NationStates Jolt Archive

I reckon us conservatives are going the way of the Soviets. We lost the US, the UK and Australia, and we're on the way to losing Japan, Canada, France and Germany.

Is conservatism just on the way out?

For the moment but don't cry, it'll be back.

Hopefully.

I reckon us conservatives are going the way of the Soviets. We lost the US, the UK and Australia, and we're on the way to losing Japan, Canada, France and Germany.

Is conservatism just on the way out?
On the other hand, the British Conservatives are having the next government handed to them on a plate, all main Japanese political parties all tend to be fairly conservative, and given how close elections are in Germany, it could go either way. America, of course, still has conservative state governments.

So my answer would be 'no'.

Yes. It's in the process of breaking apart into the elements that for some reason made it into this concept of "conservatism" going into the late 20th century: economic liberalism, religious fundamentalism, nationalism, xenophobia and the like. Many, if not most, of these elements actually clash in several ways and have no business being together. Already you'd be hard-pressed to find anyone who actually agrees with every position a "conservative" ideal or party would prescribe.

Which is not what you were actually asking, but meh. As for what you're actually asking: yes, the world has swung to the left. Wars going spectacularly badly and economic collapse tend to bring pacifists and "let the state fix all"-types to the forefront. And I'm not making a value judgement in this case, that's just how it is.

Wars going spectacularly badly and economic collapse tend to bring pacifists and "let the state fix all"-types to the forefront.

...or the opposite, really depends on your example.

For the moment but don't cry, it'll be back.

I have to agree, it is a cyclical thing; the loss in Australia was partly because Howard was viewed as old and tired as opposed to Rudd.

Indeed, if you look at all the election victories over the last two years, the victorious parties have all been led by either late Baby Boomers, or early Gen Xers. I would argue that the supposed death of Conservatism is largely because they are increasingly viewed as tired, Bush had control over America for 8 years, and the Republicans had control over Congress for 12; Howard had control over Australia for 11 years.

The same thing happened to the left in New Zealand where the Clark Government was viewed as increasingly old and tired, and it wouldn't be surprising - Clark was Deputy Prime Minister in the late 1980s, and a number of Cabinet Ministers in our last government were either junior ministers in the late 1980s, or back benchers. Compare that with our current government which only has a handful of ministers that were there in the 1990s.

I can only hope so.

No of course not it just seems that way because you have a bunch of bratty kids going "omg smash the right wing" because some guy at a peace rally gave them a pamphlet on the magical Green party that will solve all the worlds problems.

also as a rule the older generations vote right which is rather good when you start looking at the statistics

we're on the way to losing France

you hold France if anything conservatism has done really well in the 2000's (not that I'd say your on the way to losing it)

Not yet, but they're working on it.

It's all about reliability. When conservatives say that they're the best choice because they are holding up traditional values, but neither manage to improve living standards nor prove to be any less prone to corruption than the opposition, the term "conservative" becomes an empty platitude and therefore dies out.

Most of the so-called 'left' in the west are conservative in comparison to the true ideals they supposedly 'stand for', so I'd say, no; where's your rock? I'd like to hide under it too.

SNIP

Bullshit, as per usual. Conservatism hasn't disappeared in the US in the slightest, or the UK. The next UK government is almost guaranteed to be run by the Tories, the Democrats in America aren't exactly far left, and the Republicans will be back one day anyway.

Given what it's done to my country, I would sure hope so. Wars are almost always a bad thing, and this is 100% so when they're completely unprovoked (Iraq). Tax cuts for the rich do next to nothing for the economy because they almost always horde it. Deregulation doesn't always work either. Look at what happened to California when the electrical industry was deregulated. And for an example of what happens when we let religion take over, look at Iran. "My country, right or wrong?" Sounds a lot like what allowed Hitler to commit his atrocities. And, finally, foreigners have so much to offer us. As long as they follow proper procedure to get in, learn at least enough of the local language to get by, and contribute something positive while they're here, there's nothing wrong with having people born elsewhere in your midst.

Deregulation doesn't always work either.

Nothing always works, and the deregulation was too quick, like pulling the rug from beneath someones feet in a cartoon. The rest of your post is spot on. *raises a glass for a great post*

Sounds a lot like what allowed Hitler to commit his atrocities...

Godwin's law...

Nothing always works, and the deregulation was too quick, like pulling the rug from beneath someones feet in a cartoon. The rest of your post is spot on. *raises a glass for a great post*

They think it does, which is why I worded it like that.

Godwin's law...

That only applies if it's irrelevant, right? But here's the problem: That attitude the Republicans promoted while Bush was in office is the same one Hitler pushed on the Germans during his rule.

That only applies if it's irrelevant, right? But here's the problem: That attitude the Republicans promoted while Bush was in office is the same one Hitler pushed on the Germans during his rule.

Godwin's law just says that as discussion length increases the probability of a Hitler/Nazi reference approaches one. It has nothing to say on the relevance of validity of the reference. It is entirely non-judgemental.

For the logical fallacy of comparing something to Hitler/Nazism where this is irrelevant see Reducto ad Hitlerum

Yes it is. :D

Delightful!

Godwin's law just says that as discussion length increases the probability of a Hitler/Nazi reference approaches one. It has nothing to say on the relevance of validity of the reference. It is entirely non-judgemental.

For the logical fallacy of comparing something to Hitler/Nazism where this is irrelevant see Reducto ad Hitlerum

Ah. My bad.

The current conservative movement in the US is dying, but there will always be conservatism in some form or other since it is a political philosophy which transcends politics.

I reckon us conservatives are going the way of the Soviets. We lost the US, the UK and Australia, and we're on the way to losing Japan, Canada, France and Germany.

Is conservatism just on the way out?

I hope so, if it is your kind. Were you not the one who said how "inferior" Africans are?

Besides, a conservative today is a wild-eyed liberal radical yesteryear.

What part of conservatism ??
The religious part ? I would hope so.
the Libertarian leaning get the government to stay out of my business part? I would hope not.

and where should we bury the body? ;)


But, just as Socialism made a comeback after the fall of Communism, Conservatism likely will as well after the fall of Neocons...

It's a misnomer. For "conservatives" to lose power, they had to be IN power in the first place.

Wars going spectacularly badly and economic collapse tend to bring pacifists and "let the state fix all"-types to the forefront. And I'm not making a value judgement in this case, that's just how it is.
What governments are currently led by pacifists and/or full-blown socialists? Certainly none of the governments that FO mentioned.

Though a particular brand of conservatism may have suffered blows in the US, there is no huge comeback of the Left in Western countries; particularly, I see no added support for socialist governments. As others have said, the Tories will most probably take the next UK general election, and it's not like the socialist parties in other Western countries are running riot.

conservatism can never die, it just adapts to its new surroundings after failing horrifically.

conservatism can never die, it just adapts to its new surroundings after failing horrifically.

Yeah, I believe it went something like this....

"I’d like to share a revelation that I’ve had, during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species and I realized that you aren’t actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with its surrounding environment, but you conservatives do not. You move to an area and you multiply, and multiply until every natural resource is consumed. The only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? A virus. conservatives are a disease, a cancer of this planet. You are a plague, and we... are the cure." - Agent Liberal

If by conservative you mean that bizarre statism practiced by Bush and his cronies, sure. It failed and deserves to die out. However, a system based on individual, economic, and political freedom will never die and will continue to thrive even in the face of the growing trend towards an overbearing nanny state. Eventually, people will realize that the government cannot solve their problems and the entire system will collapse. Hopefully, the result will be keeping the good elements of government while eliminating the restrictions on personal freedom imposed in the name of whatever fashionable cause is used to justify oppression.

Of course, calling that position "conservatism" is a bit of a stretch since most conservatives seem more obsessed with legislating away the things they don't like rather than adhering to the successful principles of freedom. That's precisely why I don't identify with any form of "conservatism"...it packages the same nanny-state bullshit in to a different box while the fundamental assault on freedom continues. A corrupt corporation ripping you off or denying your freedoms while under the government's aegis is no different than any government agent doing the same.

I want a system that encourages self-interest and personal responsibility and always works towards that end. Sometimes, that might require government to overcome the damages of years past, but government should always be seen as a means to an end rather than the end itself.

Conservatism isn't dead but so called conservative politicians are being steadily kicked out of power. People still want the gov't to handle money responsibly, keep taxes as low as possible, and help small businesses grow, but with big businesses like AIG being so corrupt people are quickly losing trust in giving businesses tax cuts and less regulation.

Besides, a conservative today is a wild-eyed liberal radical yesteryear.
Just like a politician/radio commentator caught in flagrante with drug abuse/tax evasion/hot males today is a preaching conservative yesteryear.:D

Besides, there is an European example where, erm, "conservatism" is thriving and was only re-elected last year: Italy.

In national politics here in the USA, "conservatives" have long since given up acting conservative and "liberals" would rather regulate than allow liberty. The labels are meaningless. Look outside the major parties to find those who truly believe as you do.

In national politics here in the USA, "conservatives" have long since given up acting conservative and "liberals" would rather regulate than allow liberty. The labels are meaningless. Look outside the major parties to find those who truly believe as you do.

Which makes you a......COMMUNIST!!!!!! :mad::eek:

In national politics here in the USA, "conservatives" have long since given up acting conservative and "liberals" would rather regulate than allow liberty.

how, exactly, are we to identify true conservatives when we encounter one?

how, exactly, are we to identify true conservatives when we encounter one?

Its the funny little dots that give it away....Those droids just look at symbols...

how, exactly, are we to identify true conservatives when we encounter one?

They nudge your foot in airport bathroom stalls. :D

Dont let the door hit you guys on the way out.

how, exactly, are we to identify true conservatives when we encounter one?

You can tell by the bumper stickers.

However, a system based on individual, economic, and political freedom will never die and will continue to thrive even in the face of the growing trend towards an overbearing nanny state...

Of course, calling that position "conservatism" is a bit of a stretch...
Quite.

Sounds like liberalism to me.

Quite.

Sounds like liberalism to me.

Seriously, it confuses the fuck out of me...Ive often mused that we label our people wrong, lol...

Todays liberals are tomorrows conservatives.

Seriously, it confuses the fuck out of me...Ive often mused that we label our people wrong, lol...
The US labels of 'conservative' and 'liberal' just make no sense to me, especially their link with the political left-right spectrum.

The US labels of 'conservative' and 'liberal' just make no sense to me, especially their link with the political left-right spectrum.

like has to do with we started as an economically liberal society.
So the conservatives who are opposing change are advocating staying the same.
Where as Europe's modern politics began with the hold overs of Feudalism and Mercantilism in place.

Though even switching the terms doesn't make the parties match.

The US labels of 'conservative' and 'liberal' just make no sense to me, especially their link with the political left-right spectrum.

I think the real confusion lies with the left-right spectrum itself...American Conservatives tend to be where Milton Friedman is on the Compass, which means they are still pretty Libertarian, just Economically Right Wing...

Although this still presents problems when put into a Social Contexts...which is where the big Schism is coming from in the Republican Party I think, the Economic Conservatives dont want to go with the Fundamentalists...

Thats just my take on it however, and still doesnt explain the multitude of people calling themselves conservatives...

The showy, demonstrative, unreasonable, hyper-patriotic, loud and stupid conservatism is on its way out, and for that I can only say thank Buddha. We NEED the reasoned, thoughtful, sober, honest and dignified conservatism as a balance to the equally loud, obnoxious and stupid lefty crowd.

However, a system based on individual, economic, and political freedom will never die
Long live liberal democracy! I'm not sure that's what you were going for, though.

Damnit, I just realized someone beat me to it.

We NEED the reasoned, thoughtful, sober, honest and dignified conservatism as a balance to the equally loud, obnoxious and stupid lefty crowd.
When you find it, will you let the rest of us know?

When you find it, will you let the rest of us know?

http://www.shsu.edu/~his_www/cvs/briannew.pdf

Tax cuts for the rich do next to nothing for the economy because they almost always horde it.
Well, you can't really hoard anything without investing it (unless you just stick it under the matress). You can say what you will, but they did invest it, namely in (poor) people's home ownership. It's just that that turned out to be a pretty crappy investment for a variety of reasons.

What governments are currently led by pacifists and/or full-blown socialists? Certainly none of the governments that FO mentioned.
No, but then there weren't heaps of elections either. We've certainly seen a lot more elections bring centre-left parties to power though.

But what's more important is that whatever governments are in power, they've changed their policies in the face of a public backlash against them. All of them want out of Iraq obviously, but now Afghanistan is coming under fire more and more as well. In Europe they're openly debating just getting out, while here and (presumably) in Britain governments are committed but their voters are doubting it. And the same seems to be appearing in the States as well.

As for economic policies, I suppose that's self-evident. Find me a government that doesn't think the state has to play the central role in fixing all this - I'd argue that you'll have to look for some time. And as for the voting public, they'd like to see anyone with money strung up right now, unconditionally. Hence why occasionally you have to throw them a 90%-tax rate bone.

Though a particular brand of conservatism may have suffered blows in the US, there is no huge comeback of the Left in Western countries; particularly, I see no added support for socialist governments.
Well, in the US and Australia you have "New Left"/"Third Way" governments in power, with their voters leaning probably even further right now. In Germany, which I understand best, the government is conservative in name only, with their agenda being dominated entirely by defending against the democratic socialists' agenda.

As others have said, the Tories will most probably take the next UK general election, and it's not like the socialist parties in other Western countries are running riot.
If you distinguish between being in power, and dominating public discourse and therefore setting the tone and direction of policy, then I think they are running riot a lot more than they were.

The US labels of 'conservative' and 'liberal' just make no sense to me, especially their link with the political left-right spectrum.

That's somewhat ironic given that the term liberalism, in a American like sense, was first used in the UK (http://www.liberalhistory.org.uk/item_single.php?item_id=85&item=history)

I reckon us conservatives are going the way of the Soviets. We lost the US, the UK and Australia, and we're on the way to losing Japan, Canada, France and Germany.

Is conservatism just on the way out?

In the US, it depends on how badly Obama screws up over the next 4 years. But even then, when the opposition are people as idiotic and downright insane as Palin and Limbaugh...

Also, their's demographic shifts to take into account. I remember reading (on this forum I think) that given the increasing Latino population, its only a matter of time until Texas is competative for the Democrats. And... that's the sound of the GOP being locked out of the Presidency for the forseeable future.

Conservatism will probably make some sort of comeback eventually, though. The question is, what kind of conservatism will it be. Given the growing fear and desire for a scapegoat this economic crisis must be causing, will it be a radical Bible-belt theocracy and/or dictatorial neo-con party? Or will it be a more modderate and rational conservatism?

As sad as it is, I put much of my hope for American politics in the Libertarians, as they seem a possible alternative to the theocratic, bigoted, anything to win branch of the GOP we've been threatened with over the Bush years and since the election. I think they go to far on unrestrained big business, but they could act as a moderating influence or counter balance on the Democrats and the current GOP when it comes to spending, and at least they'll be against things like Guantanamo and censorship.

Sadly, no. It may be waning, but it'll make a comeback once people forget the disasters it causes.

I blame reality, and its well known liberal bias.

Conservatism will be back stronger than ever after the Bush-Obama depression. Hopefully it will not come back in the form of Facism.

Which is not what you were actually asking, but meh. As for what you're actually asking: yes, the world has swung to the left. Wars going spectacularly badly and economic collapse tend to bring pacifists and "let the state fix all"-types to the forefront. And I'm not making a value judgement in this case, that's just how it is.

If the entire world wants to be a woman, then surely there must be a need for a man: - the three monkey record of money.

When you find it, will you let the rest of us know?

I was thinking along the lines of Barry Goldwater, who was, when compared to Karl Rove and the like, a flaming commie.

On religious issues there can be little or no compromise. There is no position on which people are so immovable as their religious beliefs. There is no more powerful ally one can claim in a debate than Jesus Christ, or God, or Allah, or whatever one calls this supreme being. But like any powerful weapon, the use of God's name on one's behalf should be used sparingly. The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom. They are trying to force government leaders into following their position 100 percent. If you disagree with these religious groups on a particular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with a loss of money or votes or both.

I'm frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in "A," "B," "C" and "D." Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me?

And I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of "conservatism."

In Germany, which I understand best, the government is conservative in name only, with their agenda being dominated entirely by defending against the democratic socialists' agenda.

Doesn't Germany have a Grand Coalition? As I understand it, that's analogous to two large men, leaning against each other, each trying to get the other to budge but not actually making any progress.

Besides, there is an European example where, erm, "conservatism" is thriving and was only re-elected last year: Italy.

That's not a very good example, everybody knows that Italy doesn't have a government.

Doesn't Germany have a Grand Coalition? As I understand it, that's analogous to two large men, leaning against each other, each trying to get the other to budge but not actually making any progress.


Germany is functionally bankrupt is what it is. It survives today completely on the largess of the United States.

That's somewhat ironic given that the term liberalism, in a American like sense, was first used in the UK (http://www.liberalhistory.org.uk/item_single.php?item_id=85&item=history)
The 'new' liberalism of the Lib Dems, is still dedicated to life, liberty and property, the classic liberal ideals, it just believes that to protect life, liberty and property occasional intervention in the market is necessary.

Which is not my understanding of the US term 'liberal', i.e., any sort of 'leftist'.


No, but then there weren't heaps of elections either. We've certainly seen a lot more elections bring centre-left parties to power though.
Spain and the short-lived Italian administration are the only two that come to mind.

Though I've not looked for any info on this.

But what's more important is that whatever governments are in power, they've changed their policies in the face of a public backlash against them...

As for economic policies, I suppose that's self-evident. Find me a government that doesn't think the state has to play the central role in fixing all this - I'd argue that you'll have to look for some time...
Neither of these are pacifist or socialist strategies; they're populist and non-laissez faire, at best. Parties of all political stripes are calling for a reduction of troops in Iraq and the state having at least some say in 'fixing' the economic downturn.

But these are hardly lefties.

Well, in the US and Australia you have "New Left"/"Third Way" governments in power...
Hardly socialists, though.

Centre-left, and that's being generous.

If you distinguish between being in power, and dominating public discourse and therefore setting the tone and direction of policy, then I think they are running riot a lot more than they were.
Really?

I don't see prominent lefty parties/people "dominating public discourse"; indeed, I'd say there's a conspicuous lack of 'New Left' response to the economic situation of the moment. The typical characters are all here, in the UK the old SWP members are shaking their heads and saying 'I told you so', but that's about it.

Perhaps I've misjudged the European situation, but there doesn't seem to be a stampede towards socialist/hard-left policies. Folks are pissed off with the excesses of banking institutions, and perhaps want more regulation, sure, but that call is coming from the Tories as much as the various socialist parties.

Just take a look a the upcoming G20 protests in London. There's a bunch of anarchist and socialist groups holding all sorts of demos and civil disobedience actions, but the majority of people are clamouring for responsibility, not for a dramatic shift to the left in (European) politics.

It will return,it always has. people have short memories,once they get a taste of the opression,and the breadlines like in the old Soviet days,the people will vote them out.

Until then,keep the faith.

Well, you can't really hoard anything without investing it (unless you just stick it under the matress). You can say what you will, but they did invest it, namely in (poor) people's home ownership. It's just that that turned out to be a pretty crappy investment for a variety of reasons.

By hoarding it I mean stashing it in some offshore bank account. Besides, they have nothing to complain about right now. Taxes on the ultra-rich have been (and should still be) much higher - somewhere around 90% during the Eisenhower years. Who that brings in millions per year actually spends that much (with the possible exception of Michael Jackson)?

I reckon us conservatives are going the way of the Soviets.
Yes well you're wrong.
We lost the US
Momentarily.
the UK and Australia
Both of these are about to have conservative governments.
and we're on the way to losing Japan
Their parties all seem mostly conservative to me.
Canada
Feh. Entirely the fault of the government there.
France
The socialists in France gave up their 'really' socialist edge a while ago.
and Germany.
Err? The CDU is doing alright at the moment.
Is conservatism just on the way out?
Not really, no.

'Conservatism' used in this sense is a fictional character and as such, will live forever in our imaginations.

The 'new' liberalism of the Lib Dems, is still dedicated to life, liberty and property, the classic liberal ideals, it just believes that to protect life, liberty and property occasional intervention in the market is necessary.

This is largely how self described liberals in the US use the term. Arguably of almost all political labels in the US.

Which is not my understanding of the US term 'liberal', i.e., any sort of 'leftist'.

Your understanding of the American usage of liberalism is not the same as my understanding of how we use the term.

I reckon us conservatives are going the way of the Soviets. We lost the US, the UK and Australia, and we're on the way to losing Japan, Canada, France and Germany.

Is conservatism just on the way out?

No, why? You got Italy with Berlusconi and the Czech Republic with Topolanek.
:tongue:

By hoarding it I mean stashing it in some offshore bank account. Besides, they have nothing to complain about right now. Taxes on the ultra-rich have been (and should still be) much higher - somewhere around 90% during the Eisenhower years. Who that brings in millions per year actually spends that much (with the possible exception of Michael Jackson)?

though to be fair, there were more tax brackets back then as well. which we should bring back. more progressivity, please!

Godwin's law just says that as discussion length increases the probability of a Hitler/Nazi reference approaches one. It has nothing to say on the relevance of validity of the reference. It is entirely non-judgemental.

For the logical fallacy of comparing something to Hitler/Nazism where this is irrelevant see Reducto ad Hitlerum

But it is impossible to Godwin in a discussion about Hitler, is it not?

I was thinking along the lines of Barry Goldwater, who was, when compared to Karl Rove and the like, a flaming commie.

When Senator Barry Goldwater does a pushup, he isn’t lifting himself up, he’s pushing the Earth down.

though to be fair, there were more tax brackets back then as well. which we should bring back. more progressivity, please!

And increase the inheritance tax for individual inheritances (i.e. what any one person gets) valued at more than $100,000. Let's put an end to these daddy's-money dynasties that quit working real jobs generations ago.

Quite.

Sounds like liberalism to me.

Conservatism and classical liberalism overlap enough that it can be hard to tell them apart. If conservatism takes a liberal stance rather than the right-wing authoritarianism of the neoconservative era, it will rebound and ultimately dismantle the oppressive government created by its predecessors.

Whether or not its supporters will stick to their principles is a big question... after all, today's conservatives were yesterday's liberals.

It had better be.

though to be fair, there were more tax brackets back then as well. which we should bring back. more progressivity, please!

I'd support more tax brackets in exchange for eliminating the AMT. It makes more sense to tax people with different incomes at different brackets than to basically force everyone above a certain threshold to pay additional taxes.

The end of conservatism will be a glorious day. Unfortunately there will always be conservatism in the world.

Neither of these are pacifist or socialist strategies; they're populist and non-laissez faire, at best.
All governments always are. When I talk about a shift to the left, I don't mean a re-emergence of the Soviet Union, just a pronounced change in policies, and particularly public support of those policies.

But these are hardly lefties.
They're more left than they were before, right? That's all I'm saying: the support from governments and voters for aggressive, neoconservative foreign policy abroad and relatively hands-off, liberalising economic policies at home has collapsed quite abruptly.

I don't see prominent lefty parties/people "dominating public discourse"; indeed, I'd say there's a conspicuous lack of 'New Left' response to the economic situation of the moment. The typical characters are all here, in the UK the old SWP members are shaking their heads and saying 'I told you so', but that's about it.
Haven't you noticed the 90% tax rates, the condemnation of "greed" and the calls for all sorts of new regulation? Now, the policies themselves may sound like we've seen them before so far, but the talk about the end of "liberal" capitalism, which the Australian PM for example proudly (and with no little bit of glee, of course) pronounced recently.

Maybe we need to wait another year or so to see how it turns out. But I think given how pissed off and scared the voting public is, those who promise punishment and a paradigm shift that change everything in favour of the little guy are surely bound to get all the encouragement they could hope for, right?

Perhaps I've misjudged the European situation, but there doesn't seem to be a stampede towards socialist/hard-left policies. Folks are pissed off with the excesses of banking institutions, and perhaps want more regulation, sure, but that call is coming from the Tories as much as the various socialist parties.
And that doesn't equate to a fundamental shift in the debate itself? I think that if presumably right-wing parties are talking about left-leaning policies in left-leaning language, that indicates that the mean position of outlook has shifted substantially.

Just take a look a the upcoming G20 protests in London. There's a bunch of anarchist and socialist groups holding all sorts of demos and civil disobedience actions, but the majority of people are clamouring for responsibility, not for a dramatic shift to the left in (European) politics.
I don't think anyone expects old-school socialists or anarchists to make much of a mainstream impact. They'll be enjoying an influx of additional members, but they won't get anywhere near holding power themselves. What they will do though is get additional air time, provided that their language is adopted by the mainstream as well. If mainstream leaders are condemning "systems based on greed", then those who use that very same language and equate it with capitalism in general become more acceptable in polite society.

Doesn't Germany have a Grand Coalition? As I understand it, that's analogous to two large men, leaning against each other, each trying to get the other to budge but not actually making any progress.
Well, the biggest threat for the CDU is to be seen to be economically liberal, because that's not what the voters want. They want "compassionate conservatism" and talk about the social market economy.

The biggest threat to the SPD is the Left Party, which poaches members and public outrage by always being positioned on the more extreme left wing of the SPD.

So both major parties have all the political incentive in the world to march in lockstep against the thing that could get Germany out of this sclerosis it's been in for 20 years. It's the commitment of a few individuals, Merkel in particular, who try and keep their parties spending at least a little bit of their time thinking about the actual (rather than just the political) consequences of their policies.

By hoarding it I mean stashing it in some offshore bank account.
And then the bank uses it to buy assets. And in the past few years, the majority of those assets have been located in the US. As I said, there's nothing wrong with the logic of more disposable income for rich people leading to more investment. The problem is in the type of investment.

Besides, they have nothing to complain about right now. Taxes on the ultra-rich have been (and should still be) much higher - somewhere around 90% during the Eisenhower years. Who that brings in millions per year actually spends that much (with the possible exception of Michael Jackson)?
I wouldn't think the proportion of money being spent has a whole lot of bearing on the justification for having to give the xth dollar you earn to the taxman.

As it stands, most rich people aren't having a good year anyways, so tax takings from them will be way down. But then, I suspect that you're not actually after government revenue here, but more after some sort of "make everyone more equal" scheme, and I really don't think that would yield the results you'd hope for...

By the way, I actually agree with the bonuses being taken from the people who ended up needing bail-out funds. I just don't think that using the tax system to do it is the right message. It's using the wrong tool, which means you're seriously damaging the underlying justification for the use of this tool across the board. Better to require the bonuses to be given back to the company and devoted towards paying back some of the taxpayer funds through that channel. I realise that's more difficult legally, but ethically I think it'd be a much better solution.

Both of these are about to have conservative governments.

I don't expect the Conservatives to win in the UK, and the Coalition in Australia is a shambles; they won't win another election this generation.

By the way, I actually agree with the bonuses being taken from the people who ended up needing bail-out funds. I just don't think that using the tax system to do it is the right message. It's using the wrong tool, which means you're seriously damaging the underlying justification for the use of this tool across the board. Better to require the bonuses to be given back to the company and devoted towards paying back some of the taxpayer funds through that channel. I realise that's more difficult legally, but ethically I think it'd be a much better solution.Don't be silly. This is America. Those men had contracts that guaranteed their bonuses, and you can't go overriding someone's contract willy-nilly. Unless it's a union contract.

It's not dead quite yet, but that's like saying a man shot in the gut ten hours from a surgeon who's going to die in the next six isn't dead yet.

The nanny-staters on the right killed it, and the left can just wait, constantly repeating their mantras, because it's done. Fifty years of indoctrination and two generations of rewriting history in a leftward direction, and then a corrupt administration later, it's over.

Snip

The whole thing with the Bonuses continues to confuse me.
The US government owns 80% of AIG.
This basically means those Obama has appointed are the board of directors, and they could have easily blocked bonus payments.

This leaves two possibilities that caused to the bonus issue.
1. Government official were asleep at the helm and were not monitoring AIG.
(Which begs the question where are we going with AIG then)
or
2. Obama allowed the bonuses so that the outrage of the bonuses would keep attention from other issues. This would also let him play up the I am out to protect you(the masses) card.

And then the bank uses it to buy assets. And in the past few years, the majority of those assets have been located in the US. As I said, there's nothing wrong with the logic of more disposable income for rich people leading to more investment. The problem is in the type of investment.

The keyword is offshore. If a bank overseas is investing it overseas, how the hell does that help our economy?

I reckon us conservatives are going the way of the Soviets. We lost the US, the UK and Australia, and we're on the way to losing Japan, Canada, France and Germany.

Is conservatism just on the way out?

No. Wherever people believe in liberty, human rights, and the moral imperative to fight for justice and liberty, there will be conservatism. It might be called different names throughout the world, but that is the conservatism that will always survive.

No, but neoconservativism has taken a beating. In the US, true (paleo) conservativism is growing, becuase of the frustration with the Republicans and Democrats. I'm paleoconservative, bordering on liberterian in some respects.

No. Wherever people believe in liberty, human rights, and the moral imperative to fight for justice and liberty, there will be conservatism. It might be called different names throughout the world, but that is the conservatism that will always survive.

Liberty and human rights in the prisoners tortured in Gitmo, justice in unlawfully and unwarrantedly in attacking a nation unprovoked...

Oh, yeah, conservatism is a good thing. :rolleyes:

The showy, demonstrative, unreasonable, hyper-patriotic, loud and stupid conservatism is on its way out, and for that I can only say thank Buddha. We NEED the reasoned, thoughtful, sober, honest and dignified conservatism as a balance to the equally loud, obnoxious and stupid lefty crowd.

Forget the labels. We just need more people to be reasoned, thoughtful, sober, honest, and dignified when discussing these things.

I reckon us conservatives are going the way of the Soviets. We lost the US, the UK and Australia, and we're on the way to losing Japan, Canada, France and Germany.

Is conservatism just on the way out?

Nah. Whats happening is that the world is just entering a political spectrum shift to the left. This happens every generation or so. Look at the sixties! Major shift away from the right to the left. Then in the 90s and 2000s, a major shift away from the left to the right. Now that conservatives have done something wrong, as in the past, the people will shift to the opposite end of the spectrum. People are very polar. But more or less yes, something will happen that'll switch people away from the left and back to the right. And then they'll sway back to the left when the time comes. Thats just the way it is, has been, and always will be.


Since I KNOW someones going to say, "Hellz to the naw! I'm not switching my beliefs!" I want to say that MOST people are sheep, and will sway based off of the situation at the time. But many of the people on this forum are very ingrained in their political views. Hardliners don't switch often, and every space on the political compass has some.

I shot conservatism but I didn't shoot no libertarianism. (But I swear it was in self defense).

Is conservatism just on the way out?
For as long as there are uppity women, non-assimilated minorities, and non-heterosexuals in the world, there will be conservatives dedicated to the marginalization of the above. Never fear.

The current conservative movement in the US is dying, but there will always be conservatism in some form or other since it is a political philosophy which transcends politics.The old saying is once something begins to die its moves away. But since the right hates those commies in Washington we might see the paleo-conservatives rise to power. Think George Wallace.:eek:

I shot conservatism but I didn't shoot no libertarianism. (But I swear it was in self defense).

Nah, it was a "preemptive strike". :D

Nah, it was a "preemptive strike". :D

that is only justified if you have oil

Fifty years of indoctrination and two generations of rewriting history in a leftward direction

This never happened, but I guess when youve been this badly defeated, you tell yourself the lies you need to in order to sleep through the night,

Well, the biggest threat for the CDU is to be seen to be economically liberal, because that's not what the voters want. They want "compassionate conservatism" and talk about the social market economy.

Which itself is a Conservative invention. The Union parties were never really big on economic Liberalism.

Liberty and human rights in the prisoners tortured in Gitmo, justice in unlawfully and unwarrantedly in attacking a nation unprovoked...

Oh, yeah, conservatism is a good thing. :rolleyes:
That's neoconservativism, not true conservatism, true conservativism has more in common with libertarianism than neoconservatism.

That's neoconservativism, not true conservatism, true conservativism has more in common with libertarianism than neoconservatism.

Words mean what's conventioned of them to mean.

As sad as it is, I put much of my hope for American politics in the Libertarians, as they seem a possible alternative to the theocratic, bigoted, anything to win branch of the GOP we've been threatened with over the Bush years and since the election. I think they go to far on unrestrained big business, but they could act as a moderating influence or counter balance on the Democrats and the current GOP when it comes to spending, and at least they'll be against things like Guantanamo and censorship.

The problem with those who call themselves Libertarians in the US is that most of them are really just Republicans who put a greater emphasis on free market principles. They tend to lean just as theocratic as the Republicans and to advocate just as much interference in our personal lives.

The problem with those who call themselves Libertarians in the US is that most of them are really just Republicans who put a greater emphasis on free market principles. They tend to lean just as theocratic as the Republicans and to advocate just as much interference in our personal lives.

The American definition of libertarian seems to forget that there's more to politics than fiscal debates.

No it never really dies. It just festers and returns somewhere else.

that is only justified if you have oil

Does it have to be petroleum? Because if not, we can pre-emptively strike Italy for Olive Oil.

I can say in Poland there is no left - it has got max 10% since 2001. Conservative - liberal party is at the power and conservative - social party is the opposition.
Generally in Europe left has more voters, we can say that they win 2 elections of 3. Conservatism still has a big electrorate and it won't change.
In the USA the situation is different - two major parties are so far away from basic labels that only current events create the support for the party. Republicans aren't definitely liberal in economy - the difference is all about terrorism and other things which aren't important for me.

The problem with those who call themselves Libertarians in the US is that most of them are really just Republicans who put a greater emphasis on free market principles. They tend to lean just as theocratic as the Republicans and to advocate just as much interference in our personal lives.

Well, then they're dumbasses. Freedom is freedom whether it's your wallet or your bedroom...if you give government an inch, it's going to take a mile because there's nothing to really stop it especially if they can convince people it's in their best interests. Government is like medicine; use it only when you need it and only to the extent it is needed. Anything beyond that will lead to oppression.

As an Australian, I will speak to my own nation first, and then to others'.

In Australia, the Labor Party is doing a terrible job of actually running the country, but due to John "Nauru" Howard's destruction of the Liberal (the Liberal Party of Australia is actually the Conservative party) Party was so thorough that it's still in the process of melting down. Brendan Nelson did a terrible job as LoOp, and Turnbull seems to be stuck on naysaying and obstructionism, not constructive debate about policy alternatives.

In Europe, I don't see what conservatives have to complain about.

France - Nicolas Sarkozy was elected President as the leader of the UMP, the French conservative party, by a comfortable majority over the Socialists' Segolene Royal. To his credit, he appears to be governing from the center-right, not the far-right, and in consequence is very likely to gain an easy re-election.

Italy - Silvio Berlusconi's Conservative Party won re-election after several years in the wilderness, replacing the left-wing coalition led by Romano Prodi.

Germany - Angela Merkel's Christian Democrat Party is avowedly right-wing, and has taken steps to liberalise the markets and block Turkey's accession to the European Union on grounds of lack of shared identity.

United Kingdom - Gordon Brown is a political deadman walking. The Tories will annihilate Labour in the next election.

Belgium - the CD&F (Christian Democrat and Flemish) Party controls the Belgian parliament, and looks to be secure in power.

Netherlands - The CDA (Christian Democratic Appeal) Party is a centre-right party, and controls the Dutch Parliament.

Greece - A social-democratic President is balanced by a conservative Prime Minister.

Poland - Lech Kaczyński, President of Poland, is a conservative.

So - in Europe, conservatism is far from dead, mostly because it is a more moderate form of conservatism that can retain lasting appeal by using electoral tactics other than pointing at the other guy and screaming "He's a LIBURAL!!!!".

In short, conservatism is in trouble in the US. No surprise - the writing was on the wall after the 2006 midterm elections. But the Republican Party will spend its time in the wilderness, and hopefully recapture the spirit of actual, real conservatism. When it does so, it will become competitive (or outright attractive, unless the Democrats clean up their act) once again.

Despite my liberal leanings, I hope that that day comes soon. The people of any nation are ill-served by a political system that is, in effect, one-party, whether by unfair playing field or lack of a viable opposition.

France - Nicolas Sarkozy was elected President as the leader of the UMP, the French conservative party, by a comfortable majority over the Socialists' Segolene Royal. To his credit, he appears to be governing from the center-right, not the far-right, and in consequence is very likely to gain an easy re-election.

Sarkozy is center-right (http://www.economist.com/world/europe/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12607041), or even "right" at all. He's a very, very tiny bit less statist than his opponents, but that's not saying much at all.

Words mean what's conventioned of them to mean.

In this case, the word means whatever the hell the speaker wants it to mean. Generally 'conservative' has bad implications, if you self-identify as 'liberal,' but vice versa is true, and it gosh it never gets old hearing each ideologue remind me that conservativism/liberalism is the worst fucking thing ever in all human kind and responsible for all evils and stupid and criminal and wrong and immoral and crazy and diseased.

Let's see here. A working definition of conservatism, taken from Bottle;


For as long as there are uppity women, non-assimilated minorities, and non-heterosexuals in the world, there will be conservatives dedicated to the marginalization of the above. Never fear.

Conservatism is that vile thing which is sexist, racist and homophobic. Whew! Now I don't have to think anymore, if I know someone is 'conservative' I will know they are hateful bigoted scum. Probably Nazis too! Yeah! Go my assumptions!

I'd go on, but it's boring, and useless besides. People aren't quite sure what the groups are, or how to define them, or what they mean, but they're sure there are 2 groups and THE OTHER ONE SUCKS, UNLIKE MINE.

The keyword is offshore. If a bank overseas is investing it overseas, how the hell does that help our economy?
Well, the point is that the overseas banks were investing it in the US, in people's mortgages.

But even if they weren't, I think we've grown beyond the stage where anyone would claim that "our economy" and "their economy" weren't completely interdependent, at least in the developed world.

Which itself is a Conservative invention. The Union parties were never really big on economic Liberalism.
That's true. But there are the occasional politicians who understand that this is what is needed right now, ideology or not. And their voices are less likely to be heard right now, I'd argue.

That's true. But there are the occasional politicians who understand that this is what is needed right now, ideology or not. And their voices are less likely to be heard right now, I'd argue.
What is quite interesting is, that the Free Democrats, which run on a platform of economic liberalism are suddenly more popular then decades before.
If Federal elections would have been last Sunday, they'd won 16 % according to the polls.
Though I believe this is because they are currently in an opposition role and understand to use this quite well,

Does it have to be petroleum? Because if not, we can pre-emptively strike Italy for Olive Oil.

Would make the US healthier.

we should be so lucky. (so called conservatism being "dead"). but hold that thought: with enough faith in it we might make it come true. then shall there be a new heaven on this earth.

Would make the US healthier.

but then it might shrink . . .

Conservatism is dead, poke it with a stick, piss on its grave, burn it, toss it out with the trash! Now we need to get rid of liberalism

"its not that we've got the wrong type of government, its that we've got the wrong type of people"
- Nightwatch (pratchett)

Conservatism is dead, poke it with a stick, piss on its grave, burn it, toss it out with the trash! Now we need to get rid of liberalism
the half of that i agree with is that we need to get rid of ism ism!
(including vested economic ism)

Sarkozy is center-right (http://www.economist.com/world/europe/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12607041), or even "right" at all. He's a very, very tiny bit less statist than his opponents, but that's not saying much at all.And? Being right-wing doesn't equate to being non-statist.

if "Words mean (only?) what's conventioned (presumably by their ussage of the moment?) of them to mean." is true, we might as well stop talking because nothing we say means anything! it would also mean that dictionaries are utterly valueless.

if no word can have an at least relatively stable meaning, nothing other then the same emotions less sentient life forms are capable of expressing, ever actually gets communicated. not to deny this possibility, yet one might hope for something a LITTLE more useful.

"And? Being right-wing doesn't equate to being non-statist."

being right wing ABSOLUTELY does NOT equate to being "non-statist". the pretense that it does is one of the biggest of those big lies that has nearly everyone, and the world we all have to live in, so thoroughly screwed up.

Conservatism is that vile thing which is sexist, racist and homophobic. Whew! Now I don't have to think anymore, if I know someone is 'conservative' I will know they are hateful bigoted scum. Probably Nazis too! Yeah! Go my assumptions!

I'd go on, but it's boring, and useless besides. People aren't quite sure what the groups are, or how to define them, or what they mean, but they're sure there are 2 groups and THE OTHER ONE SUCKS, UNLIKE MINE.
Oh come off it. I'm American, and for my entire lifetime the conservatives have specifically and intentionally marketted themselves as anti-choice anti-gay anti-immigration anti-civil rights you name it. They should be happy to know how well they've succeeded.

Or they (meaning you) could grow a sense of humor and chill the fuck out.

But hey, you go right on Godwinning yourself, that's really kind of adorable. It's like you've given your strawman a little tiny mustache.

Liberty and human rights in the prisoners tortured in Gitmo, justice in unlawfully and unwarrantedly in attacking a nation unprovoked...

Oh, yeah, conservatism is a good thing. :rolleyes:

Ok H2 your troll skin is showing again. Conservatives do not torture people. Neither do liberals. Torture is not something that anybody advocates who recognizes human rights. Torture is extreme and it is extremely wrong.

I imagine that you are referring to the liberation of Iraq from Saddam Hussein. SH was a terrorist. We are at war with terrorists. If the rest of you peaceniks got on board, the other terroristic tyrants would be trembling in their jackboots.

If you are talking about North Korea invading South Korea or China invading Tibet, I will not insult liberals by associating them with socialism and communism. That is something that only a troll would do.

Ok H2 your troll skin is showing again. Conservatives do not torture people. Neither do liberals. Torture is not something that anybody advocates who recognizes human rights. Torture is extreme and it is extremely wrong.

I imagine that you are referring to the liberation of Iraq from Saddam Hussein. SH was a terrorist. We are at war with terrorists. If the rest of you peaceniks got on board, the other terroristic tyrants would be trembling in their jackboots.

If you are talking about North Korea invading South Korea or China invading Tibet, I will not insult liberals by associating them with socialism and communism. That is something that only a troll would do.

this is called double talk. if its a we doing it its always good of for a just cause, if its a them, its always evil. wrong! sadam hussain was an idiot. another idiot killed a lot of people on both sides for the excuse of killing him.

its only terrorism when it happens to someone else? wrong again. this is precisely the attitude that thinks nothing of doing to someone else what was done to us. and not within hamarabi's restrictions either, of ONLY an eye for an eye, but more like the whole head for an eye.

twenty guys ripped off four airplanes and knocked down less then a handful of buildings in which buisness was conducted that people all over the world were and continue to be suffering as a resault of, killing around 3000 people in the process, an event that in no way involved sadam husain nor the nation of iraq. in response to which america destroys the entire infrastructure of three and a half nations, murdering in the neighborhood of a million law abiding civilians in the process and sacraficing the lives of 4000 of our own military in the process.

give me an effing break. the hell so called conservatives don't condone, sign off on, and order torture. its just swept under the rug if someone is making a buck off of it and can convince someone else they will too, even if they never actually pay up on it.

If the United States, as a nation, is at war with terrorists (as argued by conservatives here and elsewhere), then why does Saudi Arabia still exist?

- A large majority of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi. None were Iraqi.
- OBL is Saudi, of a noble family with royal connections, yet.
- SA's Wahhabist-run universities preach and teach death to all infidels, death to Israel, death to Shi'ites etc. etc.
- SA's Wahhabist money machine (oil-powered, natch), has funded dozens of supposedly "moderate" mosques, whose leaders (such as in the Netherlands and Australia) have preached decidedly un-moderate messages.

Furthermore, S.A. doesn't even make a pretence at being a democratic state in any sense of the term, prohibits women from 90% of modern human life, and routinely oppresses non-Wahhabist-Sunni people within its borders. The lives of the Shi'ites in Eastern S.A. are not, for instance, to be envied.

Ok H2 your troll skin is showing again.

http://zenstoves.net/Pots/GreasePot.jpg

http://www.lakewoodconferences.com/direct/dbimage/50262344/Electric_Kettle.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/81/Color_icon_black.png

I'm not a troll for stating the undeniable fact that that damned, cursed, odious war in Iraq was a terrible, costly, harmful and plain evil mistake. We will NEVER go "on board" with unwarranted attacks on innocent nations for the sole purpose of watching people die. NEVER. And even official US policy now recognizes that cursed-by-all-gods war as a mistake. So, Conservatives won't manage to attack anyone else unwarrantedly either, ever again.

As for the rest, Cameroi already made short work of you.

hear hear HK

hear hear HK

To be sure, Cameroi did more against poor GF than me. Regardless, if you want to have your turn, feel free, I have a translation to tend to.

this is called double talk. if its a we doing it its always good of for a just cause, if its a them, its always evil. wrong! sadam hussain was an idiot. another idiot killed a lot of people on both sides for the excuse of killing him.

its only terrorism when it happens to someone else? wrong again. this is precisely the attitude that thinks nothing of doing to someone else what was done to us. and not within hamarabi's restrictions either, of ONLY an eye for an eye, but more like the whole head for an eye.

twenty guys ripped off four airplanes and knocked down less then a handful of buildings in which buisness was conducted that people all over the world were and continue to be suffering as a resault of, killing around 3000 people in the process, an event that in no way involved sadam husain nor the nation of iraq. in response to which america destroys the entire infrastructure of three and a half nations, murdering in the neighborhood of a million law abiding civilians in the process and sacraficing the lives of 4000 of our own military in the process.

give me an effing break. the hell so called conservatives don't condone, sign off on, and order torture. its just swept under the rug if someone is making a buck off of it and can convince someone else they will too, even if they never actually pay up on it.

http://zenstoves.net/Pots/GreasePot.jpg

http://www.lakewoodconferences.com/direct/dbimage/50262344/Electric_Kettle.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/81/Color_icon_black.png

I'm not a troll for stating the undeniable fact that that damned, cursed, odious war in Iraq was a terrible, costly, harmful and plain evil mistake. We will NEVER go "on board" with unwarranted attacks on innocent nations for the sole purpose of watching people die. NEVER. And even official US policy now recognizes that cursed-by-all-gods war as a mistake. So, Conservatives won't manage to attack anyone else unwarrantedly either, ever again.

As for the rest, Cameroi already made short work of you.

So you are saying that SH was not a terrorist? He did not terrorize anyone? He terrorized most of Iraq. The United States has an excellent reputation for doing everything it can to minimize civilian casualties.

Torture is not a conservative value it is also not a liberal value. It has no place in traditional American values. Sure, Bill Clinton approved extradition to torture friendly places. He also claimed that torture was excusable to avoid nuclear attacks. Bush or his underlings had some waterboarding going on. This is not to say that torture is a liberal or a conservative value. Any comparison is as ridiculous as claiming that because liberals and conservatives have been convicted for drunken driving, driving drunk is a liberal or conservative value.

The conservatism that I know and love has no room in it for torture. As a neoconservative I do not want to know peace while my brother man is persecuted in a foreign land. The world should not know any complete peace until totalitarian regimes are only found in history books.

The United States has an excellent reputation for doing everything it can to minimize civilian casualties.

Dresden and Tokyo do not agree.

http://www.historycentral.com/WW2/events/images/firebombingofdresden.gif
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/90/Firebombing_of_Tokyo.jpg

I hope so.

Dresden and Tokyo do not agree.

http://www.historycentral.com/WW2/events/images/firebombingofdresden.gif
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/90/Firebombing_of_Tokyo.jpg

Yes. Yes. However, in WWII there was a debate about daylight and nightime bombing between the US and the UK. We wanted daylight because it was more accurate but riskier. At least we have that in our favor.

Yes. Yes. However, in WWII there was a debate about daylight and nightime bombing between the US and the UK. We wanted daylight because it was more accurate but riskier. At least we have that in our favor.

With firebombing and atomic bombs one doesnt need to be accurate.

We didnt try and be accurate during 'nam either. Fuck we used cluster bombs during our actions in the former Yugoslavia.

So your "The US has a great track record of trying to avoid civillian casualties!" is bullshit.

With firebombing and atomic bombs one doesnt need to be accurate.

We didnt try and be accurate during 'nam either. Fuck we used cluster bombs during our actions in the former Yugoslavia.

So your "The US has a great track record of trying to avoid civillian casualties!" is bullshit.

I doubt that we used cluster bombs against urban targets. Cluster bombs are awesome!

I doubt that we used cluster bombs against urban targets. Cluster bombs are awesome!

Yeah, awesome! Especially how they maim civilians years after the conflict is over!

Yeah, awesome! Especially how they maim civilians years after the conflict is over!

Youre thinking of land mines. Cluster bombs wouldnt be being used if the conflict was over...

Youre thinking of land mines. Cluster bombs wouldnt be being used if the conflict was over...

Cluster bombs don't necessarily all go off when they're dropped. Those that don't are left behind much like mines, and tend to explode years later when someone (often a child) who doesn't know what they are finds them. This is why many countries have agreed not to use them anymore.

Cluster bombs don't necessarily all go off when they're dropped. Those that don't are left behind much like mines, and tend to explode years later when someone (often a child) who doesn't know what they are finds them. This is why many countries have agreed not to use them anymore.

Oh, ok. Thats what you meant. My bad, I was confused for a bit.

the hell so called conservatives don't condone, sign off on, and order torture. its just swept under the rug
It hasn't even been left under the rug, it's out in the open now.

No. Wherever people believe in liberty, human rights, and the moral imperative to fight for justice and liberty, there will be conservatism. It might be called different names throughout the world, but that is the conservatism that will always survive.

Noble sentiments. I'll be signing you up for the liberals, then? When these weird ideas of liberty and human rights were first becoming popular, guess who were completely opposed to them? I'll give you a hint - it starts with a C.

That's neoconservativism, not true conservatism, true conservativism has more in common with libertarianism than neoconservatism.

Not really. Libertarianism is the classic liberal principle of state non-intervention taken to an extreme, conservatism is an ideology based on suspicion of radical change, or any change at all (depending on flavour).

Ok H2 your troll skin is showing again. Conservatives do not torture people. Neither do liberals. Torture is not something that anybody advocates who recognizes human rights. Torture is extreme and it is extremely wrong.

I imagine that you are referring to the liberation of Iraq from Saddam Hussein. SH was a terrorist. We are at war with terrorists. If the rest of you peaceniks got on board, the other terroristic tyrants would be trembling in their jackboots.

If you are talking about North Korea invading South Korea or China invading Tibet, I will not insult liberals by associating them with socialism and communism. That is something that only a troll would do.

I would imagine he was referring to the actions of the US government at Guantanamo Bay, where they tortured detainees. But nice attempt to rewrite history.