What Is A Conservative?

[82Marine89]

I was talking with a friend this week about one of the Republican candidates. He said, “He’s a conservative, but he’s not my kind of conservative.” That got me thinking, “Just what IS a conservative?” And, “Who is conservative enough to get conservatives excited about supporting him in this election?”

In my opinion, Ronald Reagan was the ultimate conservative. If there was a candidate, whether Republican or from a third party, who was half the conservative President Reagan was, he would have my vote. Unfortunately, there is no declared candidate today who could fill even one of The Gipper’s shoes.

So, what is a conservative to do? I have decided who I feel would be the best choice for the Office of the President. But I won’t be discussing that today. Rather, I would like to lay a philosophical foundation for a discussion among conservatives about what it means to be a conservative.

If Ronald Reagan walked among us today, this article would not be necessary. He was conservative in all ways that are important. But it seems today that conservatives have become like doctors. There are few general practitioners. Everyone is a specialist.

A true conservative is conservative in three areas. Not just in his talk, but in his actions. These areas are fiscal, social, and defense.

Fiscal conservatives believe that government is far too involved in every area of our lives, and that the best way to limit government intrusion is to close the purse. Fiscal conservatives want to lower taxes. Reagan never met a tax cut he didn’t like. He saved America from the largest confiscatory abuse by the IRS in history. He forced Congress to lower the highest income tax bracket by over 60%! He was a hero.

Liberals, on the other hand, never met a tax cut they wouldn’t get in bed with. Liberals believe that government should control every aspect of our lives. And they know the best way to do that is to steal our money (liberals call it “fair” taxation) and then give part of it back to us in ways that Big Brother knows will force citizens to behave in ways liberals feel are appropriate. They use money to enslave what used to be a free citizenry.

Social conservatives believe in supporting the great ideas and ideals on which this country was founded. The most important of these are support of the traditional family and respect for life. They support state and federal laws that define marriage as a union between two people, one man and one woman. And they believe in the sanctity of life, including unborn citizens and the elderly.

Liberals want, as a start, full marriage benefits for homosexuals and lesbians. This means that we will all pay higher taxes and insurance rates to support lifestyles that most Americans believe are perverted. But it won’t stop there. Once they get rid of the “man and woman” part of the definition, they will go after the “one” part. They will say, “Who says marriage is only between two people? Why can’t three or four of us marry?” So we will see the government and corporations forced to pay health benefits for three “partners” of one working homosexual. And all of us will pay higher insurance rates and taxes.

And of course, liberals love death. They have preached for decades that the earth is overpopulated. What better way to fix that than to kill babies and old people who are no longer “productive”? Have you ever heard a Democrat or liberal protest China’s “One Child” policy? They love it. A couple has to have a government license to have a child. If they have a second child, it is killed. Liberals are more efficient here. They kill the babies before they are born – hundreds of thousands of them each year. And of course it was liberals who supported “Doctor” Jack Kevorkian, the famous purveyor of “euthanasia” (another practice popular in totalitarian regimes). Their idea is that if they’re too old or sick to be productive, kill ‘em. Right now, they person to be “euthanized” (that sounds so much nicer than “murdered”, doesn’t it?) has to agree. But mark my words. If the liberals get the laws they want, “euthanasia” will be expanded to included people who don’t want to be dead.

Finally, there are defense conservatives. These are the people who have for decades fought the Democrats’ attempts to weaken our national defense and cut the defense budget. They understand that as the world’s sole remaining Super Power, we are the target of the hatred of terrorists from abroad and liberals from within. (Yes, the liberals hate America. Don’t listen to their words – watch their actions.) Defense conservatives understand that without a strong military this country will quickly become a place that none of us would want to live in (if we are even allowed to live). They also understand that we must have strong immigration and homeland security laws or we will be destroyed from within.

Liberals believe in one-world government. “We are the world, we are the children.” Id we are all one people, why do we need all those noisy guns and airplanes? They are actually stupid enough to believe that if we lay down our weapons, all the meglomaniacs in the world will do the same. They can’t grasp the concept that there are hundreds of thousands of people in the world that would do anything in their power (including blowing themselves up) to ensure that every American dies. I heard America’s Number One Liberal, Rosie O’Donnell, say, “Christian fundamentalists are just as dangerous as Muslim fundamentalists.” (Hillary used to hold this title, but she moved to America’s Number Two Liberal with this idiotic statement by Rosie.) I would like to think that this is the way just one total lunatic thinks, but unfortunately she speaks for thousands of liberals.

So, we have fiscal, social, and defense conservatives. Unfortunately, we have one candidate who is conservative fiscally, but is just as liberal as Obama socially. We have another who is socially conservative, but wants to tax and spend like Hillary.

What’s a real conservative to do? I am praying that another candidate, a true conservative in all the areas that matter, will emerge. There is still plenty of time before the election. There must be a Reagan out there somewhere.

If we are forced to choose from the existing field, we must decide which areas are most important to us. I don’t see anyone who is conservative in all three areas. Hopefully we can find a candidate that is conservative in at least two areas.

I’ll tell you what the deal-breaker is for me. I will vote for a third-party candidate who is socially conservative before I will vote for Rudy. He is pretty conservative in two areas, but the fact that he supports homosexual marriage and baby murder means that he cannot be my candidate.

The most pressing issue in this nation is its moral decline. Yes, defense and taxes are important. But if we have a moral president, he can be convinced to defend the nation and save us from the taxes that are destroying our nation economically and causing the once-strong dollar to decline against world currencies. If we have a president without morals (as we did with Bill Clinton), we can look forward to four years of America losing itself even further.


LINK
(http://www.conservativetruth.org/article.php?id=159)

[bullypulpit]

Look for someone who espouses real conservative ideals as espoused by Barry Goldwater. Limited government, fiscal responsibility, preference for liberty over equality, trust in the institutions laid down in the Constitution. Hell I'd even vote for a conservative who espoused such ideals.

Unfortunately, none of the current crop of "conservative" GOP presidential candidates fit the bill any more than do the Democrats. From what I have seen, conservatism in the state to which, in my opinion, it has devolved, is antithetical to the conservative ideals as voiced by Goldwater. The Bush administration has abandoned any pretense of fiscal responsibility. It has worked to insert the government into the lives of ordinary Americans under the guise of "national security". It regards the institutions established by the Constitution as little more than a hindrance to its accumulation of power in the executive branch. Religious zealots, under the guise of social conservatism, seek to have their peculiar interpretations of their religious dogma codified as law.

America's "moral decline" seems at odds with the majority of Americans claiming to be Christian. But history has shown us that the most decadent societies have been those that openly espouse a religious doctrine while secretly practicing other than what they preach. I would be more worried about the self-proclaimed conservative moralists than I would an agnostic liberal.

That is conservatism in America today...Authoritarian...arrogant...self-righteous, and all the baggage that comes with those flaws.

[Kathianne]

Look for someone who espouses real conservative ideals as espoused by Barry Goldwater. Limited government, fiscal responsibility, preference for liberty over equality, trust in the institutions laid down in the Constitution. Hell I'd even vote for a conservative who espoused such ideals.

Unfortunately, none of the current crop of "conservative" GOP presidential candidates fit the bill any more than do the Democrats. From what I have seen, conservatism in the state to which, in my opinion, it has devolved, is antithetical to the conservative ideals as voiced by Goldwater. The Bush administration has abandoned any pretense of fiscal responsibility. It has worked to insert the government into the lives of ordinary Americans under the guise of "national security". It regards the institutions established by the Constitution as little more than a hindrance to its accumulation of power in the executive branch. Religious zealots, under the guise of social conservatism, seek to have their peculiar interpretations of their religious dogma codified as law.

America's "moral decline" seems at odds with the majority of Americans claiming to be Christian. But history has shown us that the most decadent societies have been those that openly espouse a religious doctrine while secretly practicing other than what they preach. I would be more worried about the self-proclaimed conservative moralists than I would an agnostic liberal.

That is conservatism in America today...Authoritarian...arrogant...self-righteous, and all the baggage that comes with those flaws.
Bully, it's not 1964 for Dems or Reps. There are no Moynihans and there are no Goldwaters.

[bullypulpit]

Bully, it's not 1964 for Dems or Reps. There are no Moynihans and there are no Goldwaters.

Yet we so desperately need them.

[Kathianne]

Yet we so desperately need them.

I don't disagree, just don't see one. Not one.

[glockmail]

@ 82Marine89 You pretty much called it. Wordy, perhaps.

[Classact]

True conservatives have roots in this thought.

Unlike England and the European continent, the main currents of American political thought converged throughout the 19th century into a broad consensus that incorporated economic individualism and constitutional democracy with powerful restraints on the government. This had little in common with the conservative doctrines of Edmund Burke; it was in fact closer to liberalism, with the principles of individual freedom and equality taken as self-evident. Thus, the major characteristics of American conservatism emerged as economic individualism, social Darwinism, and nationalism.Economic individualism accepted the free play of the market and extolled individual acquisitiveness. Individual freedoms and property rights were identified with moral, religious, political, and civil rights. It was assumed that growth, change, and progress derived mainly from individual effort and competition. Wealth was considered proof of a person's natural superiority; poverty connoted moral inadequacy and lack of resourcefulness. What was advocated, then, was capitalism-free of federal controls. Since the "best government" was the one that "governed the least," a great emphasis was placed on separation of powers, judicial review, and states' rights as opposed to federal power.
Social Darwinism transposed Darwin's theory of the "survival of the fittest" from nature to society. Competition for goods, services, wealth, and power was considered natural and therefore necessary. Those who succeeded were supposed to be the fittest. Social Darwinism was also used to justify distinctions among races and among nations as well; some were deemed superior and others inferior.
In the 19th century, American nationalism claimed to have a "manifest destiny" to guide and educate "lesser" peoples in the world. Many conservative intellectuals and political leaders, therefore, favored a colonial policy for the United States.

"Conservatism," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

Conservatives do not celebrate diversity nor disdain it but simply evaluate people by their earned merits. As far a government goes the bold above is the down and dirty of it. Liberals seam to despise nationalism and desire government to level out all shortcomings of citizens while conservatives have compassion for those who try and fail and no compassion for those who lay on their lazy asses.

[theHawk]

Look for someone who espouses real conservative ideals as espoused by Barry Goldwater. Limited government, fiscal responsibility, preference for liberty over equality, trust in the institutions laid down in the Constitution. Hell I'd even vote for a conservative who espoused such ideals.

Unfortunately, none of the current crop of "conservative" GOP presidential candidates fit the bill any more than do the Democrats. From what I have seen, conservatism in the state to which, in my opinion, it has devolved, is antithetical to the conservative ideals as voiced by Goldwater. The Bush administration has abandoned any pretense of fiscal responsibility. It has worked to insert the government into the lives of ordinary Americans under the guise of "national security". It regards the institutions established by the Constitution as little more than a hindrance to its accumulation of power in the executive branch. Religious zealots, under the guise of social conservatism, seek to have their peculiar interpretations of their religious dogma codified as law.

America's "moral decline" seems at odds with the majority of Americans claiming to be Christian. But history has shown us that the most decadent societies have been those that openly espouse a religious doctrine while secretly practicing other than what they preach. I would be more worried about the self-proclaimed conservative moralists than I would an agnostic liberal.

That is conservatism in America today...Authoritarian...arrogant...self-righteous, and all the baggage that comes with those flaws.


So if there is no true conservative to vote for, does that mean we should vote for a liberal like Hillary or Obama?

[PostmodernProphet]

That is conservatism in America today...Authoritarian...arrogant...self-righteous, and all the baggage that comes with those flaws.

omigorsh, he's right...they ARE like Democrats......

[musicman]

Religious zealots, under the guise of social conservatism, seek to have their peculiar interpretations of their religious dogma codified as law.

Examples, please.

[Little-Acorn]

A true conservative is conservative in three areas. Not just in his talk, but in his actions. These areas are fiscal, social, and defense.

There aren't "three areas" to be conservative in, because conservatism is just one idea. It's the idea that government is a necessary evil, with little impetus to do anything well, and should only be given authority to do things that private people or groups CANNOT do. Govt should be no bigger than what it has to be to do those things, period. And the reason govt should be limited to those things, is because ordinary people making their own decisions and learning from their own mistakes, will give a better average performace, and produce more freedom and prosperity for themselves and their society, than any coercive government ever could. A conservative is one who believes that idea.

As I said, government should do only the things that private people or groups CANNOT do themselves. Such things include foreign relations, courts, dispassionate criminal pursuit and prosecution, national defense, and some other such areas - see Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution for a handy list. And those things should be done at the level of government closest to the people themselves where possible. Police and courts should be handled mostly by city and county govts, and state where necessary. There is only a very limited role necessary for the Fed in those areas, which is why there's a lot fewer Fed courts than state or local.

If you think that government can do something BETTER than private people or groups, but that people can still do that thing, then it's something government should stay out of. See "Retirement plans", "Medical insurance", "Unemployment insurance", etc.

Most of today's Republicans (especially those in office or aspiring for same) don't support that idea in many areas. Some liken this to being a little bit pregnant - either you're conservative or you're not. And NO Democrats support it to any degree that I have seen. I'd welcome a correction if anyone can come up with one.

Conservatism manifests itself in two of the three areas you mentioned - fiscal and social. Conservatives approve of taxes only to fund the activities govt MUST do, not the things some people think "it would be nice" for govt to do. Conservatives believe that people - human and flawed though they are - will on average make better decisions on how and what to spend their money on, than government will. And conservatives are very careful to support only things that help human freedom - including the freedom to be stupid, screw up, and learn from the consequences. Only where people's basic rights (life, liberty, property justly acquired, and a few other such) are endangered, do conservatives consider using government to address the problem.

The third area you mentioned - defense - is neither conservative nor liberal. Some of the more liberal leaders we have had recently - FDR, JFK, Nixon, GWB - have been very strong on defense, since they knew it could only be handled one way that would be good for our country, present and future. Only since the 1970s has the bizarre idea crept in that being nice and appeasing to those who wish us harm, would work - an idea tried many times, and repeatedly and consistently refuted by history. That's not conservative or liberal, merely misinformed and wrong.

In a nutshell: A conservative is someone who believes that people are better off handling their own affairs than letting government handle them - except for areas where private individuals or groups CANNOT do the job.

[82Marine89]

I didn't write this. I thought it was a good piece and that it would generate some thought. The author of this piece can be found at the link.

[diuretic]

The author, in seeking to define what a "conservative" is, felt it necessary to make caricatures of what he thought "liberals" are. And his views of "liberals" were cartoonish. Pity, because that sort of portrayal takes away from the effort made to define what a "conservative" is.

A "conservative" doesn't like change, that's what a "conservative" is. Not hard to work that out.

But really, instead of trying to slap a label on things why not just discuss the pros and cons of policy?

[82Marine89]

The author, in seeking to define what a "conservative" is, felt it necessary to make caricatures of what he thought "liberals" are. And his views of "liberals" were cartoonish. Pity, because that sort of portrayal takes away from the effort made to define what a "conservative" is.

A "conservative" doesn't like change, that's what a "conservative" is. Not hard to work that out.

But really, instead of trying to slap a label on things why not just discuss the pros and cons of policy?

Actually a Conservative fights for change. They fight to remove the effects of liberalism from America.


"I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution, or that have failed in their purpose, or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden. I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is 'needed' before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible. And if I should later be attacked for neglecting my constituents' 'interests', I shall reply that I was informed their main interest is liberty and that in that cause I am doing the very best I can."

~Barry Goldwater

[diuretic]

I remember Goldwater, people were shit-scared of him...he looks like a bloody moderate now :laugh2:

But back to the conservative ridding the US of "liberal" effects.

Nah, you mean "reactionary" not "conservative" :coffee:

[JackDaniels]

If you are a true Conservative, you would NEVER vote for the current Republican party. The Republicans are not even close to Conservativism.


Fiscal conservatives believe that government is far too involved in every area of our lives, and that the best way to limit government intrusion is to close the purse.

Government has grown EXPONENTIALLY under GWB. From the 2002 Medicare Bill to NCLB to thousands of unnecessary, federally funded programs, Bush and the 2001-2007 Republican majority in Congress continually increased the power of the leviathan federal government. Always remember, "war is the health of the state"


Liberals believe that government should control every aspect of our lives. And they know the best way to do that is to steal our money (liberals call it “fair” taxation) and then give part of it back to us in ways that Big Brother knows will force citizens to behave in ways liberals feel are appropriate. They use money to enslave what used to be a free citizenry.

Yet Republicans spend just as much as Democrats, they just finance the spending by borrowing it from China.


Social conservatives believe in supporting the great ideas and ideals on which this country was founded. The most important of these are support of the traditional family and respect for life. They support state and federal laws that define marriage as a union between two people, one man and one woman. And they believe in the sanctity of life, including unborn citizens and the elderly.

Only recently has this came into play. Barry Goldwater supported the rights of homosexuals to serve in the military and was pro-choice. Robert Taft, another great Republican, had pro-liberty policy initiatives.


Liberals believe in one-world government.

So do Republicans. From the Security and Prosperity Partnership Of North America to the NAFTA superhighway, Republicans in power clearly want a new world order.

[Psychoblues]

You are a liar or just dumb, 8M9. Conservatives reject change and are set on the old order as they understand it to be. Liberalism is as American as apple pie and the traditionalists (conservatives) can't stand the changes and progressive nature that liberalism represents.



Actually a Conservative fights for change. They fight to remove the effects of liberalism from America.

Every good thing that has ever happened in this country's history has come about by way of popular liberalism. If you have an argument for that observation I would like to hear it.

[glockmail]

If you are a true Conservative, you would NEVER vote for the current Republican party. The Republicans are not even close to Conservativism....... So are you going to vote Democrat?

[82Marine89]

You are a liar or just dumb, 8M9. Conservatives reject change and are set on the old order as they understand it to be. Liberalism is as American as apple pie and the traditionalists (conservatives) can't stand the changes and progressive nature that liberalism represents.


Every good thing that has ever happened in this country's history has come about by way of popular liberalism. If you have an argument for that observation I would like to hear it.

I'll await your list.

[Little-Acorn]

A "conservative" doesn't like change, that's what a "conservative" is. Not hard to work that out.

A hundred-plus years ago when the government actually WAS small and limited and sovereign citizens held great personal responsibility and freedom, the small-government advocates were labelled "conservative", because they seemed to be fighting for defeat changes from this agenda. But in fact, they weren't fighting to stop change - they were pushing for small government and personal responsibility, just as they are today.

Ironically, so-called "liberals" got their label not too long after that, when they started pushing for relaxation of a few of the strict standards government was held to by the Constitution. It didn't take long before they were pushing for much greater change. They pretended they were fighting for the "liberty" to choose one's own course, when in fact their agenda is what led to disobedience of the Constitution and increasing socialism, in which true liberty (freedom from unwanted coercion) is greatly reduced.

Now, the terms "liberal" and "conservative" have each been turned around 180 degrees. Conservatives, pushing for small govt as they always have, are the ones trying to c hange what govt is today, while "liberals" are in fact fighting to reduce liberty and impose their socialistic ideas, which carry the baggage of HEAVY government coercion. In a word, conservatives are trying to change things while today's liberals are fighting against liberty.

Both titles were mild misnomers when they were first assigned. Now they are much farther off the mark.

[Hagbard Celine]

This thread is Horsesh*t. It's an ignorant diatribe about the evils of "libs." Nice try douchebag.

[JimmyAteWorld]

You are a liar or just dumb, 8M9. Conservatives reject change and are set on the old order as they understand it to be. Liberalism is as American as apple pie and the traditionalists (conservatives) can't stand the changes and progressive nature that liberalism represents.




Every good thing that has ever happened in this country's history has come about by way of popular liberalism. If you have an argument for that observation I would like to hear it.

This goes back to the difference between Liberalism and Liberal ideas. A Liberal idea is essentially a radical change. There are many things throughout our history that were brought about by Liberal ideas, but it doesn't mean that modern Liberals or Liberalism had anything to do with their content or success. The very foundation of the country could be considered a Liberal idea as it was certainly a call for radical change. It also doesn't have a damn thing to do with Liberals today or Liberalism in general. The last good idea that came from people considered to be Liberals at the time, I would say, would be giving women the right to vote. That was 1920.

Times change. If we were to get in a time machine and go back to, say, 1875 I would probably be considered quite Liberal, if not radical for the times. The average Liberal today would probably be hanged as a traitor.

What has the modern Liberal given us? Manipulation of the Constitution with broad definitions, more federal control of our every day lives, a public school system that is in shambles, and benefits and programs that give higher priority to people that arn't even citizens.

Forget Liberal ideas that are a century or more old. What good thing has come from Liberalism in our lifetime?

[Little-Acorn]

This thread is Horsesh*t. It's an ignorant diatribe about the evils of "libs." Nice try douchebag.

You can always tell when little haggy doesn't like something but can't refute it. He calls it names, calls the poster names, gives no evidence to support what he says, and uses a lot of profanity.

Happens a lot. :lame2:

[JimmyAteWorld]

This thread is Horsesh*t. It's an ignorant diatribe about the evils of "libs." Nice try douchebag.

That's because the Liberals came in and changed it. :coffee:

[Hagbard Celine]

That's because the Liberals came in and changed it. :coffee:

Nope. The OP is Bullsh*t.

[Hagbard Celine]

That's because the Liberals came in and changed it. :coffee:

Wrong as usual. This thread is nothing more than an excuse for Marine82 to post his ridiculous opinions about "libs." As per the usual, the rest of you cyborgs are slapping him on the back for his "insights." It's disgusting.

[Little-Acorn]

You can always tell when little haggy doesn't like something but can't refute it. He calls it names, calls the poster names, gives no evidence to support what he says, and uses a lot of profanity.



As per the usual, the rest of you cyborgs are slapping him on the back for his "insights."

Poor little haggy also doesn't read very well, does he? :lol: At least on the parts he doesn't want to hear.

[JimmyAteWorld]

Wrong as usual. This thread is nothing more than an excuse for Marine82 to post his ridiculous opinions about "libs." As per the usual, the rest of you cyborgs are slapping him on the back for his "insights." It's disgusting.

How many times do you need to reply to the same post?

First, learn how to take a joke. Second, what if it is an excuse for Marine82? How is that different than the daily threads started by Liberals that are nothing more than rehashed Bush bashing or thinly veiled reasons to post ridiculous opinions about Conservatives and Republicans?

I also didn't slap anybody on the back for anything, but that's neither here nor there.

[Hagbard Celine]

How many times do you need to reply to the same post?

First, learn how to take a joke. Second, what if it is an excuse for Marine82? How is that different than the daily threads started by Liberals that are nothing more than rehashed Bush bashing or thinly veiled reasons to post ridiculous opinions about Conservatives and Republicans?

I also didn't slap anybody on the back for anything, but that's neither here nor there.

Oh no. I'm DEAD serious. I do not have a sense of humor. This thread is crap.

[Little-Acorn]

You can always tell when little haggy doesn't like something but can't refute it. He calls it names, calls the poster names, gives no evidence to support what he says, and uses a lot of profanity.

Happens a lot.


This thread is crap.

See? :lol:


I do not have a sense of humor.
Losers seldom do.

[Hagbard Celine]

See? :lol:


Losers seldom do.

This is weaker than weak. Nice try mo-mo.

[JimmyAteWorld]

Oh no. I'm DEAD serious. I do not have a sense of humor. This thread is crap.

So are most of your posts, but I see no reason to keep pointing it out. Have a nice day.

[Hagbard Celine]

So are most of your posts, but I see no reason to keep pointing it out. Have a nice day.

Oh I will. You can bet on it buster.

[JackDaniels]

So are you going to vote Democrat?

If you use intelligence and reading comprehension, you'd understand nothing in the post even comes close to implying that.

[diuretic]

A hundred-plus years ago when the government actually WAS small and limited and sovereign citizens held great personal responsibility and freedom, the small-government advocates were labelled "conservative", because they seemed to be fighting for defeat changes from this agenda. But in fact, they weren't fighting to stop change - they were pushing for small government and personal responsibility, just as they are today.

So there is a group that wants "small" government, I presume that means they favour limited government. Fair enough, that's a policy position and I suppose a philosophical position. It doesn't need a label slapped on it. Now, on the idea of "personal responsibility" - what does that mean? From my perspective it means that it lines up wiht the idea of limited government by telling people not to rely no government for help if they need it. Again that seems to sit with the idea of limited government. I suppose proponents of that position would argue that government should only concern itself with defence, international trade, law enforcement etc. and the wellbeing of the citizenry shouldn't concern government.



Ironically, so-called "liberals" got their label not too long after that, when they started pushing for relaxation of a few of the strict standards government was held to by the Constitution. It didn't take long before they were pushing for much greater change. They pretended they were fighting for the "liberty" to choose one's own course, when in fact their agenda is what led to disobedience of the Constitution and increasing socialism, in which true liberty (freedom from unwanted coercion) is greatly reduced.[/quoute]

And this is where the label confusion starts. "Liberals" in the classic British sense refer to people such as John Stuart Mill and others who favoured individual freedom and freedom in economic matters. Anyway I understand the American use of the term now, it refers to what might be called "progressives" although that always strikes me as being a bit precious. I take issue with your ideas that they were disobeying the Constitution. I think the social security system was approved by the Supreme Court wasn't it?

[QUOTE=Little-Acorn:]
Now, the terms "liberal" and "conservative" have each been turned around 180 degrees. Conservatives, pushing for small govt as they always have, are the ones trying to c hange what govt is today, while "liberals" are in fact fighting to reduce liberty and impose their socialistic ideas, which carry the baggage of HEAVY government coercion. In a word, conservatives are trying to change things while today's liberals are fighting against liberty.

Both titles were mild misnomers when they were first assigned. Now they are much farther off the mark.

That's the problem with labels isn't it? They lose their nice sharp definition and start becoming blurred and also they get dents in them as we all throw the labels around at each other. Much better to discuss the ideas rather than the labels - as has happened in these couple of posts. The idea you put forward that today's "liberals are fighting against liberty" is a point that would take off in a thread I think, again, much more informed than just exchanging insults about labels I think.

Thanks.

[glockmail]

If you use intelligence and reading comprehension, you'd understand nothing in the post even comes close to implying that.
Either you'll vote for a Dem, toss your vote in the trash for a third party, or stay home. Either way its a vote for a Dem as far as I'm concerned.

[gabosaurus]

A true Conservative wants to return the U.S. to how it was back at the turn of the 20th century -- a great country where all the rules and decisions were made by white American males.
If this board is any indication, we are moving back that way, slowly but surely.

[typomaniac]

Actually, the plagiarism in the OP was - aside from a cartoonish caricature of liberals, as diuretic pointed out - nothing more than a blowjob of Reagan. Ronald Reagan was no fiscal conservative: the mere suggestion is a complete lie. Nor was he all that much of a social conservative, either, considering his multiple marriages and "Hollywood" lifestyle that the holy rollers so love to deride.

[glockmail]

Actually, the plagiarism in the OP was - aside from a cartoonish caricature of liberals, as diuretic pointed out - nothing more than a blowjob of Reagan. Ronald Reagan was no fiscal conservative: the mere suggestion is a complete lie. Nor was he all that much of a social conservative, either, considering his multiple marriages and "Hollywood" lifestyle that the holy rollers so love to deride.
Reagan cut taxes, and that makes him a fiscal conservative. The Democrat Congress spent all the cash that the tax cuts brought in. Reagan did not use his veto power to control that spending, because he had to make deals with the Democrats to get them to increase spending for the military. (Some will argue that W is doing the same deal.)

With regards to his multiple marriages, those occured when he was a Democrat; before he saw the light and joined the GOP.

[typomaniac]

Reagan cut taxes, and that makes him a fiscal conservative. The Democrat Congress spent all the cash that the tax cuts brought in. Reagan did not use his veto power to control that spending, because he had to make deals with the Democrats to get them to increase spending for the military. (Some will argue that W is doing the same deal.)

With regards to his multiple marriages, those occured when he was a Democrat; before he saw the light and joined the GOP.
:pee:

[JackDaniels]

Either you'll vote for a Dem, toss your vote in the trash for a third party, or stay home. Either way its a vote for a Dem as far as I'm concerned.

It is perhaps one of the most cowardly, gutless actions to vote against your conscience.

If you are a conservative and you vote Republican, it means you are voting for people who do not agree with your values. End of story.

Voting for the lesser of two evils is, by definition, voting for evil.

[Roadhouse158]

I personally consider myself an independent conservative. I do lean republican. I was raised with a democratic father, and a republican mother; so I got my share of ideas implanted from two viewpoints. My point is that growing up in that household taught me that not everyone agrees on the exact same thing. There is no CONSERVATIVE, and there is no LIBERAL. Just because your for gay marriage doesn't make you a liberal. It means you have liberal thoughts toward that subject. Just because you raised certain taxes doesn't mean your a big government spender. I am sure the article was referring to Huckabee raising taxes in Ark....Well...Let's see...Horrific roads throughout the state. Needed more money there. Raise the gas tax for the transportation board, but lets cut taxes on families.....See the trade off...We need politicians that see both sides. That's what makes us a democracy. Why don't we just go to what many propose that Iraq does. Split up into two or three regions.....The liberals in the west, the independents in middle America, and the conservatives in the east. Like it or not, you have to understand that not everyone thinks like everyone else. From reading a lot of these threads I can see why congress sucks. They are representative of us. Nothing wrong with disagreements, but damn....Some take these post personal.

[82Marine89]

Wrong as usual. This thread is nothing more than an excuse for Marine82 to post his ridiculous opinions about "libs." As per the usual, the rest of you cyborgs are slapping him on the back for his "insights." It's disgusting.

You eat paint chips as a kid? There's this little thing called a LINK at the bottom. Click it. There's also a post where I said I didn't write this. I figure though that if you got so upset with this article that you had to resort to calling me names, that some of it must have hit home.

[glockmail]

:pee: I again claim victory, as you have no adequate response. :lol:

[glockmail]

It is perhaps one of the most cowardly, gutless actions to vote against your conscience.

If you are a conservative and you vote Republican, it means you are voting for people who do not agree with your values. End of story.

Voting for the lesser of two evils is, by definition, voting for evil. So you end up letting the Democrat in. :slap:

[Hagbard Celine]

You eat paint chips as a kid? There's this little thing called a LINK at the bottom. Click it. There's also a post where I said I didn't write this. I figure though that if you got so upset with this article that you had to resort to calling me names, that some of it must have hit home.

I didn't read it all the way through because it set-off my bullsh*t detector. It's an article called "What is a Conservative?" that proceeds to b*tch and moan about the evils of "libs" for the next ten paragraphs. Pure self-righteous bullsh*t. Did you think no one would notice this crap? Think you can just tie a bow around a turd and pretend it's something else? Not in the real world bub.

[typomaniac]

I again claim victory, as you have no adequate response. :lol:

:pee:

[glockmail]

:pee: Thanks for the clarification. :lol:

[JackDaniels]

So you end up letting the Democrat in. :slap:

Once again, you show how uneducated and unintelligent you are by ignoring all the points of the thread.

No wonder people think you're a dumb inbred hillbilly.

[glockmail]

Once again, you show how uneducated and unintelligent you are by ignoring all the points of the thread.

No wonder people think you're a dumb inbred hillbilly. Enlighten me, Oh Center of Knowledge. :smoke:

[Hagbard Celine]

Once again, you show how uneducated and unintelligent you are by ignoring all the points of the thread.

No wonder people think you're a dumb inbred hillbilly.

Aww, c'mon. Be fair. He's not inbred. :poke:

[glockmail]

:lol:
Aww, c'mon. Be fair. He's not inbred. :poke:

[typomaniac]

Thanks for the clarification. :lol:

:pee: :pee:

[82Marine89]

I didn't read it all the way through because it set-off my bullsh*t detector. It's an article called "What is a Conservative?" that proceeds to b*tch and moan about the evils of "libs" for the next ten paragraphs. Pure self-righteous bullsh*t. Did you think no one would notice this crap? Think you can just tie a bow around a turd and pretend it's something else? Not in the real world bub.

Actually, it made comparisons between the two. Maybe you should go back and read the entire thing, then tell me what parts about liberals are lies. Try to keep the expletives to a minimum and keep a reign on your emotions. All I want is an assessment of where you think the author is lying about liberals and liberalism.

[musicman]

:popcorn:

[typomaniac]

Actually, it made comparisons between the two. Maybe you should go back and read the entire thing, then tell me what parts about liberals are lies. Try to keep the expletives to a minimum and keep a reign on your emotions. All I want is an assessment of where you think the author is lying about liberals and liberalism.
The author makes one sweeping generalization after another, and presents no evidence to support any of them.

So if he isn't lying, he's at least babbling about his self-delusions.

[82Marine89]

The author makes one sweeping generalization after another, and presents no evidence to support any of them.

So if he isn't lying, he's at least babbling about his self-delusions.

Give me some examples.

[JackDaniels]

Give me some examples.

Read Conscience of a Conservative

Going by Mr. Goldwater's definition, none of the current Republicans are conservatives.

Conservatives believe in limited government and fiscal responsibility. GWB has done more to tear down the limits of government and sustain fiscal irresponsibility than almost any President to date.

[Psychoblues]

You are so silly, 82m89.



I'll await your list.

I asked you for an argument against the liberal foundation of this country and you obfuscate by asking me for a list? What are you smoking, dude?

[typomaniac]

Give me some examples.

Every paragraph that begins with "liberals" contains a sweeping generalization in the first sentence. And the author presents no evidence to support them besides his own "opinions" (which I'll refrain from calling delusions or lies, because I'm not sure of his true motive).

[Kathianne]

Every paragraph that begins with "liberals" contains a sweeping generalization in the first sentence. And the author presents no evidence to support them besides his own "opinions" (which I'll refrain from calling delusions or lies, because I'm not sure of his true motive).

Yep, same with 'neo-con', neither are worth reading. IMHO.

[82Marine89]

Read Conscience of a Conservative

Going by Mr. Goldwater's definition, none of the current Republicans are conservatives.

Conservatives believe in limited government and fiscal responsibility. GWB has done more to tear down the limits of government and sustain fiscal irresponsibility than almost any President to date.

I quoted it earlier in this thread.

[82Marine89]

You are so silly, 82m89.

I asked you for an argument against the liberal foundation of this country and you obfuscate by asking me for a list? What are you smoking, dude?

Actually, what you said is...


You are a liar or just dumb, 8M9. Conservatives reject change and are set on the old order as they understand it to be. Liberalism is as American as apple pie and the traditionalists (conservatives) can't stand the changes and progressive nature that liberalism represents.

Every good thing that has ever happened in this country's history has come about by way of popular liberalism. If you have an argument for that observation I would like to hear it.


Tell me what good has come from liberalism and I'll argue with you. Also, please explain the difference between liberalism and popular liberalism.

[diuretic]

Every paragraph that begins with "liberals" contains a sweeping generalization in the first sentence. And the author presents no evidence to support them besides his own "opinions" (which I'll refrain from calling delusions or lies, because I'm not sure of his true motive).

"Calumny" works.

[typomaniac]

Yep, same with 'neo-con', neither are worth reading. IMHO.
That's why I prefer the term "bushbots:" everyone knows exactly what you mean. (I'm only half-kidding...)