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.
Conservatism isn't cool man
oneeyedjack909
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
I'm a conservative, I'd go so far as to say I'm a libertarian. None the less I was pleased to see Obama elected especially when compared to McCain. God am I glad to see that man wasn't elected. It seems he brought out the worst in the conservative political movement and was a magnet to radicals who often get confused with logical and sane conservatives.
As a conservative I believe in the basic sense of the word. Conserve as much power for the people and the states as possible from the federal government. I believe nationalism can be a very slippery slope and should never be taken lightly as it can lead to infringement on civil liberties. I believe that the war in Iraq is morally and fundamentally wrong and war with Iran is just fucking stupid. I don't support Israel, not because I'm an antisemite but because their foreign policy is utterly horrifying. I can understand both sides of it but I see it as a quagmire that America shouldn't be involved in. I'm not an isolationist but I don't think America should be swinging her sword all over the globe as she tends to. I believe that the 2nd amendment is essential for freedom and liberty. I believe crime isn't caused by guns or automatic rifles but by socio-economic problems. To say guns cause crime is asenine. I believe wholeheartedly in the constitution and believe it means exactly what is says and is yet to become outdated as some would argue. I'm not religious and believe the separation of church and state is absolute. I'm open to hearing the ins and outs of any argument and believe civil discourse cannot take place without logical argument. I am willing to change my stance on issues if you're ready to present a logical argument and willing to see my view as well and accept that your political beliefs might be flawed. I'm willing to "agree to disagree" is that so rare?
Are these beliefs really that terrible? I would think that such beliefs would be a lot more common. What the fuck happened to the viability of the conservative party? Why are so called conservatives voting for such outrageous proposals like the patriot act and the war in Iraq? Am I crazy or do I just have a bad case of "raised in Wyoming". The republican party has truly lost its way, and completely lost touch with its principles. What do you guys think?
As a conservative I believe in the basic sense of the word. Conserve as much power for the people and the states as possible from the federal government. I believe nationalism can be a very slippery slope and should never be taken lightly as it can lead to infringement on civil liberties. I believe that the war in Iraq is morally and fundamentally wrong and war with Iran is just fucking stupid. I don't support Israel, not because I'm an antisemite but because their foreign policy is utterly horrifying. I can understand both sides of it but I see it as a quagmire that America shouldn't be involved in. I'm not an isolationist but I don't think America should be swinging her sword all over the globe as she tends to. I believe that the 2nd amendment is essential for freedom and liberty. I believe crime isn't caused by guns or automatic rifles but by socio-economic problems. To say guns cause crime is asenine. I believe wholeheartedly in the constitution and believe it means exactly what is says and is yet to become outdated as some would argue. I'm not religious and believe the separation of church and state is absolute. I'm open to hearing the ins and outs of any argument and believe civil discourse cannot take place without logical argument. I am willing to change my stance on issues if you're ready to present a logical argument and willing to see my view as well and accept that your political beliefs might be flawed. I'm willing to "agree to disagree" is that so rare?
Are these beliefs really that terrible? I would think that such beliefs would be a lot more common. What the fuck happened to the viability of the conservative party? Why are so called conservatives voting for such outrageous proposals like the patriot act and the war in Iraq? Am I crazy or do I just have a bad case of "raised in Wyoming". The republican party has truly lost its way, and completely lost touch with its principles. What do you guys think?
"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
I ... I don't see where he said that at all.
I'm argue they just did what they've been doing for 50 odd years albeit much less competently
Obama is only viewed as a very liberal candidate in America, and anyone in America that thinks he is very 'liberal' is also buying into bullshit punditry instead of looking at the facts. Barack Obama is, even by American standards, more center-leaning than left-leaning. On the world stage, America has yet to have a candidate that would both be considered very liberal and not an utter laughingstock.
The 'conservative party' rhetoric and diatribes and dichotomies are worthless. Everything about the lens through which you're viewing our political landscape is warped.
EDIT: The larger relevancy of what I'm saying here is that McCain was not a conservative candidate, he was some kind of ridiculous manifestation of vested interests. You are happier to see Obama elected because Obama truly was the more 'conservative' candidate by your definitions.
The GOP is not the party you should be looking at anymore. Look to non-fringe Democrats, and approve-of or chastise-for them.
"Those who are willing to give up essential liberties for a little safety diserve neither liberty nor safety"-Benjamin Franklin
And the conserva-crazies were attracted more by Palin then McCain himself.
Critical Failures - Havenhold Campaign • August St. Cloud (Human Ranger)
You could make the case for Eisenhower though he was a bit more a a centrist anyway.
"Those who are willing to give up essential liberties for a little safety diserve neither liberty nor safety"-Benjamin Franklin
Every political test I take seems to list me as a full blown socialist at this point. So I guess I'm a dirty commie. But besides the point, I also see people like Nader and Kucinich listed on the socialist side of things and those two guys are hugely marginalized in this country. If I'm remembering correctly, most European conservatives would be considered lefties in the US and their lefties would be some sort of super socialist.
My bad
"Those who are willing to give up essential liberties for a little safety diserve neither liberty nor safety"-Benjamin Franklin
Social conservatism is going to become a ghost politically in the coming decades. We might see 'social conservatism' disappear from the Republican party within a handful of election cycles, even. We really are on the brink.
If you are using "libertarian" simply to mean socially liberal and fiscally conservative, I guess it's still a valuable shorthand in America. For the time being! Buuut, apart from these definitions of theory, I'd still say that the politicians who mostly espouse and promote those values are centrist-Democrats.
Although your words might have merit, if you wanted to look up people with the most similar values in American politics -- actually seated politicians -- they would be either fairly left Republicans concentrated in a few states, or the average Democrat, who has become increasingly fiscally-conservative if only as necessary to hold onto their seat against opponents who were attempting to win it away on a platform of more money for my constituents!
This isn't Europe. Which seems to be the reason we revolted in the first place.
"Those who are willing to give up essential liberties for a little safety diserve neither liberty nor safety"-Benjamin Franklin
I've seen people use McKaine in a completely non-ironic sense as a disparaging remark against him, so I just ignored it, figuring you were using it the same way. Ties into Kaine and Able somehow, I don't know. The people who use it don't make much sense in the first place.
Things have changed in the past 200+ years. That is a completely ridiculous simplification of the reasons for the American Revolution.
Hey, it's got a nice ring to it.
But seriously, I wonder how the OP feels about things like social security and universal healthcare? I feel pretty strongly that the free market, while a powerful engine of wealth-creation, is prevented by it's own nature from effectively providing any kind of social safety net, and I think it makes sense to rely on democratic government to create institutions around these things. Most of the time when libertarians tell me "the constitution means just what it says" they're really trying to wedge these issues out of the domain of the public sector and into the private.
Well I do declare I find the stamp tax most appalling!
Let me tell you the libertarian party is home to the biggest menagerie of political beliefs and levels of radicallism that you can hope to find. there is no stereotypical libertarian. But I guess collectively they do lean to the right.
"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
None of them ever had a satisfactory answer. How about you? :C
We should have some sort of demonstration; perhaps capture the incoming stamp shipments and lick them all preemptively. Then toss the whole thing in the harbor.
Oh and blame it on Indians.
Whereas right now it's in the hands of insurance company bean counters
How is that better?
I love that particular argument. People are being turned down for health insurance by companies due to pre-existing conditions, so we'd like the government to handle it. "But the government will turn down people for pre-existing conditions!" Wouldn't one think the lawmakers would craft it so that doesn't happen?
There's no single stereotypical libertarian, no, but there are definitely identifiable types. There are the Randians (fuck everybody else mememememememe, see Bob the Angry Flower comic), the glibertarians (Megan McArdle, Tom Friedman, the character Stephen Colbert, basically neocons that scream louder about taxes) and the rank-and-file fuckers that seem to just like the name and ideology but know fuck-all about politics or history when pressed.
The same reason communism is a terrible idea. When you put an industries power in the governments hands and a an individual dissents against that government (which is and individuals right) violently or non violently whats to keep that gov't from denying the services that industry offers based on political stance. It may sound outrageous or paranoid but it has happened before in other countries and even this one. The nice thing about it is the interstate act prevents private businesses from denying individuals of that right but history has shown that governments don't tend to check themselves when they hold absolute power in a certain area. in other words, and this is just an example not something i necissarilly foresee happening,, what happens if all members of say, the communist party suddenly had all their government health insurance cards blacklisted? Hope that explains my stance
"Those who are willing to give up essential liberties for a little safety diserve neither liberty nor safety"-Benjamin Franklin
Lincoln extended Civil Rights to an entire race (at least in theory until the Southern states got "states rights" again), created the IRS and the first national income tax and the first national progressive tax, increased the power of the federal government more than any President other than FDR, ascribed to the Living Document paradigm of Constitutional Law (and included the Declaration of Independence and possibly even the Northwest Ordinance as a binding Constitutional document) and wrote
In the mid-1800s, the two factions of the Republican party were the Liberal Republicans and the Radical(ly Liberal) Republicans. The Democratic Party was the Conservative party until the New Deal Coalition formed during the FDR Administration.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
You mean the D&D echo chamber of Hopium has never gotten a satisfactory answer to stop it's undying loathing for free market solutions?
:P
Again insurance companies don't have a problem holding back treatment till you die if they get away with it.
How is the private sector better in this regard?
Your stance is stupid. There are a number of safeguards in a democracy that would prevent this type of abuse in almost any democracy, and if you are in a dictatorship, well, you probably have other concerns.
The government does not have the same motivations that the private sector has to find the best way to do a job. The private sector has to make a profit on something to stay alive, when a division of the government will more or less still get their funding no matter what unless they really screw up horribly. Even then, they will probably get even more money to try and fix the situation. This doesn't really work that same with all products though. In the case of something with inelastic demand, like health care, the benefits of having the government provide care may out weigh the risks. The main fear is that the government establishes the ability to just nationalize entire industries and after a while we have so much government influence that it really starts to interfere with the free market. We could have a more centrally planned economy, where government leaders have more control over businesses than the demand of consumers. Centrally planned economies are always worse than free market ones. No exceptions. It's not that we hate people and don't want them to have health care, we just realize that it could be a slippery slope.
Do you think that's satisfactory? Because if we grant that logic its free pass, it opens the doors to a whole floodgate of bullshit which is just as logically valid and immediately contradicts every bit of headway the libertarian just 'gained.'
Sorta like they did with social security numbers? The original law spoke of not denying any American anything based on his/her refusal to produce said number but fuck-all if thats the case today. You see when congress passes a law that contradicts a preexisting law the new law stands untill it is brought before the supreme court in a case.
"Those who are willing to give up essential liberties for a little safety diserve neither liberty nor safety"-Benjamin Franklin
Best? really? You sure you don't mean cheapest, most reckless, most ignorant of any concerns relating to human life?
redirect your energies to where it's most needed?