To Liberals: Define Conservatives

reply to post by jimmyx

conservative===no taxes except for military, no minumum wage, no restrictions on businesses (except for investors), no medicare, no social security, no social healthcare, no post office, no FDIC, no regulations for wall street, no federal reserve, no unions, no lawsuits against business (tort reform), if you are disabled, tough, your on your own. if your to old to work, tough, your on your own, if your injured on the job, tough, your on your own, if you get a disease, tough, your on your own, if you can't make enough money at work, tough, live in a tent,

I disagree to some extent, Jimmy. Conservatives don't lean toward the military to the exclusion of all else. Ditto for social and infrastructurial (yes, that's a word) endeavors.

I think your point about regulation for wall street, federal reserve is apt, however within the context of businesses and corporations failing naturally, should they fail to perform ...... aka no bailouts. Sometimes those that cannot compete just naturally have to fail, and hopefully go on to other things that they CAN do well in.

I think it's a bit of a disservice to pose conservatives as immune to the woes of the sick and disatvantaged..... --- they simply don't want goverment to administer fluffy, bloated programs that are created to adress such needs, but instead provide oversight and massive overhead and do little to actually help people.

We need to employ people. Lots of them. We need to pay them a decent wage for services and time and sweat. If it takes infrastructure construction projects as was done after the Great Depression, then fine...... let's get 'er goin'. Lets build dams and roads and rebuild bridges and tunnels and make things better for the next phase and generation even as we all tighten our belts.

I was just gonna lurk and allow the thread to go to see how the other side see's us conservatives. After reading a few I wanted to add a observation. A earlier post mentioned how we all have differing levels of the various -isms at play in our thinking. So true, I am a self labeled conservative but I am against government intervention on abortion beyond what is medically necessary. I don't think that gay marriage should be allowed per see, marriage is actually more a religious convention. Create a legally binding, government acknowledged new term for a same sex partnership. Those issues I think are conservative weak points. Normally a conservative will knee jerk and be flat out against anything regarding those issues, but by their nature are where we should make our headway without compromising our core values.

This country is a mish mash of various people, culture's and religions. All of those features are both strengths and weakness. A weakness when we work at cross purpose, a strength when everyone has the same goal. Then throw in the fact that the current bunch of politicians are not looking after the will of the people but are instead self-serving parasites. A good many of both parties are to blame. But they keep us quarreling over various issues while they do what they please. We just seem to be chasing our own tails.

reply to post by Hambone23


A progressive liberal lives where he can take hot showers and get the food he wants whenever he wants. But he does not want you to have them.

A communist lives in a place where neither is likely. And he does not want you to have them, either.

reply to post by Rhetoric


Fascists have historically been liberals. That is the difference.

Originally posted by couldbeserious
reply to post by Rhetoric

 

Fascists have historically been liberals. That is the difference.

well...not in this country. a combination of business and government with business having an equal say on how law should be written for the common man, is a recent event in our history.

Originally posted by couldbeserious
reply to post by Rhetoric

 

Fascists have historically been liberals. That is the difference.

Surely the nationalist flag waving anti communist Nazis were liberals!

I always see liberals waving flags, demanding a strong military option, preaching against homosexuals, immigration and promoting American Military might just like the NAZI's.

Everytime I see those Liberals on the corner waving the flags and holding the signs that say " The Only good gey is a a dead gey!", I think Nazi and liberal!

Same could be seen in the 60's with all those clean cut liberals who were against desegregation, their hatred also makes me think Nazi.

Good points!

reply to post by jimmyx


Yes, in this country. At the national level, the closest we have ever come to fascism has been under President Wilson during the war years, followed by President Franklin Roosevelt for his entire presidency, followed by President Teddy Roosevelt.

Fascism is not a nice little tag you can place on people you don't like. I don't like Presidents Nixon, Clinton, or Bush 2, but not one of them was a fascist.

It is a mistake to think of fascism as strictly a military way of behaving. Its roots are nationalistic, and as a result the military gets attached.

It is correct to think of fascism as intolerant of those who are not part of the "nationality" perceived by its practitioners. This is why African Americans fared so poorly under Wilson and Roosevelt 2.

Fascism is a way of controlling people by creating a common cause (usually a crisis) that everyone must get behind because to do otherwise would be fatal. Its adherents also look at centralized governments run by the "best and brightest" as the only way to deal with the cause/crisis. Its adherents also practice vilifying and even destroying those who disagree.

If you really want to know about the term you are using, read some of Il Duce's stuff from his newspaper days.

Fascist also is the #3 word that ruins a party when you call somebody that, after Nazi and the other n-word.

And you can usually tell the people who become really worked up over their squirrelly notion of what fascist means because they start using exclamation points all over their posts.

I've done the starving artist bit and the hungry musician bit so you can say I used to be a Liberal, but I got tired of not having a steady income,

I still subscribe to some Liberal idealogies and still despise some of the ones that would be considered conservative.
Liberal idealogies truly make sense, but only in theory and not in the real world.
Case in point, they continuouly push for an increase in the minimum wage.
Good idea, even I admit, but they fall short of understanding what would happen as a result.
It's truly an honest mistake when they believe " if I currently earn 7 bucks an hour and they increase the minimum wage to 8 bucks, I'll make an extra 40 bucks a week"
They fail to realize that business will have to lay people off or cut hours to make up for this increase in people's payroll.

Originally posted by argentus
reply to post by jimmyx

 

conservative===no taxes except for military, no minumum wage, no restrictions on businesses (except for investors), no medicare, no social security, no social healthcare, no post office, no FDIC, no regulations for wall street, no federal reserve, no unions, no lawsuits against business (tort reform), if you are disabled, tough, your on your own. if your to old to work, tough, your on your own, if your injured on the job, tough, your on your own, if you get a disease, tough, your on your own, if you can't make enough money at work, tough, live in a tent,

I disagree to some extent, Jimmy. Conservatives don't lean toward the military to the exclusion of all else. Ditto for social and infrastructurial (yes, that's a word) endeavors.

I think your point about regulation for wall street, federal reserve is apt, however within the context of businesses and corporations failing naturally, should they fail to perform ...... aka no bailouts. Sometimes those that cannot compete just naturally have to fail, and hopefully go on to other things that they CAN do well in.

I think it's a bit of a disservice to pose conservatives as immune to the woes of the sick and disatvantaged..... --- they simply don't want goverment to administer fluffy, bloated programs that are created to adress such needs, but instead provide oversight and massive overhead and do little to actually help people.

We need to employ people. Lots of them. We need to pay them a decent wage for services and time and sweat. If it takes infrastructure construction projects as was done after the Great Depression, then fine...... let's get 'er goin'. Lets build dams and roads and rebuild bridges and tunnels and make things better for the next phase and generation even as we all tighten our belts.

Here you go-

tp://www.recovery.org/for_businesses.aspx?gloc=US*US&mloc=US
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My problem is that this society faces a looming disaster with healthcare.

Premiums are slated to double every ten years for the foreseeable future, at the same time wages are stagnant and cost of living is inflating out of control. I think to let natural forces determine such outcomes is just as irresponsible as letting a foreign force invade without opposition.

As we all know it is the very nature of business to make profit... I honestly do not believe insurance or drug companies will actively attempt to curtail consumer prices
purely because it is contrary to profit motive and a business M.O. The cross population
of the executives in this industry is what renders the "free market" competition concept
virtually sterile. In modern times entire industries works in tandem to protect the robust market profit model. The question is, "why would such an industry voluntarily screw up such a good machine?" - I will not if left unmolested and in time we will all be held hostage to bills which surpass mortgage payments, which is currently the main expense for most.

I think if you had the time or inclination you would see, a fair amount of government
action was reactionary or preventive. Seat belt laws to tamper proof over the counter meds all reactions to events or grim statistics or occurrences. Anti trust laws were developed to combat industrial based dictatorships that arose from a "free market"
anti labor climate.

I fear that equating personal liberty and corporate piracy under the same flag undermines American freedom at large.

If you do this equation -

Who funds the election process?

Then who is in control of the process?

I wish you guys could see that big business is the chicken and the government is the egg in the current process.

Originally posted by couldbeserious
And you can usually tell the people who become really worked up over their squirrelly notion of what fascist means because they start using exclamation points all over their posts.

And the people who have no valid argument to back up their claims usually peel out
with a dismissive insult.

But I guess you will still hold that Nazi's were not flag wavers, anti immigration, anti communist, pro big military, pro big business and pro tradition.

Sounds like a liberal to me!

here, some more

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[edit on 24-10-2009 by Janky Red]

i'm a democrat and voted for Obama...but at 57 yrs old, i think president dwight d. eishenhower was the best republican president to serve. his values were solid, but not over the edge, and he distrusted business, but not to the detriment of the nation by stifiling it, or letting it get its way. and he did care about the common man, maybe because he knew so many in wartime and he had awareness of the the way they lived.
that would have been the only republican i would have voted for in the last 60 years

[edit on 24-10-2009 by jimmyx]

Originally posted by Janky Red

Originally posted by couldbeserious
And you can usually tell the people who become really worked up over their squirrelly notion of what fascist means because they start using exclamation points all over their posts.

And the people who have no valid argument to back up their claims usually peel out
with a dismissive insult.

But I guess you will still hold that Nazi's were not flag wavers, anti immigration, anti communist, pro big military, pro big business and pro tradition.

Sounds like a liberal to me!

here, some more

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[edit on 24-10-2009 by Janky Red]

aahh..witty, cynical, sarcasm, "i love the smell of napalm in the morning" (movie reference), your a man after my own heart, good to have you on board.

simple terms:

conservatives: me! me! me!

liberals: everyone! everyone! everyone!

Funny thing is Jesus was as liberal as you can get, an "ultra lib", yet the conservatives worship him then do the opposite. bizarre lol

[edit on 24-10-2009 by reasonable]

Originally posted by jimmyx
i'm a democrat and voted for Obama...but at 57 yrs old, i think president dwight d. eishenhower was the best republican president to serve. his values were solid, but not over the edge, and he distrusted business, but not to the detriment of the nation by stifiling it, or letting it get its way. and he did care about the common man, maybe because he knew so many in wartime and he had awareness of the the way they lived.
that would have been the only republican i would have voted for in the last 60 years

[edit on 24-10-2009 by jimmyx]

Me too

And those 90% tax rates for the top 1%

The current tax rate that Obama is sitting on makes him look like an uber conservative in comparison.

Always over looked - has anyone ever noticed that the national debt started its journey as soon as Reagan began implementing the massive tax cuts to the wealthy, as well as trickle down doctrine? There is a correlation like it or not

[edit on 24-10-2009 by Janky Red]

Originally posted by reasonable
simple terms:

conservatives: me! me! me!

liberals: everyone! everyone! everyone!

Funny thing is Jesus was as liberal as you can get, an "ultra lib", yet the conservatives worship him then do the opposite. bizarre lol

[edit on 24-10-2009 by reasonable]

WHAT???

You really think Jesus would promote providing healthcare to all?
Jesus would have said, "get a job and if you need extra money sell your extra stuff on EBAY(TM.)!"

Jesus probably would have also suggested turning Iraq into glass following 9/11 IMO.

Originally posted by jimmyx

Originally posted by Janky Red

Originally posted by couldbeserious
And you can usually tell the people who become really worked up over their squirrelly notion of what fascist means because they start using exclamation points all over their posts.

And the people who have no valid argument to back up their claims usually peel out
with a dismissive insult.

But I guess you will still hold that Nazi's were not flag wavers, anti immigration, anti communist, pro big military, pro big business and pro tradition.

Sounds like a liberal to me!

here, some more

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[edit on 24-10-2009 by Janky Red]

aahh..witty, cynical, sarcasm, "i love the smell of napalm in the morning" (movie reference), your a man after my own heart, good to have you on board.

Be careful. The two most successful fascist countries in history were hell-bent on changing the "system" because it was "broken".

Of the Nazis, they were some of those things on your list, but they were not for big business or for tradition. You could have also gone further and say not only anti-immigration, but anti-non-Aryan. They were anti-capitalist as any European group ever was. They were also in many respects anti-science. This does not mean that they did not use large corporations or science or religion for their own ends. This is perfectly in keeping with the syndicalist system called fascism first promoted and practiced in Italy -- greatly admired in Germany, Britain and the USA by progressives.

Hitler & Co. were extremely serious about destroying tradition, replacing it with a new national religion/culture with ties to a mythical past. If you look at what they did, culturally, to Germany, before the war, it cannot be construed as anything other than change more severe and complete than either the German Union of the 1870s or the Reformation.

And my post prior to the "!" post was supported. As for that one, I couldn't help myself. I could feel you getting mad because people like me just don't get it. Having feelings is a good thing. It is, after all, what causes us to do everything we do. However, when someone confuses anger (!yours!) or glee (Janky's at you b*tch slapping me) with reason, and concludes that he has "won", that is sorta sad.

reply to post by Finalized


your post defines a modern conservative.

Tit for tat.
Someone else made a post, and instead of fighting them there, you change the rules and start a new fight, cowering away from a losing battle. But you're not alone.


Conservative/Liberal

all the same. Yes, i said it, you, as a conservative, are identical to a liberal.

Makes you feel faint, doesn't it?

Currently, the conservatives have taken the less than reputable path trying to spread lies to beseech the democrats

just like many democrats have done to the republicans


seriously...i wish you would all shut up about it already.

They, meaning the politicians, don't like you. They don't care about you, and they certainly feel no pride in knowing that you back them up.

So why waste your time? it only makes them more powerful.

[edit on 24-10-2009 by Snarf]

This thread and the other are both exercises in political baiting and trolling.

Bi partisan rhetoric at its worse.

Seriously your working so hard to divide yourselves over what?

Principles?

No side wants to be taken advantage of. No side wants to work for free. No side wants to fight for something that is not worth dying for.

What are you dividing yourselves for?

Over what?

Tell me.

Originally posted by AllexxisF1

Conservatism is an ideology of continuing the status quo, whatever that might be.


Where as Liberalism is an ideology of upsetting the status quo and bringing about change.


It really is that simple.

Now you can have a huge discussion about how these long time definitions relate to modern politics but those are the standard base of those ideologies.

Wow, how ignorant your statement is, at least in my opinion. You exemplify exactly what the problem is with the United States political system. You completely generalize everybody into two defined groups; one which can think for themselves, and one that cannot. WOW!!! I guess you got what you wanted with Obama and his "change."

Personally, I never identify myself with a political party. I am an American and being one, I vote for what candidate I think has the potential to do the best for our country. Unfortunately there are many like you who would not vote for that great candidate because they are a member of your big evil "enemy" party.


VERY sad....