America Before the Entitlement State

[Bfgrn]

I see you have a need to chop up my posts because you're in over your head here, so obfuscation is your tool.

I replied to every word you regurgitated, not one was omitted.

Try again.

Conservatism is based on latitude, longitude and date of birth. I call it parochial indoctrination.

What a moronic statement.

Once again you demonstrate the truth in the statement that;

The lower the IQ, the further to the left.



Bigoted bullshit.

You believe that your thesis is clever, it isn't.




And stood in front of tanks, we are aware.



When you say that you represent the 99%, 99% of what?

You certainly have nothing in common with those who create and build this nation. You view digging a hole in the desert and filling it in as equivalent to inventing integrated circuits.



ROFL

More mindless bigotry.



Your little tin god is getter very close to that.



You are a confused little troll. You, or the hate site doing your thinking simply fabricated your claim.



ROFL

What a fucking idiot.

The Stalinists have the same views as YOU, nearly identical.

And like today’s ‘tea partiers’, they wanted their authoritarian government back.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Tea Party want authoritarian government, huh?

Do you REALLY think that lying through your fucking teeth makes you look LESS foolish?

Seriously?

February 27, 1989

Soviet Conservatives Try to Turn Back the Clock on Gorbachev's Policies

MOSCOW, Feb. 26— Russian conservatives, uneasy with the liberalization of Soviet society under Mikhail S. Gorbachev, have seized on the country's experiment in more democratic elections as a chance to fight for a return to more authoritarian ways.

While many candidates and voters say they view the elections to the new Congress of Deputies as a way to further the candor and freedoms allowed by the Soviet leader, conservatives in this city and around the country were boasting last week that they had already succeeded in blocking the nomination of several prominent people regarded as liberals. At election rallies where speakers call out against the influence of ''Zionist forces,'' and in campaign leaflets decrying ''liberal yellow journalists.

A Disparate Alliance
The conservatives are a disparate alliance, including xenophobic fringe groups, like Pamyat, as well as large numbers of less extreme nationalists who yearn for what they see as the simple values of Old Russia and the Orthodox church.

'I Am a Stalinist'
''We brought our case to the people, and the outcome speaks for us,'' said Mr. Zherbin, whose group regards the liberalization of Soviet society as a conspiracy by Jews, Masons and Westernizers.

Prominent among the speeches and the placards at conservative political gatherings is support for Pamyat (Russian for ''memory''), which has been repeatedly criticized in the Soviet press for anti-Semitism.

Soviet Conservatives Try to Turn Back the Clock on Gorbachev's Policies

Anyone calling a communist a "conservative" is a fucking moron, a mindless baboon.

The leftist press was not successful in using this smear in 1989, they were derided and ridiculed for their open demagoguery and the mindless partisanship they displayed.

Are you REALLY so stupid that you would resurrect such a losing strategy?

The level of your name calling reveals your fear. You are unable to intellectually comprehend. Let me help you.

Not only was Stalin a conservative, the whole country of Russia is.

Russian Conservatism and Its Critics

Selected as a Foreign Affairs Best Book about Eastern Europe and the Former Soviet Republics for September 2006

Russian Conservatism and Its Critics provides the first account of Russia’s immemorial commitment to the theory and practice of autocracy, the most formative and powerful idea in Russia’s political history. Richard Pipes considers why Russian thinkers, statesmen, and publicists have historically always argued that Russia could prosper only under an autocratic regime.

Beginning with an insightful study of the origins of Russian statehood in the Middle Ages, when the state grew out of the princely domain but was not distinguished from it, Russian Conservatism and Its Critics includes a masterful survey of Russia’s major conservative thinkers and demonstrates how conservatism is the dominant intellectual legacy of Russia. Pipes examines the geographical, historical, political, military, and social realities of the Russian empire—fundamentally unchanged by the Revolution of 1917—that have traditionally convinced its rulers and opinion leaders that decentralizing political authority would inevitably result in the country’s disintegration. Pipes has written a brilliant thesis and analysis of a hitherto overlooked aspect of the Russian intellectual tradition that continues to have significance to this day.

Richard Pipes is an American academic who specializes in Russian history, particularly with respect to the Soviet Union. In 1976 he headed Team B, a team of analysts organized by the Central Intelligence Agency who analyzed the strategic capacities and goals of the Soviet military and political leadership.

 

[Uncensored2008]

The level of your name calling reveals your fear. You are unable to intellectually comprehend. Let me help you.

Not only was Stalin a conservative, the whole country of Russia is.

Russian Conservatism and Its Critics

Selected as a Foreign Affairs Best Book about Eastern Europe and the Former Soviet Republics for September 2006

Russian Conservatism and Its Critics provides the first account of Russia’s immemorial commitment to the theory and practice of autocracy, the most formative and powerful idea in Russia’s political history. Richard Pipes considers why Russian thinkers, statesmen, and publicists have historically always argued that Russia could prosper only under an autocratic regime.

Beginning with an insightful study of the origins of Russian statehood in the Middle Ages, when the state grew out of the princely domain but was not distinguished from it, Russian Conservatism and Its Critics includes a masterful survey of Russia’s major conservative thinkers and demonstrates how conservatism is the dominant intellectual legacy of Russia. Pipes examines the geographical, historical, political, military, and social realities of the Russian empire—fundamentally unchanged by the Revolution of 1917—that have traditionally convinced its rulers and opinion leaders that decentralizing political authority would inevitably result in the country’s disintegration. Pipes has written a brilliant thesis and analysis of a hitherto overlooked aspect of the Russian intellectual tradition that continues to have significance to this day.

Richard Pipes is an American academic who specializes in Russian history, particularly with respect to the Soviet Union. In 1976 he headed Team B, a team of analysts organized by the Central Intelligence Agency who analyzed the strategic capacities and goals of the Soviet military and political leadership.

Yawn.

When you call shit "gold," it still has no value.

You are fucking moron in your attempt to alter the basic meanings of words.

Seriously.

 

[Bfgrn]

The level of your name calling reveals your fear. You are unable to intellectually comprehend. Let me help you.

Not only was Stalin a conservative, the whole country of Russia is.

Russian Conservatism and Its Critics

Selected as a Foreign Affairs Best Book about Eastern Europe and the Former Soviet Republics for September 2006

Russian Conservatism and Its Critics provides the first account of Russia’s immemorial commitment to the theory and practice of autocracy, the most formative and powerful idea in Russia’s political history. Richard Pipes considers why Russian thinkers, statesmen, and publicists have historically always argued that Russia could prosper only under an autocratic regime.

Beginning with an insightful study of the origins of Russian statehood in the Middle Ages, when the state grew out of the princely domain but was not distinguished from it, Russian Conservatism and Its Critics includes a masterful survey of Russia’s major conservative thinkers and demonstrates how conservatism is the dominant intellectual legacy of Russia. Pipes examines the geographical, historical, political, military, and social realities of the Russian empire—fundamentally unchanged by the Revolution of 1917—that have traditionally convinced its rulers and opinion leaders that decentralizing political authority would inevitably result in the country’s disintegration. Pipes has written a brilliant thesis and analysis of a hitherto overlooked aspect of the Russian intellectual tradition that continues to have significance to this day.

Richard Pipes is an American academic who specializes in Russian history, particularly with respect to the Soviet Union. In 1976 he headed Team B, a team of analysts organized by the Central Intelligence Agency who analyzed the strategic capacities and goals of the Soviet military and political leadership.

Yawn.

When you call shit "gold," it still has no value.

You are fucking moron in your attempt to alter the basic meanings of words.

Seriously.

You are stuck inside your parochial box. You can only see the world with you as the center of the universe.

You are also stuck in the left/right box. Again, conservatism is based on latitude, longitude and date of birth.

The history of conservatism is the domination of society by an aristocracy.

Conservatism is incompatible with democracy, prosperity, and civilization in general. It is a destructive system of inequality and prejudice that is founded on deception and has no place in the modern world.

 

[Uncensored2008]

You are stuck inside your parochial box. You can only see the world with you as the center of the universe.

You are also stuck in the left/right box. Again, conservatism is based on latitude, longitude and date of birth.

The history of conservatism is the domination of society by an aristocracy.

Conservatism is incompatible with democracy, prosperity, and civilization in general. It is a destructive system of inequality and prejudice that is founded on deception and has no place in the modern world.

You're stuck inside a belief that dishonesty will offer a valid argument.

You have nothing of value to offer when you engage is such sophomoric deceit.

 

[daveman]

I see you have a need to chop up my posts because you're in over your head here, so obfuscation is your tool.

I replied to every word you regurgitated, not one was omitted.

Try again.



What a moronic statement.

Once again you demonstrate the truth in the statement that;

The lower the IQ, the further to the left.



Bigoted bullshit.

You believe that your thesis is clever, it isn't.




And stood in front of tanks, we are aware.



When you say that you represent the 99%, 99% of what?

You certainly have nothing in common with those who create and build this nation. You view digging a hole in the desert and filling it in as equivalent to inventing integrated circuits.



ROFL

More mindless bigotry.



Your little tin god is getter very close to that.



You are a confused little troll. You, or the hate site doing your thinking simply fabricated your claim.



ROFL

What a fucking idiot.

The Stalinists have the same views as YOU, nearly identical.



The Tea Party want authoritarian government, huh?

Do you REALLY think that lying through your fucking teeth makes you look LESS foolish?

Seriously?

February 27, 1989

Soviet Conservatives Try to Turn Back the Clock on Gorbachev's Policies

MOSCOW, Feb. 26— Russian conservatives, uneasy with the liberalization of Soviet society under Mikhail S. Gorbachev, have seized on the country's experiment in more democratic elections as a chance to fight for a return to more authoritarian ways.

While many candidates and voters say they view the elections to the new Congress of Deputies as a way to further the candor and freedoms allowed by the Soviet leader, conservatives in this city and around the country were boasting last week that they had already succeeded in blocking the nomination of several prominent people regarded as liberals. At election rallies where speakers call out against the influence of ''Zionist forces,'' and in campaign leaflets decrying ''liberal yellow journalists.

A Disparate Alliance
The conservatives are a disparate alliance, including xenophobic fringe groups, like Pamyat, as well as large numbers of less extreme nationalists who yearn for what they see as the simple values of Old Russia and the Orthodox church.

'I Am a Stalinist'
''We brought our case to the people, and the outcome speaks for us,'' said Mr. Zherbin, whose group regards the liberalization of Soviet society as a conspiracy by Jews, Masons and Westernizers.

Prominent among the speeches and the placards at conservative political gatherings is support for Pamyat (Russian for ''memory''), which has been repeatedly criticized in the Soviet press for anti-Semitism.

Soviet Conservatives Try to Turn Back the Clock on Gorbachev's Policies

Anyone calling a communist a "conservative" is a fucking moron, a mindless baboon.

The leftist press was not successful in using this smear in 1989, they were derided and ridiculed for their open demagoguery and the mindless partisanship they displayed.

Are you REALLY so stupid that you would resurrect such a losing strategy?

The level of your name calling reveals your fear. You are unable to intellectually comprehend. Let me help you.

Not only was Stalin a conservative, the whole country of Russia is.

Russian Conservatism and Its Critics

Selected as a Foreign Affairs Best Book about Eastern Europe and the Former Soviet Republics for September 2006

Russian Conservatism and Its Critics provides the first account of Russia’s immemorial commitment to the theory and practice of autocracy, the most formative and powerful idea in Russia’s political history. Richard Pipes considers why Russian thinkers, statesmen, and publicists have historically always argued that Russia could prosper only under an autocratic regime.

Beginning with an insightful study of the origins of Russian statehood in the Middle Ages, when the state grew out of the princely domain but was not distinguished from it, Russian Conservatism and Its Critics includes a masterful survey of Russia’s major conservative thinkers and demonstrates how conservatism is the dominant intellectual legacy of Russia. Pipes examines the geographical, historical, political, military, and social realities of the Russian empire—fundamentally unchanged by the Revolution of 1917—that have traditionally convinced its rulers and opinion leaders that decentralizing political authority would inevitably result in the country’s disintegration. Pipes has written a brilliant thesis and analysis of a hitherto overlooked aspect of the Russian intellectual tradition that continues to have significance to this day.

Richard Pipes is an American academic who specializes in Russian history, particularly with respect to the Soviet Union. In 1976 he headed Team B, a team of analysts organized by the Central Intelligence Agency who analyzed the strategic capacities and goals of the Soviet military and political leadership.

Soviet conservatives are pretty much analogous to American progressives.

You want the exact same things.

 

[daveman]

The history of conservatism is the domination of society by an aristocracy.

No, it isn't.

 

[rdean]

The following is from Forbes.com, talking about how Americans coped with social justice before the advent of big gov't handouts. If I thought the gov't was more efficient and effective, if I thought they were doing a better and more impartial job of helping the less fortunate, if I thought their programs weren't rife with fraud, waste, and outright theft, then I could see supporting those entitlement programs. But they ain't and I don't.


snippet:

Reacting to calls for cuts in entitlement programs, House Democrat Henry Waxman fumed: “The Republicans want us to repeal the twentieth century.” Sound bites don’t get much better than that. After all, the world before the twentieth century–before the New Deal, the New Frontier, the Great Society–was a dark, dangerous, heartless place where hordes of Americans starved in the streets.

Except it wasn’t and they didn’t. The actual history of America shows something else entirely: picking your neighbors’ pockets is not a necessity of survival. Before America’s entitlement state, free individuals planned for and coped with tough times, taking responsibility for their own lives.

In the 19th century, even though capitalism had only existed for a short time, and had just started putting a dent in pre-capitalism’s legacy of poverty, the vast, vast majority of Americans were already able to support their own lives through their own productive work. Only a tiny fraction of a sliver of a minority depended on assistance and aid–and there was no shortage of aid available to help that minority.



AND

“Those in need,” historian Walter Trattner writes, “. . . looked first to family, kin, and neighbors for aid, including the landlord, who sometimes deferred the rent; the local butcher or grocer, who frequently carried them for a while by allowing bills to go unpaid; and the local saloonkeeper, who often came to their aid by providing loans and outright gifts, including free meals and, on occasion, temporary jobs. Next, the needy sought assistance from various agencies in the community–those of their own devising, such as churches or religious groups, social and fraternal associations, mutual aid societies, local ethnic groups, and trade unions.”

One of the most fascinating phenomena to arise during this time were mutual aid societies–organizations that let people insure against the very risks that entitlement programs would later claim to address. These societies were not charities, but private associations of individuals. Those who chose to join would voluntarily pay membership dues in return for a defined schedule of benefits, which, depending on the society, could include life insurance, permanent disability, sickness and accident, old-age, or funeral benefits.

Mutual aid societies weren’t private precursors to the entitlement state, with its one-size-fits-all schemes like Social Security and Medicare. Because the societies were private, they offered a wide range of options to fit a wide range of needs. And because they were voluntary, individuals joined only when the programs made financial sense to them. How many of us would throw dollar bills down the Social Security money pit if we had a choice?

Only when other options were exhausted would people turn to formal private charities. By the mid-nineteenth century, groups aiming to help widows, orphans, and other “worthy poor” were launched in every major city in America. There were some government welfare programs, but they were minuscule compared to private efforts.

In 1910, in New York State, for instance, 151 private benevolent groups provided care for children, and 216 provided care for adults or adults with children. If you were homeless in Chicago in 1933, for example, you could find shelter at one of the city’s 614 YMCAs, or one of its 89 Salvation Army barracks, or one of its 75 Goodwill Industries dormitories.

America Before The Entitlement State - Forbes

Be kind to your slaves.

If Republicans actually studied history instead of rewriting it, they might have a different perspective.

 

[Bfgrn]

The history of conservatism is the domination of society by an aristocracy.

No, it isn't.

Yes, it is.

The tactics of conservatism vary widely by place and time. But the most central feature of conservatism is deference: a psychologically internalized attitude on the part of the common people that the aristocracy are better people than they are. Modern-day liberals often theorize that conservatives use "social issues" as a way to mask economic objectives, but this is almost backward: the true goal of conservatism is to establish an aristocracy, which is a social and psychological condition of inequality. Economic inequality and regressive taxation, while certainly welcomed by the aristocracy, are best understood as a means to their actual goal, which is simply to be aristocrats. More generally, it is crucial to conservatism that the people must literally love the order that dominates them. Of course this notion sounds bizarre to modern ears, but it is perfectly overt in the writings of leading conservative theorists such as Burke. Democracy, for them, is not about the mechanisms of voting and office-holding. In fact conservatives hold a wide variety of opinions about such secondary formal matters. For conservatives, rather, democracy is a psychological condition. People who believe that the aristocracy rightfully dominates society because of its intrinsic superiority are conservatives; democrats, by contrast, believe that they are of equal social worth. Conservatism is the antithesis of democracy. This has been true for thousands of years.

 

[daveman]

The history of conservatism is the domination of society by an aristocracy.

No, it isn't.

Yes, it is.

The tactics of conservatism vary widely by place and time. But the most central feature of conservatism is deference: a psychologically internalized attitude on the part of the common people that the aristocracy are better people than they are. Modern-day liberals often theorize that conservatives use "social issues" as a way to mask economic objectives, but this is almost backward: the true goal of conservatism is to establish an aristocracy, which is a social and psychological condition of inequality. Economic inequality and regressive taxation, while certainly welcomed by the aristocracy, are best understood as a means to their actual goal, which is simply to be aristocrats. More generally, it is crucial to conservatism that the people must literally love the order that dominates them. Of course this notion sounds bizarre to modern ears, but it is perfectly overt in the writings of leading conservative theorists such as Burke. Democracy, for them, is not about the mechanisms of voting and office-holding. In fact conservatives hold a wide variety of opinions about such secondary formal matters. For conservatives, rather, democracy is a psychological condition. People who believe that the aristocracy rightfully dominates society because of its intrinsic superiority are conservatives; democrats, by contrast, believe that they are of equal social worth. Conservatism is the antithesis of democracy. This has been true for thousands of years.

Utter nonsense.

 

[Bfgrn]

No, it isn't.

Yes, it is.

The tactics of conservatism vary widely by place and time. But the most central feature of conservatism is deference: a psychologically internalized attitude on the part of the common people that the aristocracy are better people than they are. Modern-day liberals often theorize that conservatives use "social issues" as a way to mask economic objectives, but this is almost backward: the true goal of conservatism is to establish an aristocracy, which is a social and psychological condition of inequality. Economic inequality and regressive taxation, while certainly welcomed by the aristocracy, are best understood as a means to their actual goal, which is simply to be aristocrats. More generally, it is crucial to conservatism that the people must literally love the order that dominates them. Of course this notion sounds bizarre to modern ears, but it is perfectly overt in the writings of leading conservative theorists such as Burke. Democracy, for them, is not about the mechanisms of voting and office-holding. In fact conservatives hold a wide variety of opinions about such secondary formal matters. For conservatives, rather, democracy is a psychological condition. People who believe that the aristocracy rightfully dominates society because of its intrinsic superiority are conservatives; democrats, by contrast, believe that they are of equal social worth. Conservatism is the antithesis of democracy. This has been true for thousands of years.

Utter nonsense.

They say a picture is worth a thousand words. This EXACTLY who and what you people are. The Monica Lewisky's for the plutocrats...

 

[dblack]

Yes, it is.

The tactics of conservatism vary widely by place and time. But the most central feature of conservatism is deference: a psychologically internalized attitude on the part of the common people that the aristocracy are better people than they are. Modern-day liberals often theorize that conservatives use "social issues" as a way to mask economic objectives, but this is almost backward: the true goal of conservatism is to establish an aristocracy, which is a social and psychological condition of inequality. Economic inequality and regressive taxation, while certainly welcomed by the aristocracy, are best understood as a means to their actual goal, which is simply to be aristocrats. More generally, it is crucial to conservatism that the people must literally love the order that dominates them. Of course this notion sounds bizarre to modern ears, but it is perfectly overt in the writings of leading conservative theorists such as Burke. Democracy, for them, is not about the mechanisms of voting and office-holding. In fact conservatives hold a wide variety of opinions about such secondary formal matters. For conservatives, rather, democracy is a psychological condition. People who believe that the aristocracy rightfully dominates society because of its intrinsic superiority are conservatives; democrats, by contrast, believe that they are of equal social worth. Conservatism is the antithesis of democracy. This has been true for thousands of years.

Utter nonsense.

They say a picture is worth a thousand words. This EXACTLY who and what you people are. The Monica Lewisky's for the plutocrats...

Is that Obama on the throne there?

 

[daveman]

They say a picture is worth a thousand words. This EXACTLY who and what you people are. The Monica Lewisky's for the plutocrats...

You're such a useful idiot.

 

[Sunshine]

Actually, MAO WAS a progressive. And his tomb is a major attraction in Beijing. I have been and I have seen. He is seen as a hero to many because he brought China out of feudalism. Of course, that was AFTER WE refused to help them and they had nowhere to turn but to the Soviets. If WE had been the mother of modern China, we wouldn't be fighting anyone on that side of the globe today!

As bad as I hate to say it Communism was a step forward for China. Communism will eventually fall there because they have a work ethic and they have learned to love money as much as or more than we do.

Communism was never "a step forward" for anyone. Communism in China destroyed much of a great culture, resulted in the senseless deaths of tens of millions of human beings, and brought tyranny and Orwelian oppression to many millions more. Communism wipes out a work ethic. Opportunity revives it.

Oh, and the USSR was not the "mother of modern China." The CCP and the USSR hated each other. China and Russia are still no great friends to this day.

You have never been to China. Those of us who have been and seen know far more than those of you who have only read books about it.

 

[Unkotare]

Actually, MAO WAS a progressive. And his tomb is a major attraction in Beijing. I have been and I have seen. He is seen as a hero to many because he brought China out of feudalism. Of course, that was AFTER WE refused to help them and they had nowhere to turn but to the Soviets. If WE had been the mother of modern China, we wouldn't be fighting anyone on that side of the globe today!

As bad as I hate to say it Communism was a step forward for China. Communism will eventually fall there because they have a work ethic and they have learned to love money as much as or more than we do.

Communism was never "a step forward" for anyone. Communism in China destroyed much of a great culture, resulted in the senseless deaths of tens of millions of human beings, and brought tyranny and Orwelian oppression to many millions more. Communism wipes out a work ethic. Opportunity revives it.

Oh, and the USSR was not the "mother of modern China." The CCP and the USSR hated each other. China and Russia are still no great friends to this day.

You have never been to China. Those of us who have been and seen know far more than those of you who have only read books about it.

I lived in Xi'an for two years. Next?

 

[Foxfyre]

Actually, MAO WAS a progressive. And his tomb is a major attraction in Beijing. I have been and I have seen. He is seen as a hero to many because he brought China out of feudalism. Of course, that was AFTER WE refused to help them and they had nowhere to turn but to the Soviets. If WE had been the mother of modern China, we wouldn't be fighting anyone on that side of the globe today!

As bad as I hate to say it Communism was a step forward for China. Communism will eventually fall there because they have a work ethic and they have learned to love money as much as or more than we do.

Communism was never "a step forward" for anyone. Communism in China destroyed much of a great culture, resulted in the senseless deaths of tens of millions of human beings, and brought tyranny and Orwelian oppression to many millions more. Communism wipes out a work ethic. Opportunity revives it.

Oh, and the USSR was not the "mother of modern China." The CCP and the USSR hated each other. China and Russia are still no great friends to this day.

You have never been to China. Those of us who have been and seen know far more than those of you who have only read books about it.

I have never been blessed with a trip to China, but have a number of friends and relatives who work there now, have worked there in the past, or go in to teach English and Latin periodically now and then. What the average visitor/tourist or even businessman sees and hears in China is what the Communist Party wants and allows them to see. And what they see is prosperity, modernity, and a nation bustling and thriving. There is another China that very few outsiders get to see, however. A China with hard core poor who eke out a meager living harvesting and threshing grain by hand and doing other menial labor for bare sustenance. They are not allowed modern equipment lest there not be enough work for all. Meanwhile the regional Communist leaders live in unbelievable affluence. It's a really good gig for those leaders if they can get it.

As in all things there is good and bad to be found. But in many things, it is not always as it seems.

 

[Intense]

The history of conservatism is the domination of society by an aristocracy.

No, it isn't.

Yes, it is.

The tactics of conservatism vary widely by place and time. But the most central feature of conservatism is deference: a psychologically internalized attitude on the part of the common people that the aristocracy are better people than they are. Modern-day liberals often theorize that conservatives use "social issues" as a way to mask economic objectives, but this is almost backward: the true goal of conservatism is to establish an aristocracy, which is a social and psychological condition of inequality. Economic inequality and regressive taxation, while certainly welcomed by the aristocracy, are best understood as a means to their actual goal, which is simply to be aristocrats. More generally, it is crucial to conservatism that the people must literally love the order that dominates them. Of course this notion sounds bizarre to modern ears, but it is perfectly overt in the writings of leading conservative theorists such as Burke. Democracy, for them, is not about the mechanisms of voting and office-holding. In fact conservatives hold a wide variety of opinions about such secondary formal matters. For conservatives, rather, democracy is a psychological condition. People who believe that the aristocracy rightfully dominates society because of its intrinsic superiority are conservatives; democrats, by contrast, believe that they are of equal social worth. Conservatism is the antithesis of democracy. This has been true for thousands of years.

Conservatism is Rooted in Individual Liberty, Unalienable Rights, Government by the consent of the Governed, and living within your means.

 

[Intense]

Actually, MAO WAS a progressive. And his tomb is a major attraction in Beijing. I have been and I have seen. He is seen as a hero to many because he brought China out of feudalism. Of course, that was AFTER WE refused to help them and they had nowhere to turn but to the Soviets. If WE had been the mother of modern China, we wouldn't be fighting anyone on that side of the globe today!

As bad as I hate to say it Communism was a step forward for China. Communism will eventually fall there because they have a work ethic and they have learned to love money as much as or more than we do.

Communism was never "a step forward" for anyone. Communism in China destroyed much of a great culture, resulted in the senseless deaths of tens of millions of human beings, and brought tyranny and Orwelian oppression to many millions more. Communism wipes out a work ethic. Opportunity revives it.

Oh, and the USSR was not the "mother of modern China." The CCP and the USSR hated each other. China and Russia are still no great friends to this day.

You have never been to China. Those of us who have been and seen know far more than those of you who have only read books about it.

Rooted in False premise, void of reason. Why anyone would want to make excuses for Totalitarianism is beyond me, unless you are Totalitarian yourself. Even China, in some sense is moving towards Capitalism, State Capitalism anyway. That is the Revolution yet to be fought, huh.

 

[Bfgrn]

No, it isn't.

Yes, it is.

The tactics of conservatism vary widely by place and time. But the most central feature of conservatism is deference: a psychologically internalized attitude on the part of the common people that the aristocracy are better people than they are. Modern-day liberals often theorize that conservatives use "social issues" as a way to mask economic objectives, but this is almost backward: the true goal of conservatism is to establish an aristocracy, which is a social and psychological condition of inequality. Economic inequality and regressive taxation, while certainly welcomed by the aristocracy, are best understood as a means to their actual goal, which is simply to be aristocrats. More generally, it is crucial to conservatism that the people must literally love the order that dominates them. Of course this notion sounds bizarre to modern ears, but it is perfectly overt in the writings of leading conservative theorists such as Burke. Democracy, for them, is not about the mechanisms of voting and office-holding. In fact conservatives hold a wide variety of opinions about such secondary formal matters. For conservatives, rather, democracy is a psychological condition. People who believe that the aristocracy rightfully dominates society because of its intrinsic superiority are conservatives; democrats, by contrast, believe that they are of equal social worth. Conservatism is the antithesis of democracy. This has been true for thousands of years.

Conservatism is Rooted in Individual Liberty, Unalienable Rights, Government by the consent of the Governed, and living within your means.

That is bull. It is pure propaganda. When Bush and the Republicans were in power there was not a PEEP from the right. They embraced and vehemently defended government. There was NOTHING about 'Individual Liberty, Unalienable Rights, Government by the consent of the Governed' from the right when the Patriot Act was passed. There was NOTHING from the right when Arizona passed a draconian intrusion of 'Individual Liberty, Unalienable Rights, Government by the consent of the Governed'

We see how tightly the right embraces despot governors like Scott Walker, Rick Scott, John Kasich, Rick Snyder and Chris Christie.

You're full of shit. The ONLY less the right wants is less Democrats.

 

[Intense]

Yes, it is.

The tactics of conservatism vary widely by place and time. But the most central feature of conservatism is deference: a psychologically internalized attitude on the part of the common people that the aristocracy are better people than they are. Modern-day liberals often theorize that conservatives use "social issues" as a way to mask economic objectives, but this is almost backward: the true goal of conservatism is to establish an aristocracy, which is a social and psychological condition of inequality. Economic inequality and regressive taxation, while certainly welcomed by the aristocracy, are best understood as a means to their actual goal, which is simply to be aristocrats. More generally, it is crucial to conservatism that the people must literally love the order that dominates them. Of course this notion sounds bizarre to modern ears, but it is perfectly overt in the writings of leading conservative theorists such as Burke. Democracy, for them, is not about the mechanisms of voting and office-holding. In fact conservatives hold a wide variety of opinions about such secondary formal matters. For conservatives, rather, democracy is a psychological condition. People who believe that the aristocracy rightfully dominates society because of its intrinsic superiority are conservatives; democrats, by contrast, believe that they are of equal social worth. Conservatism is the antithesis of democracy. This has been true for thousands of years.

Conservatism is Rooted in Individual Liberty, Unalienable Rights, Government by the consent of the Governed, and living within your means.

That is bull. It is pure propaganda. When Bush and the Republicans were in power there was not a PEEP from the right. They embraced and vehemently defended government. There was NOTHING about 'Individual Liberty, Unalienable Rights, Government by the consent of the Governed' from the right when the Patriot Act was passed. There was NOTHING from the right when Arizona passed a draconian intrusion of 'Individual Liberty, Unalienable Rights, Government by the consent of the Governed'

We see how tightly the right embraces despot governors like Scott Walker, Rick Scott, John Kasich, Rick Snyder and Chris Christie.

You're full of shit. The ONLY less the right wants is less Democrats.

Conservatism is Rooted in Individual Liberty, Unalienable Rights, Government by the consent of the Governed, and living within your means.

Conservatism was born long before the Year 2000. You are either disingenuous or a Moron. We were attacked, and found very vulnerable. We as a Country, responded. In times of threat, just like the Civil War, WWI, WWII, we act in Self Interest to secure and Protect, our own. Where there is legitimate cause and concern, we are justified in our own Defense, at least for as long as there is real threat.

There is Always concern for Unalienable Rights, Liberty, Rule Of Law, in a Free Society, Only a Total Idiot would presume otherwise.

We as a Nation , Arizona, as a State are in Crisis, because of the Inaction of the Federal Government, It's obstruction, and it's failure to act in our Interest, in relation to Immigration, and Border Control. Your attack on Arizona, for acting in Self Preservation, in it's own Self Interest, where the Federal Government has not only failed miserably, but obstructed Justice, is a mockery of the concept of the Establishment of and administration of Justice.

Only a Political Hack, would defend an injustice that goes on for Decades, and fight against all effective steps to bring resolution. Go on defending corruption and incompetence, protecting the way thing are. The Bullshit, is related to our failure to rectify wrongs, making one excuse after another, as to why the Fed will not act, and why the States are prohibited from acting. Thanks again for supporting that.

 

[Bfgrn]

Conservatism is Rooted in Individual Liberty, Unalienable Rights, Government by the consent of the Governed, and living within your means.

That is bull. It is pure propaganda. When Bush and the Republicans were in power there was not a PEEP from the right. They embraced and vehemently defended government. There was NOTHING about 'Individual Liberty, Unalienable Rights, Government by the consent of the Governed' from the right when the Patriot Act was passed. There was NOTHING from the right when Arizona passed a draconian intrusion of 'Individual Liberty, Unalienable Rights, Government by the consent of the Governed'

We see how tightly the right embraces despot governors like Scott Walker, Rick Scott, John Kasich, Rick Snyder and Chris Christie.

You're full of shit. The ONLY less the right wants is less Democrats.

Conservatism is Rooted in Individual Liberty, Unalienable Rights, Government by the consent of the Governed, and living within your means.

Conservatism was born long before the Year 2000. You are either disingenuous or a Moron. We were attacked, and found very vulnerable. We as a Country, responded. In times of threat, just like the Civil War, WWI, WWII, we act in Self Interest to secure and Protect, our own. Where there is legitimate cause and concern, we are justified in our own Defense, at least for as long as there is real threat.

There is Always concern for Unalienable Rights, Liberty, Rule Of Law, in a Free Society, Only a Total Idiot would presume otherwise.

We as a Nation , Arizona, as a State are in Crisis, because of the Inaction of the Federal Government, It's obstruction, and it's failure to act in our Interest, in relation to Immigration, and Border Control. Your attack on Arizona, for acting in Self Preservation, in it's own Self Interest, where the Federal Government has not only failed miserably, but obstructed Justice, is a mockery of the concept of the Establishment of and administration of Justice.

Only a Political Hack, would defend an injustice that goes on for Decades, and fight against all effective steps to bring resolution. Go on defending corruption and incompetence, protecting the way thing are. The Bullshit, is related to our failure to rectify wrongs, making one excuse after another, as to why the Fed will not act, and why the States are prohibited from acting. Thanks again for supporting that.

You are chanting again. WTF has happened to you?

AMAZING! You are defending a neo-nazi authoritarian who authored the draconian profiling, OVER-invasive and HEAVY-handed government law!

BTW...We, the People RECALLED Russell Pearce. You right wing turds LOVE authoritarians...

Bad laws are the worst sort of tyranny.
Edmund Burke