Below is a quotation by another poster on this board...


Liberals are the bad guys. They are the enemy.

I just need to say something important about this sort of thing...

Ever since the first days of Ronald Reagan, the neo-conservatives have been on an insidious campaign to turn a very good word into a very bad word in the minds of the American people...

That word is "liberal."

For the past 25 years, Americans have been bombarded with a crapload of anti-liberal spin and hype, through the mass media outlets that are mainly controlled by big business. Many (if not most) of you have bought into that anti-liberal hype, without ever once bothering to fully investigate EXACTLY what liberalism actually means, or what it entails.

Let me give you the names of some famous liberals from our own American history. See if any of these guys strike you as being "stupid" or "bad for America" in any ways whatsoever:


ALL OF THESE GREAT PEOPLE WERE LIBERALS:

John Locke
Benjamin Franklin
Thomas Jefferson
John Adams
Patrick Henry
Thomas Paine
Frederick Douglas
Nikola Tesla
Franklin Delano Rooseveldt
Albert Einstein
Robert F. Kennedy
Martin Luther King, Jr.

...and far, far too many other great people to list here.

And now, here are a couple of excellent definitions of what "liberalism" means:

From an intelligent author on wikipedia:

"Broadly speaking, liberalism emphasizes individual rights and equality of opportunity. Different forms of liberalism may propose very different policies, but they are generally united by their support for a number of principles, including extensive freedom of thought and speech, limitations on the power of governments, the rule of law, the free exchange of ideas, a market or mixed economy, and a transparent system of government. All liberals – as well as some adherents of other political ideologies – support some variant of the form of government known as liberal democracy, with open and fair elections, where all citizens have equal rights by law."

By President John F Kennedy:

"What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label "Liberal?" If by "Liberal" they mean, as they want people to believe, someone who is soft in his policies abroad, who is against local government, and who is unconcerned with the taxpayer's dollar, then the record of this party and its members demonstrate that we are not that kind of "Liberal." But if by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people -- their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties -- someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal."


Does anybody have a problem with the above philosophy..? Yes..? No..? If your answer is "No," then please try to explain how "liberal" has become a "dirty word" in America.

The reason some of you perceive it to be "bad" is because you grew up during the age of the insidious neo-con dogma that has quite possibly led us to the very brink of ruination in this country. I want all of you to understand this. Liberals are not the bad guys... it's the greedy, irresponsible and downright dangerous whackos known as "conservatives" who have brought us to where we were at the end of last year in American history. Look around... was that the kind of America you could have felt proud of? Don't just give me a glib, knee-jerk and Pavlovian answer to that question. Think it over for a minute, very slowly and with as open a mind as possible. As you are thinking it over, I want you to summon every ounce of intelligence and insight that you can muster and try to imagine what this country would be like right now, if we had spent the past 25 years following liberal policies, instead of neo-conservative ones. Would it be worse than it is now..? Or would it be better..?

That is what all of you should be thinking about, whenever you watch the continuing bombardment of anti-liberal jingoism that you've had spoon-fed to you for most of your lives. Please don't be a follower in life. Don't be just another duped, cud-chewing sheep. Don't let your country be sold out from under you to the highest bidders in China, and in Kuwait, and in Saudi Arabia, and in Mexico. Don't mortgage your future grandchildren away just to serve the interests of the greedy, conservative warmongering piglets whose only skill was to ruin the country.

"Liberal" was never a dirty word. But "propaganda" is definitely one of the dirtiest words of all and folks, you've been fed a huge lie for more than a quarter of a century. Try to divorce yourselves from that big lie, and use your own eyes, ears and heart to assess what you see happening in America. Nevermind what your friends want you to believe. Nevermind what the mass media idiot box blasts at you all day and night. Nevermind what your parents think or what your teachers tell you. You have a BRAIN of your own. USE IT... and take another look at everything as objectively as you can.

Then just do what your heart tells you to do. Following your heart is a hard thing to do, but that's why it takes courage to be a free-thinking individual... and that, my friends, is what liberalism is truly all about. It has nothing to do with being a "bleeding heart," or being "weak on defense," or being "anti-big-business," or being "against god." or any of those other retarded things that you've been told for your entire lives. It's about being DECENT and improving the quality of life not only for the self, but for others. It's about EQUALITY and JUSTICE, and it's about KINDNESS and PEACEFUL PURSUITS.

What sort of country do you truly wish to live in...? Think it over carefully.


"Experience declares that man is the only animal which devours his own kind; for I can apply no milder term... to the general prey of the rich upon the poor. If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
- Thomas Jefferson


"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
- Benjamin Franklin

"I believe that wherever there is plenty, poverty is evil."
- Robert F Kennedy

Jesus Christ was a liberal :mad:

Liberals are the bad guys. They are the enemy.

Liberals are not the bad guys... it's the greedy, irresponsible and downright dangerous whackos known as "conservatives"...What you don't realized is that you and "the unknown poster" are two sides of the same coin. Each seeking to demonize the other rather than dealing with actual issues and ideas in a constructive manner.

Your assesment is not inaccurate, WillNever, but in my opinion you lost credibility by displaying a lack of understanding for what 'conservative' means.

Furthermore, it is misleading to say that those people you listed, such as Jefferson, are 'liberals'. Perhaps, but not in the modern sense of the word; 'libertarian' is much more accurate, and conservatism is much closer to libertarianism than it is to left liberalism. Left liberalism is the enemy to freedom; right-wing liberalism is fine.

As to my first point, you either fail to understand what conservatism is about, or are deliberately putting it in a bad light.

Neo-con is not con. George Bush is not a conservative; the people trying to sell out the country are not conservatives.

Conservatism is about a humble, non-interventionalist foreign policy, strict adherence to the Consitution in regards to civil rights and the protection of privacy, and smaller government.

In this manner, I find conservatism far preferable to the 'liberalism' of the modern day, that liberalism which is simply a soft form of marxism.

Conservative is the good word. Take prominent conservatives such as:

Milton Friedman
Margaret Thatcher
Reagan (to an extent)
Thomas Jefferson
Winston Churchill
Benjamin Franklin
John Wayne
Etc

The same Thomas Jefferson who wanted to make Congress pay for "The Louisiana Purchase" is a conservative? Mmkay.

Do yourself a big favor: forget everything you think you know about liberalism and conservatism, norse, and this applies to anyone else as well. Forget what you've been hearing from Joe Lieberman, Bob Barr, Ron Paul, and similar self appointed "libertarian" demagogues. Wouldn't you rather be someone who thinks for himself, rather than someone who hitches his star to the next favorite internet celebrity politician? I know I would, and I think you need to as well. A leader is supposed to listen to you, not the other way around. Think on that.

The conservative that I have described is reasonably representative of the majority of self styled conservatives in this country. If you believe that you are not that sort of conservative, then this thread may not apply to you. But historically speaking, conservatism has its roots in traditionalism and that is the basis on which most conservatives today still operate. If that still applies to you, then I suggest you change your ways... before you help to destroy Thomas Jefferson's dream forever.

In the meantime, let's take a look at a definition of conservatism, the conservatism that *most* conservatives and wishy-washy libertarians use to describe themselves:

"Core conservative principles include a trust in God and country, and many U.S. conservatives support a fiscal policy rooted in small government, laissez faire capitalism, and supply-side economics. In foreign policy, American conservatives usually advocate some moderate aspects of "American exceptionalism", a belief that the U.S. is unique among nations and that its standing and actions do and should guide the course of world history.


If the ideas behind conservatism remind you of something else in history, then you aren't the only one. When Hitler rose to power in Germany, he followed some similar ideas to those. He made excuses for Germany to become the world's only power, he incited rabid nationalist fervor among its citzenry, and he manufactured a national enemy, the Jews, just so that he could "sell it" to the people. Sound familiar? It should. Hitler also had some of his own troops dress up in Polish uniforms and then stage a mock battle against other German troops. Naturally, this clever lie resulted in exactly the sort of public outrage that Hitler was counting upon and well... within days, he invaded Poland -- a nation who had never once done a single bad thing to Germany. Does this remind anyone of the big lie told by our own leaders, just before we invaded Iraq..? Remember all of that cleverly manufactured manure about "Iraqi weapons of mass destruction," that turned out to be nothing more than a huge, bold-faced lie..?

Now take a good look at the above definition again, and go back to my original post and compare it to what liberalism is, and think carefully, one more time, without any preconceived judgments from your parents, teachers, the television, or any other self-appointed demagogues that you hitched your star to. Use YOUR brain, and decide what sort of country you would rather be living in... a liberal society that is free, peaceful, respected, and caring of its citizenry... or a conservative society that is internally divisive, full of predatorial corporations, traditionalists, and is in constant economic turmoil.

The choice is up to you. There is only one correct choice, however. :cool:

Use YOUR brain, and decide what sort of country you would rather be living in... a liberal society that is free, peaceful, respected, and caring of its citizenry... or a conservative society that is internally divisive, full of predatorial corporations, traditionalists, and is in constant economic turmoil.

The choice is up to you. There is only one correct choice, however. :cool:Your choice is a false choice based on false premises. Now instead of name callling and false choices, let's have an honest discussion about the merits of modern liberalism.


PS The irony of complaining about how "liberal" has been turned into a dirty word; and then immediately launching into a campaign to turn conservative into one seems lost on you.

Conservative is the good word. Take prominent conservatives such as:

Milton Friedman
Margaret Thatcher
Reagan (to an extent)
Thomas Jefferson
Winston Churchill
Benjamin Franklin
John Wayne
Etc

So it only took conservatives, what, a couple centuries to catch up to Franklin and Jefferson? Face it, historically liberalism has the enviable roster. Certain of its prominent names only become conservative well after the fact, when the principles that made them so liberal in their day have ossified or become corrupted. Like Jesus, for instance. And then there are those who I wonder about insofar as what will the world look like when, say, Lord Byron, Mary Wollstonecraft, Thomas Paine, and Emma Goldman, among others, are hearkened by society's conservatives.

Freakin' John Wayne. That's awesome, dude.

WillNever:

have you read my thread along similar lines?, its quite an interesting discussion


Conservative is the good word.

Norse do i have to keep quoting parts of that interview to you?


He suggests that American conservatives have much more in common at least when it comes to moral reasoning, with the Islamic fundamentalist


liberals are going to have are concerns about freedom or autonomy, about the ability of the individual to express their own preferences, and some kind of concern about fairness, some kind of concern about the equal opportunity of each individual to be able to realise their preferences, as it were


Conservatives...so respect for authority is something that conservatives think is an intrinsic part of morality...


...conservative people in countries where female genital mutilation takes place, generally think that this is the morally correct thing to do.
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=95015

You oviously failed to read or understand this before responding

When young we tend to think with our hearts more often but as we get older we start to use our brains.

The same Thomas Jefferson who wanted to make Congress pay for "The Louisiana Purchase" is a conservative? Mmkay. That's not 'government spending' in the sense of gov't provision, it's just buying new land.

So no, it's the same Jefferson that refused to buy the land until the Consitution was amended to allow it; Jefferson was a strict constitutionalist and, if anything, libertarian (which is closer to conservative than left liberalism)


Do yourself a big favor: forget everything you think you know about liberalism and conservatism, norse, and this applies to anyone else as well. Forget what you've been hearing from Joe Lieberman, Bob Barr, Ron Paul, and similar self appointed "libertarian" demagogues. Wouldn't you rather be someone who thinks for himself, rather than someone who hitches his star to the next favorite internet celebrity politician? I know I would, and I think you need to as well. A leader is supposed to listen to you, not the other way around. Think on that. Like madanthonywayne said, it seems odd that you are promoting liberalism, degrading conservatism, and then telling us to 'think for ourselves'


The conservative that I have described is reasonably representative of the majority of self styled conservatives in this country. If you believe that you are not that sort of conservative, then this thread may not apply to you. But historically speaking, conservatism has its roots in traditionalism and that is the basis on which most conservatives today still operate. If that still applies to you, then I suggest you change your ways... before you help to destroy Thomas Jefferson's dream forever.
I have no problem with traditionalism, as long as it is a matter left to the individual and not ascribed to law.

In the meantime, let's take a look at a definition of conservatism, the conservatism that *most* conservatives and wishy-washy libertarians use to describe themselves:

"Core conservative principles include a trust in God and country, and many U.S. conservatives support a fiscal policy rooted in small government, laissez faire capitalism, and supply-side economics. In foreign policy, American conservatives usually advocate some moderate aspects of "American exceptionalism", a belief that the U.S. is unique among nations and that its standing and actions do and should guide the course of world history.
Utter bullshit. No libertarian goes by that definition, and no true conservative does either. Why would I? I'm an atheist anyway.


If the ideas behind conservatism remind you of something else in history, then you aren't the only one. When Hitler rose to power in Germany, he followed some similar ideas to those. He made excuses for Germany to become the world's only power, he incited rabid nationalist fervor among its citzenry, and he manufactured a national enemy, the Jews, just so that he could "sell it" to the people. Sound familiar? It should. Conservatives are about smaller government and less government intervention and a humble foreign policy, how in the hell do they even remotely resemble Hitler? Fascism and libertarianism are not similar at all, last time I checked.


Hitler also had some of his own troops dress up in Polish uniforms and then stage a mock battle against other German troops. Naturally, this clever lie resulted in exactly the sort of public outrage that Hitler was counting upon and well... within days, he invaded Poland -- a nation who had never once done a single bad thing to Germany. Does this remind anyone of the big lie told by our own leaders, just before we invaded Iraq..? Remember all of that cleverly manufactured manure about "Iraqi weapons of mass destruction," that turned out to be nothing more than a huge, bold-faced lie..? Again, those are not conservatives. You're doing the same damn thing that you accused others of doing to liberalism.


Now take a good look at the above definition again, and go back to my original post and compare it to what liberalism is, and think carefully, one more time, without any preconceived judgments from your parents, teachers, the television, or any other self-appointed demagogues that you hitched your star to. Use YOUR brain, and decide what sort of country you would rather be living in... a liberal society that is free, peaceful, respected, and caring of its citizenry... or a conservative society that is internally divisive, full of predatorial corporations, traditionalists, and is in constant economic turmoil. I'd rather live in the free society; the free one with free markets, and minimal government interference. I'd live in the one that was peaceful internationally and non-interventionalist. I'd live in the conservative one.

Also you make traditonalists out to seem to be bad. Elaborate.


The choice is up to you. There is only one correct choice, however. I tire of your arrogance; there is no 'correct' choice. If I wanted government control, I'd go with fascism over liberalism anyday.

However, your 'choices' are complete shit. So no, I'd choose the conservative laissez-faire, non-interventionalist society anyday over the corrupt, bureaucratic, pansy lib'ral society.


Your choice is a false choice based on false premises. Now instead of name callling and false choices, let's have an honest discussion about the merits of modern liberalism.
PS The irony of complaining about how "liberal" has been turned into a dirty word; and then immediately launching into a campaign to turn conservative into one seems lost on you. I agree entirely.


So it only took conservatives, what, a couple centuries to catch up to Franklin and Jefferson? Face it, historically liberalism has the enviable roster. Certain of its prominent names only become conservative well after the fact, when the principles that made them so liberal in their day have ossified or become corrupted. Like Jesus, for instance. And then there are those who I wonder about insofar as what will the world look like when, say, Lord Byron, Mary Wollstonecraft, Thomas Paine, and Emma Goldman, among others, are hearkened by society's conservatives. Tiassa, this isn't a contest.




WillNever:

have you read my thread along similar lines?, its quite an interesting discussion
Norse do i have to keep quoting parts of that interview to you?
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=95015

You oviously failed to read or understand this before responding
I read the whole damn thing. What's your point? :bugeye:

Norse, you're still not doing what I suggested. You came into this conversation already fully decided on your beliefs and have been giving knee jerk reactions on that basis, instead of thinking calmly and carefully about what has been said. For instance, you insist that, because the above set of beliefs I described doesn't happen to be your sort of conservatism, that it isn't actually conservatism at all. Meanwhile, that set of beliefs represents the traditionalist basis that conservatism was first based on in the days of Edmund Burke. It's the basis that most conservative writings since that time have been written by, and it's the basis that most conservatives today operate. I think it's safe to say that if ANYONE can claim to adhere to conservatism, it's the philosophers who first invented that word and those who continue to operate by its original definition today. In that case, you would be the deviation from them... which makes you the poseur, not all of them.

The same holds true for your insistence that Thomas Jefferson was not a liberal. That would be the same Thomas Jefferson who believed that schools must be paid for by the general public. And indeed the same Thomas Jefferson who believed that the public needed protection from predation by the rich, also having written that "we Americans must crush in it's birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country." Now, I know that you aren't an American norse... so the ideals of these American historical figures may be rather vague and ethereal to you, but trying to "claim ownership" of the beliefs of one of them doesn't make any sense, not when those beliefs fly directly in the face of things that you have gone on record supporting: such as the abolition of public schools, the proliferation of large businesses, the acceptance of a serious income gap, and the federal government not being allowed to buy property for its citizens. Those are all things that Thomas Jefferson, because of his liberal minded ideals, vehemently opposed. It's time to take your mind out of the toilet, norse.

The fact of the matter is that few truly useful people were conservative in American history. Is it any wonder that the majority of the people you named as conservatives were either (1) leaders of a foreign country who were thrown out on their bums by the people (Thatcher) or (2) actually liberals (Jefferson, Franklin) or (3) actors in cowboy western movies (John Wayne).

Why don't we just throw Sylvester Stallone on the pile? Then what a bunch you would have. :cool:

Left liberals are worse than conservatives.

If you mean capitalist liberals, then that's great. That is, in my opinion, the best path for us to follow; but left liberalism? No. This isn't the United Soviet Socialist States of America.

Left liberals are worse than conservatives

What makes them worse than conservatives besides your own opinion of the matter?
Do have proof of this, or will you just spout things like "they hate [insert biased statement here]," so they are bad. Really man, both sides of the coin exist for a reason...to balance the other.

Furthermore what it means to be a conservative or a liberal will evolve as the world changes, so how can such a generalized statement even be considered valid at all?

Obviously it is only my opinion; according to WillNever, though, it's the 'correct' choice. Kind of like Hitler decided that Nazism was the 'correct' choice.

Obviously it is only my opinion; according to WillNever, though, it's the 'correct' choice. Kind of like Hitler decided that Nazism was the 'correct' choice.

That is a ridiculous statement and you know it. Why not argue with well thought out points instead of villfying the other side with worthless analogies and comparisons?

That is a ridiculous statement and you know it. Why not argue with well thought out points instead of villfying the other side with worthless analogies and comparisons?

That's precisely what he did! Comparing conservatism/libertarianism to Nazism. BS.

That's precisely what he did! Comparing conservatism/libertarianism to Nazism. BS.


But why continue the cycle and make the same inflammatory for your side? Why not just take the high road?

But why continue the cycle and make the same inflammatory for your side? Why not just take the high road?

I've already explained it in my initial response; then, it just degenerates into him demonizing conservatism in the same manner he accuses others of demonizing liberalism. And then, of course, saying it's the 'correct' choice.

I've already explained it in my initial response; then, it just degenerates into him demonizing conservatism in the same manner he accuses others of demonizing liberalism. And then, of course, saying it's the 'correct' choice.

So then why dont we make arguments for what we feel are the "correct" or incorrect choices based on the views and accomplishments of either side instead of calling each other nazis?

Capitalist liberals are to the left, norse. The people I have mentioned were all capitalist liberals. Meanwhile, the people you support (Chuchill, Thatcher, Reagan) were all known for aggressive foreign policy. You need to aim for a little consistency if you're going to tell people that conservatives support humble foreign policy while naming a bunch of imperialist piglets.

I know why you named them, though. Because truth be told, the only people who DO support your beliefs are notorious for their outspoken presence on the internet -- and only on the internet. That explains why most of Ron Paul's popularity was instigated and supported mainly by people who dwelled on the internet for absurdly long periods of time. His force of popularity ended there, however. That is because libertarianism is a cute little "designer ideology" that is conceivable only in its purest and most theoretical form, the form that flourishes in the marketplace of ideas, because it ignores most of the potentially controversial issues that libertarianism is unequipped to answer or simply takes no stance on -- which is most often the case. De facto libertarianism is highly impractical and favored amongst armchair theorists only, whose power ends once you switch your monitor to the off position.

As for supporting Ron Paul: let me remind you that Ron Paul is himself a FORMER member of the libertarian party who has since switched to the republican party in order to run a libertarian-oriented campaign under that affiliation. Others have done the same, and the libertarian party of the USA has for a long time been tainted by scandals and a reputation of being nothing more than a refuge for wacky republicans who seek to promote their values under the guise of a different cause. Joe Lieberman has done the exact same thing: pretend to be an "indepedent democrat" while constantly acting like a republican and only formally switching when it's convenient. But no matter where Lieberman and Ron Paul take refuge, it's still the same bucket of crud. :cool:

Capitalist liberals are not 'to the left'. They're left socially, right economically. Absolute freedom, without the implication of disorder.

Also you have yet to explain why libertarianism would not 'work'. All it means is the government getting out of enterprise, and cutting spending, and more civil liberties.

Big government and freedom are mutually exclusive.

Check out
http://www.liberalcapitalist.com/

QUOTATION FROM THAT SITE:
"Do Liberal Capitalists support the War on Terror? What about Iraq? "

"Liberal Capitalists fully support the War on Terror. Self defense is the right of all people. And the frustrated tribalists who we are battling represent a grave threat to liberalism."

And you support those?

What did I tell you guys? Most imperialism from wishy-washy republican lites, pretending to be libertarians. :cool:

I support a 'war on terror' in theory if the perceived threat is real and if they are unconditionally for our harm. That's simply defense.

However what this nation must do, for freedom, is to stick the the tested and true structure that is capitalism, that flows from every individual, that builds from the ground up, and that is focused on creating wealth instead of 'redistributing' it.

Left liberals are soft socialists and are a great threat.

That site also supports the invasion of Iraq. You insist that you are opposed to the war in Iraq, don't you?


However what this nation must do, for freedom, is to stick the the tested and true structure that is capitalism, that flows from every individual, that builds from the ground up, and that is focused on creating wealth instead of 'redistributing' it.

The correct words would be tested and failed, if left on its own. We had as close to a free market as ever we'd come a hundred years ago. It blew. There are so few examples of pure free market societies succeeding in the world. There are, however, a lot of examples of free market societies failing. I wonder why that is.

Meanwhile, I can name a hundred mixed economy societies that succeeded. We're living in one right now. :cool:

Question: how long have you lived in the USA, norsefire, and how much of American history were you taught?

That site also supports the invasion of Iraq. You insist that you are opposed to the war in Iraq, don't you? Absolutely.




The correct words would be tested and failed, if left on its own. We had as close to a free market as ever we'd come a hundred years ago. It blew. There are so few examples of pure free market societies succeeding in the world. There are, however, a lot of examples of free market societies failing. I wonder why that is. There are also loads of examples of leftist societies failing; Soviet Union, anyone? N. Korea? Cuba? China?

And your examples are complete shit; laissez-faire works. Do you think the world would be where it was without capitalism?

Capitalism works.


Meanwhile, I can name a hundred mixed economy societies that succeeded. We're living in one right now. The US is not supposed to be a 'mixed economy'; the government needs to stay out of enterprise. Perhaps you do not value freedom...

I don't care about Europe, I don't care what Canada did or does. We're not them. We're better than them.


Question: how long have you lived in the USA, norsefire, and how much of American history were you taught?

Quite a while, and alot. And capitalize the N.

Absolutely.

There are also loads of examples of leftist societies failing; Soviet Union, anyone? N. Korea? Cuba? China?

This is not a socialist thread, norse. Most liberals in America are not socialist. In socialism, currency is abolished and private property doesn't exist at all. No country in the last two hundred years has done that, including the USSR. China isn't left, economically speaking, nor have they failed. The USSR despite not being true socialist, was the second most powerful country in the world for more half of a century, having failed due to a political alignment shift in its leaders. N. Korea may be evil but it's more powerful than most countries. And Cuba, well, Cuba's just an isolated dump.

We have in the world a pretty wide array of powerful mixed economy and even a few socialist leaning societies. QUESTION: What is the most powerful free market society in the world right now? How do they measure up against the USA, Germany, Japan, etc?



And your examples are complete shit; laissez-faire works. Do you think the world would be where it was without capitalism?



It wouldn't be where it was today without mixed capitalist hybrids.I'm quite sure we'd be here today without the paltry amount of true free markets that have ever existed in the whole world.



The US is not supposed to be a 'mixed economy'; the government needs to stay out of enterprise. Perhaps you do not value freedom...

How would you know what the USA is supposed to be, norse? This is not your country.

Originally Posted by Norsefire

Conservative is the good word. Take prominent conservatives such as:

Margaret Thatcher

I must be mistaken. You seem to be suggesting that Thatcher actually did some good as Britain's prime minister. When, as we all know, she was nothing but an evil money-grabbing old hag.

And just because she was a Tory, does not mean she was a Conservative.

Jesus Christ was a liberal :mad:
Why does that make you mad?

Norse, you're still not doing what I suggested. You came into this conversation already fully decided on your beliefs and have been giving knee jerk reactions on that basis, instead of thinking calmly and carefully about what has been said.Look in the mirror. You're the one that's doing that. You, a self professed Liberal angry about conservatives alleged mischaracterization of Liberalism, are on a vendetta trying to mischaracterize conservatism. To pigeonhole it into a little box you've made for it labeled "bad guys".
For instance, you insist that, because the above set of beliefs I described doesn't happen to be your sort of conservatism, that it isn't actually conservatism at all.Just as you quoted Kenedy defending the term liberalism and saying the ideas people had about liberalism were incorrect.
Meanwhile, that set of beliefs represents the traditionalist basis that conservatism was first based on in the days of Edmund Burke. It's the basis that most conservative writings since that time have been written by, and it's the basis that most conservatives today operate. I think it's safe to say that if ANYONE can claim to adhere to conservatism, it's the philosophers who first invented that word and those who continue to operate by its original definition today. In that case, you would be the deviation from them... which makes you the poseur, not all of them. The views of Edmund Burke have as much to do with modern conservatism as the views of Thomas Jefferson do with modern liberalism. They're interesting. They certainly had some influence that can be traced to this day. But they are hardly definitive and the modern versions of liberalism and conservatism are far removed from their early influences.

Tiassa, this isn't a contest.

(chortle!)

That's awesome, dude.


• • •



Why does that make you mad?

Apparently, if we follow the point syllogistically, Jesus Christ was a bad guy, an enemy.

(chortle!)Been a while since I've seen you chortle.

Apparently, if we follow the point syllogistically, Jesus Christ was a bad guy, an enemy.Well sure he was seen as the enemy, they crucified him, after all.

Below is a quotation by another poster on this board...



I just need to say something important about this sort of thing...

Ever since the first days of Ronald Reagan, the neo-conservatives have been on an insidious campaign to turn a very good word into a very bad word in the minds of the American people...

That word is "liberal."

For the past 25 years, Americans have been bombarded with a crapload of anti-liberal spin and hype, through the mass media outlets that are mainly controlled by big business. Many (if not most) of you have bought into that anti-liberal hype, without ever once bothering to fully investigate EXACTLY what liberalism actually means, or what it entails.

Let me give you the names of some famous liberals from our own American history. See if any of these guys strike you as being "stupid" or "bad for America" in any ways whatsoever:


ALL OF THESE GREAT PEOPLE WERE LIBERALS:

John Locke
Benjamin Franklin
Thomas Jefferson
John Adams
Patrick Henry
Thomas Paine
Frederick Douglas
Nikola Tesla
Franklin Delano Rooseveldt
Albert Einstein
Robert F. Kennedy
Martin Luther King, Jr.

...and far, far too many other great people to list here.

And now, here are a couple of excellent definitions of what "liberalism" means:

From an intelligent author on wikipedia:KdSCkY4C

"Broadly speaking, liberalism emphasizes individual rights and equality of opportunity. Different forms of liberalism may propose very different policies, but they are generally united by their support for a number of principles, including extensive freedom of thought and speech, limitations on the power of governments, the rule of law, the free exchange of ideas, a market or mixed economy, and a transparent system of government. All liberals – as well as some adherents of other political ideologies – support some variant of the form of government known as liberal democracy, with open and fair elections, where all citizens have equal rights by law."

By President John F Kennedy:

"What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label "Liberal?" If by "Liberal" they mean, as they want people to believe, someone who is soft in his policies abroad, who is against local government, and who is unconcerned with the taxpayer's dollar, then the record of this party and its members demonstrate that we are not that kind of "Liberal." But if by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people -- their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties -- someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal."


Does anybody have a problem with the above philosophy..? Yes..? No..? If your answer is "No," then please try to explain how "liberal" has become a "dirty word" in America.

The reason some of you perceive it to be "bad" is because you grew up during the age of the insidious neo-con dogma that has quite possibly led us to the very brink of ruination in this country. I want all of you to understand this. Liberals are not the bad guys... it's the greedy, irresponsible and downright dangerous whackos known as "conservatives" who have brought us to where we were at the end of last year in American history. Look around... was that the kind of America you could have felt proud of? Don't just give me a glib, knee-jerk and Pavlovian answer to that question. Think it over for a minute, very slowly and with as open a mind as possible. As you are thinking it over, I want you to summon every ounce of intelligence and insight that you can muster and try to imagine what this country would be like right now, if we had spent the past 25 years following liberal policies, instead of neo-conservative ones. Would it be worse than it is now..? Or would it be better..?

That is what all of you should be thinking about, whenever you watch the continuing bombardment of anti-liberal jingoism that you've had spoon-fed to you for most of your lives. Please don't be a follower in life. Don't be just another duped, cud-chewing sheep. Don't let your country be sold out from under you to the highest bidders in China, and in Kuwait, and in Saudi Arabia, and in Mexico. Don't mortgage your future grandchildren away just to serve the interests of the greedy, conservative warmongering piglets whose only skill was to ruin the country.

"Liberal" was never a dirty word. But "propaganda" is definitely one of the dirtiest words of all and folks, you've been fed a huge lie for more than a quarter of a century. Try to divorce yourselves from that big lie, and use your own eyes, ears and heart to assess what you see happening in America. Nevermind what your friends want you to believe. Nevermind what the mass media idiot box blasts at you all day and night. Nevermind what your parents think or what your teachers tell you. You have a BRAIN of your own. USE IT... and take another look at everything as objectively as you can.

Then just do what your heart tells you to do. Following your heart is a hard thing to do, but that's why it takes courage to be a free-thinking individual... and that, my friends, is what liberalism is truly all about. It has nothing to do with being a "bleeding heart," or being "weak on defense," or being "anti-big-business," or being "against god." or any of those other retarded things that you've been told for your entire lives. It's about being DECENT and improving the quality of life not only for the self, but for others. It's about EQUALITY and JUSTICE, and it's about KINDNESS and PEACEFUL PURSUITS.

What sort of country do you truly wish to live in...? Think it over carefully.


"Experience declares that man is the only animal which devours his own kind; for I can apply no milder term... to the general prey of the rich upon the poor. If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
- Thomas Jefferson


"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
- Benjamin Franklin

"I believe that wherever there is plenty, poverty is evil."
- Robert F Kennedy

It seems to me to be a matter of perception. You are more sensitive to it, you look for it more, you notice things that effect your own personal sensibilities. This is common.

This is not a socialist thread. Most liberals in America are not socialist. In socialism, currency is abolished and private property doesn't exist at all. No country in the last two hundred years has done that, including the USSR. China isn't left, economically speaking, nor have they failed. The USSR despite not being true socialist, was the second most powerful country in the world for more half of a century, having failed due to a political alignment shift in its leaders. N. Korea may be evil but it's more powerful than most countries. And Cuba, well, Cuba's just an isolated dump. Liberals in America are socialist; they want to turn the US into Scandinavia. I'm glad the US is not like Scandinavia; I'm glad it's free.

Furthermore, what a laugh!

Fascism creates strength, not socialism. Nazi Germany was the most powerful country of its era, aside from the United States. Communism creates nothing. It is foolish to believe that everybody is equal when we simply aren't.



We have in the world a pretty wide array of powerful mixed economy and even a few socialist leaning societies. QUESTION: What is the most powerful free market society in the world right now? How do they measure up against the USA, Germany, Japan, etc? I'd say Hong Kong is the most laissez-faire society (very minimal government) and it holds up rather well.

Laissez-faire calls for minimal interference, not no interference. Also, the USA is more capitalist leaning than socialist leaning; it's not truly capitalist, but it's more capitalist than Deutchland und der Fuhrer.




It wouldn't be where it was today without mixed capitalist hybrids.I'm quite sure we'd be here today without the paltry amount of true free markets that have ever existed in the whole world. We'd be even better off in a true laissez-faire society. Freedom; freedom creates inequalities, but this is a price you must pay. Freedom is worth it. The only reason lib'rals support government everything is because they lack confidence in human beings to do it themselves. But to this I say, how would government, made of humans, be any better?


How would you know what the USA is supposed to be? This is not your country.
Whose country is it? The US is a nation of immigrants, no?

A simple look at the constitution and it becomes very clear what the founding fathers intended: freedom.

(chortle!)

That's awesome, dude. There doesn't need to be a competition. This is the way it should be: minimal government and programs are run on voluntary contributions. Liberals can still give up their income if they want to, without forcing others to. Why can't you accept that? It's like you want to force people to pay, when it doesn't have to be that way. Make taxation voluntary; there can be a low rate that everybody has to pay, and then after that it is voluntary.

Liberals came from liberty....conservatives came from conserving the past....!. We need the future , the present and not the past .

Liberals came from liberty....conservatives came from conserving the past....!. We need the future , the present and not the past .

It's obvious you have no idea what you are talking about. About both liberals and conservatives.

It's obvious you have no idea what you are talking about. About both liberals and conservatives.
Obviously you misunderstood every word I said.....:shrug:

No, I didn't. Both conservatives and liberals think about the future, obviously; they have different ideas as to what it should be, though.

Liberals in America are socialist; they want to turn the US into Scandinavia. I'm glad the US is not like Scandinavia; I'm glad it's free.


Most liberals don't want currency or private property to be abolished. Socialism calls for the abolition of those two things, so to call liberal Americans socialists makes no sense. Scandinavia is not fully socialist either... though I hear it's one of the best places to live on Earth.




We'd be even better off in a true laissez-faire society. Freedom; freedom creates inequalities, but this is a price you must pay. Freedom is worth it.

Your idea of freedom is whacked out, norse. I'm an American citizen... and I feel very free. So do most Americans. You keep saying we'd be better off as a laissez-faire society, accompanied by a lack of examples of why that would be. You just can't wrap your head around the idea that we were closer to laissez-faire than ever before a hundred years ago... and it sucked donkey dicks. The Great Depression of the 1930's is a testament to that.


Whose country is it? The US is a nation of immigrants, no?

It is Americans' country, norse. If I'm not mistaken, you aren't an American. You're a foreign national who has legal residence here, isn't that correct? If you were either a natural born American citizen or an immigrant who was naturalized, then you would be able to speak from a legit source of authority on what America is supposed to be about. Most Americans not immigrants. Most Americans are simply descended from immigrants. My father came here directly from Germany, as one example. He's been a citizen for decades.



A simple look at the constitution and it becomes very clear what the founding fathers intended: freedom.

Actually if you have ever gone through and read the actual constitution of the United States of America, instead of just learning it piecemeal as you go because no one here ever formally taught you American history, then you would know that there is a statement preceding the body of the constitution that we call "The Preamble." It states that:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,[1] 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.

Clearly, the authors of our constitution had many goals in mind when they designed that document. They tasked the government with insuring peace, promoting the well being of the people, AND securing liberty for us. In order to do this, they empowered Congress through something we Americans call "the necessary and proper clause" which, if you take the time to read the document, you will find in Article 1 -- the longest article in the entire constitution.

It's obvious you have no idea what you are talking about. About both liberals and conservatives.

Actually, he is right norsefire. Historically speaking, liberals promote freedom and conservatives promote traditionalism and slow change. That is the origin of the two ideologies.

No, I didn't. Both conservatives and liberals think about the future, obviously; they have different ideas as to what it should be, though.
:rolleyes:......!.

Most liberals don't want currency or private property to be abolished. Socialism calls for the abolition of those two things, so to call liberal Americans socialists makes no sense. Scandinavia is not fully socialist either... though I hear it's one of the best places to live on Earth. Perhaps, but it's not free which is the problem. I would not trade my freedom for comfort.


Your idea of freedom is whacked out, norse. I'm an American citizen... and I feel very free. So do most Americans. You keep saying we'd be better off as a laissez-faire society, accompanied by a lack of examples of why that would be. You just can't wrap your head around the idea that we were closer to laissez-faire than ever before a hundred years ago... and it sucked donkey dicks. The Great Depression of the 1930's is a testament to that. I disagree; first off, a hundred years ago is hardly the best example seeing as the entire world and society and culture were different back then, irrelevant to the economy.

And furthermore, if anything it could be said that the Great Depression was because of government, not because of its absence.



It is Americans' country, norse. If I'm not mistaken, you aren't an American. You're a foreign national who has legal residence here, isn't that correct? If you were either a natural born American citizen or an immigrant who was naturalized, then you would be able to speak from a legit source of authority on what America is supposed to be about. Most Americans not immigrants. Most Americans are simply descended from immigrants. My father came here directly from Germany, as one example. He's been a citizen for decades. Hooey. At one point or another everyone is a first generation immigrant; it makes them no less American. Look at Arnold S.

No, I don't need to be a natural born American to know and understand what the country was to be about.



Actually if you have ever gone through and read the actual constitution of the United States of America, instead of just learning it piecemeal as you go because no one here ever formally taught you American history, then you would know that there is a statement preceding the body of the constitution that we call "The Preamble." It states that:
I already know about the Preamble; I have had formal American history education, thank you very much.


Clearly, the authors of our constitution had many goals in mind when they designed that document. They tasked the government with insuring peace, promoting the well being of the people, AND securing liberty for us. In order to do this, they empowered Congress through something we Americans call "the necessary and proper clause" which, if you take the time to read the document, you will find in Article 1 -- the longest article in the entire constitution. The government is there to protect the borders, maintain law and order, and protect civil liberties. Nothing more.


Actually, he is right Norsefire. Historically speaking, liberals promote freedom and conservatives promote traditionalism and slow change. That is the origin of the two ideologies.
Conservatives do promote traditionalism, if you're talking about traditionalists. However they are focused on the future and ensuring the maintenance of culture and tradition in that respect. Regardless, to different people there are different priorities, freedom and culture.

Perhaps, but it's not free which is the problem. I would not trade my freedom for comfort.

I disagree; first off, a hundred years ago is hardly the best example seeing as the entire world and society and culture were different back then, irrelevant to the economy.

And furthermore, if anything it could be said that the Great Depression was because of government, not because of its absence.


Such statements make no sense, my man. The Great Depression has its roots in something called the dust bowl of America. A great drought that took place in the central United States crippled our agricultural industry and led to the crash of our commodity exchange. The farmers begged for help while this drought was taking place... but Hoover didn't do anything. He was a hands off nutjob who was under serious pressure by "the four horsemen" of the supreme court who threatened to reverse any relief he would offer. When the stock market finally crashed, and when FDR came into office, he made massive relief efforts were allowed to go through when a key justice switched his alignment because he recognized that the unyielding nature of the hands off approach was driving the economy into an even worse direction. At that point FDR constructed a massive soil conservation effort based on forcing more environmentally conservative soil plowing techniques that repaired the central USA and stopped the soil from blowing away. It worked and in time, after many other battles involving the factories, we crawled out of that terrible time.



Hooey. At one point or another everyone is a first generation immigrant; it makes them no less American. Look at Arnold S.

No, I don't need to be a natural born American to know and understand what the country was to be about.



Eh, no norse. I'm not a first generation immigrant in any stretch of the term. I was born here in the USA, and I never have emigrated to another country in my life, nor do I plan on doing so. The same holds true for most natural born American citizens. Our parents, or our grandparents were immigrants... but we weren't. You, on the other hand, are a foreigner, and outsider, once a stranger to this country of ours.

A foreigner may think he knows and understands what this country is supposed to be about... but in most cases he does not. How could he..? He wasn't raised here, and he wasn't naturalized here. All he knows is what he's been told by others. For him to pretend that his knowledge of America is no different than that of most actual Americans is rather insane.




I already know about the Preamble; I have had formal American history education, thank you very much.

The government is there to protect the borders, maintain law and order, and protect civil liberties. Nothing more.

That's not what our Preamble says. Nor are those the only powers enumerated in the constitution. Let's take a look at the ones in Article 1, shall we?

Section 8: The Congress shall have power

To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;

To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;

To establish post offices and post roads;

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;

To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;

To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

To provide and maintain a navy;

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.


The bottom line: you don't know what you're talking about norse. :cool:

How many years have you lived here?

I'm not talking about the droughts, droughts have nothing to do with government, I'm talking about the stock market crash.

Eh, no norse. I'm not a first generation immigrant in any stretch of the term. I was born here in the USA, and I never have emigrated to another country in my life, nor do I plan on doing so. The same holds true for most natural born American citizens. Our parents, or our grandparents were immigrants... but we weren't. You, on the other hand, are a foreigner, and outsider, once a stranger to this country of ours. I didn't say you were a first generation immigrant, I said at one point or another every family, every lineage was first generation. This is the simple truth; being American has little to do with whether or not your parents were American. It is a matter of principle.



That's not what our Preamble says. Nor are those the only powers enumerated in the constitution. Let's take a look at the ones in Article 1, shall we?

Section 8: The Congress shall have power

To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;

To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;

To establish post offices and post roads;

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;

To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;

To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

To provide and maintain a navy;

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.
Nothing you bolded mentioned anything about government provision of enterprise; "general welfare" is such a vague term as to be irrelevant.

Except for post office, but this is not a good thing; the USPS was a legal monopoly for many years, and look at that, now private companies are doing a better job than USPS ever could, and unlike USPS they don't get government funding.


The bottom line: you don't know what you're talking about Norse No, you don't know what you're talking about. You don't understand capitalism, and you don't understand what the American spirit is all about.

The government is constitutionally able to regulate commerce among states, norse. It says so in the enumerated powers. Keep in mind: that isn't the only list of powers in the constitution. Those are merely the powers of Congress... and judging by your reaction, you probably didn't know Congress had such powers.

Now, being an American has to do with whether you are an American citizen, either through natural birth or through naturalization. You aren't one. If there is such a thing as the American spirit, then you don't have it in you. At least not yet. :cool:

So, how many years have you been living here?

The government is constitutionally able to regulate commerce among states, Norse. It says so in the enumerated powers. I know, I'm talking about government provision of enterprise. Regardless, unsound and baseless 'regulation' does nothing except disturb freedom.


Keep in mind: that isn't the only list of powers in the constitution. Those are merely the powers of Congress... and judging by your reaction, you probably didn't know Congress had such powers. Obviously they have such powers or else they wouldn't be using them today.


Now, being an American has to do with whether you are an American citizen, either through natural birth or through naturalization. You aren't one. If there is such a thing as the American spirit, then you don't have it in you. At least not yet. This is a lowly way of looking at it; one can be a citizen of any country and not truly be in the spirit. So no, I do understand the American spirit, and that is freedom.


So, how many years have you been living here?
That is my business.

Actually, he is right norsefire. Historically speaking, liberals promote freedom and conservatives promote traditionalism and slow change. That is the origin of the two ideologies.

:bravo::bravo: agreed .

I didn't say you were a first generation immigrant, I said at one point or another every family, every lineage was first generation. This is the simple truth; being American has little to do with whether or not your parents were American. It is a matter of principle.

An American is a person who is a citizen of the United States of America. If you are not a citizen, then that means you can't vote in our elections. It also means that if you commit certain crimes, then you face apprehension and deportation followed by a permanent ban. If that describes you, then you aren't an American, norse. Americans can't be forcibly removed and then banned from their own country. :cool:


I know, I'm talking about government provision of enterprise. Regardless, unsound and baseless 'regulation' does nothing except disturb freedom.

Your opinion of unsound and baseless regulation is different from that of America's. The regulation we do have is meant to protect our freedom.

So whats the difference between a neo-conservative, and a conservative?

So whats the difference between a neo-conservative, and a conservative?

What's the difference between a nazi and a neo-nazi ?

Disclaimer: I've put no thought whatsoever into this reply and I didn't bother with the context.
:p

So whats the difference between a neo-conservative, and a conservative?
Neo-conservatism is much different.

Neo-conservatives have an emphasis on nationalism, patriotism, "aggressive" foreign policy, censorship, and in fact a certain degree of regulation

Conservatives believe in non-interventionalist foreign policy, individualism, capitalism, minimal government, and free press and civil liberties


What's the difference between a nazi and a neo-nazi ?
Nothing. Neo-Nazis are Nazis that are not actually of the National Socialist Party of Germany (now dead)

They share the exact same beliefs, simply different origins; although Hitler didn't care about Whites in general, only Aryan Germans, and quite likely Austrians and Dutch

WRONG!!!!!!!!

conservitives belive in submission to authority, patrotisium and religion as core moral values. Liberals do not

WRONG!!!!!!!!

conservitives belive in submission to authority,

Like Liberals? Submit to government plunder! Government can do this, do that, command you to do this, do that, take this, take that



patrotisium and religion as core moral values. Liberals do not

Asguard, do not be so simple-minded. Neo-conservatives do; conservatives, laissez-faire-ists, and libertarians do not.

Most individualists are anti-patriotism and anti-religion.

Not to mention the loads of liberals, here in the US, that are religious and patriotic. Most people in general here are. I don't know about Australia.

So whats the difference between a neo-conservative, and a conservative?

Practically speaking, there are a few. Neos accept the general concept of deficit spending and social safety nets. They place much importance on the teachings of Leo Strauss, who argued, among other things, that it is okay to lie to people if you think you're doing good. For instance, the American tendency to view the world in dualistic terms such as good and evil found a very Straussian context in the last two decades of the Cold War, and again in our panic about terrorism.

Neoconservatism sometimes looks like a Freudian ego defense against the arbitrariness of traditional conservatism, which historically has sought to preserve old and exploitative power structures. And this would make sense, I suppose, as the early prominent neoconservatives were former Communists who sided with capitalism in order to combat Stalinism. Much like the hippie generation that brought us the 1980s, neocons are former leftists who woke up one day and smelled the money. Everything else seems to follow from there.


• • •



Conservatives believe in non-interventionalist foreign policy, individualism, capitalism, minimal government, and free press and civil liberties

If only that was true.

It is true

www.libertarianparty.org

Well sure he was seen as the enemy, they crucified him, after all.

So, there's like two billion (http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_Christians_are_there_worldwide) people worshipping the enemy?

I just think I should point out, since it was linked here, that the libertarian party of the USA has had their reputation marred by scandals for YEARS now.

All of those guys are wishy washy republicans in disguise. They always have been. They don't represent libertarianism as an ideal. Let's not forget Bob Barr, folks. He was the nasty little republican troll who (1) wanted to get Clinton impeached, and (2) voted for the patriot act, and (3) was one of the most outspoken proponents for the war on drugs. He is also the libertarian party's favorite nominee for presidential elections.

Ron Paul once ran a presidential campaign as the nominee for the libertarian party as well way back in 1988... but then switched back to being a republican when he realized that his reputation was being tainted by a lot of funny business over in the libertarian party.

I think their past history speaks for itself. ;)

The government is constitutionally able to regulate commerce among states, norse. It says so in the enumerated powers. Keep in mind: that isn't the only list of powers in the constitution. Those are merely the powers of Congress... and judging by your reaction, you probably didn't know Congress had such powers.

Now, being an American has to do with whether you are an American citizen, either through natural birth or through naturalization. You aren't one. If there is such a thing as the American spirit, then you don't have it in you. At least not yet. :cool:

So, how many years have you been living here?

Yes, between States, not in the States, X Amendment.

Now as to Liberal or Conservative? How are you using those terms? classical or as they have been turned Head over Bass Ackward, in the American Political System?


Classical liberalism (also known as traditional liberalism[1], laissez-faire liberalism[2], and market liberalism[3] or, outside Canada and the United States, sometimes simply liberalism[4]) is a form of liberalism stressing individual freedom, free markets, and limited government. This includes the importance of human rationality, individual property rights, natural rights, the protection of civil liberties, individual freedom from restraint, equality under the law, constitutional limitation of government, free markets, and a gold standard to facilitate global free trade and place fiscal constraints on government[5], as exemplified in the writings of John Locke, Adam Smith, David Hume, Thomas Jefferson, Voltaire, Fr้d้ric Bastiat, Montesquieu and others.

1.^ Brad Stetson, Human Dignity and Contemporary Liberalism (Westport, CT: Praeger/Greenwood, 1998), 26.
2.^ a b Ian Adams, Political Ideology Today (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2001), 20.
3.^ Kirkpatrick, Jerry. Montessori, Dewey, and Capitalism. TLJ Books, 2008, p. 35
4.^ Merriam-Webster gives a definition of "liberalism" as "a theory in economics emphasizing individual freedom from restraint and usually based on free competition, the self-regulating market, and the gold standard"

Yes these Great Men were Classical Liberals:

classical liberalism - advocated both political freedom for individuals and a free market in the economic sphere. Ideas of this sort were promulgated by Adam Smith, and John Stuart Mill.

John Locke
Benjamin Franklin
Thomas Jefferson
John Adams
Patrick Henry
Thomas Paine
Frederick Douglas
Martin Luther King, Jr.

Meaning they were very conservative in their politics as conservatism is defined today, smaller and strictly limited Government as defined by the Constitution of the United Sates, limited to the strick enumeration of powers granted by that Constitution to the Federal Government.

These Men are Contemporary Liberals;

Nikola Tesla
Franklin Delano Rooseveldt
Albert Einstein
Robert F. Kennedy

Bigger and more intrusive government, taking responsibility from the Individual and putting it into the hands of Government Bureaucrats.

Yes, between States, not in the States, X Amendment.


That depends on which supreme court justice is being asked. Throughout history, interstate commerce has been inextricably linked with intrastate commerce... and the court has acted (and continues to act) on both basis' at different times.

That depends on which supreme court justice is being asked. Throughout history, interstate commerce has been inextricably linked with intrastate commerce... and the court has acted (and continues to act) on both basis' at different times.

That is why we need to get the Supreme Court out of making legislation by Judaical fiat, and return to being the Guardians of the Constitution.

Someone has to determine whether or not those laws are constitutional, though. Congress can't do that... because why would Congress declare laws that they themselves voted to pass as unconstitutional...? I don't know if you live in the USA or not but here there's a doctrine that our goverment follows called "separation of powers," and that is the reason that we have multiple branches of government.

Someone has to determine whether or not those laws are constitutional, though. Congress can't do that... because why would Congress declare laws that they themselves voted to pass as unconstitutional...? I don't know if you live in the USA or not but here there's a doctrine that our goverment follows called "separation of powers," and that is the reason that we have multiple branches of government.

Exactly, declare it unconstitutional and then return it back for Congress to rewrite, the power of Legislation lies with Congress, as one of it's enumerated powers, not the Judiciary, the Supreme Court has no authority by enumeration, to make new law, or, to task pr spend money in implementation of any law, it is not a power granted to the Courts.

Exactly, declare it unconstitutional and then return it back for Congress to rewrite, the power of Legislation lies with Congress, as one of it's enumerated powers, not the Judiciary, the Supreme Court has no authority by enumeration, to make new law, or, to task pr spend money in implementation of any law, it is not a power granted to the Courts.

You still haven't explained how the courts "make" new laws

Yes these Great Men were Classical Liberals:There is no such thing. The British liberals of the time period were generally supporters of the Parliament against an absolute monarch, and this was largely the source of their motivation. They were actually very divided regarding what they thought the appropriate powers of government actually were. There was no such thing as a "liberal party" and a "conservative party" at the time.

However, I think that they would have favored a strong Congress and a more limited executive branch. They essentially did the same thing during the time period. Besides that, their views would likely have been skewed in accordance with their particular circumstances and natural sensibilities. There wasn't really any real...mold at the time.

That said, the only historical figure that I seek to emulate is Machiavelli.

There is no such thing. The British liberals of the time period were generally supporters of the Parliament against an absolute monarch, and this was largely the source of their motivation. They were actually very divided regarding what they thought the appropriate powers of government actually were. There was no such thing as a "liberal party" and a "conservative party" at the time.

However, I think that they would have favored a strong Congress and a more limited executive branch. They essentially did the same thing during the time period. Besides that, their views would likely have been skewed in accordance with their particular circumstances and natural sensibilities. There wasn't really any real...mold at the time.

That said, the only historical figure that I seek to emulate is Machiavelli.


The Whig party slowly evolved during the 18th century. The Whig tendency supported the great aristocratic families, the Protestant Hanoverian succession, Eventually the Whigs would evolve into the Liberal Party.

Yes, Wigs/liberals, big government, government spending and control, over the peasants

Now the problem for you and the Liberals today is, "The Constitution", as written by these Great Men, who founded our Country, it is nothing but a limit on the powers of Congress, President, and Judiciary, in favor of the Rights of the People.

They clearly enumerated what powers the Federal Government and it's branches were limited to, and in very plain word.

Yes, Wigs/liberals, big government, government spending and control, over the peasants

Now the problem for you and the Liberals today is, "The Constitution", as written by these Great Men, who founded our Country, it is nothing but a limit on the powers of Congress, President, and Judiciary, in favor of the Rights of the People.

They clearly enumerated what powers the Federal Government and it's branches were limited to, and in very plain word.

57 commas to a sentence is in plain words.

Now the problem for you and the Liberals today is, "The Constitution", as written by these Great Men, who founded our Country, it is nothing but a limit on the powers of Congress, President, and Judiciary, in favor of the Rights of the People.I don't know about "Great Men." I am not sure there is any doubt in my mind that they were savvy politicians. What these guys were really up against, though, was absolute monarchy. There was this idea, that was becoming prevalent for a while, that kings were born with some "divine right" to take or do whatever they wanted to do. They were even forming religious sects around the idea. A more modern parallel would be emperor worship in the Empire of Nippon, during World War II. Many older Americans still remember the terrors of that time period.

The truth is that the country was founded by imperfect, although educated men who happened to be living in a time in which even a person who was morally profligate could understand and act upon what was obviously the right thing to do at the time. The people of the time period were facing very different challenges from what we are today. The politics at the time were fundamentally different, not just different in terms of degree or quantity.


They clearly enumerated what powers the Federal Government and it's branches were limited to, and in very plain word.This is our country. It is not their country anymore. They are dead. It is not entirely your country, either. You have to share it with me. By the way, have I mentioned the fact that our Constitution really seems to be based very much on the Discourses on Livy, by Niccolo Machiavelli? I find this extremely interesting in light of the fact that many people associate Machiavelli with a very different work, created with a very different purpose.

Like the men whose ideas led to the founding of this country, though, Machiavelli's views and ideas were very much a product of the stresses and circumstances of the time in which he was living. The world was not all that much different then in most respects. The grass was the same shade of green, and there are places in the US, even today, in which you can still see little more than the means and technology that were available to them at the time, save perhaps for electricity and motorcars. Most families went about their day-to-day lives in similar fashion to what we do today. It was not an alien world. However, to truly understand the politics of HIS time period, see some of the places in Africa that are ruled by warlords. To understand the environment that our founding father were dealing with, take a simple look at dictators and bullies today that are using a religious institution to justify their rulership.

I am not a supporter of so-called "big government." I am a supporter of good government, and that is where I stand. I am willing to be respectful toward your input. I am willing to be respectful toward your input, in particular, because you don't really resemble the kinds of men who left me as disaffected with the GOP as I have expressed in another thread on which we have both participated but interacted very little. You know from what I have said there and elsewhere that I would not hesitate to rail against anyone I thought fit the bill for something that I hated. You know that I am self-destructive when I get a certain sense about people because you, BR, have seen me in action all over this forum. Therefore, you can be perfectly confident that I am not bullshitting you when I state that I honestly don't consider you, in particular, to be in the "Them" category. Perhaps we don't always agree, but that shouldn't be something to come between two men who generally trust each other.

To me, the conclusion is not entirely clear. However, I think that, between people like you and people like me, we will eventually settle on what constitutes "good government" together as long as we all try to practice some civility. I understand that there are certain people I can't practice that with, but screw them. I will have you know that I am a moderate liberal. I do believe that liberalism, as we understand it today, has an important heritage in our country. It even goes back to some of the ideals that were supported by Adam Smith. Most people don't truly understand Adam Smith, but I think he would be called an extremely moderate, tentative progressive even in modern times. In spite of where we may disagree on the specifics, though, I think that we can agree that we want our government to be "good government." We want it to be effective and efficient at whatever we call on it to do. We want it to do so discreetly.

I don't know about "Great Men." I am not sure there is any doubt in my mind that they were savvy politicians. What these guys were really up against, though, was absolute monarchy. There was this idea, that was becoming prevalent for a while, that kings were born with some "divine right" to take or do whatever they wanted to do. They were even forming religious sects around the idea. A more modern parallel would be emperor worship in the Empire of Nippon, during World War II. Many older Americans still remember the terrors of that time period.

The truth is that the country was founded by imperfect, although educated men who happened to be living in a time in which even a person who was morally profligate could understand and act upon what was obviously the right thing to do at the time. The people of the time period were facing very different challenges from what we are today. The politics at the time were fundamentally different, not just different in terms of degree or quantity.

This is our country. It is not their country anymore. They are dead. It is not entirely your country, either. You have to share it with me. By the way, have I mentioned the fact that our Constitution really seems to be based very much on the Discourses on Livy, by Niccolo Machiavelli? I find this extremely interesting in light of the fact that many people associate Machiavelli with a very different work, created with a very different purpose.

Like the men whose ideas led to the founding of this country, though, Machiavelli's views and ideas were very much a product of the stresses and circumstances of the time in which he was living. The world was not all that much different then in most respects. The grass was the same shade of green, and there are places in the US, even today, in which you can still see little more than the means and technology that were available to them at the time, save perhaps for electricity and motorcars. Most families went about their day-to-day lives in similar fashion to what we do today. It was not an alien world. However, to truly understand the politics of HIS time period, see some of the places in Africa that are ruled by warlords. To understand the environment that our founding father were dealing with, take a simple look at dictators and bullies today that are using a religious institution to justify their rulership.

I am not a supporter of so-called "big government." I am a supporter of good government, and that is where I stand. I am willing to be respectful toward your input. I am willing to be respectful toward your input, in particular, because you don't really resemble the kinds of men who left me as disaffected with the GOP as I have expressed in another thread on which we have both participated but interacted very little. You know from what I have said there and elsewhere that I would not hesitate to rail against anyone I thought fit the bill for something that I hated. You know that I am self-destructive when I get a certain sense about people because you, BR, have seen me in action all over this forum. Therefore, you can be perfectly confident that I am not bullshitting you when I state that I honestly don't consider you, in particular, to be in the "Them" category. Perhaps we don't always agree, but that shouldn't be something to come between two men who generally trust each other.

To me, the conclusion is not entirely clear. However, I think that, between people like you and people like me, we will eventually settle on what constitutes "good government" together as long as we all try to practice some civility. I understand that there are certain people I can't practice that with, but screw them. I will have you know that I am a moderate liberal. I do believe that liberalism, as we understand it today, has an important heritage in our country. It even goes back to some of the ideals that were supported by Adam Smith. Most people don't truly understand Adam Smith, but I think he would be called an extremely moderate, tentative progressive even in modern times. In spite of where we may disagree on the specifics, though, I think that we can agree that we want our government to be "good government." We want it to be effective and efficient at whatever we call on it to do. We want it to do so discreetly.

Again you lack of Historical Knowledge is apparent, England wasn't a Absolute Monarchy, it was a Parliamentary Monarchy, and those Great Men were not Politicians.

They absolutely put their Lives and Fortunes on the Line for their Beliefs, if they had Failed in this they would have ended up on the end of the Hangman's Rope for Treason.

Again you lack of Historical Knowledge is apparent,My "lack of historical knowledge"? BR, this is an unnecessary insult, and I have demonstrated myself to have a fair level of historical savvy.


England wasn't a Absolute Monarchy, it was a Parliamentary MonarchyDuring the Glorious Revolution, it was a Parliamentary Republic! It was a parliamentary monarchy because there were people in England and in Scotland and in Wales who were fighting to keep it that way. This was more the work of savvy statesmen than belligerent firebrands. I will use one of my own ancestors as an example: Anthony Ashley-Cooper, the First Earl of Shaftesbury, was never really anti-Catholic. In fact, he became a supporter of religious toleration. However, a fellow who was in the line of succession had been abusing his power, and it looked like he had fallen under the temptation to try to replicate the events that had led to absolute monarchy in France. Now, to get things done in politics, you often have to build a few unattractive alliances and make difficult decisions. Although my ancestor realized the evils of religious intolerance, he also realized that the rampant anti-Catholicism in Britain could be a useful tool for bracing his country against a descent into tyranny, so he found himself amidst a group of paranoid fanatics whose fertile imaginations tended to invent new reasons for hating the Catholics.

The history of modern democracy was made by brilliant politicians and statesmen. There was nothing special about them. There was nothing anymore special about them than there is about Barack Obama or George H.W. Bush. To tell you the truth, I think that even the best of them would be embarrassed to be remembered as picture-perfect icons, rather than the flawed, human figures they actually were. The flaws and quirks of these men are what give them life and depth. It makes them more approachable, and it becomes easier then to believe that we can emulate them.

Adam Smith was a very strange, unattractive man. He had a number of eccentric habits, and he would regularly do weird things like take these late night walks. He was a brilliant scholar, though, and his work in the area of economics helped set the mold for what America's economy was to become. Countries all over the world are still being touched today by the influence of this man. The humanity in this man, though, makes him something that people today, who are also imperfect human beings, can aspire to be more like. If you make him into some mythological figure, then what is that telling some weird, little bug-eyed kid today? It's telling him the same ugly thing that the bullies he deals with every day are telling him: "you're not good enough, and you will never be good enough. Give it up." I believe that a flawed, human hero sets a much better moral example for young people.


and those Great Men were not Politicians.They were politicians, and many of them were intellectuals.


They absolutely put their Lives and Fortunes...Yes, my ancestors were very heroic during the Revolutionary War. I am proud to say that none of them were tories. They were still politicians.

Mod Note: Thread re-opened at member request.

This is a quotation from the opening statement i do believe.

"ALL OF THESE GREAT PEOPLE WERE LIBERALS:

John Locke
Benjamin Franklin
Thomas Jefferson
John Adams
Patrick Henry
Thomas Paine"

These people were not liberals these people were Libertarians. Libertarians believing in little to no government. Liberals believing that they need to play Robin Hood and take money from people who actually work and give it to the people that dont. Dont get me wrong i believe in a lot of Liberal Views such as separation of church and state. (Hence the libertarian side of liberalism) However i believe that the government shouldn't only keep their hands out off of my religious believes or the lack there of but also keep their hands out of my wallet as well.

This is why these men are not liberals, some of these men helped form our constitution, right after we fought a war to get out of a government that was sticking their hands in all places but where it needed to be.

You're splitting hairs. They were liberals in their day.

~String

This is why these men are not liberals, some of these men helped form our constitution, right after we fought a war to get out of a government that was sticking their hands in all places but where it needed to be.

Funny, I seem to recall the objections being a lack of representation, not taxation as such, or over-governance in general.

Funny, I seem to recall the objections being a lack of representation, not taxation as such, or over-governance in general.

Yes it was about lack of representation and may not only be directed to the taxation. However look at how the Articles of Confederation it self was written. No power to the government specially with the Executive Branch. Then the fact that none of them even wanted to be the First President because they feared becoming what they hated the most.

BTW i am not splitting hairs. A liberal is a liberal, a conservative is a conservative, and a libertarian is a libertarian. Liberals believe in control of economics, conservatives believe in control of Moralities, and Libertarians believed in the control of none of it but basic public safety, and defense of the nation. I expected you to know better Mr. Moderator.