• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Do you agree with this statement?

Your Thoughts?

  • I am a libertarian and I agree

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • I am a moderate and I agree

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    26

Slartibartfast

Jesus loves you.
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
71,961
Reaction score
58,533
Location
NE Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
I saw this picture on the internet and was curious what others thought of it.

xnuJx.png
 
Last edited:
What I find amazing is the total lack of logic in that entire description.
 
Hmm...



Let me put it this way.


People as individuals are often well-intentioned. They don't really mean any harm.

Get a bunch of those individuals together and get them fired up about something and you have a MOB. Mobs have a regrettable tendency to destroy things and harm people.

"Government" is a sort of organized mob. It's a large number of people devoted to telling an even larger number of people what to do. This sort of thing tends to be unpopular, unless it is someone else's ox getting gored.

Much of what passes for "liberalism" these days, consists of policies that I believe would "Gore my ox". Therefore I tend to view the end results of liberalism as largely bad... on days when I'm feeling testy, I might even go so far as to say "evil."

That doesn't mean I think individual liberals are evil people individually. I expect almost all of them mean well.... with a few possible exceptions like Babs Boxer and Harry Reid. :) I just think that when they get together en-mass and try to run things that the end results tend to be bad for almost everyone.



Best I know how to explain it...
 
Hmm...



Let me put it this way.


People as individuals are often well-intentioned. They don't really mean any harm.

Get a bunch of those individuals together and get them fired up about something and you have a MOB. Mobs have a regrettable tendency to destroy things and harm people.

"Government" is a sort of organized mob. It's a large number of people devoted to telling an even larger number of people what to do. This sort of thing tends to be unpopular, unless it is someone else's ox getting gored.

Much of what passes for "liberalism" these days, consists of policies that I believe would "Gore my ox". Therefore I tend to view the end results of liberalism as largely bad... on days when I'm feeling testy, I might even go so far as to say "evil."

That doesn't mean I think individual liberals are evil people individually. I expect almost all of them mean well.... with a few possible exceptions like Babs Boxer and Harry Reid. :) I just think that when they get together en-mass and try to run things that the end results tend to be bad for almost everyone.



Best I know how to explain it...

Thats pretty much how I feel Conservatism. There are few people who don't mean well, but generally, their collective policies seem harmful to the country.
 
It's all a matter of perspective. To liberals, conservatism is "wrong" or "evil". To conservatives, the same is true for liberalism. That's why the absolutist tone in the OP is so ludicrous.
 
Nothing can exist without its opposite. Were it to cease existing, it would be bad.

If liberalism was absolute, we'd be in trouble. If conservatism was absolute, we'd be in trouble.

Would you want to live in a world where guys like Navy Pride or Disneydude called shots? I know I wouldn't.
 
Nothing can exist without its opposite. Were it to cease existing, it would be bad.

If liberalism was absolute, we'd be in trouble. If conservatism was absolute, we'd be in trouble.

Would you want to live in a world where guys like Navy Pride or Disneydude called shots? I know I wouldn't.

I think either extreme would be a nightmare. But thats why I used words like generally and seem in responding to Goshin's post. I didn't want to discount the fact that some good ideas come out of that side of the aisle.
 
Nothing can exist without its opposite. Were it to cease existing, it would be bad.

If liberalism was absolute, we'd be in trouble. If conservatism was absolute, we'd be in trouble.

Would you want to live in a world where guys like Navy Pride or Disneydude called shots? I know I wouldn't.

One of the best, most concise and logical posts I could imagine on this matter.

I do have to ask, though, not to bring up members in something like this. It's somewhat attacking.
 
One of the best, most concise and logical posts I could imagine on this matter.

I do have to ask, though, not to bring up members in something like this. It's somewhat attacking.

Then how about instead of two sides balancing each other out, everybody just gravitates toward the center. Same policies, less BS.
 
Then how about instead of two sides balancing each other out, everybody just gravitates toward the center. Same policies, less BS.

Though I agree in theory, I also think that some diversity brought by both sides is helpful. One side can learn from each other. The extremists on either side, however, just lop them off.
 
Hmm...



Let me put it this way.


People as individuals are often well-intentioned. They don't really mean any harm.

Get a bunch of those individuals together and get them fired up about something and you have a MOB. Mobs have a regrettable tendency to destroy things and harm people.

"Government" is a sort of organized mob. It's a large number of people devoted to telling an even larger number of people what to do. This sort of thing tends to be unpopular, unless it is someone else's ox getting gored.

Much of what passes for "liberalism" these days, consists of policies that I believe would "Gore my ox". Therefore I tend to view the end results of liberalism as largely bad... on days when I'm feeling testy, I might even go so far as to say "evil."

That doesn't mean I think individual liberals are evil people individually. I expect almost all of them mean well.... with a few possible exceptions like Babs Boxer and Harry Reid. :) I just think that when they get together en-mass and try to run things that the end results tend to be bad for almost everyone.



Best I know how to explain it...

Tommy Lee Jones put it best in Men in Black.

A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky animals and you know it.
 
The TPN statement can not be further from the truth. As a conservative, I understand that people are different and come to different conclusion. Because of this, some people when given the chance lend themselves toward liberalism. To think that half the nation is being deluded and controlled and will automatically pick "freedom" is just a delusional as the Liberals thinking W caused 9/11.

The fact remains that we should be kicking out of office anyone, liberal or conservative, who doesn't cherish one ideal: Compromise. You can cherish most other ideals but you should have this one at the top. Anyone who thinks that only their ideals matter and that everyone should be forced to follow their way (as most of our elected officials do now) is the antithesis of this country. Our problem is not having correct ideas to fix things. Our problem is that the people we elect, and frankly the people we select to run for office, don't want to compromise or work together. They mirror the nation. We all want to b$tch and complain and hate other and so we elect people like us. Until the People of the United States learn that working together is what got us to the Moon, won WWII, industrialized this nation, as well as got us to where we are, then we deserve statements like these. Compromise is what allowed us all these things.
 
Last edited:
I think either extreme would be a nightmare. But thats why I used words like generally and seem in responding to Goshin's post. I didn't want to discount the fact that some good ideas come out of that side of the aisle.


This is why I tend to favor gridlock.

First of all, let's admit something: the Republican party as an organization, and the Democrat party as an organization, are not pure paragons of conservatism or liberalism respectively. They are political organizations who operate under those labels... but very often they act contrary to their expressed principles, because they are lead by politicians.

Politicians, whatever jersey they wear, are often more concerned with their own status, position, privileges and reputation, than necessarily what is best for America. Even when they mean well, they often get caught up in their own rhetoric and do stupid things.

Gridlock tends to make it hard for either party to have things all its own way. It's hard to pass things unless they have a lot of popular support. Personally I think this tends to keep the "STUPID" down to a relatively low level.

It's a pity neither party can govern very well when they have full control, and that there are no viable third parties likely to replace either anytime soon.... failing that, gridlock seems like our best means of keeping government, and the extremists on both sides, in check.
 
That's why Liberal Conservatism is the best. :)
 
Is that the same as Conservative Liberalism?

Conservative liberalism[1][2] is a variant of liberalism, combining liberal values and policies with conservative stances, or, more simply, representing the right-wing of the liberal movement.[3]

Liberal conservatism is a variant of political conservatism which incorporates liberal elements. As "conservatism" and "liberalism" have had different meanings over time and across countries, the term "liberal conservatism" has been used in quite different senses, and in some countries would be considered an oxymoron. In general, it has carried two broad meanings.

Modern European liberal conservatism combines current conservative policies with more liberal stances on social or moral issues.[1] Most centre-right political parties in Europe are usually liberal conservative. Compared to a different group of centre-right parties, such as Christian democratic parties, liberal conservatism is less traditionalist, and usually more libertarian economically, favouring low-taxes and small government.

According to wiki - i guess its similar, right?

I like to think i'm a Modern European liberal conservative. :)
 
Last edited:
Sounds like they almost got it right. Too bad they left out mean and nasty.

Mother ****ers
 
The TPN statement can not be further from the truth. As a conservative, I understand that people are different and come to different conclusion. Because of this, some people when given the chance lend themselves toward liberalism. To think that half the nation is being deluded and controlled and will automatically pick "freedom" is just a delusional as the Liberals thinking W caused 9/11.

The fact remains that we should be kicking out of office anyone, liberal or conservative, who doesn't cherish one ideal: Compromise. You can cherish most other ideals but you should have this one at the top. Anyone who thinks that only their ideals matter and that everyone should be forced to follow their way (as most of our elected officials do now) is the antithesis of this country. Our problem is not having correct ideas to fix things. Our problem is that the people we elect, and frankly the people we select to run for office, don't want to compromise or work together. They mirror the nation. We all want to b$tch and complain and hate other and so we elect people like us. Until the People of the United States learn that working together is what got us to the Moon, won WWII, industrialized this nation, as well as got us to where we are, then we deserve statements like these. Compromise is what allowed us all these things.

It's unfortunate that most people in this country don't feel as you do today (at least it seems that way). Compromise is essential in good politics. If you have too much power one way or the other, some shady ****e gets accomplished that isn't in the best interests of the country as a whole.
 
Back
Top Bottom