The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
Neo con scum, fucktard conservatives, and liberal pussies
oneeyedjack909
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
What is the modern definition in your terms of the following and why is it that way.
Neo cons (shorthand for neoconservative)
Conservatives
Liberals
These terms get tossed around a lot and it seems that everyone has their own definition so I was wondering what your guys's was.
Neo cons (shorthand for neoconservative)
Conservatives
Liberals
These terms get tossed around a lot and it seems that everyone has their own definition so I was wondering what your guys's was.
"A mans first duty is to his conscience and honor"- Mark Twain
"Those who are willing to give up essential liberties for a little safety diserve neither liberty nor safety"-Benjamin Franklin
"Those who are willing to give up essential liberties for a little safety diserve neither liberty nor safety"-Benjamin Franklin
oneeyedjack909 on
0
Posts
Conservatives: From my experience, a person with a strong faith in the christian God. A person who would rather see another work for a living, as opposed to being on welfare. A person who does not like taxes or the idea of their hard earned money going to someone else. A person who is pro life (likely a decision made for them by their religion). A person who does not want to amend the constitution. Typically, I find they see themselves (either the thought of being american or christian) as a better person then those NOT in agreement with them. Since the days of the american revolution, a person who finds real protection and safety and power when owning a gun.
Liberals. Pro Choice. Understand the idea of taxes, but I don't think anyone really likes them. Believe in evolution. Believe in peace, or the idea of it anyway. Prefer HEAVILY to not war. Are open to see the faults in America which lead to the hate and resentment of other countries. Realize that the purpose of a gun is to kill something (or wound it terribly), and that it should probably be reserved for law or military purposes.
I'm trying to be concise here, b/c I could write a pretty big wall of text, but I think that's the jist of it.
At basic levels
Conservatism is about the status quo and tradition
Liberalism is about individual rights and equality
pretty much this.
Just my opinion in two parts. Part one.
NeoCon - A slur used by Socialists who claim to be liberals against Liberals that have seemed to become conservative. In reality they aren't so much conservative as they are to the "right" compared to the Social Liberal perspective. (The Old Liberals, who wanted individual Rights and freedoms, but now tagged onto many many conservatives)
Liberal - In Today's society typically a socialist who isn't so much for individual freedom because they want to take your rights away and tell you how you can choose.
Conservatives - Typically old school status quo, cut taxes, little government control in business, Give me my firearms, but out of my life, don't house soldiers in my house.. yeah, status quo, like the original constitution, plus wanting some laws to take away individual freedom as well.
Part two:
Liberals - Break the law until the law is changed.
Conservatives - Follow the law until they can have it changed.
TheLazyGun
--You can't pass a law to make something "legal", rather laws are passed to prohibit freedoms you already had.
Oh god please tell me you're joking.
I'm going to go ahead and stop you here. The Neocon movement saw it's introduction to power with Gingrich, and exploded with the likes of Rove, Bush Jr, Cheney and so on.
Edit: I stopped reading there, I didn't realize the post got crazier.
*sigh*
You're just an elitist. Keep academic definitions out of political discussions please.
Conservative - now taken to mean the above, but traditional conservatives stand for less government spending in total (as opposed to neoconservatives who advocate for more spending on defense), less taxation as a result, and maintaining fundamental social institutions as the basis for morality (church, family, etc.) They also were reactionary against progressivism/liberalism, preferring to maintain the status quo except in the face of overwhelming public opposition (i.e. traditional conservatives may accept enshrinement of abortion rights/gay marriage at a time when there is overwhelming public support for them).
Liberal - liberalism espouses individual rights and equal opportunity for all citizens. In accordance with the first they are against state compulsion or coercion(restriction of individual rights). In accordance with the second they support a range of social programs (welfare, health care, education) to provide a basis for equal opportunity funded by taxes. Liberals also believe in some form of wealth redistribution, to counteract the concentration of wealth/power by a small group. On economic policy liberals believe in a free-market system with varying levels of restriction (strong minimum wage laws, antitrust, regulation, etc.)
And TheLazyGun, wow. Just keep drinkin' that kool-aid.
At it's core, though, it's a belief in and willingness to use aggressive military-based foreign policy to improve American security and standing in the world. At it's root, it's really a concept from the Johnson Era Democratic party more than anything else. "Wars of Communist Aggression" were the original "War on Terror," with the Military Industrial Complex pushed into full gear to churn out weapons and soldiers to fight myriad battles around the world.
Basically, at it's core, Neo Con means "warmonger," which doesn't have a positive connotation for much of anyone. It's since morphed into some sort of blanket term for the new direction of the Republican party (big brother, legislating reproduction, fighting wars in foreign countries, etc), but that's something language does I'm afraid.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
There is so much stupid in this post. The fact that you could say many of these things non-ironically doesn't speak well for your ability to understand what you're talking about. Oh, and neo-con stands for neo-conservative, which is a real group of conservatives. It's only a pejorative now because neocons have proven themselves to be incompetent dipshits who aren't fit to govern a high school student government, much less the United States.
"This quarter, we're cutting student subsidies to the cafeteria. Also, we're currently investigating the possiblity that City North is harboring terrorists."
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
Though I'm wagering you're just a one time poster anyway.
That's really the biggest difference. Pre-Vietnam the Republican party was the isolationist party. They were very wary o getting involved in other countries affairs particularly wars. The Neocon have defined themselves as the warhawks(liejk for instance read Rumsfeld, Cheenys and other bush officals stuff on Iraq pre GWB). Likewise they have also put corporatism above fiscal responsibility on economic policy.
He wrote extensively on classical political philosophy and thinkers, such as Plato, Thucydides, Machiavelli and Hobbes. His work is still very influential in many circles, but some of the stuff he advocated was pretty batshit, especially his doctrine of esoteric philosophy (basically, he held that philosophers have been persecuted through time, so they've had to hide the 'real' meaning of their works and philosophy; one version, the literal, for the idiots, and the real version, the esoteric, for the other philosophers).
Neo-conservatism has very little to do with more traditional forms of American liberalism.
The Liberal party is a bit left of center, favoring higher tax rates while spending more on social programs.
The Conservative party is right of center (more than the Progressive Conservative party was, but still not that far). They favor lower tax rates and more economic freedom for individuals.
Also, classic Liberalism is about the well being of the individual while modern liberalism is about the well being of society (unless my poli sci prof is just making shit up).
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
ITT We define these terms based on our own point of view and bias! You can also add your own!
Are neo-cons something people even talk about in other countries?
Don't say that.
I like this guy.
I'm rather curious about this. Also, is it an exclusively American political force, or are other countries burdened with them as well?
Well some people here think that our Prime Minister is a neo con. Though the same people tend to think there's some conspiracy to merge Canada and the US.
They're wrong, in case anyone's wondering.
In Canada, neo-con gets tossed around as an insult with a meaning closer to a combination of "neo-nazi" and "conservative" rather that having anything to do with foreign policy or other conventional use of the term.
If you ever need to talk to someone, feel free to message me. Yes, that includes you.
I have to disagree with the individual rights part of your second definition. Gay marriage is an individual right supported by modern liberals, whereas modern conservatives would say motorcycle helmet laws, non-smoking restaurants, firearm bans and restrictions, etc are liberal incursions on individual rights.
Both sides strongly stand for individual rights, though the particular rights differ.
If you ever need to talk to someone, feel free to message me. Yes, that includes you.
What, you don't think the Lazy Gun can keep it up?
At its core, conservatives want to maintain the current structure of society, liberals want to make it better. This is also why liberals always win in the end.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Well the difference is that social liberalism supports individual rights that are not harmful to society. Not just what rights are restricted but why is very important. To use your examples:
We should have motorcycle helmet laws/seatbelt laws because it's not your right to crack your head open and make the rest of us pay for your emergency room care.
We should have non-smoking restaurants because it's not your right to expose waitstaff to harmful second-hand smoke.
Indeed, smoking bans in restaurants are about the right to a workplace that doesn't heavily expose you to carcinogens. And driving a motorcycle isn't a right, let alone doing so with or without a helmet. Requiring a helmet is not more a rights issue than requiring a license or requiring maintenance of your bike.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
The other side of that is where do you stop with laws to prevent people from hurting themselves? Let's ban all food that could harm you.
And that waitress doesn't have to work in a smoking place, she can go somewhere else.
I agree with a lot of liberal social issues (gay marriage, abortion options), but the nanny state is really getting out of hand and it makes me sick.
Well, nanny is fun :winky:
But on the other hand, big brother state is not nearly so much fun
Riding a motorcycle or driving a car isn't a right, it's a privilege. We decide where to draw the arbitrary line in terms of what is for the benefit of society vs. harmful to the individual.
Also, for the waitstaff thing: restaurants exist. They need waitstaff. Someone will have to have that job. No matter who has that job, patrons' smoking is harmful to them, and the results from the many places that have implemented the bans showed that the concerns of business owners over lost business are misplaced. So we balanced the benefit over the inconvenience.
Conservatives believe in promoting economic freedom and social virtue (which is generally determined based upon their religious beliefs).
Conservative and liberal views are not necessarily opposed, but they have different priorities. For example, liberals and conservatives would both want lower taxes, but liberals believe it is more important to have social welfare programs than low taxes.
From what I understand, Neocons can be liberal or conservative in terms of domestic issues. They are nationalist and interventionists (as opposed to isolationists). They believe in promoting democratic capitalism worldwide and ensuring America remains very strong in international affairs. They don't prioritize multilateralism and feel free to use military force.
Neocons are conservative. Neo-conservative. They are most certainly not liberal on anything.
Meanwhile "liberal" is treated as "radical" when in fact American liberals are actually quite moderate.
"Socialist" is an entirely meaningless term in modern America.
"Neo-Con" is something else altogether, traditionally defined almost entirely by an adherence to a vision of foreign policy which echoes the Domino Effect, but in reverse. Clinton was more "neo-con" than most classical American conservatives. The only thing they have in common with social conservatives today is a mascot.
So you want the nanny state, great.o_O
I've seen places loses a lot of business over the ban as well. Also having worked in the service industry smokers tend to drink more and tip better. My wallet took a hit and I learned never to work in those places.
I say no to both nanny states and the banning of anything.
You don't know what this term means. Don't pull a Palin and try to bullshit your way through it.