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.
If Reagan was so conservative why did he grant Amnesty to 4 mil Illegal aliens? I hear this crap every day on those stupid conservative talk shows "what would reagan do" blah blah blah!! he would grant amnesty!! What do you have to say about that cons!!!!
Conservatism IS DEAD. Dont even say that conservatism is like libertarianism!! Police state, war on drugs, foreign wars etc etc. Libertarians are constitutionalists at most. Conservatives today want to run your life!! F the GOP! But I'm still gonna vote for McCain though, aint America grand!!
As a liberal I believe that if you cause damage in this world to other people to make a buck, its your responsibility, and no army of lawyers should protect you. I believe that a person should not have to work themselves to exhaustion and still live in a slum. I believe that one person becoming rich is not worth the suffering of all those that he exploits. I believe that to allow these things to happen is a sin in the eyes of God. I believe as a human being you have a moral obligation to those around you because you take part in the system (unless you are completely self sustaining and have no influence on the outside world). I believe that help should be easily available for those that WANT help, not a bunch of beauracracy because conservatives want accountability. I believe that people shouldn't have to neglect their families in order to provide for them. I don't believe it is acceptable under any circumstance, that we should force people to compete over jobs like dogs over a scrap of meat. I believe in live and let live, I also believe in live well and make sure other people CAN live well in whatever manner they see fit.
Sounds like you are much more Conservative than you are willing to admit.
Even if what you describe is a 'Liberal' from your point of view, it is certainly not what modern Liberals express in their actions.
Sounds like you are much more Conservative than you are willing to admit.
Even if what you describe is a 'Liberal' from your point of view, it is certainly not what modern Liberals express in their actions.
There are some aspects where I could be considered conservative, and I will agree that I don't fit the liberal mold. Simply put there are few people that hold themselves completely responsible for everything they do and I am not one of them, and I believe that the largest facilitators in exploiting other people are under the guise of free market, corporations and competitions.
I can understand your position relative to McCain, but that begs the question "Why did Ron Paul do so poorly overall?" Why was Ron Paul ostracized blatantly by Fox and all the right wing radio pundits throughout his campaign? If he represents true conservatism?
Because there aren't many true conservatives out there... and with his SS policy, he's not a true conservative either... Just an unelectable whack-job.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fp1978
Which goes back to my whole point that today's republicans are not conservatives (classical liberals).
They never were. There are conservatives and liberals of both parties. It's all about which issues you're willing to compromise on.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nevergoingback
If Reagan was so conservative...
He wasn't as conservative as everyone wants to claim. He's just the best there was for many, many years.
Quote:
Conservatism IS DEAD. Dont even say that conservatism is like libertarianism!! Police state, war on drugs, foreign wars etc etc. Libertarians are constitutionalists at most. Conservatives today want to run your life!! F the GOP! But I'm still gonna vote for McCain though, aint America grand!!
Since when did libertarianism become a suicide pact? Libertarianism as you describe it is the revolutionaries who are ditched right after the revolution.
Ron Paul is a crazy little man and I would shudder to think that his finger was anywhere NEAR the button on a nuclear weapon.
The reason he was ostracized and laughed at by BOTH parties was because the dude clearly had a few screws loose. For one thing, isolationist policies might have been useful about 30 years ago but they are obviously impossible for the US now.
For another thing, many of his most ardent supporters believe 9-11 was an "inside job." Enough said. Crazy boy.
Epic failure on your part.
First off, his ideas are actually pretty sound. The war on drugs is a failed mess, we don't need the IRS, the DEA, the ATF, and countless other departments.
Second he has a non-interventionist plan. Not isolationist. Are you out of your mind? In this day and age (i.e. Global economy), how could any country become isolationist? Obviously you know nothing about him, given that you actually called him an isolationist. He has addressed this accusation many times before.
the only part that i do find a wee bit wacky, is his plan to go back to the gold stand. There isn't enough gold to back up our money. Perhaps it can be done on a fractional basis though.. dunno.
The people that call him out as a wack jobs are too proud to admit they might be wrong
Quote:
Originally Posted by odinloki1
There are some aspects where I could be considered conservative, and I will agree that I don't fit the liberal mold. Simply put there are few people that hold themselves completely responsible for everything they do and I am not one of them, and I believe that the largest facilitators in exploiting other people are under the guise of free market, corporations and competitions.
That's because there is almost no different between American liberals and American conservatives....
let's face it, the two party system in this country is retarded.
The people that call him out as a wack jobs are too proud to admit they might be wrong
Wrong? I'm not saying he's whacky on account of his policy beliefs. He's whacky on account that he doesn't recognize that he's too far from the center to be elected. He's doing the best thing he could be doing by being in Congress.
I think the realistic, non-whacky path for him and his supporters to take is to spend the next four years educating the electorate and supporting like-minded Congressional candidates and state governments. That's a bottom-up change that's realistic rather than a desperate, throw-everything-at-an-impossible-goal top-down revolution.
Quote:
That's because there is almost no different between American liberals and American conservatives....
let's face it, the two party system in this country is retarded.
It's ideal. It's compromise maximized. Rather than the Barrs, Pauls and Naders of the world fracturing the vote, we all decide if we want the country to move a little to the left or right from where it is at the time. That allows gradual change.
If the country was ready for sort of radical change from where we're at right now, then you'd see the changes at the state and Congressional levels and the face of the parties would change.
Wrong? I'm not saying he's whacky on account of his policy beliefs. He's whacky on account that he doesn't recognize that he's too far from the center to be elected. He's doing the best thing he could be doing by being in Congress.
I think the realistic, non-whacky path for him and his supporters to take is to spend the next four years educating the electorate and supporting like-minded Congressional candidates and state governments. That's a bottom-up change that's realistic rather than a desperate, throw-everything-at-an-impossible-goal top-down revolution.
Economically he's on the right. Socially he's on the left (i.e. libertarian) for the most part. I'd say that puts him right at the center.
Quote:
It's ideal. It's compromise maximized. Rather than the Barrs, Pauls and Naders of the world fracturing the vote, we all decide if we want the country to move a little to the left or right from where it is at the time. That allows gradual change.
If the country was ready for sort of radical change from where we're at right now, then you'd see the changes at the state and Congressional levels and the face of the parties would change.
It's all really practical.
I honestly think we need some fracturing at this point in the game. People need to be exposed to broad political ideologies, in order to inspire any real change. Unfortunaly the average person isn't going to try to learn about politics on their own. They take what's feed to them on TV (in the form of one liners).
I'm not going to play that game anymore. I'm simply going to not vote, or write in a third party. Right now, i'm leaning towards abstaining.
Either way, I will be expressing my discontent all along the way!!
I honestly think we need some fracturing at this point in the game. People need to be exposed to broad political ideologies, in order to inspire any real change. Unfortunaly the average person isn't going to try to learn about politics on their own. They take what's feed to them on TV (in the form of one liners).
I'm not going to play that game anymore. I'm simply going to not vote, or write in a third party. Right now, i'm leaning towards abstaining.
The only thing that's going to happen with a fracturing is more oppressive socialism. Just as FDR took the reins, so will the next one. Haven't you noticed that all it takes is for a politician to say "change" and everyone gets wooed?
Within each party is broad political ideologies. Watch CSPAN. You see Dems arguing Dems and Repubs arguing Repubs over stuff all the time.
If you're consider yourself as being part of some real change, then you'll find out who's running for the legislature for you and pick the one who is most in line with your values. Then you'll get out and inform people why that position is best and, if done well and people are likeminded, your person will win the primary and go on for the big election. If people don't favor your pick, then you compromise a little further and stick with whoever is closest to your beliefs and is electable.
But you do. You just refuse to comrpomise until it's law... and then you compromise in a direction whose severity of deviation from your opinion is up to everyone else.
With this in mind, I hope you understand why Paul and followers are considered whack-jobs.
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.
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.
