1. As a guest you have limited access to the forums.
  2. Membership is free.
  3. So why not Sign up now!

A Conservatives view of Liberals

Discussion in 'Politics & Current Affairs' started by Neophyte, Mar 13, 2018.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Neophyte

    Neophyte Administrator Staff Member

    I see no evidence that Liberals believe in Personal Liberty for everyone as I would define Liberty as being. I see the Liberal Establishment giving Every Liberty for themselves but denying it for others. If you are correct in your statement that Liberals want Personal Liberty for everyone, I see that the Liberal Establishment defines what Personal Liberties are, the General Public does not get to decide what Liberty means for themselves. If the Liberal Establishment decides that Personal Liberty for everyone is being shackled with overseers carrying whips standing over, that is what they will give you.
     
    Amanda and Brutus58 like this.
  2. Neophyte

    Neophyte Administrator Staff Member

    I believe that the Preamble of the Constitution says to "Promote the general welfare", it doesn't say it guarantees it. It does not say that the people are entitled. Maybe you should lookup the definition of the word "Promote".
     
    Last edited: Mar 21, 2018
    Amanda and Brutus58 like this.
  3. Neophyte

    Neophyte Administrator Staff Member

    Equating Conservatism with the Religious Right is a mistake. The two groups have found common cause in resisting the Liberal Establishment, just as a lot of Libertarians have found common cause with the Conservatives against the Liberals. As movements go, most Conservatives are very inclusive of various viewpoints, more so than Liberals. Liberals believes in their viewpoint and agrees with anyone that also agrees with the Liberal viewpoint. I think that you can convince the Conservatives to separate the State from the Marriage Contract, if you remove all Government benefits afforded to married couples. As long as people want Government benefits for Marriage, the Conservatives will probably want a say in what constitutes a married couple.
     
    Amanda and Brutus58 like this.
  4. Hrothgar Halfdansson

    Hrothgar Halfdansson Trusted Member

    If certain benefits exist for a stated defined status of 'marriage', then if there is no state definition of such a status, there would be no benefits so assigned. Sort of tautological.
     
    Brutus58 likes this.
  5. Neophyte

    Neophyte Administrator Staff Member

    I am referring to benefits received from the Government, like Tax Breaks in Joint Filings and Child Credit. Then there Joint Estates recognized by Law and other things purely derived from the Government. If you remove all these Government Derived Benefits then I don't see why all Government oversight of Marriage can't be withdrawn.
     
    Amanda and Brutus58 like this.
  6. Loggerhead

    Loggerhead Trusted Member

    I suppose then, that you will have to provide me with evidence of "being shackled with overseers carrying whips standing over". If you mean people that are insuring that everyone is treated equally and not discriminated against because of some perceived difference, I don't think your talking about conservatism OR liberalism but fascism. There is a thing called "rule orientation", which means that if truly believe in your own right to do something, then in order to achieve that right, there must be some recognition of cooperation with others. You can't screw someone over then be pissed about it when someone else does the same to you, or be called out on it by those employed to do so. In this country, there is no "Liberal Establishment" or "Conservative Establishment" and our government is not some group of people in Washington. They are only the representation of the citizens of this country that governs itself, and if people abdicate that responsibility, it changes nothing. What the government does will always be our fault, so don't bother blaming someone else for your own short comings.
     
  7. Loggerhead

    Loggerhead Trusted Member

    I don't understand your distinction here. Promote, support, encourage, cultivate, it doesn't really matter what word you use. The purpose of the preamble is to define the responsibilities of the federal government, which includes not the guarantee of success, but the encouragement to succeed. EVERY government that has been strictly Liberal or Conservative has eventually collapsed when they ignored the part of their population that suffered the most. The founders of this country knew that when all citizens of this country were strong, the country as a whole was stronger.
     
  8. Neophyte

    Neophyte Administrator Staff Member

    If you believe that there is no Liberal Establishment, then you are deluding yourself. There is very little difference between the Modern Day Liberal and the Fascist of 88 years ago. The Modern Day Liberal believes that the people deserve only the rights and freedoms that the Liberal Establishment decides to give them and they can decide to rescind those few concessions anytime they feel like it. The will of the people is of no concern, because they don't believe that the people are capable of deciding what is best for their own welfare. If you listen to the speeches made by prominent Liberal Democrats they believe that the Liberal Voters are mostly stupid and the Conservative Voters to be a bunch of deplorables, to paraphrase the Liberal Establishment. If you have evidence that the Liberals have any concern for the American People, please present it. And if you are arguing for some conceptual ideal then I wish to introduce you to the Real World.
    Have you even read the Preamble to the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. You seem to be ascribing meanings to them that I don't see. And yes I have read both documents, multiple times.
     
    Amanda and Brutus58 like this.
  9. Loggerhead

    Loggerhead Trusted Member

    I see a lot of Hyperbole and Rhetoric, but still no evidence of these establishment types or their actions. It all seems conspiratorial to me without any basis in fact. I pointed out that neither party is really doing the job they were assigned to do, which is represent the people that voted for them. I don't see how you can compare liberals to fascists of any time period. We govern ourselves through representation. If we don't like how they represent us, then we need to vote for someone else. The Establishment types your talking about don't get more votes then each of us do. If what you want to do is disparage other people or take away their rights because you see them as lesser people, then it is you that are entertaining fascism.

    As far as the preamble and the amendments, they are all part of the same document, I'm sure you meant that. As I said, the purpose of the Preamble was to detail the responsibilities of the government, in black and parchment. It's very clear that the general welfare of it's citizens IS the concern of the government. I don't see how there can be any confusion about that.
     
  10. Neophyte

    Neophyte Administrator Staff Member

    What was the proper quote "Just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean they are not out to get you".

    The fact that there are political parties is proof that an Establishment exists. The conformity within the Establishment, is determined by a central ruling body. Looking at recent Conservative efforts, we can see that a strong central guiding group does not exist. Looking at the Liberals, you can see and hear almost a singular unanimity of voice and action showing a Central Core that controls the Liberals actions.

    I equate the Liberals to the Fascists by similarities in actions and policies. Today's Liberals are using tactics and methods almost identical to the Fascist and Communist of the early 20th Century. I am not saying that they will do what the Fascists did, I saying they are using the methods employed by the Fascists. What the end results of these similarities will bring about is not determined yet.

    It is valid to say that every individual has one vote, even each of the politicians that are trying to get people to vote for them, but we go back to Fascist and Communist tactics of rigging and/or altering the vote. It is worth noting that the Liberals are the most vehement in opposing Voter ID. They are also the most outspoken against investigating Voter Fraud. If you combine Voter Fraud with Deceptive Campaigning and purchasing votes, it pretty much invalidates the One Person, One Vote system.

    And from your original post, you indicated that the job of the Government was to provide the people Welfare, I contend that the Government's job is to establish the conditions and give the opportunity for the people to do Well.
     
    Amanda likes this.
  11. Amanda

    Amanda Account Deleted

    Did you see all them crying ass snowflakes today in Washington?
     
    Zarp likes this.
  12. Hrothgar Halfdansson

    Hrothgar Halfdansson Trusted Member

    And what tactics and methods are those? There are Constitutional Rights, from my view there is only one major right that the Right continually carps on, that of 'gun rights'. They don't carp on say 'the Right to Vote', in fact often call for impediments to that right, such as voter identification. If voter identification was perhaps available at every street corner kiosk, as is the case with ATMs, perhaps there could be a justification for such. But very often, it is tied to some government agency office, which is often not located in any convenient place for those who do rely on public transportation, or are unable to leave the confines of their house for one reason or another.

    Now in this day and age, there may be fewer and fewer citizens in this category, but in the past such things as birth certificates, were not applied for upon the birth of a child. And so one would have adults, need a 'certificate' having to find some relative old enough to attest to the birth of the individual. This has happened in my family, and I'm sure I'm not the only one in the US who has had similar experiences.

    And then there are a class of people who do not wish to have their 'child' registered with the government and defer obtaining a SS number, which seems to be done frequently these days for children. When I was young, one only got an SS number when one actually became employed, not at birth.

    Now, in terms of a 'fascist' method and tactic, child registration is a feature. I do not hear 'liberals' calling for any such thing. That comes from the Conservatives who are so worried about illegals or the like.

    I also don't hear 'liberal' extremists calling for so called 'sexual deviants', aka homosexuals, to be criminalized, as they have been in the recent past, and a targeted group of the 20the Century fascist regimes referenced.

    Social support is not 'socialism'. I have yet to hear a mainstream 'liberal' calling for nationalization of any major corporation or industry. Even in the calls for a 'single payer' health program, the payor is the government, the payee is a private service provider. The Conservatives have no problem with military expenditures being essentially a 'single payer' system, where government pays the bills for the military, and a wide selection of private industry provides those needs. It has only been in a time of war, where the emergency of the day has required perhaps more governmental control of the production process, but even then, industries have not been 'nationalized', which is an essential characteristic of Socialism.

    Social supports however have existed along side of private enterprise, at least in its modern form, since Otto von Bismarck's 'conservative' compromise to resolve labor unrest in 19th Century Germany. The same has been used to resolve labor unrest in most of the industrialized world including the US, but has never moved into Socialism, which as mentioned, involves the nationalization of industry.

    At present, the Conservative adoration of an 'authority figure', the Conservative approach to 'law and order', is far more in keeping with fascist solutions than whatever policies and programs the 'liberals' may be promoting.

    While most people associate fascism with German Fascism in the form of the Third Reich, they often do not even both with the Italian form, despite the word being derived from the Italian. Italian Fascism had relatively little 'jewish hatred', and so there while there were round ups of dissidents, they were not based on 'jewishness', nor were Jews excluded from public life. There was racism, but that was directed towards 'black Africans' and came into the picture due to Italy's expansion in to Abyssinia aka Ethiopia in the 1930s. Eventually Italy did implement specific 'anti Jewish Laws' but that was much later and due to the force of the Third Reich.

    In any case 'liberal' is a constellation of concepts which in many ways center on the individual and their rights. In terms of social support, 'liberal' as it is to day, tends to support social support systems which provide for those who are in need, and for a variety of reasons can not overcome barriers that exist.

    As for 'general Welfare', that changes as time progresses. If I am to accept that a particular type of firearm ownership is as much as a right as a 'fintlock' was in the days that the Constitution was first written, then I demand that 'general Welfare' be similarly modified in meaning to fit the US today.

    In the 19th Century 'general Welfare' may have been 'free land out west', and support of a military 'clearing of the current inhabitants'. Today, such an offer of 'free land' and attendant eviction of whomever may currently live there, is not an option. The US as well as the rest of the industrial world has moved away from a predominance of agrarian means for most of the population, and so, other methods of providing 'general Welfare' need to adapt as well.

    The Conservatives offer no plan, other than 'well my dad use to provide all our family needs'... well that worked if the family had a dad, who happened to have say at least a highschool diploma, and a result of 'free through highschool' education. Unfortunately the education needed to make that same equivalent today, is not 12 years of basic education, and the publicly funded higher education facilities have gotten far more expensive, and the Conservatives cheering the way.

    Of course the Conservatives target higher education on 'ideological' terms, claiming there's a commie or leftist in every office. Nothing could be further from the truth. There are no major professors at any major institution who are 'radical' leftists. There are of course 'liberals' who point out the inequalities of the current social system, but those are not 'leftists' in any sense of the word. And the students who eventually graduate to join the work place, do so in the system as it is, rather than take to the street and protest say 'capitalism' or the like.

    The current 'gun control' demonstrations are not 'leftist' at all. Just pointed criticisms of a situation where some set of people seem to think that there is no correlation between there nearly as many 'guns' in circulation as there are citizens in the US, and the ease at which people who lack impulse control, or are engaged in criminal activities, are able to obtain firearms.
     
  13. Hrothgar Halfdansson

    Hrothgar Halfdansson Trusted Member

    Perhaps they should have shot up the place to make their point... oh wait, only gun owners can threaten to shoot up the place by carrying their weapons in public, to protest.
     
  14. Amanda

    Amanda Account Deleted

    [​IMG]
     
    Zarp and Neophyte like this.
  15. Amanda

    Amanda Account Deleted

    [​IMG]
     
    Zarp and Neophyte like this.
  16. Amanda

    Amanda Account Deleted

    [​IMG]
     
    Zarp and Neophyte like this.
  17. Amanda

    Amanda Account Deleted

    [​IMG]
     
    Zarp and Neophyte like this.
  18. Neophyte

    Neophyte Administrator Staff Member

    First off, getting a Social Security Number is very easy, if someone doesn't want to get a SSN then they can refrain from working, voting, getting SS, opening bank accounts, getting credit cards, buying a car, buying a house, renting a house or apartment, getting insurance and a myriad of other things.

    Fascism was in power or tried in many places Germany and Italy are the most well known, Spain was another proponent of Fascism.

    I live in California and we don't have Voter ID here and it seems that the Liberals win an unusual number of elections, even in non-liberal districts. And there have been many reports of districts reporting more votes for liberals than the total of all the voters in the district. In places where you can get a Voter ID, you usually get them from the D.M.V. (or equivalent) or the U.S. Post Office.

    You seem to be using a typical lawyer tactic, also used frequently by Liberals, of trying to divert the debate to unrelated subjects and to center on a single item or fact, trying to win that point then using that to invalidate the whole general subject. It seems to me that you aren't trying to deny the whole claim but are trying to win everything by using a single unrelated point.

    Also, you are trying to deflect my arguments by attacking the Conservative Viewpoint instead of defending the Liberal one. Its a valid debating tactic, but I do understand it.
     
    Zarp and Amanda like this.
  19. Amanda

    Amanda Account Deleted

    That liberals are hypocrites is not news. Just take a look at the net worth of any Democratic Party leader who routinely rails against the “1 percent.” But in the age of Trump, where the hatred that normally drives what we’re told is the “tolerant” left has been turned up to 11. All standards have gone out the window; no hypocrisy is too great, no conspiracy theory too insane for someone on the left to advance it and its drone army to believe.

    It must be easy to be a liberal in 2017. You don’t have to think for yourself. You don’t have to prove anything. And your life can swirl in a bubble where you’ll never have anything you say challenged in a serious way. Liberals have become the bad guy in Lethal Weapon 2 – their membership in the progressive club grants them a sort of diplomatic immunity from reality.

    The same people who cheered the release of traitor Bradley Manning after serving only seven of 35 years for giving thousands of classified national security secrets to Wikileaks clutch their pearls to this day over the same website publishing unclassified emails from the Clinton campaign.

    Is Wikileaks evil or righteous? Do they support the information it receives only if that information damages national security and puts American lives at risk? Sure seems like it.

    When it comes to conspiracy theories, the left has become the Fox Mulder of politics. There is nothing beyond the pale or too insane to be advanced…as long as it is against a Republican. If it’s not, if it’s critical of the left, it’s dismissed as paranoia

    I’ve never written or spoken about the murder of DNC staffer Seth Rich because, honestly, I haven’t seen anything but wild speculation about it. Was he the source of the DNC email leak to Wikileaks? I have no idea. If someone offers real proof, I’ll bite. Until then his death is just another senseless murder.

    The lack of evidence hasn’t stopped some on the right from connecting dots that may or may not exist to advance a political agenda. But just because I tend to agree with a lot of the policy objectives the people connecting those dots want advocate not mean I’m on board with everything they do. If I’m disgusted when a Democrat does something, I’m disgusted when a Republican does it too. The same can’t be said for liberals.
     
    Zarp and Neophyte like this.
  20. Amanda

    Amanda Account Deleted

    Liberal journalists raged against the right over Rich both because there was a grieving family here and it’s distasteful to dredge up conspiracy theories in that circumstance, and because they are outraged a story has advanced for which there is no evidence. These are awful behaviors, but the left engages in them frequently and gleefully.

    On the matter of advancing theories lacking proof, there isn’t a liberal publication that not only functions under the assumption Donald Trump colluded with the Russians to “steal” the election from Hillary Clinton, but prints stories and editorials alleging it on a regular basis.


    It’s been almost a year and there is still zero evidence of this conspiracy, yet the Washington Post, New York Times, and every other left-wing birdcage liner has a team of reporters opining in their pages and on cable news about how this myth is fact.

    Even Democratic members of Congress, who’d sacrifice their grandchildren to find a crumb of proof, have admitted there is none. It had to kill Sen. Dianne Feinstein and Congresswoman Maxine Waters to admit it, but they did. Journalists can’t.

    Instead they run anonymously sourced stories, many of which are denied on the record by the very people implicated in them. They leave those stories, uncorrected, on their websites because the conspiracy must be true.

    Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein had to have threatened to resign if the president used his letter as justification for firing FBI Director James Comey; anonymous sources told them he did.

    Never mind that Rosenstein personally, unambiguously denied the story. Liberals need it to be true. As such, the original story sits, uncorrected, on the Washington Post website without mention of Rosenstein’s unequivocal denial. It would be journalistic malpractice…if journalism still had standards.


    The same goes for countless stories in which Casper the Friendly Leaker whispers something into the ear of some liberal reporter that fits the narrative so perfectly it snaps in place like the last Lego.

    Comey was fired just after requesting more money for Russia probe? Obviously. It doesn’t matter that the acting Director of the FBI denied it under oath or that there is zero evidence; it just has to be true.

    Someone is going to read you a couple of lines over the phone from a “dear diary” entry by Comey that claimed the president “hoped” the FBI would leave Michael Flynn alone? It doesn’t matter that you don’t know the context, or that Comey didn’t tell anyone at the time, or you weren’t even allowed to see the words on the page. Trump is corrupt, so it has to be true. And so on.

    When it comes to love of anti-Trump-perfectly-fitting-the-left-wing-narrative conspiracy theories, facts just get in the way. Journalists are ready to roll around like a happy dog in the sun on the grassy knoll of news.


    As for the idea that respect for the dead should dictate decorum, these credentialed degenerates stepped down from their high horses long enough to cheer the death of Fox News founder Roger Ailes. I don’t know how damaged someone has to be to write the things they wrote – thinking something sick is one thing; believing the world needs to know it is a disorder yet to be named – yet there they were, dancing on his grave before his family even had a chance to digest their loss.
     
    Zarp and Neophyte like this.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.