NationStates Jolt Archive

I really do not understand the right wing. Can someone try and justify the republican party, or even conservatism in general. I am a liberal libertarian by the way. Contradiction I know.

I really do not understand the right wing. Can someone try and justify the republican party, or even conservatism in general. I am a liberal libertarian by the way. Contradiction I know.

Conservatism is just the baqsic belief that it was better in the old days. Nostalgia essentially for the times when we could own slaves and beat our wives.

Well, there are two types of conservatism: neoconservatism/pseudo-conservatism and genuine conservatism.

I'll provide examples of each:

Neo- Dwight Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan, the Bushes, Newt Gingrich, William F. Buckley, Jr., Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh

Genuine- Robert Welch, Dan Smoot, Alan Stang, Martin Dies, Robert Taft, Larry McDonald, Ezola Foster, George Wallace, Strom Thurmond, Barry Goldwater (before he turned soft in the late 80's...), Ron Paul

Neoconservatives call themselves conservative, yet they favor big government, enormous spending, massive power concentrated in the federal government as opposed to state and local governments' rights, internationalism, entangling alliances, Keynesian economic policies, etc.

Genuine conservatives favor limited government, state and local governments' rights, non-interventionism, free-market capitalism, traditional values, strict interpretation of the constitution, etc.

neo conservatives are just nostalgic for a different historical way of doing things. They are still 'true' conservatives.

neo conservatives are just nostalgic for a different historical way of doing things. They are still 'true' conservatives.

No, they're not. They believe in liberal ideas. Thus, they are not 'true conservatives.'

bump

So where am I on the political scale? I'm often called a conservative, my views are; Smaller goverment, flat tax rate, no gun control, iffy on abortion, pro free speech, against goverment entitlements, want them rolled back, no deficet spending, want national debt spent down, strong military, less UN. No UN in our country would be great, and no more violating the Constitution in regards to our forces under UN command would be even better. So, uh what am I?

So where am I on the political scale? I'm often called a conservative, my views are; Smaller goverment, flat tax rate, no gun control, iffy on abortion, pro free speech, against goverment entitlements, want them rolled back, no deficet spending, want national debt spent down, strong military, less UN. No UN in our country would be great, and no more violating the Constitution in regards to our forces under UN command would be even better. So, uh what am I?

You're a conservative.

free markets
low taxes
strong military
patriotism
old fashioned family values
tough on crime
simple as that

free markets
low taxes
strong military
patriotism
old fashioned family values
tough on crime
simple as that

That about sums it up. ;)

Although, most conservatives favor leaving crime to state and local governments, and no income tax at all.

when i ask someone a direct question that is yes or no conservatives almost always answer with a yes or a no. liberals almost never include the words "yes" or "no" in the answer. its a trick i picked up from a class and it may sound silly but it really works on people most of the time.

more local control on most non security issues, you are correct

Ahhh...I love bein' a conservative! :D

No, they're not. They believe in liberal ideas. Thus, they are not 'true conservatives.'

ummmm, liberalism and conservatism are socio political ideologies and you are still confusing liberals with liberalism. I thought that distinctionhad beenmade often enough in these forums already

I really do not understand the right wing. Can someone try and justify the republican party, or even conservatism in general. I am a liberal libertarian by the way. Contradiction I know.

That's not an easy question, there are many levels of conservatism. Not all conservatives believe the same things. Just as not all liberals do. They both have far right and left wings and they both have moderates.

heres how it does right? liberals are those who believe in liberalism?

That's not an easy question, there are many levels of conservatism. Not all conservatives believe the same things. Just as not all liberals do. They both have far right and left wings and they both have moderates.

She has a point there.

giuliani ( my mayor for 8 years) was a pro-abortion republican and i just finished zell miller's book "the conscience of a conservative democrat" . he is a democrat senator from georgia who is liberal on social issues but a hawk also regarding the war. a strong gun advocatre also.

not so strong on family values. My attitude is wait, and if the kids are coming out messed up, then we need to do something.

the reasons i am a conservative came gradualy over many years and often when asked to explain one of my views I remember very personal stories dealing with that topic. it is a true philosophy that should not be discounted.

No, they're not. They believe in liberal ideas. Thus, they are not 'true conservatives.'

That's actually not quite true. Neo-cons tend to be far more hawkish. They believe in progress through conflict and war. Neo-cons are far more right to the political spectrum then "traditional conservatives" they pander far more to the religious right and don't believe in the same freedoms as say the moderate liberals and traditional conservatives.

Examples more accurate would be.

Bush = neo-con

Reagan = traditional conservative.

That's actually not quite true. Neo-cons tend to be far more hawkish. They believe in progress through conflict and war. Neo-cons are far more right to the political spectrum then "traditional conservatives" they pander far more to the religious right and don't believe in the same freedoms as say the moderate liberals and traditional conservatives.

Examples more accurate would be.

Bush = neo-con

Reagan = traditional conservative.

Reagan's a neo-con, too. Yeah, he talked conservative, but that's all he was, was talk.

what is the difference in philosophy between bush and reagan?

That's actually not quite true. Neo-cons tend to be far more hawkish. They believe in progress through conflict and war. Neo-cons are far more right to the political spectrum then "traditional conservatives" they pander far more to the religious right and don't believe in the same freedoms as say the moderate liberals and traditional conservatives.

Examples more accurate would be.

Bush = neo-con

Reagan = traditional conservative.

Neo-cons are not to the right at all. They're basically liberals who call themselves conservatives.

reagan saved conservatism. does anyone here remember the 70's when you were laughed at if you were a conservative? reagan stopped that in short order through the popularity he brought to conservative principals.

Reagan's a neo-con, too. Yeah, he talked conservative, but that's all he was, was talk.

Well I may have to concede to you here, Reagan didn't go to war with the USSR, but lest we forget the bloody gamesmanship in Central America.. so I'll give you that, Reagan probably was more neo-con then old fashion conservative.

However, the new neo-cons of today are far more hawkish.. they also don't follow the William F. Buckley doctrine of conservatism.. which is low taxes, small government, fiscal responsibility, etc...

Conservatism and liberalism can best be defined if you compare them both in the moral/ideological aspect. Conservatism, such as myself believe somethind like abortion is wrong because taking a human life is wrong. Liberals make the issue of abortion and other issues/policies an individual's choice. If you think something is ok, you do it. To me conservatism works because we all need to have serious standards.

Neo-cons are not to the right at all. They're basically liberals who call themselves conservatives.

I have to as a student of political science disagree with this though.. neo-cons are as about as far right as you can get. What they don't share with traditional conservatives is fiscal responsibility. They also do believe in a Pax-America. A Neo-Rome if you will. Which is why I personally believe the day of the neo-con will be short lived.

"Conservatism, such as myself"= "'CONSERVATIVES', such as myself"

Well I may have to concede to you here, Reagan didn't go to war with the USSR, but lest we forget the bloody gamesmanship in Central America.. so I'll give you that, Reagan probably was more neo-con then old fashion conservative.

However, the new neo-cons of today are far more hawkish.. they also don't follow the William F. Buckley doctrine of conservatism.. which is low taxes, small government, fiscal responsibility, etc...

The Buckley doctrine is just the opposite of what you said.

Conservatism and liberalism can best be defined if you compare them both in the moral/ideological aspect. Conservatism, such as myself believe somethind like abortion is wrong because taking a human life is wrong. Liberals make the issue of abortion and other issues/policies an individual's choice. If you think something is ok, you do it. To me conservatism works because we all need to have serious standards.

These are more "wedge" issues and not really conservative issues. While agreed conservatives tend to make up a lot of the religious right, but again, it's a wedge issue, like gay marriage. It's not the foundation of conservativsim, more of an off-shoot.

I have to as a student of political science disagree with this though.. neo-cons are as about as far right as you can get. What they don't share with traditional conservatives is fiscal responsibility. They also do believe in a Pax-America. A Neo-Rome if you will. Which is why I personally believe the day of the neo-con will be short lived.

Neo-cons are not to the right at all. They believe in enormous government, interventionism and internationalism abroad, all or most power concentrated at the federal level, New Age values, complete disregard for the constitution, etc.

Neo-cons are not to the right at all. They believe in enormous government, interventionism and internationalism abroad, all or most power concentrated at the federal level, New Age values, complete disregard for the constitution, etc.

Er, what "New Age" value does a standard neo-con believe in? I was in agreement with you up until that one.

Neo-cons are not to the right at all. They believe in enormous government, interventionism and internationalism abroad, all or most power concentrated at the federal level, New Age values, complete disregard for the constitution, etc.

Perhaps you misunderstand me, it happens..lol

What I am talking about is this new conservatism that has only come to power with GW Bush. The new neo-con's goals and objectives can be found in the papers of the PNAC doctrine, So this is a fairly new type of conservatism, at least in the sense of ever gaining actual power. Perhaps we are talking about different things here, I'm not sure. It's possible.


complete disregard for the constitution, etc

These are the neo-cons I am talking about.

The problem is that the word has been hijacked. Just like gay and even marriage. Conservative used to mean limited change. This is what happens when people try to put labels on everything. Neo, ultra, traditional, extremist, radical "conservative" all mean different things to different people.

To me a "conservative" is someone who has moral value; black or white choses; limited to no government run social programs; strong military; low taxes; no abortions; small Federal government; strict following of the Constitution of the U.S.A; live and let live attitude; responsible for own actions. These are just the highlights the important issues.

Once you have a label - you can then spin it. No label - no spin.

The problem is that the word has been hijacked. Just like gay and even marriage. Conservative used to mean limited change. This is what happens when people try to put labels on everything. Neo, ultra, traditional, extremist, radical "conservative" all mean different things to different people.

To me a "conservative" is someone who has moral value; black or white choses; limited to no government run social programs; strong military; low taxes; no abortions; small Federal government; strict following of the Constitution of the U.S.A; live and let live attitude; responsible for own actions. These are just the highlights the important issues.

Once you have a label - you can then spin it. No label - no spin.

The reality is though to study each sect of each political ideology you need these labels.. if we didn't have them, my poli-sci degree would of been a lot harder to get..*LOL*

No, they're not. They believe in liberal ideas. Thus, they are not 'true conservatives.'

Increasing government power is a conservative, not liberal idea. They are conservatives.

OK, there are really three dominant types of conservatives in the American polity today. The members of one group, often referred to as fundamentalist conservatives, can trace their origins from the writing of Edmund Burke and fall to the extreme right on social issues. Individuals who belong to the second group, known as anti-interventionist conservatives, align themselves with 18th century Manchester liberalism and are opposed to an expanding role of government in the nation-state (espeically in economic matters). The thrid group, of course, are the neo-cons. Their perspective is really a melding of the two preiviously mentioned (and somewhat contradictory) ideologies. This group is dominated by former liberals who abandoned liberalism in the 60's.

A second point I would like to make is that it is really rather ironic that Christians should so often consider themselves conservative. Much of conservative thought derives originally from John Locke, a strict empiricist. Yet Christians must take a leap of faith in believing something they cannot even attempt to prove. At the same time, the man Christians so wholehearted embrace as their savior was quite the liberal. Jesus was soft on crime and socially permissive, while also espousing a philosophy far more in line with socialism than capitalism.

The reality is though to study each sect of each political ideology you need these labels.. if we didn't have them, my poli-sci degree would of been a lot harder to get..*LOL*

Ah, but the labels are moving targets. The label "conservative" is a whole lot different 50 years ago. You do not need labels, just issues - labels often confuse an issue. Politicians likes to pigeon hole people with labels so they do not have to deal with issues.

I want to know how my representative is going to vote on what I consider key issues not that he is conservative on spending and liberal on taxes. If people would ignore this labeling BS and stick to the issues - politics would be easier to understand.

!Must proofread before posting!

No, they're not. They believe in liberal ideas. Thus, they are not 'true conservatives.'

Increasing government power is a conservative, not liberal idea. They are conservatives.

Bull...sh**. REAL conservatives (not fake ones like Bush) favor LIMITED government. And being an anarcho-communist, I don't think you're one to argue about who would be a conservative, and who wouldn't.

I prefer an end to Income Tax, Strong defense, privatization of schools, social security, and medical care, being really tough on crime, absolutley no gun control, traditional morality but that of a secular type, and complete free markets. I'm pretty much a classic Conservative.

Bull...sh**. REAL conservatives (not fake ones like Bush) favor LIMITED government. And being an anarcho-communist, I don't think you're one to argue about who would be a conservative, and who wouldn't.


I vote to drop labels and use the time spent on trying to figure out what a label means by discussing the "ISSUES" - like cutting the PORK in the Federal Budget. Write your Rep today.

I prefer an end to Income Tax, Strong defense, privatization of schools, social security, and medical care, being really tough on crime, absolutley no gun control, traditional morality but that of a secular type, and complete free markets. I'm pretty much a classic Conservative.

Indeed you are. Absolutely nothing about you seems liberal.

Actually, I know Parthians in real life. And he is an insane facist. Also, no one has yet to answer my question as intended. I understand what conservatives believe, I do not understand why they believe that. That how can one want to privatize schools and hospitals, leaving the homeless out to suffer. Or how is it that a free market is good when it only creates an oligarchy and dissolves the middle class while only promoting the rich and exploiting the poor. (That is how the Roman empire fell FYI.) Can someone explain how reaganomics and privatization is good. And do not give the answer: Oh, it gives everyone the American dream. Because guess what, over 70% of the homeless people in America are employed with steady jobs, they just cannot afford the private healthcare system, with private housing, and private higher learning. So answer me that.

I am a liberal libertarian by the way. Contradiction I know.
It's not a contradiction. "Liberal" means that you are liberal on social issues, not necessarily left-wing economically. "Libertarian" means that you believe in the absolute supremacy of the free market.

No, they're not. They believe in liberal ideas. Thus, they are not 'true conservatives.'
Who says that all liberals believe in large, centralised government? I don't.

neo-cons are as about as far right as you can get.
What do you mean by "right-wing"? I understand it to be an economic (not social) scale. The furthest right-wingers would believe in zero government interference in the free market or business, I think.

Neo-cons, on the other hand, appear to favour absurdly high amounts of corporate welfare, which puts a hole in the free market ideology. The ideal of a cosy relationship between corporation and government, combined with nationalism is quite akin to fascism.

live and let live attitude
That's liberalism.

free markets
low taxes
strong military
patriotism
old fashioned family values
tough on crime
simple as that

What constitutes "old fashioned family values"?

To the liberals retention is unnecessary to society, to the conservatives retention is the basis of society. Therefore the liberal idea holds that multi-culturism is what makes diversity, whereas conservatism believes that multi-culturism destroys diversity. This however is a question of retention; the ability to retain within something characteristics that create it's tangibility. As taken by the conservative, retention when considered lenient manifestation, is intrinsically inseparable from the condition of existence. Therefore the appearence of a current condition renders the appearence of an alternate condition impossible within any model current to society. To liberalism it is the tangibility of contemporary being by which situation and action should be footed to reinforce that contemporary tangibility. As relied upon by a pragmatic materialism of the senses, which only knowing the now, serve to find logic in direct function to it. They are bound always to the course of events which arose as disturbances to their system; they are in essence 'the anvil' in regard to the formation of political stands. The conservatives direct these apart from that common means in accord to an ideal, it's function is perturbative to the repose of the settling situations drawn into play by the circumstances of social interferences; they are 'the hammer' of forging political life. In the context of will, it is truer to think of the liberals as the reactionaries and the conservatives as the revolutionaries. In fact by denying retention liberalism affirms velleity. Conservatism is "ignorant" in so far as it consciously ignores relevence to the momentary, Liberalism is vapid in so far as it's a vapidity, 'empty' of outgoing volition.

Conservatism and liberalism can best be defined if you compare them both in the moral/ideological aspect. Conservatism, such as myself believe somethind like abortion is wrong because taking a human life is wrong.

But that's not true, because very few conservatives believe that taking a human life is ALWAYS wrong. Otherwise, we'd have many members of our military and law enforcement in prison.

Liberals make the issue of abortion and other issues/policies an individual's choice. If you think something is ok, you do it.

Not quite. More like, "YOU are allowed to make the choices that affect YOUR life". That doesn't mean you can do whatever you want. But it does mean that you get to make the decision- and then live with the consequences.

Personal responsibility- isn't that something that conservatives usually like to applaud themselves on?

To me conservatism works because we all need to have serious standards.

Could you clarify this? What exactly do you mean by "serious standards"?

It's all so simple:

conservatives are those who want to keep things the way they are (/used to be)
and progressives are those who want change, who want progression


That's what I've been thaught and I think it's the best way to explain it.

It's all so simple:

conservatives are those who want to keep things the way they are (/used to be)
and progressives are those who want change, who want progression


That's what I've been thaught and I think it's the best way to explain it.

But that's entirely flawed, how can one 'progress' without conserving a particular methodology of working in a societal atmosphere? Progress only opposes conventionalism, not conservatism. The liberals want to be defined as progressive, but does the substance of liberalism have any actual association with the nature of progress, change, or reform? If the situation is liberal all the time, that's a convention, and is the actual opposite of progressive, the terms "progressive" and "conservative" are not mutually exclusive, it is conventionalism which opposes progress and conventionalism only.

I really do not understand the right wing. Can someone try and justify the republican party, or even conservatism in general. I am a liberal libertarian by the way. Contradiction I know.
That is a contradiction! :)
First, Conservatism should never be confused with the Republican Party.
Second, there are many branches of Conservatism just like Liberalism.
I tend to be a "True Conservative" but I have improved upon it with modern ideals. I tend to view and discuss things on the basis of "Intellecuall Honesty." This term can be used with anyone not just Conservative thinkers. My basic beliefs are:
Limited Government, as the Constitution says "Limited Government."
Strong Military Presence. Goes without saying.
Accountable Government. The government needs to be more open to the public and not so secret.
Less Government Waste/Spending. There NEEDS to be a major overhaul of the way Government spends OUR money.
Full Equallity to All No affirmative action. believe it or not that system is discrimiatory. Full equallity will be attained when EVERYBODY is the same. (not prefered over another because of race/gender)
Less Taxes System is too old, needs to be overhauled as well.
Strong Nationalism, again goes without saying.

My basic beliefs are:
Limited Government, as the Constitution says "Limited Government."
Strong Military Presence. Goes without saying.
Accountable Government. The government needs to be more open to the public and not so secret.
Less Government Waste/Spending. There NEEDS to be a major overhaul of the way Government spends OUR money.
Full Equallity to All No affirmative action. believe it or not that system is discrimiatory. Full equallity will be attained when EVERYBODY is the same. (not prefered over another because of race/gender)
Less Taxes System is too old, needs to be overhauled as well.
Strong Nationalism, again goes without saying.

I actually agree with many of the things you wrote, and I consider myself a centrist liberal.

A couple of questions, though:

No affirmative action. believe it or not that system is discrimiatory. Full equallity will be attained when EVERYBODY is the same. (not prefered over another because of race/gender)

How would you acheive this?

Strong Nationalism, again goes without saying.

Could you explain what you mean by this? What do you consider to be nationalism?

Sudea, you sound like a conservative who is not a complete moron. Your beliefs are fine. I just cannot understand why conservatives talk about privatization and more oil dependency.

Sudea, you sound like a conservative who is not a complete moron. Your beliefs are fine. I just cannot understand why conservatives talk about privatization and more oil dependency.

I don't see a problem with privitization for those who want it, on the condition that they don't receive government benefits at all in those areas. I'd rather trust myself with my money than the government. I don't expect it to bail me out if I screw up.

Oil is a major part of our economy, but if something better comes along, I'm all for it. I doubt it'll be too long before that something rears its cleaner, more efficient head.

But that's entirely flawed, how can one 'progress' without conserving a particular methodology of working in a societal atmosphere? Progress only opposes conventionalism, not conservatism. The liberals want to be defined as progressive, but does the substance of liberalism have any actual association with the nature of progress, change, or reform? If the situation is liberal all the time, that's a convention, and is the actual opposite of progressive, the terms "progressive" and "conservative" are not mutually exclusive, it is conventionalism which opposes progress and conventionalism only.


I knew someone would bring up another word to spoil my insights :p (Try to make a phrase of it, to see what really is the opposite of progressive: Do you have conventional views? Or do you have conservative views? ... Now, see what I'm trying to tell you? I bet you don't )

You just have to see this in terms of polarity, believe me...and it will all be clear to you. Or take a dictionary and look up the word conventional.

;)....and no income tax at all.Where do i sign? :D

Conservatism in 3 words:

Hierarchy, Authority, Property

(as opposed to the left-wing's Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité - Liberty, Equality, Brotherhood)

In order to properly understand ANY ideology (conservatism included), you need to look at its history. Conservatism is, plain and simple, the ideology which takes the side of the ruling class, the side of the rich and powerful. Until the early 20th century, conservatives openly proclaimed this fact. Since the introduction of universal suffrage, however, they have been forced to invent various forms of propaganda to persuade the people to vote for them. Openly taking the side of the rich and powerful is no longer in fashion, mostly thanks to the influence of socialism: People started demanding human rights, workers' rights, minority rights, etc.

I would also like to remind the American conservatives in here that contrary to what they have been spoon-fed, the USA is NOT, in fact, the center of the world. They seem to think that American conservatism is the only conservatism out there. Well, I've got news for you: It isn't. As for the "neo-"cons, they're not particularly "neo" at all. In fact, I'd say they follow the tradition of Metternich and Bismarck - European 19th century conservatives.

You see, the notion of "big government" is idiotic. It's not the size that matters, it's what you do with it that counts. In the 19th century, conservatives were for "big government" and liberals were for "limited government" - because the main job of the government was to beat the crap out of anyone who protested against it, to squash the uprisings of the working class and to enforce inhumane exploitation. In the 20th century, however, human rights and the welfare state were established. Government was "conquered" by the left-wing. As a result, conservatives turned against it.

Oh, and another piece of advice to American conservatives: Stop treating your damn constitution as if it's the Bible. This may be hard for you to understand, but the constitution was written by human beings like you and me - not by gods - and, as such, it can be WRONG in various places (I'd say MANY places). Considering the fact that it's 200 years old, it's also quite out of date, and getting further and further removed from our reality.

Saying "X thing is not in the constitution" is NOT a valid argument. Stop acting as if you're some sort of slaves who must follow the "founding fathers's" every whim. If the constitution is against X thing, but X thing is good, then the constitution is wrong and should be changed. End of story.

Another thing to add about conservatives: Being one is very, very dangerous (unless you're a neo-con like Coulter, Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Hannity, Bush, etc.).

Something that bothers me about labels is that it distracts us all from the real issues. If we go on arguing about what we should be _called,_ then how are we supposed to get things done?

To those who call "neo-cons" liberal: If that was true, then why are so many liberals opposed to President Bush?

Something that bothers me about labels is that it distracts us all from the real issues. If we go on arguing about what we should be _called,_ then how are we supposed to get things done?

To those who call "neo-cons" liberal: If that was true, then why are so many liberals opposed to President Bush?

Just because they're opposed to Bush doesn't mean they don't agree with him. Stalin and Trotsky were both communists, and they opposed each other.

To those who call "neo-cons" liberal...
Those who call the neo-cons "liberal" use the term "liberal" with the meaning of "anything I don't like".

When there is a dispute between branches of the same ideology, it is a common thing for them to call each other names that resemble those of their ideological enemies. It's a way of saying "we are more _insert ideology name here_ than you!". Those who call the neo-cons "liberal" are trying to paint themselves as the most conservative conservatives of them all.

Conservatism is the practice of douching till it's sore.

Conservatism is, plain and simple, the ideology which takes the side of the ruling class, the side of the rich and powerful. Until the early 20th century, conservatives openly proclaimed this fact.


Precisely. It's about those in charge who want to maintain their position, who want to keep the things the way they are.

Couldn't agree more with you :)

Just because they're opposed to Bush doesn't mean they don't agree with him. Stalin and Trotsky were both communists, and they opposed each other.
No, they weren't both communists. No matter which one of them you believe, the other wasn't a communist. If Trotsky was a communist, then Stalin wasn't - and vice versa.

Of course, I personally believe the evidence points to the fact that Stalin was a power-hungry traitor who smeared the good name of communism with his crimes, and that Trotsky was right (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1936-rev/index.htm)... but that's besides the point.

Sudea, you sound like a conservative who is not a complete moron. Your beliefs are fine. I just cannot understand why conservatives talk about privatization and more oil dependency.
Privatization is not a bad thing. Just because the government runs something, like the railway, for instance, doesn't mean its a good thing. Government run corporations, when run properly can be good things. But their flaws are overpriced goods, like with the railway, the government could raise prices unfairly just to make more money. (Yes even the government is interested in making a profit). What do you mean by oil dependency? America needs less oil dependency. If a way could be found to find more economical and enviromentally friendly fuels, I'm all for it but the trick is to make it economical. Thats why solar and wind power isn't so popular and Nuclear is. I like hybrid style engines. They cut down oil usage.

No, they weren't both communists. No matter which one of them you believe, the other wasn't a communist. If Trotsky was a communist, then Stalin wasn't - and vice versa.

Of course, I personally believe the evidence points to the fact that Stalin was a power-hungry traitor who smeared the good name of communism with his crimes, and that Trotsky was right (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1936-rev/index.htm)... but that's besides the point.
Stalin was a powerhungry, paranoid dictator who murdered tens of millions of his own citizens in his famous purges. He is nowhere near a true communist.

No, they weren't both communists. No matter which one of them you believe, the other wasn't a communist. If Trotsky was a communist, then Stalin wasn't - and vice versa.

Of course, I personally believe the evidence points to the fact that Stalin was a power-hungry traitor who smeared the good name of communism with his crimes, and that Trotsky was right (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1936-rev/index.htm)... but that's besides the point.

Ugh, do you really think I'm gonna look at a communist website? Sorry, but I have better things to do than vomit all over my computer monitor and have to scrub it off.

Conservatism in 3 words:

Hierarchy, Authority, Property

(as opposed to the left-wing's Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité - Liberty, Equality, Brotherhood)

In order to properly understand ANY ideology (conservatism included), you need to look at its history. Conservatism is, plain and simple, the ideology which takes the side of the ruling class, the side of the rich and powerful. Until the early 20th century, conservatives openly proclaimed this fact. Since the introduction of universal suffrage, however, they have been forced to invent various forms of propaganda to persuade the people to vote for them. Openly taking the side of the rich and powerful is no longer in fashion, mostly thanks to the influence of socialism: People started demanding human rights, workers' rights, minority rights, etc.

I would also like to remind the American conservatives in here that contrary to what they have been spoon-fed, the USA is NOT, in fact, the center of the world. They seem to think that American conservatism is the only conservatism out there. Well, I've got news for you: It isn't. As for the "neo-"cons, they're not particularly "neo" at all. In fact, I'd say they follow the tradition of Metternich and Bismarck - European 19th century conservatives.

You see, the notion of "big government" is idiotic. It's not the size that matters, it's what you do with it that counts. In the 19th century, conservatives were for "big government" and liberals were for "limited government" - because the main job of the government was to beat the crap out of anyone who protested against it, to squash the uprisings of the working class and to enforce inhumane exploitation. In the 20th century, however, human rights and the welfare state were established. Government was "conquered" by the left-wing. As a result, conservatives turned against it.
In the past, Conservatism has taken the side of the rich and powerful. There is no way to explain that off. I am sure you have read some of my other post here so you know that I'm a Conservative. However, I support the working classes and my version of Conservatism wants to help them get better jobs and attain a better education...no matter how much government money is spent! That is part of being what I like to call a Intellectually Honest Conservative!

This is the thing I hate about people in this country (US), everyone is convinced that in the United state's politics there is only a 2 party system: The Liberals and the conservatives. They believe that you must be one or the other or a moderate. This is bullshit. I hate all of you.

Ugh, do you really think I'm gonna look at a communist website? Sorry, but I have better things to do than vomit all over my computer monitor and have to scrub it off.
Oh, excuse me, I was under the impression that your mind was slightly open a bit. I'm glad to see it's closed up nice and tight.

And look! You've even been conditioned to vomit when you make contact with non-conservative books. Good boy!

Oh, excuse me, I was under the impression that your mind was slightly open a bit. I'm glad to see it's closed up nice and tight.

And look! You've even been conditioned to vomit when you make contact with non-conservative propaganda materials. Good boy!
Cool it you two! Constantine Red Army, what you say about big government is true! what is done with it does matter. Most impressions of big government is that it "wastes money" on people who don't do anything (welfare). I personnally like to see people weaned off welfare and helped to find a job, but I think its fair to say that there will always be a unemployment percentile of 5% or so. Big Gov. used in a good way, I think is like having a postal system, running the infastructure, and keeping the nation safe.

Oh, excuse me, I was under the impression that your mind was slightly open a bit. I'm glad to see it's closed up nice and tight.

And look! You've even been conditioned to vomit when you make contact with non-conservative books. Good boy!

:rolleyes: Sorry, but I've seen more than enough communism for one lifetime. Whether they were 'real' communists or not, they called themselves communists, and they turned out to be murdering @$$holes.

Cool it you two!

Yes, Mother! (Just kidding!! :D)

:sniper: Yes, Mother! (Just kidding!! :D)

Sorry, there's nothing I despise more than an ignorant conservative. I'm not so much against cons in general, as I am against RB-style cons.

I'm much more friendly when I meet conservatives like you, for example, Sudaea.

Sorry, there's nothing I despise more than an ignorant conservative. I'm not so much against cons in general, as I am against RB-style cons.

I'm much more friendly when I meet conservatives like you, for example, Sudaea.

:upyours:

Sorry, there's nothing I despise more than an ignorant conservative. I'm not so much against cons in general, as I am against RB-style cons.

I'm much more friendly when I meet conservatives like you, for example, Sudaea.
Hey I'm all for a friendly debate, plus, even though I'm Conservative, I think Communism has some plus sides, mainly its unified national spirit.

Sorry, there's nothing I despise more than an ignorant conservative. I'm not so much against cons in general, as I am against RB-style cons.

I'm much more friendly when I meet conservatives like you, for example, Sudaea.

What the hell is 'ignorant' about hating communism? :rolleyes:

What the hell is 'ignorant' about hating communism? :rolleyes:
All he's asking is to be more open, thats a way to stop the common misconceptions of Conservatism, (not being openminded etc.)

:rolleyes: Sorry, but I've seen more than enough communism for one lifetime. Whether they were 'real' communists or not, they called themselves communists, and they turned out to be murdering @$$holes.
I think I'm a bit more of an authority as far as "seeing them" is concerned, since I'm from Eastern Europe and all...

And I can tell you from personal experience (as well as logical reasoning and studying the matter) that stalinism is not communism. The fact that the stalinists called themselves communists is irrelevant. They also called themselves democratic leaders. Do you believe that?

Hell, do you believe the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is actually democratic?

I think I'm a bit more of an authority as far as "seeing them" is concerned, since I'm from Eastern Europe and all...

And I can tell you from personal experience (as well as logical reasoning and studying the matter) that stalinism is not communism. The fact that the stalinists called themselves communists is irrelevant. They also called themselves democratic leaders. Do you believe that?

Hell, do you believe the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is actually democratic?
Like I said Stalin was a paranoid Dictator who murdered tens of millions of his own citizens. Could have ruined Communism in the worlds eye's as far as I'm concerned.

What the hell is 'ignorant' about hating communism? :rolleyes:
The fact that it's a blind hatred - in other words, the fact that you refuse to listen to anything the communists have to say.

I'm a communist, and I hate Far Right Conservatives with a passion, but that doesn't stop me from visiting their websites, posting on their forums and learning their arguments.

All he's asking is to be more open, thats a way to stop the common misconceptions of Conservatism, (not being openminded etc.)
Read it. :) I'm a Conservative and I don't hate Communists so why would you hate Conservatives like Me? :(

I knew someone would bring up another word to spoil my insights :p (Try to make a phrase of it, to see what really is the opposite of progressive: Do you have conventional views? Or do you have conservative views? ... Now, see what I'm trying to tell you? I bet you don't )

You just have to see this in terms of polarity, believe me...and it will all be clear to you. Or take a dictionary and look up the word conventional.

I think you're the one having trouble with definition sense and duality. Maybe you need a better dictionary: From the Oxford English Dictionary:

Conventional 2. Relating to, or of the nature of, a convention, compact, or agreement; settled by a convention or compact between paries. In law; founded in actual contract. 3. Relating to convention or general agreement; established by social convention; having it's origin or sanction merely in artificial convention of any kind: arbitrarily or artificially determined. 4. Characterized by convention; in accordance with accepted artificial standards of conduct or taste; not natural, original or spontaneous. The first definitional sense was unrelated in that it meant relation to assembly conventions.

Conservative 1. Characterized by a trend by a tendency to preserve or keep intact or unchanged; preservative. The second and only other definition relates to historical political parties and has no place outside of an ad hominem argument.

An example of a Conservative movement that was entirely unconventional; Nazi Germany. They sought to preserve a material ideal of racial characteristics, blond people were extolled and so forth, this was completely against the conventional, previous, establishment of the Weimar republic and it's Conservative tendencies.

Read it. :) I'm a Conservative and I don't hate Communists so why would you hate Conservatives like Me? :(
Hey, I said Far Right Conservatives!

You're okay, because...

In the past, Conservatism has taken the side of the rich and powerful. There is no way to explain that off. I am sure you have read some of my other post here so you know that I'm a Conservative. However, I support the working classes and my version of Conservatism wants to help them get better jobs and attain a better education...no matter how much government money is spent! That is part of being what I like to call a Intellectually Honest Conservative!
...you're an Intellectually Honest Conservative. :)

The fact that it's a blind hatred - in other words, the fact that you refuse to listen to anything the communists have to say.

I'm a communist, and I hate Far Right Conservatives with a passion, but that doesn't stop me from visiting their websites, posting on their forums and learning their arguments.

Yeah, sorry. I'll rephrase it, then. I hate it when people murder in the name of communism. Btw, sorry for flaming back there. :headbang:

And, sorry, I'll check that link. Sudaea does have a point about being more 'open.' I'll try my best to do so.

I think you're the one having trouble with definition sense and duality. Maybe you need a better dictionary: From the Oxford English Dictionary:

Conventional 2. Relating to, or of the nature of, a convention, compact, or agreement; settled by a convention or compact between paries. In law; founded in actual contract. 3. Relating to convention or general agreement; established by social convention; having it's origin or sanction merely in artificial convention of any kind: arbitrarily or artificially determined. 4. Characterized by convention; in accordance with accepted artificial standards of conduct or taste; not natural, original or spontaneous. The first definitional sense was unrelated in that it meant relation to assembly conventions.

Conservative[i]1. Characterized by a tend by a tendency to preserve or keep intact or unchanged; preservative.[i] The second and only other definition relates to historical political parties and has no place outside of an ad hominem argument.

An example of a Conservative movement that was entirely unconventional; Nazi Germany. They sought to preserve a material ideal of racial characteristics, blond people were extolled and so forth, this was completely against the conventional, previous, establishment of the Weimar republic and it's Conservative tendencies.
No matter how many times people say the Nazis were "Conservative" I think they were nothing more than a evil dictatorship with even more evil beliefs.

Yeah, sorry. I'll rephrase it, then. I hate it when people murder in the name of communism.
So do I. In fact, I hate it when people murder in the name of anything.

And the list of excuses for murder really is long... But it's particularly distasteful when the name of a good thing is smeared by the actions of those who tried to use it for their own twisted purposes.

Btw, sorry for flaming back there. :headbang:
Don't worry. I'm not a particularly calm person myself. ;)

And, sorry, I'll check that link. Sudaea does have a point about being more 'open.' I'll try my best to do so.
The link points to the online transcript of Trotsky's most famous book, The Revolution Betrayed. It's precisely about Stalin and the "hijacking" of the Soviet Union (which led to the "hijacking" of the entire communist movement later on, after WW2).

No matter how many times people say the Nazis were "Conservative" I think they were nothing more than a evil dictatorship with even more evil beliefs.

Leaving something outside of definition simply because it also fits what has a relation to something else that doesn't have an intrinsic relation to it otherwise serves no purpose. It is all the better to simply remove 'ad hominem' arguments from any equation and shun those who use them outside of philosophically justified pretexts for 'ad hominem' arguments in general (if there can be any).

No matter how many times people say the Nazis were "Conservative" I think they were nothing more than a evil dictatorship with even more evil beliefs.
Fact: Every writer will tell you that the Nazis were an example of whatever political idea he hates most.

This is made easy by the fact that pretty much any 2 ideologies will have at least some things in common. So if you pick the Nazis and somebody else, chances are you'll find a few similarities.

So do I. In fact, I hate it when people murder in the name of anything.

And the list of excuses for murder really is long... But it's particularly distasteful when the name of a good thing is smeared by the actions of those who tried to use it for their own twisted purposes.


Don't worry. I'm not a particularly calm person myself. ;)


The link points to the online transcript of Trotsky's most famous book, The Revolution Betrayed. It's precisely about Stalin and the "hijacking" of the Soviet Union (which led to the "hijacking" of the entire communist movement later on, after WW2).

Well, since the hatchet seems to be buried, how 'bout being friends? (Even though the idea of a communist and far rightist is an amusing one :D)

Well, since the hatchet seems to be buried, how 'bout being friends? (Even though the idea of a communist and far rightist is an amusing one :D)
Reagan and Gorbachav..... :)

Fact: Every writer will tell you that the Nazis were an example of whatever political idea he hates most.

This is made easy by the fact that pretty much any 2 ideologies will have at least some things in common. So if you pick the Nazis and somebody else, chances are you'll find a few similarities.

Yep. I hear this a lot, for instance, when defending Israel. I like to compare it to someone saying David Crosby is like Hitler because they both have mustaches.

Personally, as someone who lost family because of Hitler and the Nazis, I find the amount of Nazi and Holocaust comparison rhetoric extremely disturbing, not to mention offensive.

If something is bad enough to be talked about, it should be bad enough to be criticized on its own merits. Not compared with the Holocaust or Hitler or whomever.

Just my thoughts.

Well, since the hatchet seems to be buried, how 'bout being friends? (Even though the idea of a communist and far rightist is an amusing one :D)
He he he, sure! Can we split the world between us? :D

Reagan and Gorbachav..... :)
Except that Gorbachev was the Soviet equivalent of Jimmy Carter... ;)

Yep. I hear this a lot, for instance, when defending Israel. I like to compare it to someone saying David Crosby is like Hitler because they both have mustaches.

Personally, as someone who lost family because of Hitler and the Nazis, I find the amount of Nazi and Holocaust comparison rhetoric extremely disturbing, not to mention offensive.

If something is bad enough to be talked about, it should be bad enough to be criticized on its own merits. Not compared with the Holocaust or Hitler or whomever.

Just my thoughts.

I'm very sorry to hear about your family.

He he he, sure! Can we split the world between us? :D;)

Okay! Which continents do you want? :D

I'm very sorry to hear about your family.

Yeah, well, it happened before I was born, so there's not much I can do about it, aside from try to find out more about them. I really can't stand it when it's exploited for political purposes, though, particularly in America, when people call each other Nazis, or, for instance, call abortion "the silent Holocaust". I once saw a pamphlet with an aborted fetus side-by-side with stacked corpses at Auschwitz. I thought my head was going to explode.

I'm sorry about your relatives... :(

Yeah, well, it happened before I was born, so there's not much I can do about it, aside from try to find out more about them. I really can't stand it when it's exploited for political purposes, though, particularly in America, when people call each other Nazis, or, for instance, call abortion "the silent Holocaust". I once saw a pamphlet with an aborted fetus side-by-side with stacked corpses at Auschwitz. I thought my head was going to explode.
I agree. Mass murder is being trivialized far too often in political discussions. Sometimes you'll see people arguing along the lines of "your guys killed more people than my guys!"

Nevertheless, such talk is unavoidable, seeing how just about every side has blood on its hands.

Yep. I hear this a lot, for instance, when defending Israel. I like to compare it to someone saying David Crosby is like Hitler because they both have mustaches.

Personally, as someone who lost family because of Hitler and the Nazis, I find the amount of Nazi and Holocaust comparison rhetoric extremely disturbing, not to mention offensive.

If something is bad enough to be talked about, it should be bad enough to be criticized on its own merits. Not compared with the Holocaust or Hitler or whomever.

Just my thoughts.
What happened to your family was a terrible tragidy and should never have happened. My sympathies.

I'm sorry about your relatives... :(


I agree. Mass murder is being trivialized far too often in political discussions. Sometimes you'll see people arguing along the lines of "your guys killed more people than my guys!"

Nevertheless, such talk is unavoidable, seeing how just about every side has blood on its hands.
Thats wrong. You shouldn't have to base an arguement on how many people someone killed. Thats just plain wrong.

I'm sorry about your relatives... :(


I agree. Mass murder is being trivialized far too often in political discussions. Sometimes you'll see people arguing along the lines of "your guys killed more people than my guys!"

Nevertheless, such talk is unavoidable, seeing how just about every side has blood on its hands.

Well said.

Thats wrong. You shouldn't have to base an arguement on how many people someone killed. Thats just plain wrong.

Another excellent point.

Okay. I am going to ask my question for a third time, and then I am going to give up. I need this answered quickly and concisely. Here is an example of what I mean. If someone asked me to justify why I have choosen my political standing I would say:

I am a moderate liberal - moderate libertarian - moderate socialist. I believe what I do because there are in fact poor people in the world and they too need to be taken care of. Now I understand there are some people who are truely lazy, and they do not deserve governmental help, but those who are deemed 'un lazy' (yes I realize that to deem someone in such a way is probably never going to be perfect but...) deserve the right to education and healthcare. I believe the government should provide at least those two services free of charge because I believe that they are a necessity in the world in which we live. I am libertarian not in the fact that I believe in local government; I would rather not have much state action at all, just state enforcement of government action; but because I believe in total freedom of speech, total freedom of religion, my right to privacy, and because I completely hate the Patriot Act Twins. I am socialist in that I believe in the saying, "to each according to his ability, to each according to his need". I believe socialism is the next fundamental step away from the capitalism that is destroying the environment and increasing the monetary gap. I am not a full blown socialist because you are entitled to your money, but rather I am more of a the rich shall pay for the poor to eat (I just made that up right there, and it is not half bad).

Now maybe that was not quick or concise, but it was understandable, refrained from using words with -ism *socialism* and justifies my beliefs, though it is rather broad, like for instance I am pro gun ban, which is not actually against the libertarian view because libertarians tend to only want more freedom than what our limited freedoms give us now as opposed to how anarchists would want total unbridled freedom. Maybe you see what I am saying, maybe you do not, but it stands, who can explain the right in the way I have just explained me?

The Right in the world mainly the USA belive that, when you say the rich shall pay for the poor to eat, that shouldn't happen. The Right would want the poor, through education, not welfare, to become smarter and get better paying jobs. The Right want more defence spending. The right follow the Constitution (but not all the time though :( ) They are for states rights and local rights then Federal. No restrictions of guns. 2nd Amendment. Lower taxes, in any at all. People should be allowed to succeed and fail at their own merits. When you say that the poor should be taken care of by the government, the Right believe that, that makes the poor feel inadequate or worthless, that they don't have the intellegence to do things for themselves, that they need the government to help them along, which is totally untrue.
I hope that helps you understand the Right better. Try to find some of my other posts especially in the Thread "Fatel Flaw with Conservatives" or something like that.

Now what Sudea just said is what I am talking about. That could almost make me a conservative. Does anyone have a wesite for this type of question by the way?

Conservatism is just the baqsic belief that it was better in the old days. Nostalgia essentially for the times when we could own slaves and beat our wives.
No, you are thining of reactionaries who believe that it was better in the old days, conservatism (idealy) is about keeping the status-quo and not changing stuff around. In reality, both the democratic and republican parties try to accomplish this goal.

http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html

Check this out - may give some clear views of where you stand politically. Personally, I find the terms 'liberal' and 'conservative' to be way too vague and disingenuous to be of any use - anyone who wants to maintain things the way they are is 'conserving' the old way of life - including 'liberals' who advocate abortion, taxation of anyone who makes more money than they do, and admire Karl Marx and Mao for their use of government force, as well as 'conservatives' who support the 'war' on drugs, invading non-Jewish Middle East nations, admiring G.W. for his war on freedom....er...for freedom (what am I saying?) hee hee....

A better notion would be 'right-wing' and 'left-wing' - but even then, the two are just opposite sides of the same coin - let's use guns and bullets to make others share our viewpoints (i.e., it is morally correct to coerce others to sacrifice their values in order to support ours). Both are immoral from where I see them.

See, everything balances out in the end... so, Conservatism is the one extreme while Liberalism is the other... so, in the end, we'll all die in Moderation.

See, everything balances out in the end... so, Conservatism is the one extreme while Liberalism is the other... so, in the end, we'll all die in Moderation.

I'd say it's more that Conservatism and Liberalism INCLUDE the extremes. ;)

I think you're the one having trouble with definition sense and duality. Maybe you need a better dictionary: From the Oxford English Dictionary:

Conventional 2. Relating to, or of the nature of, a convention, compact, or agreement; settled by a convention or compact between paries. In law; founded in actual contract. 3. Relating to convention or general agreement; established by social convention; having it's origin or sanction merely in artificial convention of any kind: arbitrarily or artificially determined. 4. Characterized by convention; in accordance with accepted artificial standards of conduct or taste; not natural, original or spontaneous. The first definitional sense was unrelated in that it meant relation to assembly conventions.

Conservative 1. Characterized by a trend by a tendency to preserve or keep intact or unchanged; preservative. The second and only other definition relates to historical political parties and has no place outside of an ad hominem argument.

An example of a Conservative movement that was entirely unconventional; Nazi Germany. They sought to preserve a material ideal of racial characteristics, blond people were extolled and so forth, this was completely against the conventional, previous, establishment of the Weimar republic and it's Conservative tendencies.


Conventional is more close to general agreement indeed. Conservatism comes from conservare, which means : "to keep things".

But the referring to Nazi germany to prove your point I find too easy. Nazi's were not conservative, they wanted change, in a very sick way. Trying to put the nazi ideology in general political categories I find TWISTED.

So if you don't mind I just stick to my own explanation.

See, everything balances out in the end... so, Conservatism is the one extreme while Liberalism is the other... so, in the end, we'll all die in Moderation.

We all die regardless of political persuasion. That is the only certainty. Is 'moderation' a bad thing? As far as I can tell, correct political theory is nowhere between the two 'extremes' - good politcial policy is total non-intervention on behalf of government except to protect those who opt to have it from damage to property or person - in other words, on a Federal level, national defense (in the case of America, when violent Canadians decide to invade) and on State levels, as a vehicle of prosecuting those who damage persons or their property. I do not beleive that is anywhere between the two extremes - it's an entirely different concept...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Independant Turkeys
live and let live attitude

That's liberalism.

Then why do Liberals keep reaching into my pocket to give it to someone who did not earn it?

WEB DICTIONARY:
Noun: liberalism 'lib(u)ru`lizum
A political orientation that favours progress and reform

An economic theory advocating free competition and a self-regulating market and the gold standard

Okay. I am going to ask my question for a third time, and then I am going to give up. I need this answered quickly and concisely. Here is an example of what I mean. If someone asked me to justify why I have choosen my political standing I would say:

I am a moderate liberal - moderate libertarian - moderate socialist. I believe what I do because there are in fact poor people in the world and they too need to be taken care of. Now I understand there are some people who are truely lazy, and they do not deserve governmental help, but those who are deemed 'un lazy' (yes I realize that to deem someone in such a way is probably never going to be perfect but...) deserve the right to education and healthcare. I believe the government should provide at least those two services free of charge because I believe that they are a necessity in the world in which we live. I am libertarian not in the fact that I believe in local government; I would rather not have much state action at all, just state enforcement of government action; but because I believe in total freedom of speech, total freedom of religion, my right to privacy, and because I completely hate the Patriot Act Twins. I am socialist in that I believe in the saying, "to each according to his ability, to each according to his need". I believe socialism is the next fundamental step away from the capitalism that is destroying the environment and increasing the monetary gap. I am not a full blown socialist because you are entitled to your money, but rather I am more of a the rich shall pay for the poor to eat (I just made that up right there, and it is not half bad).

Now maybe that was not quick or concise, but it was understandable, refrained from using words with -ism *socialism* and justifies my beliefs, though it is rather broad, like for instance I am pro gun ban, which is not actually against the libertarian view because libertarians tend to only want more freedom than what our limited freedoms give us now as opposed to how anarchists would want total unbridled freedom. Maybe you see what I am saying, maybe you do not, but it stands, who can explain the right in the way I have just explained me?

Conservatism is a label that has no real bases for how a person feels about how any government is to be run. That is why you have to stay with issues and not labels.

The government should not be in social programs - there are plenty of groups and foundations (Bill Gates just gave 3.2 BILLION dollars to his foundation), that can and do help the poor. Let me decide who I want to give MY money to, not some detached representative trying to get reelected. People are mistaken to think that any government can fix human flaws. When ever you hear someone say "Why isn't the government doing something about this?", a lot of bad laws are made from GOOD intentions.

Conservatism is just the baqsic belief that it was better in the old days. Nostalgia essentially for the times when we could own slaves and beat our wives.
OK, you need a serious refresher course on politics. IF what you say is true, the evil conservatives in the Senate and HOuse along with George W. Bush would have already revoked amendments and legalized slavery, right?

Your statement, as well as mine, are a perfect example of the old political joke: What is the difference between Conservatives and Liberals? Conservatives think their opponents are stupid, Liberals think their opponents are evil.

I just cannot understand why conservatives talk about privatization and more oil dependency.

Government run programs have shown themselves to be very bad even when endowed with sickening amounts of funding. For instance take public schools in Washington DC: The government dumps $4,000+ on each student, about the amount of per student allotments in good private schools. Yet the students in these schools have low test scores and are generally poorly preforming students (Though teachers unions and substandard teaching requirements contribue to this). In goverment social security you get a 2% return for the taxes you paid to social security. The government is a waste, beauracrats squander tax dollars and dump them in pseudo-socialist garbage programs instead of allowing hard working Americans to keep their money. Do you think that it is reasonable to give corrupt government your money so they can return 2% of it to you in deplorable services? When buisnesses do poor service they close shop from lack of customers and capital, but the government takes more money with no further benefit to the services. Think about it and you will see my point.

And Oil dependency could be fixed if we drilled in ANWR and you don't spport that so don't complain.

And Oil dependency could be fixed if we drilled in ANWR and you don't spport that so don't complain.

That is highly debateable.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4542853/

The report, issued by the Energy Information Administration, or EIA, said that if Congress gave the go-ahead to pump oil from Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, the crude could begin flowing by 2013 and reach a peak of 876,000 barrels a day by 2025.

But even at peak production, the EIA analysis said, the United States would still have to import two-thirds of its oil, as opposed to an expected 70 percent if the refuge’s oil remained off the market.

...Congress has grappled for years over whether to allow oil companies access to the 1.5 million-acre coastal plain in the Alaska refuge, which geologists believe harbors about 10.4 billion barrels of crude.

10.4 billion barrels. We use 19.7 million barrels A DAY. (Source: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/ene_oil_con)

You say ANWR will eliminate our foreign oil dependancy?

Think about this:

- Let's say we COULD get at all the oil in ANWR right now, immediately.

- Let's say we decided to ONLY use ANWR oil, to eliminate our "foreign dependancy".

Know what would happen?

We'd be FINISHED with it in 527 days. Less than two years.

ANWR is NOT the solution for our foreign oil dependancy. The best it can do is help "cut down", and even then, it's such a limited source (in relation to how much we use) that it really doesn't make much of a dent. If the article's reliable, the MOST we could get per day would be 876,000 in 20 years. That's not even one 19th of the oil we use per day TODAY!

ANWR is a pipe dream... literally.

Perhaps if government did not tax buisness so heavily they could make some progress.

Perhaps if government did not tax buisness so heavily they could make some progress.

U.S.A.
Ya, a modified flat tax for businesses. Let them take twice the salary of all of thier AMERICAN Employees (up to $250k), 100% of CAPITAL investments and 25% of all other expenses off the top of Gross Profits - tax the rest at 20%.