no one gets it all...conservative or liberal...

[JBeukema]

Poor little liarbilly. All you have is pathetic personal attacks, for you are without meaningful response when faced with facts.

 

[Liability]

Poor little liarbilly. All you have is pathetic personal attacks, for you are without meaningful response when faced with facts.

You are one of those poor deluded (but vainglorious) souls who believes that your opinions are "facts."

Sorry JPukEnema, but you are too loutish to pay this much attention to in any adult arena.

When you manage to post an actual and verifiable set of "facts" and conjoin them, meaningfully, with a logical syllogism to spell out one of your positions (and the next time you do that will be the first such time), I'll be happy to instruct you on where you've gone off the trail.

 

[JBeukema]

Poor, ignorant fool. Your own sources, which you posted with such hubris, said the exact same thing I did and drew the exact same conclusions

It's interesting that you, who use nothing but name-calling and reputation, would try to speak as though you were mature and another not so.

Just like the rest of your hannity club, all you're good for is laughs.

 

[editec]

That is all conservatism is. It refers to no ideology, only to the preservation of the status quo, the return to the status quo ante, and resistance to any other change. That is all conservatism is and all conservatives are.

One of the ways of looking at these words is to stop thinking of them as labels for what some people are or are not, and start thinking of them as directions toward or away from the status quo.

That wopuld make todays' RIGHT AND LEFT both leaning liberal in that they want to change SOME things, and leaning conservative in that they want other things to stay the same.

Face it. these teams (called the Rs and Ds) to NOT represent anything consistently.

They have issues, not principles.

They want what doesn't work for their masters to change, and they want whatever does work for their mastersd NOT to change.

All this talk of principles of governance guiding our political systemis just so much nonsense.

 

[JBeukema]

One of the ways of looking at these words is to stop thinking of them as labels for what some people are or are not, and start thinking of them as directions toward or away from the status quo.

In other words, to leave aside the partisan bullshit and propaganda and use them in the sense of what they really mean. Conservatism = staus quo (ante) and liberalism is founded in individualism

That {would} make todays' RIGHT AND LEFT both leaning liberal in that they want to change SOME things, and leaning conservative in that they want other things to stay the same.

Face it. these teams (called the Rs and Ds) to NOT represent anything consistently.

I did not say 'Right' or 'Republican'. I said 'conservatives'.

 

[Liability]

One can certainly understand why people are confused about what those terms mean, though.

After all, people identifying themselves as conservatives do things which clearly violate the basic tenents of that political philosophjy.

Likewise people claiming to be liberals do things which clearly violate what most of us think of when we think of liberalism, too.

The problem isn't that people don't know what those terms mean, the problem is that the LAEFERS OF BOTH PARTIES are in no way shape or form what they pretend to be.

I agree with what you said -- except that last sentence (maybe). I am not familiar with the word "laefers." If that's just a typo and the word was supposed gto be "leaders" then I am ambivalent about your last assertion. The GOP is not the same as "conservative." The Dems are largely "liberals," but the terms are not yet fully synonomous.

Man your response was fast.

I was correcting my typos when you posted.

The Dems' leadership aren't liberals.

They're enablers to the Masters no less than the Republicans.

The Dem leaders are absolutely liberals. They got fed big bucks and support to be the frontmen for modern American liberalism. What Nancy Pelousy and President Obama have been DOING, not just talking about doing, is moving the American government radically and VERY RAPIDLY to the left.

President Obama got SUPPORT in the early stages of his campaign (primaries and pre-primaries) for being the singularly most liberal person in the Senate. For the general election campaign, head-faked to the middle. He ran as an alleged "moderate." But once in office, he abandoned that flimsy pretense and MOVED right back to his natural position on the uber-left.

And while I greatly dislike his politics, I will acknowledge that he has been very effective in moving that agenda.

 

[Liability]

One of the ways of looking at these words is to stop thinking of them as labels for what some people are or are not, and start thinking of them as directions toward or away from the status quo.

In other words, to leave aside the partisan bullshit and propaganda and use them in the sense of what they really mean. Conservatism = staus quo (ante) and liberalism is founded in individualism

That {would} make todays' RIGHT AND LEFT both leaning liberal in that they want to change SOME things, and leaning conservative in that they want other things to stay the same.

Face it. these teams (called the Rs and Ds) to NOT represent anything consistently.

I did not say 'Right' or 'Republican'. I said 'conservatives'.

The dishonesty of JB's "opinion" here is reflected in the fact that it is CONSERVATISM, not liberalism, that embraces the individual. Liberalism embraces big government and the imaginary "collective."

The only "status quo" or "status quo ante" which Conservatism embraces is in methodology. Conservatives, not liberals, value the checks and balances designed into the system of our Government. Liberals attempt, regularly, to evade such restictions.

 

[johnrocks]

All I want to state is , I hope that conservatives got the message and hopefully someone that all people who support less government intrusion can get nominated in 2012., don't know if that's possible but I can wish for it.

 

[JBeukema]

The dishonesty of JB's "opinion" here is reflected in the fact that it is CONSERVATISM, not liberalism, that embraces the individual.

Conservatism embraces nothing. Conservatism is no ideology and has no principles.

Liberalism embraces big government and the imaginary "collective."

You need an education. Go to the library and ask for their section on political theory. Do a Google search on classical liberalism and libertarianism. Read a dictionary. Come back when you aren't so ignorant.

 

[Liability]

The dishonesty of JB's "opinion" here is reflected in the fact that it is CONSERVATISM, not liberalism, that embraces the individual.

Conservatism embraces nothing. Conservatism is no ideology and has no principles.

Repeating your mindless deliberate lie does nothing to support it; nor does it elevate you from the cesspool in which you dwell.

Conservatism embraces individualism and some very basic and rational principles. Your denial of that isn't even JUST your ignorance on display. You are just lying. It's what liars like you do.

Liberalism embraces big government and the imaginary "collective."

You need an education. Go to the library and ask for their section on political theory. Do a Google search on classical liberalism and libertarianism. Read a dictionary. Come back when you aren't so ignorant.

No, dopey. YOU need to stop lying. I probably have forgotten more political theory that a moron like you ever soaked up in the first place. And, the little you may have learned, you immediately negate by intentionally and repeatedly lying.

Come back when you have ANY inclination to speak honestly. Of course, that would mean we'd never see you again.

No loss.

 

[JBeukema]

I probably have forgotten more political theory t

Evidently, you've forgotten what conservatism means. the definition and history of liberalism, and just where 'American Conservatism' came from. Go back to hannity with the other uneducated neocons, where you belong.

 

[Liability]

I probably have forgotten more political theory t

Evidently, you've forgotten what conservatism means. the definition and history of liberalism, and just where 'American Conservatism' came from. Go back to hannity with the other uneducated neocons, where you belong.

You used the word "evidently" wrong.

Disagreeing with your always lae-ass "spin" evidences nothing other than rationality on the part of all who see you for the fool you are.

You talk big, little man, but you back it up with nothing.

Conservatism, not liberalism, embraces individualism.

Until the day comes (if it ever does) that you can appreciate and embrace the truth of that statement, there is no chance that you will ever make a useful contribution to any discussion about political ideologies.

 

[JBeukema]

Look up the meaning of 'evidently', and you'll see that I used it correctly.

Continuing to repeat your ignorant diatribe and partisan jism you've swallowed so gladly does not change the fact that you are wrong. All you are doing is showing yourself to be a fool with no knowledge of the subject.

The fact remains that conservatism embraces nothing, for conservatism is no ideology. Until the day comes when you can appreciate the liberal principles and ideals on which America was founded, you will be nothing more than an uneducated fool and a useful idiot to your masters.

 

[johnrocks]

To me, the word "conservative" is a moving target so to speak. Thirty years ago when I registered to vote, I was considered to be a "staunch conservative", now fast forward all these years without changing my position on any major issue, I'm called anything from a classical liberal to a libertarian to a kook,lol.

 

[Liability]

Look up the meaning of 'evidently', and you'll see that I used it correctly.

Nope. I know the meaning, which is why I recognize that you used it incorrectly. You do that kind of thing quite often. Your ignorance shines through.

 

[JBeukema]

• S: (adv) obviously, evidently, manifestly, patently, apparently, plainly, plain (unmistakably (`plain' is often used informally for `plainly')) "the answer is obviously wrong"; "she was in bed and evidently in great pain"; "he was manifestly too important to leave off the guest list"; "it is all patently nonsense"; "she has apparently been living here for some time"; "I thought he owned the property, but apparently not"; "You are plainly wrong"; "he is plain stubborn"

Evidently, liability is not as educated as he thinks it is.

 

[Liability]

To me, the word "conservative" is a moving target so to speak. Thirty years ago when I registered to vote, I was considered to be a "staunch conservative", now fast forward all these years without changing my position on any major issue, I'm called anything from a classical liberal to a libertarian to a kook,lol.

"Conservative" is indeed a "moving target" (like many other words are). I suppose it's fair to say that so is "liberal."

"Classical liberal" and "conservative" are pretty much the same thing. So if someone who is using words correctly (which leaves JB out) calls you a "classical liberal" it is probably meant to suggest that your politicial ideology is "conservative." In other words, don't take offense.

"Libertarian" is not the same thing, however. That term embraces some pretty standard "conservative" political philosophy, true; but it also embraces other things that fall more in the new sense of "liberal." It's an odd mixture of political ideologies and, as I see it, the mixture is internally inconsistent in several respects.

 

[Liability]

• S: (adv) obviously, evidently, manifestly, patently, apparently, plainly, plain (unmistakably (`plain' is often used informally for `plainly')) "the answer is obviously wrong"; "she was in bed and evidently in great pain"; "he was manifestly too important to leave off the guest list"; "it is all patently nonsense"; "she has apparently been living here for some time"; "I thought he owned the property, but apparently not"; "You are plainly wrong"; "he is plain stubborn"

Evidently, liability is not as educated as he thinks it is.

^ the definition instead proves that JB used the word incorrectly, as I correctly noted.

JB cannot help but continue to make a complete fool of himself with each post!

 

[JBeukema]

'conservative' is not a moving target. It's not a target at all. It's merely a euphemism for backwards reactionaries, nothing more.

 

[johnrocks]

To me, the word "conservative" is a moving target so to speak. Thirty years ago when I registered to vote, I was considered to be a "staunch conservative", now fast forward all these years without changing my position on any major issue, I'm called anything from a classical liberal to a libertarian to a kook,lol.

"Conservative" is indeed a "moving target" (like many other words are). I suppose it's fair to say that so is "liberal."

"Classical liberal" and "conservative" are pretty much the same thing. So if someone who is using words correctly (which leaves JB out) calls you a "classical liberal" it is probably meant to suggest that your politicial ideology is "conservative." In other words, don't take offense.

"Libertarian" is not the same thing, however. That term embraces some pretty standard "conservative" political philosophy, true; but it also embraces other things that fall more in the new sense of "liberal." It's an odd mixture of political ideologies and, as I see it, the mixture is internally inconsistent in several respects.

A Goldwater supporter; David Nolan; founded the Libertarian Party, he has grown wary;if that's the right word,lol; of the LP though. This is a good interview of him,if anyone is interested.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2j1gufhcT-0]YouTube - David Nolan, Founder Libertarian Party, speaks to the Motorhome Diaries[/ame]