BS: Conservatism in the United States

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatism in the United States
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 04 Jul 08 - 12:16 PM

What's happened is that the words Liberal and Consevative have reached the same level of meaningless as has Folk. They're merely labels for "good" or "bad" depending upon your individual views.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatism in the United States
From: Amos
Date: 04 Jul 08 - 02:53 PM

I think there really is a political spectrum, but it has little or nothing to do with the smoke-and-mirror battles involving the labels in current use. The spectrum has more than two dimensions, and it has umerous attributes...these are a few.

1. Tolerable rate of change: the spectrum goes from anarchy (total unpredictable change) to rabid defense of exactly what used to be.

2. Compassion: Spectrum runs from "loving everybody all the time and doing nothing", the useless brotherhood of the unsuccessful commune, to loving self and own friends to the point of exclusion of disadvantage of all others, the anti-social attitudes of some highly priveleged or snobbish..

3. Government Purpose: Ranges from none to the architect of social life.

4. Fiscal Sobriety: Anarchist spendthriftery to obsessive retention of cash and a horror of any debt.

5. Criteria of Human Respect: At one end, a respect of any human being as a basic condition; at the other, respect only of those who acheive prominence, preferably with wealth, or for corporations.

6. Willingness to commit violence on others: ranges from a refual to harm another human being to extreme militarism with specious rationale or none.

Most of the notions we have of liberalism start at the center of these curves and extend by small gradient steps in the general direction of the anarchic extreme; most of the notions we have of conservatism start near the center and extend toward the more controlling.

But I think there is at least one if not several other axes that wuld need to be identified and measured before you could truly have a political map of personalities and positions. Part of the confusion in the hustings is because the actual dimensions are sort of conflated into one quick-speak label, which is cognitively sort of like having only two directional words in your vocabulary, such as "left" and "right" and then trying to explain three-dimensional space. Difficult.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatism in the United States
From: John Hardly
Date: 04 Jul 08 - 03:27 PM

I don't disagree with all of your descriptions of the "spectrum". But I do disagree with this:

"Most of the notions we have of liberalism start at the center of these curves and extend by small gradient steps in the general direction of the anarchic extreme; most of the notions we have of conservatism start near the center and extend toward the more controlling.

Liberalism, at its extreme, extends toward the TOTAL control of all things economic -- confiscation of all wealth-producing capability until all essentially work for the state, turn in all product, and redistribute it. Conservatism does the opposite, at its extreme presupposing that the market will control inequities.

Your description SEEMS to fit more with the social aspects of society...

...except that, whereas conservatives may tend toward the control of things like abortion, pornography, etc, liberalism will end up controlling all the minutia of life -- from seatbelts to what we eat. After all, when the government takes the responsibility for everyone's life from cradle to grave, it ultimately must see the need to micro-manage it all. For instance, if it pays for health care, then it has a vested interest in making sure that nobody participates in health risk. In that vein, liberalism will end up battling within itself AT LEAST as much as it battles conservatism -- because the unintended consequences of governmental care will forever be in conflict with liberal's natural inclinations toward libertine living.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatism in the United States
From: Bee
Date: 04 Jul 08 - 03:52 PM

"...except that, whereas conservatives may tend toward the control of things like abortion, pornography, etc, liberalism will end up controlling all the minutia of life -- from seatbelts to what we eat. After all, when the government takes the responsibility for everyone's life from cradle to grave, it ultimately must see the need to micro-manage it all. For instance, if it pays for health care, then it has a vested interest in making sure that nobody participates in health risk. In that vein, liberalism will end up battling within itself AT LEAST as much as it battles conservatism -- because the unintended consequences of governmental care will forever be in conflict with liberal's natural inclinations toward libertine living. :. " - John Hardly

That could be seen as a healthy impetus towards balance, as opposed to a constant bitter struggle, you know.

However, this: "liberal's natural inclinations toward libertine living"...

lib·er·tine   
–noun 1. a person who is morally or sexually unrestrained, esp. a dissolute man; a profligate; rake.
2. a freethinker in religious matters.
3. a person freed from slavery in ancient Rome.
–adjective 4. free of moral, esp. sexual, restraint; dissolute; licentious.
5. freethinking in religious matters.
6. Archaic. unrestrained; uncontrolled.

[Origin: 1350–1400; ME libertyn < L lîbertînus of a freedman (adj.), freedman (n.), equiv. to lîbert(us) freedman (appar. by reanalysis of liber-tâs liberty as libert-âs) + -înus -ine1]

Now you've tossed us a new one. What on earth leads you to the conclusion that liberals are libertines?

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatism in the United States
From: Amos
Date: 04 Jul 08 - 03:54 PM

Well, the more I think on this the more convinced I am that we are tending to scrunch three dimensions into a one-dimension bag and it won't lead to clarity.

Liberalism does not, in its nature, lead to communism -- that's a whole different thing. Nor does liberalism, as a philosophy, believe in cradle-to-grave care of the individual, at least not any definition of it I have seen. So the socialist ==> rugged individualist is perhaps a different dimension -- degree of organization tolerable to live in. I don't like living in too much organization, myself, by which I mean I value my self determination highly. But that does not make me any less liberal in terms of humanistic values. I think.

It's curious what you say about conservatives controlling social behaviours, such as pornography, abortion, the use of marijuana, etc. but "liberalism" controlling all the resources. I don't see it.

To my way of thinking there are some things that are more efficiently coordinated by a central government. One is defense, another is core constitutional protections against local deviancy, such as civil rights, etc. Any nation-wide program can be helped in facilitation by a Federal government, but that alone should not be the criterion for whether something is or is not proper Federal business.

The Federal government has become this behemoth thing, with people tying lines to it from every direction trying to influence it in their direction. Lobbyists and other devices--buying senators, or using networks of variosu sorts, or seduction with cash, sex, etc. It really has become a bit of a Gulliver in Lilliputia.


A

A

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatism in the United States
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 04 Jul 08 - 05:12 PM

The word "Liberal" has come a long, long way since it meant an adherence to the philosophy of Adam Smith.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatism in the United States
From: Amos
Date: 04 Jul 08 - 06:33 PM

It surely has, Dick, and most of the way downhill.

I think we need a new vocabulary to talk about actual political vectors.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatism in the United States
From: Conservative...YES!!
Date: 04 Jul 08 - 09:51 PM

I agree, Amos.

A lot of times, it seems that we throw out these labels, but as we see here, the vast majority of us posting fall somewhere between L and R on the big scale. I may be closer to the R and several of you may be closer to the L.

The hot button issues such as abortion, capital punishment, welfare reform, social security and the likes, when brought out and debated in the mainstream media tend to, too many times, come to a screeching halt over a case that is really on an extreme side of the issue and that side, more often than not, is made out to be the norm rather than the exception.

With that in mind, neither side really has all the answers. We all are a collective group of different personalties thrown together in a country and told that here is the system, framed up more than two hundred years ago by men that had grand ideas in mind. These ideas, while as grand as they are, leave some question as to interpretation. Such as which "rights" as some see them as today are found in the constitution. And if they're not found specifically in the constitution, then which idea in the constitution covers that particular issue?

There is no way in which we can put ourselves in their shoes and know what was going through their minds. Some issues today are a lot of the same issues that they were faced with during their time, but then on the other hand, those other issues have been either clouded or created by the advance of technology. That's not to say that those issues are not dealt with in the constitution.

I believe the founding documents were drafted in such a manner as to let us make those decisions based on the ideas found in those very documents.

An issue that was brought up peviously but just mentioned was the religion factor.

As I go back and read those documents from time to time, I realize that the separation of church and state wasn't to save the government from the church, but to save the church from the government. However, for some reason, a backlash has been created over the last several decades that, for some reason, made the institution of church the enemy of the government when it was not at all intended on being that way.

Our founding fathers were very religious men. Now whether or not you look at religion as being important or as just being a crutch for the weak-minded, that perticular institution was used heavily in the construction of the ideas that founded this country. That, I feel, is a non-negotiable fact.

But just because the ideas that you and I live by now were based on religious men wanting to exercise those ideas and create a new country based solely on those ideas doesn't necessarily mean that those ideas were "wrong".

The issue of what constitutes what is "conservative" or what is "liberal" is very broad and while intresting to cuss and discuss between us, it almost begs us to take the specific issues and cuss and discuss them one by one until all can be hammered out.

But the advances of technology has so made it to where we often feel that spending too much time on just one subject has become a waste of our time.

Where do we go from here?


Yes!!

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatism in the United States
From: Riginslinger
Date: 04 Jul 08 - 10:19 PM

"Our founding fathers were very religious men..."


                  No they weren't. The constitution was written during the Enlightenment.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatism in the United States
From: Donuel
Date: 04 Jul 08 - 10:31 PM

I love conservatives who are ...

First I better define my words. In mystical Judaism and Christianity there was mention of the true ignorant person as being a person capable of great wonder, learning and changing ones mind as new understanding emerges.
so I love conservatives who are true ignorants.

Those who are "willfully" ignorant, who refuse to learn or accept fact that varies one iota from a fundamental unchanging viewpoint are a great danger to family and the world.

Naturally the willfully ignorant are not exclusive to conservatives but the fundamental christian or muslim types are good examples of the willfully ignorant.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatism in the United States
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 04 Jul 08 - 10:33 PM

"What on earth leads you to the conclusion that liberals are libertines"

By destroying your opponents through any means - the ends justify the means.

This is unfortunately pretty normal US political debate (as us foreigners see it!) - and works really well on a fairly uneducated ignorant electorate... It also sadly reflects just how ignorant and uneducated politicans are who use these tactics - if they really believe this rubbish - or that they are really nasty, misleading, malicious and untrustworthy if they do know the real meaning - in neither case they should be elected!

Usually in Australia the media catch these turkeys out - or one of the other many minor Aussie parties get acres of space for pointing it out... one of the drawbacks with the US 2 party circus...

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatism in the United States
From: Riginslinger
Date: 04 Jul 08 - 10:54 PM

Foolestroupe - As an American I agree completely with everything you've posted here. But if the electorate wasn't as ignorant and uneducated as they have demonstrated themselves to be, I don't think ignorant and uneducated politicians would get very far.


                   In terms of formal education, however, we have two candidates with pretty good credentials, so I'm assuming you mean "educated," at least as it pretains to candidates, in a generic sense.

                   Which brings us to another of your strong points, for all practical purposes, we only have 2 candidates.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatism in the United States
From: Amos
Date: 05 Jul 08 - 01:20 AM

Well, I do not; my impression of the liberal side of folks Stateside is that they are a lot less likely to resort to slash-and-burn, destroy-at-all-costsd politics than are the rabid neocons, who pose as conservative while going flat out fro radical unsettling and revision.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatism in the United States
From: Bee
Date: 05 Jul 08 - 01:33 AM

Well, certainly the Bush/neo-con government has changed the US in unforeseen and alarming ways. Being an endlessly curious person, I visit all kinds of odd corners of the internet, including some of the forums where even a year or two ago Bush was regarded as a great man, almost hero-worshipped. Now even his most rabid supporters have turned against him. There are fanatically fundamentalist Christian sites who really, truly think that Barack Obama is the prophesied Anti-Christ, harbinger of the Rapture, and even they can't find anything good to say about Bush.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatism in the United States
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 05 Jul 08 - 02:15 AM

The terms liberal and conservative, were originally used to describe how one took the constitution...one either interpreted it liberally, that is loosely...or conservatively...with not much changes, a more strict form. What is used to describe liberals and conservatives today is somewhat of an oxymoron....both sides use it to completely shred the constitution beyond recognition..both sides. Every remedy seems to take away just one more little right here, and a little there. The Clintons did it, and the Bushes did it. in my humble opinion, both sides broke their oath of office, and are still making justifications for it, today. Both are globalists, both pals who helped pave the way for the other. I believe that both of them atre neither liberal or conservative....just butchers of our form of government. Either a true liberal or conservative relates to the constitution as the center. what we see now is mislabled and both sides are doing what they can to change our basic form of government.. Its a sham!

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatism in the United States
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 05 Jul 08 - 02:20 AM

I'll trace this thread and come back and read it carefully tomorrow. Too late tonight to slog through it. I see several participants who take the time to explain themselves clearly here--a rare thing on some of these threads. Once the name-calling starts I write a thread off, but this one seems to have some meat on its bones. I don't always agree with everyone on this thread, but I appreciate their taking the time to articulate their positions. You learn new stuff if you are able to talk to people you don't always agree with. There have been a few presidents who figured that out, for example, who had cabinets with members from the Other party. Keeps the wind in the tunnel blowing both directions.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatism in the United States
From: Donuel
Date: 05 Jul 08 - 09:20 AM

Corporate fascism will borrow any party that will do its bidding of a deregulated, untaxed, free for all, super capitalism that will make them rich in the short run and damn the laws broken, lives lost and ethics ignored.

Corporate owned goverment has created a very dark culture in which most people are now employeed to either tell the lie or or keep the secret.


conservatism is better suited to serving this dark system than liberalism but they are in truth both coluding at some level.

To even discuss conservatism as an entity is to participate in the shell game of deception. Shills want you to keep these terms of devision alive and well.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatism in the United States
From: Donuel
Date: 05 Jul 08 - 09:22 AM

(not withstanding the original historic use of the words constitutionally conservative.)

today the words are what think tanks have corrupted.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatism in the United States
From: Riginslinger
Date: 05 Jul 08 - 09:36 AM

But both parties, it seems to me, have adopted the "free trade" position that Donuel is labeling "corporate fascism." The best we hear out of the Democrats is to impose some kind of environmental and labor standards on emerging nations. I'm not sure how one could bring that about, and certainly it couldn't be done in a time frame that would really do much to help.


                   I wonder how many voting citizens have really contemplated the concept of a "think tank," and the roles they play, and the power they wield in modern media dominated politics.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatism in the United States
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 05 Jul 08 - 10:57 AM

" I wonder how many voting citizens have really contemplated the concept of a "think tank," and the roles they play, and the power they wield in modern media dominated politics."

Answer: During the primaries, the word we got was Hillary had one CFR adviser, McCain had one, 'Obama, yo mama' has six.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatism in the United States
From: Riginslinger
Date: 05 Jul 08 - 11:35 AM

CFR? And what does that tell us?

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatism in the United States
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 05 Jul 08 - 12:23 PM

CFR is council of Foreign Relations ..(International Globalists, you know, the guys stripping away our soveriegnities, and rights, to facilitate their vision of world domination, by the elite..them)

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatism in the United States
From: Donuel
Date: 05 Jul 08 - 12:33 PM

conservatism is better suited to serving this dark system than liberalism but they are in truth both coluding at some level

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatism in the United States
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 05 Jul 08 - 12:44 PM

...the SAME level....

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatism in the United States
From: Riginslinger
Date: 05 Jul 08 - 12:47 PM

Why would Obama need six advisors from this one group? Is he a slow study or something?

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatism in the United States
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 05 Jul 08 - 01:07 PM

When Dr. Richard Leakey was interviewed for finding a fossil in an African valley, that was a link(anthropological), showing that a type of man existed there,...they asked him, 'Were they toolmakers?' Agricultural?..Did they use metals?..etc'...he answered them saying, 'All I can say, for sure, is I found the bone here'. I don't know why he has six 'advisers', maybe the others didn't need as many...but that is just a guess......but he has them!

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatism in the United States
From: Amos
Date: 05 Jul 08 - 01:23 PM

To be fair, the others have had their six times as long.

As for globalism, I think it is very important to differentiate tow senses in which the word gets used which are often confused. One is actually the insidious shift of power structures from nations to corporations that cross borders between nations, and they distort the map of nations and the ability of individuals to determine their own destiny. The geographical map becomes secondary to the map of trans-nation corporate shells and their shills, and this shift of power from people in places, to executives running companies, is a drift toward planetary fascism of great long-term danger.

The other sense of globalism is the view of our species on its single and limited planet, with no ready means of escape or transfer. This is an imperative perspective for anyone contemplating policy--to think globally--because the interdependence of regions has accelerated and grown. Acting wisely locally is also an important mandate.

As to the CFR, I am not sure exactly why it gathered the reputation for pushing for international corporatism. Does anyone know plainly how this came about or what the CFR has actually done?? Or is this just the casting of shadows into mysterious boojums?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatism in the United States
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 05 Jul 08 - 01:31 PM

Don't you think this can be accomplished through a common good, rather than changing laws and borders, and the removal of freedoms, than stripping away of freedoms to that end??..Do we need to be forced, by a few, to get along, and trade internationally???

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatism in the United States
From: GUEST,A conservative
Date: 05 Jul 08 - 01:33 PM

Michael Savage says it best everyday and millions listen and agree:

"Liberalism is a mental disorder."

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatism in the United States
From: GUEST,Lord Batman's Kitchener
Date: 05 Jul 08 - 01:42 PM

You, of course have proof that millions agree with that somewhat stereotypical "conservative" gag line?

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatism in the United States
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 05 Jul 08 - 02:28 PM

>>GUEST,A conservative
Date: 05 Jul 08 - 01:33 PM

Michael Savage says it best everyday and millions listen and agree:

"Liberalism is a mental disorder."<<

I think the above about sums up the state of modern "conservatism" in the USA. A conservative is defined as someone that despises "liberals" and "liberals" are defined as anyone a self proclaimed "conservative" chooses to despise.

I have listened to Michael Savage a few times, only to find out who he is. He is disorganized, ill informed, opinionated and rude. He combs the news media all day for examples of bad behavior then ascribes the behavior to the items that he finds to liberals. then he says that the politician he is attacking that day is a "liberal." These propagandists have been doing this for years. It worked against John Kerry.

There is no actual conservative movement in the USA. Or if there is it is buried below a huge pile of manure from the likes of Michael Savage and Tom Delay.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatism in the United States
From: Lord Batman's Kitchener
Date: 05 Jul 08 - 02:36 PM

I've heard pretty much the same thing said of 'conservatives' by 'liberals'. Quite frankly both sides are as bad as one another. Playground name calling.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatism in the United States
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 05 Jul 08 - 02:43 PM

Like, on here???????
I posted the correct definition of the two, without prejudice on an earlier post...quit arguing!

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatism in the United States
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 05 Jul 08 - 02:44 PM

Lord Batman's Kitchener

I don't think that you have. I can't think of anyone off had that calls himself or herself a liberal. What you have heard is people from a whole spectrum of interests responding to the baiting.

Listen to Limbaugh or Michael Savage find me anyone in the country who doesn't call themselves "Conservative" who talks that way.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatism in the United States
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 05 Jul 08 - 02:54 PM

Read the post again. It defines a liberal and conservative view of interpreting the constitution...from which now is almost non-existant, thanks to the BS

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatism in the United States
From: Lord Batman's Kitchener
Date: 05 Jul 08 - 03:03 PM

I stand by my previous post. as I said playground name calling 101

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatism in the United States
From: Amos
Date: 05 Jul 08 - 03:08 PM

THose of you who, although too wary to have names here, wish to state that liberalism is a mental disorder, would be well advised to have the courage to define what you mean by liberalism. Obviously, the core definition--a respect for the freedoms of others--is not what you mean to imply is mentally off-kilter. So what are the actual elements of your version of "liberalism"? Bleeding heart socialistic apathy? Or what? ANd why or from where did you decide this was what liberal meant?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatism in the United States
From: Riginslinger
Date: 05 Jul 08 - 09:31 PM

Personally, I think trying to define either one of these terms is pretty futile. Probably, if one wishes to discuss either term, and deginition would have to be agreed to going in.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatism in the United States
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 05 Jul 08 - 11:55 PM

Here is a reply I made to one of those smug, stupid chain letters from someone calling them self a "conservative." The ignorance displayed is astounding.

I had to reply...


First off, I am Conservative on most things. The radical people in this country are the deranged people who want to run this country with the government and regulations as a money spigot to the good ole boys who went to school with the politicians.

18 WAYS TO BE A GOOD LIBERAL

1. You have to believe that gender roles are artificial, but being homosexual is natural.

All of society is artificial, wearing dresses, hunting, gathering, all of it. Having sex and making babies is natural. A lot of animals are homosexual. No animal besides people give their girls Barbies and their boys Hot Wheels. I would say the the above statement is not "liberal" but observed fact.

2. You have to believe that businesses create oppression and government creates prosperity.

That's just horse shit. Republican "conservatives" seem to think that giving tax breaks to millionaires so that they can buy Italian yachts and invest in "Asian growth funds" creates prosperity, when all it does is made out hereditary leaders lazier. Government creates infrastructure and preserves order. Trying to drown government in the bath tub leads to Chaos and kleptocracy, and as we see with the present economy, it is ultimately bad for business and destroys hard won prosperity.

3. You have to believe that guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens are more of a threat than nuclear weapons technology in the hands of Iran or North Korea.

No no one is worried about the law abiding citizens. Could you find a dumber thing to say? But, if in a country with 100 million gun owners, if one percent are inclined to felony, 5 percent pollute the water table with target practice, 5 percent make errors in gun safety and .0001 percent buy submachine guns and shoot up schools and fast food stores, we have a bigger problem than sovereign governments building Nukes so that we won't try to overthrow them by force.

4. You have to believe that there was no art before federal funding.

Most art throughout history has been by the patronage of the ruler. Do you think the pyramids and the Parthenon were built by hippies? Mozart, Beethoven and Woody Guthrie all had government patrons. Brittany Spears and Miley Cyrus are the results of corporate mass marketing.

5. You have to believe that global temperatures are less affected by cyclical changes in the earth's climate and MORE affected by soccer moms driving SUVs.

If natural cycles were 90 percent and we were 10 percent and that ten percent was what caused us to pass the tipping point and melt the ice caps. Does that still mean that individuals should still be commuting in vehicles with the amount of resources for a ten person bus? Natural cycles are no excuse to waste. For example, most forest fires are caused by lightening. Does that allow us to ignore Smokey the Bear? My friend, think of the "Greatest Generation", then it was conservative to conserve.

6. You have to be against capital punishment, but support abortion on demand.

Comparing the two is disingenuous and stupid.

7. You have to believe that the AIDS virus is spread by lack of federal funding.

No you have to believe that the spread can be diminished with federal funding.

8. You have to believe that the same teacher who can't teach 4th-graders how to read is somehow qualified to teach those same kids about sex.

Yeah better to "teach" them abstinence and spend money helping them bring unwanted babies to term.

9. You have to believe that hunters don't care about nature, but PETA activists do.

Most hunters do not care about nature. They care about the availability of prey. Cheney shot his buddy while hunting for farm raised foul. PETA women don't care about nature. They care about animals they think of as human. PETA men care about impressing PETA women and getting laid.

10. You have to believe that self-esteem is more important than actually doing something to earn it.

Oh you mean like going to legacy private school, being a cheerleader, going to college on your daddy's name? Getting to fly jets because your Dad was in Congress? Being CEO of a Baseball Team, becoming governor and becoming President because of your dad's rolodex? Most "self esteem" is inherited. Its not so bad to level the playing field, Give some kids a hand up and reward merit.

11. You have to believe that Mel Gibson spent $25 million of his own money to make "The Passion of the Christ" for financial gain only.

He made a ton of money. Writers are supposed to write what they know. Artists are supposed to take on projects they believe in. That is an accepted path to financial and artistic success. Getting drunk and cursing Israel while getting arrested in LA is the opposite of that.

12. You have to believe the NRA is bad because it supports certain parts of the Constitution, while the ACLU is good because it supports certain parts of the Constitution.

the NRA supports a very narrow interpretation of a single paragraph of one amendment. The ACLU supports the whole Constitution, especially the Bill of Rights. How much cement would have to be between a person's ears for him not to see that?

13. You have to believe that taxes are too low and ATM fees are too high.

A "conservative" for some strange reason fights for tax breaks for people he will only ever see from afar. The religion of low taxes is a worship of false idols. As a voter, don't talk to me about all taxes. Talk to me about my taxes.

14. You have to believe that Margaret Sanger and Gloria Steinem are more important to American history that George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and General MacArthur.

George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and General MacArthur were a lot more "liberal" than "conservative" when measured against these 18 points.

15. You have to believe that standardized tests are racist, but racial quotas are not.

The tests are not "racist" they are stacking the deck. People who argue for the quotas want to see the deck stacked the other way. True liberals want to see more opportunity for all.

16. You have to believe that the only reason socialism hasn't worked anywhere it's been tried is because the right people haven't been in charge.

Liberalism and and socialism are different things in the real world. It is the "conservative's" compulsive need to stereotype which binds them together in the popular imagination.

17. You have to believe that homosexual parades displaying drag queens and transvestites should be constitutionally protected, and manger scenes at Christmas should be illegal.

Private displays of any religious or social opinion are protected by the Constitution. Private displays. Go ahead, put a manger scene in your yard and see who bothers you. You can have a glutton's for Jesus parade any time you want. Decorate your SUVs with yellow ribbons and praying Calvins kneeling at the cross and parade down the highway at 10 miles per hour, one person per car. Oh yeah, I forgot, y'all do that every weekday at rush hour.

18. You have to believe that this message is part of a vast, right-wing conspiracy.

No just some narrow minded provocation.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatism in the United States
From: Amos
Date: 06 Jul 08 - 12:50 AM

Curiopuos, especially that last line.

Of course, none of the beliefs articulated have anything to do with being liberal, as such, and they actually delineate the paper tiger created by some people in order ot have something to yell about. It is a shame they choose the word liberal, for the label. Why not COnfucian, or eipozootic or Ramadamanian?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatism in the United States
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 06 Jul 08 - 02:48 AM

"Liberal" is the word they chose, so "liberal" it is. But truly the word, to one of these self described "conservatives" has no other meaning than "Those we demonize."

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatism in the United States
From: Bee
Date: 06 Jul 08 - 11:02 AM

Not bad, Jack the Sailor.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatism in the United States
From: Amos
Date: 06 Jul 08 - 12:06 PM

See, there's the rub-- they steal a good word and true, and pervert it to the dark art of demonizing others, the last ting a democracy needs, and claim the false virtue of doing it to defend a democracy. It is convoluted madness, a crazy salad.

Ann Coulter stands out in my mind as the paradigm perpetrator of this insanity.



A

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatism in the United States
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 06 Jul 08 - 06:13 PM

half vast, mebbe.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatism in the United States
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 06 Jul 08 - 09:15 PM

It's all stupid..both sides

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatism in the United States
From: katlaughing
Date: 07 Jul 08 - 10:26 AM

Very interesting article on why some conservatives are backing Obama: CLick

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatism in the United States
From: GUEST,The Bastard Son Of Marty Feldman
Date: 07 Jul 08 - 10:39 AM

On July 3rd Conservative.....YES wrote - "I believe we need to do more about illegal aliens and of course the sanctity of life"

That's strange. I was thinking that all North Americans were illegal aliens with the exception of the true natives.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatism in the United States
From: Riginslinger
Date: 07 Jul 08 - 02:21 PM

Yes, of course the problem is, they'd only just discovered the skeletal remains of Kennewick Man before they built a levee over him. Hopefully they'll discover more remains so we'll know who the true natives really were.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatism in the United States
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 07 Jul 08 - 04:41 PM

This really sums up what I have seen of Obama so far.

"I think he's a man in the market for every good idea he can find, and he doesn't care what label it comes with."

What impresses me the most about him is that he seems to be pragmatic and sensible.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatism in the United States
From: PoppaGator
Date: 07 Jul 08 - 05:02 PM

A lot of thoughtful messages here ~ I truly apprecite most of it.

There are many things I could comment upon or enlarge upon, but don't really know where to start.

Just for fun, let's consider one of those recently posted "18 points" by which right wings nuts condemn the straw man they call "liberalism":

"9. You have to believe that hunters don't care about nature, but PETA activists do.

Most hunters do not care about nature. They care about the availability of prey. Cheney shot his buddy while hunting for farm raised foul. PETA women don't care about nature. They care about animals they think of as human. PETA men care about impressing PETA women and getting laid."

I'd differ only by observing that most hunters DO care about nature, and I remember being surprised (pleasantly so) years ago upon learning that several groups of hunters in various localities had made common cause with the more bookish and indoorsy type of environmentalists, banding together in defense of wilderness, wetlands, etc. This coalition, which once seemed surprising to me, is alive and well and one of the more hopeful aspects of our society today.

I love the observation about PETA, though... ;^)

What scares me about the NRA is that, as lobbyists for arms manufacturers, they have a vested interest not only in protecting the legal availability of firearms (which I don't necessarily condemn), but also in promoting the production and sale of ammunition in the greatest possible quantities.

Allowing gangbangers easy access to automatic weapons and plenty of bullets, though background-check-free "gun shows" or whatever, maximizes the profits of the manufacturers without having the slightest effect upon "protecting the rights" either hunters or law-abiding security-conscious citizens. This aspect of the status quo, however, has a decidedly negative effect upon the public as a whole, insofar as we're all potential victims of "collateral damage" from gang violence. (And some of us, conceivably, might also be in danger of being shot on purpose, for that matter.)

Ho hum, just another example of how corporations rule, and how they manage to flimflam large numbers of citizens to support their objectives, regardless of whether the cause actually benefits the voters themselves.