NationStates Jolt Archive

If you claim to be a conservative burn down your home and destroy every thing you own and move onto an amish plantation and when your there burn down that amash plantation and carry a stick and say uhg then burn throw your stick into a river becuase you had to get rid of the knowlage of fire then turn back into a single celled organism then are you try a conservative.


yes this thread is stupid.

I can't disagree with you.. yeah, pretty dumb.. :sniper:

Wwwwwwwwwweeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I can't disagree with you.. yeah, pretty dumb.. :sniper:

technicly you just did i said this thread was stupid nothing about dumb

technicly you just did i said this thread was stupid nothing about dumb


Stupid = Dumb.. no?

Stupid


Slow to learn or understand; obtuse.
Tending to make poor decisions or careless mistakes.
Marked by a lack of intelligence or care; foolish or careless: a stupid mistake.
Dazed, stunned, or stupefied.
Pointless; worthless:


Dumb

Lacking the power of speech. Used of animals and inanimate objects.
Often Offensive. Incapable of using speech; mute. Used of humans. See Usage Note at mute.
Temporarily speechless, as with shock or fear: I was dumb with disbelief.
Unwilling to speak; taciturn.
Not expressed or articulated in sounds or words: dumb resentment.
Nautical. Not self-propelling.
Conspicuously unintelligent; stupid: dumb officials; a dumb decision.
Unintentional; haphazard

Oh sure get all technical on me, ok you win..it's stupid. :D

Thank you :)

You actually make a good point. But it's not about conservatives, its about national politic Republicans and Bush in particular. Bush is almost a fiscal liberal, while Kerry is an uber-left fiscal socialist.

Neither of them seem socialist to me.

Kerry is an uber-left fiscal socialist.

I thought he was a millionaire?

This is all very true - the "liberals" and "conservatives" of a democracy are actually pretty far to the left in terms of government choice (IE further on the right would be monarchies, theocracies, totalitarian states, etc)

I disagree. Totalitarian states, Theocracies and Monarchies are more likely to have controlled economies than a modern democracy and thus be more left wing in an economic sense.

I disagree. Totalitarian states, Theocracies and Monarchies are more likely to have controlled economies than a modern democracy and thus be more left wing in an economic sense.
Does controlled economy = left wing?

I suppose it could, but couldn't the reasons behind the controlled economy determine where it is?

Bush is a neo-conservitive, a true conservitive won't even consider him a conservitive.

Oh, and Kerry is a billionare thanks to Mrs. Heinz, not a millionare.

Does controlled economy = left wing?

I suppose it could, but couldn't the reasons behind the controlled economy determine where it is?

Yes, controlled economy does typically equal left-wing. Though if a nation with a controlled economy is uber-nationalist, it will be classified right-wing. Eg, Nazi Germany. The left-right system is pretty flawed.

uber-left fiscal socialist

john kerry!? you should come to Europe because you really have no idea what a socialist is. in my opinion Bush= Extreme right wing, Kerry= very right wing.

john kerry!? you should come to Europe because you really have no idea what a socialist is. in my opinion Bush= Extreme right wing, Kerry= very right wing.

Heh. Exactly.

Does controlled economy = left wing?

I suppose it could, but couldn't the reasons behind the controlled economy determine where it is?Yes, controlled economy = left-wing, it's part of what it means.

Take fascist dictatorships as another example, they are mistakenly called far-right but that's only because of their being nationalist (as if the USSR wasn't nationalist too!), but most fascists and neo-fascists are in fact very left-wing, they believe in a much more controlled economy even than a normal left-wing party does, such as nationalised health-care etc, fascists should be called far-left but communists (which they are virtually identical to) already have that monicker.

http://www.ebaumsworld.com/forumfun/sucks5.jpg

Yes, controlled economy = left-wing, it's part of what it means.

Take fascist dictatorships as another example, they are mistakenly called far-right but that's only because of their being nationalist (as if the USSR wasn't nationalist too!), but most fascists and neo-fascists are in fact very left-wing, they believe in a much more controlled economy even than a normal left-wing party does, such as nationalised health-care etc, fascists should be called far-left but communists (which they are virtually identical to) already have that monicker.

Well, In a fascist state it is mainly the vital state industries such as steel, arms manufacturing, etc. that they want nationalised, making them more left than modern democracies, but, they still supported small enterprise and wealth/social classes and they didn't believe in welfare- making them more right wing than communist/socialist nations. Its a problem with the left-right system- it doesn't take into account fascism, which is a class of its own.

BTW, the USSR preached internationalism, not nationalism, no matter how warped that may seem, considering that they were close to fascist.

http://www.ebaumsworld.com/forumfun/sucks5.jpg

You are an idiot. Go away. We've all seen those pictures before.

Bush, believe it or not, is an extreme liberal, therefore Left wing.

I disagree. Totalitarian states, Theocracies and Monarchies are more likely to have controlled economies than a modern democracy and thus be more left wing in an economic sense.
EXCUSE ME??

Go read a history book for God's sake. The Left-wing was BORN out of the fight AGAINST Monarchies and Theocracies.

Does "Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité" ring any bells?

Do you know how the terms "left" and "right" were first invented? They come from the seating of the first French Parliament. The monarchists sat on the right and the republicans sat on the left.

Yes, controlled economy = left-wing, it's part of what it means.
Wrong. Ask any anarchist. Anarchism is left-wing, yet it certainly does not want any kind of "controlled" economy. Less extreme left-wing ideologies include Libertarian Socialism, for example, which argues for a limited state and worker-owned businesses. Also, Communism wants to abolish the state altogether at some point in the future.

The LEFT is defined through its support for EQUALITY and COLLECTIVE PROPERTY. This may or may not be achieved through a controlled economy.

Take fascist dictatorships as another example, they are mistakenly called far-right but that's only because of their being nationalist...
No, they are called far-right because they uphold hierarchy and inequality. The core tenet of Fascism is INEQUALITY. That is what makes it right-wing and opposes it to the egalitarianism of the Left.

...but most fascists and neo-fascists are in fact very left-wing, they believe in a much more controlled economy even than a normal left-wing party does, such as nationalised health-care etc.
Every normal left-wing party believes in nationalized healthcare. In fact, even the vast majority of right-wing parties believe in nationalized healthcare.

Or, at least, that's how things are in Europe and the rest of the world, minus America. It's not our fault the USA is (in some ways) more right-wing than the nazis...

If you claim to be a conservative burn down your home and destroy every thing you own and move onto an amish plantation and when your there burn down that amash plantation and carry a stick and say uhg then burn throw your stick into a river becuase you had to get rid of the knowlage of fire then turn back into a single celled organism then are you try a conservative.


yes this thread is stupid.


fascinating! this thread is the most clear example of far left wackoism i have yet to see. what on earth are you trying to say? beyond me......also, a lot more people are conservative as compared to liberal. now my question to you. what is so wrong with you that you resort to hate speech and incomprehensible babbling? I think its time for you to calm down and think up a better topic.that would make me want to actualy think about taking you seriously. but for now, you are a rambling agitator.

Well, In a fascist state it is mainly the vital state industries such as steel, arms manufacturing, etc. that they want nationalised, making them more left than modern democracies, but, they still supported small enterprise and wealth/social classes and they didn't believe in welfare- making them more right wing than communist/socialist nations. Its a problem with the left-right system- it doesn't take into account fascism, which is a class of its own. Far more industries were nationalised under any fascist nation you can name than is typical under free capitalist nations. All neo-fascist parties I can think of across Europe (since there's no major neo-fascist party in the US), such as the BNP in my country (UK) and Le Pen's fascists to the Austrian fascists that came to power etc, etc believe in far more welfare than is normal. Try doing the Political Compass, the BNP are rightly identified by that as the most left-wing of all parties in the UK, comparable only to the Greens.
BTW, the USSR preached internationalism, not nationalism, no matter how warped that may seem, considering that they were close to fascist.It preached both, in its own warped sense, just like the fascists did. Many USSR athletes were killed or tortured if they failed, doping was rife amongst the USSR olympic team - that wasn't due to an absence of nationalism. As far as the USSR wanted internationalism it was in the sense of bringing the rest of the world under the Soviet flag, quite comparable really to Hitler's Third Reich.
Wrong. Ask any anarchist. Anarchism is left-wing, yet it certainly does not want any kind of "controlled" economy. Less extreme left-wing ideologies include Libertarian Socialism, for example, which argues for a limited state and worker-owned businesses. Also, Communism wants to abolish the state altogether at some point in the future.Anarchism is only left-wing in the sense that it is liberal socially, it is liberal economically which is right-wing. Anarchism is quite comparable to classical liberalism, or Libertarianism as Americans call it as the term liberal has been bastardised over their to mean that which it does not.
Every normal left-wing party believes in nationalized healthcare. In fact, even the vast majority of right-wing parties believe in nationalized healthcare.

Or, at least, that's how things are in Europe and the rest of the world, minus America. It's not our fault the USA is (in some ways) more right-wing than the nazis...Actually across most of Europe the healthcare system is not fully nationalised, even France has some charges and insurance as norm, my nations NHS is rare in being a trully national health-care structure and while the three main parties all have policies leading away from this nationalised structure even that is not enough for the BNP scum, they want a far more nationalised system than we have. Check out any so-called far-right party in Europe, their philosophy extends to more than just xenophobia it extends to many areas and can be summarised essentially as "welfare for whites only".

fascinating! this thread is the most clear example of far left wackoism i have yet to see. what on earth are you trying to say? beyond me

Think what the meaning of conservative is for ten minutes and then read this read. And think for ten minutes.

There's a reason why the Nazi's were called National Socialists, only an ideologically blinded person could look at their philosophies and say they were economically right-wing. They were authoritarian, but no more than other extreme socialists like the Soviets.

Above I mentioned the Political Compass - www.politicalcompass.org - here is a well-written selection from it: It's muddled thinking to simply describe the likes of the British National Party as "extreme right". The truth is that on issues like health, transport, housing, protectionism and globalisation, their economics are left of Labour, let alone the Conservatives. It's in areas like police power, military power, school discipline, law and order, race and nationalism that the BNP's real extremism - as authoritarians - is clear.
This mirrors France's National Front. In running some local governments, they reinstated certain welfare measures which their Socialist predecessors had abandoned. Like similar authoritarian parties that have sprung up around Europe, they have come to be seen in some quarters as champions of the underdog, as long as the underdog isn't Black, Arab, gay or Jewish !

Think what the meaning of conservative is for ten minutes and then read this read. And think for ten minutes.Conservative at the most basic level means opposed to change, everything in that introductory post involved repeated changes from the status quo. The status-quo is that I live in a home and while I don't think my landlord would be happy if I burnt it down I also don't see how it is conservative.

YOU BASTARDS you made a serious thread out of this :(

Think what the meaning of conservative is for ten minutes and then read this read. And think for ten minutes.

How would a conservative stance in terms of the meaning of the word, about conserving every development and advancement that has proved itself for humanity's well-being, include reverting to an amoeba? It's much more realistic to compare leftists & viral illness in terminology; seeing as when changing their respective environments to their own predominance both are considered to be "progressive"

I think the original poster was saying how Conservatives are afraid of change,and basically we will not evolve or progress without encouraging diversity & challenging the norm,albeit in an extreme way

Wow. We're arguing over the definitions of liberal, conservative, left-wing, and right-wing. Why don'tcha just get out a dictionary?

[/annoying pedant]

I think the original poster was saying how Conservatives are afraid of change,and basically we will not evolve or progress without encouraging diversity & challenging the norm,albeit in an extreme way Again, no change means keeping the status-quo. Everything he proposed is un-doing the existing system, which is liberal not conservative ;)

This thread hasn't been deleted yet?

You actually make a good point. But it's not about conservatives, its about national politic Republicans and Bush in particular. Bush is almost a fiscal liberal, while Kerry is an uber-left fiscal socialist.


thats about right, I agree. Sad isn't? :(

This thread hasn't been deleted yet?
nope

You actually make a good point. But it's not about conservatives, its about national politic Republicans and Bush in particular. Bush is almost a fiscal liberal, while Kerry is an uber-left fiscal socialist.


lol socialism is generally considered to be "right" not left :)

Communism is generally considered left

lol socialism is generally considered to be "right" not left :)

Communism is generally considered leftWho considers socialism to be "right" not "left"? Only National Socialism has ever been called right, and that is both foolish and because of the Nationalist sense, most definitely not because of it's socialist side.