what type of conservative are you?

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Many don't understand the differences in the conservative movements some would like to place us all under one tent yet they have no idea what that tent represents and I'll admit I was confused about the differences my self before you vote I challenge you to study in depth the meanings of the different conservative movements in the U.S. including social conservatism, neo-conservatism, paleo-conservatism, and libertarianism.

 

[Kandahar]

Neo-conservative free market neo-liberalist oriented
Libertarian anarcho capitalist with heavy influence from anarchist conservatives

A combination of those two. I generally think of myself as a free-market neoliberal, but the neoconservatives make me puke. I also generally think of myself as a moderate libertarian, but I have to laugh at how ridiculous the anarcho-capitalists are.

I guess "Free-market neoliberal/libertarian" is roughly accurate.

 

[earthworm]

So now I am one of three who will not suffer being labeled.

"neither a liberal nor conservative be".

Some may call me an opinionated feces-passage-orifice..

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

So now I am one of three who will not suffer being labeled.

"neither a liberal nor conservative be".

Some may call me an opinionated feces-passage-orifice..

you do realize that this was one of the options listed right? I think though that liberals are quickly becoming an extinct species so the question isn't whether or not you are conservative or a liberal but rather just how conservative are you?

 

[Kandahar]

you do realize that this was one of the options listed right? I think though that liberals are quickly becoming an extinct species so the question isn't whether or not you are conservative or a liberal but rather just how conservative are you?

Correction. SOCIALISTS are (hopefully) quickly becoming an extinct species. REAL liberals - of the Mark Twain, Tom Paine, Thomas Jefferson variety - are still doing quite well. Although I suppose we're considered right-of-center by current standards.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Correction. SOCIALISTS are (hopefully) quickly becoming an extinct species. REAL liberals - of the Mark Twain, Tom Paine, Thomas Jefferson variety - are still doing quite well. Although I suppose we're considered right-of-center by current standards.

that's what I meant but the people who are widely considered liberals today are of the Marxist-socialist persuasion and they are quickly becoming an extinct species real liberals like those you mentioned are actually considered conservative by todays standards. Something very strange happened to the Democratic party after the 1968 riots at the DNC in Chicago.

 

[Comrade Brian]

Since apparantly socialism is talked about here, I shall answer

SOCIALISTS are (hopefully) quickly becoming an extinct species

Well, socialists won't disappear under capitalism, as ideologies are determined by how the society is run.

the people who are widely considered liberals today are of the Marxist-socialist persuasion

Huh?

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Since apparantly socialism is talked about here, I shall answer

Well, socialists won't disappear under capitalism, as ideologies are determined by how the society is run.

Huh?

Liberals are socialists socialists are statists the state is a tool and like any other tool once it has become obsolete it is time to get rid of it in preference of another more effective tool, the state, however, has become the perpetuator of its own existence and that's why socialists of any ilk are the enemies of liberty and freedom. Marx was an idiot compared to the founding fathers of America who knew full well that which our nation could become a land of true freedom, however, the socialists have so manipulated and misrepresented the intent of the Founding Fathers that our country has become a shadow of its former self and the monstrocity that you see before you today. The answer can never come from the left for they are at the root of the problem the answer can and will only come from the right! Revolution you say? Well I'm all about it a Capitalist one started way back in 1776.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

Marx was a second rate moron!

 

[Kandahar]

Since apparantly socialism is talked about here, I shall answer

Well, socialists won't disappear under capitalism, as ideologies are determined by how the society is run.

That doesn't mean that every aspect of governance is always a subject of heated debate. This is a democracy too, but there aren't many people arguing for a dictatorship. Similarly, just because this is primarily a capitalist country doesn't mean that socialism will always be a dominant, competing ideology.

Right now the socialist wings of both the Democrat and Republican parties are in charge, and it's not a pretty sight. There's no reason that either party has to be beholden to socialists; they may differ in their opinions of how government should be reduced in size, but I think most rank-and-file Democrats and Republicans alike believe that the government is simply too big.

Hopefully socialism's influence will start to wane after the Democrats restore some balance of power to government in 2006, and there's an actual debate on some of the issues (although perhaps this is wishful thinking).

Huh?

Trajan is correct.

When I think of liberals, I generally think of open-minded, tolerant people who are interested in societal progress through the most pragmatic means possible, and in protecting their own freedom and the freedom of others. I consider myself liberal.

Unfortunately, most people who call themselves "liberals" today are interested in selfish, reactionary economic policies that harm the very people they're trying to help, but nevertheless give the "liberal" a warm-and-fuzzy feeling in his heart that he's helped someone.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

That doesn't mean that every aspect of governance is always a subject of heated debate. This is a democracy too, but there aren't many people arguing for a dictatorship. Similarly, just because this is primarily a capitalist country doesn't mean that socialism will always be a dominant, competing ideology.

Right now the socialist wings of both the Democrat and Republican parties are in charge, and it's not a pretty sight. There's no reason that either party has to be beholden to socialists; they may differ in their opinions of how government should be reduced in size, but I think most rank-and-file Democrats and Republicans alike believe that the government is simply too big.

Hopefully socialism's influence will start to wane after the Democrats restore some balance of power to government in 2006, and there's an actual debate on some of the issues (although perhaps this is wishful thinking).



Trajan is correct. When I think of "liberal," I generally think of open-minded, tolerant people who are interested in societal progress through the most pragmatic means possible, and in protecting their own freedom and the freedom of others. Unfortunately, most people who call themselves "liberals" today are interested in selfishly making themselves feel like they've helped someone through reactionary, economically harmful policies.

I was with you up until the part about the Democrats coming to power, they're part of the problem atleast the neo-cons hold in their hearts some semblance of conservatism.

 

[Kandahar]

I was with you up until the part about the Democrats coming to power, they're part of the problem atleast the neo-cons hold in their hearts some semblance of conservatism.

At least if the Democrats have some power, there will be more gridlock. The Republicans are never going to return to conservatism as long as they hold all the cards; power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. If that would help to push the Republicans back toward small government, the Democrats would likely follow suit. There are definitely some libertarian elements in the Democratic Party that simply have not been given a chance to shine, because they don't want to be perceived as being to the right of the socialists in the GOP.

I miss the days when we had a progressive liberal party and a progressive conservative party, instead of a labor-whoring socialist party and a corporate-whoring socialist party.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

At least if the Democrats have some power, there will be more gridlock. The Republicans are never going to return to conservatism as long as they hold all the cards; power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. If that would help to push the Republicans back toward small government, the Democrats would likely follow suit. There are definitely some libertarian elements in the Democratic Party that simply have not been given a chance to shine, because they don't want to be perceived as being to the right of the socialists in the GOP.

I miss the days when we had a progressive liberal party and a progressive conservative party, instead of a labor-whoring socialist party and a corporate-whoring socialist party.

I think you're wrong I don't think the increase in the Federal Government is an effect of power corrupting I think it is the effect of the cause of 9-11 and a very real threat to the nation that must be defeated to defend the constitution, have you read O.B.L.'s fatwa, he wants the total destruction of the U.S and the entire Western world for that matter and to replace our Democracy with an Islamic-Theocracy, we need a strong Federal Government in order to ensure victory and securtity against a threat that is both foriegn and domestic. And I feel that once that threat has been eliminated that the true right will revert the government back to the roll it is supposed to play according to the intent of the Founding Fathers, if the Democrats come to power this will not happen it will be Trumans 'great society,' all over again.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Libertarians aren't 'conservatives'.

In fact, 'conservatives' can't define themselves, as the author of this poll demonstrates.

I share some ideas with self-styled conservatives. Unlike them, I know why I hold my ideas.

I share some ideas with self-styled liberals/socialists/commies. Unlike them, I understand the limits of reality.

I'm a libertarian. Period.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Libertarians aren't 'conservatives'.

In fact, 'conservatives' can't define themselves, as the author of this poll demonstrates.

I share some ideas with self-styled conservatives. Unlike them, I know why I hold my ideas.

I share some ideas with self-styled liberals/socialists/commies. Unlike them, I understand the limits of reality.

I'm a libertarian. Period.

I think you got some **** backwards the Libertarians are so conservative that they're reactionary to the liberal tendencies of the Neo-Cons and modern Republicans with a big R not a small r.

 

[Kandahar]

I think you're wrong I don't think the increase in the Federal Government is an effect of power corrupting I think it is the effect of the cause of 9-11 and a very real threat to the nation that must be defeated to defend the constitution, have you read O.B.L.'s fatwa, he wants the total destruction of the U.S and the entire Western world for that matter and to replace our Democracy with an Islamic-Theocracy, we need a strong Federal Government in order to ensure victory and securtity against a threat that is both foriegn and domestic. And I feel that once that threat has been eliminated that the true right will revert the government back to the roll it is supposed to play according to the intent of the Founding Fathers,

Socialism has infiltrated the GOP to such a degree that it's no longer a simple matter of them increasing spending on defense and homeland security because they think it's necessary to protect the nation. Non-defense discretionary spending has grown at a faster rate under Bush than any president since LBJ.

if the Democrats come to power this will not happen it will be Trumans 'great society,' all over again.

It depends. Not all Democrats are completely beholden to socialists; the neoliberals like Bill Clinton, Evan Bayh, and Howard Dean have at least some economic sense, even though none of them have proposed cutting spending (although many of them at least want to stop the growth of government). If Democrats like the above were in charge (or at least had a LITTLE bit of power), I doubt we'd see anything like the Great Society again. In fact, they'd be more likely to steer their own party AWAY from the Great Society. When it comes to economic policy, any of the above are miles better than Republicans like Ted Stevens or Lincoln Chafee or Tom DeLay or Don Young or George W. Bush, all of whom are hardcore socialists as far as I'm concerned.

I really don't think it's so much an issue of which party is in charge, as long as there is some balance of power and the pro-economic-freedom wings of both parties are in charge.

 

[Kandahar]

I think you got some **** backwards the Libertarians are so conservative that they're reactionary to the liberal tendencies of the Neo-Cons and modern Republicans with a big R not a small r.

Libertarians are conservative in some ways. But reactionary? Hardly...the socialists are the reactionaries, as they want to stick to outdated ideas that have been proven to not work. Libertarians are very progressive.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Libertarians are conservative in some ways. But reactionary? Hardly...the socialists are the reactionaries, as they want to stick to outdated ideas that have been proven to not work. Libertarians are very progressive.

No the socialists are either liberals or radicals the Libertarians/Republicans are conservative or Reactionary here maybe this will help:

Radical: Seen as being on the far left of the political spectrum, radicals call for wide-sweeping rapid change in the basic structure of the political, social, or economic system. They may be willing to resort to extreme methods to bring about change, including the use of violence and revolution.


Liberal: Liberals believe that the government should be actively involved in the promotion of social welfare of a nation's citizens. Liberals usually call for peaceful, gradual change within the existing political system. They reject violent revolution as a way of changing the way things are, often called the status quo.


Moderate: Moderates may share viewpoints with both liberals and conservatives. They are seen as tolerant of other people's views, and they do not hold extreme views of their own. They advocate a "go-slow" or "wait-and-see" approach to social or political change.


Conservative: People who hold conservative ideals favor keeping things the way they are or maintaining the status quo if it is what they desire. Conservatives are usually hesitant or cautious about adopting new policies, especially if they involve government activism in some way. They feel that the less government there is, the better. They agree with Jefferson's view that "the best government governs least."


Reactionary: A reactionary (sometimes: reactionist, or regressive) is someone who seeks to restore conditions to those of a previous era. The political attitude of a reactionary is reactionism or regressivism. Reaction is always presented against something that it opposes.


In the case of the United States the Libertarians are most definately reactionary in that they want to revert back to the times before big government and socialism reered their ugly heads during the WW1 and WW2 era in that the Republicans aren't even conservative in the traditional sense anymore.

 

[Kandahar]

Reactionary: Sitting on the far right of the ideological spectrum, reactionaries want to go back to the way things were-the "good ol' days."

In the case of the United States the Libertarians are most definately reactionary in that they want to revert back to the time before big government and socialism reered their ugly heads.

Meh, I agree that reactionaries want a return to the "gool ol' days." But far right? Not necessarily. The socialists - who fight tooth-and-nail to protect their crumbling entitlement programs despite overwhelming evidence that they don't work - are VERY reactionary, even though they aren't conservative. In contrast most libertarians are less interested in returning to 19th century America, than in finding new solutions to getting the government out of our lives. The Free State Project, for example. Pretty progressive if you ask me.

Ah well, it's all semantics.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Meh, I agree that reactionaries want a return to the "gool ol' days." But far right? Not necessarily. The socialists - who fight tooth-and-nail to protect their crumbling entitlement programs despite overwhelming evidence that they don't work - are VERY reactionary, even though they aren't conservative. In contrast most libertarians are less interested in returning to 19th century America, than in finding new solutions to getting the government out of our lives. The Free State Project, for example. Pretty progressive if you ask me.

Ah well, it's all semantics.

I didn't like that definition here's a better one:

Reactionary: A reactionary (sometimes: reactionist, or regressive) is someone who seeks to restore conditions to those of a previous era. The political attitude of a reactionary is reactionism or regressivism. Reaction is always presented against something that it opposes.

ya but you must understand what the terms: 'left,' and 'right,' on the political spectrum actually mean and then put it into a historical perspective for the particular country which you're talking about, in the case of the United States and the original intent of the Decleration of Independence and the Constitution the libertarians are closer to the system of governent envisioned by the Founding Fathers than either the modern Republicans or the Democrats and that's why they're reactionaries in the case of the U.S. it's not a bad thing in the case of say Germany it is because the history of the two countries are totally different, in the U.S. reactionary would mean death to tyrants and the preservation of freedom, in Germany reactionary would mean dictatorship and Nationalism, see how it works?

 

[Comrade Brian]

Marx was a second rate moron!

Oh yes. A flimsy piece of decomposing paper really showed me wrong. lol. There's a written form of the US and then there's a reality form, sorta like Stalin, the USSR Constitution was probably the most one of the time that excersised freedom, his govt. however was the opposite.

This is a democracy too

That's debatable...

but there aren't many people arguing for a dictatorship

I'll agree, but in my view it may be different, but I would say that now we are living in an indirect dictatorship, socialism too might be described as indirect, but still different than capitalism

Similarly, just because this is primarily a capitalist country doesn't mean that socialism will always be a dominant, competing ideology.

There are always alternative ways to run a society, so there will always be another, some still are wanting Fuedalism, and have sometimes achieved success in dominating.

Right now the socialist wings of both the Democrat and Republican parties are in charge

Now where is the Center for Pro-Mcarthyism? This is an important piece of evidence.

Hopefully socialism's influence will start to wane after the Democrats restore some balance of power to government in 2006

I doubt it. Democrats are as pathetic as Republicans. Neither try to go to the roots of society and change them. Republicans would say to a poor person "Get lost you lazy pathetic whimp, go get a job" a democrat would give them enough pain-relievers to last a day, and then say get lost.

reactionary economic policies that harm the very people they're trying to help

Reactionary policies are the worst thing that comes to mind.

Trajan, I did respond to post#8, the rest of it, but when doing it, it appears I logged off somehow and lost it all. It was quite lengthy though and would have made you laugh then concede.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Oh yes. A flimsy piece of decomposing paper really showed me wrong. lol. There's a written form of the US and then there's a reality form, sorta like Stalin, the USSR Constitution was probably the most one of the time that excersised freedom, his govt. however was the opposite.

That's debatable...

I'll agree, but in my view it may be different, but I would say that now we are living in an indirect dictatorship, socialism too might be described as indirect, but still different than capitalism

There are always alternative ways to run a society, so there will always be another, some still are wanting Fuedalism, and have sometimes achieved success in dominating.

Now where is the Center for Pro-Mcarthyism? This is an important piece of evidence.

I doubt it. Democrats are as pathetic as Republicans. Neither try to go to the roots of society and change them. Republicans would say to a poor person "Get lost you lazy pathetic whimp, go get a job" a democrat would give them enough pain-relievers to last a day, and then say get lost.

Reactionary policies are the worst thing that comes to mind.

Trajan, I did respond to post#8, the rest of it, but when doing it, it appears I logged off somehow and lost it all. It was quite lengthy though and would have made you laugh then concede.

Really, that's just like a socialist to claim that an imaginary invisible theory will make me concede my point.

 

[Comrade Brian]

Really, that's just like a socialist to claim that an imaginary invisible theory will make me concede my point.

No, really, when I clicked to post, I got a message saying that I hadn't logged on, and then I lost it all, and haven't felt like writing another one because the other was so lengthy.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

No, really, when I clicked to post, I got a message saying that I hadn't logged on, and then I lost it all, and haven't felt like writing another one because the other was so lengthy.

O.K. then why don't you just copy and paste the entire communist manifesto I can tear that idiot Marx to shreads with half my brain tied behind my back. He'd be better to debate than one of his brainwashed akolytes anyways. Take me to your leader.

 

[Comrade Brian]

I won't

1. Its way too long, and I might get in trouble by the mods. for it.

2. The Communist Manifesto is way overrated. It just basically is an outline for Marxism, we don't defend every single copy to the death. Nor does the document really go further into things, its just a general overview.

You're assuming I have a leader, I'm an Independant Marxist.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

I won't

1. Its way too long, and I might get in trouble by the mods. for it.

2. The Communist Manifesto is way overrated. It just basically is an outline for Marxism, we don't defend every single copy to the death. Nor does the document really go further into things, its just a general overview.

You're assuming I have a leader, I'm an Independant Marxist.

1. The communist manifesto is public domain and not subject to copyright you won't get in trouble.

2. Then bring that **** I got the cure for the socialist disease.

3. I'll post the constitution and the decleration of independence those too are outlines also and you won't be able to touch them and I'll shread Marx.