I never mentioned Iraq. A warmonger is anyone who advocates, endorses or precipitate wars. In the Republican Party you have those that would support any conflict for personal, ideological, and financial reasons. That means that they would support a war for the simple fact of making a dollar in it. It doesn't matter that people die so long as they make money.
As for Democrats caring for the poor, legislation would support my point.
The anti free trade agreements which leave millions of people in developing countries in poverty?
You're right of course...but as long as they support abortion and gay marriage, they will never be the "Christian" party. Ask around at your local traditional church, and you'll hear a surprising number of people tell you that it would be a SIN for them to vote for anyone who is pro-choice.
No, the ones that try to put basic property and human rights into the laws so that these nations can not only compete more fairly with the United States but also dissuade exploitation of the local population.
How's that working out for all those people? I'm sure the guy making 5x the local prevailing wage is very upset about American free trade!
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,415
- 14,305
- 136
Uhh... I don't doubt this is true, I just think you misunderstood what Arkaign wrote.
The fundamental underlying principle of conservativism is that everything is fine AS IS. That the status quo is not only desirable, but must be maintained at all costs. Because of this, it naturally insists on strict conformity to social mores and beliefs, including what is right and what is even worth listening to.
That's what always makes these discussions hilarious. No doubt Jesus would not support either of our 2 political parties, but there is no argument that -- in His day -- He was anything BUT a conservative. In fact, He was decidedly the kind that Butterbean today would call a "cultural Marxist."
Well, when you think things through intelligently, you want to have maximum benefit over the long term. Basic human and property rights are absolutely essential to prosperity for any nation that does not want to be dependent only on one commodity or manufacturing. So, these trade deals should always focus on the long term, rather than short. To make them even better, they should focus on the comparative advantages of nations, not exploitation of their weak laws.
you realize there was only one election after 2000, right?
they went slightly for Gore in 2000 and slightly for Bush in 2004.
certainly not heavily democratic, but alligned with Dobson? :laugh:
Please explain the positive result of 200 years of US protectionist policy and how it has benefited the poor in developed countries.
BoberFett
Lifer
- Oct 9, 1999
- 37,563
- 9
- 81
Conservatism as the belief that everything is fine as is only makes sense if you follow liberalism to the same absurd conclusion: that everything is wrong and needs to change.
Certainly those kinds of anti-establishment types exist. They want change for the sake of change because they feel the need to fight the status quo regardless of any actual merit it may have. But it's hardly the norm, and the same goes for conservatives. Both want change, but only in their direction of choice.
sandorski
No Lifer
- Oct 10, 1999
- 70,101
- 5,640
- 126
Other than the term "wrong", that's basically what Liberalism is. Liberals are open to change and are willing to change pretty much anything if it seems an improvement is available. So it's not that Liberalism thinks everything is "wrong", it's more like "everything can be improved".
Thank you for taking the time to explain your viewpoint and for doing it rationally and with sound logic. The argument makes sense based on the givens. In case you didn't see something I posted in another thread let me repost it here:
"I Have Re-Registered as a Democrat
The fateful lunch took place at about this time 40 years ago. The setting was a media hangout in Baltimore. It was called a restaurant, but was candidly more like a glorified bar, redeemed by the hunk of good beef spit-roasting in the window. Six months into my first job as a talk show host I was eager to expand my ability. I was lunching with the radio station's general manager, Don Kelly, the news director, Cliff Barrett, and promotions director, Joe Clarke. As we methodically tackled sandwiches of rare roast beef sliced from the rotating hunk on fresh kaiser rolls with just a hint of fiery horseradish, the talk turned to the dominant issue of the day.
Cube Advertisement
I had accepted America's involvement in Viet Nam. Knowing little about the history and complexity of Southeast Asia and remembering that scary summer night when President Lyndon Johnson had somberly reported to the nation that we had been attacked in the Gulf of Tonkin, I had said so be it. Now a few years later I had grown skeptical. Persuasive voices suggesting that we had made a mistake grew louder and more insistent. As the death toll in Viet Nam mounted it seemed the price for our involvement in somebody else's fight had become too high. As the "new kid on the block" I was nervous, but finally told my colleagues I had decided to change my position and on my program come out against the war.
Don Kelly asked if I was sure. I said that short of going to Viet Nam personally, I had done everything I could to justify a change in position. "So why don't you go?" the boss asked. "Too expensive," I said. "We'll pay for the trip and you'll send back reports." News Director Cliff Barrett chimed in, announcing, "I want to go too." And so we went.
The trip was life-changing. I returned an ardent foe of the war. As the son of a long line of "blue collar" Democrats, I had registered as a Democrat. When Hubert Humphrey agreed not to oppose the war in order to get Lyndon Johnson's support for the Presidential nomination, I left the Democratic Party and became a Libertarian, an affiliation I maintained until just a few weeks ago.
1968 was a pivotal year in American history. I believe 2008 is also. The Libertarian party has failed to gain meaningful traction for many reasons worth discussing at another time. For now, after a 40-year exile, I have re-registered as a Democrat, allowing me the opportunity to participate in what I see as profound and fateful choices as we attempt desperately needed political and policy course corrections. I can't sit this one out secure in my Libertarian bubble. Oliver Wendell Holmes was correct when he observed that a person must be involved in the passion and action of his or her time or be judged never to have lived.
Rallying the colonists to the daunting task of breaking the yoke of Great Britain, the mightiest power on Earth, the incendiary Thomas Paine observed that the job at hand was too important to be left to "sunshine soldiers and summer patriots." I have that same sense about today.
-Gene Burns"
I think the situations we face today after 8 years of disaster are serious and grave and that only the brainwashed and the sleeping would vote for McSame. I see it as critical that we change direction. It's not time to daydream when the tiger is at your door. Concerns about tomorrows enemy are useless when your immediate one has you in flames.
I don't think you are understanding what Vic said. Conservatives do not want change. They only want to change anything that changes back to what it was. That is not what change means. Conservatives do not want change.
Zenmervolt
Elite member
- Oct 22, 2000
- 24,512
- 21
- 81
Interesting. I can see this point of view, and I understand the attractiveness of it. I rather wish I could share your belief that what is can be salvaged, can be repaired somehow. But I don't. What we have now needs to be torn down to the foundation and rebuilt, and that seems inevitable to me. I simply don't want to be part of prolonging something that I see as passing away.
ZV
You are clearly a moron. When has the US had a 200 year protectionist policy against poor nations? Most, if not all, of those countries were colonies.
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: Tab
'cause that's what the demographics say?
Catholics voting for the party that's pro-choice? As for jews, I have no idea which party they favor if any.
Yes Catholics vote heavy democrat. And Jews not voting democrat is like blacks going republican.
Hmm, I guess you're right. Things certainly have changed, thanks GWB!
:thumbsup:Interesting. I can see this point of view, and I understand the attractiveness of it. I rather wish I could share your belief that what is can be salvaged, can be repaired somehow. But I don't. What we have now needs to be torn down to the foundation and rebuilt, and that seems inevitable to me. I simply don't want to be part of prolonging something that I see as passing away.
Exactly. You long for catastrophe and revolution and I seek reason and evolution. You are frustrated by powerlessness of negativity and I have hope in the goodness of man. You call for the wrath of God and I ask for His love. You don't see that what needs to be salvaged and can be repaired is your self that everything is was and always will be perfect. Not intended as criticism, but as something to reflect on as a possibility.
The actual reality, it seems to me, is that change can only be done by those who are elected. The libertarians have been a minority forever and I can't see that changing. I can see the Democratic party as potentially evolving though as we become more progressive in general as a nation. If people stopped voting for the two parties things would change no doubt, but people won't so that's, though a fine dream, isn't real.
A mighty wave is coming and it's consciousness.
Exactly. You long for catastrophe and revolution and I seek reason and evolution. You are frustrated by powerlessness of negativity and I have hope in the goodness of man. You call for the wrath of God and I ask for His love. You don't see that what needs to be salvaged and can be repaired is your self that everything is was and always will be perfect. Not intended as criticism, but as something to reflect on as a possibility.
The actual reality, it seems to me, is that change can only be done by those who are elected. The libertarians have been a minority forever and I can't see that changing. I can see the Democratic party as potentially evolving though as we become more progressive in general as a nation. If people stopped voting for the two parties things would change no doubt, but people won't so that's, though a fine dream, isn't real.
A mighty wave is coming and it's consciousness.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 10K
-
-
Discussion Speculation: Zen 4 (EPYC 4 "Genoa", Ryzen 7000, etc.)- Started by Vattila
- Replies: 13K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 7K
Facebook
Twitter