Wyatt earp
Diamond Member
- Apr 21, 2012
- 69,975
- 16,420
- 2,180
- Thread starter
- #21
And I dont think Lincoln fought for change, he was fighting for the way he read the U.S. constituion.
What would happen to the United States if Conservatives left?
- Thread starter Wyatt earp
- Start date
CrusaderFrank
Diamond Member
- May 20, 2009
- 153,203
- 78,451
- 2,645
Who would be Left?
Jake and his Liberal brothers
Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2
Jake and his Liberal brothers
Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2
JWBooth
Diamond Member
Dunno....
maybe we could get each one to take a liberal with them when they go.
maybe we could get each one to take a liberal with them when they go.
AmazonTania
1 Percenter Wannabe
So if a state like Texas, which is 8.92% of national GDP, were to sucede that would have no impact on the Economy whatsoever?
Yep, I can see how that would make sense.
Last edited:
Conservatives have always existed, I noted American conservatism, I should have been clearer. The American conservative movement is something different than our usual conservative tendencies, it has / had a purpose and a founding and a reason. And I think a particular American ideological stance.
I have been on this board so long I probably have a thread or post that covers most questions - at least from my humble pov. Here a diatribe for your enjoyment.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/50859-conservative-beliefs.html
http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/88682-a-conservative-wakes-up.html
Agree.
Libertarians, at least the ones who aren't whacked out on dope, are not "conservatives".
Sorta Disagree.
As stupid as conned'servatives are, they do have outstanding moral principles.
Due to some cosmic misfortune for this country, they are just stupid enough to swallow anything that faux news, israel, and glen beck serves up as some sort of gospel truth.
And the pinko controls the credit system the damned fools put all their faith in?
They now own the conned'servantives. Conservative is another word for slave.
It's a matter of time.
Those idiot conned'servantives/zio-nutters, who are targeted for extinction by the pinkos...
...are the only thing buying time for the independent civilized man.
Last edited:
Mertex
Cat Lady =^..^=
- Apr 27, 2013
- 26,532
- 13,990
- 1,445
It's funny to read the comments by some conservatives who seem to think that Liberals are all on welfare and hippy-like. They are obviously still living in the past, or just want to feel superior. I don't need for conservatives to leave, but it would be nice if they weren't so uptight. Many of my friends are Republican and very conservative, but we still have some things in common.
A casual observer of national politics would expect to find that the wealthiest Americans are Conservative Republicans. After all, it's the Republicans who promise to lower taxes, shrink government and reduce regulations. Yet the opposite appears to be the case with many of the wealthiest people in the country being outspoken liberals.
Of the 20 wealthiest Americans, 12 identify as Democrats and 8 as republicans. If you control for families (combine the Koch brothers and the Waltons), the ratio is 4 Republicans to 12 Democrats. The Democrats in the top 20 have a combined net worth of $263 billion, while the Republicans have a net worth of $144 billion - that's almost two to one.
Why are the Wealthy Liberals?
That was then. A sizeable slice of the upper class has since swung into the liberal camp, changing the balance of power in American politics. The Forbes 400 is now heavily populated by a new breed of billionaire: high-tech entrepreneurs, financial whizzes, and communications moguls. Today's super rich are also far more educated, a trait that correlates with liberal values like tolerance. In 1982, roughly 50 members of the Forbes 400 had college degrees. By 2006, 244 of those on the list had finished college, and at least 132 -- or nearly a third of U.S. billionaires -- had graduate degrees.
The Real Liberal Elite
A casual observer of national politics would expect to find that the wealthiest Americans are Conservative Republicans. After all, it's the Republicans who promise to lower taxes, shrink government and reduce regulations. Yet the opposite appears to be the case with many of the wealthiest people in the country being outspoken liberals.
Of the 20 wealthiest Americans, 12 identify as Democrats and 8 as republicans. If you control for families (combine the Koch brothers and the Waltons), the ratio is 4 Republicans to 12 Democrats. The Democrats in the top 20 have a combined net worth of $263 billion, while the Republicans have a net worth of $144 billion - that's almost two to one.
Why are the Wealthy Liberals?
That was then. A sizeable slice of the upper class has since swung into the liberal camp, changing the balance of power in American politics. The Forbes 400 is now heavily populated by a new breed of billionaire: high-tech entrepreneurs, financial whizzes, and communications moguls. Today's super rich are also far more educated, a trait that correlates with liberal values like tolerance. In 1982, roughly 50 members of the Forbes 400 had college degrees. By 2006, 244 of those on the list had finished college, and at least 132 -- or nearly a third of U.S. billionaires -- had graduate degrees.
The Real Liberal Elite
Of course the left doesnt hate anyone.
Why I Hate George W. Bush | New Republic
Top 10 Reasons to Hate Sarah Palin | NewsReal Blog
Bfgrn
Gold Member
- Apr 4, 2009
- 16,829
- 2,496
- 245
Really? Why would American liberals want to become Russia, an even MORE conservative country?
"Conservatism is the dominant intellectual legacy of Russia"
Richard Pipes
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 doesnÂ’t sound to you like a set of policies Newt Gingrich or William F Buckley would support, then you donÂ’t know your dyed in the wool conservatives from your woolly jumper wearing liberals.
Bfgrn
Gold Member
- Apr 4, 2009
- 16,829
- 2,496
- 245
Why I am Not a Conservative
By Nobel laureate F. A. Hayek
"In general, it can probably be said that the conservative does not object to coercion or arbitrary power so long as it is used for what he regards as the right purposes. He believes that if government is in the hands of decent men, it ought not to be too much restricted by rigid rules. Since he is essentially opportunist and lacks principles, his main hope must be that the wise and the good will rule - not merely by example, as we all must wish, but by authority given to them and enforced by them.
When I say that the conservative lacks principles, I do not mean to suggest that he lacks moral conviction. The typical conservative is indeed usually a man of very strong moral convictions. What I mean is that he has no political principles which enable him to work with people whose moral values differ from his own for a political order in which both can obey their convictions. It is the recognition of such principles that permits the coexistence of different sets of values that makes it possible to build a peaceful society with a minimum of force. The acceptance of such principles means that we agree to tolerate much that we dislike.
To live and work successfully with others requires more than faithfulness to one's concrete aims. It requires an intellectual commitment to a type of order in which, even on issues which to one are fundamental, others are allowed to pursue different ends.
It is for this reason that to the liberal neither moral nor religious ideals are proper objects of coercion, while both conservatives and socialists recognize no such limits.
In the last resort, the conservative position rests on the belief that in any society there are recognizably superior persons whose inherited standards and values and position ought to be protected and who should have a greater influence on public affairs than others. The liberal, of course, does not deny that there are some superior people - he is not an egalitarian - but he denies that anyone has authority to decide who these superior people are. While the conservative inclines to defend a particular established hierarchy and wishes authority to protect the status of those whom he values, the liberal feels that no respect for established values can justify the resort to privilege or monopoly or any other coercive power of the state in order to shelter such people against the forces of economic change. Though he is fully aware of the important role that cultural and intellectual elites have played in the evolution of civilization, he also believes that these elites have to prove themselves by their capacity to maintain their position under the same rules that apply to all others.
Closely connected with this is the usual attitude of the conservative to democracy. I have made it clear earlier that I do not regard majority rule as an end but merely as a means, or perhaps even as the least evil of those forms of government from which we have to choose. But I believe that the conservatives deceive themselves when they blame the evils of our time on democracy. The chief evil is unlimited government, and nobody is qualified to wield unlimited power. The powers which modern democracy possesses would be even more intolerable in the hands of some small elite."
http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/articles/hayek-why-i-am-not-conservative.pdf
By Nobel laureate F. A. Hayek
"In general, it can probably be said that the conservative does not object to coercion or arbitrary power so long as it is used for what he regards as the right purposes. He believes that if government is in the hands of decent men, it ought not to be too much restricted by rigid rules. Since he is essentially opportunist and lacks principles, his main hope must be that the wise and the good will rule - not merely by example, as we all must wish, but by authority given to them and enforced by them.
When I say that the conservative lacks principles, I do not mean to suggest that he lacks moral conviction. The typical conservative is indeed usually a man of very strong moral convictions. What I mean is that he has no political principles which enable him to work with people whose moral values differ from his own for a political order in which both can obey their convictions. It is the recognition of such principles that permits the coexistence of different sets of values that makes it possible to build a peaceful society with a minimum of force. The acceptance of such principles means that we agree to tolerate much that we dislike.
To live and work successfully with others requires more than faithfulness to one's concrete aims. It requires an intellectual commitment to a type of order in which, even on issues which to one are fundamental, others are allowed to pursue different ends.
It is for this reason that to the liberal neither moral nor religious ideals are proper objects of coercion, while both conservatives and socialists recognize no such limits.
In the last resort, the conservative position rests on the belief that in any society there are recognizably superior persons whose inherited standards and values and position ought to be protected and who should have a greater influence on public affairs than others. The liberal, of course, does not deny that there are some superior people - he is not an egalitarian - but he denies that anyone has authority to decide who these superior people are. While the conservative inclines to defend a particular established hierarchy and wishes authority to protect the status of those whom he values, the liberal feels that no respect for established values can justify the resort to privilege or monopoly or any other coercive power of the state in order to shelter such people against the forces of economic change. Though he is fully aware of the important role that cultural and intellectual elites have played in the evolution of civilization, he also believes that these elites have to prove themselves by their capacity to maintain their position under the same rules that apply to all others.
Closely connected with this is the usual attitude of the conservative to democracy. I have made it clear earlier that I do not regard majority rule as an end but merely as a means, or perhaps even as the least evil of those forms of government from which we have to choose. But I believe that the conservatives deceive themselves when they blame the evils of our time on democracy. The chief evil is unlimited government, and nobody is qualified to wield unlimited power. The powers which modern democracy possesses would be even more intolerable in the hands of some small elite."
http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/articles/hayek-why-i-am-not-conservative.pdf
Last edited:
JWBooth
Diamond Member
Friedman said many things.
In practice he was a monetarist and a statist.
In practice he was a monetarist and a statist.
A statist? No wonder I have you on ignore.
Bfgrn
Gold Member
- Apr 4, 2009
- 16,829
- 2,496
- 245
Hitler called himself a Christian. What is your point?
AmazonTania
1 Percenter Wannabe
No, no he didn't.
Doesn't matter as facts to Bigfreakingnumbnuts are like pork to Muslims.
Bfgrn
Gold Member
- Apr 4, 2009
- 16,829
- 2,496
- 245
Sure he did. His first dream was to become a Priest.
"The national government... will maintain and defend the foundations on which the power of our nation rests. It will offer strong protection to Christianity as the very basis of our collective morality."
"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.
Bfgrn
Gold Member
- Apr 4, 2009
- 16,829
- 2,496
- 245
LOL...words from the author of this gem:
"People are not on unemployment for 2 years because there are no jobs. There are no jobs because people are on unemployment for 2 years."
The Rabbi
Trakar
VIP Member
- Feb 28, 2011
- 1,699
- 74
- 83
First of all, Republican ≠ Conservative, though today there are far more conservative Republicans than Republicans of other persuasions. I, for instance am a Progressive Republican in the tradition of Teddy Roosevelt, Lincoln, Eisenhower, and to an extent, a substantial portion of the Republican party until near the end of the last century.
The problem is more about the extremism rather than the difference of opinion and approach.
Similar threads
