 |
| |
|
|
Kuciwalker
|
 |
of Schmooism
Feb 2001
time: 00:31
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by The Emperor Fabulous
I'm not entirely sure how the Bush admin isn't conservative. I mean, lets look: |
Ok, let's.
quote:
Rolling back civil liberties in exchange for "security" |
This isn't conservative, it's authoritarian. There are conservative authoritarians (fascists) and liberal authoritarians (communists). (elijah, do NOT start lecturing me about your definition of liberalism!). Also, how serious do you think these breaches of "civil liberties" going? Since they can't really make him look GOOD with anybody (and he isn't locking up political opponents), I think that it really is for necessary security reasons.
quote:
Maintaining a tax cut that largely benefits the upper class |
The upper class pays more taxes. Thus, a reduction across-the-board of tax rates will reduce the amount a rich person pays more than a poor person. Duh. It's called multiplication.
quote:
Declaring war on a soverign nation with a preemptive attack |
How is this conservative at all?
quote:
Looking for ways to define marraige as man and woman |
Ummm, marriage IS defined as between a man and a woman  maybe he isn't trying to change the definition, but oh well.
quote:
Beginning a "Faith-based Initiative", which actually hurts non-affiliated programs |
And liberals dont't have damaging programs too?
As opposed to Palestinian biases, which are so much better 
quote:
Looking to open the Artic Refuge for drilling |
This is conservative how? And getting resources is a BAD thing?
quote:
Going back on the Kyoto treaty |
We never ratified it in the first place!
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
 |
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:31
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by realpolitic
Bush and Communism have the same fatal flaw: Centralization of power. When the power is in the hands of a few, the checks and balances that create robustness are gone, and create brittle societies, such as the Soviet bloc in '89 and '91. Bush's aides in www.newamericancentury.org said they wanted to make America the ultimate power in the world. They failed
Both Liberals, with their social programs, and conservatives with their military, act as if their programs are sacred cows. At best, they are as Tom Paine said:"nessarsary evils". Liberals pay lipservice to choice, conservatives pay lipservice to liberty, but ultimately both are on control trips. |
realpolitic, the conservatism I know is all about getting government control out of the economy. I have no idea how Bush could be considered conservative if, as you contend, he is authoritarian. If he is, he is the enemy of conservatism.
As to the budget, I agree that cutting taxes without cutting spending is irresponsilbe.
As to foreign policy, the neo-con view is the traditional view of Southern Democrats - aggressive in defense of America and American values. However, it is true that since McGovern, a good portion of Democrat party has been hostile to the pursuit of American interests abroad and is more "internationist" in their viewpoint. In contrast, both Bushes have been very aggressive. I note that both are from Texas. Kennedy, an Northern Democrat, was also aggressive. Historians note, however, that Kennedy was significantly out of step with a good portion of his party represented by George McGovern or Eugene McCarthy.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
HershOstropoler
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly
They favor an authoritarian, militarized government that seeks to roll back civil liberties and that rules on behalf of corporations rather than citizens. They place might above right. They seek to stifle all dissent, telling Americans that they'd "better watch what they say." They've created false threats in order to consolidate their power and achieve their aims. They've cast aspersions on the patriotism of anyone who has dared to question them.
That's pretty much your textbook definition of fascism. A kinder, gentler fascism, to be sure, but fascism nevertheless. |
I agree with the description, but I'd hesitate to call it fascist. It's a particular brand of rightwing extremism, but as long as they accept the possibility of a change of government by ballot it's not fascist. But it's difficult to come up with a really catchy term for this ideology.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kuciwalker
|
|
of Schmooism
Feb 2001
time: 00:31
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
realpolitic, the conservatism I know is all about getting government control out of the economy. I have no idea how Bush could be considered conservative if, as you contend, he is authoritarian. If he is, he is the enemy of conservatism.
As to the budget, I agree that cutting taxes without cutting spending is irresponsilbe.
As to foreign policy, the neo-con view is the traditional view of Southern Democrats - aggressive in defense of America and American values. However, it is true that since McGovern, a good portion of Democrat party has been hostile to the pursuit of American interests abroad and is more "internationist" in their viewpoint. In contrast, both Bushes have been very aggressive. I note that both are from Texas. Kennedy, an Northern Democrat, was also aggressive. Historians note, however, that Kennedy was significantly out of step with a good portion of his party represented by George McGovern or Eugene McCarthy. |
The authoritarianism is with regards to things other than the economy, thus conservativism and authoritarianism aren't mutually exclusive.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kuciwalker
|
|
of Schmooism
Feb 2001
time: 00:31
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Odin
Ned, you're an idiot. Your definition of conservatism is wrong, conservatism is maintaining the status quo. Your not thinking of Communism, your thinking of Stalinism. You are almost as bad as Fez in your BAMs. True Communists like democracy, but a nation cannot be truely democratic unless society controls the economy as well, "Capitalist Democracy" is an oxymoron since the elite capitalists are the ones who have real power. The US is not a Democracy, it is a corporate oligarchy. Only Communism can bring democracy.
HershO: I would call it Right-wing Populism |
How do the "elite capitalists" hold the real power? Unless the election is rigged (which happens far more often in "communist" governments), your vote counts just as much as anothers.
Communism is slavery, as I have said time and time again. If I am not allowed to keep the money I recieve in return for my labor, I no longer own my labor, and therefore I am a slave.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
|
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:31
|
|
As I said, we definitely have a problem with definitions.
Let is just say I think I am a conservative. I believe in a free market (with regulation to prevent abuses), political freedom, free speech and free exercise of religion, the right to privacy and personal freedom to the extent it does not interfere with others, etc.
I do not agree than anyone can be a conservative if he or she would deny to others any of the basic freedoms or civil rights. Thus communism is the enemy of economic freedom and the enemy of conservativism.
If an elite were to control the economy to the exclusion of all but their small club, independent of political control, obstructing the entry of newcomers, well I would be against this as well. I would also object to calling such a government "conservative." An aristocracy or oligarchy might be better.
Now why are the governments of Saudi Arabia and Iran conservative? They deny basic freedoms to their people. They are against liberty and the free exercise of religion. In this, they are almost like the communists.
Labels without some agreement on definitions leads to lack of communication. Thus the attack on conservatism because it is an "elitist" aristocracy is misplaced if conservatives themselves would find such an elite objectionable.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:31
|
|
quote:
I do not agree than anyone can be a conservative if he or she would deny to others any of the basic freedoms or civil rights. Thus communism is the enemy of economic freedom and the enemy of conservativism. |
English land-owners of the 17th century denied economic freedom to their serfs, and were conservatives. Many mnastic orders are communist" monastci orders are conservative.
Man, that was easy.
Conservatism is a political ideology which places the protection and continuation of social and cultural institutions as its primary goals, becuase they see those institutions as central to the identity of the polity and as the result of the polity's experiences, and thus, invariably the best course for the polity. This was why burke did not back the Frenc revolution, for it was based on erroneous universalist creeds that ginored the founding institutions of France and anywhere else.
Almost always, conservatism is allied to Religion, the State (usually the King or so), and advocates for the family and other "institutions". IN the US, conservatives are generally pro-business becuase they view capitalism as a foundational insitution of the US. But in a place like SA, there is no such connection (in so far as the moarchy of SA decides it's to its benefit to trade freely, wel, that is were you get that).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Berzerker
|
 |
topeka, kansas,USA
May 1999
time: 23:31
|
|
quote:
Let me explain the logical conclusion of your beliefs. If I am required to give MY money - which I was PAID in return for a certain commodity, my labor - then you are really forcing me to give my labor to someone else. That is slavery! |
Ah, but our liberal slavemasters would argue we aren't really slaves because we can move out of the country or refuse to labor. Technically, they're right (although they'd have to explain that wall the communists built to prevent people from running away), and morally speaking, there ain't much difference between liberals and slave owners - both use force to steal the labor of others. The liberals just make a bigger fuss about how moral they are when committing theft and how immoral their victims are for complaining. Just look at this thread - liberals are the epitome of morality and their victims are "greedy".
monkspider - quote:
Freedom can only exist in a socialist-minded society. Any society that relies on greed and murder for private gain will hold it's members permanently in chains. That's why capitalism actually provides the anti-thesis of true freedom. That is something so self-evident that I think even most of the conservatives here would agree. |
Since when does "greed" - a desire to keep the fruits of your labor - violate the definition of freedom? Let's see, freedom means the absence of coercion or constraint on choice or action. So, a capitalist who agrees to give me money which I want in exchange for my labor which he wants respects my freedom while the socialist requires me to hand over my labor and in return I will be given what the socialist decides I should have.
What happens if I refuse to exchange my labor for money with the capitalist? He walks away. What if I refuse to hand over my labor to the socialist? I get jailed or killed if I can't get away. Yeah, socialism is "true freedom"...
Oh yeah, that bit about murder is  . No one can compete with the communist record of slaughter... No one...
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:31.
Apolyton Time is 00:31. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
28-09-2003 03:00
. I don't really give a damn anyway!
exactly the point I was trying to make to Ned by calling the US a corporate oligarchy. An Adam Smith society is inherently immoral because it uses greed.
|