A liberals view of "Conservatism".

[Intense]

You guys are starting to believe me now that Deany is Batman Villain insane, right?

 

[daveman]

It can be safely assumed, daveman. That you won't read ANYTHING that challenges conservatism. FF represents EXACTLY the kind of conservative the author writes about. The Aristocrat. That's her attitude. Contempt for common folk.

So if I'd posted an article that started off "The opposite of liberalism is strawberry jam", you'd read it and seriously consider it?

The author understands nothing about conservatism. We don't do classes. That's the left.

 

[Uncensored2008]

It can be safely assumed, daveman. That you won't read ANYTHING that challenges conservatism. FF represents EXACTLY the kind of conservative the author writes about. The Aristocrat. That's her attitude. Contempt for common folk.

You posted a diatribe by an idiot.

Don't expect anyone to pay heed.

 

[Bern80]

It can be safely assumed, daveman. That you won't read ANYTHING that challenges conservatism. FF represents EXACTLY the kind of conservative the author writes about. The Aristocrat. That's her attitude. Contempt for common folk.

No Sky Dancer. It can be dismissed because the very first sentence is an objectively untrue statement. How exactly is majority rule the opposite of conservatism (the opposite of majority rule being minority rule)?

 

[Charles_Main]

Conservatives are always complaining that liberals have them all wrong. They will say they are the party of "moderate spending" even though it's under Republican presidents the deficit has exploded. And we can point to what the money is spent on. Things like Iraq and huge tax cuts for the wealthy. What have Democratic presidents spent money on? Republicans will say they give it away to poor people.

Conservatives insist they are for "individual freedom" and work tirelessly to limit women's rights, gay's rights and end anything "anti discrimination".

When I ask Conservatives to explain their position, it's never clear. Their answers are things like "make better" and "go back to when it was better" and "bring God back".

So, this is THIS liberals view of what it means to be a conservative:

Tax cuts for the wealthy because they make jobs.

Morals MUST be legislated. Otherwise, people will run crazy and have sex everywhere if not stopped.

Science must be "balanced" with God.

We need to return to a better time when blacks knew their place, women were in the kitchen, and gays were in the closet.

Stop trying to rebuild America. If a bridge is needed, let the locals build it.

We don't need health care. We have prayer and can go visit a doctor at last resort.

We don't need "facts". People are over-educated. Just use common sense.

Democracy is good as long as it doesn't interfere with our Christian Values. Then we may need to "tweak" it.

We need to "return" to basics in education (I can never figure out what that means. Our scientists are coming from somewhere. They didn't all get a private education.)

I just wish conservatives would explain to me where "education" and "science" fits into their philosophy. What does it mean to the right to be a conservative? Unless I nailed it.

Not surprised that a Liberals view on Conservatives would be so hopelessly off base. So far off that it's not worth even trying to Correct you, It's not like you want to hear what we actually think, you would rather believe what other liberals tell you to think we think.

 

[Uncensored2008]

No Sky Dancer. It can be dismissed because the very first sentence is an objectively untrue statement. How exactly is majority rule the opposite of conservatism (the opposite of majority rule being minority rule)?

It is true that the right supports protecting the rights of the minority. In the democracy of Sky Dancer's dreams, 51% of the population could vote to slaughter the other 49% and divide their assets. Majority rule.

The right prefers a republican system where the rights of all are constitutionally protected. A mob cannot deprive others of life or liberty without due process. Sky supports what is essentially a lynch mob, as a form of government.

 

[Sky Dancer]

It can be safely assumed, daveman. That you won't read ANYTHING that challenges conservatism. FF represents EXACTLY the kind of conservative the author writes about. The Aristocrat. That's her attitude. Contempt for common folk.

So if I'd posted an article that started off "The opposite of liberalism is strawberry jam", you'd read it and seriously consider it?

The author understands nothing about conservatism. We don't do classes. That's the left.

Actually you do classes. The business class. You're the aristocracy, favoring tax cuts for the rich while the poor and middle classes carry the weight.

Conservatives, in the Wall Street Journal for example, have no difficulty claiming to be the party of freedom in one breath and attacking civil liberties in the next.

Conservatives argue that freedom is not possible at all. Without the domination of conservatism, social order would require the external domination of state terror. internalized domination has not worked. What is unthinkable to Conservatives is the possibility that people might organize their lives in a democratic fashion.

Conservatives are terrified of OWS. They think it should be clamped down on. Squashed, repressed, shut down. Why not look at the questions liberals raise in good conscience?

Do environmental regulations work? Why should we protect the civil liberties of terrorists? Are liberals anti-American? What do we need government for anyway?

 

[Bern80]

It can be safely assumed, daveman. That you won't read ANYTHING that challenges conservatism. FF represents EXACTLY the kind of conservative the author writes about. The Aristocrat. That's her attitude. Contempt for common folk.

So if I'd posted an article that started off "The opposite of liberalism is strawberry jam", you'd read it and seriously consider it?

The author understands nothing about conservatism. We don't do classes. That's the left.

Actually you do classes. The business class. You're the aristocracy, favoring tax cuts for the rich while the poor and middle classes carry the weight.

Conservatives, in the Wall Street Journal for example, have no difficulty claiming to be the party of freedom in one breath and attacking civil liberties in the next.

Conservatives argue that freedom is not possible at all. Without the domination of conservatism, social order would require the external domination of state terror. internalized domination has not worked. What is unthinkable to Conservatives is the possibility that people might organize their lives in a democratic fashion.

Conservatives are terrified of OWS. They think it should be clamped down on. Squashed, repressed, shut down. Why not look at the questions liberals raise in good conscience?

Do environmental regulations work? Why should we protect the civil liberties of terrorists? Are liberals anti-American? What do we need government for anyway?

You're out to lunch if that's what you think conservatives really believe. You can't expect to gain any credibility or 'open a debate' when you start by citing someone who is factually incorrect in what he says. You'd have to maks some type of argument as to how his opening statement is accurate. Two people asked you and you dodged both of them. It's one thing to have a difference of opinion about what conservatism is, but that isn't what the person you cited said. Dave man pointed it out best in noting that it's basically gibberish. It's the equivalent of saying something like the opposite of hot is peanuts. It's nonsensical. Forgive us for not taking him (or you) seriously.

 

[Charles_Main]

So if I'd posted an article that started off "The opposite of liberalism is strawberry jam", you'd read it and seriously consider it?

The author understands nothing about conservatism. We don't do classes. That's the left.

Actually you do classes. The business class. You're the aristocracy, favoring tax cuts for the rich while the poor and middle classes carry the weight.

Conservatives, in the Wall Street Journal for example, have no difficulty claiming to be the party of freedom in one breath and attacking civil liberties in the next.

Conservatives argue that freedom is not possible at all. Without the domination of conservatism, social order would require the external domination of state terror. internalized domination has not worked. What is unthinkable to Conservatives is the possibility that people might organize their lives in a democratic fashion.

Conservatives are terrified of OWS. They think it should be clamped down on. Squashed, repressed, shut down. Why not look at the questions liberals raise in good conscience?

Do environmental regulations work? Why should we protect the civil liberties of terrorists? Are liberals anti-American? What do we need government for anyway?

You're out to lunch if that's what you think conservatives really believe. You can't expect to gain any credibility or 'open a debate' when you start by citing someone who is factually incorrect in what he says. You'd have to maks some type of argument as to how his opening statement is accurate. Two people asked you and you dodged both of them. It's one thing to have a difference of opinion about what conservatism is, but that isn't what the person you cited said. Dave man pointed it out best in noting that it's basically gibberish. It's the equivalent of saying something like the opposite of hot is peanuts. It's nonsensical. Forgive us for not taking him (or you) seriously.

She is out to lunch if she actually believe the Middle class and poor "carry the weight" A simply visit to the IRS web site As well as State Web Sites, will show you with out a doubt that the Rich carry over 75% of the weight. Despite her LIES to the contrary.

 

[DiamondDave]

It can be safely assumed, daveman. That you won't read ANYTHING that challenges conservatism. FF represents EXACTLY the kind of conservative the author writes about. The Aristocrat. That's her attitude. Contempt for common folk.

So if I'd posted an article that started off "The opposite of liberalism is strawberry jam", you'd read it and seriously consider it?

The author understands nothing about conservatism. We don't do classes. That's the left.

Actually you do classes. The business class. You're the aristocracy, favoring tax cuts for the rich while the poor and middle classes carry the weight.

Conservatives, in the Wall Street Journal for example, have no difficulty claiming to be the party of freedom in one breath and attacking civil liberties in the next.

Conservatives argue that freedom is not possible at all. Without the domination of conservatism, social order would require the external domination of state terror. internalized domination has not worked. What is unthinkable to Conservatives is the possibility that people might organize their lives in a democratic fashion.

Conservatives are terrified of OWS. They think it should be clamped down on. Squashed, repressed, shut down. Why not look at the questions liberals raise in good conscience?

Do environmental regulations work? Why should we protect the civil liberties of terrorists? Are liberals anti-American? What do we need government for anyway?

When ~50% pay not income tax at all (which is most of the poor and lower middle class), it immediately blows your little bullshit premise out of the water.... let alone the rest of your made up shit

 

[DiamondDave]

This bitch is looney tunes on a rdummy and chris level

 

[DaGoose]

You know, society has the right and does, decide what is deemed acceptable. You are not at liberty to do whatever the hell you fee like, you know, like euthanizing people or marrying goats.

Sorry to have to break it to you.

And sorry to break it to you but if you support banning the things I listed then you support a big, intrusive government. You can't have it both ways.

Yeah? Like claiming what you are claiming then claiming the moral high ground by supporting Obamacare under the guise of "it's the right thing to do".

Gimme me a fucking break.

And if that's all you got then you got nothing. Face it, you support a big, intrusive gubmint as long as it intrudes in the things you oppose. Period.

 

[DiamondDave]

And sorry to break it to you but if you support banning the things I listed then you support a big, intrusive government. You can't have it both ways.

Yeah? Like claiming what you are claiming then claiming the moral high ground by supporting Obamacare under the guise of "it's the right thing to do".

Gimme me a fucking break.

And if that's all you got then you got nothing. Face it, you support a big, intrusive gubmint as long as it intrudes in the things you oppose. Period.

I guess banning theft is big intrusive government... I guess traffic laws are big intrusive government...

You're a fucking moron...

Being for smaller government does not mean you abolish laws, make everything legal....

But nice try

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

And sorry to break it to you but if you support banning the things I listed then you support a big, intrusive government. You can't have it both ways.

Yeah? Like claiming what you are claiming then claiming the moral high ground by supporting Obamacare under the guise of "it's the right thing to do".

Gimme me a fucking break.

And if that's all you got then you got nothing. Face it, you support a big, intrusive gubmint as long as it intrudes in the things you oppose. Period.

Just pointing out the colossal hypocrisy of your stance; and I do not support a big, intrusive government.. I never said that. I'll recap for you since you have obvious challenges in the comprehension department:

We live in society whereby we the people decide rules that we must live by... this is why you can't go around screwing children, euthanizing you 90 year old mother, marrying horses and driving on sidewalks. You can't just do whatever the hell you like... that's called anarchy.

 

[Mr.Nick]

Conservatives are always complaining that liberals have them all wrong. They will say they are the party of "moderate spending" even though it's under Republican presidents the deficit has exploded. And we can point to what the money is spent on. Things like Iraq and huge tax cuts for the wealthy. What have Democratic presidents spent money on? Republicans will say they give it away to poor people.

Conservatives insist they are for "individual freedom" and work tirelessly to limit women's rights, gay's rights and end anything "anti discrimination".

When I ask Conservatives to explain their position, it's never clear. Their answers are things like "make better" and "go back to when it was better" and "bring God back".

So, this is THIS liberals view of what it means to be a conservative:

Tax cuts for the wealthy because they make jobs.

Morals MUST be legislated. Otherwise, people will run crazy and have sex everywhere if not stopped.

Science must be "balanced" with God.

We need to return to a better time when blacks knew their place, women were in the kitchen, and gays were in the closet.

Stop trying to rebuild America. If a bridge is needed, let the locals build it.

We don't need health care. We have prayer and can go visit a doctor at last resort.

We don't need "facts". People are over-educated. Just use common sense.

Democracy is good as long as it doesn't interfere with our Christian Values. Then we may need to "tweak" it.

We need to "return" to basics in education (I can never figure out what that means. Our scientists are coming from somewhere. They didn't all get a private education.)

I just wish conservatives would explain to me where "education" and "science" fits into their philosophy. What does it mean to the right to be a conservative? Unless I nailed it.

No progressives are just dumb people who want something for nothing because they're too fucking dumb to get what they want on their own.

A fantastic example of this is how you imply presidents spend money. Now that shows your ignorance - every educated person knows that CONGRESS authorizes and spends money - NOT PRESIDENTS...

Now given your ignorance why the fuck should anyone give a shit about your assertions???

 

[Sky Dancer]

Not one post here that I respond to. Too bad, it's an interesting topic.

 

[daveman]

It can be safely assumed, daveman. That you won't read ANYTHING that challenges conservatism. FF represents EXACTLY the kind of conservative the author writes about. The Aristocrat. That's her attitude. Contempt for common folk.

So if I'd posted an article that started off "The opposite of liberalism is strawberry jam", you'd read it and seriously consider it?

The author understands nothing about conservatism. We don't do classes. That's the left.

Actually you do classes. The business class. You're the aristocracy, favoring tax cuts for the rich while the poor and middle classes carry the weight.

Conservatives, in the Wall Street Journal for example, have no difficulty claiming to be the party of freedom in one breath and attacking civil liberties in the next.

Conservatives argue that freedom is not possible at all. Without the domination of conservatism, social order would require the external domination of state terror. internalized domination has not worked. What is unthinkable to Conservatives is the possibility that people might organize their lives in a democratic fashion.

Conservatives are terrified of OWS. They think it should be clamped down on. Squashed, repressed, shut down. Why not look at the questions liberals raise in good conscience?

Do environmental regulations work? Why should we protect the civil liberties of terrorists? Are liberals anti-American? What do we need government for anyway?

No wonder you blindly swallowed that author's leftist horseshit. You're programmed to.

 

[NoNukes]

Troll thread of the day!

Since you've never met a conservative in real life, and you are incapable of learning from the ones here, why I am surprised that you have it all wrong?

There is very little to learn from the Conservatives here that you did not already learn in primary school.

 

[daveman]

Not one post here that I respond to. Too bad, it's an interesting topic.

Yes, it's an interesting topic: "How warped is a liberal's view of conservatism?"

 

[DiamondDave]

Troll thread of the day!

Since you've never met a conservative in real life, and you are incapable of learning from the ones here, why I am surprised that you have it all wrong?

There is very little to learn from the Conservatives here that you did not already learn in primary school.

And there is very little from liberalism that you did not already learn from fairy tales