Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I was conservative before I even knew who Rush Limbaugh, Anne Coulter, or any of the resent conservative pundits were. I was a conservative before it was even fashionable. I am 40 so I have seen many Republican and Democrat administrations come and go. I am a news junkie. I get my news from a variety of sources, including liberal ones. Conservative ideology much better matches the way I view the world. I see conservatism being a much better method of solving the world’s problems. It is not necessarily the easier way but it gets better results in the end. The path of least resistance does not strengthen anything. It causes atrophy. I see liberalism as a path to stagnation and mediocrity. It is a dead end that only exacerbates problems instead of solving them. I am a conservative because I believe it is each individual that makes America great. It is not groups or organizations. People are not groups they are individuals, and they act as such. We identify with groups but that is not what we are. By strengthening the individual we ultimately strengthen the group as a whole. It does not work very well the other way around. By concentrating on groups instead of individuals it harbors resentment and conflict. It promotes an “us vs. them” mentality. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I see most liberals as having a very naive view of the world. They think that if only we would stop being who we are then the world would like us better. They do not understand evil and tyrants. There are many forces in the world that would seek to take our freedom away from us. It must be constantly and vigorously defended. Liberals think that diplomacy can solve any problem. This would work fine if both sides were negotiating in good faith, but this is seldom the case. Each side will always press for their advantage. This is human nature, and liberalism goes against it. It could be said that liberalism goes against the laws of physics. "For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction". Often liberal ideas though well intentioned cause an opposite reaction to what was intended. Conservatives are more honest about what they believe in. Liberals, especially politicians seem to be afraid of revealing what they truly believe. they cloak their true intentions in euphemisms and buzz words. If you believe in tax increases then come out and say it. If you are for the redistribution of wealth and big all encompassing social programs then have the courage of your convictions. Argue your beliefs on their merits and see if they are accepted by the mainstream. If not then live with it and continue to try and persuade through the democratic process. Don’t go running to the courts to impose your beliefs on an unwilling public. I know that every liberal minded person is not the same as every other, just like it is with conservatives. It is easy to make stereotypes. However, there are some issues that we identify with that make us consider ourselves conservatives and liberals. I know that there will be others who will respond to this thread as to why they are liberal and why they do not like conservatives. That’s fine you are entitled to your opinion just like I am entitled to mine.
I mostly agree with what you've said. However, I think that labeling one's self as either a 'liberal' or 'conservative' can be dangerous. It seems that many self-proclaimed liberals will oppose ANY argument made by someone who's identified themselves as a conservative. The reverse is true as well, conservatives seems quick to use 'liberal' and 'whacko pinko' synonymously. The problem is that these labels further polarize politics. Perhaps this is inevitable -- humans tend to prefer dealing with black & white issues. All issues seem to have only two sides, the whole "you're either with us or you're against us" mentality. This means that liberals dismiss conservative ideas as fascist and conservatives dismiss liberal ideas as communist. Few are willing to collaberate. This polarity is the "path to stagnation and mediocrity," not liberalism as you said. The forces of each side are cancelling one another out and as a result we are left with political and social stagnation. Kind of like an equilibrium, where nothing will change and thus nothing will progress. I'd probably write more to this, but I can tell my coffee has finished brewing... I'll just end this with one more comment regarding your post: I agree with this statement, for the most part*. For example, I don't think that people who oppose gay marriage (generally self-said 'conservatives') should be able to prevent two people from getting legally married and enjoying the legal benefits from being a married couple. Some might call me a 'liberal' for this. However, I also support a religious organization's right to limit their definition of marriage exclusively to one man & one woman, and the church's right to refuse to perform a marriage ceremony for a homosexual couple. Some might call this 'conservative'' thinking. Either way, I don't think stricly liberal thinking or conservative thinking is enough to solve a lot of the complex problems in the world. And when somebody labels themselves either way, the only thing I see is a person unwilling to comprimise, someone who's idea of politcal success is to overpower those in opposition. Like Maddox says, anyone who voted for Bush because "they're republican" is neither 'conservative' nor 'liberal.' The correct term would be 'idiot.' *Sometimes what the public wants is not what's best for the public, but that's another debate . Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
The path of least resistance does not strengthen anything. It causes atrophy. I see liberalism as a path to stagnation and mediocrity. It is a dead end that only exacerbates problems instead of solving them. Well it must understood that you yourself are a liberal, conversativism is merely a reactionary force. Liberals have traditionally followed through with individual rights much more then any conservative. The modern American conservative is not what you assume it is, more and more the modern Republican party is becoming the party of absolutes, ideology, and group-think. I don’t see how liberals have lead to stagnation and mediocrity? Because we know that under 25 years of conservative rule in the US the country has become less of a meritocracy into one of privilege, and power, and this is proven. The neo-liberalist agenda in the US is only exacerbating already outrageous disparities in wealth. I am a conservative because I believe it is each individual that makes America great. I don’t think you’ll find many people who would disagree with that, liberals by definition are people who believe in individual freedom, but the difference I would surmise btwn an American liberal and conservative is the concept of equality. For liberals the concept is very important, because they feel it nessecary for everyone in the society to have a fair chance, and to make informed opinions to better society. Conservatives don’t think along those lines, they take the individualism you speak of to another (imo irresponsible) level to the point where the individual is at fault for his or her condition in life and it is his responsibility to fix it. That is why privatization of essential services are touted by the conservative wings of many nations, the government in their opinion has no role in the improvement of other ppl’s lives if it means high taxes which to them would be a dis-utility. That smells of class conflict, and by empirical evidence the gap btwn the classes under conservative politicians have only grown. By concentrating on groups instead of individuals it harbors resentment and conflict. It promotes an “us vs. them” mentality. Sorry but that is the modern Republican Party, straight vs. gay, good vs. evil, poor vs. rich, etc. Liberals do not subscribe to that maxim which you stated because they are not communitarians conservatives are. They do not understand evil and tyrants. You’d be hard pressed to find a liberal tyrant, but you sure can find many conservative one’s. Liberals aren’t naïve, it was the Democratic party who lead the US into two world wars, and even Vietnam. The difference btwn a liberal and a conservative is how to go about fighting a war. There are many forces in the world that would seek to take our freedom away from us. No one cares about your freedom, if you think Al Qaeda gives two shits about the constitution of the US your wrong. They are angry at what they perceive is Americanization of the Middle East, and interference of American policy in the region, and they see it as a war against Islam. Liberals think that diplomacy can solve any problem. That’s hyperbole… This would work fine if both sides were negotiating in good faith, but this is seldom the case. Each side will always press for their advantage. This is human nature, and liberalism goes against it. Then capitalism as a system would be nonexistent today, the capitalist system is based on negotiation, and trust of another. Yet you would probably say that capitalism is natural…if it is then well…liberalism is too. Because let’s not forget that it was the liberal intelligentsia in Europe who pushed for the adoption of capitalism, instead of maintaining mercantilism. It is easy to make stereotypes. Which are always based on fear, ignorance, and superstition. Stereotypes are nothing more then idiotic ramblings from idiots… However, there are some issues that we identify with that make us consider ourselves conservatives and liberals. I don’t think you really know them… I know that there will be others who will respond to this thread as to why they are liberal and why they do not like conservatives. That’s fine you are entitled to your opinion just like I am entitled to mine. Hopefully you’ll be able to share with us someday…
I guess my problem with conservatives is that they do two things: 1. Vote for Bush. The man's policies are anything but conservative and will push America to the brink. And then to worship him as the greatest thing since sliced bread... it's sad. 2. See our society as every man for himself. If it were up to them, then we would each exist in our own little contained bubble. We live in a society where actions have consequences for many. To think that we can go about drving our cars and polluting for profit for enternity is irresponsible and naive. Other than that, I agree with many conservative principles that you mentioned.
Why I'm not conservative or liberal? Because you pigeon-hole yourself into a small area. Basically to be either side, you gotta agree with their whole mentality in regards to everything, good or bad, and that's just lame. Socially, I'm highly liberal. Economically, I have conservatist tendancies, but I'm more Green when it comes to energy and the environment which is an enemy to conservatists. Neither side do I even agree with 60% of what they say and do because they each have their good ideas and their bad. I'd just rather be in the middle and just take all the good and ditch the idiotic bad ideas which unfortunately the other sides can't do due to loyalty to their so-called "party". - N
They would. You're naive. Diplomacy is realpolitik. It has nothing to do with ethics or morality; it is about getting what you want. Sides never, ever negotiate in good faith, but this does not preclude diplomatic solutions. Diplomacy with tyrants works because they have self-interest. If their interests can be satisfied then they will negotiate. Also consider that recent US diplomatic shortcomings do not involve tyrants or evil men , but US allies. Industrialised democracies who by large hold the the same values as the US. The diplomacy that liberals advocated was not to be directed at evil men but at the likes of Pakistan, Chile, Nigeria. Undecided nations whose support might be won, but was lost through Bush's appallingly amateur- hour diplomacy. There is one force. The US government. The only effective attack on your freedom iwas the patriot act. Who was responsible for this? If you believe in tax cuts, don't say "tax-relief". If you wish to pass bigoted laws do not say it is because of "activist judges". If you want to fund christian charities, don't call it "faith-based". If you want to invade a country don't pretend it is because of the "War of Terror". And remember that global warming isn't "climate change". If you don't like comphrensive healthcare, don't call it "socialized medicine".
You're right! The world loved us when Bill Clinton was in office. And he did a great job in Kosovo, by the way. The world loved us then! Let's go back to that America! Nobody hated that America. Sure, terrorists bombed a few American embassies, the USS Cole, a building known as the world trade center, and other things that don’t matter. But hey! We were loved! We need Jimmy Carter back in office, too. He was so great. Nobody took Americans hostage while he was in office because he was pacifist. Really, when you get around to it, the only people who love us (When we aren’t off toppling regimes) are the French and Germans. A Muslim is still going yell “Allah Acbar” and attempt to kill a few infidels. But who cares? The world loves us!
I didn't say you could make the entire world would lavish undivided and total love upon you. You would, contrary to what Brutus1964 said, be "liked better". This is the kind of gratuitous simplification that that has stunted your foreign relations; approval of the US isn't a binary value. Acheiving less than total approval isn't the same as being disliked. There are many shades of popularity. A small group of Islamic terrorists do not constitute the world. Being bombed does not mean the world hates you. Not being bombed does not mean the world likes you. Again, to find the world's opinion of you, you are surveying Islamic extremists. Clever. If you did an actual survey you would find that your popularity has plummeted since 2000. http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/98525_poll05.shtml
I was going by how much the French love us. See, we go out, we kill a few Islamic terrorists, and Frenchy starts crying like a fat woman at a buffet. They seem to disapprove of everything that America does. Every time we take a POW and make him stand on a cardboard box, and attach wires to his hands, and tell him that if he falls off of the box he'll die; they get upset. I don't get it. You got it. See, someone is always going to hate someone no matter what. What you're talking about is saving face. And frankly, I don't care about saving face; I want that Muslim to stand on a box.
CounslerCoffee You're right! The world loved us when Bill Clinton was in office. I don’t think anyone alluded to the word “loved” what I would use would be tolerated. The world loved us then! Let's go back to that America! Nobody hated that America. Well when you delve into conservative diatribe like that of course it sounds preposterous. What the US had at the time was support from her allies, they were there for her and she was there for them. Under Clinton if 9/11 happened instead of squandering international sympathy for the US, he would have successfully translated that into a true coalition against “jihadism”, not wasted American men and material in Iraq, would have dealt with NK in a much greater way, and would have tried to keep the deficit low. Bush fucked EVERYTHING up for the US, so much so that China is creeping up and starting to drink from the same straw. Sure, terrorists bombed a few American embassies, the USS Cole, a building known as the world trade center, and other things that don’t matter. But hey! We were loved! Did you love communists? No, would you ever? No, just like them you were stuck in a irrational hatred of a system and people you don’t understand you will never change their minds, but the best you can do is marginalize them. We need Jimmy Carter back in office, too. He was so great. Nobody took Americans hostage while he was in office because he was pacifist. To his credit he did try to get them out militarily, secondly let’s not forget what Reagan did to get them out…Iran contra was it? I was going by how much the French love us. See, we go out, we kill a few Islamic terrorists, and Frenchy starts crying like a fat woman at a buffet. Why are you so ignorant? If you didn’t know France is part of the multi-national coalition against the Taliban. Tell me where the French have cried? Frankly France is your best ally telling your genius of a president not to invade, while poodle Blair was egging him on…who was right? As if there is any question. They seem to disapprove of everything that America does. Says Rush…no they don’t they disapprove of how the US is squandering her power, and good will. Sure the French like the fact the US is fucking up royally because it makes the EU only that much stronger. Every time we take a POW and make him stand on a cardboard box, and attach wires to his hands, and tell him that if he falls off of the box he'll die; they get upset. I don't get it. You’d better hope Karma is nothing but mysticism. You got it. See, someone is always going to hate someone no matter what. What you're talking about is saving face. And frankly, I don't care about saving face; I want that Muslim to stand on a box. Then I don’t want to hear you complain about beheadings…
It's so much fun. You have to try it. I love living in the blue part of my state. I've pissed off so many people, my car got egged one time. They ripped off my Bush bumper sticker three times. And the next day I sat outside, next to my American flag, and read a Sean Hannity book. Oh, these people hate patriots. They can't stand me... And now since Bush won, they really can't stand me. My friends think I'm hilarious, though. I tell them that I’d get on the floor and eat Condi Rice if she wanted me to. If Clinton can get dome from a fat cock-chugging whore like Monica Lewinski, then I can eat Rice with no problems at all. That's where I agree with you. How do you get rid of terrorists? You turn Iraq into a hot-bed of terrorist’s activity and start shooting the fuckers in the head (Kinda like zombies). Yes, because standing on a box is such a crime that Islamic terrorists respond by beheading innocent civilians. I agree with you.
I've done much worse to local republicans and their vehicles. I won't get into the details because I would get arrested. For the most part, you conservatives are just far to... conservative when it comes to fighting the meme war. And this is why we will eventually win. You are not a patriot for reading Sean Hannity and plastering a flag on your foreign made car. You are an asshole with an agenda to provoke a reaction. Thomas Jefferson was a patriot. George Washington was a patriot. You are a dousche who reads poorly written arguments in books by pundits. Wow. Ok, you're almost making sense and rational arguments now. Almost... I don't know if the ignorant redneck spiel is an act or a reflection of your true nature, but I don't know what you are doing in a semi-intelligent community like this.
Oh, these people hate patriots. They can't stand me... If you were a real patriot you wouldn’t be blind to the propaganda seeping out of this administration. Just like your communist brethren you think that the administration= patriot, not the state= patriotism...Lenin would be proud. If you think being a patriot is having a cheap ass bumper sticker, waving a flag, and reading some jingoists book you have no clue what patriotism is, unless patriotism is sold at Wal-Mart and is on sale…which is essentially what you are telling me. A Patriot is someone ideas, honesty, who not only understands a nations power but her weakness’, a person who isn’t blinded by his own superiority complex…which as the name implies is only a complex. The reason why those ppl are attacking you is because you are destroying their country... That's where I agree with you. How do you get rid of terrorists? The problem is that you think you have too, to get the job done. You never will get rid of them, the best you can do is marginalize them, honestly challenge their ideology through actions not words…you see your idiot of a president did everything Osama said a American imperialist would do…and thus you did everything you could to aide Osama. Not very intelligent…but of course…Patriotism stifles all debate in that head…how could I forget. You turn Iraq into a hot-bed of terrorist’s activity and start shooting the fuckers in the head (Kinda like zombies). Like in Vietnam? Where they blasted your ass out of the water? The same thing is happening here, and its mildly funny, if you think the US is going to somehow going to win this “war on terror” now…your sadly mistaken, the US has created a monster which conceivably is almost impossible to battle against. Yes, because standing on a box is such a crime that Islamic terrorists respond by beheading innocent civilians. I agree with you. It’s the same shit…deprived human beings, blinded by their own ideology, which in turn justifies their inhumane actions. You aren’t any different from them mein friend…
Top mosker: No offense intended… So you plan on winning the meme war by fucking with my car? So smart. Provoke a reaction? They attacked me first by egging my car. So I sat outside and read a book by Sean Hannity. They did worse than me. Boxes and beheadings... I tell ya... I am a patriot because I have an opinion, you are a patriot to, because you have and hold an opinion--welcome to the patriot club! You see, we really balance out the system, don't we? Someone has to disagree, it wouldn't be fun if we all agreed. You’re a fucking water-head with spina bifida. Oh, and what kind of literature I read does not matter. I read books by pundits to get different opinions. Moore, Dowd, Hannity, Frankin, Coulter, Clinton, and Reagan are on my shelf. I know. And I only say a quarter of the shit that I actually think (Which isn’t much). Ignorant redneck and proud. Got a problem with my lifestyle, take it up with your homosexual partner. I don’t care. Undecided: I think the patriots might go all the way this year, but I don’t like football or basketball, or any sports for that matter. Patriotism is sold at Wal-Mart, it goes on sale on Sundays when the old republicans pull up in their redneck cars and talk about ignorant redneck stuff and people like you think that they’re morons without a clue even though you live three states away. I am in complete agreement with that. But what you think is right is what you think is right. And what you think is I wrong I might think is right. You are correct. Terrorists hate us for invading Afghanistan and Iraq. But you have to remember, terrorists hated America attacked it pre-9/11. In agreement, again. Uh huh. Ya see how this is? You guys started calling me a redneck and throwing insults as soon I stepped into this thread to say this: We are basically agreeing, Undecided. I‘m just using to much sarcasm for you, I guess. America did not fail in Vietnam, our leaders did. And this is where we disagree. You think America’s doing I bad job, I think she’s doing a good one. Both points can be argued. See, if I punch someone in the face, they might hit me back. But if I hit hard enough they’ll go away for a while and come back, and I’ll punch them in the face again and again until they go away forever. But really, I’m not talking about violence when I talk about punching. I’m more or less talking about words. Punch them words and information and drop food on their houses instead of bombs (And we’ve done that). It is all the same shit. Everyone has their own ideology, you’re blinded by yours, I’m blinded by mine. We’re all stuck up whores who insist on being correct. The only right thing we can do is admit that we’re stuck up whores. I admit to it, all the time. I’m arrogant sometimes and I know it. At least I admit to it, though.
Patriotism is sold at Wal-Mart, it goes on sale on Sundays when the old republicans pull up in their redneck cars and talk about ignorant redneck stuff and people like you think that they’re morons without a clue even though you live three states away. Although yes I believe that they are ignorant…they would in turn think I am immoral. It’s a different emphasis on values, I value intelligence, they value submissiveness to authority be it god or country. I am in complete agreement with that. But what you think is right is what you think is right. And what you think is I wrong I might think is right. Iraq says so…the increase in terrorists worldwide points to it, the increase in the deficit, debt, lowering incomes, and lowering living standards…may I go on. I base my opinions on what I see not what I believe…sorry but this president, and his administration had fucked up royally, and if you voted on values, or just because it said Republican on the ticket you are indeed a idiot. You are correct. Terrorists hate us for invading Afghanistan and Iraq. But you have to remember, terrorists hated America attacked it pre-9/11. Invading Afghanistan was justified, invading Iraq was not. The invasion of Iraq not Afghanistan really got the Islamic world riled up, it has been America’s actions which have created a monster which now has transformed itself from a organization to a movement…Terrorists existed prior to 9.11 sure…but it was after March/03 that the terrorists moved from afterthought to heroes. Uh huh. Ya see how this is? You guys started calling me a redneck and throwing insults as soon I stepped into this thread to say this: Because that is uneducated, that is unwestern, that is not what our western society stands for, you want us to act like them. You want us to act like barbarians, you want us to get our little ego trips, and suffer the long term consequences of this fit of ignorance. If you want to get rid of the threat, don’t act like a dick. It’s really that simple, after Abu Gharib the US lost Iraq imo. We are basically agreeing, Undecided. I‘m just using to much sarcasm for you, I guess. No because I can’t see the sarcasm, firstly you are a Bush supporter unless you changed, and secondly this is the way they sound like. You think this is a joke…then what do you think this modern republican party is? America did not fail in Vietnam, our leaders did. And this is where we disagree. America did fail in Vietnam, look the US militarily won every battle in Vietnam, means shit. What wins wars is not battles so much a will to fight, and the US doesn’t have the stomach, or the funds to continue this for much longer. You think America’s doing I bad job, I think she’s doing a good one. Both points can be argued. Not really…when the insurgency now outnumbers US soldiers in Iraq…it’s a failure, when large swaths of Iraq are not going to voting in this “election” it’s a failure, when the US is increasing troop levels when it was predicted prior to the war began that now US troops would be leaving…even by the administration own standards it’s a failure. See, if I punch someone in the face, they might hit me back. But if I hit hard enough they’ll go away for a while and come back, and I’ll punch them in the face again and again until they go away forever. Good luck…because they ain’t going to happen…this isn’t a schoolyard brawl, this is a war of ideas and the more you punch, the worse its going to get for you. A bully loses power when he exercises his power excessively... Punch them words and information and drop food on their houses instead of bombs (And we’ve done that). No what you have to do is change policy…as long as US policy doesn’t change nothing will. No matter what you give. I admit to it, all the time. I’m arrogant sometimes and I know it. At least I admit to it, though. I am arrogant too…but at least I have a reason to be.
Some will. Others won't. Most peoples' opinions of the US are malleable. Their hatred might be downgraded to dislike, or their dislike downgraded to ambivalence. By minimising extreme opinions you minimise extremists. No I'm not. I'm talking about effective diplomacy and the development of soft power. Besides, face is important. Your reputation and esteem affects your ability to convince, which in turn affects your ability to wage war. Remember when the US wanted to invade through Turkey? The US threw 20 billion dollars at the turks and still your inept president could not swing it. Here your lack of esteem in the turks' eyes affected your military capacity.
Diplomacy? Soft power? Reminds me of Chamberlin waving that little piece of paper after visiting with Hitler. Lack of esteem in the eyes of Turkey? Nope! It was the fear of a potential independent Kurdish state taking part of Turkey away with it. There are three stages to international diplomacy: Love me But if not love, then respect me But if not respect, then fear me That's the way it's been since the beginning of recorded history.
