So does this mean that you'd order them to shot anybody that was suspected of being an insurgent, regardless of how flimsy the evidence, or does it mean that you'd let suspected insurgents walk around unmolestered, until their insurgencyness had been established beoynd reasonable doubt?
Conservatives -- What Would Make You Happy?
- Thread starter Regnad Kcin
- Start date
-
- Tags
- conservatives
Flippancy aside, you may have noticed that some countries are more conservative than others, e.g. the USA. And some countries have more of the social problems which you lament than others, e.g. the USA.
Actually, it seems to me that the enormous underemployed and unemployed underclass in France and Britian are far worse than anything in the USA in t.
If anything, things seems to be improving in this respect in the USA--divorce, illegitimacy, and welfare dependency are significantly lower than they used to be. This certainly contributed to a significant reduction in crime, although of course, as you say, correlation-vs.-causation in such issues are very hard to distinguish.
The improvement in this respect had been almost entirely since the resurgence of conservatism (in the sense of re-legitimizing public morality and taking seriously the people's views about it--as opposed to the views of intellectuals), and its return to the American mainstream. This had occured after conservatism had been marginalized from the 1930s to the 1970s as the "New Deal" and "Great Society" ruled America--which was, of course, the time that saw such an enormous increase in inllegitimacy, divorce, crime, delinquency, drug use, and so on.
I would not for a moment imply that correlation implies cause, but on the other hand, it is almost invariably the case that cause implies correlation. If "liberalism" causes divorce and "bastardry", then surely there should be some correlation between them?
There sure is, whether you check divorce and illegitimacy and divorce rates within a society (say, USA or England in the 1960s vs. in the 2000s) or between societies.
Actually, it seems to me that the enormous underemployed and unemployed underclass in France and Britian are far worse than anything in the USA in t.
If anything, things seems to be improving in this respect in the USA--divorce, illegitimacy, and welfare dependency are significantly lower than they used to be. This certainly contributed to a significant reduction in crime, although of course, as you say, correlation-vs.-causation in such issues are very hard to distinguish.
The improvement in this respect had been almost entirely since the resurgence of conservatism (in the sense of re-legitimizing public morality and taking seriously the people's views about it--as opposed to the views of intellectuals), and its return to the American mainstream. This had occured after conservatism had been marginalized from the 1930s to the 1970s as the "New Deal" and "Great Society" ruled America--which was, of course, the time that saw such an enormous increase in inllegitimacy, divorce, crime, delinquency, drug use, and so on.
I would not for a moment imply that correlation implies cause, but on the other hand, it is almost invariably the case that cause implies correlation. If "liberalism" causes divorce and "bastardry", then surely there should be some correlation between them?
There sure is, whether you check divorce and illegitimacy and divorce rates within a society (say, USA or England in the 1960s vs. in the 2000s) or between societies.
Last edited:
Dr Adequate
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2004
- Messages
- 17,766
In the first place, you are simply misninformed. There is (I'm told) such a problem in France, but not in Britain. You might also like to look at the unemployment rates in Britain under the Conservatives and Labour. If there is one reason why I say good things about the Labour Party still, it is that we had a massive social problem there, and they cleared it up.
In the second place, this is shifting the goalposts. (Possibly unconciously: I impute no weaseliness.) You were talking about social liberalism, and supposed social consequences. Challenged on that, you moved the argument to economic liberalism (high taxes, high spending, Euro-style) and its supposed economic consequences.
These are, though, as about a zillion posters on here would tell you, two seperate things. In particular, we're knee deep here in social liberals who are all for low taxes.
You get back on your topic, though:
Apparently this liberal reign of terror must have hit its peak somewhere around the Eisenhower administration. Strange.
Were the social problems you've enumerated really greater then than they are today? And greater than in, say, 1900, before those pesky liberals got America in their grip?
Between societies, please.
If you just do it over time there'd be a correlation between these things and sale of electrical appliances.
Could we have some comparative data?
Last edited:
Would you mind providing a single example of how the Demcrats talking has prevented the soldiers in Iraq from "doing their job?"
The president has had his way there 100% and you are blaming the Democrats voices for the mess there. Amazing.
So "Duke" Cunningham's behavior was the result of "liberal" policies?
It's coming up election time in 3 years, what do you expect, Dr. Adequate? They have to start the big lies and disinformation really early this time if they expect to win the next election.
Repetition is the lynchpin of propaganda - Joseph Goebbels
Ever see that SNL skit of the Bush/Gore debate, where Gore goes on and on about the "lock box"? One of the few moments in the history of SNL that was genuinely, truly, hilarious.
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2001
- Messages
- 60,135
That was my inspiration.Ever see that SNL skit of the Bush/Gore debate, where Gore goes on and on about the "lock box"? One of the few moments in the history of SNL that was genuinely, truly, hilarious.
CapelDodger
Penultimate Amazing
I can't speak for France, but consider yourself told again that there's not the sort of social-exclusion problem in the UK that was brought to public attention in New Orleans. Another difference : the UK has a record-high prison population of 75,000, the US, four times the size, has a prison population of 2 million. Society seems a lot more cohesive in the UK than in the US.
SlippyToad
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2003
- Messages
- 382
Then you win, Tony because only the super rich are. Only the top ~1% of the nation is subject to inheritance taxes, contrary to any propaganda you may have heard to the contrary. A lot of the b.s. I hear conservatives complain about is either not their business, or not really the problem they claim it to be, and it becomes more difficult for me to take you people seriously year after year because you go flying off the handle about something that isn't even real.
SlippyToad
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2003
- Messages
- 382
I'm reminded of Ronald Reagan deciding that welfare cheating was endemic based on an anecdotal story he was told. If I could call forth some anecdotes about corporate welfare -- I can't imagine where some of those would come from??
I guess you don't have to deal with regular life the way most of us do, pepto. There's a lot of ◊◊◊◊ that's broken these days. If you have to pay your bills out of a regular paycheck, it's kind of scary. This month things are OK. Next month, I could be buried in medical bills.
I think this is highly revealing in that you (and many other conservatives) are uninterested in having a dialogue about how and why we got into this mess in the first place. Your extreme stance of "penalty of death" speaks very clearly to your obvious awareness that discussing how we got into Iraq, and for what reasons, is generally a losing proposition for Republicans and very clearly reveals the Administration to be fundamentally dishonest people. If you are afraid of having an argument, it is because you know you are going to lose and I submit that revealing that stance means you already have.
Well, dazzle us with your knowledge of Kyoto's specific failings, pepto. You're so well-informed on other topics, after all. Or do you just swallow the party glurge on that topic as well? I'm not saying this because I have some bullet-point agenda sitting in front of me. I have no idea what's actually in Kyoto. I strongly doubt you do either.
You are living in a fantasy world. Nearly every other major industrialized country has recognized that the free market cannot handle these things. It has nothing to do with being "so" profitable. I have no idea how you imagine business could be MORE profitable than it is. The last 5 years have been gangbusters for Corporate America. Businesses (that aren't GM) have consistently posted higher profit margins while the rest of us working folk have sucked wind. In fact, I don't think Working America can stand much more success for Corpoate America. All systems require balance. An economy is a system, and ours is out of balance. The advantage is as highly weighted towards the already-wealthy as it ever has been. Should the working class give up any more of its clout to business, we will simply wind up back where we started circa 1929 or so -- a highly stratified society where rich means Ungodly rich and poor means Desperately poor. You can't see this because you've clearly been preprogrammed by a generation of Reaganite BS but it's happening and it's coming up on us fast. The problem that confronted 1929 America in part was caused by a lack of competition, intense consolidation, and severe corruption. Banks answered to few regulatory guidlines, which meant that they didn't have to actually have real money on hand, stocks were purchased with loans, and eventually a stutter in confidence sent the whole thing crashing down. FDR, who is reviled by modern Conservatives and gets zero credit for saving Western-style capitalism from its own excesses, put in a system of checks and balances that shifted the burden of future and inevitable economic failures slightly off the backs of the least-wealthy, and permitted a major economic explosion in the form of the middle class. The addition of the baby boom of the 1940's provided an additional demographic impetus in the form of millions of young able-bodied workers. Virtually all of the major social institutions that provided the safety net for the middle class were created in that period, and virtually all of them have since come under attack by bitter whiny conservatives who simply can't admit that they lost the argument. "Winning" the argument will mean returning America to it's pre-Depression level of major economic insecurity, with the added problem that the previous four generations grew up within that safety net and remember it quite fondly. A moment will occur, sometime here very soon (it may be occurring now, for all we know) where a majority of Americans will recognize the assault on the middle class and their social safety net for what it is, and that's when your neo-con tools will get booted out of power so hard they won't see either the White House or Congress again for another sixty years. And guess what -- I plan on being there with my boots on. Bet money on it.
Shirley, you jest.
We are the antithesis of whining. And why would you assume personal happiness was ever our goal?
Our question to liberals is the very answer you seek - what would make you shut up? I mean completely shut up and stop creating social problems (usually where none exist), yet you believe can be heroically solved if we just give you more money and programs at the expense of undermining our values, culture, and paychecks?
The answer, we have figured out, is nothing. You want our values, culture, and paychecks to crumble. You will always demand more dollars to address non-issues and fund complicated solutions that could be solved with simple measures - measures that may offend a hypersensitive minority of minorities who instantly call their lawyer, therapist, and congressman whenever some show of American pride is expessed by others whom they senselessly fear and envy.
You are babies. There is no satisfying you; one can only put you down and hope you will go to sleep.
We are the antithesis of whining. And why would you assume personal happiness was ever our goal?
Our question to liberals is the very answer you seek - what would make you shut up? I mean completely shut up and stop creating social problems (usually where none exist), yet you believe can be heroically solved if we just give you more money and programs at the expense of undermining our values, culture, and paychecks?
The answer, we have figured out, is nothing. You want our values, culture, and paychecks to crumble. You will always demand more dollars to address non-issues and fund complicated solutions that could be solved with simple measures - measures that may offend a hypersensitive minority of minorities who instantly call their lawyer, therapist, and congressman whenever some show of American pride is expessed by others whom they senselessly fear and envy.
You are babies. There is no satisfying you; one can only put you down and hope you will go to sleep.
Roadtoad
Bufo Caminus Inedibilis
On that note from American:
Much of what I'd change can't be legislated. For one thing, I'm galled by the attitude of those who declare, "America -- love it or leave it." It's not a bad sentiment, and frankly, I think those who make that declaration ought to be the first to exercise it. After all, if you can't be bothered to vote, if you insist on squelching criticism, if you are constantly looking to justify your own actions, but ready to damn the next man's, obviously, you lack any love for what America stands for, and you ought to leave. The sooner, the better.
Otherwise, much of what I'd like to see change would start in the hearts and minds of people. Let's start by basing our actions on facts, rather than what we feel. Let's start realizing that we really aren't anywhere near as important as we think we are, and that maybe, we could do with a little less self-indulgence. Maybe we could do more walking rather than driving, for one example, or perhaps we could let the other guy go ahead of us in a line, rather than racing ahead and trying to beat him to the front.
Just once, I'd like to see people as a whole putting the needs of others ahead of themselves. If profit is your only motive, what are you really gaining? At the end of the day, if all you can do is count it, perhaps you haven't gained that much.
I'd love to see greater compassion. For one thing, I would like to see people think before they shoot their mouths off. I can't help but think that gays and lesbians are probably tired of hearing how they're all headed for Hell, especially when some of them behave with greater compassion and mercy than many of those who are condemning them, two traits that Jesus Himself praised highly in the Bible. I'd like to see us a little less doctrinaire about what constitutes "Moral" behavior, and a bit more wise about what truly is moral. I'd really like to see this discussed with wisdom and courage in an open and honest fashion by as many people as possible. Ultimately, I think we'd find we've more in common than we realize.
I'm not overly eager to see God brought into schools, into government, and into some sort of official recognition. More often than not, it's become a club for bludgeoning our political enemies, rather than a rod for comforting our neighbors. Religion is a fine thing, until we use it to control others, and that seems to be its sole purpose, anymore. Say and do the right things, be in the right places, and that's evidence that God rules your heart, even if what you're doing, saying, and where you're being, breaks the hearts of others. Sorry; I was on the receiving end of that for far too long. No more, please. If that means I pass on public prayers, if that means we remove "Under God" from the pledge, if that means the Church is treated the same as every other institution in American society, I can only think that's for the better.
I'd really like to see people take responsibility for their own actions. If you broke it, admit it. I can deal with a mistake. I can't deal with a lie.
If it's not yours, keep your hands off. If you need it, you can ask for it. Funny thing about that. Someone might actually say, "Yes." Why steal? I can deal with need. I can't deal with a thief. And if someone says yes, be honest enough to do what you say you'll do, nothing more, nothing less.
I'd really like to be able to stand on my own two feet more often, and to see others do the same. If you can't afford it, if it's one of the latest gizmos or what have you, maybe you don't need it right this second. There's something to be said for waiting. Frankly, if we talked more to our neighbors, instead of centering on ourselves, we might find that someone we already should know might be able to help us achieve what it is we want, and that we can help them do the same.
Of course, all of this requires courage, compassion, rationality, wisdom, intelligence, and a willingness to use them. And, from what I see on both sides, that's not happening any time soon.
Much of what I'd change can't be legislated. For one thing, I'm galled by the attitude of those who declare, "America -- love it or leave it." It's not a bad sentiment, and frankly, I think those who make that declaration ought to be the first to exercise it. After all, if you can't be bothered to vote, if you insist on squelching criticism, if you are constantly looking to justify your own actions, but ready to damn the next man's, obviously, you lack any love for what America stands for, and you ought to leave. The sooner, the better.
Otherwise, much of what I'd like to see change would start in the hearts and minds of people. Let's start by basing our actions on facts, rather than what we feel. Let's start realizing that we really aren't anywhere near as important as we think we are, and that maybe, we could do with a little less self-indulgence. Maybe we could do more walking rather than driving, for one example, or perhaps we could let the other guy go ahead of us in a line, rather than racing ahead and trying to beat him to the front.
Just once, I'd like to see people as a whole putting the needs of others ahead of themselves. If profit is your only motive, what are you really gaining? At the end of the day, if all you can do is count it, perhaps you haven't gained that much.
I'd love to see greater compassion. For one thing, I would like to see people think before they shoot their mouths off. I can't help but think that gays and lesbians are probably tired of hearing how they're all headed for Hell, especially when some of them behave with greater compassion and mercy than many of those who are condemning them, two traits that Jesus Himself praised highly in the Bible. I'd like to see us a little less doctrinaire about what constitutes "Moral" behavior, and a bit more wise about what truly is moral. I'd really like to see this discussed with wisdom and courage in an open and honest fashion by as many people as possible. Ultimately, I think we'd find we've more in common than we realize.
I'm not overly eager to see God brought into schools, into government, and into some sort of official recognition. More often than not, it's become a club for bludgeoning our political enemies, rather than a rod for comforting our neighbors. Religion is a fine thing, until we use it to control others, and that seems to be its sole purpose, anymore. Say and do the right things, be in the right places, and that's evidence that God rules your heart, even if what you're doing, saying, and where you're being, breaks the hearts of others. Sorry; I was on the receiving end of that for far too long. No more, please. If that means I pass on public prayers, if that means we remove "Under God" from the pledge, if that means the Church is treated the same as every other institution in American society, I can only think that's for the better.
I'd really like to see people take responsibility for their own actions. If you broke it, admit it. I can deal with a mistake. I can't deal with a lie.
If it's not yours, keep your hands off. If you need it, you can ask for it. Funny thing about that. Someone might actually say, "Yes." Why steal? I can deal with need. I can't deal with a thief. And if someone says yes, be honest enough to do what you say you'll do, nothing more, nothing less.
I'd really like to be able to stand on my own two feet more often, and to see others do the same. If you can't afford it, if it's one of the latest gizmos or what have you, maybe you don't need it right this second. There's something to be said for waiting. Frankly, if we talked more to our neighbors, instead of centering on ourselves, we might find that someone we already should know might be able to help us achieve what it is we want, and that we can help them do the same.
Of course, all of this requires courage, compassion, rationality, wisdom, intelligence, and a willingness to use them. And, from what I see on both sides, that's not happening any time soon.
peptoabysmal
Illuminator
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2002
- Messages
- 3,466
I didn't say it was preventing them from doing their job. I said Democrats are getting soldiers killed. In your view, we shouldn't be there at all, and that is a perfectly valid view. But while we are there, why give encouragement to the enemy?
This is my opinion, so shut up!
(j/k)fishbob
Seasonally Disaffected
Dissociating 'conservative' from 'lying #*(&^ weasel'. I am really annoyed that the LSWs have hijacked a perfectly valid descriptive term and turned it into a cult that worships, and can see no wrong, in the the highest ranks of the Republican party. Some of those people are evil. Some of those people are criminal. I would get the feel-goods if the actual conservatives would throw the LSW rascals out.
Tony
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2003
- Messages
- 15,410
If you hate America that much, you can move to a place where people put their so-called "duties" to their "families, community, and country" above their life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.
So you'd opt for more PCness, can't say I'm surprised.
Last edited:
Tony
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2003
- Messages
- 15,410
Generally, I think that is a ideal heald by most "conservatives". "Conservatives" claim to love this country, the truth is, no one hates it more.
This is a cute, and very shizophrenic, characteristic of conservatives. They claim to want smaller government, less taxes but a "strong" (read: big) military.
Last edited:
Tony
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2003
- Messages
- 15,410
Can you please provide a source?
Don't get me mixed up with the Limbaugh/Hannity/Coulter lot. I'm conservative in that I support the conservative principles I was raised to think (during the 90's) were conservative, ie, less government, less beauracracy, less government intrusion into private lives, personal freedom/individual rights, accountable government. The vast majority of my positions are based on these principles and when I’ve expressed these ideas, I've been labeled everything from a communist to an anarchist to a fascist by boobs on this board. Go figure.