The latest...YET AGAIN....examples of the failure of liberalism.

[geauxtohell]

Since we are talking about subjective terms like "liberalism" and "conservatism":

I am still waiting for a single success by "conservatism".

 

[bucs90]

The law change should be voted on by the people, and the vote will determine the law. Democracy, right?

Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on whats for supper

This is why we do not have an absolute democracy

Actually, you should reference the old police analogy.

Society is made of dogs, wolves and sheep. The sheep are helpless. The wolves are pure evil and prone to violence. The dog is also prone to violence but has a conscience. The dog is disgusted by the sheep, but could never harm it, and thus, protects it from the wolve. The dog lives for the day the wolves comes for the sheep, to protect that which it is disgusted by, as both the dogs and wolves are comfortable with violence.

In America, our "dogs" (cops, soldiers, etc) keep our society fairly peaceful so that the wolves, sheep and dogs can settle their disputes through the voting booths.

But of course, you don't belive in democracy, and think a dictator should be able to will his way over the other 95% since the 5% just "know better", right?

 

[EriktheRed]

Since we are talking about subjective terms like "liberalism" and "conservatism":

I am still waiting for a single success by "conservatism".

They succeeded in creating a whopper of a deficit while advancing their agenda and then turning around ad convincing a large group of Americans that the Democrats can't advance thier agenda because largely because of this massive deficit.

 

[EriktheRed]

The law change should be voted on by the people, and the vote will determine the law. Democracy, right?

Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on whats for supper

This is why we do not have an absolute democracy

Actually, you should reference the old police analogy.

Society is made of dogs, wolves and sheep. The sheep are helpless. The wolves are pure evil and prone to violence. The dog is also prone to violence but has a conscience. The dog is disgusted by the sheep, but could never harm it, and thus, protects it from the wolve. The dog lives for the day the wolves comes for the sheep, to protect that which it is disgusted by, as both the dogs and wolves are comfortable with violence.

In America, our "dogs" (cops, soldiers, etc) keep our society fairly peaceful so that the wolves, sheep and dogs can settle their disputes through the voting booths.

But of course, you don't belive in democracy, and think a dictator should be able to will his way over the other 95% since the 5% just "know better", right?

Conservative bizarro world.

 

[bucs90]

Since we are talking about subjective terms like "liberalism" and "conservatism":

I am still waiting for a single success by "conservatism".

Pick any family with kids who have paid their house payments, no ran up ridiculous debt, not cheated on each other, got an education, etc.

Lets see.....

Look at the transformation of punk kids into Marines after boot camp. The ideals of conservatism are the core of USMC boot camp. Honor, integrity, personal accountability, honesty, GET ONLY WHAT YOU EARN, morality, physical fitness, humble humility, and of course, race, ethnicity, etc, don't matter, you're all equally worthless until you prove otherwise.

More.....

Any state that is not bankrupt like California, NY, NJ, Illinois. Lets see, Utah, for one is doing really well. Wonder why?

But I like the idea of boot camp as an example. Now, imagine if USMC boot camp taught recruits to look to others for their needs. They are given their rank and honors before earning them so they'll all feel equal and have self-esteem. If something is wrong, well, blame someone else first. If you get out of shape, well, it's ok, the gov't will take care of your healthcare bills, and of course, you are special because of your race/gender/sexual orientation and you deserve special treatment because of it.

 

[bucs90]

Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on whats for supper

This is why we do not have an absolute democracy

Actually, you should reference the old police analogy.

Society is made of dogs, wolves and sheep. The sheep are helpless. The wolves are pure evil and prone to violence. The dog is also prone to violence but has a conscience. The dog is disgusted by the sheep, but could never harm it, and thus, protects it from the wolve. The dog lives for the day the wolves comes for the sheep, to protect that which it is disgusted by, as both the dogs and wolves are comfortable with violence.

In America, our "dogs" (cops, soldiers, etc) keep our society fairly peaceful so that the wolves, sheep and dogs can settle their disputes through the voting booths.

But of course, you don't belive in democracy, and think a dictator should be able to will his way over the other 95% since the 5% just "know better", right?

Conservative bizarro world.

Intelligent rebuttal.

So, do you agree with rightwinger that we need a dictatorship where the "95% of people can't vote on what the other 5% get/want"????

Democracy vs Dictatorship. Thats our choice today.

 

[bucs90]

Since we are talking about subjective terms like "liberalism" and "conservatism":

I am still waiting for a single success by "conservatism".

They succeeded in creating a whopper of a deficit while advancing their agenda and then turning around ad convincing a large group of Americans that the Democrats can't advance thier agenda because largely because of this massive deficit.

Again, you, like many, are confused about something I've said a lot. The liberal ideology is the problem, and it comes in many forms. The Republican Party is not immune from liberal ideology. Bush a lot of times was a liberal. So is John McCain. So is Lindsay Graham. Thats why we are trying to root out the cancerous liberals within that party.

You're right, the liberal Republicans did in fact run up a lot of debt, and they were just as wrong for it as Obama is now. We are cleaning out the Republican Party, if the left would do the same for the Dem's the USA would be better off.

 

[EriktheRed]

Actually, you should reference the old police analogy.

Society is made of dogs, wolves and sheep. The sheep are helpless. The wolves are pure evil and prone to violence. The dog is also prone to violence but has a conscience. The dog is disgusted by the sheep, but could never harm it, and thus, protects it from the wolve. The dog lives for the day the wolves comes for the sheep, to protect that which it is disgusted by, as both the dogs and wolves are comfortable with violence.

In America, our "dogs" (cops, soldiers, etc) keep our society fairly peaceful so that the wolves, sheep and dogs can settle their disputes through the voting booths.

But of course, you don't belive in democracy, and think a dictator should be able to will his way over the other 95% since the 5% just "know better", right?

Conservative bizarro world.

Intelligent rebuttal.

So, do you agree with rightwinger that we need a dictatorship where the "95% of people can't vote on what the other 5% get/want"????

"get/want" what?

Democracy vs Dictatorship. Thats our choice today.

Looks to me like we still have a democracy or what could better be described as a Democratic Republic. We had one when the other side was in power, too.

 

[rightwinger]

Hmmmm...........so I assume you would rather have a dictator like government that would simply change the laws, WITHOUT a vote on it and AGAINST the 50%+ will of the people, right?

Come on now, you MUST be consistent to be taken seriously. Which is it:

1) The law change should be voted on by the people, and the vote will determine the law. Democracy, right?

or

2) A government strongman will see the vote, not like how it turned out, and simply over-rule the vote and with the stroke of his pen change the law to his liking. Sort of like Iran and Cuba.

So, which is it? Do you like how California handled gay rights or not? As a conservative, I'd rather put it up to the vote of the people. I personally am not against gay marriage, but I'm for the people's vote. So, if they vote the law change so be it. I believe in democracy. You, on the other hand, I must assume are more like Bill Mahr. When the vote doesn't turn out your way, you'd rather "drag them to it" against their will, dictator style, to what you believe they are too stupid to know is right. Correct?

You can't have 95% of the population voting on what rights the remaining 5% is allowed to have. That is not what our country was founded on and the reason we hae a judicial system....to protect the rights of the 5%

With blacks comprising 12% of the population....did we get to vote on what rights blacks were allowed to have. None of the rights acheived by blacks were acheived through the voting process

Oh REALLY? Well, lets see, when the left voted in Obama, they voted in massive tax hikes on the 5% of the wealthy in this country. So, yes, in fact, 95% of us did vote for what 5% can and can't have, didn't we?

You say "none of the rights acheived by blacks were achieved through the voting process"????? The Civil Rights Act. Was that or wasn't it voted upon? Remember that pesky "representative democracy" debate you had on another thread? Well, ding ding ding!!! There it is! Rights for blacks WERE voted on. Oh, and without the Republican Party, that billed wouldn't have passed.


But, you answered my question. You say if 5% of people want something, the other 95% "can't" vote on whether they get it or not. So if only some of that 5% could get into power, they could just dictate what the other 95% will live with right?

You have just displayed the exact mentality of the modern liberal. That the other 95% of us just don't get it, just don't know what is good for society, and can't be trusted with a vote on issues. A dictator would suit us better, since "95% of us can't vote on what the other 5% get".

And it's so evident that ideology, as the rumors of Obama wanting an executive order granting amnesty to illegals is floating, and liberals nationwide are supporting it. Why? Well, illegals make up only about 5% of our population. And we surely can't let "95% of the population vote on what the other 5% get", so...................we must need a wise, liberal strongman to simply dictate through power what is right and noble.

I'm glad you confirmed what those in the conservative movement feared. I applaud you, as you were consistent and honest. That describes the two general "sides" well. Can 95% of people vote on an issue the other 5% want? I say yes. You say no.

Democracy vs Dictatorship.

Take your side folks, thats our reality of choices in today's politics. Rightwinger just displayed it.

Wrong again..

The people did not vote for tax hikes on the wealthy...they voted for a representative (Obama) who stated that as his objective. There is a Huge difference. Obama has to get his stated policy approved by two houses of Congress and then pass any judicial challenge.
If the 5% whose taxes are being raised feel their rights as Americans have been violated, they are free to take it up with the courts.

That is what blacks in the 50s and 60s did and that is what gays are doing now.

America....What a country!

 

[Patriot214]

Conservatism is the idea that accomplishment comes from within the individual. That government should be small while individual liberty is maximized. The power of the states should be superior to the power of the federal government. Lastly, that our rights come from God not a government. This sounds a lot like the founders to me.

 

[JBeukema]

And since you are bringing these up, let me delve into it:

American Revolution? That was the very ideal of conservatism. No more tyrannical taxes. Freedom. Less government. Exact opposite of liberalism.

Which is why it was fought by liberals who espoused Locke? Conservatives were known as Tories, royalists, or loyalists.

Slavery? Republican party freed the slaves.

In the South, at least. And the rhetoric of the abolitionist is the rhetoric of Liberalism- of rights and equality.

Woman's Rights? Yes, a failure of liberalism. Why? Because it is inconsistent and contradictory. Don't believe it? Just look at the treatment of Sarah Palin and Nikki Haley, and see the response from far left womans rights groups. Lack of consistency = failure.

Women's rights doesn't mean no woman can be insulted or mocked. It's the neo-feminists (read: Feminazis) who think that.

Worker Protection? Wouldnt a sealed border protect worker's jobs and salaries? I bet a lot of Americans today would "Do the jobs Americans won't do" as the phrase was in 2005 if immigrants hadn't taken those jobs first, right? Want to protect American worker? Stop illegal immigration.

Liberals were conservatives on this issue. It was the Left, the Progressives, who pushed for OSHA, the end of child labour, etc.

End Child Labor? Im fine with that. Obama should scold China for it's continued use. He wont.

Again, that was the Progressives (Leftists), not the Liberals

Civil Rights? You gotta be kidding me, right? Liberal "civil rights" has turned our country into a population of a thousand sub-groups, each with their own right to victimhood.

Wrong. That's the fault of progressives. If they'd listened to the Liberals on that matter and ended it at equality before the law, or listened to the Social Democrats who wanted to end it at equality before the law and possible academic scholarships targeted towards students from low-income households and/or encouraging local renovation projects, we'd have been fine.

Environmental Protection? You tried to sell our country away on the hoax of global warming. Get the f**k out of here with that.

Right.... you like having the local paper mill dump its frothing waste into the local water supply?

Again, you're giving Liberals credit for what the Progressives achieved.

And finally, Gay Rights. Well, Obama has had total power for 1.5 years now and no action on that. And Clinton passed Don't Ask Don't Tell. Hey, liberal California voted DOWN gay marriage. So, the way I see it, the only ones to blame is yourselves.

You seem to conflate party affiliation with ideology. That indicates you are of low IQ.

Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, WELFARE, social entitlements, "green" energy funding, Fannie and Freddie Mac, all continue to bankrupt us.

All fine examples of the failure of progressives' overreaching and NeoKeynesian economics.

Liberalism is a failed and dangerous ideology.

Right... I'll let Jefferson know if I see him.

 

[JBeukema]

American Revolution? That was the very ideal of conservatism. No more tyrannical taxes. Freedom. Less government. Exact opposite of liberalism.

The founding fathers were the ultimate liberals of their day. Can you imagine believing that "All men are created equal"???

What nonsense! Everyone knows that royalty is created to rule. Everyone knows the working class are not capable of deciding important issues.....THAT was the conservative of the day

You are confusing "liberalism" with "libertarianism".

No, you're confusing liberalism with progressivism.

Locke was not a founder of libertarianism, you dolt.

You think the Founding Fathers would approve a law banning trans fat, salt, sugar, soda, etc??

You realize such laws fly in the face of liberalism, right?

The gov't telling them what they can and can't eat? You think the Founding Fathers would approve of the gov't FORCING them by threat of imprisonment and/or fine to purchase something from a private company? Thats modern liberalism.

No, that's progressivism, not liberalism. Words have meanings.

A socialist calling himself a liberal becomes a liberal no more than an angel calling himself God becomes God, a conqueror calling himself a liberator becomes a liberator, or a lunatic calling himself the reincarnated Christ becomes the Messiah.
​

'conservative' is a meaningless term. Conservatives in American History were called Tories, slavekeepers, and Detroit police. Liberals were patriots, abolitionists, and civil rights marchers.

 

[JBeukema]

Since we are talking about subjective terms like "liberalism" and "conservatism":

I am still waiting for a single success by "conservatism".

They stopped interracial marriage, but SCOTUS overruled them

 

[Fenris Wolf]

The law change should be voted on by the people, and the vote will determine the law. Democracy, right?

Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on whats for supper

This is why we do not have an absolute democracy

You know the punch line, but do you know what it means?

 

[Cuyo]

Conservatism is the idea that accomplishment comes from within the individual. That government should be small while individual liberty is maximized. The power of the states should be superior to the power of the federal government. Lastly, that our rights come from God not a government. This sounds a lot like the founders to me.

Hogwash. The supremacy clause dictates that the fed outranks the states. You're very misguided. The true core difference between conservatism and liberalism is that conservatism dictates that human nature is essentially evil, and the government ought play the role of a strict father; Controlling the evils among humanity, and not much else. Liberalism is the core belief that human nature is essentially good, and that the government should play the role of a nurturing family; ensuring equality of opportunity so that each citizen may achieve their full potential.

You and your "Patriot" contemporaries seem to claim the founding fathers for your own; And you're wrong. They were the uber liberals of their day. They sought freedom from the very caste system and plutocracy that's begun to crop back up around here in the last 30 years. Consider this:

As Mankind becomes more liberal, they will be more apt to allow that all those who conduct themselves as worthy members of the community are equally entitled to the protections of civil government. I hope ever to see America among the foremost nations of justice and liberality.

Who you think said that? FDR? Barack Obama?

How about George Washington?

 

[JBeukema]

Conservatism is the idea that accomplishment comes from within the individual. That government should be small while individual liberty is maximized. The power of the states should be superior to the power of the federal government. Lastly, that our rights come from God not a government. This sounds a lot like the founders to me.

Fail.


Conservatism is opposition to change and either the defense of the status quo or a return to the status quo ante. Nothing more

That is the definition of conservatism.

The fonding father were Liberals, adherents to the ideology known as Liberalism, developed by Locke et al.

Interestingly, Locke believed only Christians deserved liberty.

 

[JBeukema]

The supremacy clause dictates that the fed outranks the states.

Only in those few areas where the Fed is given authority by the Constitution.

The Return of Nullification by Thomas E. Woods, Jr.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0Vcjm3XiOk]YouTube - Thomas E Woods - Principles of 98[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TrcM5exDxcc]YouTube - Nullification: Interview with a Zombie[/ame]

The true core difference between conservatism and liberalism is that conservatism dictates that human nature is essentially evil, and the government ought play the role of a strict father;

Fail. Conservatives can be on any ideology\; so long as what they advocate represents the status quo or the status quo ante, they are conservatives by definition.

 

[Dr Grump]

Conservatism is the idea that accomplishment comes from within the individual. That government should be small while individual liberty is maximized. The power of the states should be superior to the power of the federal government. Lastly, that our rights come from God not a government. This sounds a lot like the founders to me.

If you think any true progress of humanity has not involved a team of people as opposed to an individual, then I have a bridge to sell you in Alaska.

The 'power' of the states is superceded by the Fed...that was decided a long time ago...

And you want your rights to come from some mythical creature....go figure - explains a lot, really...

 

[geauxtohell]

Since we are talking about subjective terms like "liberalism" and "conservatism":

I am still waiting for a single success by "conservatism".

They succeeded in creating a whopper of a deficit while advancing their agenda and then turning around ad convincing a large group of Americans that the Democrats can't advance thier agenda because largely because of this massive deficit.

Well, that would certainly be "conservatism" as defined by the Bush Administration. But in the more academic sense, what success can come from trying to maintain the status quo and oppose progress.

Progressives might overreach occasionally. However, it's better than simply wanting to keep everyone locked in the 12th century.

On that note, are Islamic Radicals the true conservatives?

 

[geauxtohell]

Pick any family with kids who have paid their house payments, no ran up ridiculous debt, not cheated on each other, got an education, etc.

Lets see.....

Look at the transformation of punk kids into Marines after boot camp. The ideals of conservatism are the core of USMC boot camp. Honor, integrity, personal accountability, honesty, GET ONLY WHAT YOU EARN, morality, physical fitness, humble humility, and of course, race, ethnicity, etc, don't matter, you're all equally worthless until you prove otherwise.

More.....

Any state that is not bankrupt like California, NY, NJ, Illinois. Lets see, Utah, for one is doing really well. Wonder why?

But I like the idea of boot camp as an example. Now, imagine if USMC boot camp taught recruits to look to others for their needs. They are given their rank and honors before earning them so they'll all feel equal and have self-esteem. If something is wrong, well, blame someone else first. If you get out of shape, well, it's ok, the gov't will take care of your healthcare bills, and of course, you are special because of your race/gender/sexual orientation and you deserve special treatment because of it.

LMAO. You think Boot Camp is some sort of political indoctrination camp? Have you been paying attention for the last few weeks? Politics and the military don't mix. Furthermore, the mentality that the military is some sort of finishing school for wayword kids is foolish as well.

Furthermore, your broad sweeping generalization that self proclaimed "conservatives" are the only people who accept responsibility is absurd. This liberal paid his own way through college, served in the military, and is now paying his way through grad school. On the other hand, I can think of many self-proclaimed "conservatives" in my hometown that are mortgaged up to their eyeballs on their trailor, did not obtain an education past high school, cheated on their spouse, etc.

I can also think of many "conservatives" that play by the rules and do the "right" thing. The point is this: your broad sweeping generalizations are silly.

However, all that misses my point: what success can there be in "conservatism" at large? I mean, if you want to make you position to oppose progress, then go for it. I wouldn't call that a success though.