Where do you stand? page 7

[Chaohinon]

They are, but branding yourself Republican Jr. only helps legitimize a really ugly and hateful philosophy that's diametrically opposed to liberty. American libertarians are trying to woo the most bucktoothed and ass-backwards elements of the right, by drawing on myopic anti-government paranoia, while ignoring how culturally antithetical they are to social liberalism.

I mean if you're going to stand against both major parties then at least be fucking steadfast about it, instead of trying to crown yourself prince of the retards. If you have to give a preference to the left or the right, though, wouldn't it make sense to cozy up with the people who actually protest against war and in favor of civil liberties, rather than the people who think the government has a right to the contents of your uterus and your backpack?

[anna5]

I agree however that is not the current definition, or thought process by the two sides. I believe the the current freedom lovers reside in the conservative libertarians who advocate for the smallest goverment possible.

A uniquely American (Orwellian?) understanding of love of freedom. So slaves and wage slaves should be conservative libertarians and love the smallest government possible which would make their slave drivers the strongest possible. Only in America.
Traditionally, freedom loving slaves tend to prefer the government in a hope (often justified) that the government (in self interest or not) will limit the power/cruelty of their immediate oppressors.

[Gimp56]

your being just as narrow minded and myopic as the people you are stereotyping and demonizing.

[Gimp56]

A uniquely American (Orwellian?) understanding of love of freedom. So slaves and wage slaves should be conservative libertarians and love the smallest government possible which would make their slave drivers the strongest possible. Only in America.
Traditionally, freedom loving slaves tend to prefer the government in a hope (often justified) that the government (in self interest or not) will limit the power/cruelty of their immediate oppressors.

A definate difference in political and life philosophy. I believe that my rights come from God, not from goverment.

[anna5]

A definate difference in political and life philosophy. I believe that my rights come from God, not from goverment.

So, if I understand it correctly, you should be anti-American and resent the fact that your God given rights as a British subject were taken away.

[BONZ]

So, if I understand it correctly, you should be anti-American and resent the fact that your God given rights as a British subject were taken away.

British subjects in North America did in fact see themselves as having "God given rights", what the less religious like myself might call natural rights. Being a British subject wasn't one of them. The revolution happened, in whole part, because the colonies saw Parliment as failing to respect those "God given rights" of Englishmen, something they saw as their ancient heritage. What you said was a simpletons argument, the "gotcha" outburst of someone with no content behind their contention...... don't be six.

[anna5]

British subjects in North America did in fact see themselves as having "God given rights", what the less religious like myself might call natural rights. Being a British subject wasn't one of them. The revolution happened, in whole part, because the colonies saw Parliment as failing to respect those "God given rights" of Englishmen, something they saw as their ancient heritage. What you said was a simpletons argument, the "gotcha" outburst of someone with no content behind their contention...... don't be six.

"British subjects in North America did in fact see themselves as having "God given rights"
Well, thank you for confirmation. The rest ... I think should be left without a comment.

[BONZ]

Socialism was founded in conservative ideology

About that.....

Charles Fourier said that we should all get naked in the woods and party, this would bring about (NAKED!!! ) equality.

Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, the first guy to call himself an anarchist I think, said property was theft and anyone who tried to own anything was basically stealing from everybody else. So.... give it all back (to whom?) and we'll have equality.

Robert Owen said "Daddy, gimme one of your factories. I'm going to pay above market rates to my laborers and bring them out of poverty.... and therefore bring about equality." He bankrupted his facility, but he did give it the old college try. Henry Ford he was not.

These people were all influential early Socialist thinkers. They gave Marx somewhere to go when he finally put his big boy pants on..... And none of them would've been considered "conservative" by any means. When the idea of Socialism really started to gain traction, it came with it the nessecary implication of revolution. This is always an innovation, and very much not "conservative".

To the people here who claim to be conservative, I do have a question for you that might actually provoke some thought; What exactly are you trying to conserve?

To the people who claim to be "Liberal", just stop it. Voting democrat doesn't make you liberal. If you condone their philosophy of government you are nessecarily progressives. Your political idealogy is a descendent of socialism (directly from early 20th century American socialists and communists). I'm a liberal, in the most classic sense. If you're a flag waving Obama supporter, we do not agree and you're in the wrong line.

The sinister kid in me is smiling.... now I get to be six.
(hornets nest is sufficiently stirred up.... and ...... GO!)

[zoebird]

truth be told, i don't participate in any party any more than it seems to serve immediate needs until the process changes to where more different types of voices may be heard (more than a 2-party system).

for the last 20-30 years or so, though, the GOP has been going bat guano, well away from real, conservative values; and the DNS seems to be heading toward them, though with a social democracy bent. I don't mind a social democracy; heck, I live in one.

But, end of the day, I think it could go either way for the US. if the GOP gets their crap together, and perhaps returns to what Jefferson was on about, then that could be pretty viable AND it would stay the heck out of marriages, uteruses, and backpacks. If the DNC stays the course, then the US is likely to head toward a healthy, functioning social democracy like the rest of the most developed nations in the world and several of the less developed ones.

Either way could be good, they're just different. And, honestly, in the day-to-day of the average person, those differences aren't that great, if there are any differences at all.

It's sort of like going: If I'm going to put on my pants, does it matter whether I put the left leg or the right leg in first?

Oddly, I tend to put in the left leg. But, when my left leg was broken, I had to put in through the right. And guess what? I was still wearing pants. Yay. Pants for the USA.

[BONZ]

....... if the GOP gets their crap together, and perhaps returns to what Jefferson was on about, then that could be pretty viable AND it would stay the heck out of marriages, uteruses, and backpacks. .......

+1

........Yay. Pants for the USA.

+1000 I really laughed at that one.....