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 11-17-2013, 01:19 PM
 
5,719 posts, read 6,447,937 times
Reputation: 3647

Advertisements

Am I the only one who finds the conservatism vs. liberalism debate extremely reductive and tiresome?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-17-2013, 01:27 PM
 
Location: Chicago
1,466 posts, read 1,229,273 times
Reputation: 523
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sayid Linus View Post
liberalism is alive and well and growing stronger every year. Conservatism will soon be exactly where it belongs; in a shallow grave.
Nope, conservatism will just change. Sure, soon things like gay rights will be an issue of the past and no conservative will argue against it anymore. However, they will find something else to rally against, just as liberals will find something new. Issues are settled, new issues come up.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-17-2013, 01:30 PM
 
9,470 posts, read 6,969,876 times
Reputation: 2177
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber View Post
R
The change from within began when Gorbachev initiated fundamental changes to the way communist USSR had been ran. It was called 'perestroika', and it was followed by 'glasnost' and those policies set the course for the end of the USSR, because they gave the keys to freedom the people of USSR and the entire eastern block. It destroyed the foundation of the communist, which had been 100% control of the population and the economy.
Perestroika and glastnost were symbolic nothings meant to satiate the loud grumblings. None of these people believed in freedom, they just couldn't figure out how to do things as they had been doing them and make it work. Appeasement was meant to KEEP communism, not to get rid of it.

And the fact that the iron fist that kept the East Germans prisoner was mostly paralyzed was due, in no small part, to the fact that the outside world was fomenting discord internally - despite their best efforts to suppress it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-17-2013, 01:31 PM
 
9,470 posts, read 6,969,876 times
Reputation: 2177
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber View Post
Good to see at least some CD posters are aware of historical facts.
You mean "parrots liberal history revisionism".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-17-2013, 01:32 PM
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
90,297 posts, read 120,759,995 times
Reputation: 35920
Quote:
Originally Posted by juppiter View Post
Am I the only one who finds the conservatism vs. liberalism debate extremely reductive and tiresome?
No
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-17-2013, 01:36 PM
 
9,470 posts, read 6,969,876 times
Reputation: 2177
Quote:
Originally Posted by juppiter View Post
Am I the only one who finds the conservatism vs. liberalism debate extremely reductive and tiresome?
No, your fellow liberals have sought forever to declare dissent dead and conformance universal, but you have yet to achieve it. Stalin could not, what makes you think you can?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-17-2013, 01:38 PM
 
Location: Better half of PA
1,391 posts, read 1,233,586 times
Reputation: 617
Quote:
Originally Posted by pnwmdk View Post
No, your fellow liberals have sought forever to declare dissent dead and conformance universal, but you have yet to achieve it. Stalin could not, what makes you think you can?
Stalin wasn't a liberal. He was a tyrant.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-17-2013, 01:39 PM
 
Location: Florida
76,971 posts, read 47,629,107 times
Reputation: 14806
Quote:
Originally Posted by pnwmdk View Post
You mean "parrots liberal history revisionism".
Can you at least try to prove them wrong....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-17-2013, 01:40 PM
 
Location: Old Bellevue, WA
18,782 posts, read 17,360,856 times
Reputation: 7990
Quote:
Originally Posted by juppiter View Post
SDI had nothing to do with the fall of the Soviet Union or the Berlin Wall. Cuba and North Korea have shown that, as long as the government continues its oppression, authoritative regimes can stay in power indefinitely-- even as they are effectively insolvent and their population starves. By the time Gorby came to power, the USSR was in a "malaise." The economy was no longer growing, debt was growing, food queues were long, and the Afghan War was an embarrassment. But the people of the USSR had already tolerated 70 years of "bad harvests." In spite of all these challenges, the USSR would have persisted without Gorby unintentionally destroying it from within.

The only thing keeping Communism alive in the Eastern Bloc was the guarantee that any rebellion would be crushed by the Soviet Union -- look at 1956 Hungary. Once it was clear that Gorby would not intervene, the Eastern Bloc states were destined to fall one by one. In the Soviet Union itself, Gorby created a new all-USSR legislature, and for the first time, a local RSFSR legislature. After the failed August 1991 coup when the CPSU lost all credibility, Gorby had already established the apparatus and bureaucracy that would take over and succeed him.
Many people, including people who were in the USSR at the time would disagree with your first sentence. Note that neither you nor Finn can account for why Gorby spent so much time and energy trying to get SDI quashed.

Cuba and North Korea do not show that all authoritative regimes can stay in power indefinitely. Every case is unique. Cuba is a small island nation, and North Korea is used as a pawn by China. Your mistake is trying to turn FP into physics. Physics has laws and iron principles, but FP does not. How do you explain the failure of the USSR to subdue Afghanistan? Why didn't they maintain indefinite control?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-17-2013, 01:40 PM
 
9,470 posts, read 6,969,876 times
Reputation: 2177
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sayid Linus View Post
Stalin wasn't a liberal. He was a tyrant.
Liberals are tyrants, for they believe without doubt or reservation in their right to force their judgment of how things should be upon everyone.
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
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:59 PM.

© 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