no one gets it all...conservative or liberal...

[editec]

NOBODY thinks that government is the anwer to everything.

No conservatives who support things like more police and more military, and not liberals who support things like more social networking.

Trying to simplify the complex positions most people take, trying to reduce them to something absurd is, I fully understand, what many of yus think is the height of intellectual debating technique, but it simply isn't true.

Partisans (of any persuasion) who do this are simply either too stupid to get the complexity of the issue, or too partisan to be honest about it.

Either way they have my comtempt.

 

[strollingbones]

jb are you just noticing i have no clue how to use the quote feature and try to copy and paste?

we wont call you capt obvious ...now will we?

 

[Xenophon]

this is a post i would make regardless of the hannity people....and you didnt post the remark i was replying to...now did you?

seems you got a bit of bias going there....

lets post it all, why not?

more blah blah blah from the lunatic left?? have some kool aid in yer coffee whydonchya

This is a good example of you ignoring everything I said and doing it again.

Have you EVER seen me call anyone a 'wingnut' or 'lunatic left' or 'lunatic right' or any other stupid label bullshit?

I treat people as people, not catigories.

that was from willow? now i am the one that is being bias? or calling names? or being partisan? i dont think so, i was simply replying to her attack on me...and liberals in general...sorry you have a problem with people who dont take shit from conservatives

I'm sorry I wasted my time thinking you were above the petty shit.

Twice in one post you tried to put me in a box.

That is YOU doing it, not someone else.

The problem that is wizzing by you is, YOU keep generalizing, if your problem is with Willow, address Willow. YOU choose to keep expanding it, and you feed it anytime you post something like 'conservates do/say this' you are feeding the bullshit.

 

[strollingbones]

this is a post i would make regardless of the hannity people....and you didnt post the remark i was replying to...now did you?

seems you got a bit of bias going there....

lets post it all, why not?

more blah blah blah from the lunatic left?? have some kool aid in yer coffee whydonchya

This is a good example of you ignoring everything I said and doing it again.

Have you EVER seen me call anyone a 'wingnut' or 'lunatic left' or 'lunatic right' or any other stupid label bullshit?


no i have not ever seen you use those terms.

I treat people as people, not catigories.

that was from willow? now i am the one that is being bias? or calling names? or being partisan? i dont think so, i was simply replying to her attack on me...and liberals in general...sorry you have a problem with people who dont take shit from conservatives

I'm sorry I wasted my time thinking you were above the petty shit.

Twice in one post you tried to put me in a box.

That is YOU doing it, not someone else.

i am sorry, i did not mean to offend you.

The problem that is wizzing by you is, YOU keep generalizing, if your problem is with Willow, address Willow. YOU choose to keep expanding it, and you feed it anytime you post something like 'conservates do/say this' you are feeding the bullshit.

message boards are generalizations for the most part are they not?
and if you note...the thread title is to both conservatives and liberals. i do of course lean to the left, i have never denied that.

and in no way is this an attempt to do anything concerning the hannity people...i would have done this thread pre hannity..

 

[sparky]

Editec points out the bleedin' obvious....

Trying to simplify the complex positions most people take, trying to reduce them to something absurd is, I fully understand, what many of yus think is the height of intellectual debating technique, but it simply isn't true.

but we have such lofty examples to follow........

 

[strollingbones]

have you seen me use the term wingnut or right wing wackos anything thing like that? i didnt think so...harshs i go ..is conservative ...i rarely use the term neo con or any of that...give that some thought too

 

[Care4all]

continuing with Gitmo
continuing warring in afghanistan
continuing warring in Iraq
signing statements
tax evaders and crooks working on my dime
rise in National Debt
government keeping secrets
oil speculators
derivative rules and regs
Insurance company injustices
Dollar devaluation

These are all the things I bitched about or was concerned about under President Bush....

Not one of them has changed...they are all still concerns because NOTHING has changed with the administration change.

I realize we are newly in to a 4 year term, with a huge gorilla on our shoulders with the economic crisis...but I did expect more change than what I have seen so far....and you can be damned certain if a Republican had won the Presidency I would be screaming from the rooftops on the lack of change and progress on those issues of concern....

And I would bet my bottom dollar, other Democrats would be doing the same.

We are ALL HYPOCRITES, is my conclusion.

Care

 

[editec]

Editec points out the bleedin' obvious....

Trying to simplify the complex positions most people take, trying to reduce them to something absurd is, I fully understand, what many of yus think is the height of intellectual debating technique, but it simply isn't true.

but we have such lofty examples to follow........

I like to think that my grasp of the obvious is fairly firm. Sparky.

What amazes me is that so many of us point out the obvious only to be attacked by those who (I suppose) don't have a very firm footing in reality.

Perhaps people think they need to post insulting and inflammatory generalizations in order to generate a discussion, or perhaps they're really as blinded to the reality as their posts make them appear.

Based on how insulted some people are when their goofy notions are challenged, I have to guess that some people are just blinded by their own partisanship.

 

[strollingbones]

sadly you are right...nothing has changed....simply more division..obama has not proved to be a uniter and the wedges are being driven deeper.

 

[Care4all]

Oh, and my 4th amendment and 5th amendment rights were a concern...and nothing has changed there either...the snoops are still snooping on the innocent and uninvolved, and I am still paying them to do it!

 

[Liability]

Here, your exact words: "Conservatism is merely the reactionary effort to preserve (conserve) the staus quo or restore the status quo ante"

So now you begin to backpedal.* * * *

LOL.

To the imbecile JB, it is backpeddling to QUOTE JB.

I quoted you, and after reviewing our exchange some more, I see your point. I had quoted the first half of your initial statement (the status quo part) but I had failed (as I acknowledged in an previous post) to address the second half (the status quo ante part).

Your sub-moronic instant conclusion was that I had "lied." You are an imbecile. Someday you might want to have a rational adult (you appear not to associate with them) explain to you the many different ways an incorrect or incomplete comment might be made which nevertheless falls short of a "lie." "Lie" is a word that has actual meaning, too. You are clueless.

Speaking of which, you moron, the meaning of what a political conservative is, which you derive from just a dictionary definition of the word "conservative," is much more involved than you would admit. You are STRIVING for simplicity, because you remain simplistic. And wrong.

Here's another definition of POLITICAL CONSERVATIVE I think comes a bit closer to the true meaning, not the simplistic tripe you offer:

* * * *

Main Entry:
con•ser•va•tism
Pronunciation:
kən-ˈsər-və-ˌti-zəm
Function:
noun
Date:
1832
1capitalized a: the principles and policies of a Conservative party
b: the Conservative party

2 a: disposition in politics to preserve what is established
b: a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change; specifically : such a philosophy calling for lower taxes, limited government regulation of business and investing, a strong national defense, and individual financial responsibility for personal needs (as retirement income or health-care coverage)

* * * *

[My emphasis added] See second message in source: On the meaning of "Conservative" and other words... | Political Conservatives | LibraryThing

 

[JBeukema]

I had quoted the first half of your initial statement (the status quo part) but I had failed (as I acknowledged in an previous post) to address the second half (the status quo ante part).

Your sub-moronic instant conclusion was that I had "lied." You are an imbecile.

You intentionally quotemined my words and left out the second half of what I said in order to build a strawman. By deliberately misrepresenting what IO said, you were lying about what I had said.

Speaking of which, you moron, the meaning of what a political conservative is, which you derive from just a dictionary definition of the word "conservative," is much more involved than you would admit. You are STRIVING for simplicity, because you remain simplistic. And wrong.

Actually, you twit, it is you who seeks for a convenient, oversimplified, moronic label you might ascribe to yourself, even though the title you have chosen means absolutely nothing..

Here's another definition of POLITICAL CONSERVATIVE I think comes a bit closer to the true meaning,

Firstly, 'political conservatism' is an entirely subjective and meaningless term, which refers to a large number of groups with varying ideologies across the world.

not the simplistic tripe you offer:

* * * *

b: a political philosophy based on tradition

Exactly, the preservation, and restoration of that which is 'traditional'- the status quo or status quo ante, as I said.

and social stability,

Resistance to change.... as I said...

stressing established institutions

read: the status quo...

, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change

again, the status quo and resistance to change- as I said.

specifically : such a philosophy calling for lower taxes, limited government regulation of business and investing, a strong national defense, and individual financial responsibility for personal needs (as retirement income or health-care coverage)

That does not refer to conservatism, but to 'American Conservatism', which is actuality a political movement that grew out of the ideology of classical liberalism as well as the entrenched bigotries and prejudices of those who benefited from the status quo. This movement was deemed 'conservatism' because it sought to resist the changes brought about by 'progressives', conserve the established institutions and status quote of wealth distribution, social structure, with all of its inequalities, and serve the interest of the wealthy, the affluent, and their useful idiots.

Thank you for citing more evidence for my case and showing that your source agrees 100% with what I said in the first place.

 

[Baruch Menachem]

continuing with Gitmo
continuing warring in afghanistan
continuing warring in Iraq
signing statements
tax evaders and crooks working on my dime
rise in National Debt
government keeping secrets
oil speculators
derivative rules and regs
Insurance company injustices
Dollar devaluation

These are all the things I bitched about or was concerned about under President Bush....

Not one of them has changed...they are all still concerns because NOTHING has changed with the administration change.

I realize we are newly in to a 4 year term, with a huge gorilla on our shoulders with the economic crisis...but I did expect more change than what I have seen so far....and you can be damned certain if a Republican had won the Presidency I would be screaming from the rooftops on the lack of change and progress on those issues of concern....

And I would bet my bottom dollar, other Democrats would be doing the same.

We are ALL HYPOCRITES, is my conclusion.

Care

I think that is unfair. Only those of us who praise what we condemned yesterday, and damn what praised.

 

[Liability]

I had quoted the first half of your initial statement (the status quo part) but I had failed (as I acknowledged in an previous post) to address the second half (the status quo ante part).

Your sub-moronic instant conclusion was that I had "lied." You are an imbecile.

You intentionally quotemined my words * * * *

You remain a complete imbecile. You have no valid basis to even pretend to know my motivation. And you are indeed wrong.
It was merely a sloppy oversight by me. And that's an alternative explantion you reject out of hand because -- in your typical arrogance -- you think you have some rational basis to claim to know what other people were thinking. (Moverover, I have since already addressed both parts. You conveniently ignore that in pretending to know the operation of my mind.} Did I mention that you are an imbecile.

As it turns out, as I already acknowledged, I did address just the first part and ignored the second. Your claim that it was 'intentional quote mining' is further evidence of your imbecility.

Shall I spend some time quoting you claiming one thing but then proving otherwise?

By your sub-moronic daffynition, that makes you a liar. I like it when you admit that you're a liar.

 

[Liability]

And by the way, the assertion that, "'political conservatism' is an entirely subjective and meaningless term . . . ." is beyond your usual level of stupidity. That is the most ridiculous asssertion you have made (substantively speaking), yet.

Political conservatism is no more subjective than any political liberalism and neither of those terms is meaningless.

Further, a preference for established institutions and methods and a resistance to sudden change is not the same as your simplisitic formulations regarding the status quo and status quo ante. Despite your intentional (rather dishonest) blindness, conservatism embraces change, but prefers that such change be made gradually and pursuant to rational established procedures.

Pretend otherwise, but you are not just looking foolish, you are also flatly wrong.

 

[editec]

And by the way, the assertion that, "'political conservatism' is an entirely subjective and meaningless term . . . ." is beyond your usual level of stupidity. That is the most ridiculous asssertion you have made (substantively speaking), yet.

Political conservatism is no more subjective than any political liberalism and neither of those terms is meaningless.

Further, a preference for established institutions and methods and a resistance to sudden change is not the same as your simplisitic formulations regarding the status quo and status quo ante. Despite your intentional (rather dishonest) blindness, conservatism embraces change, but prefers that such change be made gradually and pursuant to rational established procedures.

Pretend otherwise, but you are not just looking foolish, you are also flatly wrong.

One can certainly understand why people are confused about what those terms mean, though.

After all, people identifying themselves as conservatives do things which clearly violate the basic tenents of that political philosophjy.

Likewise people claiming to be liberals do things which clearly violate what most of us think of when we think of liberalism, too.

The problem isn't that people don't know what those terms mean, the problem is that the LEADERS OF BOTH PARTIES are in no way shape or form what they pretend to be.

There are no viable political parties, folks.

There are insiders and there's the rest of us.

Wake the fuck up.

 

[Liability]

And by the way, the assertion that, "'political conservatism' is an entirely subjective and meaningless term . . . ." is beyond your usual level of stupidity. That is the most ridiculous asssertion you have made (substantively speaking), yet.

Political conservatism is no more subjective than any political liberalism and neither of those terms is meaningless.

Further, a preference for established institutions and methods and a resistance to sudden change is not the same as your simplisitic formulations regarding the status quo and status quo ante. Despite your intentional (rather dishonest) blindness, conservatism embraces change, but prefers that such change be made gradually and pursuant to rational established procedures.

Pretend otherwise, but you are not just looking foolish, you are also flatly wrong.

One can certainly understand why people are confused about what those terms mean, though.

After all, people identifying themselves as conservatives do things which clearly violate the basic tenents of that political philosophjy.

Likewise people claiming to be liberals do things which clearly violate what most of us think of when we think of liberalism, too.

The problem isn't that people don't know what those terms mean, the problem is that the LAEFERS OF BOTH PARTIES are in no way shape or form what they pretend to be.

I agree with what you said -- except that last sentence (maybe). I am not familiar with the word "laefers." If that's just a typo and the word was supposed gto be "leaders" then I am ambivalent about your last assertion. The GOP is not the same as "conservative." The Dems are largely "liberals," but the terms are not yet fully synonomous.

 

[editec]

And by the way, the assertion that, "'political conservatism' is an entirely subjective and meaningless term . . . ." is beyond your usual level of stupidity. That is the most ridiculous asssertion you have made (substantively speaking), yet.

Political conservatism is no more subjective than any political liberalism and neither of those terms is meaningless.

Further, a preference for established institutions and methods and a resistance to sudden change is not the same as your simplisitic formulations regarding the status quo and status quo ante. Despite your intentional (rather dishonest) blindness, conservatism embraces change, but prefers that such change be made gradually and pursuant to rational established procedures.

Pretend otherwise, but you are not just looking foolish, you are also flatly wrong.

One can certainly understand why people are confused about what those terms mean, though.

After all, people identifying themselves as conservatives do things which clearly violate the basic tenents of that political philosophjy.

Likewise people claiming to be liberals do things which clearly violate what most of us think of when we think of liberalism, too.

The problem isn't that people don't know what those terms mean, the problem is that the LAEFERS OF BOTH PARTIES are in no way shape or form what they pretend to be.

I agree with what you said -- except that last sentence (maybe). I am not familiar with the word "laefers." If that's just a typo and the word was supposed gto be "leaders" then I am ambivalent about your last assertion. The GOP is not the same as "conservative." The Dems are largely "liberals," but the terms are not yet fully synonomous.

Man your response was fast.

I was correcting my typos when you posted.

The Dems' leadership aren't liberals.

They're enablers to the Masters no less than the Republicans.

 

[JBeukema]

Political conservatism is no more subjective than any political liberalism and neither of those terms is meaningless.

Conservatism is totally meaningless. It is nothing more than a euphemism for reactionaries. Remember, the conservatives in the War for independence were called Torries and the conservatives in South Africa fought to preserve Apartheid. Conservatives in Russia fought to defend the Czar and hold back the tide of popular revolution. Conservatives fought to defend slavery, keep women from voting, prevent the passing of child labor and workplace safety laws...

That is all conservatism is. It refers to no ideology, only to the preservation of the status quo, the return to the status quo ante, and resistance to any other change. That is all conservatism is and all conservatives are.

Despite your intentional (rather dishonest) blindness, conservatism embraces change, but prefers that such change be made gradually and pursuant to rational established procedures.

They accept nothing. They fight it, and f they cannot stop it, then they slow it. Things change and progeress is made despite the presence of conservative reactionaries. America won its independence in spite of conservative loyalists. Women and blacks got the right to vote despite conservative efforts to maintain the status quo. Abolitionists were successful despite conservative attempts to defend slavery. The King's tax collectors were tarred and feathered and excessive taxation was rejected despite conservative efforts.

Conservatives are reactionaries, nothing more.

 

[Liability]

Political conservatism is no more subjective than any political liberalism and neither of those terms is meaningless.

Conservatism is totally meaningless. It is nothing more than a euphemism for reactionaries. * * * *

That was perhaps the dopiest "political commentary" in recent internet political message board history.

Your post was incredibly vapid, shallow and ultimately, meaningless.

The depth of your would-be analysis requires the ue of the term "shallows."

Seriously, I have read your ignorant petty little thesis before. It made no sense then; and repeating it is of no help to you in making it appear sensible, now. It simply isn't.

Conservatism isn't meaningless. You are.