The Bush administration has engaged in a government of secrecy that excludes not only media but the other branches of government. When Cheney meet to discuss energy he excluded us. The energy taskforce is just one example. Or check out Waxman report. Open government is a key part of a democracy, it is constantly usurped by republican conservatives. Think Delay.

And if anyone's argument consists in 'but the others are worse,' or but they aren't C (you elected them) please refrain from posting. The others are worse may be my next topic.

So, basically, I'm right, you don't have the stones. I hate being proven right on these things.

So here we go, some questions of my own:

What has Bush & Co."conserved"?

Money (He has spent more than ANY admin before him, and with fewer results)?

States Rights (NCLB put the federal government in charge of a state matter, stripping away yet another right of the states.)?

Personal Liberty (Patriot Act violates the 4th Amendment rights directly by allowing the government due process free wire-tapping)?

So what is he conserving that makes him a conservative? (Absolutely nothing.)

Now, as to his Republican credentials:

He has REPEATEDLY attempted to "order" congress to do things, to push through shoddy legislation that he knows will fail to pass, and otherwise try to run roughshod over the Congressmen. Now, since apparently, I will have to lay this out fully, it should be known that in a republic, the power of it is held by the SENATE, meaning that, in so doing these things, he is precisely the antithesis of a republican, just as he is antithetical to conservatism. He CANNOT, by any definition, be called either, he is using those monikers in order to drum up votes.

Now let's try this and see if it finally gets through to you:

We have the following candidate:

Pro-Life
anti Gun Control
Wants to abolish most if not all of the welfare system
Working on restoring states rights
Reworking the Tax code to a Fair Tax system, as opposed to the current Progressive Tax system.
Against Gay Marriage
Pro-Capital Punishment

you would say this is a conservative, but he's registered as a liberal, so, by your supposition in this thread, that means he is a liberal, and liberals can in fact be judged by him. This is what you keep continuing to say about me, that somehow, I must the stereotype, and again, you apparently don't have the stones to have an actual debate.

Bush should be in prison, or better yet, let's put him up for the crimes he has committed in his home state of Texas, the state he couldn't win in either of his elections. He is a fraud, period.

Oh yeah, since you did not structure the thread in the OP, you have no right at all to decide how we will and will not respond now that you don't want to have to deal with our answers. you don't want a debate, you want to insult, and that is not something I'll conscience.

[mundame]

I hate being proven right on these things.



Reminds me of the Jeff Goldblum chaos theoretician in Jurassic Park. He says life will always find a way to get free......

So when they wake up in the stalled cars to see a giant Tyrannosaurus rex knocking down the wall to get at them, he says calmly, "I hate being right all the time."

[midcan5]

Notice that the 'secrecy' of this conservative republican administration was not examined by any respondent. As usual the reply is either ad hominem or a change in the definition of the concepts noted. I think a closed door executive branch is unAmerican, but secrecy is a key piece of right wing thought control. It actually is an element of fascism which is a right wing phenomenon and very evident in the Bush administration.

http://oversight.house.gov/features/secrecy_report/index.asp

Some notes to replies:

"....what you really want is proof of conspiracy theories.." For me that would be my last thought. Check Waxman link if you care to think for a moment.

Libertarianism is simply liberal social policy cloaked in social darwinist conservative economic policy. As I noted, it is a belief much like marxism. see here: http://web.inter.nl.net/users/Paul.Treanor/libertarian.html

DragonStryk72, you have it right but you helped put him in office and much of what he has done is conservative, taxes for instance. We have a more difficult debate as you arrive in the correct place but you don't seem to see how we got here or the reasons. Let me look for a piece that covered this topic.

The revised Fascism is interesting as no respected historian would consider it anything but of the right. Nation is one of its key pieces which conflicts completely with liberalism's individual freedom. I know the revisionists are trying to change this and I wonder why but it is working as lots of righties with little understanding or knowledge of ideology buy into this change. Some links below, more to follow for those who like truth not fiction.

"Dr. Lawrence Britt has examined the fascist regimes of Hitler (Germany), Mussolini (Italy), Franco (Spain), Suharto (Indonesia) and several Latin American regimes. Britt found 14 defining characteristics common to each..."

http://www.rense.com/general37/char.htm

If you can read those 14 points and come back with liberal there is really little hope for you and you need to educate yourself.

http://www.cursor.org/stories/fascismii.php

"Jonah Goldberg has to be one of the most idiotic revisionists of modern times. Any person even vaguely familiar with Fascism knows it is of the Right and not the left. I will grant that extremists seem to meet in a circle as in the end dictators dictate but if you can't tell the difference between political ideologies you should stay home."

http://www.alternet.org/story/72960/

[mundame]

Notice that the 'secrecy' of this conservative republican administration was not examined by any respondent.

Well, I did. Are you sure you are READING every respondent?


Libertarianism is simply liberal social policy cloaked in social darwinist conservative economic policy

The world is not as simple as you wish it were.


The revised Fascism is interesting as no respected historian would consider it anything but of the right.

How do you know that? My experience is the opposite. I think you are asserting that if historians take a different point of view than yours, they aren't "respected." However, that isn't the case. As more time passes between us and the two world wars, quite a lot of important rethinking is going on by historians. For example, that the two wars were one long war, not really two.


Nation is one of its key pieces which conflicts completely with liberalism's individual freedom.

This sentence does not make sense. Do you mean "Nationalism" and "features" for pieces? You need to write more carefully. You get points for that, you know.

And yes, nationalism was a key feature of fascism, good.



I know the revisionists are trying to change this and I wonder why but it is working as lots of righties with little understanding or knowledge of ideology buy into this change.

Figuring out what is going on is important. Asserting what you want doesn't really work. Other peoples' truth is independent of what you want. Your truth is independent of other people's truth. This is one of the ways the world is not simple.



If you can read those 14 points and come back with liberal there is really little hope for you and you need to educate yourself.

Are you under the impression that anyone in the world thinks "fascism" is identical to "liberalism"? They are different. Everyone already knows this. You are a young student, aren't you?



Any person even vaguely familiar with Fascism knows it is of the Right and not the left. I will grant that extremists seem to meet in a circle as in the end dictators dictate but if you can't tell the difference between political ideologies you should stay home.

Are you quite, quite sure that's what everybody ought to think? Maybe you should read first, assert things second, or not at all. I think you are using the word fascism as an insult as so many people do, simplistically, but it's more interesting than that and deserves study to see what happened at that time.

[Little-Acorn]

My, my. Leave the children alone and unsupervised for a while, and look at the mess they make. Suddenly we have everything from the Bush administration to outright fascism being referred to as "conservative", with the usual leftists glefully bashing "conservatism" on that basis. Along with the usual tommyrot about "Conservatives" being people who simply resist any change.

"Conservatives" are not people who resist change, any more than modern "liberals" are people who support liberty.

Those names as political labels got their start more than a hundred years ago. Government was actually small and limited back then - at least a lot smaller than it is now. Then (as now) there were some people who thought small, limited government was a good idea, and other people who though larger, more intrusive government was the way to go. Since small govt was what they had, the former group was called "conservative" since they were seen to be fighting to keep that kind of government. The other group pulled off an early propaganda coup when they announced they merely wanted people to be "free" from some of the strictures posed by small, unintrusive government, such as the necessity to work for a living and/or get your own family and community to support you without government "assistance".

The "conservative" label overlooked the fact that, if they had had a large, intrusive government, the "Conservatives" would definitely NOT be trying to "conserve" it at all, but rather would be fighting to change it (as they are today and have been for the last 70 years). And the "liberal" label similarly overlooked the fact that the "freedom" those people were trying to legislate, carried with it a coercive burden imposed on others to force them to provide for their fellow men... plus typical government inability to keep cheaters from taking advantage of that coercion to grab a free ride.

Today, so-called "conservatives" haven't changed. They are still people who believe in small, limited, unintrusive government. But the party they used to typify, has changed greatly, becoming far more liberal as Republicans embrace things like expanding government, heavy taxes on incomes with the intrusive scrutiny it carries with it, entitlements, open borders, censorship of political speech, etc.

The Democrat party, OTOH, has merely become more and more liberal, expanding government hugely into fields never envisioned by the Founders and imposing their intrusive government on every aspect of people's formerly-private lives.

The Bush administration, while more conservative than the Democrat party in general, is more liberal than some Dem administrations, even as recently as JFK with his huge tax cuts and staredown of the Soviet Union.

It's humorous to hear some of our board leftists trying to bash "conservatives" when they clearly have no clue what a conservative even is. Ah, well. Some children have the ability to learn, given time. Whether these are among them, remains to be seen. :poke:

[avatar4321]

"Jonah Goldberg has to be one of the most idiotic revisionists of modern times. Any person even vaguely familiar with Fascism knows it is of the Right and not the left. I will grant that extremists seem to meet in a circle as in the end dictators dictate but if you can't tell the difference between political ideologies you should stay home."

http://www.alternet.org/story/72960/

Experience has long demonstrated that anyone who has to attack someone personally rather than look at the argument can't refute it.

[DragonStryk72]

Notice that the 'secrecy' of this conservative republican administration was not examined by any respondent. As usual the reply is either ad hominem or a change in the definition of the concepts noted. I think a closed door executive branch is unAmerican, but secrecy is a key piece of right wing thought control. It actually is an element of fascism which is a right wing phenomenon and very evident in the Bush administration.

That is the failure of the press, who seem to have forgotten their moral obligation to be devoid of politics, instead reporting the news accurately, so as to keep the people informed. The government has no jurisdiction over this, nor should it.

How, precisely, is secrecy limited to the right wing, Midcan? Clinton certainly kept stuff to himself,FDR (who went his whole time without giving up the fact that he was wheelchair bound.) JFK too. So where is this simply a 'right wing' device? Stop generalizing, you can be proven wrong quite quickly when you do that. I've said that several times now, I believe, but i'm still hoping it'll get through.

And again, Bush and Co. are not conservative, as you agreed with me on, and so cannot any longer be used as evidence against conservatives, as the would be extreme intellectual dishonesty.

http://oversight.house.gov/features/secrecy_report/index.asp

Some notes to replies:

"....what you really want is proof of conspiracy theories.." For me that would be my last thought. Check Waxman link if you care to think for a moment.

Libertarianism is simply liberal social policy cloaked in social darwinist conservative economic policy. As I noted, it is a belief much like marxism. see here: http://web.inter.nl.net/users/Paul.Treanor/libertarian.html

And again, point to where the conservation is? An actual conservative is one who lessens the amount of government, conserving federal power, and in doing so, conserves both our financial expenses, and conserves personal liberties.

What is socialist about removing government from people's lives? What, as well is liberal about the policies? You want to see what I'm backing, go on over to Wayne Root's site, look at what he stands for, and that, in fact, is a conservative libertarian doctrine.

Wow, that piece is just such complete and utter crap, it's amazing. It's like they distilled all the stupidest possible sentences into one being. People are too weak to affect real change? wow, guess that's why we're still an english colony.

DragonStryk72, you have it right but you helped put him in office and much of what he has done is conservative, taxes for instance. We have a more difficult debate as you arrive in the correct place but you don't seem to see how we got here or the reasons. Let me look for a piece that covered this topic.

The first time, before he started being a complete fuck-up, yes, I went against Gore, who low-blowed the president about a DUI he'd gotten back when he was 25.

Now, the second time, when he was being a complete fuck-up, no I didn't. That was around the point in time where I started going libertarian, since the republicans were no longer conservatives.

The revised Fascism is interesting as no respected historian would consider it anything but of the right. Nation is one of its key pieces which conflicts completely with liberalism's individual freedom. I know the revisionists are trying to change this and I wonder why but it is working as lots of righties with little understanding or knowledge of ideology buy into this change. Some links below, more to follow for those who like truth not fiction.

'truth not fiction', hm, an interesting hypothesis there, but truth is composed of more than one side. I believe that Jesus is the truth, does that make it so? I could point to numerous things, and conjecture that they prove my case, but in fact, it proves absolutely nothing but my faith in Jesus, and my ability to prove my own argument.

As far as the liberal setup of things, it was liberal who passed the 'no swearing' rule here in Virginia Beach, a law that quite directly breaks the first amendment. Is that the personal freedom of which you speak?

Change? It is changing, unfortunately, much like losing weight when you are over 300 pounds, it takes awhile for change to occur. Also, how are those changes the liberal Democrats promised up and down doing? Oh wait, that's right, didn't happen. Hell, they haven't even managed to take down NCLB, and everyone hates that one, right or left. The only one still clinging to it is Bush. No, both sides are just as guilty of the stagnation that has occurred in our system

"Dr. Lawrence Britt has examined the fascist regimes of Hitler (Germany), Mussolini (Italy), Franco (Spain), Suharto (Indonesia) and several Latin American regimes. Britt found 14 defining characteristics common to each..."

http://www.rense.com/general37/char.htm

If you can read those 14 points and come back with liberal there is really little hope for you and you need to educate yourself.

http://www.cursor.org/stories/fascismii.php

One of the first items that occurred in the Nazi regime was the removal of people's personal weapons. Um, last I looked, gun control was right up there as a liberal policy.

However, despite that, I do not believe either side, liberal or conservative, is trying to recreate fascism. I'm actually pretty sure that both the major parties want to keep change from happening, well okay, real change from happening. They want 'change', that amorphous thing they promise every election cycle.


"Jonah Goldberg has to be one of the most idiotic revisionists of modern times. Any person even vaguely familiar with Fascism knows it is of the Right and not the left. I will grant that extremists seem to meet in a circle as in the end dictators dictate but if you can't tell the difference between political ideologies you should stay home."

http://www.alternet.org/story/72960/

The Fascism talk, on either side accusing the other, is the lowest form of debate, used to try and silence an argument that cannot be struck down in another manner. We are never going to be a fascist country, it will not happen. And yes, I have called some of the conservatives on this one before, but liberals use it to. It is a crutch argument by either side.

;

[midcan5]

Experience has long demonstrated that anyone who has to attack someone personally rather than look at the argument can't refute it.

And you read it and arrived at that conclusion?

[mundame]

And you read it and arrived at that conclusion?


I agree with that. There are two ways of attacking someone's idea:

1) try to destroy the person, or

2) try to destroy the idea.


Experience also show me that most people try to destroy the person, because they are not smart or educated enough to deal with the argument.

[midcan5]

Well, I did. Are you sure you are READING every respondent?

Mundame, I read all. Libertarianism is simple. Your comeback concerning fascism was too all over the place. Fascism is of the right, that is the key piece defining piece. Actually your entire post is a bit confusing, almost doublespeak. Let's see if you can be clearer next time.

[DragonStryk72]

and yet again, I will have to ask for the response to my points.

[mundame]

Mundame, I read all. Libertarianism is simple. Your comeback concerning fascism was too all over the place. Fascism is of the right, that is the key piece defining piece. Actually your entire post is a bit confusing, almost doublespeak. Let's see if you can be clearer next time.

Without you specifying any definite points, I have to assume this is a bluff --- you are attempting to discredit the person because you cannot discredit the ideas.

And again you simply assert your belief that fascism is of the right, but you aren't able to defend that.

Your asserting something doesn't make it true for anyone else, you know.

[midcan5]

It's humorous to hear some of our board leftists trying to bash "conservatives" when they clearly have no clue what a conservative even is. Ah, well. Some children have the ability to learn, given time. Whether these are among them, remains to be seen.

Do you?

Little-acorn,

Interesting interpretation, I am wondering how you are arrived at that explanation? My take is different and not as detailed (here) as it could be. Conservatism as a political philosophy in the US is recent phenomena even though C goes back to the French revolution and is a really an element of all of us. I think the idea that conservatives are opposed to large gov grew primarily out the efforts FDR undertook to alleviate the problems of the great depression and unregulated capitalism. Those efforts have complex historical significance as FDR didn't want the country going towards fascism nor the other extreme communism. He did an super job and is probably our greatest president in modern times in spite of the messed up Japanese interment.

Enlightenment liberalism is the foundation of our constitutional republic, and is an actual political philosophy. John Rawls is a modern spokesman if you want to check L. It grew out of the changes from a religious controlled society to one that defined by man as free and equal by nature. I do disagree with you that the terms have lost their meaning, if we casually change meaning because some change modifies a political philosophy that is no reason to throw the whole thing out. Modern L is having a hard time because the extremes of complete freedom and complete control for utopia are contradictory directions. Galbraith said it well, "Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite." Fascism is different and no one on this site seems to even understand it.

Here's a more personal idiosyncratic take on C. Conservatism today is a reactionary force that grew partly out of modernity, party from intrusive gov, partly from the turmoil of the 60's, and partly from corporate/monied American wanting a voice for their goals. There is also a religious element and that had a lot to do with taxes. So L became the foe because L was associated with change, government, social welfare, and taxes. Modernity is the most complex of these issues as modern life no longer resembles small village life. More later.


liberalism
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberalism/

conservatism
http://www.kirkcenter.org/kirk/ten-principles.html
http://www.acuf.org/principles/index.asp

[midcan5]

DragonStryk72,

Media may be at blame but two or three wrongs don't make something right. And FDR was the leader during some of the worst times in history, I hardly hold his hiding his condition as anything more than good leadership.

I agreed they're not conservatives in any sense i am familiar with, but none the less, the worst presidency in our modern history was the result of conservatives putting him in office. So then we still need to examine conservatism to see why that is so.

My guess is those beach laws are probably due to a combination of business interests and simple courtesy, hardly free speech stuff.

NCLB is bad and I agree they are both (parties) caught in a kind of stagnation due to an a political power balancing act, but the argument here is to determine why and move forward.

Control is not removal and times sure are different, a gun then meant something, today our warfare and violence have moved to the bomb and beyond.

Yes, fascism is still a bit away but no one can look at this administration after 911 and not wonder what happened to cherished American values of law and respect for others.

[avatar4321]

DragonStryk72,

Media may be at blame but two or three wrongs don't make something right. And FDR was the leader during some of the worst times in history, I hardly hold his hiding his condition as anything more than good leadership.

I agreed they're not conservatives in any sense i am familiar with, but none the less, the worst presidency in our modern history was the result of conservatives putting him in office. So then we still need to examine conservatism to see why that is so.

My guess is those beach laws are probably due to a combination of business interests and simple courtesy, hardly free speech stuff.

NCLB is bad and I agree they are both (parties) caught in a kind of stagnation due to an a political power balancing act, but the argument here is to determine why and move forward.

Control is not removal and times sure are different, a gun then meant something, today our warfare and violence have moved to the bomb and beyond.

Yes, fascism is still a bit away but no one can look at this administration after 911 and not wonder what happened to cherished American values of law and respect for others.

So hiding is good in bad times? You specifically are making claims about how bad the times are during the Bush administration. Why then isnt Him hiding things in these tough times a sign of good leadership?

[midcan5]

Without you specifying any definite points, I have to assume this is a bluff --- you are attempting to discredit the person because you cannot discredit the ideas.

And again you simply assert your belief that fascism is of the right, but you aren't able to defend that.

Your asserting something doesn't make it true for anyone else, you know.

It is really too simple. Liberalism is about the individual, liberal is about a tolerant free thinking approach to life. Fascism is about the Nation, it is about bowing down to the god of historical nationalism. There is no fit anywhere.

I will admit after studying this stuff for a while all ideologies are approximations and not something one can point to as if written in stone. In the end at their extremes, right or left, they all end up dictatorial oligarchies.

For me liberalism is essentially a state in which each individual can review a set of conditions that apply to all. These conditions allow individual freedom and the possibility of it meaning something to each person but they are constantly under scrutiny and adjustment. Liberalism, as Jeremy Waldron writes, is about a social order that is acceptable to the people living under it. That almost seems too simple.

If everything were acceptable to all, the Ds or Rs would always be elected, seems something needs work. lol

[midcan5]

So hiding is good in bad times? You specifically are making claims about how bad the times are during the Bush administration. Why then isnt Him hiding things in these tough times a sign of good leadership?

FDR was crippled, that is my point. We may think differently of handicaps today but a leader then and now has to appear strong. I have speech from him at one of the worst and scariest times and it is simply brilliant. I need to keep better databases but I will find it.

[avatar4321]

FDR was crippled, that is my point. We may think differently of handicaps today but a leader then and now has to appear strong. I have speech from him at one of the worst and scariest times and it is simply brilliant. I need to keep better databases but I will find it.

The fact that he was crippled is irrelevant. You stated that it was good leadership to hide things from the public because they lived in hard times. Well you are also saying that we live in hard times and that President Bush should be condemned for hiding things from the public.

Now I have no problem with a leader hiding things from the public. But your position is completely inconsistant. I see far more prudence in hiding national security secrets than hiding a physical disability. One is hidden to keep us alive, the other for political reasons.

I simply dont see how you can honestly claim FDR hiding things is good leadership when his motives are much more selfish while President Bush hiding things for national security reasons is bad. I don't see any reason to do so other than a personal political agenda.

[avatar4321]

It is really too simple. Liberalism is about the individual, liberal is about a tolerant free thinking approach to life. Fascism is about the Nation, it is about bowing down to the god of historical nationalism. There is no fit anywhere.

I will admit after studying this stuff for a while all ideologies are approximations and not something one can point to as if written in stone. In the end at their extremes, right or left, they all end up dictatorial oligarchies.

For me liberalism is essentially a state in which each individual can review a set of conditions that apply to all. These conditions allow individual freedom and the possibility of it meaning something to each person but they are constantly under scrutiny and adjustment. Liberalism, as Jeremy Waldron writes, is about a social order that is acceptable to the people living under it. That almost seems too simple.

If everything were acceptable to all, the Ds or Rs would always be elected, seems something needs work. lol

The individual? Since when is liberalism about the individual? They try to take away the individuals gun rights. The individuals free speech rights. They try to take away the individuals religious rights. They try to take away the individuals property rights. They try to take away the individvuals profits. They try to take away the individuals ability to choose what to eat, whether to smoke or not, etc.

How the hell can liberalism be for the individul by empowering government to take their rights away?

[midcan5]

I simply dont see how you can honestly claim FDR hiding things is good leadership when his motives are much more selfish while President Bush hiding things for national security reasons is bad. I don't see any reason to do so other than a personal political agenda.

You can compare his personal pride as president to hiding programs that are actually un-American? I can't make that leap.



The individual? Since when is liberalism about the individual? They try to take away the individuals gun rights. The individuals free speech rights. They try to take away the individuals religious rights. They try to take away the individuals property rights. They try to take away the individvuals profits. They try to take away the individuals ability to choose what to eat, whether to smoke or not, etc.

We register cars and still drive. Why not guns.
Free speech? example please.
property rights? ditto
profits? ditto

And the last is society and business arriving at a conclusion that works for all.

You really do have a very partisan narrow view of things that never really counters any argument except by saying the other group is wrong!

[Kathianne]

The individual? Since when is liberalism about the individual? They try to take away the individuals gun rights. The individuals free speech rights. They try to take away the individuals religious rights. They try to take away the individuals property rights. They try to take away the individvuals profits. They try to take away the individuals ability to choose what to eat, whether to smoke or not, etc.

How the hell can liberalism be for the individul by empowering government to take their rights away?

Just what I was thinking. We will tell you how you will raise your children, starting with putting them in government funded preschools at the age of 3, if they are healthy; 6 months if not. By the time they are 6, they will be in state schools for a minimum of 6 hours a day, 9 months of the year.

They will remain in public schools for 12 years or the age of 16, when they may choose to opt out.

We will tell you what you may or may not feed your children at school. We will tell you how you may or may not discipline your child.

Actually, we may have to change your behavior, especially if you choose to divorce and your spouse now has issues with your smoking or other behavior around said child.

We will tell you how you must conduct your business, even if you own the property and your employees don't have a problem with your management; they just don't KNOW what the right thing to do is.

The list grows by the day.

[avatar4321]

You can compare his personal pride as president to hiding programs that are actually un-American? I can't make that leap.




We register cars and still drive. Why not guns.
Free speech? example please.
property rights? ditto
profits? ditto

And the last is society and business arriving at a conclusion that works for all.

You really do have a very partisan narrow view of things that never really counters any argument except by saying the other group is wrong!

You can distinguish between hiding things for political purposes and hiding things for national security reasons? Hiding things is hiding things. One is purely selfish. The other is to save lives. But obviously i must be some sort of monster. I mean what kind of person would think that protecting lives is more important than protecting his political career.

Is driving a car a constitutional right? Are you honestly comparing self defense, something that is vital in any world based in reality and truth, with the privilege of driving a car?

"Society" and businesss ariving at conclusions thats "best for all" is the very definition of fascism.

[Kathianne]

You can compare his personal pride as president to hiding programs that are actually un-American? I can't make that leap.




We register cars and still drive. Why not guns.
Free speech? example please.
property rights? ditto
profits? ditto

And the last is society and business arriving at a conclusion that works for all.

You really do have a very partisan narrow view of things that never really counters any argument except by saying the other group is wrong!

Ok, tell us where the emphasis on the 'individual' is regarding the current liberal perspective.

[manu1959]

You can compare his personal pride as president to hiding programs that are actually un-American? I can't make that leap.
We register cars and still drive. Why not guns.
Free speech? example please.
property rights? ditto
profits? ditto
And the last is society and business arriving at a conclusion that works for all.
You really do have a very partisan narrow view of things that never really counters any argument except by saying the other group is wrong!

You really do have a very partisan narrow view of things that never really counters any argument except by saying the other group is wrong!

[Kathianne]

Ok, tell us where the emphasis on the 'individual' is regarding the current liberal perspective.

2 hours later, no response from anyone on the left.

[DragonStryk72]

DragonStryk72,

Media may be at blame but two or three wrongs don't make something right. And FDR was the leader during some of the worst times in history, I hardly hold his hiding his condition as anything more than good leadership.

Oh yes, because if that one man had been a liberal instead, it would have stopped people from buying on margin. Yes, and how do you rationalize out the fact hat FDR is the reason for Social Security, and welfare? Both of those are liberal points, but he was a conservative. I think, given he was dealing with the depression, and then immediately on into WWII, he did an exemplary job. that's why congress had to set term limits on the presidency, since people kept on electing him.

I agreed they're not conservatives in any sense i am familiar with, but none the less, the worst presidency in our modern history was the result of conservatives putting him in office. So then we still need to examine conservatism to see why that is so.

No we don't, we already know the answer. The bid was on the fact that he would likely follow in his old man's foot step, which, from a conservative perspective, were not so bad. Most of the original election was really Gore's to lose. Bush, whatever else his faults may be, he is both approachable, and seems like the guy you could be at a tailgate party with.

He also ran with a completely different platform than the one that he began pursuing once he was in office, so again, conservatives cannot be held for the lies that Bush told to get in, only to turn around and do everything that it was possible to do that was not conservative. by the time 04 rolled around, we were all kind of suffering from battered spouse syndrome.

My guess is those beach laws are probably due to a combination of business interests and simple courtesy, hardly free speech stuff.

Um, no, free speech means free speech, that's why it's free.

NCLB is bad and I agree they are both (parties) caught in a kind of stagnation due to an a political power balancing act, but the argument here is to determine why and move forward.

Red State Blue State, wherein one side will denounce the other, say by posting thread after thread as insult to the other group, and then refusing to budge on their opinion because it would mean they were wrong, and were not considering things objectively.

Control is not removal and times sure are different, a gun then meant something, today our warfare and violence have moved to the bomb and beyond.

Except that they are not looking to "control" handguns anymore, but remove them entirely. Well, the legal ones, the illegal ones will simply be more numerous, and in the worst possible hands.

Yes, fascism is still a bit away but no one can look at this administration after 911 and not wonder what happened to cherished American values of law and respect for others.

Respect for others? Have you watched the democratic nomination? they are one step out of an actual cage fight with one another. what happened is that the people allowed the government to separate them into red and blue, "you're with us or against" mentality, and both sides are using it to increase their own power. If anything is to be done about it, then we, the people, will need to stop taking the swipes at each other, and start finding some common ground, such as a mutual loathing of Bush.

;

[DragonStryk72]

FDR was crippled, that is my point. We may think differently of handicaps today but a leader then and now has to appear strong. I have speech from him at one of the worst and scariest times and it is simply brilliant. I need to keep better databases but I will find it.

So, you want an open government, with hidden parts? You get one or the other, but you can't have both.

[midcan5]

We will tell you how you must conduct your business, even if you own the property and your employees don't have a problem with your management; they just don't KNOW what the right thing to do is.

The list grows by the day.

Kathianne,

I remember many years ago sitting in a graduate course and someone lite up a cigarette and the war began. How times have changed, is that the fault, if we can call it a fault of liberals, as you seem to do? Life changes and what was once acceptable is now frowned on. I still remember separate facilitates for blacks in the South, is the elimination of that the fault of liberals? Yep, we'll take credit for that one. lol

These social values are always debated, do you want a society of dummies? Do you want a society of home schooled bigots? Do want a Texas compound that makes woman slaves to men and child producers? The Amish live as they choose in America but education is still a key requirement for both a civil and a democratic society. Why do you think dictators don't like books, a free press, or a critical education. Thinking is a bad thing for some.

And I'm not sure I want lead painted products, nor businesses that rip off their employees or customers.

[midcan5]

You really do have a very partisan narrow view of things that never really counters any argument except by saying the other group is wrong!

Let me repeat this, imitation is the surest sign of flattery.

[midcan5]

2 hours later, no response from anyone on the left.

Abortion, open/free press, gay marriage, legal services, social services. Sure I can list lots more but we are OT - remember this was about C.


"Liberals demand that the social order should in principle be capable of explaining itself at the tribunal of each person's understanding." Jeremy Waldron

Gotta drop reply later if I haven't already.

[avatar4321]

Let me repeat this, imitation is the surest sign of flattery.

I suppose so. I mean I can see how you are trying to flatter the monkey and all but I am not sure how that makes you look good.

[Kathianne]

Kathianne,

I remember many years ago sitting in a graduate course and someone lite up a cigarette and the war began. How times have changed, is that the fault, if we can call it a fault of liberals, as you seem to do? Life changes and what was once acceptable is now frowned on. I still remember separate facilitates for blacks in the South, is the elimination of that the fault of liberals? Yep, we'll take credit for that one. lol It's one thing to say there are areas of non-smoking, by the universities, businesses, government offices, a restaurant, actually any property where the owner doesn't want you to smoke, or act in other non-acceptable ways according to the owner. The issue is whether government is the means to enforce the will of the minority or majority-should government be the instrument? I say no.

As for 'taking credit' about Jim Crow and other areas of discrimination, if 'liberals' you mean the Democratic Party, it's not yours to take.


These social values are always debated, do you want a society of dummies? Do you want a society of home schooled bigots? Do want a Texas compound that makes woman slaves to men and child producers? The Amish live as they choose in America but education is still a key requirement for both a civil and a democratic society. Why do you think dictators don't like books, a free press, or a critical education. Thinking is a bad thing for some. A nation of dummies? Hardly think that would happen, plenty of parents homeschool or choose private schools because they have issues with the public schools, they of course have the time and money to do one or the other. What about those that don't? Letting the individual choose where at least part of their child's share of education dollars go, through a voucher system, is the better way to go. Better for the child, fairer to society, and ultimately better for the public schools to work on the product rather than the process.


And I'm not sure I want lead painted products, nor businesses that rip off their employees or customers.

You really think government is the solution for unscrupulous businesses? The businesses that 'rip off' employees or customers wouldn't be in business long.

Thanks for answering the question though, you do think government belongs in the minutia of our lives and businesses.

[DragonStryk72]

Abortion, open/free press, gay marriage, legal services, social services. Sure I can list lots more but we are OT - remember this was about C.


"Liberals demand that the social order should in principle be capable of explaining itself at the tribunal of each person's understanding." Jeremy Waldron

Gotta drop reply later if I haven't already.

So, basically, this is not a debate, in which we would need to debate liberalism alongside side one another as comparisons, no contrast, and any evidence we present is as well scoffed over as wrong. When we point this out, we get "Well he started it!" from you, or some other form of dodge. You want a debate, then have a full debate, if not, then stop posting threads that invite those responses. I've not taken one swipe at you in this entire debate, not one, as well as several other conservatives who have responded, and you still will not admit there is a difference between being a conservative and being an asshole.

Would you wish all of liberals to be held to judgement for the way in which Clinton has run her campaign, using blatant fear-mongering tactics to press a win she doesn't otherwise deserve, and against her fellow party member? Remember, these are not tactics that are being used against the opposition, just her running mate. Is that the liberal doctrine, or is she just being an asshole, separate of her liberal views?

Both sides created this mess, and you can quit with the admission that that is correct, then going right back to bashing "the other side", using the excuse of being swiped. The majority of us have not, and continue to try and reason with you, to point out that your views of us is ignorant, and foolishly prejudiced. Whether you are honorable enough to learn from that, and wise enough to know that you do not know all there is to know, then you are no better than those that you argue against.

[DragonStryk72]

Abortion, open/free press, gay marriage, legal services, social services. Sure I can list lots more but we are OT - remember this was about C.


"Liberals demand that the social order should in principle be capable of explaining itself at the tribunal of each person's understanding." Jeremy Waldron

Gotta drop reply later if I haven't already.

Oh yeah, open and free press? Are you kidding? When have the conservatives ever tried to go against that (Bush= not conservative)? That's right we have, although the liberals have attempted a few times to control what goes on our televisions, what words we can say in public, and as well, what video games we will be allowed to buy.

One of Clinton's more well known runs in NY was to go against the video game industry to stop violent video games from being sold. Despite the fact that ALL of the game companies have made clear titles for their violent games, such as Grand theft Auto (Here's a hint: If it is named after a major felony, it's likely not a good game for your 8 year old.), but as well, rating the games VOLUNTARILY so that parents can tell at a glance what age group the game is for. Why do we need the government involved in that?

As far as gay marriage, it's a bullshit issue. It is rolled out every election run now as way to pull votes. If you're going for the vote in the country, you go against gay marriage, you want New York and California, you go for gay marriage. Gay marriage is a states rights issue, and should remain as such. By conservative doctrine, the federal has absolutely no constitutionally granted right to meddle.

Abortion, again, states rights issue, not a federal one. It, as well, is used as political fodder for vote trolling, and again, the federal has no business meddling.

Social security was established during the Depression as a means of handling a crisis, a crisis which has been over for some time. Now, what social services has done is tell you how to raise you kid (Nope, sorry, can't spank the child, oh, and he'll need a whole separate room, even though you can't afford it), hand you a crutch that many cannot shake off in the form of welfare, and otherwise create a complete cluster fuck of welfare. Way to go with that one.

Free legal services are neither conservative nor liberal, so that point's just moot. We've had that as long as we've had regular laws in this country, prior to the creation of either party.

[midcan5]

DragonStryk72,

If Bush were a liberal I would hope he would not be so secretive. But calling Bush a liberal is like calling Genghis Khan peaceful. And I look at social security and welfare as two of the great things people do for each other. A Christian thing too.

Yes, Bush was a bit of cipher but still the record he had was not one I would vote for as a liberal, and I do vote republican if I think the person is better. And you note one key reason he was elected, he was one of the guys, a very bad criterion for president as it turned out.

No, free speech is like all rights there are limits, not hard to think of many. Free speech in the constitutional sense is closer to information than mindless, loud beach vulgarity.

Red state blue is an idiotic media label, both contain good people - and not so good people.

Guns regulation is simple and as a civilized nation I'm clueless why we even argue it.

My fault with the election is it seems for the American electorate negative crap works. It is actually mentioned over and over again that Obama is too passive in the face of Hillary's campaign viciousness. But if you are running for office, Rove-ian tactics work, look what they did to McCain in 2000.

Your next post:

We can debate any which way you like, but Kathianne asked something of me and my moderator told me I was on this side of the issue. lol It's your duty to defend conservatism and if the only way you can do it is by criticizing liberals that's a weak argument. But that was going to be my next C post. Instead let me link to a piece I wrote long ago. And bad words from the right are hot and heavy, you should see my neg rep comments. So long as I read the negative posts that are so prevalent on this site concerning liberals I will throw stones (reasoned arguments) back.

http://www.politicalpass.com/2005/09/what-is-a-conservative/

Your last post:

Examples of the squashing of free press and free ideas are pretty obvious, what happens is a story is considered controversial so the messenger is shot, that happened in the outing of the CIA agent because the information was questioned. Another example that surprised me was banishment of the Reagan documentary to cable. These squash dissent, an American trait.

Gay marriage is not a BS issue for gays, when you have spent a life living with someone and the constitution and its law treat you different than a married couple that is discrimination and unequal treatment under law.

Abortion was argued on privacy and on individuals rights, that would be federal to me and not a state issue.

Social security has done more good for American citizens than anything since the founders wrote that document and granted freedom to all. In many case it provides a means to live out life in comfort. If heaven exists FDR has a high place on what that single idea accomplished.

Legal service is true, but the ACLU and other lawyers do pro bono work that keeps the bad guys of government and business away from your door.

[midcan5]

I suppose so. I mean I can see how you are trying to flatter the monkey and all but I am not sure how that makes you look good.

Was that nice, monkeys deserve an apology.

[midcan5]

Thanks for answering the question though, you do think government belongs in the minutia of our lives and businesses.

The problem that separates us is I see government as arm and reflection of its citizens and as such as a regulator and support for good things.


We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.


"The unity of Government, which constitutes you one people, is also now dear to you. It is justly so; for it is a main pillar in the edifice of your real independence, the support of your tranquillity at home, your peace abroad; of your safety; of your prosperity; of that very Liberty, which you so highly prize. But as it is easy to foresee, that, from different causes and from different quarters, much pains will be taken, many artifices employed, to weaken in your minds the conviction of this truth; as this is the point in your political fortress against which the batteries of internal and external enemies will be most constantly and actively (though often covertly and insidiously) directed, it is of infinite moment, that you should properly estimate the immense value of your national Union to your collective and individual happiness; that you should cherish a cordial, habitual, and immovable attachment to it; accustoming yourselves to think and speak of it as of the Palladium of your political safety and prosperity; watching for its preservation with jealous anxiety; discountenancing whatever may suggest even a suspicion, that it can in any event be abandoned; and indignantly frowning upon the first dawning of every attempt to alienate any portion of our country from the rest, or to enfeeble the sacred ties which now link together the various parts."

http://www.quotedb.com/speeches/washington-farewell-address

[Kathianne]

Very good quotes, the one made me pine for Schoolhouse Rocks! I am rather partial to these though:


"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it."
Thomas Jefferson, 1791



"Honor, justice, and humanity, forbid us tamely to surrender that freedom which we received from our gallant ancestors, and which our innocent posterity have a right to receive from us."
Thomas Jefferson (Declaration of the Causes and Necessities of Taking up Arms, 6 July 1775)



"It does not take a majority to prevail ... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men."
Samuel Adams "The Father of the American Revolution"

[avatar4321]

You really think government is the solution for unscrupulous businesses? The businesses that 'rip off' employees or customers wouldn't be in business long.

Thanks for answering the question though, you do think government belongs in the minutia of our lives and businesses.

Well when you reject traditional morality and God what is left to inspire people to be honest and do whats right other than fear of government?

[DragonStryk72]

DragonStryk72,

If Bush were a liberal I would hope he would not be so secretive. But calling Bush a liberal is like calling Genghis Khan peaceful. And I look at social security and welfare as two of the great things people do for each other. A Christian thing too.

Did I say he was a liberal? Where exaclty, because my exact quote was "Bush= not conservative. I've never once argued that he is a liberal, just that he isn't conservative.

Yes, Bush was a bit of cipher but still the record he had was not one I would vote for as a liberal, and I do vote republican if I think the person is better. And you note one key reason he was elected, he was one of the guys, a very bad criterion for president as it turned out.

Well, yeah, here were the choices: Bush, who seemed like someone you have a beer with at a tailgate party, and Gore, who thoroughly alienated the regular men and women from him, not on purpose, mind you, but simply because he is just that kind of austere figure. It's off putting, and he could have handled his campaign so much better than he did, by simply using Bush's records against him. Instead, he went for personal attacks that pissed off the majority of people.

No, free speech is like all rights there are limits, not hard to think of many. Free speech in the constitutional sense is closer to information than mindless, loud beach vulgarity.

That limit having been established as screaming fire in a crowded theater, which cussing is certainly not. Is it low class? Certianly, but it's our right to be low class. the government has zero, zip, nada, as far as grounds for it. It is a meaningless bit of law, which isn't even really being enforced. Even the cops are like, "Fuck that!" Because really, we can't stop that convenient store from getting robbed, we've got potty mouths to deal with.

What really sucks is that we're now in signspotting 2, a book of the world's stupidest signs, which is exactly the kind of publicity the beach wants. Oh well, it won't last much longer anyhow, people have started spray painting swear words onto the signs.

Red state blue is an idiotic media label, both contain good people - and not so good people.

Exactly my point, both liberal media and conservative media pound us with this, and frankly, people are listening to it. you can't even pretend it isn't having a divisive effect.

Guns regulation is simple and as a civilized nation I'm clueless why we even argue it.

Again, this is not "regulating", this is "taking", very different terms. The vast majority of crimes are committed with illegal firearms, meaning that getting rid of legal owners of the weapons is entirely counter-productive, stripping the very type of people you want armed, and then, only the people we don't want to get guns have them. We have an inherent right to defend ourselves, period.

It is laid out in the Constitution, via the 2nd Amendment. Guns are already heavily regulated, so now they step up to banning.

My fault with the election is it seems for the American electorate negative crap works. It is actually mentioned over and over again that Obama is too passive in the face of Hillary's campaign viciousness. But if you are running for office, Rove-ian tactics work, look what they did to McCain in 2000.

That's because cage fights get better ratings, which is a process that remains solely in the hands of the people, for better or for worse. We are beginning to learn from it though, so once we finish fucking up all the way to the left, we can get back to the business of actually doing something positive for our country.

You yourself, even, use this, under the guise of "reasonable argument", although apparently, you feel that the only reasonable way is liberal, and that puts us into a direct opposition to you. you cause this unending rhetoric fest, and then wonder why you're getting neg repped. You directly, and knowingly, insulted people. What did you expect would be the occurence? My theory is that you expected exactly what happened, and so, made yourself a troll just to stir shit.

Your next post:

We can debate any which way you like, but Kathianne asked something of me and my moderator told me I was on this side of the issue. lol It's your duty to defend conservatism and if the only way you can do it is by criticizing liberals that's a weak argument. But that was going to be my next C post. Instead let me link to a piece I wrote long ago. And bad words from the right are hot and heavy, you should see my neg rep comments. So long as I read the negative posts that are so prevalent on this site concerning liberals I will throw stones (reasoned arguments) back.

But I haven't, that's my point, most haven't uttered anything against liberals personally, and if you look at your neg reps, you'll likely see that's it mainly the same group of jackasses. that doesn't make them all of us.

Also note that LiberalNation and Gabosaurus both have full positive rep bars, so obviously it's not the being a liberal thing. The blatant trolling may be mor of a factor with you, and the continued insults likely don't help you at all. Your arguments are not, in fact, reasoned arguments, because every time you argue back, you continue to throw crap about conservatives that have been shot down so many times, it defies all reason that you would continue with the slander.

What will it take for you to admit that there is a difference between being a conservative, and being and asshole?
http://www.politicalpass.com/2005/09/what-is-a-conservative/

Your last post:

Examples of the squashing of free press and free ideas are pretty obvious, what happens is a story is considered controversial so the messenger is shot, that happened in the outing of the CIA agent because the information was questioned. Another example that surprised me was banishment of the Reagan documentary to cable. These squash dissent, an American trait.

http://debatepolicy.com/showpost.php?p=69468&postcount=7

This was my statement on the whole CIA thing.

As far as the Reagan documentary, if it had been a ratings grabber, they wouldn't have cared if it had some of the most offensive things ever put to film, they would have put it on. Can you explain South Park, or 90% of the reality shows on tv currently another way?

Gay marriage is not a BS issue for gays, when you have spent a life living with someone and the constitution and its law treat you different than a married couple that is discrimination and unequal treatment under law.

Okay, let's state it this way: I am for gay marriage, my dad is gay, but it is also up to the state as to whether they'll allow it or not. so either, they need to get together the people to change the policy, something you can uniquely do in America, or, if they are not willing to fight for it, then they need to either go where it is legal, or instead, accept it, and move on.

So, what have the liberals done as far as getting gay marriage legalized? I'll save you a trip: They've bitched, pissed, moaned, and done nothing. they have majority control of Congress, going on two years now, and not one promise of theirs at election time has been followed through with.

Abortion was argued on privacy and on individuals rights, that would be federal to me and not a state issue.

Nope, it isn't laid out as the federal's bag, so it isn't. That's the thing about the 10th amendment, it actually forbids the federal from doing alot of things that the liberals could have called Bush 100 times over by now, but haven't. The illegal wiretaps, and the federal department of education are both massive violations of constitutional rights.

I am against abortion in general, but with common sense applied (No woman should have to carry the baby of the man who raped her, or be forced to put her life on the line to have the child.) The problem is that there are a number of women these days that get multiple abortions, and that just hits the point for me where I'm like, "If you don't want a kid, stop fucking around." there's no excuse for it these days, with the sheer width and breadth of birth control options available.

Abortion will always be a charged issue, because there is a life and a soul on the line, but if the people in Montana vote in clear majority that they don't want it, then that is that, it's their choice, just as, if they want it to be legal in New York in clear majority, then that's it, it's legal, period.

Social security has done more good for American citizens than anything since the founders wrote that document and granted freedom to all. In many case it provides a means to live out life in comfort. If heaven exists FDR has a high place on what that single idea accomplished.

Really? have you been through the trailer parks where people are raised on welfare, and end up on welfare themselves? that's really a better life than they could work for themselves? How is getting money from the government freedom for all?

It's not supposed to be used to live out life in comfort, it was supposed to be used as a temp fix, until the person could get on their feet again, not as a complete replacement for working, which it has become in many cases. And you can't tell me that, with all of our technology, that people don't have the ability to work, even with a significant handicap. Even full quadriplegics can work a computer these days, and we're even now developing cybernetic limb replacements.

Legal service is true, but the ACLU and other lawyers do pro bono work that keeps the bad guys of government and business away from your door.

But you must also agree that there are plenty of conservative organization that provide free legal as well.

But there is one great quote that sums up the government, and it is also a great quote on conservatism, "The ten scariest words in the English language are, "I'm with the federal government, and I'm here to help."

;

[Kathianne]

Well when you reject traditional morality and God what is left to inspire people to be honest and do whats right other than fear of government?

The bottom line.

[midcan5]

DragonStryk72, et al

I still disagree but let's just say he is more conservative than liberal. Your argument is countered here:

http://www.brendan-nyhan.com/blog/2006/05/the_bush_is_not.html

But Gore won the popular vote, I actually think he won the election but Florida was so screwed up - bureaucracy cannot do anything right sometimes - Bush was selected, a supreme court action that has caused so many senseless deaths.

Those sort of laws are about community standards, ride the Philly Broad Street subway sometime, unreal the language youth use today. Is it a good thing? I am all for individual freedom but it is downright stupid to me and moves us into a culture of laziness.

Other nations control guns and they are not dictatorships. The 2nd amendment and hand guns is debatable. No one keeps a cannon in their yard. Handguns then are not handguns now. See
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=e8997807-107b-461f-90d2-51a3ef91b508

When I starting posting on line to argue against the influence conservative think tanks, bloggers, and others far right wingnuts have had on this country, I used the label of what I felt was the best political philosophy and idea that has accomplished the most for this country. I am liberal in personality and philosophy and although I realize the bad extremes of the far left I still see it as a corrective, people focused philosophy. We are all conservatives in other ways, but we're not here to sing kumbaya together.

We agree on gay marriage. For congress it is a damned either way sort of dilemma, it is similar to civil rights under Johnson, it may be the right thing to do but it has a lot of controversy surrounding it.

Abortion is tough and I am not for it either, but I do not want to interfere in another's life. There are enough methods to prevent it and I think both education and preventive means should be available to all. But if you don't want the gov telling you what to do why would you want the state telling you what to do?

social security
The lazy like the poor will always be with us, I'm talking about widows, widowers, children, older people who companies went belly up or squandered pension funds. Lay and the Enron people deserve a place in hell for what they did. You do realize you sounded a bit like Reagan there with the job speech. lol

[midcan5]

The bottom line.

Sort of ironic considering Ken Lay and others who rob and steal and still find church a place to be on Sundays.

[Kathianne]

Sort of ironic considering Ken Lay and others who rob and steal and still find church a place to be on Sundays.

I've never disagreed with people that see that type of hypocrisy, just like the warning of the dangers of walking in the parking lot of a church after the service is over.

What happened to Enron?

[avatar4321]

Sort of ironic considering Ken Lay and others who rob and steal and still find church a place to be on Sundays.

I see. So you dont really have a response so you bring up something that has nothing to do with the conversation.

[midcan5]

I see. So you dont really have a response so you bring up something that has nothing to do with the conversation.

Extrapolate. Church is full of sinners, that sure as hell (PI) is a not a sure fire place for finding morality.

"You might go to church
And sit down in a pew
Those humans who ain't human
Could be sittin' right next to you
They talk about your family
They talk about your clothes
When they don't know their own ass
From their own elbows

Jealousy and stupidity
Don't equal harmony
Jealousy and stupidity
Don't equal harmony"

John Prine
Some humans ain't human

[Kathianne]

Midcam totally ignoring my post about long term problems of those that treat their employees, stockholders poorly. Bottom line, the company will suffer.

[DragonStryk72]

DragonStryk72, et al

I still disagree but let's just say he is more conservative than liberal. Your argument is countered here:

http://www.brendan-nyhan.com/blog/2006/05/the_bush_is_not.html

So.... your counter is, 'he's a conservative cause he said so?'. also, as the article mentions liberals employing a similar tactic. Maybe, instead of it being a tactic, it might just be the way they actually look at it, for both sides. I know, crazy assumption, that a group can define for itself what constitutes gross and repeated violations of the beliefs they were founded, but what're you gonna do?

Also, by your supposition here, it takes nothing more to be liberal than to say, "I am a liberal". You need not support any liberal policy, and may instead uphold all the tenants of conservatism, but since you say you're liberal, you are, and no amount of other liberals saying you aren't one matters. I prefer to think that the words have a degree of meaning to them.

Now, yes, people did throw alot of extra support Bush's way, and we can thank the paranoia after 9/11, combined with a purposeful use of fear-mongering, as to how that crap flew for so long. We all wanted to believe that we were doing the right thing, that Bush was just the leader we needed, and people held onto that long after it had turned to dust. That, however, is a function of base humanity, and not one of being conservative or not.

But Gore won the popular vote, I actually think he won the election but Florida was so screwed up - bureaucracy cannot do anything right sometimes - Bush was selected, a supreme court action that has caused so many senseless deaths.

Hold on, there a moment. Gore stepped down on that one. He had the chance to appeal, and chose not to. As well, they did as many recounts as they possibly could have done, with us halfway through December before we had a firm, "this is the president" decision.

I do agree, though, bureaucracy can do almost nothing right, and that is the beginning of the conservative doctrine. The government is only good at a few very specific things, where it excels, and pooches the whole deal on everything else that it attempts.

Those sort of laws are about community standards, ride the Philly Broad Street subway sometime, unreal the language youth use today. Is it a good thing? I am all for individual freedom but it is downright stupid to me and moves us into a culture of laziness.

Now, tagging is illegal, although I think the tagging of the signs is more statement in this instance, but it's your right to be lazy, or to strive. That, again, is not up to the government.

Other nations control guns and they are not dictatorships. The 2nd amendment and hand guns is debatable. No one keeps a cannon in their yard. Handguns then are not handguns now. See
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=e8997807-107b-461f-90d2-51a3ef91b508

It isn't a matter of dictatorship, when I did say that? I said that taking away legal handguns strips them only from the people who we want to have them. The movement to ban handguns means stripping them from law-abiding gun owners. This is a direct violation of the 2nd amendment, plain and simple.

we are also not England, France, Spain, or Australia, unless I've been very confuse, we are the United States of America, and so, their way doesn't work for us. Kind of like how trying to run a Mustang on a Geo Metro's engine won't work.

When I starting posting on line to argue against the influence conservative think tanks, bloggers, and others far right wingnuts have had on this country, I used the label of what I felt was the best political philosophy and idea that has accomplished the most for this country. I am liberal in personality and philosophy and although I realize the bad extremes of the far left I still see it as a corrective, people focused philosophy. We are all conservatives in other ways, but we're not here to sing kumbaya together.

But yet you perpetuate this idea that something is inherently "wrong" with conservatives by the very threads you post, which is then used as foddered by the "wingnuts" you mention. Ann Coulter is helping to ruin america, but then, Michael Moore is doing it just as much, by throwing gasoline on the flames.

I know you don't see it like that, but it is, in fact, the way that it comes across.

We agree on gay marriage. For congress it is a damned either way sort of dilemma, it is similar to civil rights under Johnson, it may be the right thing to do but it has a lot of controversy surrounding it.

For now, however, there are civil unions that are already available. I think we need to get past some other issues before we can really take care of gay marriage.

Abortion is tough and I am not for it either, but I do not want to interfere in another's life. There are enough methods to prevent it and I think both education and preventive means should be available to all. But if you don't want the gov telling you what to do why would you want the state telling you what to do?

Simple point: My sister is more in tune with what is going on in Brooklyn, why? Because she lives there, and I live in Virginia. If the state wants to allow abortion, or stop it, or any point in between, then it should be the people of that state who decide, not Washington DC deciding things for California.

social security
The lazy like the poor will always be with us, I'm talking about widows, widowers, children, older people who companies went belly up or squandered pension funds. Lay and the Enron people deserve a place in hell for what they did. You do realize you sounded a bit like Reagan there with the job speech. lol

Sounding like Reagan or not, it's still correct. I would rather be accused of assuming people as having too much ability than too little.

Now, here's the problem: Whenever the conservatives try any cutback, however minor, to social security, say, to stop paying the lazy, so that the people who genuinely need can get it, we can absolutely crapped on by the liberals, who swear up and down we are going to throw widows and orphans out on their ass.

Yes, Someone need to take hard responsibility for Enron, I don't disagree with that one at all.

;

[PostmodernProphet]

Church is full of sinners

/shrugs....as is every other "place" in the world....that is one of the fundamental teachings of the religion......


that sure as hell (PI) is a not a sure fire place for finding morality

how many other "places" in the world even attempt to outline morality?......in fact where else is it even discussed publicly?......

[avatar4321]

Extrapolate. Church is full of sinners, that sure as hell (PI) is a not a sure fire place for finding morality.

"You might go to church
And sit down in a pew
Those humans who ain't human
Could be sittin' right next to you
They talk about your family
They talk about your clothes
When they don't know their own ass
From their own elbows

Jealousy and stupidity
Don't equal harmony
Jealousy and stupidity
Don't equal harmony"

John Prine
Some humans ain't human

if you cant find morality in Church than you arent looking or you arent at the right Church.

You seem to be under the impression that if people aren't perfect in every part they can't be moral. This conclusion is false. Indeed, it's the imperfect people that make the Church useful. Without them the goal of perfecting the Saints would be rather pointless.

The healthy don't need the doctor, the sick do. And that's what faith is all about. Its about healing our heart and souls and building us into stronger people through the Atonement of Christ. We learn to overlook each others weaknesses and they do the same. We learn to be humble, united, and full of charity towards our fellow man.

The wisdom and morality of faith is obvious. The knowledge of thousands of years of human behavior is a guide for us today to learn from. Hence the scriptures where we can learn the mistakes of our fathers so we don't repeat them. And we can learn the source of their salvation.

[DragonStryk72]

if you cant find morality in Church than you arent looking or you arent at the right Church.

You seem to be under the impression that if people aren't perfect in every part they can't be moral. This conclusion is false. Indeed, it's the imperfect people that make the Church useful. Without them the goal of perfecting the Saints would be rather pointless.

The healthy don't need the doctor, the sick do. And that's what faith is all about. Its about healing our heart and souls and building us into stronger people through the Atonement of Christ. We learn to overlook each others weaknesses and they do the same. We learn to be humble, united, and full of charity towards our fellow man.

The wisdom and morality of faith is obvious. The knowledge of thousands of years of human behavior is a guide for us today to learn from. Hence the scriptures where we can learn the mistakes of our fathers so we don't repeat them. And we can learn the source of their salvation.

heck, the Saints were in many instances horrendously flawed individuals themselves.

[midcan5]

Midcam totally ignoring my post about long term problems of those that treat their employees, stockholders poorly. Bottom line, the company will suffer.

There are a few answers to that comment. First very often they do not suffer, do you think the Walton's cry at night over the billions they earn on poor American wages and buying Chinese junk only because it is cheap? And since I have lived in corporate America a good deal of my life, outsourcing of American jobs only means the top sucks more money out of the company and are actually praised for cutting costs. American business after WWII had a soul (conscience) for a while, good work conditions, pensions, healthcare, all came along with the job, a situation only the Japanese and some European countries still maintain. They lost their soul when the bottom line became all that mattered and buyout and corrupt management made economic darwinism and supply side nonsense, the key business principles.

More of the same McSame.

http://www.counterpunch.org/fantina05032008.html

"The Republican nominee also went off the boards when commenting about Senator Barack Obama’s economic policies. Mr. McCain needs to tread carefully in economic waters, since by his own admission he finds them somewhat muddy. He has recently proposed suspending the gas tax over the summer months, to give “low-income Americans…a little bit of relief so they can travel a little further and a little longer, and maybe have a little bit of money left over to enjoy some other things in their lives.”

The senator from Arizona does not seem to realize that low-income Americans are not looking to take longer road trips. Rather, they are striving to hold onto their homes, put food on their tables, and provide health care for their families. Many such Americans live in cities and rely on public transportation, and either don’t have, or seldom use, cars. Many of the middle-class suburban families who would normally take road trips are busy watching each penny as they cling to their middle-class status and strive not to join the ranks of the working (or unemployed) poor. But Mr. McCain, flying about the country on his wife’s corporate jet, dispensing his good will to the crowds he addresses as ‘my friends,’ seems unaware of their plight. But his concern for corporate profits is not so unclear; he would make permanent Mr. Bush’s tax cuts for them and the wealthy."

[DragonStryk72]

There are a few answers to that comment. First very often they do not suffer, do you think the Walton's cry at night over the billions they earn on poor American wages and buying Chinese junk only because it is cheap?

Ah good, quick point: Wal-Mart pays more than any retail store, hands down. year of me working there, started at 7.50, year and a half later, 12.25 an hour. Not that bad, given I had no previous experience for photo lab. As for the other parts, they've already been answered

And since I have lived in corporate America a good deal of my life, outsourcing of American jobs only means the top sucks more money out of the company and are actually praised for cutting costs. American business after WWII had a soul (conscience) for a while, good work conditions, pensions, healthcare, all came along with the job, a situation only the Japanese and some European countries still maintain. They lost their soul when the bottom line became all that mattered and buyout and corrupt management made economic darwinism and supply side nonsense, the key business principles.

You know, you don't have to buy their shit, then. You could just shop at retailers you approve of, but yeah, obviously it must be evil corporation, not that people simply want the cheapest price for goods. I mean, it would be just plain crazy if people controlled the market, I mean, then it would be a free market economy, and who knows where that'll lead.

Maybe if some of these other stores would simply lower their prices (another crazy thought), and stopped with stupid, gimmicky cards that don't really save you anything, and the advertising that goes with them, then just maybe, they could simply compete with other businesses, and Wal-Mart wouldn't be it's nice cushy place.

More of the same McSame.

http://www.counterpunch.org/fantina05032008.html

"The Republican nominee also went off the boards when commenting about Senator Barack Obama’s economic policies. Mr. McCain needs to tread carefully in economic waters, since by his own admission he finds them somewhat muddy. He has recently proposed suspending the gas tax over the summer months, to give “low-income Americans…a little bit of relief so they can travel a little further and a little longer, and maybe have a little bit of money left over to enjoy some other things in their lives.”

The senator from Arizona does not seem to realize that low-income Americans are not looking to take longer road trips. Rather, they are striving to hold onto their homes, put food on their tables, and provide health care for their families. Many such Americans live in cities and rely on public transportation, and either don’t have, or seldom use, cars. Many of the middle-class suburban families who would normally take road trips are busy watching each penny as they cling to their middle-class status and strive not to join the ranks of the working (or unemployed) poor. But Mr. McCain, flying about the country on his wife’s corporate jet, dispensing his good will to the crowds he addresses as ‘my friends,’ seems unaware of their plight. But his concern for corporate profits is not so unclear; he would make permanent Mr. Bush’s tax cuts for them and the wealthy."

you do realize we have the second highest business taxes world-wide, right? and that's not a good thing.

Yes, the gas tax cut is a gimmick, rather a liberal gimmick, since now we've got Hilary jumping onto that bandwagon. Obama was right in his figure that it would save all of $28 dollars (Well, not me, but then, I ride my bike, so I'm saving way more than that), and where does that money come from then? McCain talks about spending cuts, though not about what would get cut (about 100% proof positive that there will be no true spending cuts), and Hilary seems to think that if we tax the oil companies, that they will simply eat it, instead of simply raising the price even more to compensate their loss, because if anything, the oil companies have been characterized by their poor business acumen, and not-for-profit status.

But, regardless, it's a gimmick for votes, something Hilary can flaunt that she supports that Obama does not, and it doesn't seem to matter that she is pissing off the group that already voted for her. thankfully, though, we're getting to a point of being just cynical enough to decide that they're all full of shit.



;

[midcan5]

Wal-mart is a predatory company in the same sense that Microsoft is, 7.50 is poverty and 12.50 may be alright in some areas of the country but not many unless you are living with ma and pa. Could you raise a family on those wages would be the question. I have never shopped in wal-mart - never will, so the other retailers are getting that business.

There are not a lot of options for alternate companies and purchasing, although I do make an effort to buy American and only own American cars, bikes but not much else(?). The trouble today is China's cheap labor does everything from yarn to furniture to toys to you name it.

I know this will piss you off, but I saw it today and fits into my initial criticisms of conservatism.

"And conservatives learn these messages when still young. What does a “campus liberal” do? Well, it depends what his or her issue is: fighting sweatshop labor, or environmental degradation, or the Iraq war, or any of a dozen other problems about which liberals are concerned. What, on the other hand, does a “campus conservative” do? Fight liberals and liberalism."

http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2006/07/12/its_the_conservatism_stupid.php

[avatar4321]

yeah cause walmart just forces people to shop there...

[DragonStryk72]

Wal-mart is a predatory company in the same sense that Microsoft is, 7.50 is poverty and 12.50 may be alright in some areas of the country but not many unless you are living with ma and pa. Could you raise a family on those wages would be the question. I have never shopped in wal-mart - never will, so the other retailers are getting that business.

That 7.50 was with no experience at all, I have never even been in a dark room before going to the photo lab. What the hell kind of wage are you expecting? But you're right, and that's why the wages are different depending on where you are at, since obviously it is more expensive to live in NYC than it is to live in Newport News, VA. Will it always be the best paycheck? No, of course not, and I dare you to find one company that, at entry level, with no job or college experience is paying 7.50 an hour, full-time with full benefits, 401k, a Management in Training available to all after 6 months, raises every few months or so, and profit-sharing.

Yes, Pharm Techs get paid more starting, but then that's more specialized, requiring actual college to do. The average wage for a Wal-Mart employee is 10.51 an hour. It's retail, what precisely are you expecting?

Or are you talking about the ones that have been there 10+, never made even a single move to try and advance themselves (You pretty much have to choose not to advance at Wal-Mart if you stay there for any length of time), and bitch constantly about their job? Well, they exist everywhere, and yeah, they've earned their lousy paycheck.

There are not a lot of options for alternate companies and purchasing, although I do make an effort to buy American and only own American cars, bikes but not much else(?). The trouble today is China's cheap labor does everything from yarn to furniture to toys to you name it.

Right, and unless you make 50k plus, which would be only half of the country, you cannot afford the American made products to cover everything, or on any regular basis, because the companies that make them refuse to compete with one another.

Let's take a look at Barnes & Noble and Borders, for instance. Now, both are bookstores, and have their various marketing points that they use, with Barnes & Noble has that $25 dollar a year discount program (Which, at 10% will only cost you $250 a year in books to make back), while at borders, they have the borders rewards program. Now, this said, neither company actually makes any attempt to lower its overall prices. Yes, they run sales, and pump ad campaigns for their cards, and various little maneuvers, but the prices remain the same, when they could do vastly better if they would simply drop the ad campaigns, and just drop the prices.

It isn't China's fault that they have cheaper labor costs than we do here, they have a vastly lower cost of living, and standardly, do not have homes nearly the same size as we go for. We continue raising the minimum wage, but that never helps, because it only drives the costs up of employing people, and thus, the costs of goods and services, and then the politicians hop up, talking about raising the minimum wage.Then of course, there is the added fun that, when the wage goes up, more companies will go overseas. Obviously, gviing everybody more money is not the answer.

I know this will piss you off, but I saw it today and fits into my initial criticisms of conservatism.

"And conservatives learn these messages when still young. What does a “campus liberal” do? Well, it depends what his or her issue is: fighting sweatshop labor, or environmental degradation, or the Iraq war, or any of a dozen other problems about which liberals are concerned. What, on the other hand, does a “campus conservative” do? Fight liberals and liberalism."

http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2006/07/12/its_the_conservatism_stupid.php

Ah yes, another 'you're a Conservative, evil evil, article. I'll skip this one thanks, seeing as not once have I used an anti-liberal argument or article against you. You however, seem to require that crutch to back you up.

Liberals are just as guilty as conservatives of going after the other just because they are the "enemy", so your argument is a flat one before it even gets out the door. One need only look at the Liberal leadership currently vying for the top spot to see that. Rather than run a clean campaign, with restrained funding so that they can focus on McCain, both Hilary and Obama are expending every dime they've got to rip into each other.... and they're on the same side.

that of course is an unfair assessment, because it is patently obvious that this is not representative of liberalism as a whole, but then, again, that is part of my point. You keep using unfair assessments of conservative, then find a pundit who completely agrees with you to back it up. I suppose I could throw Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, or Ann Coulter back at you, but pundits are just talking heads, so I see no redeeming quality to that in honest debate

;

[midcan5]

DragonStryk72, Sorry but my posts are not directed at you, they are directed at a mindset that is extremely evident on debatepolicy. I hate to say it but we would argue but in the end be friends on the opposite end of many things, but since liberal has been made a bad word, I will continue to defend it by a counter offensive.

OT
Books are priced ridiculous, I sometimes use Alibris or the used book sections of Amazon. I love philosophy but the cost borders on robbery. Our children know I love books so they get me gift cards to those retail shops. Barnes and Noble is often packed in spite of cost, they have become the libraries of the current times. Living in the city and starting out in a union my view of wages is probably in a certain sense unrealistic but at the same time I don't think of myself, I made it Ok, but if we are to have a great country all need that opportunity.

[Kathianne]

DragonStryk72, Sorry but my posts are not directed at you, they are directed at a mindset that is extremely evident on debatepolicy. I hate to say it but we would argue but in the end be friends on the opposite end of many things, but since liberal has been made a bad word, I will continue to defend it by a counter offensive.

OT
Books are priced ridiculous, I sometimes use Alibris or the used book sections of Amazon. I love philosophy but the cost borders on robbery. Our children know I love books so they get me gift cards to those retail shops. Barnes and Noble is often packed in spite of cost, they have become the libraries of the current times. Living in the city and starting out in a union my view of wages is probably in a certain sense unrealistic but at the same time I don't think of myself, I made it Ok, but if we are to have a great country all need that opportunity.

Get a Kindle. Not so out of line for books. Odds are tech books will be there next year.

[DragonStryk72]

DragonStryk72, Sorry but my posts are not directed at you, they are directed at a mindset that is extremely evident on debatepolicy. I hate to say it but we would argue but in the end be friends on the opposite end of many things, but since liberal has been made a bad word, I will continue to defend it by a counter offensive.

And thus, you only make yourself a part of the problem, again. How many times have I said that now? Yes, there are those that are just talking smack, and I invite you to take them to task for it, by all means. but you aren't doing that, you are going after conservatives, and that includes people like myself, Hobbit, and 5string. You cannot use that wide a brush without hitting us, because we are a part of that movement you've decided to attack, we are conservatives, we just know how to be so without shoving our head up our ass.

Go after the targets that have committed these fouls, by all means, but leave convservatism itself out of it. They are two different subjects.

OT
Books are priced ridiculous, I sometimes use Alibris or the used book sections of Amazon. I love philosophy but the cost borders on robbery. Our children know I love books so they get me gift cards to those retail shops. Barnes and Noble is often packed in spite of cost, they have become the libraries of the current times. Living in the city and starting out in a union my view of wages is probably in a certain sense unrealistic but at the same time I don't think of myself, I made it Ok, but if we are to have a great country all need that opportunity.

because they have 30% off bestsellers, and new releases, much like Borders. They aren't competing for better sale prices, they just have flashy sale stickers. Now, if a bookstore opened in the area with the plan to undercut them both, then you would see some real crap start up.

Right, opportunity, that's great, but that's only the chance to make a bigger wage, not an enforced right to them. No one should be going into Wal-Mart going, "Oh yeah, I'm making the Big Bucks now". It just isn't the way it's going to go. You really want to help, improve the cost of living by getting rid of government pork, along with the wasteful programs that really are more hinder than help. When the cost of living lowers, the prices lower, it's just that simple.

I'm not saying that unions don't have a purpose, but they do not have a purpose all of the time, and many unions now are simply trying for raise after raise, in order to look like they're helping. In truth, they are not, instead they are feeding into a further increase in poverty, as costs continue to rise because of them.

[namvet]

Is conservatism a choice?

This controversy has often puzzled me and there does not seem to be enough scientific information to decide one way or the other. If conservatism is genetic then our hopes for a free, generous, well adjusted, fair society are constantly in jeopardy. Characteristics:

* Fear and aggression
* Dogmatism and intolerance of ambiguity
* Uncertainty avoidance
* Need for cognitive closure
* Terror management

So the question I want to ask here of the conservatives, do you think you chose this way of life or was it inherited and you have always been this way?

http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2003/07/22_politics.shtml

PS I wasn't sure whether to place this thread in Religion/Ethics as controversial topics such as this have a greater impact on the type of society we have than even homosexuality.

and a liberal camp like berkelery would know............right??? bogus text

[midcan5]

and a liberal camp like berkelery would know............right??? bogus text

Welcome. Maybe instead of conservative we need words like 'Authoritarian personality' to describe these character traits. That's what Adorno called it when they studied Fascism in Germany after the war. The characteristics above just fit far right wingnuts too. John Dean, a republican, describes the same characteristics in 'conservatives without conscience.'


"If you think the United States could never elect an Adolf Hitler to power, note that David Duke would have become governor of Louisiana if it had just been up to the white voters in that state." Robert Altemeyer

[manu1959]

Welcome. Maybe instead of conservative we need words like 'Authoritarian personality' to describe these character traits. That's what Adorno called it when they studied Fascism in Germany after the war. The characteristics above just fit far right wingnuts too. John Dean, a republican, describes the same characteristics in 'conservatives without conscience.'

"If you think the United States could never elect an Adolf Hitler to power, note that David Duke would have become governor of Louisiana if it had just been up to the white voters in that state." Robert Altemeyer

fascisim is on the left in the political spectrum.....

[Kathianne]

fascisim is on the left in the political spectrum.....

I agree and the evidence continues to mount.

[actsnoblemartin]

whats wrong with your local library or amazon.com or ebay.com?


DragonStryk72, Sorry but my posts are not directed at you, they are directed at a mindset that is extremely evident on debatepolicy. I hate to say it but we would argue but in the end be friends on the opposite end of many things, but since liberal has been made a bad word, I will continue to defend it by a counter offensive.

OT
Books are priced ridiculous, I sometimes use Alibris or the used book sections of Amazon. I love philosophy but the cost borders on robbery. Our children know I love books so they get me gift cards to those retail shops. Barnes and Noble is often packed in spite of cost, they have become the libraries of the current times. Living in the city and starting out in a union my view of wages is probably in a certain sense unrealistic but at the same time I don't think of myself, I made it Ok, but if we are to have a great country all need that opportunity.

[midcan5]

Get a Kindle. Not so out of line for books. Odds are tech books will be there next year.

But there is something about having a book, holding a book, I keep many although the local library has most. Can you keep them on that thing? or move them to a database file for future reference?

[midcan5]

fascisim is on the left in the political spectrum.....

I always find it funny that conservatives deny fascism as their extreme. We liberals on the other hand recognize that the idea that the individual freed of the chains of capitalism will not somehow transcend history and create a egalitarian, communal heaven. What ends up happening is some crazy dictator decides he knows best and his consciousness is best. Mao is best example, Stalin in the end was a brutal dictator. What were Khrushchev? or Yeltsin, or Gorbachev? What is China today, where your favorite corporate love buys your cheap stuff?

Why do righties not recognize that tradition, nation and corporatism and the abandonment of the individual to the state do not create a noble imperialism. A nation so moral and pure that the minorities have no right to this fine imperial world? Change and respect, tolerance these things are needed and they are why fascism is of the right.

Hierarchy distinguishes clearly conservatives from liberal. It is logically impossible to be an egalitarian hierarchist. Thus liberal can no more be fascist than the conservative can be egalitarian.


Ten Conservative Principles by Russell Kirk

First, the conservative believes that there exists an enduring moral order. That order is made for man, and man is made for it: human nature is a constant, and moral truths are permanent.

Second, the conservative adheres to custom, convention, and continuity. It is old custom that enables people to live together peaceably; the destroyers of custom demolish more than they know or desire. It is through convention—a word much abused in our time—that we contrive to avoid perpetual disputes about rights and duties: law at base is a body of conventions. Continuity is the means of linking generation to generation; it matters as much for society as it does for the individual; without it, life is meaningless. When successful revolutionaries have effaced old customs, derided old conventions, and broken the continuity of social institutions—why, presently they discover the necessity of establishing fresh customs, conventions, and continuity; but that process is painful and slow; and the new social order that eventually emerges may be much inferior to the old order that radicals overthrew in their zeal for the Earthly Paradise."

The Russell Kirk Center for Cultural Renewal.
http://www.kirkcenter.org/kirk/ten-principles.html

[namvet]

I always find it funny that conservatives deny fascism as their extreme. We liberals on the other hand recognize that the idea that the individual freed of the chains of capitalism will not somehow transcend history and create a egalitarian, communal heaven. What ends up happening is some crazy dictator decides he knows best and his consciousness is best. Mao is best example, Stalin in the end was a brutal dictator. What were Khrushchev? or Yeltsin, or Gorbachev? What is China today, where your favorite corporate love buys your cheap stuff?

Why do righties not recognize that tradition, nation and corporatism and the abandonment of the individual to the state do not create a noble imperialism. A nation so moral and pure that the minorities have no right to this fine imperial world? Change and respect, tolerance these things are needed and they are why fascism is of the right.

Hierarchy distinguishes clearly conservatives from liberal. It is logically impossible to be an egalitarian hierarchist. Thus liberal can no more be fascist than the conservative can be egalitarian.


Ten Conservative Principles by Russell Kirk

First, the conservative believes that there exists an enduring moral order. That order is made for man, and man is made for it: human nature is a constant, and moral truths are permanent.

Second, the conservative adheres to custom, convention, and continuity. It is old custom that enables people to live together peaceably; the destroyers of custom demolish more than they know or desire. It is through convention—a word much abused in our time—that we contrive to avoid perpetual disputes about rights and duties: law at base is a body of conventions. Continuity is the means of linking generation to generation; it matters as much for society as it does for the individual; without it, life is meaningless. When successful revolutionaries have effaced old customs, derided old conventions, and broken the continuity of social institutions—why, presently they discover the necessity of establishing fresh customs, conventions, and continuity; but that process is painful and slow; and the new social order that eventually emerges may be much inferior to the old order that radicals overthrew in their zeal for the Earthly Paradise."

The Russell Kirk Center for Cultural Renewal.
http://www.kirkcenter.org/kirk/ten-principles.html

What it means to be a liberal
By Geoffrey R. Stone. Geoffrey R. Stone, a law professor at the University of Chicago, is the author of "Perilous Times: Free Speech in Wartime."
Ten liberal Principles

For most of the past four decades, liberals have been in retreat.
source (source)

for me conservs are willing to face problems and fix them. liberals retreat from just everyday problems. they are not born with the 'fix it' gene......but rather the 'complain' gene...........

[DragonStryk72]

I always find it funny that conservatives deny fascism as their extreme. We liberals on the other hand recognize that the idea that the individual freed of the chains of capitalism will not somehow transcend history and create a egalitarian, communal heaven. What ends up happening is some crazy dictator decides he knows best and his consciousness is best. Mao is best example, Stalin in the end was a brutal dictator. What were Khrushchev? or Yeltsin, or Gorbachev? What is China today, where your favorite corporate love buys your cheap stuff?

Why do righties not recognize that tradition, nation and corporatism and the abandonment of the individual to the state do not create a noble imperialism. A nation so moral and pure that the minorities have no right to this fine imperial world? Change and respect, tolerance these things are needed and they are why fascism is of the right.

Hierarchy distinguishes clearly conservatives from liberal. It is logically impossible to be an egalitarian hierarchist. Thus liberal can no more be fascist than the conservative can be egalitarian.


Ten Conservative Principles by Russell Kirk

First, the conservative believes that there exists an enduring moral order. That order is made for man, and man is made for it: human nature is a constant, and moral truths are permanent.

Second, the conservative adheres to custom, convention, and continuity. It is old custom that enables people to live together peaceably; the destroyers of custom demolish more than they know or desire. It is through convention—a word much abused in our time—that we contrive to avoid perpetual disputes about rights and duties: law at base is a body of conventions. Continuity is the means of linking generation to generation; it matters as much for society as it does for the individual; without it, life is meaningless. When successful revolutionaries have effaced old customs, derided old conventions, and broken the continuity of social institutions—why, presently they discover the necessity of establishing fresh customs, conventions, and continuity; but that process is painful and slow; and the new social order that eventually emerges may be much inferior to the old order that radicals overthrew in their zeal for the Earthly Paradise."

The Russell Kirk Center for Cultural Renewal.
http://www.kirkcenter.org/kirk/ten-principles.html

Fascism is neither left nor right. It is the worst possible combination of conservative and liberal points (not values, just points), taken to an insane extreme.

[manu1959]

Fascism is neither left nor right. It is the worst possible combination of conservative and liberal points (not values, just points), taken to an insane extreme.

fascisim is about govt control......there are social, and economic facisits.....in general they put govt before the people ..... i associate that with american dem policies....

this is an interesting analysis that argues both sides...

http://rationalrevolution0.tripod.com/articles/redefining_the_political_spectru.htm

[midcan5]

fascisim is about govt control......there are social, and economic facisits.....in general they put govt before the people ..... i associate that with american dem policies....

this is an interesting analysis that argues both sides...

http://rationalrevolution0.tripod.com/articles/redefining_the_political_spectru.htm

That piece is interesting but calling liberal, post modernism and pro corporation, as he does in summary makes little sense.

"America today can defiantly be described as a post-modernist society. Post-modernism is the essence of Liberal ideology. Post-modernist social Liberalism in America today serves the interests of corporate America and is a product of capitalist culture. Post-modernism is effectively the secular form of anti-Leftism - it is ultimately the true embodiment of post World War II Liberalism. The "conservative" movement in America today is greatly misguided because it aligns itself economically with the interests that contribute to the social conditions that the conservative movement opposes."

He lumps both together in a rather odd way, I am never sure what modernism is or was, and I know what some consider post modernism but I am unsure the words help much in the political sphere. (Be back on this issue.)