Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-08-2015, 10:33 PM
 
31,824 posts, read 14,800,770 times
Reputation: 13487

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by pnwmdk View Post
A true 'battle against liberals' will be defeating them at the ballot box.

Liberals are not open to considering the merits of their ideas and debating/defending them. They have only one aim, and that is to force their way on everyone, because they are deserving to.
But that's exactly what conservatives do. There is no difference.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-08-2015, 10:37 PM
 
Location: Prepperland
18,822 posts, read 14,007,124 times
Reputation: 16483
CONTROLLING THE CONVERSATION
BY FRAMING THE QUESTION
...
What is better? Conservatism or Liberalism?

CONSERVATISM - the political philosophy to preserve or restore what is established or traditional and to limit change.

LIBERAL, “Classic” versus “New”

The Classic Liberal (18th century) supported ideas such as free and fair elections, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, free trade, and a right to life, liberty, and private property ownership.

The New Liberal (21st century) supported ideas such as social justice, expropriation of property for the benefit of the needy, compelled labor for the benefit of another, and government management of the economy. Those ideas are contrary to classical liberalism, and are an assault upon absolute ownership of private property, natural and personal liberty and the freedom to exercise same.

Which of the three possibilities is the best?

Ironically, the question, as originally framed, carefully omits any reference to the republican form of government. Partisanship is not applicable in a republican form of government, where individuals absolutely own themselves, their labor and the fruits of their labor, and where governments are oathbound to secure those rights, regardless of party affiliation.

Pursuant to the Declaration of Independence, American governments were instituted to :
a) secure rights, and
b) govern those who consent.
With respect to securing rights, the government punishes deliberate injuries to person and/or property, and adjudicates disputes regarding accidental injuries.

Can anyone give an example of "conservative" versus "socialist" with respect to those two instances?

Or can one describe how a Republican would fundamentally differ from a Democrat, or a Conservative differ from a NeoLiberal, regarding the punishment for murder, mayhem, assault, burglary, etc?

I can't think of any.

The only time partisanship comes to bear, is with respect to those who gave CONSENT to be governed.

Once consent has been given - all bets are off!
You're on your own.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-08-2015, 10:37 PM
 
Location: Iowa, USA
6,542 posts, read 4,067,318 times
Reputation: 3805
Quote:
Originally Posted by Repubocrat View Post
First and foremost, I am 100% opposed to gay marriage. I am for equal rights for people of same sex though but the mind of an average Liberal just does not seem to be able to grasp such simple concept.
Marriage deals out a lot of civil liberties. For example, in a marriage when one spouse dies, the other has rights to their belongings. No one else can take them without the spouses or the deceased person's consent.

Gay people won't have this protection without marriage. If two men (or women) are in a long term relationship that intends to last until death (so, like a married couple) and one of the partners dies, the family of the deceased person can take their belongings and assets without the consent of the other partner.

If you are in fact for equal rights for homosexuals, this should bother you quite a lot. So I'll ask, what is your solution to this issue if it's not marriage?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-08-2015, 10:44 PM
 
31,824 posts, read 14,800,770 times
Reputation: 13487
Quote:
Originally Posted by Repubocrat View Post
First and foremost, I am 100% opposed to gay marriage. I am for equal rights for people of same sex though but the mind of an average Liberal just does not seem to be able to grasp such simple concept.
So you are against equal rights for gays then. It doesn't really matter though. Gay marriage is being recognized and accepted by most. Just look at all the states that recognize it. Good for them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-08-2015, 11:00 PM
 
Location: New Orleans, LA
1,291 posts, read 1,511,534 times
Reputation: 747
Quote:
Originally Posted by Repubocrat View Post
First and foremost, I am 100% opposed to gay marriage. I am for equal rights for people of same sex though but the mind of an average Liberal just does not seem to be able to grasp such simple concept.
So how did liberals make you silent?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-08-2015, 11:04 PM
 
5,913 posts, read 3,160,262 times
Reputation: 4397
Quote:
Originally Posted by Repubocrat View Post
Long story short, I have been humiliated, beaten and harassed by Liberals in this part of the country. This has only made me stronger and I feel the Conservative cause is dying for.

I have had my Freedom of Speech censored at certain events hosted by Liberals simply because I expressed a different opinion from what they like to hear. Still, I do not hate them.

I am more than convinced that we Conservatives have a moral obligation to educate these Communists, Marxists and groupthink drones so that they can start realizing how absurd their ideas are.

Do not let a Liberal stop you from fighting for God, country and family. In the end, those are the values that matter most!
Huh, WTF are you talking about??? Yes, the conservative cause is dying. Maybe give some concrete examples. Like you were carrying a sign saying "God hates F@gs" at the funeral of a serviceman who was killed in the line of duty and his pansy librel kin and friends told you to shove it where the sun don't shine. Or you scheduled a Klan meeting at the local church and those marxist liberal communist dictator fascist nazi church mutha F'ers denied you the basement rental. Yes, I mock you b/c I think you are full of it!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-08-2015, 11:11 PM
 
7,359 posts, read 5,438,719 times
Reputation: 3141
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDusty View Post
What liberal hosted events? This is actually an important ideal. If you go to a pro-gay rights rally to spread verses from the Bible about condemning homosexuals, only the biggest of idiots would consider that an unreasonable response. Or perhaps it was a non-political issue and you just happened to be in a crowd of mostly liberals. You could be describing either one of these two possibilities and both are extremely different. If it's the latter, I'm sorry about what happened to you. But if it was the first one, what the hell were you expecting to happen?
You do realize what a complete hypocrisy this paragraph makes of liberal claims of tolerance and open mindedness, don't you? You just played right into the right wing's hands when they claim you liberals are bigoted thugs who just hide behind principles of tolerance.
Quote:
And by the way, you're freedom of speech is still in tact. You were allowed to speak, and they spoke back. That is what freedom of speech was. You're alive and not in prison, so the freedom stands.
Not really. Freedom of speech is about respecting the opinions of others, not about harassing them and attempting to get them fired from their jobs if they say something you don't like. What he experienced was freedom of speech from the government, yes. From the liberals involved? No. It's the usual leftist defense of their actions "you were free to say what you wanted, and we were free not to like it" but it's what you do about not liking it that is the key part. When you chose to express not liking what someone says by attempting to get them fired from their job for saying it, that goes beyond the bounds of respecting free speech. When you choose to express not liking what someone says by attempting to shout them down, that goes beyond the bounds. When you choose to express not liking what someone says by barricading places where they are speaking to prevent others from listening to them, that is going beyond the bounds.

There's a big difference between disagreeing with what someone says and attempting to prevent them from ever getting the opportunity to say it again.
Quote:
There is not truth to claiming an idea is entirely absurd. If you've read the Communist manifesto, which I highly doubt you have, I think you'll find it's not entirely absurd. Unsustainable in certain conditions, most defiantly, but the core concepts of Communism in and of themselves are not actually wrong. They strive for an ideal; the method of getting there is risky, which is precisely why I don't think instating a Communist government would be the best way of creating a completely equal (which is what communism strives for) society. And group think is not a communist ideal. Everyone does it. Liberals tend to do it more, but conservatives still do it, especially those that regularly go to church.
Communism absolutely is absurd. It's impossible. You may as well write a manifesto about dragons and unicorns. Communism does not work as it goes against human nature. Human nature is self interested and you cannot change human nature no matter how many laws you pass. You will never get an entire society of people to all work for the common good. It is better to recognize that fact and structure society accordingly than to strive and fail continually to achieve an unattainable utopia.
Quote:
By the way, Marxism and Communism are the same thing. You don't need to list both of them; it's redundant.
There are various strains of communism besides Marxism. Leninism and Maoism are both different varieties of communism.
Quote:
Those values matter most? How so? Not everyone believes in God, nor is there any reason to think that conservatives have a monopoly on God. Family is a personal thing. What liberal is after your family? I'm not saying there aren't any, but most probably don't care what you and your family are doing. And everyone who advocates a political ideal wants what's best for the country. Just because you disagree with what's best does not mean they are against the country. Unless they are. I've openly advocated by disdain for much of what our country has been up to in recent years, particularly regarding our unnecessary and counter productive (unless you are a corporation) involvement in the Middle East. I've been called anti-patriotic and even anti-Semitic for this, though neither are true. If I didn't care about the US, I wouldn't bother criticizing it. I want it to get better, so I actually care a lot.
There is a difference between caring about America and wanting to turn America into something you care about. The people who want to turn America into a social democracy like those in Europe may care about the American people as human beings but they do not care about America as a nation, as they are actively attempting to undermine the founding principles of it. America was founded on an emphasis of the individual over the group and on a spirit of self sufficiency which the left wing is systematically destroying. I freely admit they are destroying it for what they feel are good reasons and they probably think what they will replace it with will make for a happier and healthier society, but the fact remains that fundamentally changing American values is something that conservatives such as myself will bitterly oppose regardless of how wonderful your motivations are. We want the emphasis of America to stay firmly rooted in individual freedom above all else, and if "social justice" has to suffer because of it then that is a price we are willing to pay. I accept that living in a meritocracy means there will always be people richer than I am, people with family connections I don't have, people with political influence I don't have, etc. In return, the government stays out of my life.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-08-2015, 11:27 PM
 
3,350 posts, read 2,833,114 times
Reputation: 2258
Quote:
Originally Posted by Repubocrat View Post
Long story short, I have been humiliated, beaten and harassed by Liberals in this part of the country. This has only made me stronger and I feel the Conservative cause is dying for.

I have had my Freedom of Speech censored at certain events hosted by Liberals simply because I expressed a different opinion from what they like to hear. Still, I do not hate them.

I am more than convinced that we Conservatives have a moral obligation to educate these Communists, Marxists and groupthink drones so that they can start realizing how absurd their ideas are.

Do not let a Liberal stop you from fighting for God, country and family. In the end, those are the values that matter most!
Liberal did not destroy the family people did.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-08-2015, 11:30 PM
 
46,755 posts, read 25,661,546 times
Reputation: 29271
Quote:
Originally Posted by Repubocrat View Post
First and foremost, I am 100% opposed to gay marriage. I am for equal rights for people of same sex though...
Except the right to get married, it seems.

Quote:
but the mind of an average Liberal just does not seem to be able to grasp such simple concept.
The concept is sort of self-defeating.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-08-2015, 11:30 PM
 
Location: Iowa, USA
6,542 posts, read 4,067,318 times
Reputation: 3805
Quote:
Originally Posted by kidkaos2 View Post
You do realize what a complete hypocrisy this paragraph makes of liberal claims of tolerance and open mindedness, don't you? You just played right into the right wing's hands when they claim you liberals are bigoted thugs who just hide behind principles of tolerance.
You can't call that hypocrisy (and be correct) unless I actually said something hypocritical. I didn't. I never claimed liberals are more tolerant. Some are. Some aren't. Both sides are tolerant of various people and there is some overlap. Areas where there isn't is when words like bigot get thrown around.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kidkaos2 View Post
Not really. Freedom of speech is about respecting the opinions of others, not about harassing them and attempting to get them fired from their jobs if they say something you don't like. What he experienced was freedom of speech from the government, yes. From the liberals involved? No. It's the usual leftist defense of their actions "you were free to say what you wanted, and we were free not to like it" but it's what you do about not liking it that is the key part. When you chose to express not liking what someone says by attempting to get them fired from their job for saying it, that goes beyond the bounds of respecting free speech. When you choose to express not liking what someone says by attempting to shout them down, that goes beyond the bounds. When you choose to express not liking what someone says by barricading places where they are speaking to prevent others from listening to them, that is going beyond the bounds.
Who told you that's what freedom of speech is about? There's no respect clause in freedom of speech. There is no requirement to respect the opinion of others, and neither side always does this. Both sides talk down and disrespect other things all the time. And yes, liberals are pushing forced censorship, and as an actual liberal, I'm 100% against it. This allows me to call people who think Noah's Ark actually happened an idiot. This might mean I get criticized for being mean to religious people or whatever, and that's fine. I don't care.

I should also add that I was speaking with a street preacher who identified as conservative and had no problem "attempting to shout [me] down."

Quote:
Originally Posted by kidkaos2 View Post
There's a big difference between disagreeing with what someone says and attempting to prevent them from ever getting the opportunity to say it again.
I agree.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kidkaos2 View Post
Communism absolutely is absurd. It's impossible. You may as well write a manifesto about dragons and unicorns. Communism does not work as it goes against human nature. Human nature is self interested and you cannot change human nature no matter how many laws you pass. You will never get an entire society of people to all work for the common good. It is better to recognize that fact and structure society accordingly than to strive and fail continually to achieve an unattainable utopia.
Societies like that have existed. They lived in the Americas for thousands of years, until the Europeans came along and forced their ideals onto them. Communism (which many Native American tribes were, at least the closest you'll find to it) has worked before. I agree, Communism is more of an ideal than a working theory, but it's irresponsible not to work toward an ideal.

I'm not advocating for Communism, but I'm advocating for thought. Most anti-communism rhetoric is just left over from the Cold War and not based on anything substantial. The USSR is not representative of Communism.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kidkaos2 View Post
There are various strains of communism besides Marxism. Leninism and Maoism are both different varieties of communism.
That was kind of my point. Saying Communism gets the point across just fine.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kidkaos2 View Post
There is a difference between caring about America and wanting to turn America into something you care about. The people who want to turn America into a social democracy like those in Europe may care about the American people as human beings but they do not care about America as a nation, as they are actively attempting to undermine the founding principles of it. America was founded on an emphasis of the individual over the group and on a spirit of self sufficiency which the left wing is systematically destroying. I freely admit they are destroying it for what they feel are good reasons and they probably think what they will replace it with will make for a happier and healthier society, but the fact remains that fundamentally changing American values is something that conservatives such as myself will bitterly oppose regardless of how wonderful your motivations are. We want the emphasis of America to stay firmly rooted in individual freedom above all else, and if "social justice" has to suffer because of it then that is a price we are willing to pay. I accept that living in a meritocracy means there will always be people richer than I am, people with family connections I don't have, people with political influence I don't have, etc. In return, the government stays out of my life.
Fair enough. You have every right to think that. I however have a problem with social inequality. I greatly respect the philosophy of Immanuel Kant, who states some inequality is just. I agree. Some inequality is to be expected as some do work harder and deserve more for their effort. But we have a level of inequality that is not just. It's coming form corporate greed. You and I may find common ground on our dislike of the current state of the fever government, happily selling democracy to the highest bidder.

In some areas, I'm very far left. However, I think compromise is more important than getting what I want. I don't represent everyone, and what happens (in most areas) needs to be representative of the values of all Americans. I am a fan of individual liberty, but I'm not a fan of increasing incarceration rates and increasing poverty, while corporate earnings increase.

Just to re-iterate; I am not a communist. I've read and respect the Communist Manifesto as being an intelligent response to the problems it's writers were witnessing at the time. While I think to dismiss the theory all together is unreasonable, to say it cannot be applied under certain circumstances in not only true, it's incredibly thoughtful. Communism, as it is literally described in it's manifesto, would not work well in America. Certain things from it should be taken into serious consideration as it does deal with social equality and limited corporate power (unfortunately, it's solution is making the government the corporate power, but an often glossed over fact is that Marx essentially advocated for a system of governance that was literarily just everyone voting on issues and not having 'leaders,' especially not leaders like Stalin or Mao).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top