Conservatives -- What Would Make You Happy?

[Chaos]

Actually, I am saying that there is no "correct result".

Okay. My mistake.

To stay with the example of Affirmative Action: I took your post to mean that, using the right procedure - going by merit instead of AA criteria (race, isn´t it?) - will yield a result that... how can I put it... that one doesn´t need to be concerned about.

 

[Tony]

Not at all similar.

It is the exact same thing. You said "I do not think it is right to interfere with someone leaving the fruits of their life's work to their family". Using that logic, it is wrong to rebel against any monarch because you're interfering with their right to pass on the fruits of their life's work to their family.

Want to try again with the topic at hand?

The topic at hand is Conservatives -- What Would Make You Happy?.

That being one individual giving something he currently possesses (up until his VERY recent death) to his family, wihtout some 3rd party having it first for hundreds of years.

Now you're moving the goal posts and splitting hairs. I'm not really surprised, you're trying to escape accountability for the implications of the ideas you advocate.

 

[Tony]

I don't care if aristocracies emerge (we have them already, actually...the Kennedy's, the Bushes...), as long as they emerge from hard work and good decision making,

Hard-work and good decision (if good decisions were made, there would be no aristocracy) making are irrelevant. Aristocracies pose a serious threat to freedom. I don't know about you, but I think allowing someone to subvert American freedom simply because they worked hard to be a rather silly notion infused with ignorance of history.

and they don't emerge due to having a different set of rules apply to them than to everyone else. I'm thinking along the lines of medieval Europe, with totally different sets of laws applying to nobility and to peasants.

They do have a different set of rules that apply for them. Sure, it may not be written like that on the books, but in practice, the rich and famous live under a different legal standard than the rabble.

I'm more concerned with the process than I am the results.

Aww, so if someone uses the democratic system to murder 6 million jews, you're ok with it. I'm sorry, process is good and should be respected, but using process to subvert human rights should not be tolerated.

 

[Freakshow]

Now you're moving the goal posts and splitting hairs. I'm not really surprised, you're trying to escape accountability for the implications of the ideas you advocate.

No, I'm just focusing the conversation in on a point that should have been obvious in the first place.

Tony, I have seen nothing come from you but straw men and ad hominems. Debating with you seems to be rather pointless, as you fly off into extreme straw men at every opportunity. Such as the comment in your next post about the holocaust. You know that rational discussions are not held simply at the most extreme cases imaginable. Why do you continue to attempt to do so?

 

[Tony]

No, I'm just focusing the conversation in on a point that should have been obvious in the first place.

And that point is?

Tony, I have seen nothing come from you but straw men and ad hominems. Debating with you seems to be rather pointless, as you fly off into extreme straw men at every opportunity.

How are they strawmen? What ad homs?

Such as the comment in your next post about the holocaust. You know that rational discussions are not held simply at the most extreme cases imaginable.

When you make extreme, blanket statements, you should expect them to be applied to extreme circumstances.

Why do you continue to attempt to do so?

Because it shows the folly of your positions.

 

[Freakshow]

When you make extreme, blanket statements, you should expect them to be applied to extreme circumstances.

Because it shows the folly of your positions.

No, it shows that you are apparently only capable of replying with straw men. Why not stay VERY focused on the idea of the estate tax? You prove nothing by showing that you can set a straw man up and knock it over.

 

[Tony]

Why not stay VERY focused on the idea of the estate tax?

Why stay focused on the idea of the estate tax? You're trying to narrow the discussion to suit your goals and butress your position. If you stay focused on the estate tax, you ignore the principle behind it, some reasons for its implementation, and the historical lessons learned by allowing the build-up of hereditary power.

You prove nothing by showing that you can set a straw man up and knock it over.

What strawmen? I'm taking your positions to their logical conclusions.

 

[Freakshow]

What strawmen? I'm taking your positions to their logical conclusions.

Which almost always ends with a straw man argument.

Did I say "In all cases, every time, with no exceptions, the process must be 100% of our concern, and we should never, at any time, under any circumstances, give any regard to results whatsoever."?

No, I didn't say that. I said "I'm more concerned with the process than I am the results."

See the difference in those two statements?

Would you like me to make all of my future statements 87 pages long, where I hire a team of lawyers to go through and detail absolutely every possible aspect of each statement I make, making sure that every imaginable possibility is detailed? Sorry, but I am going to rely on the reader putting some amount of thought into it. If the thought is nothing more than being deliberately obtuse so that they can arrive at a straw man, then there isn't much to debate about.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

It seems to me that just about everyone of you don't have any idea what the word "Conservative" Actually means and what conservatives actually believe and want in American politics.

Conservative means someone who wants to conserve "Traditional values" from the past and does not want to move forward into the future and change for the better. Where in the heck did you get the idea that conservatives want less government and interference into peoples lives? That's absolutely false. Conservatives support government intervention as long as it supports conservative values.

Conservatives are generally right wing in America. These are the people who want to keep drugs outlawed. Did you know the WAR ON DRUGS was created by President Nixon? A far right wing conservative republican?
The people who want to end the war on drugs are the LIBERALS. They are "liberal" towards drug use opposed to "conservative" towards it.

Conservatives are the people who supported slavery. They wanted to "conserve" the way things happened in the past opposed to moving toward into the future and outlawing slavery.

Conservatives accept traditional values as authoritative, and judge the world around them by the standards they have come to trust. Many conservatives believe in God, and believe that He is not only the creator of the universe, but also the Author of those conservative values they espouse.
Since conservatives believe tradition supercedes the political process, the laws and constitutions of liberal democracies that permit behavior that conflict with traditional values cause friction in their eyes. Conservatives in a democracy choose to participate, separate, or resist. They often participate in liberal republican politics, using government policy to encourage or preserve their values. Good examples of this are the Christian Democratic parties in Europe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative

Favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change.

A political philosophy or attitude emphasizing respect for traditional institutions, distrust of government activism, and opposition to sudden change in the established order.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=conservatism


The fact of the matter is this...Conservatives fear change. They have always been against political change. Such things they were against included freeing the slaves,Allowing blacks to vote,Allowing women to vote,Not teaching the bible in public schools. Things they ARE currently against today include legalizing drugs,Allowing homosexuals to marry,Teaching Evolution in the classroom.
Conservatives are COUNTER PRODUCTIVE,They are change fearing traditionalists who have always been against social and economic bettering and would have us live in the 17th century if they had their choice.
They are a plague to economics and politics that needs to be gotten rid of. They are a virus that tries to hold back change that can better us.
This is extremely obvious.

*Note that conservatives can be either democrat or republican. Some democrats are strong conservatives and some republicans strong liberals. Some of the most liberal changes in our society were done so by republicans.
So don't confuse that.
Also note that when people in America commonly say "Conservative" they mean conserving traditional values that are most common. They DO NOT mean conserving the Constitution to be as it was meant to be to allow personal liberty and rights,That's not what they mean. Such a change would be extremely non-conservative.(A change where we interpreted the constitution as it is written to support more personal liberates including drug use or gay marriage.)

The Christian right are strong conservatives who favor "traditional" values which include not allowing gays to marry,Which include having the bible taught in public schools..ect.

The fact is...The ONLY conservatives who support smaller governments would be a very small group of conservatives known as "Small government conservatives" who make up a tiny minority. These conservatives still don't support legalizing drugs or allowing gay marriage,What they want is the states to choose opposed to the govt which makes little difference in what they will choose.

In America when anyone says "Conservative" they almost always mean the widely accepted definition..

Social conservatism or "Cultural Conservatism" is generally dominated by defense of traditional social norms and values, of local customs and of societal evolution, rather than social upheaval, though the distinction is not absolute. Often based upon religion, modern cultural conservatives, in contrast to "small-government" conservatives and "states-rights" advocates, increasingly turn to the federal government to overrule the states in order to preserve educational and moral standards.

Social conservatives emphasize traditional views of social units such as the family, church, or locale. Social conservatives would typically define family in terms of local histories and tastes. To the Muslim or fundamentalist Mormon, social conservatism may entail support for polygamy. To the Protestant or Catholic, social conservatism may entail support for defining marriage as between a man and a woman.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Conservatism

Which falls in place with the dictionary definition.

 

[Freakshow]

Where in the heck did you get the idea that conservatives want less government and interference into peoples lives? That's absolutely false.

Its true and false at the same time. Both conservatives and liberals want lots of government interference in peoples lives in some areas, but little in others. They just disagree about what those areas are.

Which is why I don't like either of them.

 

[CapelDodger]

I don't care if aristocracies emerge (we have them already, actually...the Kennedy's, the Bushes...), as long as they emerge from hard work and good decision making, and they don't emerge due to having a different set of rules apply to them than to everyone else. I'm thinking along the lines of medieval Europe, with totally different sets of laws applying to nobility and to peasants.

The nobility did not emerge because different rules applied to nobility. That's circular, I'm sure you would agree. The nobility made the rules because they were the nobility, and made them to suit themselves.

Bush, a trust-fund brat himself, wants to abolish inheritance-tax - changing the rules to suit the interests of his own class. An old-money class that is well represented in the legislature. This doesn't bother you at all? It's reminiscent of the Roman Republic, and we know what happened to that.

Inheritance has nothing to do with "hard work and good decision making". It mostly goes by bloodline, pure and simple. It takes hard work and particularly injudicious decisions to lose a large fortune. My suggestion would allow the accruals of one generation - by hard work, skillful fraud, luck, whatever - to be passed on to the next, but no further. What they make from it (hard work, etc.) could be passed on, but again only for one generation.

Inheritance assigns assets, wealth and the power that goes with them to people who have demonstrated no ability to manage them. It takes hard work, good decision-making and luck for those who can manage them to carve out a piece.

 

[CapelDodger]

Ok, but bear in mind I wasn't simply taking about segregation but civil rights in general including the rise of social conscious, women's rights and migrant farm workers.

Point taken, mine was a narrow reading. I'm of the 50-ish generation, and I've seen some remarkable social changes in my time. From racism, sexism and homophobia as the default position to widespread castigation of same. Most gratifying.

In the US parlance, these would be Liberal achievements? In the UK they're regarded as liberal, but that ain't the same thing. Merlyn Rees, the most liberal Home Secretary ever, was Labour.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Point taken, mine was a narrow reading. I'm of the 50-ish generation, and I've seen some remarkable social changes in my time. From racism, sexism and homophobia as the default position to widespread castigation of same. Most gratifying.

In the US parlance, these would be Liberal achievements? In the UK they're regarded as liberal, but that ain't the same thing. Merlyn Rees, the most liberal Home Secretary ever, was Labour.

Most conservatives 50 years ago would of been ANTI de-segregation.


The Liberals are the one's who wanted to desegregate the schools and public areas.

 

[Luke T.]

I would like to see fiscal conservatism. I would like to hear more about John McCain's reform ideas on authorization bills, even though I thought his campaign finance reforms were idiotic and doomed from the start. But there is something seriously FUBARed about the way money is appropriated by Congress.

I would like to see the abolishment of the Department of Homeland Security. I would like the Patriot Act repealed and started over to salvage the few good parts.

I would like term limits for Senators and Congressmen.

I would like the President to have the line item veto.

I don't trust my fellow Americans to invest their social security money wisely.

I would like to see marijuana legalized, though that might not be a "conservative" viewpoint.

While it would not affect the number of abortions performed, I would like to see Roe v. Wade overturned. I would also like to see an aggressive sex education policy implemented that stresses the need and proper use of birth control, which would affect the number of abortions.

 

[CapelDodger]

Conservatives are COUNTER PRODUCTIVE,They are change fearing traditionalists who have always been against social and economic bettering and would have us live in the 17th century if they had their choice.
They are a plague to economics and politics that needs to be gotten rid of. They are a virus that tries to hold back change that can better us.
This is extremely obvious.

You're not one to beat about the bush, I notice.

In the 17thCE, Conservatives were bemoaning the erosion of feudalism and tithes, and would have had everybody live in the 14th.

Small-c conservatives are a necessary brake on change, a counter to radicals. Both are attracted to politics, and radicals are probably the more dangerous.

 

[Freakshow]

Inheritance has nothing to do with "hard work and good decision making". It mostly goes by bloodline, pure and simple.

Actually, the majority of the US's millionaires are self-made, and did not inherit their wealth.

ETA: Even if they weren't, it still wouldn't bother me. That is part of what people should be allowed to do in a free society. Leave their wealth to their children. I don't have a problem with that.

And in case you are wondering, I am not going to inherit much, if anything. I actually make a lot more than my parents do.

 

[CapelDodger]

I would like the President to have the line item veto.

That would massively enliven and popularise politics in the US, IMO. There's so much that goes on unnoticed at the back-end of Bills, all the publicity being about the front-end. It can put the President in an invidious position. Line-item veto does the same to Congress.

Am I right in thinking that the Confederate Constitution had a line-item veto? I vaguely recall that.

 

[RandFan]

It seems to me that just about everyone of you don't have any idea what the word "Conservative" Actually means and what conservatives actually believe and want in American politics.

Funny I would defiantly say the same thing about you.

Conservative means someone who wants to conserve "Traditional values" from the past and does not want to move forward into the future and change for the better. Where in the heck did you get the idea that conservatives want less government and interference into peoples lives? That's absolutely false. Conservatives support government intervention as long as it supports conservative values.

Conservatives are generally right wing in America. These are the people who want to keep drugs outlawed. Did you know the WAR ON DRUGS was created by President Nixon? A far right wing conservative republican?
The people who want to end the war on drugs are the LIBERALS. They are "liberal" towards drug use opposed to "conservative" towards it.

Conservatives are the people who supported slavery. They wanted to "conserve" the way things happened in the past opposed to moving toward into the future and outlawing slavery.

I explained earlier why conservative principles are good for society. Not all change is good. America is what it is today thanks to all parties. If what you are saying is true we could simply outlaw conservatives and conservative ideology. But that wouldn't give you the utopia that you think it would. Also, Conservative ideology doesn't compose the monolithic group that you think it is.

With all due respect your ideas are extremely naive and display an extreme ignorance of political and social science. You find anecdotal and extreme examples that you feel fit your world view and think that it is persuasive. Let me assure you that it isn't.

Having taken Political Science from a professor who was liberal I can assure you that Conservative politics are not viewed in the myopic and propagandized way that you have presented them here by most in the political science community.

I'm willing to bet that you couldn't name a single recognized contribution of Conservative ideology to America. That's pretty damn pathetic if true.

I would recommend that you read materials other than left wing propaganda, take a political science class and learn, really learn about Conservative politics and its contribution to the world. Of course if you know you are right and there is no evidence that could possibly change your mind then never mind. Stubborn ignorance is nearly impossible to cure.

 

[Tony]

I'm willing to bet that you couldn't name a single recognized contribution of Conservative ideology to America. That's pretty damn pathetic if true.

I can name the biggest, proudest and most influentual conservative contributions to America:slavery and Jim Crow.

 

[Roadtoad]

I would like to see fiscal conservatism. I would like to hear more about John McCain's reform ideas on authorization bills, even though I thought his campaign finance reforms were idiotic and doomed from the start. But there is something seriously FUBARed about the way money is appropriated by Congress.

I would like to see the abolishment of the Department of Homeland Security. I would like the Patriot Act repealed and started over to salvage the few good parts.

I would like term limits for Senators and Congressmen.

I would like the President to have the line item veto.

I don't trust my fellow Americans to invest their social security money wisely.

I would like to see marijuana legalized, though that might not be a "conservative" viewpoint.

While it would not affect the number of abortions performed, I would like to see Roe v. Wade overturned. I would also like to see an aggressive sex education policy implemented that stresses the need and proper use of birth control, which would affect the number of abortions.

All of this is reasoned, reasonable, and will never see the light of day, mainly because it gores the oxen of too many special interests on both sides of the aisle.