What's the point of being conservative?

[Divair]

September 24th:
"Post by Divair:
Social democracy is an amazing system. Communism, if voluntary, can work on a colony on another planet. Progression is great."

September 25th:
"Post by Divair:
Social democracy is fascist. Communism is for the weak and the Stalinists. Progression is horrible."

It'd be an interesting subject for a scientific paper.

Very.

[Sidhae]

The point is very simple - if it ain't broken, don't fix it.

Conservatives adhere to time-tested values and concepts which have proven themselves to work.

[Ovisterra]

The point is very simple - if it ain't broken, don't fix it.

Conservatives adhere to time-tested values and concepts which have proven themselves to work.

Just because it works doesn't mean it's right.

Banning homosexual marriage works. Genocide works. Racism works.

[Divair]

The point is very simple - if it ain't broken, don't fix it.

Conservatives adhere to time-tested values and concepts which have proven themselves to work.

Just because it works doesn't mean it's right.

Banning homosexual marriage works. Genocide works. Racism works.

Let's go back to the pre-industrial era and tell them that they shouldn't go in that direction.

*nods*

[Olivaero]

Well... Some of my views could be considered conservative in that I'm English and I want to conserve the Union, and I would like to conserve the monarchy, I think calling your self as conservative or a progressive is a little disingenuous because I would submit there are very few people in the world who think the situation in their country is complete perfection, nothing is ever greater than it is now and it is impossible to change things for the better. Like wise although there are probably more people who assert they want to change the situation in their country completely their Ideology is not constructed around change they want change for a reason not change for change sake. So why even use the descriptors conservative and Progressive?

I mean quite a few of the people in the USA who call themselves "conservative" actually want massive change in the way things are economically run. It would be more accurate to call them "regressives" really they want the US to return to a somewhat brutal past... and whats more they don't even want to do it slowly they want to do it NOW.

What I think is happening is the refusal of these self identified conservatives is the refusal to accept that the "progressives" won quite a few of the battles of the past few years and so go on as if they are still conserving the natural order of the nation and they see all of these changes as happening so suddenly they are justified in calling for them all to be scrapped immediately! when in fact these things have been happening for a very long time they've just never acknowledged them as happening. This perception has not been helped by not everywhere changing at the same time See: Texas, Arizona, Alaska, any small town any where.

[Cevalo Nacio]

The biggest example of colonization gone wrong is in Israel. An even worse version of Apartheid South Africa, Israel constantly sets up settlements in Israel and forces the original inhabitants out in the name of their state. Carving out little pieces of miserable Palestinian ghettos where the people live on less than 2$ a day and have to deal with setteler violence.

[Sidhae]

The point is very simple - if it ain't broken, don't fix it.

Conservatives adhere to time-tested values and concepts which have proven themselves to work.

Just because it works doesn't mean it's right.

Banning homosexual marriage works. Genocide works. Racism works.

"Right" is a subjective term depending solely on one's viewpoint. To a Black homosexual living in a vehemently anti-Black white nation, the said things will obviously be wrong. To the average straight White citizen of the said nation, it will be right.

[Ovisterra]

Just because it works doesn't mean it's right.

Banning homosexual marriage works. Genocide works. Racism works.

"Right" is a subjective term depending solely on one's viewpoint. To a Black homosexual living in a vehemently anti-Black white nation, the said things will obviously be wrong. To the average straight White citizen of the said nation, it will be right.

I'm well aware of the subjectivity of morality. No need to talk to me like I'm a non-moral nihilist.

However, that does not subtract from my point. Just because something works does not mean it's a good idea.

[Cevalo Nacio]

As far as Conservatism go, the closest ill go is say that I think tax cuts are a good way to stimulate the economy (though I prefer public works spending) and I see NeoConservatism as a good theory of international politics but I think all IR theories have validity from Liberalism to Realism.

[Enadail]

Just because it works doesn't mean it's right.

Banning homosexual marriage works. Genocide works. Racism works.

"Right" is a subjective term depending solely on one's viewpoint. To a Black homosexual living in a vehemently anti-Black white nation, the said things will obviously be wrong. To the average straight White citizen of the said nation, it will be right.

To the average white person it wouldn't be right, it simply wouldn't matter. That being the case, conservatives also adhere to time tested values that don't work (make the rich richer and everyone else will become richer, or deregulate and the market will take care of everything). Both sides have their faults, I just find the idea of staying in place because its the status quote despicable. If you want to keep things the same, that's fine, but have a reason more then "because that's the way it is".

[Enadail]

As far as Conservatism go, the closest ill go is say that I think tax cuts are a good way to stimulate the economy

Even though we're at record low taxes and its not stimulating the economy notably if at all?

[Ostroeuropa]

Well, they won the whole socialism VS capitalism thing.

[Enadail]

Well, they won the whole socialism VS capitalism thing.

Who did? Conservatives? How?

[Ostroeuropa]

Well, they won the whole socialism VS capitalism thing.

Who did? Conservatives? How?

DEM COMMIES!
better red than dead!
VS
Eh, just let them exist or whatever i guess. Maybe we can be socialists too or maybe just not hate on the-

USSR collapses.

Capitalism, awww yeah

[Herskerstad]

Because while dreaming is all well and good, it needs to be balanced out with a healthy dose of realism. And there are many progressive conservatives as well, don't get me wrong.

The issue becomes more clear when progress seeks to transcend the bounds of sense into a utopian vision, where all obstacles are viewed as redundant, regressive and reactionary. The communist dream is a good example of this, as it left a mountain of dead under the guise of temporal dictatorship, to when the world would be conquered, all capital would be abolished, and the rulers benevolently giving away their power, without the ensuing and guaranteed massive conflict that would rise due to nationalism and other varied factors. On the opposite end, one of my personal heroes, Mr Churchill, early on made a horrifying mistake of trying to revert back to the gold standard for it would 'root the monetary system in reality'. While this is all well and true, the reality also was that the gold was very much subject to market values, and constituted only a minor portion of the size compared to the mortgage market. Conservatives often have also tried to be the vanguards of peace, like Stanly Baldwin, who while a terrific fellow of the kind that the world need far more of, was completely and utterly blind to the threat that Nazism posed, as he merely wanted a buffer state between the Soviet Union and the allies.

There are also plenty of Liberal Conservatives, such as JFK, who while portrayed in movies as someone wanting to get out of the Vietnam war, often bolstered forces, and cut taxes for the wealthy like nothing else. Social security implemented in that age also was a sensible investment that turned up a surplus, which since have accumulated into redundant deficits with their appearing neighbor programs. The issue always seem to become the most heated when ideology strays on the path of ruin, and progressives are sometimes prone to this as are conservatives. During the Bush elections I feared the path to ruin would only increase should McCain have won, but quickly realized that Obama is Bush on steroids as far as spending is concerned. The leadership of the Democratic party has also made it a non-issue much like the conservatives did in 08, except now, it's accumulating at a much faster rate, and with extremely poor results overall. While 2000 standards is not entirely revertible as it stands now, the US seems to do it's best economically when the presidency is threatened, yet, the compromises offered on each side stand acceptable. Obama's demands have not been anywhere close to what Clinton did facing Gingrich, and as it stands, Obama will attempt to win by ensuring a minority collision that will fight against the ever diminishing majority. As of currently I do think as far as the US is concerned, that Romney and Ryan will bring some economic stability whereas the president shows no sign of stopping. In some years there will be no funds for social security on this path, and while no doubt a budget will be contemplated should Obama win, and he very well might, it will be a low priority as a second term is a lot more free reign as far as a president is concerned. As there is no infinitival blood in the water for the opposing party to capitalize on in terms of re-elections.

[The Land Fomerly Known as Ligerplace]

They were respected, it wasn't a bunch of naked baboons throwing feces at each other for thousands of years. There were civilizations and cultures that rose and fell, and tribes that had natural human issues with each other, but just because the European had a different idea of what progress was than the African (which had advanced civilizations rising and falling) doesn't mean he was right. When the hell did all of Africa destroy itself in a giant war? When did it do so twice?

No, but they were perfectly capable of being just as nasty to each other as Europeans were.

Indeed, natural human relations with the same potential for order and chaos. Those tribal conflicts and relations were exploited to take Africa much more efficiently than standard war, and forcing the ones you took over to accept your culture (with the Africans at the bottom) is a standard way of converting a former enemy into a useful resource of human labor.

Besides that, no matter how nasty they might have been to each other, there was never a gigantic chattel slavery market turning entire populations into lifelong tortured property with less rights or respect than a rock.

Indentured servants? Yes, they existed.

People turned into objects? Not to my knowledge.

[The Land Fomerly Known as Ligerplace]

Because while dreaming is all well and good, it needs to be balanced out with a healthy dose of realism. And there are many progressive conservatives as well, don't get me wrong.

The issue becomes more clear when progress seeks to transcend the bounds of sense into a utopian vision, where all obstacles are viewed as redundant, regressive and reactionary. The communist dream is a good example of this, as it left a mountain of dead under the guise of temporal dictatorship, to when the world would be conquered, all capital would be abolished, and the rulers benevolently giving away their power, without the ensuing and guaranteed massive conflict that would rise due to nationalism and other varied factors. On the opposite end, one of my personal heroes, Mr Churchill, early on made a horrifying mistake of trying to revert back to the gold standard for it would 'root the monetary system in reality'. While this is all well and true, the reality also was that the gold was very much subject to market values, and constituted only a minor portion of the size compared to the mortgage market. Conservatives often have also tried to be the vanguards of peace, like Stanly Baldwin, who while a terrific fellow of the kind that the world need far more of, was completely and utterly blind to the threat that Nazism posed, as he merely wanted a buffer state between the Soviet Union and the allies.

There are also plenty of Liberal Conservatives, such as JFK, who while portrayed in movies as someone wanting to get out of the Vietnam war, often bolstered forces, and cut taxes for the wealthy like nothing else. Social security implemented in that age also was a sensible investment that turned up a surplus, which since have accumulated into redundant deficits with their appearing neighbor programs. The issue always seem to become the most heated when ideology strays on the path of ruin, and progressives are sometimes prone to this as are conservatives. During the Bush elections I feared the path to ruin would only increase should McCain have won, but quickly realized that Obama is Bush on steroids as far as spending is concerned. The leadership of the Democratic party has also made it a non-issue much like the conservatives did in 08, except now, it's accumulating at a much faster rate, and with extremely poor results overall. While 2000 standards is not entirely revertible as it stands now, the US seems to do it's best economically when the presidency is threatened, yet, the compromises offered on each side stand acceptable. Obama's demands have not been anywhere close to what Clinton did facing Gingrich, and as it stands, Obama will attempt to win by ensuring a minority collision that will fight against the ever diminishing majority. As of currently I do think as far as the US is concerned, that Romney and Ryan will bring some economic stability whereas the president shows no sign of stopping. In some years there will be no funds for social security on this path, and while no doubt a budget will be contemplated should Obama win, and he very well might, it will be a low priority as a second term is a lot more free reign as far as a president is concerned. As there is no infinitival blood in the water for the opposing party to capitalize on in terms of re-elections.

Minority majority collision, explain that.

[Sidhae]

"Right" is a subjective term depending solely on one's viewpoint. To a Black homosexual living in a vehemently anti-Black white nation, the said things will obviously be wrong. To the average straight White citizen of the said nation, it will be right.

I'm well aware of the subjectivity of morality. No need to talk to me like I'm a non-moral nihilist.

However, that does not subtract from my point. Just because something works does not mean it's a good idea.

Sure, it might not be a morally-good idea. But as long as it brings practical benefits to the civilization or nation in question, why change it?

Slavery, for example, was a good idea only until someone determined that it is a very inefficent form of exploiting labour. Hence, after much quarrel, progress was made and the conservative elements too realized that it's much cheaper to just pay pennies to free workers and be rid of responsibility to keep them from starving.

Social progress doesn't really address the real issues, it just makes the same old issues into new, more refined forms.

[Forsakia]

No, but they were perfectly capable of being just as nasty to each other as Europeans were.

Indeed, natural human relations with the same potential for order and chaos. Those tribal conflicts and relations were exploited to take Africa much more efficiently than standard war, and forcing the ones you took over to accept your culture (with the Africans at the bottom) is a standard way of converting a former enemy into a useful resource of human labor.

Besides that, no matter how nasty they might have been to each other, there was never a gigantic chattel slavery market turning entire populations into lifelong tortured property with less rights or respect than a rock.

Indentured servants? Yes, they existed.

People turned into objects? Not to my knowledge.

You said human rights were respected, I think that's a very rose-tinted view of things to say the least.

[Herskerstad]

Because while dreaming is all well and good, it needs to be balanced out with a healthy dose of realism. And there are many progressive conservatives as well, don't get me wrong.

The issue becomes more clear when progress seeks to transcend the bounds of sense into a utopian vision, where all obstacles are viewed as redundant, regressive and reactionary. The communist dream is a good example of this, as it left a mountain of dead under the guise of temporal dictatorship, to when the world would be conquered, all capital would be abolished, and the rulers benevolently giving away their power, without the ensuing and guaranteed massive conflict that would rise due to nationalism and other varied factors. On the opposite end, one of my personal heroes, Mr Churchill, early on made a horrifying mistake of trying to revert back to the gold standard for it would 'root the monetary system in reality'. While this is all well and true, the reality also was that the gold was very much subject to market values, and constituted only a minor portion of the size compared to the mortgage market. Conservatives often have also tried to be the vanguards of peace, like Stanly Baldwin, who while a terrific fellow of the kind that the world need far more of, was completely and utterly blind to the threat that Nazism posed, as he merely wanted a buffer state between the Soviet Union and the allies.

There are also plenty of Liberal Conservatives, such as JFK, who while portrayed in movies as someone wanting to get out of the Vietnam war, often bolstered forces, and cut taxes for the wealthy like nothing else. Social security implemented in that age also was a sensible investment that turned up a surplus, which since have accumulated into redundant deficits with their appearing neighbor programs. The issue always seem to become the most heated when ideology strays on the path of ruin, and progressives are sometimes prone to this as are conservatives. During the Bush elections I feared the path to ruin would only increase should McCain have won, but quickly realized that Obama is Bush on steroids as far as spending is concerned. The leadership of the Democratic party has also made it a non-issue much like the conservatives did in 08, except now, it's accumulating at a much faster rate, and with extremely poor results overall. While 2000 standards is not entirely revertible as it stands now, the US seems to do it's best economically when the presidency is threatened, yet, the compromises offered on each side stand acceptable. Obama's demands have not been anywhere close to what Clinton did facing Gingrich, and as it stands, Obama will attempt to win by ensuring a minority collision that will fight against the ever diminishing majority. As of currently I do think as far as the US is concerned, that Romney and Ryan will bring some economic stability whereas the president shows no sign of stopping. In some years there will be no funds for social security on this path, and while no doubt a budget will be contemplated should Obama win, and he very well might, it will be a low priority as a second term is a lot more free reign as far as a president is concerned. As there is no infinitival blood in the water for the opposing party to capitalize on in terms of re-elections.

Minority majority collision, explain that.

Fair enough, when I talk about a minority collision, I talk about getting multiple targeted segments of voters that happen to be minorities, IE, African American, Hispanic ect as well as certain special interest groups. Which will overpower the majority votes when combined. The current majority vote would be whites which generally lean more republican. While all is fair in love and tactical planning as far as voting goes, it essentially means that when the campaign really kicks off, there is going to be a lot of generated divisiveness as Obama's first four years have been fairly weak his first 4 years. Now, he will not get the same level of support from said minorities as he got during his first election, but he will up the rhetoric in order to rekindle the base as much as possible, then, when the campaign goes to a close, he will try to neutralize the opposition voice by branding them as the firebug and him as the unifier. Whereas Romney will likely if he is smart attempt to gain more of the Hispanic vote, run on the president's weak record and his own successful deficit reduction. Both will call eachother great, patriotic Americans who's ideas are completely bonkers, but both will also authorize political ads that frame them inches short of murder.

Obama is going to have the most money, so Obama will be doing the most of that, and he will gain votes on that.

[Gauthier]

Once it was about minimizing government intrusion and not fixing what's not broken. Now it's about keeping the status quo so you can gloat and lord over your lessers.

[Nordengrund]

People have different opinions. These opinions are developed by the person's environment and life experiences.

Someone who lived under a fascist regime is more likely to prefer liberal and promote equality while one who is raised religious or is believes the old way is better is more likely to be conservative

[Jewcrew]

The biggest example of colonization gone wrong is in Israel. An even worse version of Apartheid South Africa, Israel constantly sets up settlements in Israel and forces the original inhabitants out in the name of their state. Carving out little pieces of miserable Palestinian ghettos where the people live on less than 2$ a day and have to deal with setteler violence.

If Israel is a colonial enterprise, tell me, who's the mother country?

[Gauthier]

The biggest example of colonization gone wrong is in Israel. An even worse version of Apartheid South Africa, Israel constantly sets up settlements in Israel and forces the original inhabitants out in the name of their state. Carving out little pieces of miserable Palestinian ghettos where the people live on less than 2$ a day and have to deal with setteler violence.

If Israel is a colonial enterprise, tell me, who's the mother country?

Britain, and now the United States. Permanent Security Council cockblocks on your side are good for doing shit as you please.

[Jewcrew]

If Israel is a colonial enterprise, tell me, who's the mother country?

Britain, and now the United States. Permanent Security Council cockblocks on your side are good for doing shit as you please.

That's not how colonialism works. If Israel were a colony, it would have a parent country that governs it, like the 13 Colonies back before the American Revolution.

Israel is not a colony or colonialism. It is an independent country set up by people that lived there and recognized by the international community.

Edit: Further, Britain was against the creation of Israel at the time, and even recognized Jordan's annexation of Judea and Samaria. British military commanders were training Arab pilots in Israel's Independence War.

America didn't use a veto in the UN Security Council on Israel's behalf until 1972, and their performance as a friend of Israel in the UN has been less than stellar, to say the least. http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jso ... icy.html#6