NationStates Jolt Archive

I've been hearing a lot about how much some people hate conservatives. That I know. However, I've heard some people go as far as to say that conservative ideas and values are unacceptable, period. We should be (a little paraphrasing here) shot and beheaded with no chance of debating our viewpoint. I'd like to know what the reader may think.

They're authoritarian capitalists, but not really fascist. They are rather close, though.

-----------------------------------------
"But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality."
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!

http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

I feel that Conservativism is simply unhelpful. What purpose does it serve? Just imagine what a better, more advanced world we'd have if Conservatives would stop driving everybody backwards.

I feel that Conservativism is simply unhelpful. What purpose does it serve? Just imagine what a better, more advanced world we'd have if Conservatives would stop driving everybody backwards.

Conservativism regulates society's/the government's progress to a level which it can tolerate. In that, it is useful.

Conservativism:liberalism::governer:accelerator

As far as neoconservativism, I see no value there. The comments that PE references above probably came from people sick of hearing similar things about them from the likes of Limbaugh and Hannity. I have no sympathy for that - they reap what they sow.

The above title describes what kind of poll you're running here.
American Conservatives differ very greatly from those Conservatives abroad in that the traditions American Conservatives want to conserve are not ancient traditions, monarchical tyrranies or outmoded cultural, economic and political structures.

American Conservatives in the main are informed by the ideals of liberal champions of freedom like James Madison, Thomas Jefferson and Samuel Adams who helped found the United States of America and philosophers like John Stuart Mill (19th Century). Mill's work "On Liberty" in particular rings a bell with me at least. Such an ideology embodies a belief that morality informed by moral philosophy and/or religion is important and that such discussions should be allowed in the public square. That a religious separation of Church and State does not mean an absence of religion / morality in public life. That the government is a servant of the people and not their master. That the government should be inherently small in that it does not intrude into every corner of our modern lives -- that freedom means more than obeying a bunch of government bureaucrats who think they rule us. That the fundamental interests of government are defense against our enemies (foreign and domestic) and the armed forces to provide that defense, a police force to protect us against those predators that walk upon two legs and the courts to regulate both the police and the laws. all else is dross and can be disposed of.

American Conservatism is also informed by a belief in personal responsiblity as opposed to collective guilt and free market economics not the economic follies of the protectionist past or the opiate dreams of Marxists and Socialists.

Such a school of thought championing as it does both personal freedom and personal responsibility has achieved much here in the USA. Whether it can ever be similarly successful around the rest of the world is the question. The answer to date is that to the extent the various nations of the world tolerate and support these economic and political freedoms so then do they prosper; and to the extent that they don't so then do we see their failures in the collapse of Soviet Communism, Somali Warlordism, Persian Mullahocracy and other such tyrranies. Most notably of late in the 2 million dead of starvation in North Korea and the 1.5 million slain by the tyrant Saddam Hussein.

For a history of American Conservatism up through 1960, I would recommend reading Russell Kirk's "The Conservative Mind". Since then American Conservatism has gone from Goldwater to Reagan to the present Conservatives (mostly Republicans) who look at the actions of the those currently in power in the Republican Party and hold their nose because the Socialists and plain old fashioned Leftists of the Democratic Party are actually far worse. If you want to know what modern conservatives in America think, you might begin with National Review Online for politics and the Wall Street Journal for free market capitalism.

Of course, Conservatives aren't the only flavor around in American politics. For those living abroad the primary concern is no doubt USA foreign policy which has four main strains as Walter Russell Mead put forth rather nicely in an article a while back.
http://denbeste.nu/external/Mead01.html
is a link to it. Mostly he discusses the Jacksonian Tradition as he calls it. Which is of interest to this discussion primarily because most Conservatives are Jacksonian in outlook.
http://johnringo.com/rculture.htm is a look at US culture from this point of view by a popular author of Military Science Fiction and Fantasy.
http://johnringo.com/opoption.htm is a look at the darkest side of where the War on Terror may lead us in our quest for national security by the same author and former airborne troop and veteran of the Grenada invasion and marine biologist.

Emperor Pro-Tem "Big D"
"Kill them all. The Devil will know his own." -- Simon Illyan

I have no problem at all with certain 'traditionally' conservative viewpoints. I can agree to disagree on a lot of stuff. However what pisses me off is when they vote like a sheepish block and start pushing the anti-secularism bent. We are a secular country, and it is in our nations best interests to stay that way, I do not want this country to turn into a religious theocracy similar to the likes of varied MidEast nations.

Cut spending and lower taxes, fine whatever. As long as you're interested in balanced budgets I'm happy. Not this Nixonian garbage that they're parading about right now. I personally would rather see more services and more taxes, or more services and level taxes with cuts to varied areas. But I want a balanced budget more than anything else.

I don't really want to go into the other areas.

there are some conservatives (michael savage) who are convinced that liberalism is a mental disorder :P

there are some conservatives (michael savage) who are convinced that liberalism is a mental disorder :P

and then there are conservatives that think that rape and murder are good ways to blow off some steam. take that as you will.

there are some conservatives (michael savage) who are convinced that liberalism is a mental disorder :P

Sane people recognize that Savage and his neo-con ilk are mentally disordered.

there are some conservatives (michael savage) who are convinced that liberalism is a mental disorder :P

and then there are conservatives that think that rape and murder are good ways to blow off some steam. take that as you will. :roll:

And there are some liberals who think the only way to stop the war is to support Al Qaeda...

there are some conservatives (michael savage) who are convinced that liberalism is a mental disorder :P

Sane people recognize that Savage and his neo-con ilk are mentally disordered.i don't agree with him, but I just thought I'd point it out since we're on the topic of conservatism being a threat to the US :P

american conservatives aren't quite at the level of fascists. yet. however, there is a line at which point it becomes totally acceptable to fight them in the streets. and some of them in power look like they want to cross it. hell, some of them already have.

and then there are conservatives that think that rape and murder are good ways to blow off some steam. take that as you will. :roll:

And there are some liberals who think the only way to stop the war is to support Al Qaeda...

haha, liberal baiting. doesn't work on anarchists.

and what's with the eye roll? its a paraphrase of a quote from rush.

Conservativism regulates society's/the government's progress to a level which it can tolerate. In that, it is useful.

Conservativism:liberalism::governer:accelerator

Ah, but I thought that Libertarian Conservatives were against any sort of societal regulation and controls - laissez-faire social darwinism and all that?

and then there are conservatives that think that rape and murder are good ways to blow off some steam. take that as you will. :roll:

And there are some liberals who think the only way to stop the war is to support Al Qaeda...

haha, liberal baiting. doesn't work on anarchists.

and what's with the eye roll? its a paraphrase of a quote from rush.uhh, I'm sure taken VERY MUCH out of context, like everything else anyone ever quotes from him :P

its a paraphrase of a quote from rush.uhh, I'm sure taken VERY MUCH out of context, like everything else anyone ever quotes from him :P

CALLER: It was like a college fraternity prank that stacked up naked men --

LIMBAUGH: Exactly. Exactly my point! This is no different than what happens at the Skull and Bones initiation and we're going to ruin people's lives over it and we're going to hamper our military effort, and then we are going to really hammer them because they had a good time. You know, these people are being fired at every day. I'm talking about people having a good time, these people, you ever heard of emotional release? You of heard of need to blow some steam off?

http://mediamatters.org/static/audio/limbaugh-20040504.mp3

and remember, the first batch of pictures we saw showed a man who had been beaten to death.

Wow, what a biased poll. Really only touched on one side of the issue, jsut different degrees.

its a paraphrase of a quote from rush.uhh, I'm sure taken VERY MUCH out of context, like everything else anyone ever quotes from him :P

CALLER: It was like a college fraternity prank that stacked up naked men --

LIMBAUGH: Exactly. Exactly my point! This is no different than what happens at the Skull and Bones initiation and we're going to ruin people's lives over it and we're going to hamper our military effort, and then we are going to really hammer them because they had a good time. You know, these people are being fired at every day. I'm talking about people having a good time, these people, you ever heard of emotional release? You of heard of need to blow some steam off?

http://mediamatters.org/static/audio/limbaugh-20040504.mp3

and remember, the first batch of pictures we saw showed a man who had been beaten to death.I don't hear him saying it was good, or acceptable... merely proving his point in a long line of quotables to say that these are acts of humiliation (with the exception of the one death), and not torturous/murderous like the burning and beheading of americans on world broadcast.

I don't hear him saying it was good, or acceptable... merely proving his point in a long line of quotables to say that these are acts of humiliation (with the exception of the one death), and not torturous/murderous like the burning and beheading of americans on world broadcast.

how often do you use the phrases "having a good time" or "blow off some steam" to describe horrific abuses? would you say those things in relation to child abuse? how about rape?

doesn't your cognitive dissonance hurt?

They're authoritarian capitalists, but not really fascist. They are rather close, though.

-----------------------------------------
"But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality."
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!

http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg


Shut up! I love my capitalism!!!

I don't hear him saying it was good, or acceptable... merely proving his point in a long line of quotables to say that these are acts of humiliation (with the exception of the one death), and not torturous/murderous like the burning and beheading of americans on world broadcast.

how often do you use the phrases "having a good time" or "blow off some steam" to describe horrific abuses? would you say those things in relation to child abuse? how about rape?

doesn't your cognitive dissonance hurt?we're talking about taking a couple of guys who were shooting your friends, and throwing them in a pile naked, having a woman stand superior over them, taking pictures, then passing them around the military and the insurgent's neighborhood as humiliation.

You SERIOUSLY think that kind of fraternity-like crap is on par with hanging burning americans from bridges on TV or slowly beheading an innocent american on the internet in front of BILLIONS?!?

Conservativism regulates society's/the government's progress to a level which it can tolerate. In that, it is useful.

Conservativism:liberalism::governer:accelerator

Ah, but I thought that Libertarian Conservatives were against any sort of societal regulation and controls - laissez-faire social darwinism and all that?

I'm referring to the place of conservativism in the big picture, that being part of a balance being maintained in the nation, not any kind of overt and deliberate regulation. The term "American Conservative" is pretty vague, so I was trying to address all types. I prefer Libertarianism.

Who the hell are the 10 people who think that conservativism shouldn't be allowed?

I don't hear him saying it was good, or acceptable... merely proving his point in a long line of quotables to say that these are acts of humiliation (with the exception of the one death), and not torturous/murderous like the burning and beheading of americans on world broadcast.

how often do you use the phrases "having a good time" or "blow off some steam" to describe horrific abuses? would you say those things in relation to child abuse? how about rape?

doesn't your cognitive dissonance hurt?we're talking about taking a couple of guys who were shooting your friends, and throwing them in a pile naked, having a woman stand superior over them, taking pictures, then passing them around the military and the insurgent's neighborhood as humiliation.

You SERIOUSLY think that kind of fraternity-like crap is on par with hanging burning americans from bridges on TV or slowly beheading an innocent american on the internet in front of BILLIONS?!?

So seeing as your "That quote is grossly out of context!" defense didn't work, you're moving on to "Wel,, they deserved it!" Interesting...is there anything you won't do to cover for your neoconservative patron saints? I mean, since you're now condoning torture on their behalf, I'm geuninely curious...

Yes, just like fraternity initiations...cause, you know, those prisoners are voluntarily there. And they know it's all in good fun. Yep, just like good old homosexual-sex-immitating, guard-dog-mauling, testical-shocking, broomstick-sodomizing fraternity initiations. What's the problem there?

there is no american conservatism, both parties are far left of center and need reformed so they quit taking away everyone's civil liberties, especially kerry and his jackbooted thugs. :shock:

there is no american conservatism, both parties are far left of center and need reformed so they quit taking away everyone's civil liberties, especially kerry and his jackbooted thugs. :shock:

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!

Hold on, I'm almost done.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!

Okay, I'm done. Good one.

Who the hell are the 10 people who think that conservativism shouldn't be allowed?

Oh them? Yeah, they're the same people who advocate collectivism, tolerance, civil liberties, and peace. :D

Who the hell are the 10 people who think that conservativism shouldn't be allowed?

Oh them? Yeah, they're the same people who advocate collectivism, tolerance, and peace. :wink:

So stupid. I may disagree with conservativism, but I'd never say that you're not entitled to your opinions.

there is no american conservatism, both parties are far left of center and need reformed so they quit taking away everyone's civil liberties, especially kerry and his jackbooted thugs. :shock:

*Thud*

*Crunch, tinkle*

The sounds of my jaw hitting the floor and shattering into many small pieces.

Yes, that Pinochet fella was a bit of a crazy leftie as well, hmm?

You better darn belive conservitism is acceptable. I am far right wing myself. You didn't even include a poll option that agrees with it. :roll:

Who the hell are the 10 people who think that conservativism shouldn't be allowed?

it wasn't me, but i can see where they might be coming from. i mean, we have 'conservatives' right now who are imprisoning people without trial and restricting their right to an attorney. they have rounded up immigrants and deported them on technicalities to countries where they were tortured. they have continued and expanded the general assualt on liberty and privacy. they have been setting up new standards of policing that wouldn't look out of place in the cheka. etc.

Who the hell are the 10 people who think that conservativism shouldn't be allowed?

it wasn't me, but i can see where they might be coming from. i mean, we have 'conservatives' right now who are imprisoning people without trial and restricting their right to an attorney. they have rounded up immigrants and deported them on technicalities to countries where they were tortured. they have continued and expanded the general assualt on liberty and privacy. they have been setting up new standards of policing that wouldn't look out of place in the cheka. etc.

That doesn't mean they're irrational or they're not entitled to their opinions.

"American Conservatism" is no more or less accepotable than sociaism or communism. Especially when considering that you have defined it so widely that to answer, one would have to consider National Socialism as a form of "real" socialism....

That doesn't mean they're irrational or they're not entitled to their opinions.

no, it doesn't.

personally, i'd rather them openly express their opinions. makes it easier to tell who my enemies are.

So seeing as your "That quote is grossly out of context!" defense didn't work, you're moving on to "Wel,, they deserved it!" Interesting...is there anything you won't do to cover for your neoconservative patron saints? I mean, since you're now condoning torture on their behalf, I'm geuninely curious...

it's the cognitive dissonance talking. maybe eventually he'll come around. he just needs to give up the beliefs he holds that right now make justifying torture seem like a good idea.

Yes, just like fraternity initiations...cause, you know, those prisoners are voluntarily there. And they know it's all in good fun. Yep, just like good old homosexual-sex-immitating, guard-dog-mauling, testical-shocking, broomstick-sodomizing fraternity initiations. What's the problem there?

haven't you ever heard of emotional release? come on, that's all just a bit of fun.

You better darn belive conservitism is acceptable. I am far right wing myself. You didn't even include a poll option that agrees with it. :roll:
I thought I did. The first option was meant for anyone who thinks conservatives should exist, and I assumed conservatives, such as me, would vote for that option. I guess I'm just not a good pollster.

You better darn belive conservitism is acceptable. I am far rig0ht wing myself. You didn't even include a poll option that agrees with it. :roll:
I thought I did. The first option was meant for anyone who thinks conservatives should exist, and I assumed conservatives, such as me, would vote for that option. I guess I'm just not a good pollster.

You better darn belive conservitism is acceptable. I am far rig0ht wing myself. You didn't even include a poll option that agrees with it. :roll:
I thought I did. The first option was meant for anyone who thinks conservatives should exist, and I assumed conservatives, such as me, would vote for that option. I guess I'm just not a good pollster.

Some the people who would say American Conservatism should be banned are the same ones that say that American conservatism means bigotry, extremism, and crushing independent though. Ironic. :wink:

Not all : Some

People can believe whatever they like.. but the fact is that more of the "right-wing" who believe in social conservatism have been shown to be less educated then people who are socially liberal.

(This was a study that we looked at for my political science class)

People can believe whatever they like.. but the fact is that more of the "right-wing" who believe in social conservatism have been shown to be less educated then people who are socially liberal.

(This was a study that we looked at for my political science class)

I've noticed too that there's often a difference in spelling/grammar/composition between Liberal posters and Conservative ones. The worst writers are more often Conservatives than Liberals in my observations.

Does getting a higher education tend to "infect" people with Liberal views?
:shock:

People can believe whatever they like.. but the fact is that more of the "right-wing" who believe in social conservatism have been shown to be less educated then people who are socially liberal.

(This was a study that we looked at for my political science class)

I've noticed too that there's often a difference in spelling/grammar/composition between Liberal posters and Conservative ones. The worst writers are more often Conservatives than Liberals in my observations.

Does getting a higher education tend to "infect" people with Liberal views?
:shock:

It has more to do (according to my studies) with once people understand the differences of people and see the world with a more 3 dimensional view, they tend to be more tolerant. Much of the far right are (I hate to say it) redneck, uneducated yahoo's who don't know any thing except what they've been taught (usually by their equally uneducated parents) and or the church. That is why you see extreme conservatives tend to be much more religious. It works the same way. The more educated you become the less fundamentalism seems to be apparent. Fundamentalism on any level tends to be the curse of the uneducated.

(Social conservatism shouldn't be mistaken with economic conservatism though)

Conservatism is acceptable to me. I have in fact voted for the Conservative Party as well as the Liberal Democrat Party - I am a pragmatic kind of guy, and for me, it all depends on the personalities and the policies.

American Conservatism however, is rapidly crossing over into fascism, the neo- brand in particular has made it into that territory. Being a European, I am all too aware of the dangers associated with those ways of thinking. I am not the kind of intolerant nut that goes around saying that the American Right should receive revolutionary justice, but I do condemn militarism and contempt for human values.

By censoring an idea, or making an idea illegal, how does that make the people doing the censoring any less facsist? But hey, maybe freedom of thought is a precious commodity these days.

How are American Conservatives Fascists?

Maybe we're moving further right, but only because the american Liberals are moving further left, drifting towards European socialism, uggh.

The more you complain about the way we do things, the more we'll want to set ourselves apart from you.

How are American Conservatives Fascists?

Maybe we're moving further right, but only because the american Liberals are moving further left, drifting towards European socialism, uggh.

haha, liberals moving to the left. that's comedy gold.

two branches of the cold war alliance that is the republican party have been consistently pushing a kind of creeping fascist authoritarianism for decades. the other branch is the libertarian leaning capitalists, who are too few in number to overrule the religious reactionaries and authoritarian capitalists. you can see this authoritarianism in both foreign and domestic policy. that you don't think it is a bad thing doesn't change the fact that american 'conservatives' openly seek to undermine and restrict vital liberties and are big fans of the big stick approach to foreign relations.

not that the democrats are offering anything more than a token defense against any of this - they mostly just go along with it.

This thread is rich. Not only is it showing viewpoints that have been kept in the closet by some people for so long, but it is also showing that we are inheritly dumb. Just ask yourselves if I'm dumb. A lot of you agree with me that I'm conservative. You'll also probably agree with me that I'm not dumb. So, is this going as far as to say that somehow, liberals are more intelligent than conservatives?

This thread is rich. Not only is it showing viewpoints that have been kept in the closet by some people for so long, but it is also showing that we are inheritly dumb. Just ask yourselves if I'm dumb. A lot of you agree with me that I'm conservative. You'll also probably agree with me that I'm not dumb. So, is this going as far as to say that somehow, liberals are more intelligent than conservatives?

This thread is rich. Not only is it showing viewpoints that have been kept in the closet by some people for so long, but it is also showing that we are inheritly dumb. Just ask yourselves if I'm dumb. A lot of you agree with me that I'm conservative. You'll also probably agree with me that I'm not dumb. So, is this going as far as to say that somehow, liberals are more intelligent than conservatives?

This thread is rich. Not only is it showing viewpoints that have been kept in the closet by some people for so long, but it is also showing that we are inheritly dumb. Just ask yourselves if I'm dumb. A lot of you agree with me that I'm conservative. You'll also probably agree with me that I'm not dumb. So, is this going as far as to say that somehow, liberals are more intelligent than conservatives?

There's two branches of "conservatism" that I regard as totally different from one another:

Neoconservatism: Neo-cons to me are modern Jacobins who seek world domination and the destruction of American society as we know it. They have all of the unhealthy nationalism of conservatives, and all of the anti-law, pro-government stances of liberals.

Tradition conservatism: This I find much more desirable. Traditional conservative in the American sense is similar to Enlgithenment liberalism... i.e. the ideas of liberty, limited government, and the rule of law. This is the foundation of a truly free society, as it stresses patriotism but not nationalism, freedom in both economic and social spheres (traditional conservativism/Enlightened liberalism as I see it is similar to what we now call 'libertarian'), and belief in free will.

I personally would rather see more services and more taxes, or more services and level taxes with cuts to varied areas.

But if we cut taxes, can't you buy those services yourself?

People who want more 'services' are what I consider Special Interest people. They fail to recognize the importance of things like the Constitution, and that when you allow the government to deviate in ONE area, then it has an excuse to deviate in ANOTHER.

I feel that Conservativism is simply unhelpful. What purpose does it serve? Just imagine what a better, more advanced world we'd have if Conservatives would stop driving everybody backwards.

If by liberal "more advanced world" you mean 1984, I'd perfer the old one, thanks.

There's two branches of "conservatism" that I regard as totally different from one another:

Neoconservatism: Neo-cons to me are modern Jacobins who seek world domination and the destruction of American society as we know it. They have all of the unhealthy nationalism of conservatives, and all of the anti-law, pro-government stances of liberals.

How do they seek to destroy American society? Do you mean through their stance on social issues, or through the consequences of an empire?

People can believe whatever they like.. but the fact is that more of the "right-wing" who believe in social conservatism have been shown to be less educated then people who are socially liberal.

(This was a study that we looked at for my political science class)

CNN Exit Polls in 2000 showed that college graduates favored Bush over Gore. Only at the postgraduate level did Gore have an educational edge over Bush.

I feel that Conservativism is simply unhelpful. What purpose does it serve? Just imagine what a better, more advanced world we'd have if Conservatives would stop driving everybody backwards.

If by liberal "more advanced world" you mean 1984, I'd perfer the old one, thanks.

Nothing could be more frighteningly Orwellian than the Bush Doctrine or Homeland Security. Well, except maybe McCartyism. All Conservative plans to curtail freedom that no Liberal state has come anywhere near proposing and never would.

I feel that Conservativism is simply unhelpful. What purpose does it serve? Just imagine what a better, more advanced world we'd have if Conservatives would stop driving everybody backwards.

If by liberal "more advanced world" you mean 1984, I'd perfer the old one, thanks.

Nothing could be more frighteningly Orwellian than the Bush Doctrine or Homeland Security. Well, except maybe McCartyism. All Conservative plans to curtail freedom that no Liberal state has come anywhere near proposing and never would.
You mean like Stalin's? Oh, don't hide behind that defense that he wasn't a communist, that's exclusively his successors. Stalin made farming and industry a collective pool. He made everyone into one huge superclass (except for his cronies, of course). And he got rid of most things a regular capitalist state needs, like a personal income tax. Stalin may not have been a true communist, but he had lots of communist blood in his veins.

I feel that Conservativism is simply unhelpful. What purpose does it serve? Just imagine what a better, more advanced world we'd have if Conservatives would stop driving everybody backwards.

If by liberal "more advanced world" you mean 1984, I'd perfer the old one, thanks.

Nothing could be more frighteningly Orwellian than the Bush Doctrine or Homeland Security. Well, except maybe McCartyism. All Conservative plans to curtail freedom that no Liberal state has come anywhere near proposing and never would.
You mean like Stalin's? Oh, don't hide behind that defense that he wasn't a communist, that's exclusively his successors. Stalin made farming and industry a collective pool. He made everyone into one huge superclass (except for his cronies, of course). And he got rid of most things a regular capitalist state needs, like a personal income tax. Stalin may not have been a true communist, but he had lots of communist blood in his veins.

There's two branches of "conservatism" that I regard as totally different from one another:

Neoconservatism: Neo-cons to me are modern Jacobins who seek world domination and the destruction of American society as we know it. They have all of the unhealthy nationalism of conservatives, and all of the anti-law, pro-government stances of liberals.

How do they seek to destroy American society? Do you mean through their stance on social issues, or through the consequences of an empire?

I would argue both, though the consequences of an empire would be the primary one.

CNN Exit Polls in 2000 showed that college graduates favored Bush over Gore. Only at the postgraduate level did Gore have an educational edge over Bush.
Of course college student will want a president that enjoys doing cock. I mean coke! Sorry!

I feel that Conservativism is simply unhelpful. What purpose does it serve? Just imagine what a better, more advanced world we'd have if Conservatives would stop driving everybody backwards.

If by liberal "more advanced world" you mean 1984, I'd perfer the old one, thanks.

Nothing could be more frighteningly Orwellian than the Bush Doctrine or Homeland Security. Well, except maybe McCartyism. All Conservative plans to curtail freedom that no Liberal state has come anywhere near proposing and never would.
You mean like Stalin's? Oh, don't hide behind that defense that he wasn't a communist, that's exclusively his successors. Stalin made farming and industry a collective pool. He made everyone into one huge superclass (except for his cronies, of course). And he got rid of most things a regular capitalist state needs, like a personal income tax. Stalin may not have been a true communist, but he had lots of communist blood in his veins.

There are many (neo)conservative plans to curtail freedom, this I am not denying.

Unfortunately, the liberal call for bigger government can only lead in that direction as well.

Even if well-intentioned at first, as soon as you make the government bigger than the constitution in one area, it can expand in others as well.

The only way to avoid such a state is through traditional conservatism, alternately called Enlightened liberalsim or libertairanism:

"The natural progression of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground."
--Thomas Jefferson

As you can see, that is the case today.

There's two branches of "conservatism" that I regard as totally different from one another:

Neoconservatism: Neo-cons to me are modern Jacobins who seek world domination and the destruction of American society as we know it. They have all of the unhealthy nationalism of conservatives, and all of the anti-law, pro-government stances of liberals.

How do they seek to destroy American society? Do you mean through their stance on social issues, or through the consequences of an empire?

I would argue both, though the consequences of an empire would be the primary one.
If built the right way, an empire can enrich a society, not destroy it.

People can believe whatever they like.. but the fact is that more of the "right-wing" who believe in social conservatism have been shown to be less educated then people who are socially liberal.

(This was a study that we looked at for my political science class)

CNN Exit Polls in 2000 showed that college graduates favored Bush over Gore. Only at the postgraduate level did Gore have an educational edge over Bush.

Every study ever been done on this appears to come up with the same result.. it's not a fluke that Universities are made up largely of liberal profs. I think I'm going to trust the time/tested studies over CNN who called the election wrong to begin with ya know. Also, there is a difference as you pointed out between neo-cons and regular conservatives. I agree on point.

Lets not forget, how many people who voted for Bush really knew what he would turn into? I mean he flip flopped on all his positions after he got elected, *coughappointedcough* Jon Stewart has a great clip where he shows all the flip flopping he did from when he ran compared to what he's saying now and has since the day he "assumed" the presidency.

It depends on the degree of moderation.

I personally reject most ideas that call for a radical change.

Both sides have uneducated people voting for them,

Most of the uneducated (sometimes racist) African Americans vote almost 100% Democratic.

Both sides have uneducated people voting for them,

Most of the uneducated (sometimes racist) African Americans vote almost 100% Democratic.

Well, most of the uneducated (sometimes racist) Caucasians vote almost 100% Republican. Whoopie, with just a hop, skip and a jump we've started exchanging racial slurs!

Yep, and its pretty true, too. Some Black people would never vote for a Republican (or white Person over another African American, for that matter), and vice versa for some white people, they'd never vote for an African American or a Democrat.

Both sides have uneducated people voting for them,

Most of the uneducated (sometimes racist) African Americans vote almost 100% Democratic.

Racists historically are conservatives. Thus, African Americans tend to vote for the Democrats because the Republicans never offer any thing to them. The history clearly shows this.

The history shows Southern Democrats like Fritz Hollings and Al Gore Sr. fillibustering Civil rights bills that were passed by Republican legislatures.

The history shows Southern Democrats like Fritz Hollings and Al Gore Sr. fillibustering Civil rights bills that were passed by Republican legislatures.
And Strom Thurmond was a blazing racist when he was a Democrat...

Yep, and then he changed to a Republican, became the first white senator from the South to have an integrated staff, all because he no longer wanted to be viewed as a racist. :wink:

The history shows Southern Democrats like Fritz Hollings and Al Gore Sr. fillibustering Civil rights bills that were passed by Republican legislatures.

The reailty is... that if we look at why African Americans vote for the Democrats.. it's not rocket science.. I won't get into a pissing contest with you over this, it's rather obvious.. As Cog says.. "Think about it"

I think about it and come up with nothing. :x

Maybe they vote Democrat because the Democrats block School Voucher programs which would help mainly African American students in the inner city get a decent education.

I think about it and come up with nothing. :x

Maybe they vote Democrat because the Democrats block School Voucher programs which would help mainly African American students in the inner city get a decent education.

The history shows Southern Democrats like Fritz Hollings and Al Gore Sr. fillibustering Civil rights bills that were passed by Republican legislatures.

The reailty is... that if we look at why Afriacan Americans vote for the Democrats.. it's not rocket science.. I won't get into a pissing conest with you over this, it's rather obvious.. As Cog says.. "Think about it"
It IS simple...the Dims offer a free ride, more welfare without taking on responsibility. The Reps offer a chance to make something worthwhile out of your life, as long as you take responsibility for yourself. After all, let's see...
a. who started every single welfare program? And, as a bonus-extra-points question,
b. who dragged Bubba kicking and screaming into finally reforming welfare (not that it is much better, but at least now, able-bodied recipients HAVE to work, and ghetto promiscuity has been kind-of controlled.)

Oh yes, the answers are:
a. Democrats
b. Republicans

I think about it and come up with nothing. :x

Maybe they vote Democrat because the Democrats block School Voucher programs which would help mainly African American students in the inner city get a decent education.

The Dims can't allow school choice to inner-city children...it would quickly deplete the rolls of future liberal voters.

...a. who started every single welfare program?...

While I would really like to jump on that bandwagon and verbally bash the Democrats for every single spending program, the record shows that this is simply not true - damn close though.

You'd be suprised to learn which president signed into law the original bill authorizing Medicare.

If built the right way, an empire can enrich a society, not destroy it.

Perhaps, but our current course is clearly self-destructive.

We are already world hegemon, empire or not. As world hegemon, we should take a more conservative stance on foreign policy and lead by example, rather than making everyone hate us and knocking down the hill of which we are king.

If built the right way, an empire can enrich a society, not destroy it.

Perhaps, but our current course is clearly self-destructive.

We are already world hegemon, empire or not. As world hegemon, we should take a more conservative stance on foreign policy and lead by example, rather than making everyone hate us and knocking down the hill of which we are king. Applause to The Global Market for making one of the most sensible statements on this thread.

I personally would rather see more services and more taxes, or more services and level taxes with cuts to varied areas.

But if we cut taxes, can't you buy those services yourself?

People who want more 'services' are what I consider Special Interest people. They fail to recognize the importance of things like the Constitution, and that when you allow the government to deviate in ONE area, then it has an excuse to deviate in ANOTHER.

No, you cant. I live in britain. Tax rates are high, and people to complain about them, but bitching about government is practically our national sport ( I blame Margaret Thatcher. It seems to work for any other problems :roll: ). But, if the NHS was taken away, people would complain even more. Global market seems to think that taxes are a bad thing. Well, if we got rid of them, you'd probably complain about having to pay for everything.

Also, why do some people think that the american constitution is some sort of holy grail??? I mean, most of the people who wrote it owned slaves! Also, women couldnt vote. I'd also like to point out that Britain is probably the oldest democracy in the world, even if our system is incredibly complex and requires an army of social workers to run.

Also, though this is off topic( or not, as conservatives seem to think they can do this sort of thing), why does america act in such a unilteral way. What makes them think they can storm of and invade a country which has done nothing without properly consulting the UN?

I'd also like to point out that Britain is probably the oldest democracy in the world

If I'm not mistaken, I believe Iceland holds that honour - didn't they recently mark 1000 years of uninterrupted parliamentary democracy?

...Also, there is a difference as you pointed out between neo-cons and regular conservatives...

Those regular conservatives called "paleo-cons". They tend to be Christians that hold too tightly [IMHO] the teachings in the O.T. rather than embracing the N.T. and they tend to be protectionist xenophobes.

...after he got elected, *coughappointedcough*...

Still can't get over Florida 2000...the Electoral College is a b*tch ain't it?

No, you cant. I live in britain. Tax rates are high, and people to complain about them, but bitching about government is practically our national sport ( I blame Margaret Thatcher. It seems to work for any other problems :roll: ). But, if the NHS was taken away, people would complain even more. Global market seems to think that taxes are a bad thing. Well, if we got rid of them, you'd probably complain about having to pay for everything.

...and I'd have twice as much money TO pay for those things.

If I get $30,000 in services and pay $50,000 in taxes, I'm getting screwed out of $20,000. If I paid for these things myself, I'd be saving alot of money. Same goes for many, if not most people.

Also, why do some people think that the american constitution is some sort of holy grail??? I mean, most of the people who wrote it owned slaves! Also, women couldnt vote. I'd also like to point out that Britain is probably the oldest democracy in the world, even if our system is incredibly complex and requires an army of social workers to run.

Because without the Rule of Law, a democracy is essentially two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.

If a governemnt wants people like me and you to follow the law, it MUST follow the law itself. In the United States, this means DOING WHAT THE CONSTITUTION SAYS... including the tenth amendment, whcih give sthe federal government authority to do ONLY waht the constution says.

Also, though this is off topic( or not, as conservatives seem to think they can do this sort of thing), why does america act in such a unilteral way. What makes them think they can storm of and invade a country which has done nothing without properly consulting the UN?

Neoconservatives. I'm more of a traditional conservative myself.

...after he got elected, *coughappointedcough*...

Still can't get over Florida 2000...the Electoral College is a b*tch ain't it?

Nah, I guess I can live with the Electoral College, it was all the election tampering by Katherine Harris and her ilk that sort of disturbed me personally as an international observer.

...Also, there is a difference as you pointed out between neo-cons and regular conservatives...

Those regular conservatives called "paleo-cons". They tend to be Christians that hold too tightly [IMHO] the teachings in the O.T. rather than embracing the N.T. and they tend to be protectionist xenophobes.[/quote]

I'm a traditional conservative.

I'm not a bible fanatic. In fact, I'm not even Christian.

Likewise, I am not a protectionist nor am I anti-immigrant, being one myself.

To me, traditional conservatism is one of the RULE OF LAW and small, Constitutional government.

Notice I wrote the words "tend to be.."

A note on taxes:

The House of Representatives's OWN NUMBERS predict that ALL government taxes combined cost the average America 53% of his/her income. This includes "indirect" taxes, such as taxes on employers for socail security that would otherwise feasibly go to wages.

Extra regulations, as the Cato Institute predicts, adds another 10% on. That means that the average America gives up over 60% of his incoem to the government.

So theoretically, if the government did not provide ANY services or regulations, MOST Americans would have FIVE dollars for every TWO htey had today. With that money, they could easily buy what they need themselves.

Now of course totally getting rid of government is impossible, since you'll always need combined things like defense and police, and you could even make an argument for roads and education. But even with all that, if we cut government from 63% of our life to 20%, we COULD have the very essential services and still have TWICE the money to buy other stuff, liek retirement funds, healthcare, etc., ourselves. It'd be a beneficial deal.

Also, though this is off topic( or not, as conservatives seem to think they can do this sort of thing), why does america act in such a unilteral way. What makes them think they can storm of and invade a country which has done nothing without properly consulting the UN?

Well, I hate to nit pick but we technically didn’t act in a unilateral way. We had some governments that supported us, so technically we had a multi-lateral invasion. Furthermore, Iraq did do plenty of things to warrant a regime change. The Ba'athist regime had a history of starting wars, developing BCW/WMDS, and had disobeyed its post-war agreements with the West and UN numerous times.

Anyway, I'm all for leaving the UN and avoiding policies which erode our national sovereignty. I don't like the judicial activist mindset that too many on the right and left have, or the reckless spending and pandering which our government has engaged in under both parties. In the end, I think we’ll wind up being some kind of dictatorship (perhaps in the same way Huey Long’s Louisiana was a dictatorship: The rule of law will still be in effect, but the government will have broad powers and will have made the opposition irrelevant), simply due to the sheer incompetence, bickering and irresponsibility of so many in our government. That’s certainly what happened in a lot of ailing democracies and republics (ex: Weimar republic). Personally, I’d take a benign, de-centralized dictatorship over our current government.

Furthermore, Iraq did do plenty of things to warrant a regime change. The Ba'athist regime had a history of starting wars,

The United States has been constantly at war since 1941.

developing BCW/WMDS,

Same for the US.

and had disobeyed its post-war agreements with the West and UN numerous times.

And we disobeyed ours with the Soviets early on (regarding Turkey missile positions) and also the United Nations.

That said... would a coup or invasion be justified in the United States now?

Anyway, I'm all for leaving the UN and avoiding policies which erode our national sovereignty.

Same here. But national sovereignity is just that.... national. It doesn't extend to other countries, such as Iraq.

I also don't like the judicial activist mindset that too many on the right and left have,

An activist executive and legislative branch demands an active judiciary to keep them in check.

I agree with you on the rest.

...after he got elected, *coughappointedcough*...

Still can't get over Florida 2000...the Electoral College is a b*tch ain't it?

Nah, I guess I can live with the Electoral College, it was all the election tampering by Katherine Harris and her ilk that sort of disturbed me personally as an international observer.

I think Harris set out with Rove & Crew and they deliberately double punched some ballots to create an "over vote" condition and used special glue and spare chads to mend legitimatly punched ballots.

They would have gotten away with it too if it weren't for the meddling Florida Supreme Court who ruled 6-1 that indeed election rules could be changed after an election took place.

Then the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 7-2 that the Florida election results had to be certified by the next day; and 5-4 that the Florida Supreme Court was wrong in their interpretation and ruling of law...CEO's at Halliburton and Enron cheered the decision(s) because they were in finally in power and they could control "The Shrub" like the marionette that he obviously is. :roll:

The United States has been constantly at war since 1941.

Yes, except the context of our involvement in those wars was different. We've funded some repressive regimes, that’s true. But we've never actually been a repressive regime our self intent on invading neighbors.



Same for the US.

Again, there's a different Context here. The US developed WMDS and BCWS as a deterrent, and it's dismantled a good deal of its WMDS. Iraq by contrast developed WMDS/BCWs for the purpose of expansion and elimination of enemies of the state (both in and out of Iraq).

And we disobeyed ours with the Soviets early on (regarding Turkey missile positions) and also the United Nations.

Yes, but Iraq had already fought two wars and signed on to an agreement that authorized the UN and a collation of nations to attack them if they violated the terms of said agreement... Which they clearly did.

Same here. But national sovereignity is just that.... national. It doesn't extend to other countries, such as Iraq.

...And I never claimed that it did think that it was international.



An activist executive and legislative branch demands an active judiciary to keep them in check.


Good point, sometimes radical change is needed. But I don't think that a judiciary branch which essentially re-writes the laws or picks-and-chooses what laws it will enforce frequently is good for our government.

Those regular conservatives called "paleo-cons". They tend to be Christians that hold too tightly [IMHO] the teachings in the O.T. rather than embracing the N.T. and they tend to be protectionist xenophobes.

I'm a traditional conservative.

I'm not a bible fanatic. In fact, I'm not even Christian.

Likewise, I am not a protectionist nor am I anti-immigrant, being one myself.

To me, traditional conservatism is one of the RULE OF LAW and small, Constitutional government.

there are at least three main branches of american conservativism. libertarian-leaning kists, fascist-leaning kists, and religious fundamentalists who don't care too much for free markets.

the kists team up to push neoliberalism slightly faster than the democrats would do. the fundies and the fascists team up to push generalized authoritarianism. and they all stick together because godless communism is evil.

If built the right way, an empire can enrich a society, not destroy it.

Perhaps, but our current course is clearly self-destructive.

We are already world hegemon, empire or not. As world hegemon, we should take a more conservative stance on foreign policy and lead by example, rather than making everyone hate us and knocking down the hill of which we are king.
Then why not look at Niccolo Machievalli? Machievalli has said that it is better to fear than to love a leader.
The only thing I'm trying to prove is that, if we really wanted to, we as the US can not only make the world hate us, but loathe us. And yet, we can control every single aspect of their daily lives. Many have done it effectively: Chin Huangdi, Julius Caesar, Pope Urban II, Stalin, Hussein, the list goes on. I'm not saying that the world needs to hate us. But after examining my views, I guess I can categorize them as favoring an empire for the US, and I'm saying that at this current point in time, the US can be even more of a dominant force in the world than in the late fourties.

"Also, though this is off topic( or not, as conservatives seem to think they can do this sort of thing), why does america act in such a unilteral way. What makes them think they can storm of and invade a country which has done nothing without properly consulting the UN?"

hmmmm. Obvioulsy you havnt seen the pictures of genocide, murder, rape or any other things Saddam did. oh and one more thing:

Where was the UN when Rwanda needed it?

"Also, though this is off topic( or not, as conservatives seem to think they can do this sort of thing), why does america act in such a unilteral way. What makes them think they can storm of and invade a country which has done nothing without properly consulting the UN?"

hmmmm. Obvioulsy you havnt seen the pictures of genocide, murder, rape or any other things Saddam did. oh and one more thing:

Where was the UN when Rwanda needed it?

Trivia question: what was UN Security Council Resolution 1441?

And, since when is America "going at it alone" in Iraq?

"Also, though this is off topic( or not, as conservatives seem to think they can do this sort of thing), why does america act in such a unilteral way. What makes them think they can storm of and invade a country which has done nothing without properly consulting the UN?"

hmmmm. Obvioulsy you havnt seen the pictures of genocide, murder, rape or any other things Saddam did. oh and one more thing:

Where was the UN when Rwanda needed it?

Trivia question: what was UN Security Council Resolution 1441?

And, since when is America "going at it alone" in Iraq?

Find me where it says the Americans had a right to invade Iraq in this.. and I'll give you spin doctor of the week award.

Security Council
Provisional
7 November 2002
Original: English

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and United States of America: draft resolution

[Adopted as Resolution 1441 at Security Council meeting 4644, 8 November 2002]

The Security Council,

Recalling all its previous relevant resolutions, in particular its resolutions 661 (1990) of 6 August 1990, 678 (1990) of 29 November 1990, 686 (1991) of 2 March 1991, 687 (1991) of 3 April 1991, 688 (1991) of 5 April 1991, 707 (1991) of 15 August 1991, 715 (1991) of 11 October 1991, 986 (1995) of 14 April 1995, and 1284 (1999) of 17 December 1999, and all the relevant statements of its President,

Recalling also its resolution 1382 (2001) of 29 November 2001 and its intention to implement it fully,

Recognizing the threat Iraq?s non-compliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security,

Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area,

Further recalling that its resolution 687 (1991) imposed obligations on Iraq as a necessary step for achievement of its stated objective of restoring international peace and security in the area,

Deploring the fact that Iraq has not provided an accurate, full, final, and complete disclosure, as required by resolution 687 (1991), of all aspects of its programmes to develop weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles with a range greater than one hundred and fifty kilometres, and of all holdings of such weapons, their components and production facilities and locations, as well as all other nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to nuclear-weapons-usable material,

Deploring further that Iraq repeatedly obstructed immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to sites designated by the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), failed to cooperate fully and unconditionally with UNSCOM and IAEA weapons inspectors, as required by resolution 687 (1991), and ultimately ceased all cooperation with UNSCOM and the IAEA in 1998,

Deploring the absence, since December 1998, in Iraq of international monitoring, inspection, and verification, as required by relevant resolutions, of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles, in spite of the Council?s repeated demands that Iraq provide immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC), established in resolution 1284 (1999) as the successor organization to UNSCOM, and the IAEA, and regretting the consequent prolonging of the crisis in the region and the suffering of the Iraqi people,

Deploring also that the Government of Iraq has failed to comply with its commitments pursuant to resolution 687 (1991) with regard to terrorism, pursuant to resolution 688 (1991) to end repression of its civilian population and to provide access by international humanitarian organizations to all those in need of assistance in Iraq, and pursuant to resolutions 686 (1991), 687 (1991), and 1284 (1999) to return or cooperate in accounting for Kuwaiti and third country nationals wrongfully detained by Iraq, or to return Kuwaiti property wrongfully seized by Iraq,

Recalling that in its resolution 687 (1991) the Council declared that a ceasefire would be based on acceptance by Iraq of the provisions of that resolution, including the obligations on Iraq contained therein,

Determined to ensure full and immediate compliance by Iraq without conditions or restrictions with its obligations under resolution 687 (1991) and other relevant resolutions and recalling that the resolutions of the Council constitute the governing standard of Iraqi compliance,

Recalling that the effective operation of UNMOVIC, as the successor organization to the Special Commission, and the IAEA is essential for the implementation of resolution 687 (1991) and other relevant resolutions,

Noting the letter dated 16 September 2002 from the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Iraq addressed to the Secretary-General is a necessary first step toward rectifying Iraq?s continued failure to comply with relevant Council resolutions,

Noting further the letter dated 8 October 2002 from the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director-General of the IAEA to General Al-Saadi of the Government of Iraq laying out the practical arrangements, as a follow-up to their meeting in Vienna, that are prerequisites for the resumption of inspections in Iraq by UNMOVIC and the IAEA, and expressing the gravest concern at the continued failure by the Government of Iraq to provide confirmation of the arrangements as laid out in that letter,

Reaffirming the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq, Kuwait, and the neighbouring States,

Commending the Secretary-General and members of the League of Arab States and its Secretary-General for their efforts in this regard,

Determined to secure full compliance with its decisions,

Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations,

1. Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in particular through Iraq?s failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA, and to complete the actions required under paragraphs 8 to 13 of resolution 687 (1991);

2. Decides, while acknowledging paragraph 1 above, to afford Iraq, by this resolution, a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions of the Council; and accordingly decides to set up an enhanced inspection regime with the aim of bringing to full and verified completion the disarmament process established by resolution 687 (1991) and subsequent resolutions of the Council;

3. Decides that, in order to begin to comply with its disarmament obligations, in addition to submitting the required biannual declarations, the Government of Iraq shall provide to UNMOVIC, the IAEA, and the Council, not later than 30 days from the date of this resolution, a currently accurate, full, and complete declaration of all aspects of its programmes to develop chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, and other delivery systems such as unmanned aerial vehicles and dispersal systems designed for use on aircraft, including any holdings and precise locations of such weapons, components, sub-components, stocks of agents, and related material and equipment, the locations and work of its research, development and production facilities, as well as all other chemical, biological, and nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to weapon production or material;

4. Decides that false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq?s obligations and will be reported to the Council for assessment in accordance with paragraphs 11 and 12 below;

5. Decides that Iraq shall provide UNMOVIC and the IAEA immediate, unimpeded, unconditional, and unrestricted access to any and all, including underground, areas, facilities, buildings, equipment, records, and means of transport which they wish to inspect, as well as immediate, unimpeded, unrestricted, and private access to all officials and other persons whom UNMOVIC or the IAEA wish to interview in the mode or location of UNMOVIC?s or the IAEA?s choice pursuant to any aspect of their mandates; further decides that UNMOVIC and the IAEA may at their discretion conduct interviews inside or outside of Iraq, may facilitate the travel of those interviewed and family members outside of Iraq, and that, at the sole discretion of UNMOVIC and the IAEA, such interviews may occur without the presence of observers from the Iraqi Government; and instructs UNMOVIC and requests the IAEA to resume inspections no later than 45 days following adoption of this resolution and to update the Council 60 days thereafter;

6. Endorses the 8 October 2002 letter from the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director-General of the IAEA to General Al-Saadi of the Government of Iraq, which is annexed hereto, and decides that the contents of the letter shall be binding upon Iraq;

7. DecidesZ further that, in view of the prolonged interruption by Iraq of the presence of UNMOVIC and the IAEA and in order for them to accomplish the tasks set forth in this resolution and all previous relevant resolutions and notwithstanding prior understandings, the Council hereby establishes the following revised or additional authorities, which shall be binding upon Iraq, to facilitate their work in Iraq:

? UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall determine the composition of their inspection teams and ensure that these teams are composed of the most qualified and experienced experts available;

? All UNMOVIC and IAEA personnel shall enjoy the privileges and immunities, corresponding to those of experts on mission, provided in the Convention on Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations and the Agreement on the Privileges and Immunities of the IAEA;

? UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have unrestricted rights of entry into and out of Iraq, the right to free, unrestricted, and immediate movement to and from inspection sites, and the right to inspect any sites and buildings, including immediate, unimpeded, unconditional, and unrestricted access to Presidential Sites equal to that at other sites, notwithstanding the provisions of resolution 1154 (1998);

? UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right to be provided by Iraq the names of all personnel currently and formerly associated with Iraq?s chemical, biological, nuclear, and ballistic missile programmes and the associated research, development, and production facilities;

? Security of UNMOVIC and IAEA facilities shall be ensured by sufficient United Nations security guards;

? UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right to declare, for the purposes of freezing a site to be inspected, exclusion zones, including surrounding areas and transit corridors, in which Iraq will suspend ground and aerial movement so that nothing is changed in or taken out of a site being inspected;

? UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the free and unrestricted use and landing of fixed- and rotary-winged aircraft, including manned and unmanned reconnaissance vehicles;

? UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right at their sole discretion verifiably to remove, destroy, or render harmless all prohibited weapons, subsystems, components, records, materials, and other related items, and the right to impound or close any facilities or equipment for the production thereof; and

? UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right to free import and use of equipment or materials for inspections and to seize and export any equipment, materials, or documents taken during inspections, without search of UNMOVIC or IAEA personnel or official or personal baggage;

8. Decides further that Iraq shall not take or threaten hostile acts directed against any representative or personnel of the United Nations or the IAEA or of any Member State taking action to uphold any Council resolution;

9. Requests the Secretary-General immediately to notify Iraq of this resolution, which is binding on Iraq; demands that Iraq confirm within seven days of that notification its intention to comply fully with this resolution; and demands further that Iraq cooperate immediately, unconditionally, and actively with UNMOVIC and the IAEA;

10. Requests all Member States to give full support to UNMOVIC and the IAEA in the discharge of their mandates, including by providing any information related to prohibited programmes or other aspects of their mandates, including on Iraqi attempts since 1998 to acquire prohibited items, and by recommending sites to be inspected, persons to be interviewed, conditions of such interviews, and data to be collected, the results of which shall be reported to the Council by UNMOVIC and the IAEA;

11. Directs the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director-General of the IAEA to report immediately to the Council any interference by Iraq with inspection activities, as well as any failure by Iraq to comply with its disarmament obligations, including its obligations regarding inspections under this resolution;

12. Decides to convene immediately upon receipt of a report in accordance with paragraphs 4 or 11 above, in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security;

13. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations;

14. Decides to remain seized of the matter.

"Also, though this is off topic( or not, as conservatives seem to think they can do this sort of thing), why does america act in such a unilteral way. What makes them think they can storm of and invade a country which has done nothing without properly consulting the UN?"

hmmmm. Obvioulsy you havnt seen the pictures of genocide, murder, rape or any other things Saddam did. oh and one more thing:

Where was the UN when Rwanda needed it?

Trivia question: what was UN Security Council Resolution 1441?

And, since when is America "going at it alone" in Iraq?
The oposition to the war within the UN would be no where as fierce if it weren't for France, who actively spearheaded for veto. Chirac, I guess it's fair to say, is trying to adopt Washington's style of power and finesse. It's great for showing off his muscle, but those muscles can do little without the machine to operate. The difference is that the US has the will and the economic, military, and industrial machine to, in a sense, do what it pleases without seeking permission from the UN. France has the will, but it needs to catch up on everything else.
Now, France knows that it is unable to sustain a diplomatic battle against the US. While it couldn't in the UN, at least it made a public impression before the whole world. Not so, this time. So they've kept quiet, and at the very least, they are not stonewalling every US request to the UN.

...a. who started every single welfare program?...

While I would really like to jump on that bandwagon and verbally bash the Democrats for every single spending program, the record shows that this is simply not true - damn close though.

You'd be suprised to learn which president signed into law the original bill authorizing Medicare.

Mr. Great Society himself, the man who couldn't/wouldn't train himself beyond referring to blacks as "nigras". A Texas Democrat who rose to the level of House minority then majority leader, then to Vice President under JFK he ascended to the presidency by way of (an) assassination, Mr. Military Fiasco himself - - - - Lyndon Baines Johnson.

1965 July 30. Medicare (as part of the Social Security Amendments of 1965) signed into law by President Johnson. Source (http://www.ssa.gov/history/cornignappa.html)

SHL

Free speech! First ammendment rights! I gravely disagree, but I think it is best to ehar what they have to say, and discuss it.

DP

I personally would rather see more services and more taxes, or more services and level taxes with cuts to varied areas.

But if we cut taxes, can't you buy those services yourself?

People who want more 'services' are what I consider Special Interest people. They fail to recognize the importance of things like the Constitution, and that when you allow the government to deviate in ONE area, then it has an excuse to deviate in ANOTHER.

No, you cant. I live in britain. Tax rates are high, and people to complain about them, but bitching about government is practically our national sport ( I blame Margaret Thatcher. It seems to work for any other problems :roll: ). But, if the NHS was taken away, people would complain even more. Global market seems to think that taxes are a bad thing. Well, if we got rid of them, you'd probably complain about having to pay for everything.

Also, why do some people think that the american constitution is some sort of holy grail??? I mean, most of the people who wrote it owned slaves! Also, women couldnt vote. I'd also like to point out that Britain is probably the oldest democracy in the world, even if our system is incredibly complex and requires an army of social workers to run.

Also, though this is off topic( or not, as conservatives seem to think they can do this sort of thing), why does america act in such a unilteral way. What makes them think they can storm of and invade a country which has done nothing without properly consulting the UN?

First, in the United States - the context of this thread and the comment you respond to - The Constitution is the basis for all that follows and by whose standards all laws are judged and all actions must agree with.

Second, in the United States Constitution, The Fourteenth Ammendment, Section One deals with the basic rights of, "equal protection of the laws." This means that what is allowed to one group must be allowed to all. So then if one "special interest group" is given a right then it must apply to all. If you want to argue with this 1868 ammendment you must file a petition in any Federal Court.

Third, no single group has the corner on going off topic. Comments generate responses. Within limits, it is allowable, no?

SHL

...Also, there is a difference as you pointed out between neo-cons and regular conservatives...

Those regular conservatives called "paleo-cons". They tend to be Christians that hold too tightly [IMHO] the teachings in the O.T. rather than embracing the N.T. and they tend to be protectionist xenophobes.

http://atschool.eduweb.co.uk/wickham/images/rainban.gif

Not everyone or everything is so neatly packaged for easy dismissal. There is a spectrum (see above for concept) much of which eludes demarkation as this or that. It works easily enough for most things. Liberal and conservative are just points on the line whose position on the line can be argued.

SHL

Notice I wrote the words "tend to be.."

Is that your escape clause when presenting personal opinion as fact while quoting a generalization from someone else? :roll:

SHL

A note on taxes:

The House of Representatives's OWN NUMBERS predict that ALL government taxes combined cost the average America 53% of his/her income. This includes "indirect" taxes, such as taxes on employers for socail security that would otherwise feasibly go to wages.

Extra regulations, as the Cato Institute predicts, adds another 10% on. That means that the average America gives up over 60% of his incoem to the government.

So theoretically, if the government did not provide ANY services or regulations, MOST Americans would have FIVE dollars for every TWO htey had today. With that money, they could easily buy what they need themselves.

Now of course totally getting rid of government is impossible, since you'll always need combined things like defense and police, and you could even make an argument for roads and education. But even with all that, if we cut government from 63% of our life to 20%, we COULD have the very essential services and still have TWICE the money to buy other stuff, liek retirement funds, healthcare, etc., ourselves. It'd be a beneficial deal.

Mind you that is the federal tax burden. Here in New York City we have a state income tax and a city income tax. Add about 15% to the above for me.

SHL

Just a simple answer to the original question:

Not only is American Conservatism Acceptable it should be mandatory. Sure there should be at least two political parties, but both should strive to maintain the moral principles that this country was founded on. There shouldn't be a party that is dedicated to tearing down the morality of our country. Abolish liberalism before it decays the minds of our entire nation. I know very well that somewhere in this thread there will appear a post stating that the people who believe in Conservatism are less educated than Liberals. If this statement was even close to the truth, the "Better educated" Liberals would have been able to trick the poor under=educated into a belief that their ideas where better for the country. Every time the Liberals have managed to get into the Whitehouse, the nation has suffered severely, but the nation has also learned from these displays of leadership by the "Better educated". The lesson learned? Liberalism is a terrible way to treat the people of the nation.

...Also, there is a difference as you pointed out between neo-cons and regular conservatives...

Those regular conservatives called "paleo-cons". They tend to be Christians that hold too tightly [IMHO] the teachings in the O.T. rather than embracing the N.T. and they tend to be protectionist xenophobes.

http://atschool.eduweb.co.uk/wickham/images/rainban.gif

Not everyone or everything is so neatly packaged for easy dismissal. There is a spectrum (see above for concept) much of which eludes demarkation as this or that. It works easily enough for most things. Liberal and conservative are just points on the line whose position on the line can be argued.

SHL

Just like a rainbow you know you set me free and I just can't get enough, I just can't get enough....

Where do Libertarians fit on the political spectrum?

...a. who started every single welfare program?...

While I would really like to jump on that bandwagon and verbally bash the Democrats for every single spending program, the record shows that this is simply not true - damn close though.

You'd be suprised to learn which president signed into law the original bill authorizing Medicare.

Mr. Great Society himself, the man who couldn't/wouldn't train himself beyond referring to blacks as "nigras". A Texas Democrat who rose to the level of House minority then majority leader, then to Vice President under JFK he ascended to the presidency by way of (an) assassination, Mr. Military Fiasco himself - - - - Lyndon Baines Johnson.

1965 July 30. Medicare (as part of the Social Security Amendments of 1965) signed into law by President Johnson. Source (http://www.ssa.gov/history/cornignappa.html)

SHL

My bad. I thought that Nixon signed it into law, thank you for setting the record straight.

13. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations;

And when two of the five permanent members of the Security Council outright proclaimed that they were not going to give further authorization, the United States and Great Britian decided that enough was enough. Something had to be done to accomplish two important tasks: 1) to end the games that the homicidal dictator was playing and 2) to protect the very institution (the UN) from further embarrasment for failing to impliment the consequences that it had laid out over those years since the cease fire of the first Gulf War.

I'm confident that history will judge this war to remove a dangerous man and its subtle effect of transforming a region, a sucess. Iran was probably going to take care of itself since there is a growing movement of the younger people to throw of the monkey of theocracy and to embrace a "western style" democracy. The liberation of Iraq - not without its current problems - should indirectly hasten Iran's progress. To be sure, the extremists are not happy - this would include today's far Left in the world.

...Also, there is a difference as you pointed out between neo-cons and regular conservatives...

Those regular conservatives called "paleo-cons". They tend to be Christians that hold too tightly the teachings in the O.T. rather than embracing the N.T. and they tend to be protectionist xenophobes.

http://atschool.eduweb.co.uk/wickham/images/rainban.gif

Not everyone or everything is so neatly packaged for easy dismissal. There is a spectrum (see above for concept) much of which eludes demarkation as this or that. It works easily enough for most things. Liberal and conservative are just points on the line whose position on the line can be argued.

SHL

Just like a rainbow you know you set me free and I just can't get enough, I just can't get enough....

Where do Libertarians fit on the political spectrum?

It depends on who are you asking about which libertarian? What are the views held what are the priorities of the respondent and the subject? If you are to the right of them they are leftists. If you are to the left of them they are righties.

My view is that they are moderate conservatives on economic issues and moderate liberals on social issues. I took a quick test on their site (http://www.lp.org/issues/platform/compare/) and came away with this;

[i]You preferred the Democratic stance for 2 issues. Democratic Platform

You preferred the Green stance for 1 issue. Green Platform

You preferred the Libertarian stance for 1 issue. Libertarian Platform.

You preferred the Republican stance for 3 issues. Republican Platform.

Where on the spectrum do I fit?

SHL

I dont really care if your conservative or liberal a view point is a view point and nothing more. Depening on the time era conservatism can be bad and so can liberalism like the cival rights movement i beleive it was a liberal thing wasnt it? and anti-abortion (i personally think abortion is wrong unless its for a incredably good reason) is conservative. Both have their good points and bad neither is better than the other (though die hard left wingers bug me) every one is entitled to their opinion as long as it doesnt get some one killed :?