The schizophrenia that is conservatism

[spectrumc01]

It has become apparent that Republicans, Tea Partiers, and Libertarians consider themselves conservatives. Then there are the independants who fall into two catagories, conservative and liberal. So now we have four different types of conservatism, so far.

Conservatism is quickly becoming like christianity, with many denominations which vary ever so slightly from one to the next. Making them hard to pin down or determine what they believe. It also gives them plenty of hiding room as they float from one group to the next. This has become quite popular among conservatives since the GWB presidency.

Conservatism breaks down even further when you start talking about religion and the constitution. The only common denominator among all the conservatives is that they don't like Democrats, or Liberals.

Conservatism is quickly resembling terrorist cells, as they have no definitive leader, and their agenda is widely varried. Depending on who you talk to, the most important thing to conservatives seams to range from moral issues, to financial issues, to foreign affairs issues, and then to what ever issue they decide to champion next. As for the leqdership of these groups no one knows who leads some of them, such as the Tea Partiers and Libertarians. Just what the heck is Sarrah Palin? Tea Party express or Republican VP candidate? Then there is Ron Paul and Dick Armey what position do they hold in what party?

What has also become apparent is their lack of willingness to negotiate, or even talk to the other side of the isle. The degree to which this takes place and which issues this happens over also varies depending on which conservative group you are talking to. The only constant here is the level of anger.

These reasons and observations have led me to believe that if you are going to discuss anything with a conservative you had best find out what type of conservative you are talking to. As with christianity they are all brothers until you point out their shortcomings and then they become as slippery as eels moving from one form of conservatism to the next, until they find one that makes them look good for the issue being debated.

Does this make them bad people? No. Does this make them unamerican? No. Does this make their beliefs wrong? No. What it does do is make them to unpredictable. It is this unpredictability that leads us to doubt and question their motives. If you have to question their motives do you really want them running the country?

 

[bucs90]

Hmm. Not a bad analysis really.

However, all the types of conservatism are each better than the ideas that:

A) Spending more than you make is a good idea
B) The government should be look upon to solve all problems

Adhering to the idea that both A and B are good ideas is very, very predictable: It leads to the USSR, China, North Korea, Cuba, Burma, Vietnam, Fascist Italy, Imperial Japan, Nazi Germany, modern Russia, Venezuela, and other nations who totalitarian, central authority government took over their people.

I'll take unstable freedom over stable tyranny any day.

 

[FuelRod]

More concerning is the narcissicism that is Liberalism.....

 

[Midnight Marauder]

Then there are the independants who fall into two catagories, conservative and liberal.

Nonsense.

You hacks will never understand Indys. This is because, you are hacks.

Unlike the hacks, Indys can't be pigeonholed with neat labels. And unlike the hacks, we can spell "independents" and "categories."

Must be some sort of connection.

 

[spectrumc01]

Hmm. Not a bad analysis really.

However, all the types of conservatism are each better than the ideas that:

A) Spending more than you make is a good idea
B) The government should be look upon to solve all problems

Adhering to the idea that both A and B are good ideas is very, very predictable: It leads to the USSR, China, North Korea, Cuba, Burma, Vietnam, Fascist Italy, Imperial Japan, Nazi Germany, modern Russia, Venezuela, and other nations who totalitarian, central authority government took over their people.

I'll take unstable freedom over stable tyranny any day.

I don't believe that Democrats or liberals believe that A & B are good for us either. I haven't heard any Democrat or liberal say it. What I have heard is, whoever is speaking for the Republican party at the time, Fox news, Glen Beck, and Rush Limbaugh say that is what the Democrats and liberals said or meant. As for the ideology of A & B I don't believe that either of the two sides want total A & B and that the arguement comes in when the degree of A & B is debated.

 

[WillowTree]

It has become apparent that Republicans, Tea Partiers, and Libertarians consider themselves conservatives. Then there are the independants who fall into two catagories, conservative and liberal. So now we have four different types of conservatism, so far.

Conservatism is quickly becoming like christianity, with many denominations which vary ever so slightly from one to the next. Making them hard to pin down or determine what they believe. It also gives them plenty of hiding room as they float from one group to the next. This has become quite popular among conservatives since the GWB presidency.

Conservatism breaks down even further when you start talking about religion and the constitution. The only common denominator among all the conservatives is that they don't like Democrats, or Liberals.

Conservatism is quickly resembling terrorist cells, as they have no definitive leader, and their agenda is widely varried. Depending on who you talk to, the most important thing to conservatives seams to range from moral issues, to financial issues, to foreign affairs issues, and then to what ever issue they decide to champion next. As for the leqdership of these groups no one knows who leads some of them, such as the Tea Partiers and Libertarians. Just what the heck is Sarrah Palin? Tea Party express or Republican VP candidate? Then there is Ron Paul and Dick Armey what position do they hold in what party?

What has also become apparent is their lack of willingness to negotiate, or even talk to the other side of the isle. The degree to which this takes place and which issues this happens over also varies depending on which conservative group you are talking to. The only constant here is the level of anger.

These reasons and observations have led me to believe that if you are going to discuss anything with a conservative you had best find out what type of conservative you are talking to. As with christianity they are all brothers until you point out their shortcomings and then they become as slippery as eels moving from one form of conservatism to the next, until they find one that makes them look good for the issue being debated.

Does this make them bad people? No. Does this make them unamerican? No. Does this make their beliefs wrong? No. What it does do is make them to unpredictable. It is this unpredictability that leads us to doubt and question their motives. If you have to question their motives do you really want them running the country?

Did you hear what the demonRats said yesterday? "They've come here to kill women." Now tell us why anyone would want to negotiate with an impotent hysterical fool such as this??

 

[spectrumc01]

Then there are the independants who fall into two catagories, conservative and liberal.

Nonsense.

You hacks will never understand Indys. This is because, you are hacks.

Unlike the hacks, Indys can't be pigeonholed with neat labels. And unlike the hacks, we can spell "independents" and "categories."

Must be some sort of connection.

When all you got is name calling..."Hacks", and pointing out spelling errors. You really don't have much of an arguement.

 

[spectrumc01]

It has become apparent that Republicans, Tea Partiers, and Libertarians consider themselves conservatives. Then there are the independants who fall into two catagories, conservative and liberal. So now we have four different types of conservatism, so far.

Conservatism is quickly becoming like christianity, with many denominations which vary ever so slightly from one to the next. Making them hard to pin down or determine what they believe. It also gives them plenty of hiding room as they float from one group to the next. This has become quite popular among conservatives since the GWB presidency.

Conservatism breaks down even further when you start talking about religion and the constitution. The only common denominator among all the conservatives is that they don't like Democrats, or Liberals.

Conservatism is quickly resembling terrorist cells, as they have no definitive leader, and their agenda is widely varried. Depending on who you talk to, the most important thing to conservatives seams to range from moral issues, to financial issues, to foreign affairs issues, and then to what ever issue they decide to champion next. As for the leqdership of these groups no one knows who leads some of them, such as the Tea Partiers and Libertarians. Just what the heck is Sarrah Palin? Tea Party express or Republican VP candidate? Then there is Ron Paul and Dick Armey what position do they hold in what party?

What has also become apparent is their lack of willingness to negotiate, or even talk to the other side of the isle. The degree to which this takes place and which issues this happens over also varies depending on which conservative group you are talking to. The only constant here is the level of anger.

These reasons and observations have led me to believe that if you are going to discuss anything with a conservative you had best find out what type of conservative you are talking to. As with christianity they are all brothers until you point out their shortcomings and then they become as slippery as eels moving from one form of conservatism to the next, until they find one that makes them look good for the issue being debated.

Does this make them bad people? No. Does this make them unamerican? No. Does this make their beliefs wrong? No. What it does do is make them to unpredictable. It is this unpredictability that leads us to doubt and question their motives. If you have to question their motives do you really want them running the country?

Did you hear what the demonRats said yesterday? "They've come here to kill women." Now tell us why anyone would want to negotiate with an impotent hysterical fool such as this??

Thank you for providing proof for my arguement.

 

[teapartysamurai]

It has become apparent that Republicans, Tea Partiers, and Libertarians consider themselves conservatives. Then there are the independants who fall into two catagories, conservative and liberal. So now we have four different types of conservatism, so far.

Conservatism is quickly becoming like christianity, with many denominations which vary ever so slightly from one to the next. Making them hard to pin down or determine what they believe. It also gives them plenty of hiding room as they float from one group to the next. This has become quite popular among conservatives since the GWB presidency.

Conservatism breaks down even further when you start talking about religion and the constitution. The only common denominator among all the conservatives is that they don't like Democrats, or Liberals.

Conservatism is quickly resembling terrorist cells, as they have no definitive leader, and their agenda is widely varried. Depending on who you talk to, the most important thing to conservatives seams to range from moral issues, to financial issues, to foreign affairs issues, and then to what ever issue they decide to champion next. As for the leqdership of these groups no one knows who leads some of them, such as the Tea Partiers and Libertarians. Just what the heck is Sarrah Palin? Tea Party express or Republican VP candidate? Then there is Ron Paul and Dick Armey what position do they hold in what party?

What has also become apparent is their lack of willingness to negotiate, or even talk to the other side of the isle. The degree to which this takes place and which issues this happens over also varies depending on which conservative group you are talking to. The only constant here is the level of anger.

These reasons and observations have led me to believe that if you are going to discuss anything with a conservative you had best find out what type of conservative you are talking to. As with christianity they are all brothers until you point out their shortcomings and then they become as slippery as eels moving from one form of conservatism to the next, until they find one that makes them look good for the issue being debated.

Does this make them bad people? No. Does this make them unamerican? No. Does this make their beliefs wrong? No. What it does do is make them to unpredictable. It is this unpredictability that leads us to doubt and question their motives. If you have to question their motives do you really want them running the country?

This says far more about the left's drug induced paranoia toward anyone that doesn't walk lock step with them.

They can't understand it. They don't have the intelligence to understand individualism. And like all things that lack intelligence, when they can't understand it, they react with fear, paranoia, and more importantly delusion.

The above reeks of the same.

Read, laugh, repeat!

 

[spectrumc01]

It has become apparent that Republicans, Tea Partiers, and Libertarians consider themselves conservatives. Then there are the independants who fall into two catagories, conservative and liberal. So now we have four different types of conservatism, so far.

Conservatism is quickly becoming like christianity, with many denominations which vary ever so slightly from one to the next. Making them hard to pin down or determine what they believe. It also gives them plenty of hiding room as they float from one group to the next. This has become quite popular among conservatives since the GWB presidency.

Conservatism breaks down even further when you start talking about religion and the constitution. The only common denominator among all the conservatives is that they don't like Democrats, or Liberals.

Conservatism is quickly resembling terrorist cells, as they have no definitive leader, and their agenda is widely varried. Depending on who you talk to, the most important thing to conservatives seams to range from moral issues, to financial issues, to foreign affairs issues, and then to what ever issue they decide to champion next. As for the leqdership of these groups no one knows who leads some of them, such as the Tea Partiers and Libertarians. Just what the heck is Sarrah Palin? Tea Party express or Republican VP candidate? Then there is Ron Paul and Dick Armey what position do they hold in what party?

What has also become apparent is their lack of willingness to negotiate, or even talk to the other side of the isle. The degree to which this takes place and which issues this happens over also varies depending on which conservative group you are talking to. The only constant here is the level of anger.

These reasons and observations have led me to believe that if you are going to discuss anything with a conservative you had best find out what type of conservative you are talking to. As with christianity they are all brothers until you point out their shortcomings and then they become as slippery as eels moving from one form of conservatism to the next, until they find one that makes them look good for the issue being debated.

Does this make them bad people? No. Does this make them unamerican? No. Does this make their beliefs wrong? No. What it does do is make them to unpredictable. It is this unpredictability that leads us to doubt and question their motives. If you have to question their motives do you really want them running the country?

This says far more about the left's drug induced paranoia toward anyone that doesn't walk lock step with them.

They can't understand it. They don't have the intelligence to understand individualism. And like all things that lack intelligence, when they can't understand it, they react with fear, paranoia, and more importantly delusion.

The above reeks of the same.

Read, laugh, repeat!

Who leads the Teaparty? Sarrah Palin, Dick Armey, or Ron Paul? I understand individualism quite well, and I also understand that there can only be one president, not 10 million individuals. At least I have the intelligence to understand that.

 

[teapartysamurai]

It has become apparent that Republicans, Tea Partiers, and Libertarians consider themselves conservatives. Then there are the independants who fall into two catagories, conservative and liberal. So now we have four different types of conservatism, so far.

Conservatism is quickly becoming like christianity, with many denominations which vary ever so slightly from one to the next. Making them hard to pin down or determine what they believe. It also gives them plenty of hiding room as they float from one group to the next. This has become quite popular among conservatives since the GWB presidency.

Conservatism breaks down even further when you start talking about religion and the constitution. The only common denominator among all the conservatives is that they don't like Democrats, or Liberals.

Conservatism is quickly resembling terrorist cells, as they have no definitive leader, and their agenda is widely varried. Depending on who you talk to, the most important thing to conservatives seams to range from moral issues, to financial issues, to foreign affairs issues, and then to what ever issue they decide to champion next. As for the leqdership of these groups no one knows who leads some of them, such as the Tea Partiers and Libertarians. Just what the heck is Sarrah Palin? Tea Party express or Republican VP candidate? Then there is Ron Paul and Dick Armey what position do they hold in what party?

What has also become apparent is their lack of willingness to negotiate, or even talk to the other side of the isle. The degree to which this takes place and which issues this happens over also varies depending on which conservative group you are talking to. The only constant here is the level of anger.

These reasons and observations have led me to believe that if you are going to discuss anything with a conservative you had best find out what type of conservative you are talking to. As with christianity they are all brothers until you point out their shortcomings and then they become as slippery as eels moving from one form of conservatism to the next, until they find one that makes them look good for the issue being debated.

Does this make them bad people? No. Does this make them unamerican? No. Does this make their beliefs wrong? No. What it does do is make them to unpredictable. It is this unpredictability that leads us to doubt and question their motives. If you have to question their motives do you really want them running the country?

This says far more about the left's drug induced paranoia toward anyone that doesn't walk lock step with them.

They can't understand it. They don't have the intelligence to understand individualism. And like all things that lack intelligence, when they can't understand it, they react with fear, paranoia, and more importantly delusion.

The above reeks of the same.

Read, laugh, repeat!

Who leads the Teaparty? Sarrah Palin, Dick Armey, or Ron Paul? I understand individualism quite well, and I also understand that there can only be one president, not 10 million individuals. At least I have the intelligence to understand that.

Thank you for proving I'm right.

You can only understand collectivism. You do NOT understand individualism.

You incorrectly use the president as an example because the president is the president of the COUNTRY, NOT A POLITICAL MOVEMENT.

When you scream dismay at "10 million individuals" what you are saying is there are 10 million people YOU OR YOUR ILK CANNOT CONTROL.

And it frightens you.

But there were no "leaders" to tell the people to all vote for Ronald Reagan.

There were no leaders that had people vote so many Democrats out of the House of Representatives and State legislatures.

Voters don't need "leaders" to tell them how to vote, and that's what the Tea Party is. It's VOTERS.

You can't understand that, because your closed minded leftist bent won't let you.

And BTW you are wrong. It takes a lot more than 10 million voters to create the rout that happened to Democrats last November and will vote Obama out (Lord willing) in 2012)

Boo freaking hoo.

 

[spectrumc01]

This says far more about the left's drug induced paranoia toward anyone that doesn't walk lock step with them.

They can't understand it. They don't have the intelligence to understand individualism. And like all things that lack intelligence, when they can't understand it, they react with fear, paranoia, and more importantly delusion.

The above reeks of the same.

Read, laugh, repeat!

Who leads the Teaparty? Sarrah Palin, Dick Armey, or Ron Paul? I understand individualism quite well, and I also understand that there can only be one president, not 10 million individuals. At least I have the intelligence to understand that.

Thank you for proving I'm right.

You can only understand collectivism. You do NOT understand individualism.

You incorrectly use the president as an example because the president is the president of the COUNTRY, NOT A POLITICAL MOVEMENT.

When you scream dismay at "10 million individuals" what you are saying is there are 10 million people YOU OR YOUR ILK CANNOT CONTROL.

And it frightens you.

But there were no "leaders" to tell the people to all vote for Ronald Reagan.

There were no leaders that had people vote so many Democrats out of the House of Representatives and State legislatures.

Voters don't need "leaders" to tell them how to vote, and that's what the Tea Party is. It's VOTERS.

You can't understand that, because your closed minded leftist bent won't let you.

And BTW you are wrong. It takes a lot more than 10 million voters to create the rout that happened to Democrats last November and will vote Obama out (Lord willing) in 2012)

Boo freaking hoo.

First lets start off by recalling the wisdom of "united we stand, divided we fall", or how about "strength in numbers". Collectivism has its merits as does individuality. But even you must realize that if this country goes down it won't be by individuals it will be collectively. It will take all of us pulling in the same direction to correct the problems we face.

Secondly the president is the leader of his/her political party as well.

Thirdly I have no "Ilk", nor did I do any screaming. No one wants to control anyone.

Fourthly, I am not frieghtened.

At least when you say voters don't need leaders to tell them how to vote you are right. Here is where it gets tricky for you, so follow closely. You have to vote for someone or you don't vote at all.

As for the leftist bent, there was none. It was just a mirror held up to the face of conservatism, I'm sorry you don't like the reflection.

BTW, 10 million was an example number, sorry you didn't catch that either.

 

[teapartysamurai]

Who leads the Teaparty? Sarrah Palin, Dick Armey, or Ron Paul? I understand individualism quite well, and I also understand that there can only be one president, not 10 million individuals. At least I have the intelligence to understand that.

Thank you for proving I'm right.

You can only understand collectivism. You do NOT understand individualism.

You incorrectly use the president as an example because the president is the president of the COUNTRY, NOT A POLITICAL MOVEMENT.

When you scream dismay at "10 million individuals" what you are saying is there are 10 million people YOU OR YOUR ILK CANNOT CONTROL.

And it frightens you.

But there were no "leaders" to tell the people to all vote for Ronald Reagan.

There were no leaders that had people vote so many Democrats out of the House of Representatives and State legislatures.

Voters don't need "leaders" to tell them how to vote, and that's what the Tea Party is. It's VOTERS.

You can't understand that, because your closed minded leftist bent won't let you.

And BTW you are wrong. It takes a lot more than 10 million voters to create the rout that happened to Democrats last November and will vote Obama out (Lord willing) in 2012)

Boo freaking hoo.

First lets start off by recalling the wisdom of "united we stand, divided we fall", or how about "strength in numbers". Collectivism has its merits as does individuality. But even you must realize that if this country goes down it won't be by individuals it will be collectively. It will take all of us pulling in the same direction to correct the problems we face.

Secondly the president is the leader of his/her political party as well.

Thirdly I have no "Ilk", nor did I do any screaming. No one wants to control anyone.

Fourthly, I am not frieghtened.

At least when you say voters don't need leaders to tell them how to vote you are right. Here is where it gets tricky for you, so follow closely. You have to vote for someone or you don't vote at all.

As for the leftist bent, there was none. It was just a mirror held up to the face of conservatism, I'm sorry you don't like the reflection.

BTW, 10 million was an example number, sorry you didn't catch that either.

Sweety, the only mirror you are holding up is to yourself and your own political bent.

If collectivism has it's merits, explain why it has failed with facism, socialism and communism?

All collectivist, all have failed.

And where does "united we stand" or "strength in numbers" say there has to be some Fuhrer to lead those numbers?

How our are problems solved by the inability to have dissent? Doesn't that become ANOTHER problem in and of itself?

Sorry, but welcome to freedom. You lefties might think it's some "utopia" to force everyone to agree, but all that really is, is slavery.

No thank you. I prefer freedom.

 

[percysunshine]

I suspect 'spectrumc01' is a conservative person. There is the innate habit of disecting things into individual parts. That is good. Reconstruction is the next step.

 

[Mad Scientist]

I suspect 'spectrumc01' is a conservative person. There is the innate habit of disecting things into individual parts. That is good. Reconstruction is the next step.

Really? Because I look at him as your typical Religion hater and therefore a Liberal. But he identifies himself as an "individual", however he defines that.

 

[teapartysamurai]

I suspect 'spectrumc01' is a conservative person. There is the innate habit of disecting things into individual parts. That is good. Reconstruction is the next step.

Really? Because I look at him as your typical Religion hater and therefore a Liberal. But he identifies himself as an "individual", however he defines that.

An "individual" that just argued with me for collectivism?

spectrum is full of BS alert!

 

[Robert]

It has become apparent that Republicans, Tea Partiers, and Libertarians consider themselves conservatives. Then there are the independants who fall into two catagories, conservative and liberal. So now we have four different types of conservatism, so far.

Conservatism is quickly becoming like christianity, with many denominations which vary ever so slightly from one to the next. Making them hard to pin down or determine what they believe. It also gives them plenty of hiding room as they float from one group to the next. This has become quite popular among conservatives since the GWB presidency.

Conservatism breaks down even further when you start talking about religion and the constitution. The only common denominator among all the conservatives is that they don't like Democrats, or Liberals.

Conservatism is quickly resembling terrorist cells, as they have no definitive leader, and their agenda is widely varried. Depending on who you talk to, the most important thing to conservatives seams to range from moral issues, to financial issues, to foreign affairs issues, and then to what ever issue they decide to champion next. As for the leqdership of these groups no one knows who leads some of them, such as the Tea Partiers and Libertarians. Just what the heck is Sarrah Palin? Tea Party express or Republican VP candidate? Then there is Ron Paul and Dick Armey what position do they hold in what party?

What has also become apparent is their lack of willingness to negotiate, or even talk to the other side of the isle. The degree to which this takes place and which issues this happens over also varies depending on which conservative group you are talking to. The only constant here is the level of anger.

These reasons and observations have led me to believe that if you are going to discuss anything with a conservative you had best find out what type of conservative you are talking to. As with christianity they are all brothers until you point out their shortcomings and then they become as slippery as eels moving from one form of conservatism to the next, until they find one that makes them look good for the issue being debated.

Does this make them bad people? No. Does this make them unamerican? No. Does this make their beliefs wrong? No. What it does do is make them to unpredictable. It is this unpredictability that leads us to doubt and question their motives. If you have to question their motives do you really want them running the country?

Be willing to bet that if you stepped back from the extreme fringe and took an objective look you would see that it is not they who have a problem.

 

[spectrumc01]

"Sweety, the only mirror you are holding up is to yourself and your own political bent.

If collectivism has it's merits, explain why it has failed with facism, socialism and communism?

All collectivist, all have failed.

And where does "united we stand" or "strength in numbers" say there has to be some Fuhrer to lead those numbers?

How our are problems solved by the inability to have dissent? Doesn't that become ANOTHER problem in and of itself?

Sorry, but welcome to freedom. You lefties might think it's some "utopia" to force everyone to agree, but all that really is, is slavery.

No thank you. I prefer freedom"

*Ok... it failed with with those systems because like all systems when they become corrupt and extreme they destroy themselves.
*Without leadership a group of people becomes a mob and when the mob gets too large it becomes unruly, and when a mob becomes unruly it turns into a riot, and riots lead to anarchy, and anarchy leads to the fall of a civilization.
*Dissent is good if done constructively. No one wants to get rid of dissent.
*When did getting rid of freedom get into the thread?
*You are the only one talking about forcing anyone to do anything.
*This might help you...Alarmist n. one who spreads alarming rumors, exaggerated reports of danger, etc.

 

[spectrumc01]

I suspect 'spectrumc01' is a conservative person. There is the innate habit of disecting things into individual parts. That is good. Reconstruction is the next step.

Really? Because I look at him as your typical Religion hater and therefore a Liberal. But he identifies himself as an "individual", however he defines that.

*Religion hater? yes, although "hater" is too strong of a description, I would go with "opponent", who likes to point out hypocracy.

*I do define myself as an individual who wants to stay that way, but if you listen to religion there "is only one true religion and everyone else is wrong" therefore everyone must convert.

*Conservative on some issues and liberal on others, again showing my "individualism".

 

[spectrumc01]

I suspect 'spectrumc01' is a conservative person. There is the innate habit of disecting things into individual parts. That is good. Reconstruction is the next step.

Really? Because I look at him as your typical Religion hater and therefore a Liberal. But he identifies himself as an "individual", however he defines that.

An "individual" that just argued with me for collectivism?

spectrum is full of BS alert!

Even individuals must realize that there are some jobs too big to be done by yourself. Team work is different than collectivism. Even you must see the wisdom in that. If collectivism is wrong why do tea partiers group together and fight for a collective cause?