Classic Liberalism V.S. Progressivism.

[Intense]

"Now the Republican Party is in the hands of the right, I would say the extreme right, more than ever before," said Hagel. "

The truth of the matter is that there are only 2 parties in America. The Libertarians and the Welfare/Warfare Party. The GOP vs Democrats is a false dichotomy .

There are state supremacists - ie, supporters of the welfare/warfare state in both the GOP and Democrats. The Republicans want their candidate to acquire power and rule in the name of god - the democrats demand that their standard bearer rule in the name of karl Marx. But BOTH seek tyranny.

.

Or..... from a unique perspective Never ever before thought of or mentioned in this Thread or anywhere in our realm....... "Classic Liberalism V.S, Progressivism". Who knew?

There are Statist Progressives in both Parties. Easily recognized by their support of Centralized Absolute Control and the Disregard of Individual Liberty.

 

[Bfgrn]

"Now the Republican Party is in the hands of the right, I would say the extreme right, more than ever before," said Hagel. "

The truth of the matter is that there are only 2 parties in America. The Libertarians and the Welfare/Warfare Party. The GOP vs Democrats is a false dichotomy .

There are state supremacists - ie, supporters of the welfare/warfare state in both the GOP and Democrats. The Republicans want their candidate to acquire power and rule in the name of god - the democrats demand that their standard bearer rule in the name of karl Marx. But BOTH seek tyranny.

.

Or..... from a unique perspective Never ever before thought of or mentioned in this Thread or anywhere in our realm....... "Classic Liberalism V.S, Progressivism". Who knew?

There are Statist Progressives in both Parties. Easily recognized by their support of Centralized Absolute Control and the Disregard of Individual Liberty.

While not all conservatives are authoritarians; all highly authoritarian personalities are political conservatives.
Robert Altmeyer - The Authoritarian

You don't even know what individual liberty is until it is taken way from you. And it will NEVER, EVER be taken away by liberals or progressives. It will be taken away by far right extremism, just like Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union and Red China.

"Today Christians stand at the head of our country. I pledge that I will never tie myself to parties who want to destroy Christianity... We want to fill our culture again with the Christian spirit.... We want to burn out all the recent immoral developments in literature, in the theatre, and in the press - in short, we want to burn out the poison of immorality which has entered into our whole life and culture as a result of liberal excess during the past few years."

Adolf Hitler
The Speeches of Adolph Hitler, 1922-1939, Vol. 1 (London, Oxford University Press, 1942), pg. 871-872.

 

[Katzndogz]

Liberals are the most intolerant people on the face of the earth.

 

[Foxfyre]

The truth of the matter is that there are only 2 parties in America. The Libertarians and the Welfare/Warfare Party. The GOP vs Democrats is a false dichotomy .

There are state supremacists - ie, supporters of the welfare/warfare state in both the GOP and Democrats. The Republicans want their candidate to acquire power and rule in the name of god - the democrats demand that their standard bearer rule in the name of karl Marx. But BOTH seek tyranny.

.

Or..... from a unique perspective Never ever before thought of or mentioned in this Thread or anywhere in our realm....... "Classic Liberalism V.S, Progressivism". Who knew?

There are Statist Progressives in both Parties. Easily recognized by their support of Centralized Absolute Control and the Disregard of Individual Liberty.

While not all conservatives are authoritarians; all highly authoritarian personalities are political conservatives.
Robert Altmeyer - The Authoritarian

You don't even know what individual liberty is until it is taken way from you. And it will NEVER, EVER be taken away by liberals or progressives. It will be taken away by far right extremism, just like Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union and Red China.

"Today Christians stand at the head of our country. I pledge that I will never tie myself to parties who want to destroy Christianity... We want to fill our culture again with the Christian spirit.... We want to burn out all the recent immoral developments in literature, in the theatre, and in the press - in short, we want to burn out the poison of immorality which has entered into our whole life and culture as a result of liberal excess during the past few years."

Adolf Hitler
The Speeches of Adolph Hitler, 1922-1939, Vol. 1 (London, Oxford University Press, 1942), pg. 871-872.

I wonder Bfgm, if you might be the rare liberal who can actually articulate an argument for the points you make. Sometimes a well chosen quoted perspective or argument says it so well it adds to the discussion. But nothing but hateful insults and/or a string of cut and pasted biased and unsupported opinions gets really old really fast.

 

[Foxfyre]

"Now the Republican Party is in the hands of the right, I would say the extreme right, more than ever before," said Hagel. "

The truth of the matter is that there are only 2 parties in America. The Libertarians and the Welfare/Warfare Party. The GOP vs Democrats is a false dichotomy .

There are state supremacists - ie, supporters of the welfare/warfare state in both the GOP and Democrats. The Republicans want their candidate to acquire power and rule in the name of god - the democrats demand that their standard bearer rule in the name of karl Marx. But BOTH seek tyranny.

.

Or..... from a unique perspective Never ever before thought of or mentioned in this Thread or anywhere in our realm....... "Classic Liberalism V.S, Progressivism". Who knew?

There are Statist Progressives in both Parties. Easily recognized by their support of Centralized Absolute Control and the Disregard of Individual Liberty.

This is true. Rasmussen frequently separates the American electorate into the political class--those who support more and stronger government authority--and everybody else. And he consistently notes that while more of the political class will identify themselves as Democrats, such are present in both political parties.

I was listening to a brief interview with Arthur Brooks this morning. He was recounting how he had it made in a government job in Spain that would provide for his family's every need for their entire lives. And he was miserable, depressed, unhappy. So he and his wife came to the USA and really struggled at first because they arrived with almost nothing. But once he got on track and began enjoying earned prosperity for the first time in his life, it was exhilarating. The nanny state produces little more than malaise, boredom, and disatisfaction even as those made dependent on it fight to keep it, even taking to the streets to riot if they think they aren't getting enough or they might have their freebies reduced.

Classical liberalism is based on true individual liberty including self governance and earned prosperity.

I recommend Brooks' book toward that end:

 

[Contumacious]

The truth of the matter is that there are only 2 parties in America. The Libertarians and the Welfare/Warfare Party. The GOP vs Democrats is a false dichotomy .

There are state supremacists - ie, supporters of the welfare/warfare state in both the GOP and Democrats. The Republicans want their candidate to acquire power and rule in the name of god - the democrats demand that their standard bearer rule in the name of karl Marx. But BOTH seek tyranny.

.

Or..... from a unique perspective Never ever before thought of or mentioned in this Thread or anywhere in our realm....... "Classic Liberalism V.S, Progressivism". Who knew?

There are Statist Progressives in both Parties. Easily recognized by their support of Centralized Absolute Control and the Disregard of Individual Liberty.

This is true. Rasmussen frequently separates the American electorate into the political class--those who support more and stronger government authority--and everybody else. And he consistently notes that while more of the political class will identify themselves as Democrats, such are present in both political parties.

I was listening to a brief interview with Arthur Brooks this morning. He was recounting how he had it made in a government job in Spain that would provide for his family's every need for their entire lives. And he was miserable, depressed, unhappy. So he and his wife came to the USA and really struggled at first because they arrived with almost nothing. But once he got on track and began enjoying earned prosperity for the first time in his life, it was exhilarating. The nanny state produces little more than malaise, boredom, and disatisfaction even as those made dependent on it fight to keep it, even taking to the streets to riot if they think they aren't getting enough or they might have their freebies reduced.

Classical liberalism is based on true individual liberty including self governance and earned prosperity.

I recommend Brooks' book toward that end:

That's it , in a nutshell.

.

 

[Intense]

Mumbo-jumbo BS.

Answer ONE question: Do the tea party or the evangelicals believe in compromise?

We are about to find out who is honest and who is not...

The Tea Party does not concern itself with evangelical goals. Evangelicals, as evangelicals do not concern themselves with Tea Party goals.

And so far as compromise is concerned, it would depend on what is expected to be compromised. In many things yes. In other things no.

The Tea Party goals are simple and straight forward and the Tea Party is not willing to compromise on the basics:

1. Smaller, more effective, more efficient, less intrusive government that recognizes and protects individual liberties and unalienable rights and that takes no more of the people's resources than is absolutely essential to perform its mandated responsibilities.

2. A return to the Constitutional foundations as set forth by the Founders.

3. A free market economy with only as much regulation is necessary to prevent us doing economic or physical violence to each other. That would include only as much taxation as is necessary to perform the essential functions of government.

How that is all accomplished is negotiable. The principles themselves are not.

A prominent Republican disagrees with you:


Hagel: Reagan wouldn't identify with today's GOP

The Republican Party has drifted so far to the right and become so partisan in recent years that President Ronald Reagan wouldn't even want to be a part of it, former Nebraska GOP senator Chuck Hagel told The Cable.

Reagan wanted to do away with nuclear weapons, raised taxes, made deals with congressional Democrats, sought compromises and consensus to fix problems, and surrounded himself with moderates as well as Republican hard-liners, Hagel noted. None of that is characterized by the current GOP leadership, he said. In his eyes, the rise of the Tea Party and the influx of new GOP lawmakers in Congress have driven the party away from common sense and consensus-based solutions.

"Reagan wouldn't identify with this party. There's a streak of intolerance in the Republican Party today that scares people. Intolerance is a very dangerous thing in a society because it always leads to a tragic ending," he said. "Ronald Reagan was never driven by ideology. He was a conservative but he was a practical conservative. He wanted limited government but he used government and he used it many times. And he would work with the other party."

"Now the Republican Party is in the hands of the right, I would say the extreme right, more than ever before," said Hagel. "You've got a Republican Party that is having difficulty facing up to the fact that if you look at what happened during the first 8 years of the century, it was under Republican direction."

George W. Bush started two wars while cutting taxes, added an unfunded prescription drug mandate, and ran up the deficit, but today's GOP leaders can't reconcile that history with their agenda today, Hagel noted.

"The Republican Party is dealing with this schizophrenia. It was the Republican leadership that got us into this mess," he said. "If Nixon or Eisenhower were alive today, they would be run out of the party."

http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/05/11/hagel_reagan_wouldn_t_identify_with_today_s_gophttp://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/05/11/hagel_reagan_wouldn_t_identify_with_today_s_gop

**** Consensus. It is lijke nothing is salvaged from the original concept, by time it is done, and you are finished ripping it apart and adding 15 assholes to please everybody. You, in the end please No One. Might as well try to get it right, from conception, taking one step at a time. Tell me what exactly you get, when you compromise Principle? How much Sovereignty do you need to lose, before you admit, that we are Fucked? Hint.... stay clear of The New World Order Crowd. Their only interest is in controlling you.

 

[FA_Q2]

The truth of the matter is that there are only 2 parties in America. The Libertarians and the Welfare/Warfare Party. The GOP vs Democrats is a false dichotomy .

There are state supremacists - ie, supporters of the welfare/warfare state in both the GOP and Democrats. The Republicans want their candidate to acquire power and rule in the name of god - the democrats demand that their standard bearer rule in the name of karl Marx. But BOTH seek tyranny.

.

Or..... from a unique perspective Never ever before thought of or mentioned in this Thread or anywhere in our realm....... "Classic Liberalism V.S, Progressivism". Who knew?

There are Statist Progressives in both Parties. Easily recognized by their support of Centralized Absolute Control and the Disregard of Individual Liberty.

While not all conservatives are authoritarians; all highly authoritarian personalities are political conservatives.
Robert Altmeyer - The Authoritarian

You don't even know what individual liberty is until it is taken way from you. And it will NEVER, EVER be taken away by liberals or progressives. It will be taken away by far right extremism, just like Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union and Red China.




"Today Christians stand at the head of our country. I pledge that I will never tie myself to parties who want to destroy Christianity... We want to fill our culture again with the Christian spirit.... We want to burn out all the recent immoral developments in literature, in the theatre, and in the press - in short, we want to burn out the poison of immorality which has entered into our whole life and culture as a result of liberal excess during the past few years."

Adolf Hitler
The Speeches of Adolph Hitler, 1922-1939, Vol. 1 (London, Oxford University Press, 1942), pg. 871-872.

Repeating the same old tired lie over and over again does not make it true. I am sure that you somehow can shoe that the soviet union and red china are littered with 'conservatives' right? And then using a quote from Hitler that has religion in it is meaningless. That does not a conservative make. How about where you show that any authoritarian has ever emphasized liberty, small government and limited taxation?

That's right, conservatism has NOTHING in common with authoritarians even though the liberals on this board would love to push it on them. As stated by others, STATISTS are the authoritarians and they exist in both parties. They are the ones that believe the government should run everything and want bigger ever expanding government intrusion into our lives. They are the ones that believe in 'communal' rights and not personal ones. THAT is the road to totalitarianism and that is what we need to stop as it has taken root across party lines. The danger is in the fact that it is easier to cede rights and power to a dictator as that takes away responsibility and accountability. Easier is not always better.

 

[Intense]

The truth of the matter is that there are only 2 parties in America. The Libertarians and the Welfare/Warfare Party. The GOP vs Democrats is a false dichotomy .

There are state supremacists - ie, supporters of the welfare/warfare state in both the GOP and Democrats. The Republicans want their candidate to acquire power and rule in the name of god - the democrats demand that their standard bearer rule in the name of karl Marx. But BOTH seek tyranny.

.

Or..... from a unique perspective Never ever before thought of or mentioned in this Thread or anywhere in our realm....... "Classic Liberalism V.S, Progressivism". Who knew?

There are Statist Progressives in both Parties. Easily recognized by their support of Centralized Absolute Control and the Disregard of Individual Liberty.

While not all conservatives are authoritarians; all highly authoritarian personalities are political conservatives.
Robert Altmeyer - The Authoritarian

You don't even know what individual liberty is until it is taken way from you. And it will NEVER, EVER be taken away by liberals or progressives. It will be taken away by far right extremism, just like Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union and Red China.

"Today Christians stand at the head of our country. I pledge that I will never tie myself to parties who want to destroy Christianity... We want to fill our culture again with the Christian spirit.... We want to burn out all the recent immoral developments in literature, in the theatre, and in the press - in short, we want to burn out the poison of immorality which has entered into our whole life and culture as a result of liberal excess during the past few years."

Adolf Hitler
The Speeches of Adolph Hitler, 1922-1939, Vol. 1 (London, Oxford University Press, 1942), pg. 871-872.

More Socialist in Principle than Christian. I'm not big on censorship, not to be confused with discernment, in relating to my own personal choice. The whole Master Race thing flies in the face of Christianity, So does World Domination. Matters of Conscience Are Personal matters, not the business of the Society or Government.

 

[Bfgrn]

The Tea Party does not concern itself with evangelical goals. Evangelicals, as evangelicals do not concern themselves with Tea Party goals.

And so far as compromise is concerned, it would depend on what is expected to be compromised. In many things yes. In other things no.

The Tea Party goals are simple and straight forward and the Tea Party is not willing to compromise on the basics:

1. Smaller, more effective, more efficient, less intrusive government that recognizes and protects individual liberties and unalienable rights and that takes no more of the people's resources than is absolutely essential to perform its mandated responsibilities.

2. A return to the Constitutional foundations as set forth by the Founders.

3. A free market economy with only as much regulation is necessary to prevent us doing economic or physical violence to each other. That would include only as much taxation as is necessary to perform the essential functions of government.

How that is all accomplished is negotiable. The principles themselves are not.

A prominent Republican disagrees with you:


Hagel: Reagan wouldn't identify with today's GOP

The Republican Party has drifted so far to the right and become so partisan in recent years that President Ronald Reagan wouldn't even want to be a part of it, former Nebraska GOP senator Chuck Hagel told The Cable.

Reagan wanted to do away with nuclear weapons, raised taxes, made deals with congressional Democrats, sought compromises and consensus to fix problems, and surrounded himself with moderates as well as Republican hard-liners, Hagel noted. None of that is characterized by the current GOP leadership, he said. In his eyes, the rise of the Tea Party and the influx of new GOP lawmakers in Congress have driven the party away from common sense and consensus-based solutions.

"Reagan wouldn't identify with this party. There's a streak of intolerance in the Republican Party today that scares people. Intolerance is a very dangerous thing in a society because it always leads to a tragic ending," he said. "Ronald Reagan was never driven by ideology. He was a conservative but he was a practical conservative. He wanted limited government but he used government and he used it many times. And he would work with the other party."

"Now the Republican Party is in the hands of the right, I would say the extreme right, more than ever before," said Hagel. "You've got a Republican Party that is having difficulty facing up to the fact that if you look at what happened during the first 8 years of the century, it was under Republican direction."

George W. Bush started two wars while cutting taxes, added an unfunded prescription drug mandate, and ran up the deficit, but today's GOP leaders can't reconcile that history with their agenda today, Hagel noted.

"The Republican Party is dealing with this schizophrenia. It was the Republican leadership that got us into this mess," he said. "If Nixon or Eisenhower were alive today, they would be run out of the party."

http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/05/11/hagel_reagan_wouldn_t_identify_with_today_s_gophttp://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/05/11/hagel_reagan_wouldn_t_identify_with_today_s_gop

**** Consensus. It is lijke nothing is salvaged from the original concept, by time it is done, and you are finished ripping it apart and adding 15 assholes to please everybody. You, in the end please No One. Might as well try to get it right, from conception, taking one step at a time. Tell me what exactly you get, when you compromise Principle? How much Sovereignty do you need to lose, before you admit, that we are Fucked? Hint.... stay clear of The New World Order Crowd. Their only interest is in controlling you.

You are exhibiting more and more that you have a mind that has been infested with fear. Fear is what conservatism is based on. Without fear and paranoia, there would be no conservative movement. It is an illness that is deadly to freedom and liberty.

No passion so effectually robs the mind of all its powers of acting and reasoning as fear.
Edmund Burke

 

[Contumacious]

That's right, conservatism has NOTHING in common with authoritarians even though the liberals on this board would love to push it on them. As stated by others, STATISTS are the authoritarians and they exist in both parties. They are the ones that believe the government should run everything and want bigger ever expanding government intrusion into our lives. .

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YFyEBr7kuLs"]Let's Nationalize the Banks, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC)[/ame]

.

 

[Bfgrn]

Or..... from a unique perspective Never ever before thought of or mentioned in this Thread or anywhere in our realm....... "Classic Liberalism V.S, Progressivism". Who knew?

There are Statist Progressives in both Parties. Easily recognized by their support of Centralized Absolute Control and the Disregard of Individual Liberty.

While not all conservatives are authoritarians; all highly authoritarian personalities are political conservatives.
Robert Altmeyer - The Authoritarian

You don't even know what individual liberty is until it is taken way from you. And it will NEVER, EVER be taken away by liberals or progressives. It will be taken away by far right extremism, just like Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union and Red China.




"Today Christians stand at the head of our country. I pledge that I will never tie myself to parties who want to destroy Christianity... We want to fill our culture again with the Christian spirit.... We want to burn out all the recent immoral developments in literature, in the theatre, and in the press - in short, we want to burn out the poison of immorality which has entered into our whole life and culture as a result of liberal excess during the past few years."

Adolf Hitler
The Speeches of Adolph Hitler, 1922-1939, Vol. 1 (London, Oxford University Press, 1942), pg. 871-872.

I am sure that you somehow can shoe that the soviet union and red china are littered with 'conservatives' right?

Sure...

When the ‘tea partiers’ say “we want our country back”, what do they mean by ‘our’?

What polls show us about the ‘tea party’ is that they are a fringe group diametrically opposed to mainstream America. Among all Americans, George W. Bush has a 27/58 positive/negative favorable rating. Among the ‘tea party’ he's viewed favorably, 57/27. An almost perfect diametrical difference.

Is there any precedent in history of today’s the ‘tea party’?

The answer is YES…a parallel to the 'Tea Party" occurred in Russia in the late 1980's. Russian conservatives, the Stalinists, wanted 'their' country back. It was an alliance including xenophobic fringe groups and nationalists who yearned for what they saw as the simple values of Old Russia and the Orthodox church.

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

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.

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.

At election rallies where speakers call out against the influence of ''Zionist forces,'' and in campaign leaflets decrying ''liberal yellow journalists''

Conservatives already claim credit for helping defeat certain candidates, most notably Mr. Korotich, editor of the liberal and popular magazine ''Ogonyok,'' and Andrei D. Sakharov, the physicist and Nobel Peace Prize winning dissident.

Nikita F. Zherbin, head of the Leningrad chapter of Pamyat, delighted in the fact that Mr. Korotich had been forced off the ballot in Moscow's Sverdlovsk region, and described this as the first successful step in the conservative campaign to use the elections as a vehicle for its political ideas.

'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.

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

Russia is an ultra conservative country, and liberals are in danger there.

More than 300 journalists killed in Russia since 1993, says joint report

The murder of Russian journalist Anna Politkovskaya in October 2006 shocked the world. "Yet for every Anna, there have been many less widely known journalists killed for their work across Russia," says the International Federation of Journalists (IFJ) in a groundbreaking report on the 313 Russian journalists killed since 1993.

More than 300 journalists killed in Russia since 1993, says joint report - IFEX

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What Mao Zedong said about liberalism

"Liberalism is extremely harmful in a revolutionary collective. It is a corrosive which eats away unity, undermines cohesion, causes apathy and creates dissension.

It robs the revolutionary ranks of compact organization and strict discipline, prevents policies from being carried through and alienates the Party organizations from the masses which the Party leads."

Combat Liberalism - Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung

 

[FA_Q2]

And yet not one single political view that connects the two conceps.

You have nothing. Admit it.


The asinine need for some to point across the aisle and call them totalitarian and compare them to Stalin and Hitler is childish and ignorant. If you want to continue to look like idiot then continue to point at anyone that believes differently than you and call them Hitler. Otherwise, join the adults at the big boy table and actually bring valid points to the argument.

 

[Bfgrn]

And yet not one single political view that connects the two conceps.

You have nothing. Admit it.


The asinine need for some to point across the aisle and call them totalitarian and compare them to Stalin and Hitler is childish and ignorant. If you want to continue to look like idiot then continue to point at anyone that believes differently than you and call them Hitler. Otherwise, join the adults at the big boy table and actually bring valid points to the argument.

Ah yes, your parochial indoctrination creates your ignorance and dogma.

YOU are the center of the universe. Every value, tenet, belief and orthodoxy YOU believe is used to calibrate all human existence.

Conservatives in Russia and China firmly believe embrace and defend capitalism, Thomas Jefferson, the US Constitution and America values. They couldn't POSSIBLY embrace and defend communism, Marx and Russian or Chinese values.


Conservatism (Latin: conservare, "to preserve") is a political and social philosophy that promotes the maintenance of traditional institutions and supports, at the most, minimal and gradual change in society. Some conservatives seek to preserve things as they are, emphasizing stability and continuity, while others oppose modernism and seek a return to "the way things were"

Conservatism
noun
1. the disposition to preserve or restore what is established and traditional and to limit change.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Conservative Russia

People simply do not realize that Russia is a deeply conservative country.

Fiscal policy is buttressed on a low, flat rate of income tax (13%), and there is virtually no social safety net, with spending on unemployment security, medical provision, disability aid, infrastructure, the environment, and urban regeneration far lower, in both absolute terms and as a percentage of GDP, than its G8 contemporaries.

Similarly, military spending is high in comparison — and growing — medical care is available free in theory, but requires private insurance or additional cash payment in practice, and businesses are in reality pretty un-regulated.

If that doesn’t sound to you like a set of policies Newt Gingrich or William F Buckley would support, then you don’t know your dyed in the wool conservatives from your woolly jumper wearing liberals.

We've been led to believe by pinko sociology teachers in college that communism taught progressive views on gender, race, immigration and class, so it therefore came as a shock to find when one moved there that after 80 years of Marxist indoctrination, young ladies in Russia often reject feminism, men ooze with unrepentant machismo, and the population appears to generally support a penal code that could have been based on Dostoyevsky’s work.

 

[Contumacious]

Conservatives in Russia and China firmly believe embrace and defend capitalism, Thomas Jefferson, the US Constitution and America values.

If true, that would be Libertarianism not "conservativism.


Conservatism
noun
1. racists and xenophobes who have the disposition to support and defend the welfare/warfare state

 

[Foxfyre]

And yet not one single political view that connects the two conceps.

You have nothing. Admit it.


The asinine need for some to point across the aisle and call them totalitarian and compare them to Stalin and Hitler is childish and ignorant. If you want to continue to look like idiot then continue to point at anyone that believes differently than you and call them Hitler. Otherwise, join the adults at the big boy table and actually bring valid points to the argument.

Ah yes, your parochial indoctrination creates your ignorance and dogma.

YOU are the center of the universe. Every value, tenet, belief and orthodoxy YOU believe is used to calibrate all human existence.

Conservatives in Russia and China firmly believe embrace and defend capitalism, Thomas Jefferson, the US Constitution and America values. They couldn't POSSIBLY embrace and defend communism, Marx and Russian or Chinese values.


Conservatism (Latin: conservare, "to preserve") is a political and social philosophy that promotes the maintenance of traditional institutions and supports, at the most, minimal and gradual change in society. Some conservatives seek to preserve things as they are, emphasizing stability and continuity, while others oppose modernism and seek a return to "the way things were"

Conservatism
noun
1. the disposition to preserve or restore what is established and traditional and to limit change.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Conservative Russia

People simply do not realize that Russia is a deeply conservative country.

Fiscal policy is buttressed on a low, flat rate of income tax (13%), and there is virtually no social safety net, with spending on unemployment security, medical provision, disability aid, infrastructure, the environment, and urban regeneration far lower, in both absolute terms and as a percentage of GDP, than its G8 contemporaries.

Similarly, military spending is high in comparison — and growing — medical care is available free in theory, but requires private insurance or additional cash payment in practice, and businesses are in reality pretty un-regulated.

If that doesn’t sound to you like a set of policies Newt Gingrich or William F Buckley would support, then you don’t know your dyed in the wool conservatives from your woolly jumper wearing liberals.

We've been led to believe by pinko sociology teachers in college that communism taught progressive views on gender, race, immigration and class, so it therefore came as a shock to find when one moved there that after 80 years of Marxist indoctrination, young ladies in Russia often reject feminism, men ooze with unrepentant machismo, and the population appears to generally support a penal code that could have been based on Dostoyevsky’s work.

And you really need to bone up on your terminology. Modern Aemrican Conservatism, i.e. classical liberalism, is the complete opposite of Russian conservatism while Russian liberalism is not that much different from our modern day American conservatism. You can find out things like that if you read books and stuff.

 

[Bfgrn]

Conservatives in Russia and China firmly believe embrace and defend capitalism, Thomas Jefferson, the US Constitution and America values.

If true, that would be Libertarianism not "conservativism.


Conservatism
noun
1. racists and xenophobes who have the disposition to support and defend the welfare/warfare state

Are you THAT stupid? Here is your word for the day:

sarcasm

 

[Intense]

While not all conservatives are authoritarians; all highly authoritarian personalities are political conservatives.
Robert Altmeyer - The Authoritarian

You don't even know what individual liberty is until it is taken way from you. And it will NEVER, EVER be taken away by liberals or progressives. It will be taken away by far right extremism, just like Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union and Red China.




"Today Christians stand at the head of our country. I pledge that I will never tie myself to parties who want to destroy Christianity... We want to fill our culture again with the Christian spirit.... We want to burn out all the recent immoral developments in literature, in the theatre, and in the press - in short, we want to burn out the poison of immorality which has entered into our whole life and culture as a result of liberal excess during the past few years."

Adolf Hitler
The Speeches of Adolph Hitler, 1922-1939, Vol. 1 (London, Oxford University Press, 1942), pg. 871-872.

I am sure that you somehow can shoe that the soviet union and red china are littered with 'conservatives' right?

Sure...

When the ‘tea partiers’ say “we want our country back”, what do they mean by ‘our’?

What polls show us about the ‘tea party’ is that they are a fringe group diametrically opposed to mainstream America. Among all Americans, George W. Bush has a 27/58 positive/negative favorable rating. Among the ‘tea party’ he's viewed favorably, 57/27. An almost perfect diametrical difference.

Is there any precedent in history of today’s the ‘tea party’?

The answer is YES…a parallel to the 'Tea Party" occurred in Russia in the late 1980's. Russian conservatives, the Stalinists, wanted 'their' country back. It was an alliance including xenophobic fringe groups and nationalists who yearned for what they saw as the simple values of Old Russia and the Orthodox church.

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

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.

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.

At election rallies where speakers call out against the influence of ''Zionist forces,'' and in campaign leaflets decrying ''liberal yellow journalists''

Conservatives already claim credit for helping defeat certain candidates, most notably Mr. Korotich, editor of the liberal and popular magazine ''Ogonyok,'' and Andrei D. Sakharov, the physicist and Nobel Peace Prize winning dissident.

Nikita F. Zherbin, head of the Leningrad chapter of Pamyat, delighted in the fact that Mr. Korotich had been forced off the ballot in Moscow's Sverdlovsk region, and described this as the first successful step in the conservative campaign to use the elections as a vehicle for its political ideas.

'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.

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

Russia is an ultra conservative country, and liberals are in danger there.

More than 300 journalists killed in Russia since 1993, says joint report

The murder of Russian journalist Anna Politkovskaya in October 2006 shocked the world. "Yet for every Anna, there have been many less widely known journalists killed for their work across Russia," says the International Federation of Journalists (IFJ) in a groundbreaking report on the 313 Russian journalists killed since 1993.

More than 300 journalists killed in Russia since 1993, says joint report - IFEX

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What Mao Zedong said about liberalism

"Liberalism is extremely harmful in a revolutionary collective. It is a corrosive which eats away unity, undermines cohesion, causes apathy and creates dissension.

It robs the revolutionary ranks of compact organization and strict discipline, prevents policies from being carried through and alienates the Party organizations from the masses which the Party leads."

Combat Liberalism - Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung

You are the one going backwards. When change improves upon what it, when it is qualified, it is a good thing. When change is just for the sake of change, and you are asking everyone else to bankroll it, that is another matter, and further, without consent, it is theft. Change towards Totalitatian Statism, I cannot support.

 

[Bfgrn]

And yet not one single political view that connects the two conceps.

You have nothing. Admit it.


The asinine need for some to point across the aisle and call them totalitarian and compare them to Stalin and Hitler is childish and ignorant. If you want to continue to look like idiot then continue to point at anyone that believes differently than you and call them Hitler. Otherwise, join the adults at the big boy table and actually bring valid points to the argument.

Ah yes, your parochial indoctrination creates your ignorance and dogma.

YOU are the center of the universe. Every value, tenet, belief and orthodoxy YOU believe is used to calibrate all human existence.

Conservatives in Russia and China firmly believe embrace and defend capitalism, Thomas Jefferson, the US Constitution and America values. They couldn't POSSIBLY embrace and defend communism, Marx and Russian or Chinese values.


Conservatism (Latin: conservare, "to preserve") is a political and social philosophy that promotes the maintenance of traditional institutions and supports, at the most, minimal and gradual change in society. Some conservatives seek to preserve things as they are, emphasizing stability and continuity, while others oppose modernism and seek a return to "the way things were"

Conservatism
noun
1. the disposition to preserve or restore what is established and traditional and to limit change.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Conservative Russia

People simply do not realize that Russia is a deeply conservative country.

Fiscal policy is buttressed on a low, flat rate of income tax (13%), and there is virtually no social safety net, with spending on unemployment security, medical provision, disability aid, infrastructure, the environment, and urban regeneration far lower, in both absolute terms and as a percentage of GDP, than its G8 contemporaries.

Similarly, military spending is high in comparison — and growing — medical care is available free in theory, but requires private insurance or additional cash payment in practice, and businesses are in reality pretty un-regulated.

If that doesn’t sound to you like a set of policies Newt Gingrich or William F Buckley would support, then you don’t know your dyed in the wool conservatives from your woolly jumper wearing liberals.

We've been led to believe by pinko sociology teachers in college that communism taught progressive views on gender, race, immigration and class, so it therefore came as a shock to find when one moved there that after 80 years of Marxist indoctrination, young ladies in Russia often reject feminism, men ooze with unrepentant machismo, and the population appears to generally support a penal code that could have been based on Dostoyevsky’s work.

And you really need to bone up on your terminology. Modern Aemrican Conservatism, i.e. classical liberalism, is the complete opposite of Russian conservatism while Russian liberalism is not that much different from our modern day American conservatism. You can find out things like that if you read books and stuff.

WHAT??? First of all, stop saying you are a liberal. You are a right wing social Darwinist who believes punishment must be applied so people LEARN to worship wealth. Modern day American conservatism is NOT liberalism in any way, shape or form. You can keep parroting that until the day you die, but it will NEVER, EVER be true.

Classical liberals assume a natural equality of humans; conservatives assume a natural hierarchy.
James M. Buchanan

You have repeated ad nauseum your social Darwinism and worship of a hierarchy every time you talk about social programs. Survival of the richest and punishment for the middle class and poor.

Second, Russia is a deeply conservative country. Why it is the VERY MODEL of what American conservatives and tea partiers want to create in this country...

RUSSIA today:

Fiscal policy is buttressed on a low, flat rate of income tax (13%), and there is virtually no social safety net, with spending on unemployment security, medical provision, disability aid, infrastructure, the environment, and urban regeneration far lower, in both absolute terms and as a percentage of GDP, than its G8 contemporaries.

Similarly, military spending is high in comparison — and growing — medical care is available free in theory, but requires private insurance or additional cash payment in practice, and businesses are in reality pretty un-regulated.

If that doesn’t sound to you like a set of policies Newt Gingrich or William F Buckley would support, then you don’t know your dyed in the wool conservatives from your woolly jumper wearing liberals.

 

[Contumacious]

Conservatives in Russia and China firmly believe embrace and defend capitalism, Thomas Jefferson, the US Constitution and America values.

If true, that would be Libertarianism not "conservativism.


Conservatism
noun
1. racists and xenophobes who have the disposition to support and defend the welfare/warfare state

Are you THAT stupid? Here is your word for the day:

sarcasm

The Great Conservative Hoax

by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.

The conservatives denounce their presidents for the same reason that the left denounces Stalin: they want to evade responsibility for the results of the policies imposed by monsters that they themselves created. When the left does this, we know not to take it too seriously. If you give the state the right to expropriate all private property, you can't be too surprised when dictators take over.

Similarly, when the whole of your intellectual enterprise has been wrapped up in celebrating the nation-state and its wars, condemning civil liberties, casting aspersions on religious liberty, and heralding the jail and the electric chair as the answer to all of society's problems, you can't complain when your policies produce tin-pot despotic imperialists like Bush. You have no intellectual apparatus with which to beat them back.

The problem with American conservatism is that it hates the left more than the state, loves the past more than liberty, feels a greater attachment to nationalism than to the idea of self-determination, believes brute force is the answer to all social problems, and thinks it is better to impose truth rather than risk losing one soul to heresy. It has never understood the idea of freedom as a self-ordering principle of society. It has never seen the state as the enemy of what conservatives purport to favor. It has always looked to presidential power as the saving grace of what is right and true about America.

I'm speaking now of the variety of conservatism created by William Buckley, not the Old Right of Albert Jay Nock, John T. Flynn, Garett Garrett, H.L. Mencken, and company, though these people would have all rejected the name conservative as ridiculous. After Lincoln, Wilson, and FDR, what's to conserve of the government? The revolutionaries who tossed off a milder British rule would never have put up with it.