Imagine a world . .

[Rikurzhen]

None. But there will always be individuals who discriminate.

If you have problems understanding the concepts of individuality and acting independently from a political faction, any of the liberals here will be happy to explain it to you.

Are you saying that anti-discrimination laws are needed to police bad liberals who don't subscribe to the philosophy of anti-discrimination? To police the bad people who are within the liberal camp.

 

[mamooth]

Bye-bye. Nobody is going to play your games.

 

[jwoodie]

Right now our political-cultural life is essentially split into two factions - Left and Right and we see that play out in politics and culture and religion and education and essentially every facet of life.

Now if you want to participate in this thread, I want you to refrain from a Left versus Right battle in commentary and instead focus on this question:

Imagine a society where every (Liberal) (Conservative) disappeared or moved away and all that was left were (Liberals) (Conservatives), how do you imagine sides would form up in that world? Who would the bitter enemies be for each faction?
​

I'm hoping that people focus more on their own compatriots rather than what they imagine might take place on the other side of the spectrum because people tend to know their neck of the woods with more detail.

Any takers?

Your question is obviously too high brow for this board.

Initially, a society of all Liberals would look more like Europe, while a society of all Conservatives would look a lot like the U.S. in the 1950's (absent segregation). Eventually, both would move towards what we have today, since money and power are the underlying motives of most politics.

Then why isn't Europe moving in the conservative direction?

I was addressing what U.S. society might look like, given our history, geography, economy, etc. Europe's situation is much different and, after two devastating wars, security is of paramount importance to the people living there.

 

[AntiParty]

Right now our political-cultural life is essentially split into two factions - Left and Right and we see that play out in politics and culture and religion and education and essentially every facet of life.

Now if you want to participate in this thread, I want you to refrain from a Left versus Right battle in commentary and instead focus on this question:

Imagine a society where every (Liberal) (Conservative) disappeared or moved away and all that was left were (Liberals) (Conservatives), how do you imagine sides would form up in that world? Who would the bitter enemies be for each faction?
​

I'm hoping that people focus more on their own compatriots rather than what they imagine might take place on the other side of the spectrum because people tend to know their neck of the woods with more detail.

Any takers?

 

[DriftingSand]

Right now our political-cultural life is essentially split into two factions - Left and Right and we see that play out in politics and culture and religion and education and essentially every facet of life.

Now if you want to participate in this thread, I want you to refrain from a Left versus Right battle in commentary and instead focus on this question:

Imagine a society where every (Liberal) (Conservative) disappeared or moved away and all that was left were (Liberals) (Conservatives), how do you imagine sides would form up in that world? Who would the bitter enemies be for each faction?
​

I'm hoping that people focus more on their own compatriots rather than what they imagine might take place on the other side of the spectrum because people tend to know their neck of the woods with more detail.

Any takers?

In my world there would only be Conservatives. Here's where some divisions could or likely would occur:

A) Folks critical of Israel vs. folks who don't believe Israel could EVER do anything wrong (Israel worshipers).
B) Conservatives who believe in a clean environment (using it responsibly) vs. pure Capitalists who don't mind irresponsibly destroying the environment for personal, financial gain.
C) Capitalists who don't mind a porous southern border (cheap labor) vs. Conservative Patriots who believe in sealing the border and deporting illegals.
D) Christian Conservatives vs. Atheist Conservatives and the battle over the issue of Creation Science being discussed in public schools.
E) Conservatives FOR the legalization of pot vs. them who are opposed.
F) Globalism from a Capitalist standpoint vs. complete, national sovereignty and America's independence FROM the globalist agenda.
G) Foreign policy in general: Conservatives who adhere to Jefferson's vision of very limited entanglements with foreign nations vs. them who embrace the idea that America should be the globe's policemen.

To name a few ...

 

[Rikurzhen]

Right now our political-cultural life is essentially split into two factions - Left and Right and we see that play out in politics and culture and religion and education and essentially every facet of life.

Now if you want to participate in this thread, I want you to refrain from a Left versus Right battle in commentary and instead focus on this question:

Imagine a society where every (Liberal) (Conservative) disappeared or moved away and all that was left were (Liberals) (Conservatives), how do you imagine sides would form up in that world? Who would the bitter enemies be for each faction?
​

I'm hoping that people focus more on their own compatriots rather than what they imagine might take place on the other side of the spectrum because people tend to know their neck of the woods with more detail.

Any takers?

In my world there would only be Conservatives. Here's where some divisions could or likely would occur:

A) Folks critical of Israel vs. folks who don't believe Israel could EVER do anything wrong (Israel worshipers).
B) Conservatives who believe in a clean environment (using it responsibly) vs. pure Capitalists who don't mind irresponsibly destroying the environment for personal, financial gain.
C) Capitalists who don't mind a porous southern border (cheap labor) vs. Conservative Patriots who believe in sealing the border and deporting illegals.
D) Christian Conservatives vs. Atheist Conservatives and the battle over the issue of Creation Science being discussed in public schools.
E) Conservatives FOR the legalization of pot vs. them who are opposed.
F) Globalism from a Capitalist standpoint vs. complete, national sovereignty and America's independence FROM the globalist agenda.
G) Foreign policy in general: Conservatives who adhere to Jefferson's vision of very limited entanglements with foreign nations vs. them who embrace the idea that America should be the globe's policemen.

To name a few ...

Awesome. Thank you very much. It only took the 25th comment for someone to engage. I notice the your first 5 points all point to a continuation of the political spectrum, the liberal Conservatives versus the conservative Conservatives but absent the absolutism or particularism of the now departed liberals,( eg. liberals weren't in favor of cheap labor, just votes, but they stood with the cheap labor lobby in supporting more immigration)

Your last point though is totally a conservative issue. We have both factions at present but Liberals don't, they don't have an isolationist faction in their party at all. I wonder how this last point would play out if the support that the foreign policy globalists are receiving from their liberal counterparts simply vanished.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Right now our political-cultural life is essentially split into two factions - Left and Right and we see that play out in politics and culture and religion and education and essentially every facet of life.

Now if you want to participate in this thread, I want you to refrain from a Left versus Right battle in commentary and instead focus on this question:

Imagine a society where every (Liberal) (Conservative) disappeared or moved away and all that was left were (Liberals) (Conservatives), how do you imagine sides would form up in that world? Who would the bitter enemies be for each faction?
​

I'm hoping that people focus more on their own compatriots rather than what they imagine might take place on the other side of the spectrum because people tend to know their neck of the woods with more detail.

Any takers?

In my world there would only be Conservatives. Here's where some divisions could or likely would occur:

A) Folks critical of Israel vs. folks who don't believe Israel could EVER do anything wrong (Israel worshipers).
B) Conservatives who believe in a clean environment (using it responsibly) vs. pure Capitalists who don't mind irresponsibly destroying the environment for personal, financial gain.
C) Capitalists who don't mind a porous southern border (cheap labor) vs. Conservative Patriots who believe in sealing the border and deporting illegals.
D) Christian Conservatives vs. Atheist Conservatives and the battle over the issue of Creation Science being discussed in public schools.
E) Conservatives FOR the legalization of pot vs. them who are opposed.
F) Globalism from a Capitalist standpoint vs. complete, national sovereignty and America's independence FROM the globalist agenda.
G) Foreign policy in general: Conservatives who adhere to Jefferson's vision of very limited entanglements with foreign nations vs. them who embrace the idea that America should be the globe's policemen.

To name a few ...

Awesome. Thank you very much. It only took the 25th comment for someone to engage. I notice the your first 5 points all point to a continuation of the political spectrum, the liberal Conservatives versus the conservative Conservatives but absent the absolutism or particularism of the now departed liberals,( eg. liberals weren't in favor of cheap labor, just votes, but they stood with the cheap labor lobby in supporting more immigration)

Your last point though is totally a conservative issue. We have both factions at present but Liberals don't, they don't have an isolationist faction in their party at all. I wonder how this last point would play out if the support that the foreign policy globalists are receiving from their liberal counterparts simply vanished.

You do realize that what you hypothesize is impossible don't you?

No matter how reasonably center you are there is ALWAYS someone(s) who will consider you liberal/conservative

One thing I've realized since I started posting is that liberal/conservative is largely a relative construct. I don't consider myself a liberal NOR a conservative, yet I've been labeled both by various factions because I didn't agree with them

 

[DriftingSand]

Right now our political-cultural life is essentially split into two factions - Left and Right and we see that play out in politics and culture and religion and education and essentially every facet of life.

Now if you want to participate in this thread, I want you to refrain from a Left versus Right battle in commentary and instead focus on this question:

Imagine a society where every (Liberal) (Conservative) disappeared or moved away and all that was left were (Liberals) (Conservatives), how do you imagine sides would form up in that world? Who would the bitter enemies be for each faction?
​

I'm hoping that people focus more on their own compatriots rather than what they imagine might take place on the other side of the spectrum because people tend to know their neck of the woods with more detail.

Any takers?

In my world there would only be Conservatives. Here's where some divisions could or likely would occur:

A) Folks critical of Israel vs. folks who don't believe Israel could EVER do anything wrong (Israel worshipers).
B) Conservatives who believe in a clean environment (using it responsibly) vs. pure Capitalists who don't mind irresponsibly destroying the environment for personal, financial gain.
C) Capitalists who don't mind a porous southern border (cheap labor) vs. Conservative Patriots who believe in sealing the border and deporting illegals.
D) Christian Conservatives vs. Atheist Conservatives and the battle over the issue of Creation Science being discussed in public schools.
E) Conservatives FOR the legalization of pot vs. them who are opposed.
F) Globalism from a Capitalist standpoint vs. complete, national sovereignty and America's independence FROM the globalist agenda.
G) Foreign policy in general: Conservatives who adhere to Jefferson's vision of very limited entanglements with foreign nations vs. them who embrace the idea that America should be the globe's policemen.

To name a few ...

Awesome. Thank you very much. It only took the 25th comment for someone to engage. I notice the your first 5 points all point to a continuation of the political spectrum, the liberal Conservatives versus the conservative Conservatives but absent the absolutism or particularism of the now departed liberals,( eg. liberals weren't in favor of cheap labor, just votes, but they stood with the cheap labor lobby in supporting more immigration)

Your last point though is totally a conservative issue. We have both factions at present but Liberals don't, they don't have an isolationist faction in their party at all. I wonder how this last point would play out if the support that the foreign policy globalists are receiving from their liberal counterparts simply vanished.

I believe that minus wading through

Right now our political-cultural life is essentially split into two factions - Left and Right and we see that play out in politics and culture and religion and education and essentially every facet of life.

Now if you want to participate in this thread, I want you to refrain from a Left versus Right battle in commentary and instead focus on this question:

Imagine a society where every (Liberal) (Conservative) disappeared or moved away and all that was left were (Liberals) (Conservatives), how do you imagine sides would form up in that world? Who would the bitter enemies be for each faction?
​

I'm hoping that people focus more on their own compatriots rather than what they imagine might take place on the other side of the spectrum because people tend to know their neck of the woods with more detail.

Any takers?

In my world there would only be Conservatives. Here's where some divisions could or likely would occur:

A) Folks critical of Israel vs. folks who don't believe Israel could EVER do anything wrong (Israel worshipers).
B) Conservatives who believe in a clean environment (using it responsibly) vs. pure Capitalists who don't mind irresponsibly destroying the environment for personal, financial gain.
C) Capitalists who don't mind a porous southern border (cheap labor) vs. Conservative Patriots who believe in sealing the border and deporting illegals.
D) Christian Conservatives vs. Atheist Conservatives and the battle over the issue of Creation Science being discussed in public schools.
E) Conservatives FOR the legalization of pot vs. them who are opposed.
F) Globalism from a Capitalist standpoint vs. complete, national sovereignty and America's independence FROM the globalist agenda.
G) Foreign policy in general: Conservatives who adhere to Jefferson's vision of very limited entanglements with foreign nations vs. them who embrace the idea that America should be the globe's policemen.

To name a few ...

Awesome. Thank you very much. It only took the 25th comment for someone to engage. I notice the your first 5 points all point to a continuation of the political spectrum, the liberal Conservatives versus the conservative Conservatives but absent the absolutism or particularism of the now departed liberals,( eg. liberals weren't in favor of cheap labor, just votes, but they stood with the cheap labor lobby in supporting more immigration)

Your last point though is totally a conservative issue. We have both factions at present but Liberals don't, they don't have an isolationist faction in their party at all. I wonder how this last point would play out if the support that the foreign policy globalists are receiving from their liberal counterparts simply vanished.

I think that once we were no longer distracted by liberal idiocy and folly that we (Conservatives) might be able to discuss the issues in an intelligent and cohesive manner. We could actually pull out the Constitution (currently passe') and revisit the writings of the Founding Fathers. We could study true, early American history and regain a grasp of why it was that we broke from England in the first place and why it was that a Constitutional Republic was necessary. With that as our starting point we could rebuild upon the Founders' original vision and purpose. America would once again become a great nation in short order.

Of course, there could be no room whatsoever for the RINO mentality.

 

[DriftingSand]

I can picture in my mind a world without War, a world without Hate. and I can picture us attacking that world, because they'd never expect it. -Jack Handey

Considering the fact that many (most?) of America's wars can be attributed to a Democrat President I suppose you ought to consider becoming a Conservative.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Iraqi a Bush
Iraq II a Bush
Vietnam Eisenhower taking over assistance for the South from the French
Korea Truman South over ran by the North and UN asked for help
WWII FDR could not do a thing until the IJN attacked PH because of isolationists

hmmm

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Iraqi a Bush
Iraq II a Bush
Vietnam Eisenhower taking over assistance for the South from the French
Korea Truman South over ran by the North and UN asked for help
WWII FDR could not do a thing until the IJN attacked PH because of isolationists

hmmm

You just can't help being wrong can you Jake?

American Leadership and War

 

[DriftingSand]

Iraqi a Bush
Iraq II a Bush
Vietnam Eisenhower taking over assistance for the South from the French
Korea Truman South over ran by the North and UN asked for help
WWII FDR could not do a thing until the IJN attacked PH because of isolationists

hmmm

We didn't really get heavily involved in Vietnam until LBJ came along. Nixon had much to do with getting us out.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Iraqi a Bush
Iraq II a Bush
Vietnam Eisenhower taking over assistance for the South from the French
Korea Truman South over ran by the North and UN asked for help
WWII FDR could not do a thing until the IJN attacked PH because of isolationists

hmmm

You just can't help being wrong can you Jake?

American Leadership and War

hmmm, you are a LTC ready to retire and you don't know the basics of war history?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Iraqi a Bush
Iraq II a Bush
Vietnam Eisenhower taking over assistance for the South from the French
Korea Truman South over ran by the North and UN asked for help
WWII FDR could not do a thing until the IJN attacked PH because of isolationists

hmmm

We didn't really get heavily involved in Vietnam until LBJ came along. Nixon had much to do with getting us out.

DE did not know what else to do. He refused to let our naval air assets strike the Viet Minh at Dien Bien Phu, but he also could not allow the South to fall to the North, so he began the assistance in training, aid, munitions, etc. Kennedy built the 4000 up to 13000 American by the time he was shot. LBJ increased that number of troops to more than 500,000 in a little more than four years, and Nixon took almost 50 months to get a truce by which we could get out.

No one in his right mind wants a replay of any neo-conservatism that we can avoid.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Iraqi a Bush
Iraq II a Bush
Vietnam Eisenhower taking over assistance for the South from the French
Korea Truman South over ran by the North and UN asked for help
WWII FDR could not do a thing until the IJN attacked PH because of isolationists

hmmm

You just can't help being wrong can you Jake?

American Leadership and War

hmmm, you are a LTC ready to retire and you don't know the basics of war history?

I AM retired Jake, as of almost 5 weeks ago.

Yes, I know the history of our nation's wars very well. And guess what Jake, BOTH political parties (and the ones that existed at the beginning of our nation) engage in warfare.

It's what we do, I mean we can deny it all we'd like, but the reality is , we are a war mongering people and that is completely irrespective of political ideology.

 

[JakeStarkey]

OK, nice dodge on the history part, but I agree we have always been willing to war for good, bad, and no reasons at all, and, yes, the what we called today the neo-conservative lobby infects both parties.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

OK, nice dodge on the history part, but I agree we have always been willing to war for good, bad, and no reasons at all, and, yes, the what we called today the neo-conservative lobby infects both parties.

It's who we are Jake, good, bad or indifferent, we've ALWAYS had a policy of fighting "evil", all the way back to the Monroe Doctrine and the Barbary Wars. Hell, all the way to the Revolutionary War in fact.

And the history of war in this country has been that both parties have at times started wars, but let's be honest here. You can't look at something like WWII and say "Yep, the Democrats started that war" simply because a Dem was in the Oval Office , I mean my God what option did we have but to strike back?

 

[jwoodie]

Iraqi a Bush
Iraq II a Bush
Vietnam Eisenhower taking over assistance for the South from the French
Korea Truman South over ran by the North and UN asked for help
WWII FDR could not do a thing until the IJN attacked PH because of isolationists

hmmm

We didn't really get heavily involved in Vietnam until LBJ came along. Nixon had much to do with getting us out.

DE did not know what else to do. He refused to let our naval air assets strike the Viet Minh at Dien Bien Phu, but he also could not allow the South to fall to the North, so he began the assistance in training, aid, munitions, etc. Kennedy built the 4000 up to 13000 American by the time he was shot. LBJ increased that number of troops to more than 500,000 in a little more than four years, and Nixon took almost 50 months to get a truce by which we could get out.

No one in his right mind wants a replay of any neo-conservatism that we can avoid.

That is one of the most asinine explanations of the Viet Nam War I have ever seen. According to this "logic," the U.S. is responsible for everything that has happened in the world since WW2. Blaming Eisenhower for the disastrous prosecution of that war is particularly ludicrous, as is blaming Nixon for taking too long to get us out.

Equally preposterous is Jake's new talking point that all of our government's missteps are the fault of "neoconservatism" (whatever he imagines that to be). This, of course, is part of the Democrat strategy for 2016: Obama's failures were a result of his being too conservative (i.e., another Vast Right Wing Conspiracy).

 

[JakeStarkey]

jwoodie merely gives a typical far right revisionist critique of the accepted narrative.

No one is blaming Eisenhower for taking over the French's responsibilities and increasing the troop commitment to four thousand: that is a simple fact.

jwoodie is a fan of the military-industrial complex and typically tries to make any criticism of American imperialism as some how a Democratic conspiracy.

That HRC borders of being, if not an actual, neo-conservative is ignored by jwoodie.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

jwoodie merely gives a typical far right revisionist critique of the accepted narrative.

No one is blaming Eisenhower for taking over the French's responsibilities and increasing the troop commitment to four thousand: that is a simple fact.

jwoodie is a fan of the military-industrial complex and typically tries to make any criticism of American imperialism as some how a Democratic conspiracy.

That HRC borders of being, if not an actual, neo-conservative is ignored by jwoodie.

I hate to tell you Jake, but troop levels in Vietnam didn't really increase much until 1961, when KENNEDY was in office.