Is conservatism hostile to democracy?

What do you mean supporting him for a goof, goof was not my words.

I said, and I quote,

I shall stand by every one of Colonel's statements for fun.

I am not goofing, this is my idea of fun. Giving an outnumbered (but not outmatched) liberal some support. I do not see myself contradicting Mr. Colonel yet.

XAOS

p.s. Excellent work on the drugs thread, it grew too fast for me to keep up.

Originally posted by xaos
What do you mean supporting him for a goof, goof was not my words.

I said, and I quote,

I shall stand by every one of Colonel's statements for fun.

I am not goofing, this is my idea of fun. Giving an outnumbered (but not outmatched) liberal some support. I do not see myself contradicting Mr. Colonel yet.

XAOS

p.s. Excellent work on the drugs thread, it grew too fast for me to keep up.

fun, goof, entertainment, amusement.

all semantics but its the same thing.

at least you admit to it.....and the funniest bit of all


colonel bought into it thinking you really supported him. lol

Everone is conservative....everyone is liberal. the trick is to identify the shades of grey as they are apllied to the specific discussion.

Death Penalty: Yes, with the most stringent review process imaginable. Prisons in America today, while a booming industry that supports whole towns & counties, is a hell on Earth that most would gladly die to be free of.

Guns & their registering: Yes. I'm good people. I own guns. I'll shoot you if necessary. That is pretty much the logical thought process for most; accompanied by the maturity to stand by that action.
Now my stuff is stolen & used to kill someone I didn't want dead. I want them to track it back to me to get this individual out of regular society...I'm happy to help.
Banning guns: No, but this is the strawman that the radical Right Wing props up against the very sound & logical measures outlined above.


Illegal Immigrants: Yes...as long as we keep asylum away from using skin pigmentation as one of the variables to consider. Chinese boat load? Come on in! Haitian boat load? See ya!
Mexicans? " Can you lay tile?"

Freedom of Speech? Yes. Unconditional? Yes. Freedom of Speech as a thin veil for spouting falsehoods, propaganda and slander ( Ann Coulter): No.

Originally posted by ThePrankMonkey

Originally posted by xaos
What do you mean supporting him for a goof, goof was not my words.

I said, and I quote,

I shall stand by every one of Colonel's statements for fun.

I am not goofing, this is my idea of fun. Giving an outnumbered (but not outmatched) liberal some support. I do not see myself contradicting Mr. Colonel yet.

XAOS

p.s. Excellent work on the drugs thread, it grew too fast for me to keep up.

fun, goof, entertainment, amusement.

all semantics but its the same thing.

at least you admit to it.....and the funniest bit of all


colonel bought into it thinking you really supported him. lol

Hmmm, intresting scheming and manipulating. Very Machiavellian, if you cannot defeat your enemies through debate, use subterfuge and twisted words.

You seem to have completely misunderstood my satatement. I said that I do this for fun, and by that I mean I enjoy supporting people of similar political viewpoints as mine against hordes of sheepublicans. I really do support colonel, and he seems to have gotten a good deal for the thinking he has bought into. If you were expecting a sudden about-face in your favor then you will be disappointed. I really am liberal and will give my all in defending others of my politics. I can debate most any viewpoint, and I like to take the side of the underdog in most discussions, which is why I said that I would support colonel.

I look forward to the return to this threads point.

XAOS

Originally posted by xaos

Originally posted by ThePrankMonkey

Originally posted by xaos
What do you mean supporting him for a goof, goof was not my words.

I said, and I quote,

I shall stand by every one of Colonel's statements for fun.

I am not goofing, this is my idea of fun. Giving an outnumbered (but not outmatched) liberal some support. I do not see myself contradicting Mr. Colonel yet.

XAOS

p.s. Excellent work on the drugs thread, it grew too fast for me to keep up.

fun, goof, entertainment, amusement.

all semantics but its the same thing.

at least you admit to it.....and the funniest bit of all


colonel bought into it thinking you really supported him. lol

Hmmm, intresting scheming and manipulating. Very Machiavellian, if you cannot defeat your enemies through debate, use subterfuge and twisted words.

You seem to have completely misunderstood my satatement. I said that I do this for fun, and by that I mean I enjoy supporting people of similar political viewpoints as mine against hordes of sheepublicans. I really do support colonel, and he seems to have gotten a good deal for the thinking he has bought into. If you were expecting a sudden about-face in your favor then you will be disappointed. I really am liberal and will give my all in defending others of my politics. I can debate most any viewpoint, and I like to take the side of the underdog in most discussions, which is why I said that I would support colonel.

I look forward to the return to this threads point.

XAOS

lol more words games or you dont say what you mean.

this gets funnier by the post.

please, continue to tell us how you agree with colonel that we are all inhumane racist facists repugnants, blah blah blah blah and we're all going to burn in hell and how only democrats do good and yada yada yada. and democrats do no wrong.

yes please tell us how much you support his one track minded obsession with hate and murder and violence against those he doesnt agree with politicially. who makes generalizing comments about people he doesnt even know. a person who think that you have to act and think a certain way acdording to skin color.

this is the person you're "supporting" or claiming to support.

you're picking bad friends.

but by all means, join him on the corner of ignorance avenue and hate street and rally for him at the top of your lungs.

You said it all, Colonel, the key is BALANCE. Few liberals are Balanced. They want to erradicate anything they find offensive, arresting people for saying unkind things and such. Liberals are thought police.

Lets take homosexuality. Liberals want to force people to accept homosexuality as normal and alternative. yet many people through religious of personal belief, feel its wrong, and do not want to be be accepting of it. They dont want thier kids being taught its ok. Thus, THIER rights to believe as they chose are being viiolated, because liberalism wants to save everyone from hurt feelins. So long as gays aint getting beaten up and tied to fences, I believe you have the right to love and hate whoever u wish.

I hate bigots, sexists, religious loons, ect. Yet so long as they are doing nothing to violate basic conmstitutional rights, I believe they have the right to believe, speak, say whatever they want to say. i dont believe in hate speech. So long as you arent going out and assaulting women gays, or minorities, youre entitled to whatever medieval backwards beliefs you wish. Youre allowed to publish the material. I do NOIT believe people have the right of protection from hurt feelings, being offended, ect. they have the right to counter offensive speech with thier own speech.

I follow a Voltaire line of thinking: I may not believe whatever drivel you spout, but Ill fight to the death for your right to say it. (in the elfs words). Thus, the problems with Liberals, they want to take away everything offensive and bad. Cant happen, the world is a balance.

I also find liberal ideals of more govornment, more bueriocracy, and social engineering and govornment projects to promote different ideals to be offeensive. the right of the individual takes precedence. With right comes responsibility. I believe each person is responsible for his own welfare and wellbeing. Govornment charity is against this belief. Everyone must take care of themselves, and anyone who is directly dependandt on them

Balance is the key here, and niether side offer balance. I prefer a minimalized govornment that simply institutes basic civilized laws, national defense, and research into new technology to make peoples lives better. Thats about it. Everything else just opens the door for them to step into your personal life.

L

Let me shed some light on this miss-guided debate
The questions asked to Colonel were from "the worlds smallest political quiz" You can take it at the Libertarian home page

WWW.LP.ORG

I think you all should go there and take it and Most of you will be surprised what you turn out to be (....pssst I think most of you are libertarians you just dont know it!!)
The quiz actually has 10 questions on it 5 on fiscal policy 5 on social policy.

From Colonels statments about Labor Unions I would say he is a LIBERAL And Yes I say that with scorn.

Colonel your definition of conservatism is flat out wrong because you add in bits of Totalitarianism with it (the bits about police state) Conservatives are generally Socially restrained and also Fiscally restrained In some countries this can be combined with a very religious doctrine. Conservatives believe in every man for himself as long as he stays within the confines of the law (which can be religious in nature). They favor the individual. They favor a Hands off approach to Business.

Liberals ( or more correctly Socialist ) believe in everyman for himself as long as the majority of men say its ok and as long as no man exceeds the deeds or status of any other man. They wish to destroy the individual in favor of group identity. They favor heavy regulation of Business

Totalitarians can come in both flavors ask the people of Iran (conservative) and the former Eastern block (Liberal / Socialist).

If you want examples of each of the points I make about liberals just look at Labor unions ( I know I am a member of CWA not by choice) and the various Minority organisations ( NAACP, RainbowPUSH, so forth) All of these Groups want their members to believe that they can not excel on their own that Hard work will get them no where and that they may only succeed as a Group to combat the so called evil greedy rich!!

Oh and who said Democracy was good anyway?

(see "America is a Republic" thread!!

Oh and I love that part about the "POOR BEING TAXED SO HEAVILY"!!! LOL HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

I hate Libertarians. Okay, so I don't hate them. I am just rather amused by them, in an ironic way. "The Largest Third Party" indeed. Libertarians are closet anarchists who play at politics without thinking of the consequences of their choices. They believe in total and absolute freedom of everything, they are pure, uncorrupted liberals, though they shudder to be called so. Libertarians cannot see that when people and companies are given free reign chaos and corruption ensues. You must have a proper balance between anarchy/freemarket and authoritarianism/socialism. Competition between companies must exist, but regulations must exist to keep competition alive, as it is not a self-continuing entity. People must be free, but they must also be educated and intelligent about their choices. For example, an intelligent choice would be voting Sheepublican because you like their platform and candidate; an ignorant choice is voting Sheepublican 'cause your daddy voted Sheepublican. Libertarians believe that people should be able to choose if they want education, or anything else; in Libertarianism, truly anything goes. I would be suprised if many people are libertarian, though the "quiz" is quite slanted and spun; a desperate measure for a dying party. The libertarians will do anything for converts, and if they had it their way, they would probly declare mass orgies for members of their party to get recruits.

Now before you rant at me about everyone having a right to an opinion, then swell, that right there was my opinion. Sue me and excuse me as I have to get back to looking at pictures of Britney Spears and Madonna kissing at the VMAs.

XAOS

[Edited on 29-8-2003 by xaos]

Grenadier:

No, you're wrong. Sorry.

I have been reading some of the writings of Edmund Burke, the father of conservatism and all my stipulations are correct. Its reflected in the ideology and in the people. Here are a few of his quotes:

"No government ought to exist for the purpose of checking the prosperity of its people or to allow such a principle in its policy."

I guess its the totalitarian state for the common man.

"Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgement; and he betrays instead of serving you if he sacrifices it to your opinion."

I guess only the elites know what's best for the common man.

"Parliament is not a congress of ambassadors from different and hostile interests; which interests each must maintain, as an agent and advocate, against other agents and advocates; but parliament is a deliberative assembly of one nation, with one interest, that of the whole; where, not local purposes, not local prejudices ought to guide, but the general good, resulting from the general reason of the whole. You choose a member indeed; but when you have chosen him, he is not a member of Bristol, but he is a member of parliament."

Again, the common man gets screwed for the totalitarian state.

"Man acts from motives relative to his interests; and not on metaphysical speculations."

Or man is essentially selfish and evil.

"Society cannot exist unless a controlling power upon will and appetite be placed somewhere, and the less of it there is within, the more there is without. It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters."

Or Ode to the Totalitarian state.

All this from the father of conservatism.

www.conservativeforum.org...


And most republicans are conservative. You think I make this stuff up?

So as you can see, the totalitarianism isn't implied; its a direct accusation b/c in the end run, that's part of the core of conservatism.

And from this core, you can find all the evils of society: class war, elitsim, nationalism run amok, racism, and pleadings for tyranny.

[Edited on 29-8-2003 by Colonel]

Colonel, THAT ENTIRE POST IS YOUR INTERPRETATION!!!! Once again you have ABSOLUTELY no proof for what you want to say! It's unfathomable how much you make up $hit to fit your own purpose. How come you never responded to the my post in your other thread??? Democracts are hosile to conservatives for one reason; Democrats wish for the US to devolve into some mongaloid Communist State, and even though they're more hardnosed, conservaties want to keep it a republic. PLEASE, FOR ONCE BACK UP ONE OF YOUR POSTS!!!

Originally posted by goregrinder
Colonel, THAT ENTIRE POST IS YOUR INTERPRETATION!!!! Once again you have ABSOLUTELY no proof for what you want to say! It's unfathomable how much you make up $hit to fit your own purpose. How come you never responded to the my post in your other thread??? Democracts are hosile to conservatives for one reason; Democrats wish for the US to devolve into some mongaloid Communist State, and even though they're more hardnosed, conservaties want to keep it a republic. PLEASE, FOR ONCE BACK UP ONE OF YOUR POSTS!!!

ok gore take a few....hundred deep breaths and relax.

you should know by now that whatever colonel believes he considers it to be fact even opinions and his own interpretations.

like a cantankerous old coot, he is set in his ways no matter how much you scream at him it wont change his mind. in fact he believes it reenforces his beliefs as he does this just to anger people.

i'll be sending YOU a U2U later. watch for it.

[Edited on 7-9-2003 by Creepy]

Originally posted by Creepy
eheheh i usually dont get into politics....but this thread amazes me....has anyone ever used a dictionary to look up the words "conservatism" and "liberalism"?

ever look up the word "democracy"....or "republic"?

the english language is eroding so fast

yes and certain people should look up the definitions for the words "opinion" and "fact".

its not the language but rather the "what is the definition of is?" people who are destroying the language as people are using ANYTHING they possibly can to "back up" their own views or get their butt out of trouble or keep from admitting their view isnt the only view. the language is being used as a means for these ends.

ok i'm going to list the definitions for liberalism and conservatism as quoted from merriam webster.

Main Entry: con�ser�va�tism
Pronunciation: k&n-'s&r-v&-"ti-z&m
Function: noun
Date: 1835
1 : capitalized a : the principles and policies of a Conservative party b : the Conservative party
2 a : disposition in politics to preserve what is established b : a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change
3 : the tendency to prefer an existing or traditional situation to change

Main Entry: lib�er�al�ism
Pronunciation: 'li-b(&-)r&-"li-z&m
Function: noun
Date: 1819
1 : the quality or state of being liberal
2 a : often capitalized : a movement in modern Protestantism emphasizing intellectual liberty and the spiritual and ethical content of Christianity b : a theory in economics emphasizing individual freedom from restraint and usually based on free competition, the self-regulating market, and the gold standard c : a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties d : capitalized : the principles and policies of a Liberal party
- lib�er�al�ist /-b(&-)r&-list/ noun or adjective
- lib�er�al�is�tic /"li-b(&-)r&-'lis-tik/ adjective

there you go folks....dont like the way they're defined? complain to those who defined the words, not me.

i dont see anything abut totalitarianism in the definition of conservative....but lets look that up as well just for giggles.

Main Entry: to�tal�i�tar�i�an�ism
Pronunciation: (")tO-"ta-l&-'ter-E-&-"ni-z&m
Function: noun
Date: 1926
1 : centralized control by an autocratic authority
2 : the political concept that the citizen should be totally subject to an absolute state authority

there you go...doesnt look like it doesnt even come close to the definition of conservatism but i'm sure colonel will come behind this and simply dismiss this and say the people who made these definitions conspired against him and are racists and/or repugnants.

[Edited on 29-8-2003 by ThePrankMonkey]

I went to the father of conservatism from a conservative site. I didn't make anything up. Its right there for you to see which is older than your bland vanilla definition. Conservatism starts with Edmund Burke. If you don't like what he says, maybe you should change your ideology instead of popping a blood vessel over what he says.

[Edited on 29-8-2003 by Colonel]

[Edited on 29-8-2003 by Colonel]

Here's another one:

"Slavery they can have everywhere. It is a weed that grows in every soil."

This is conservatism form the father of conservatism, Edmund Burke.

Originally posted by Colonel
I went to the father of conservatism from a conservative site. I didn't make anything up. Its right there for you to see which is older than your bland vanilla definition. Conservatism starts with Edmund Burke. If you don't like what he says, maybe you should change your ideology instead of popping a blood vessel over what he says.

[Edited on 29-8-2003 by Colonel]


[Edited on 29-8-2003 by Colonel]

lol vanilla definition???

popping a blood vessel???

dear colonel get a grip.

YOU are the one who seems to be missing the point here. thats ok, as i predicted, you dismiss everything that you dont like/agree with, which pretty much means EVERTHING said by us.

second i personaly havent found a reason yet to get worked up over any of this. you have though. your emotions and feelings stick out like a sore thumb in your posts.

your postings drip with hate bitterness and loathing. you have personally attacked people on this board and you accuse others of "popping a blood vessel"??? lmao

you dont even know what MY ideology is. you havent even bothered to take the time to find out what i stand for/believe in. you just assume. you never even ask anyone.



you're a sad bitter little man

you think one person speaks for an entire group of people. you are ignorance in physical form. literally.