NationStates Jolt Archive

This is a conservative response to the post made by Unashamed Christians. I am a conservative Christian, but some things said here simply aren't true and don't allow for cooperation between the two political philosophies. They are very divisive.

I guess I could start with national sovereignty. It seems that liberals would have us give all of our rights as a nation over to the United Nations, that wonderful group of dictators and thugs that hate us. The group that replaced the United States on the human rights commission with a current perpetrator of genocide, Sudan. The group whose leader denounced the United States that we were not doing enough for AIDs in Africa and the world even though we just authorized hundreds of billions of dollars in combating AIDs

Global cooperation is not a bad thing. The United Nations is a good forum for such cooperation to make the world a safer and more comfortable place. However, it does need to be reformed to allow for serious dialogues between nations.

It seems liberals would elevate the rights of an insect over the rights of their fellow man to make a living.

Liberals are more vocal about the environment than conservatives. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. Christians believe that God gave man charge over nature to nurture and protect it. However, this can be done without implementing socialistic policies, over-emphasizing global warming, and banning drilling in the Alaskan Wildlife Refuge.

It seems liberals would rather have everyone dependent on the government so that we would vote them into power just so we could keep our jobs and the free money coming in.

Liberals emphasize government reliance much more than conservatives. But one could look at the conservative record on goverment reliance and see that most "conservative" Presidents have condemned big government, but then went on to expand it (ex. Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush). I don't share the liberal belief in social programs and the like, because I don't think they work. But I'm not going to just rule them out because I'm a conservative. That's immature and divisive.

It seems liberals would rather have something bad happen, like the economy tanking, so that they could blame Bush and they could be elected.

This is simply incorrect and irresponsible. When bad things happen, opportunities for change are provided. Both conservative and liberals take advantage of those opportunities. Liberals don't want bad things to happen, because it would hurt them just as much as it hurt conservatives.

It seems liberals would rather restrict investment, savings, and work by taxing it to death.

It is my belief that people should be allowed to invest retirement savings and the like freely. However, complete privatization of Social Security, etc. would be disastrous. There should be a certain balance between the two for the best possible results.

It seems like liberals would rather not have a military at all, therefore freeing up more money to spend on their utopian dreams.

Liberals (and myself included) don't believe we need a massive army. Defense should be the priority. There are certain times when we must strike abroad for reasons of national security (ex. Afghanistan) which both conservatives and liberals supported and still support. Defense should be the priority issue and a massive army isn't necessary for it. However, if we do cut military spending, we should increase defense spending and invest resources in various defense measures to cover all bases.

It seems like liberals are huge supporters of infanticide, killing babies inches away from being born by sucking out their brains with vacuums.

Abortion should not be a political issue. It's a shame that it has become so. One has to realize that no matter what, no law is going to stop abortion. It will happen legal or not. So, we need to get to the point where abortion isn't needed. However, conservatives who are anti-abortion should not make the mistake of letting their beliefs be watered down because of their desire to be tolerant and understanding.

It seems like liberals acting through the ACLU would have absolutely no mention of God in the public square even though this country was founded on Christian principles. They would rewrite history to make it seem like this nation was secular from the beginning. Heaven forbid that we actually teach that it was Christians who first landed on this continent, they would rather skip right to the Revolutionary war.

I don't like the ACLU just as much as the next conservative. But, despite the fact that this nation was founded upon Judeo-Christian philosophy, it is very much a secular nation. School prayer and teaching the creation theory is unconstitutional and ignores American religious plurality.

The "tolerant" wing of the Democratic party is really quite intolerant of anything remotely related to Christianity.

Don't make the mistake of assuming that Democrats cannot be Christians, because many of them are. Intolerance is a word easily thrown around. Just because someone disagrees with your strong-held beliefs does not mean they are intolerant towards them; it simply means they disagree with them.

Liberals tend to be great believers in political correctness, that great system in which you are entitled not to be offended unless you are a part of the following groups: Christians, "rednecks", members of the NRA, or anyone with a conservative bone in their bodies.

I agree, because I've seen it happen. But, on the same note, self-proclaimed Christians often ignore their own religious teachings by insulting those who disagree with their beliefs. Hypocrisy runs rampant, and one has to be careful to avoid it.

There I'm finished with my rant.

Good, so am I.

I would appreciate it if a rational liberal thinker would reply to this post so I can see if I'm being fair, etc.

Also, I'm hoping Unashamed Christians will reply, because all I'm trying to do is get a good dialogue going.

Check my response to Unashamed's post. That's where I put forth the liberal side of things. (At least according to me)

Its nice to see someone on the other side of the political spectrum speak civilly about those he may disagree with. I commend your comments.

Both sides may oppose one another's philosophies but when people realize that its just two sides working from different means to achieve the same ends then true change may occur.

This is a conservative response to the post made by Unashamed Christians. I am a conservative Christian, but some things said here simply aren't true and don't allow for cooperation between the two political philosophies. They are very divisive.



Global cooperation is not a bad thing. The United Nations is a good forum for such cooperation to make the world a safer and more comfortable place. However, it does need to be reformed to allow for serious dialogues between nations.



Liberals are more vocal about the environment than conservatives. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. Christians believe that God gave man charge over nature to nurture and protect it. However, this can be done without implementing socialistic policies, over-emphasizing global warming, and banning drilling in the Alaskan Wildlife Refuge.



Liberals emphasize government reliance much more than conservatives. But one could look at the conservative record on goverment reliance and see that most "conservative" Presidents have condemned big government, but then went on to expand it (ex. Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush). I don't share the liberal belief in social programs and the like, because I don't think they work. But I'm not going to just rule them out because I'm a conservative. That's immature and divisive.



This is simply incorrect and irresponsible. When bad things happen, opportunities for change are provided. Both conservative and liberals take advantage of those opportunities. Liberals don't want bad things to happen, because it would hurt them just as much as it hurt conservatives.



It is my belief that people should be allowed to invest retirement savings and the like freely. However, complete privatization of Social Security, etc. would be disastrous. There should be a certain balance between the two for the best possible results.



Liberals (and myself included) don't believe we need a massive army. Defense should be the priority. There are certain times when we must strike abroad for reasons of national security (ex. Afghanistan) which both conservatives and liberals supported and still support. Defense should be the priority issue and a massive army isn't necessary for it. However, if we do cut military spending, we should increase defense spending and invest resources in various defense measures to cover all bases.



Abortion should not be a political issue. It's a shame that it has become so. One has to realize that no matter what, no law is going to stop abortion. It will happen legal or not. So, we need to get to the point where abortion isn't needed. However, conservatives who are anti-abortion should not make the mistake of letting their beliefs be watered down because of their desire to be tolerant and understanding.



I don't like the ACLU just as much as the next conservative. But, despite the fact that this nation was founded upon Judeo-Christian philosophy, it is very much a secular nation. School prayer and teaching the creation theory is unconstitutional and ignores American religious plurality.



Don't make the mistake of assuming that Democrats cannot be Christians, because many of them are. Intolerance is a word easily thrown around. Just because someone disagrees with your strong-held beliefs does not mean they are intolerant towards them; it simply means they disagree with them.



I agree, because I've seen it happen. But, on the same note, self-proclaimed Christians often ignore their own religious teachings by insulting those who disagree with their beliefs. Hypocrisy runs rampant, and one has to be careful to avoid it.



Good, so am I.
its good to see a REAL conservative like Kafelnikov putting a neo conservative drooler in his place

I am a Jewish conservative, and I agree with everything. Well done.

I am a Jewish conservative, and I agree with everything. Well done.
people can find common ground with real conservatives--its just the neo-cons who have an extremely warped worldview

neo-con means new conservative, what's the difference between a neo-con and a "real conservative"

neo-con means new conservative, what's the difference between a neo-con and a "real conservative"
real conservatives are capable of rational thought--neocons are sick ticket fanatics

real conservatives are capable of rational thought--neocons are sick ticket fanatics

Interesting...was this provided by Webster's?

I'm asking what people are neo-cons and what people are "real conservatives". Do these neo-cons have different beliefs than what you take to be a "real conservative"? If so, what are they?

Interesting...was this provided by Webster's?

I'm asking what people are neo-cons and what people are "real conservatives". Do these neo-cons have different beliefs than what you take to be a "real conservative"? If so, what are they?
for example: a real conservative supports smaller govt whereas the neocon believes in vastly expanding the govt to serve corporate special interests and the military industrial complex

for example: a real conservative supports smaller govt whereas the neocon believes in vastly expanding the govt to serve corporate special interests and the military industrial complex

So you're basically giving the label "neo-cons" to those whom you don't like?

Here is what Webster's has to say...

"Noun 1. neoconservativism - an approach to politics or theology that represents a return to a traditional point of view (in contrast to more liberal or radical schools of thought of the 1960s)
conservatism, conservativism - a political or theological orientation advocating the preservation of the best in society and opposing radical changes"

As I see it, a neoconservative, or "neo-con" would be in support of smaller govt., just as conservatives have always been in support of smaller govt. Larger govt., or more regulation would hurt their supposed "corporate interests" unless you're talking about corporate welfare, which one could argue either way. Secondly, the military is only one sector of the govt. and budget. Having a strong military represents trying to "preserve the best in society" as Webster's puts it, part of the conservative agenda. Neoconservatives are simply the conservatives of today that have risen in response to the change in the Democratic party from McGovern onward. People, both Democrats and Republicans, in the sixties, seventies, and eighties saw the Democratic party change from the party of Kennedy to a party of extreme liberals and they sought to battle this new liberalism with neoconservatism.

This is a conservative response to the post made by Unashamed Christians. I am a conservative Christian, but some things said here simply aren't true and don't allow for cooperation between the two political philosophies. They are very divisive.



Global cooperation is not a bad thing. The United Nations is a good forum for such cooperation to make the world a safer and more comfortable place. However, it does need to be reformed to allow for serious dialogues between nations.



Liberals are more vocal about the environment than conservatives. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. Christians believe that God gave man charge over nature to nurture and protect it. However, this can be done without implementing socialistic policies, over-emphasizing global warming, and banning drilling in the Alaskan Wildlife Refuge.



Liberals emphasize government reliance much more than conservatives. But one could look at the conservative record on goverment reliance and see that most "conservative" Presidents have condemned big government, but then went on to expand it (ex. Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush). I don't share the liberal belief in social programs and the like, because I don't think they work. But I'm not going to just rule them out because I'm a conservative. That's immature and divisive.



This is simply incorrect and irresponsible. When bad things happen, opportunities for change are provided. Both conservative and liberals take advantage of those opportunities. Liberals don't want bad things to happen, because it would hurt them just as much as it hurt conservatives.



It is my belief that people should be allowed to invest retirement savings and the like freely. However, complete privatization of Social Security, etc. would be disastrous. There should be a certain balance between the two for the best possible results.



Liberals (and myself included) don't believe we need a massive army. Defense should be the priority. There are certain times when we must strike abroad for reasons of national security (ex. Afghanistan) which both conservatives and liberals supported and still support. Defense should be the priority issue and a massive army isn't necessary for it. However, if we do cut military spending, we should increase defense spending and invest resources in various defense measures to cover all bases.



Abortion should not be a political issue. It's a shame that it has become so. One has to realize that no matter what, no law is going to stop abortion. It will happen legal or not. So, we need to get to the point where abortion isn't needed. However, conservatives who are anti-abortion should not make the mistake of letting their beliefs be watered down because of their desire to be tolerant and understanding.



I don't like the ACLU just as much as the next conservative. But, despite the fact that this nation was founded upon Judeo-Christian philosophy, it is very much a secular nation. School prayer and teaching the creation theory is unconstitutional and ignores American religious plurality.



Don't make the mistake of assuming that Democrats cannot be Christians, because many of them are. Intolerance is a word easily thrown around. Just because someone disagrees with your strong-held beliefs does not mean they are intolerant towards them; it simply means they disagree with them.



I agree, because I've seen it happen. But, on the same note, self-proclaimed Christians often ignore their own religious teachings by insulting those who disagree with their beliefs. Hypocrisy runs rampant, and one has to be careful to avoid it.



Good, so am I.

I'd just like to say this is an excellent and mature post and more people on this site who allude to being some form of "conservative" could definitely learn a thing or two from you. I hope you acquire the dialogue you're seeking.

In the realm of political ideas today, the term neoconservative is often associated with a "conservative" Republican who supports big government, vast corporate welfare, extensive and unecessary foreign aid and involvement, and completely regulation-free trade.

I would appreciate it if a rational liberal thinker would reply to this post so I can see if I'm being fair, etc.

Also, I'm hoping Unashamed Christians will reply, because all I'm trying to do is get a good dialogue going.

Politically, I'm on the opposite side of the spectrum from you, but if more people, both liberal and conservative could argue rationally like you, this country might get on the right track.

So many people argue using straw men, intentionally distorting the beliefs of their opponents in order to more easily attack them, and that is intellectually dishonest and counterproductive.

I'm just as guilty as the next person when it comes to arguing like this, and I hope I can rise above it. It's actually a lot nicer to be civil, and maybe even like the person you disagree with.

Back and forth bickering about whether or not a fetus has rights gets old. People overlook the more important issue, which is: why do we need abortion in the first place?

People get bogged down in particular ideologies and refuse to budge because they are there "strong-held beliefs." Well, it is my strong-held belief that abortion is murder. But why should that stop me from working with someone who holds the opposite belief? It shouldn't. Compromise is always a possibility.

I thank all of you who responded, and I certainly want to continue, perhaps discussing one of these issues.

In the realm of political ideas today, the term neoconservative is often associated with a "conservative" Republican who supports big government, vast corporate welfare, extensive and unecessary foreign aid and involvement, and completely regulation-free trade.

I'm not sure about this, but it seems like a neo-con is a former liberal turned conservative. I've heard a lot of right-wing talk show hosts described as this.

If neoconservatism is exactly the same as conservatism, it seems like a redundant classification.

One other observation: has "neo-con" become an epithet with liberals? Conservatives use the word "liberal" like an insult. It seems like "neo-con" is serving the same function for the left.

As I've seen it on these boards, the neo-cons are the ultra-right wingers here. Some support big government, others don't, but they all hold far-right wing (and usually fundamentalist christian) points of view.

Note: the above reference to Christianity was a generalization

I have met conservatives who I enjoy debating with on these boards as well. The neo-cons are fun because they (like myself) are far out in the political spectrum. However, I find it more entertaining to debate with the moderate to middling conservatives. Their views are coherent, but different from mine. And they don't have the rabid fanatacism that generally goes with far out political ideals.

But, despite the fact that this nation was founded upon Judeo-Christian philosophy,

I'm afraid I have to disagree here. (Afraid because, for once, this has been very civil and... well, rather sensible) You can trace Jefferson's thoughts and philosophies from the French Revolution, I think he spent quite a bit of time in Paris around that sort of era, which in turn can be traced to the work of men like Thomas Paine, whose book "The Age of Reason", was a sharp attack on the Judeo-Christian ideas and ways of doing things. I feel a little wary about people saying that the Founding Father people were all "good Christians".

I never meant for my post to be offensive. If calling something as I see it is offensive then so be it, thats your problem not mine. So many people are failing to see my small disclaimer at the top of my post, they are generalizations not meant to define liberals as ones who believe all of things I posted. I realize that many liberals do not believe in some of my statements. But when I look at the liberal agenda and what many hard core liberals are pushing through the Democratic party, that is what I see.

Unashamed Christians, how do you reconcile your anti enviromentalist stance with the Biblical reference to humanity having stewardship over nature?

I have never come out as an anti-environmentalist. I believe that man has a God given charge to protect and preserve this earth. But I do not believe in putting the rights of a few animals over the rights of my fellow man to make a living.

I have never come out as an anti-environmentalist. I believe that man has a God given charge to protect and preserve this earth. But I do not believe in putting the rights of a few animals over the rights of my fellow man to make a living.But the Religous Right's opposition to, for example, laws making businesses responsible for any enviromental damage they cause, is directly opposed to Biblical teaching. In the old dilemma between God and Mammon, the Christian Right choses Mammon every time.

aWWWWRIGHTTyyy...I'm sticking with this group of posters..imagine, genuine civil discourse between conservatives and liberals...go figure..but dammit..I'm an Independent..a center-rightist..where the hell do I belong?...lol

I like to see a real conservative, it reminds me that both sides are just trying to make the world a better place. Neocons however are trying to make the US into a theocracy and screw the rest of the world.

Who else has heard of the group REP - Republicans for Environmental Protection.

That group of people is a bunch of conservatives I really like because they realize the benifit of protecting large portions of the environment. Now, this does not mean that we have to elevate an ant to the same level as a human being. That sort of thinking goes to PETA, but what I think we do need to do is protect the species that we have left. If it ever comes down to man vs. animal, I would have to say man is going to come first. But, if we can protect the animals and further man at the same time - why not do both?

Also, I live in the same state as John McCain. He's another conservative I like. Mostly because he's pretty centrist about the whole thing, but I like the policies he tries to push. I've also met him a few times, nice guy.

aWWWWRIGHTTyyy...I'm sticking with this group of posters..imagine, genuine civil discourse between conservatives and liberals...go figure..but dammit..I'm an Independent..a center-rightist..where the hell do I belong?...lol
Canada? :)

One other observation: has "neo-con" become an epithet with liberals? Conservatives use the word "liberal" like an insult. It seems like "neo-con" is serving the same function for the left.

Yes, "neo-con" has become an epithet with "liberals."

Good thread, Kafelnikov. I agree that most of Unashamed Christians' comments were malicious, hyperbolic generalisations.

Neoconservatives are simply the conservatives of today that have risen in response to the change in the Democratic party from McGovern onward. People, both Democrats and Republicans, in the sixties, seventies, and eighties saw the Democratic party change from the party of Kennedy to a party of extreme liberals and they sought to battle this new liberalism with neoconservatism.
Extreme liberals? I regard the Democrats as moderately conservative. If they were that extremely liberal they would come out unequivocally in support of abortion, environmental protection, gay rights and a secular public America.

The real big changes have come in the Republican party. They have transformed into the party of theocracy, militarism and big business. They believe themselves to have a monopoly on patriotism, religious faith and morality. Not all conservatives are like this, but in my view the Republican party has been hijacked by neo-cons who have transformed the GOP.

The difference between conservatives and neo-cons, IMO?

Conservatives actually believe in small government and the free market.

I like to see a real conservative, it reminds me that both sides are just trying to make the world a better place. Neocons however are trying to make the US into a theocracy and screw the rest of the world.

I have to disagree with the second sentence of your post. I know several persons who would be classified (according to the "definitions" in this thread) as "neo-cons." They absolutely do NOT want a theocratic government; they know that would be a catastrophe for the U.S. They do think that their rights as Christians are being subordinated to "multi-culteralism." It seems to them that the new target of intolerance is Christianity.

They also do NOT have a "screw the rest of the world" attitude. They do, however, see modern American liberalism as sacrificing U.S. sovereignty to corrupt international organizations and false "allies."

But I do not believe in putting the rights of a few animals over the rights of my fellow man to make a living.

Sorry but that does make you an anti-environmentalist because the animals will always loose on that argument.

There has to be a balance.

The Merrian Webster Dictionary says: Neoconservative n.: former liberal espousing political conservatism.
Its more of a insult to "bad" conservatives because Conservatives hate being called a liberal more than a democrat would.
In fact all republicans alive toward are Neocon by matter of history. The democrats originary had a republican stance and vice versa.

Kafelnikov, I wish all conservitives I have met were like you. You know, not an idiot. It's refreshing to see someone who I might not agree with make a rational statement that I can agree with. How I wish all the world's people, liberal and conservitive, were as intelligent and thoughtful as you.

I'm afraid I have to disagree here. (Afraid because, for once, this has been very civil and... well, rather sensible) You can trace Jefferson's thoughts and philosophies from the French Revolution, I think he spent quite a bit of time in Paris around that sort of era, which in turn can be traced to the work of men like Thomas Paine, whose book "The Age of Reason", was a sharp attack on the Judeo-Christian ideas and ways of doing things. I feel a little wary about people saying that the Founding Father people were all "good Christians".

Yes, I agree. Though the morals the US was founded on happened to be similar to Christianity (New Testament Version of God, of course), the Founding Fathers themselves were mostly Deists.

Before anyone quotes a speech, I'd like to note they did that to appeal to the masses of the times, just like how all American politicians promise more jobs and less taxes no matter what their policy is.

Original Poster- I myself am a moderate Liberal (with a few exceptions) (but very Anti-NeoCon, so I tend to look like an extremist), and I agree with your message, if not the political ideals. It's good to see a true Conservative. Beyond the political bickering, rational thought is the only virtue. Heck, If they run, I'd vote for McCain or Powell.

Various- As for my definition of Neo-Conservativism, since everyone seems to be contributing, just look at Siljhouettes' post. That's how I learned it. Just like Liberal, you can also use it as an insult, too, but it does mean something.

[OT: Also in agreement with Siljhouettes on Democrats. I find it rather pessimistically amusing is the Democrats are supposedly liberal. If they are, they're good at hiding it and pretending to be centrists- and still garner the Liberal vote. Oh well, better than nothing...]

I have never come out as an anti-environmentalist. I believe that man has a God given charge to protect and preserve this earth. But I do not believe in putting the rights of a few animals over the rights of my fellow man to make a living.
you dont have to rape mother earth to make a living