Republicans are not the problem, conservatism is the problem

[StringBean]

Thank you . Most excellent illustration: A mere mention of Social Security - and we get an incorehent scaremongering rant.

lol, called it son.

 

[sangha]

Thank you . Most excellent illustration: A mere mention of Social Security - and we get an incorehent scaremongering rant.

To be honest, you'd have to admit that you did more than "merely mention" SS

 

[Tigger]

If your principles lead to failure, they are principles of failure.

Not necessarily, Viktyr. That's only true when the playing field is level and without undue influence which this nation is not today.

 

[sangha]

Not necessarily, Viktyr. That's only true when the playing field is level and without undue influence which this nation is not today.

IOW, it's only true in the real world. You know, the one that actually exists

In the fairyland version of reality that many so-called "conservatives" cling to (ie the one that never existed), it's completely false

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

Not necessarily, Viktyr. That's only true when the playing field is level and without undue influence which this nation is not today.

Fair enough argument, but I'd counter that the bulk of your principles were formed in an environment in which the playing field was severely skewed-- and were formulated for the purpose of keeping that playing field skewed so that the people on top could remain on top regardless of their personal moral virtue.

 

[VanceMack]

Liberal progressive policies have been implemented on pretty much every major city across the country...doing FABulous. If liberalism/socialism were actually successful, they would be leading the economy and setting the standard rather than bitching about how unfair life is and whining about the success of the people throughout history that have created opportunity and wealth.

 

[Cyrylek]

To be honest, you'd have to admit that you did more than "merely mention" SS

Yes, I mentioned it as an example of an institution the Unthiking Left is protecting from all and any attempts of reform, however modest or sensible.

It is really amazing how you say something like: "The current pension system is unfair to people with short life expectancy" or "Social Security funds being 100% made up with our own government debt is a terrible idea, let's borrow the Norwegian approach" - and people start screaming, shaking - and accusing you of trying to do away with pensions altogether, if not euthanize all the elderly on the spot.

Psychotic reaction of a desperate conservative/reactionary defending a deeply flawed system.

 

[Tigger]

Fair enough argument, but I'd counter that the bulk of your principles were formed in an environment in which the playing field was severely skewed-- and were formulated for the purpose of keeping that playing field skewed so that the people on top could remain on top regardless of their personal moral virtue.

I would tend to disagree. My principles suggest that we should allow everyone the opportunity to live as good a life as they can, within the appropriate and proper limitations of the society. Yes, that does mean that those who are unwilling or unable to advance themselves rather than having things provided for them are going to sink to the bottom of the social order. That's Life. Not everyone wins.

 

[calamity]

Lol....you wouldn't understand my reasons for opposing gay marriage first of all. But I'll just tell you my views on the subject having nothing whatsoever to do with Karl Rove.

I'd like to know more about the liberal philosophies behind banning large sodas, abortion as a means of birth control, and punishing people via a tax system when they succeed just a little too much for liberals' taste.

Sounds like the discussion during any given hour on the Rush Limbaugh show.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

I would tend to disagree. My principles suggest that we should allow everyone the opportunity to live as good a life as they can, within the appropriate and proper limitations of the society. Yes, that does mean that those who are unwilling or unable to advance themselves rather than having things provided for them are going to sink to the bottom of the social order. That's Life. Not everyone wins.

I'm referring primarily to your stances on women and homosexuals.

 

[memmorio]

I'm referring primarily to your stances on women and homosexuals.

His? Or anyone who calls them self a conservative?

 

[sangha]

Yes, I mentioned it as an example of an institution the Unthiking Left is protecting from all and any attempts of reform, however modest or sensible.

It is dishonest to claim that you merely mentioned SS and deny that you criticized it.

It is really amazing how you say something like: "The current pension system is unfair to people with short life expectancy" or "Social Security funds being 100% made up with our own government debt is a terrible idea, let's borrow the Norwegian approach" - and people start screaming, shaking - and accusing you of trying to do away with pensions altogether, if not euthanize all the elderly on the spot.

Psychotic reaction of a desperate conservative/reactionary defending a deeply flawed system.

It is even more dishonest to claim that this is what you said in the post that drew Campbells original response.

The only psychotic response is your inability to address what you actually said, and respond to the criticism it evoked.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

His? Or anyone who calls them self a conservative?

I call myself a Conservative. His views on women are unusual for a modern conservative and his views on homosexuality are extreme even for a modern conservative.

I also do not believe that sexism and homophobia are intrinsic to a conservative philosophy. Conservatism is about moral governance and bigotry is a form of moral corruption.

 

[Tigger]

I'm referring primarily to your stances on women and homosexuals.

I was well aware of what you were referring to, Viktyr. That's why I mentioned the "within proper limitations" stipulation in my last post. It does a society no good to simply allow people to make choices of their own without limits. All it does is lead to the anarchy we have today.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

I was well aware of what you were referring to, Viktyr. That's why I mentioned the "within proper limitations" stipulation in my last post. It does a society no good to simply allow people to make choices of their own without limits. All it does is lead to the anarchy we have today.

I don't disagree with you in theory. I disagree with you in the details of what you consider improper and immoral behavior.

edit: And in your position on how these behaviors would best be addressed within society.

 

[Perotista]

This struck me one day and I'd like to share the idea.

Definition of conservative
adjective
1. averse to change or innovation and holding traditional values:
they were very conservative in their outlook

Source: Oxford dictionary

To cling to old ideas and refusing to explore and grow is just such a terrible thing. I truly fell bad for people who sees everything as black and white and aren't open to provocative ideas. To build a party around conservatism is to doom it to fail.

I would like to know hat you think of traditional conservatism vs. what the republicans call conservatism of today. Here are the three tenets of traditional conservatism.

1. Staying clear of foreign alliances and war except when this nation is attacked or her national security is threatened. Some would call this isolationism.

2. Fiscal Responsibility – basically a balanced budget. Income matches spending. No massive debt and no massive surpluses.

3. A government that stays out of a citizens personal business and lives. Pretty much a laissez-faire attitude toward business and letting a citizen live his life as he sees fit as long as he does not harm someone else.

Granted, the Republican Party of today who call themselves conservatives would fail all three tenets of traditional conservatism as applied to America, not to any European country.

 

[sangha]

I would like to know hat you think of traditional conservatism vs. what the republicans call conservatism of today. Here are the three tenets of traditional conservatism.

1. Staying clear of foreign alliances and war except when this nation is attacked or her national security is threatened. Some would call this isolationism.

2. Fiscal Responsibility – basically a balanced budget. Income matches spending. No massive debt and no massive surpluses.

3. A government that stays out of a citizens personal business and lives. Pretty much a laissez-faire attitude toward business and letting a citizen live his life as he sees fit as long as he does not harm someone else.

Granted, the Republican Party of today who call themselves conservatives would fail all three tenets of traditional conservatism as applied to America, not to any European country.

IMO, that is not "traditional conservatism". Conservatism, at its' core, is mainly about maintaining the status quo. The various strands of conservatism differ in how they define the status quo. Some refer to the status quo of medieval times. Others, refer to more recent times

What you describe is what "traditional american conservatism" adheres to, and its' status quo is one they imagine to have existed at our nations beginning. However, an examination of the early US govt shows that none of those tenets was adhered to by them.

 

[Perotista]

IMO, that is not "traditional conservatism". Conservatism, at its' core, is mainly about maintaining the status quo. The various strands of conservatism differ in how they define the status quo. Some refer to the status quo of medieval times. Others, refer to more recent times

What you describe is what "traditional american conservatism" adheres to, and its' status quo is one they imagine to have existed at our nations beginning. However, an examination of the early US govt shows that none of those tenets was adhered to by them.

That was my point, American Conservatism vs. European Conservatism. The republican Party pre Eisenhower was very much an isolationist party. As for fiscal responsibility, balancing the Budget Hardin and Coolidge has surplus each year and Hoover 2 of his 4 years were surpluses with only 1931 and 1932 showing a deficit. I haven't found any stats pre 1911.Eisenhower showed surpluses in 2 of his 8 years. The government hasn't shown an actual surplus since IKE in the year 1957. Prior to Nixon the Republicans were famous for their Lassie-fare attitude toward business and none really bothered themselves with the social issue agenda. Although IKE had the 1957 and 1960 civil rights bill and Nixon was pro affirmative action.

 

[Cyrylek]

It is dishonest to claim that you merely mentioned SS and deny that you criticized it.



It is even more dishonest to claim that this is what you said in the post that drew Campbells original response.

The only psychotic response is your inability to address what you actually said, and respond to the criticism it evoked.

Anyone can read those short posts, on this very thread, and see who said what. I rest my case.

 

[Heebie Jeebie]

Anyone can read those short posts, on this very thread, and see who said what. I rest my case.

It doesn't take much to get him on a roll. I'm just glad he didn't post his charts.

 

[Campbell]

And what exactly are liberals excelling at these days? Banning large soda drinks in New York? Abortion? Increasing welfare roles?

Obama's done a pretty good job keeping wars going as well I might add.....

The main problem yall are having is you are trying to debate philosophy (the subjects of conservatism and liberalism) but end up debating politics.

Not all republicans are good examples of conservatism, while not all democrats are good examples of modern liberalism. When debating the two philosophies on merits, and outside "bush did this, and clinton did that", conservatism wins the battle of ideals every time.

One thing.....they've gotten more votes in five of the last six presidential elections. The only demographics you won this last time was White men and folks over 65. Since folks over 65 are dying 100 times more often than college students I suggest you wise up and change something.

INSANITY...........repeating the same actions and expecting different results.

 

[sangha]

Anyone can read those short posts, on this very thread, and see who said what. I rest my case.

Yes, and they will see that you did not merely mention SS, as you now dishonestly claim, but you also criticized it as being "structurally flawed"

 

[Hard Truth]

Most of that began to disappear in 1981 when Ronald Reagan slashed tax rates for the wealthy, continued to spend like a drunken sailor and quadrupled the national debt. Please tell me what part of that is conservative?....

Keeping the elites rich and powerful is the essence of conservatism. Reagan undid a lot of the progress towards greater economic equality between the richest and poorest that was achieved during the 1960s and 70s with civil rights legislation, social programs and entitlements. He used money cut from those programs to fund a huge defense buildup that primarily benefited the rich and powerful.

 

[shiang]

I would like to know hat you think of traditional conservatism vs. what the republicans call conservatism of today. Here are the three tenets of traditional conservatism.

1. Staying clear of foreign alliances and war except when this nation is attacked or her national security is threatened. Some would call this isolationism.

2. Fiscal Responsibility – basically a balanced budget. Income matches spending. No massive debt and no massive surpluses.

3. A government that stays out of a citizens personal business and lives. Pretty much a laissez-faire attitude toward business and letting a citizen live his life as he sees fit as long as he does not harm someone else.

Granted, the Republican Party of today who call themselves conservatives would fail all three tenets of traditional conservatism as applied to America, not to any European country.

That's one set of definitions for political conservatism. Still all tree lines do seem outdated for today's superpower.

1.Isolationism never leads to anything good, I think most people would agree. On top of that even if the US wished for an isolationist policy hardly realistic to be able to do that and the US should be a leader in the free world that supports other nations.

2.A manageable deficit is important but it's well known to all economists that debt can actually build wealth if the acquired debt creates more wealth than the interest.

3.Pure free market tends to do well in the short run but ultimately gets out of hand without rules and regulations.

Some of these policies may have served us well in a different place and a different time. But right now all of those policies are either poor or unrealistic.

 

[Perotista]

That's one set of definitions for political conservatism. Still all tree lines do seem outdated for today's superpower.

1.Isolationism never leads to anything good, I think most people would agree. On top of that even if the US wished for an isolationist policy hardly realistic to be able to do that and the US should be a leader in the free world that supports other nations.

2.A manageable deficit is important but it's well known to all economists that debt can actually build wealth if the acquired debt creates more wealth than the interest.

3.Pure free market tends to do well in the short run but ultimately gets out of hand without rules and regulations.

Some of these policies may have served us well in a different place and a different time. But right now all of those policies are either poor or unrealistic.

Perhaps – A bit of isolationism may be good if we keep out noses out of other countries business when our national security is not directly threaten. I think Iraq was no threat to us and thus avoidable, Afghanistan with UBL using that country as a training ground and safe heaven, especially after 9-11, that country was a threat.

As to the deficit, it is not what I would describe as manageable. Especially when even Ryan can not come up with anything less than a ten year plan which probably is a few years too long before we fall into the abyss. What happens if the interest rates rises to normal levels which is around 6% instead of around the 2% we are paying today? Then we have that crisis on our hands. This amount of debt is not a crisis only because of the very low interest rates.

It is my opinion that a lot of the regulations and mandates placed on our manufacturing base has caused them to flee overseas due to the extra cost associated with it. So our economy now is service base instead of industrial.