Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You keep making this same false argument. If there is one constant in this universe, it is human nature. You are confusing political beliefs with personality traits. Modern science is discovering that there are even physical differences in the brains of liberal and conservatives. If you are going to try to hijack liberalism, then you need to describe what conservatives were before they became liberals. And did they just evaporate?
Classical liberals assume a natural equality of humans; conservatives assume a natural hierarchy.
James M. Buchanan
You keep making this same false argument. If there is one constant in this universe, it is human nature. You are confusing political beliefs with personality traits. Modern science is discovering that there are even physical differences in the brains of liberal and conservatives. If you are going to try to hijack liberalism, then you need to describe what conservatives were before they became liberals. And did they just evaporate?
Classical liberals assume a natural equality of humans; conservatives assume a natural hierarchy.
James M. Buchanan
I am hijacking nothing. I am using definitions as I understand them and can defend them. Buchanan, apparently a student of Hayek, is using the classical deifnition of conservative rather than agreeing (with me) that modern American conservatism and classical liberalism are virtually indistinguishable. Classical liberalism bears no resemblance to the ideology of modern day liberal Americans. It would be interesting to debate him on the terms. In this CATO book report, there are elements of a debate that are interesting:
http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj26n3/cj26n3-13.pdf
I haven't read Buchanan's book but my curiosity is peaked. I will check it out.
Read Wikipedia's definition of Classical liberalism. For a wiki article, they do a pretty good job with this topic.
You can have any opinion you wish, but it doesn't make it true. I hear what modern conservatives believe every day. It is the philosophy of social Darwinism; the scourge of mankind.
The Rebirth of Social Darwinism
The Tea Parties Bring Back Social Darwinism
I am hijacking nothing. I am using definitions as I understand them and can defend them. Buchanan, apparently a student of Hayek, is using the classical deifnition of conservative rather than agreeing (with me) that modern American conservatism and classical liberalism are virtually indistinguishable. Classical liberalism bears no resemblance to the ideology of modern day liberal Americans. It would be interesting to debate him on the terms. In this CATO book report, there are elements of a debate that are interesting:
http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj26n3/cj26n3-13.pdf
I haven't read Buchanan's book but my curiosity is peaked. I will check it out.
Read Wikipedia's definition of Classical liberalism. For a wiki article, they do a pretty good job with this topic.
You can have any opinion you wish, but it doesn't make it true. I hear what modern conservatives believe every day. It is the philosophy of social Darwinism; the scourge of mankind.
The Rebirth of Social Darwinism
The Tea Parties Bring Back Social Darwinism
Bullshit. This is another of the battle cries of the liberal mob.
Social darwinism is a PROGRESSIVE calling card, not a conservative one. Conservatives take their responsibility to less fortunate people very, very seriously. Unlike liberals, who think they should be killed, aborted into extinction, or pawned off on the state.
Who was the first and probably most famous of all PROGRESSIVES?
Teddy Roosevelt.
And what party put him into office?
The GOP.
Since you are one of the chosen 20%, explain to us what a liberal is.Can't agree with what? All I did was say it's based on logic, and explained the logic. You responded with a long paragraph describing why you disagree with that logic.
But you do agree that it constitutes logic nonetheless?
Yes and no. It is logical as a means of making yourself feel better. That same action is not logical in terms of it's effectiveness in actually helping people.
You're trying to square a circle and make it fit your preconcieved notion of what a liberal is. You've got it wrong and it doesn't fit. But that's cool. Carry on.
What did liberals do that was so offensive to the Republican Party? Ill tell you what they did. Liberals got women the right to vote. Liberals got African-Americans the right to vote. Liberals created Social Security and lifted millions of elderly people out of poverty. Liberals ended segregation. Liberals passed the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act. Liberals created Medicare. Liberals passed the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act.What did Conservatives do? They opposed them on every one of those things, every one. So when you try to hurl that label at my feet, Liberal, as if it were something to be ashamed of, something dirty, something to run away from, it wont work, because I will pick up that label and I will wear it as a badge of honor.
-Lawrence ODonnell Jr.
Our disdain is for your side's ideas.You mean like the way anyone receiving public assistance is a welfare cheat and all union workers are lazy, overpaid slobs?
This response will be the basis for the thread "what makes liberals annoying #2" But for now, all I can say is this is not a response to the thread and it is typical of the way Liberals try and turn the discussion away from the real issue into a matter of loaded rhetoric that totally ignores the topic at hand. which will be "What makes liberals annoying #3"
So... in essence, you create a thread called "what makes liberals annoying #1" and then when some of us try to explain our point of view and the hard core attitudes that make Conservatives annoying to us, you simply say... "stay on topic" instead of rationally discussing those ideological divides.
Plenty has been said that is exactly what Mr. Clean described. You say the "real issue". What is the real issue? from the looks of it, the "real issue" is your disdain for liberals.
Look out your window...are pigs flying?
Even a scant knowledge of American history would inform you that a bipartisan groundswell called the progressive movement, and the progressive era that followed was spawned by direct opposition to the social Darwinism of the Gilded age.
What makes arguing with liberals so frustrating #1
Look out your window...are pigs flying?
Even a scant knowledge of American history would inform you that a bipartisan groundswell called the progressive movement, and the progressive era that followed was spawned by direct opposition to the social Darwinism of the Gilded age.
Yes; conservatives in the 19th century were renowned for their embrace of Darwinism.
You're as informed as you are honest...
ROFL
I see this over and over. Conservatives are for limited government. Just because we say we don't want government doing things where government is inept, counterproductive, wasteful or whatever, does not mean that we should shut it down totally.
Yes, we do need roads, bridges, highways, jails, schools, aircraft carriers, GPS satellites, standard weights and measures, courts, etc etc. Saying we don't need subsidies for crummy cars badly built and still with astronomical prices does not mean we don't need highways.
The conservative view is that the government should be a useful servant of the people's needs. However, you give it too much money, power, authority it becomes the worst sort of master.
The history of conservatism IS social Darwinism.
Conservatives believe in a hierarchy, and always try to build some form of it. In the 19th century it was a plutocracy. And it has returned in the modern era of authoritarian conservatism as a plutocracy.
Look out your window...are pigs flying?
Even a scant knowledge of American history would inform you that a bipartisan groundswell called the progressive movement, and the progressive era that followed was spawned by direct opposition to the social Darwinism of the Gilded age.
Yes; conservatives in the 19th century were renowned for their embrace of Darwinism.
You're as informed as you are honest...
ROFL
The history of conservatism IS social Darwinism. Conservatives believe in a hierarchy, and always try to build some form of it. In the 19th century it was a plutocracy. And it has returned in the modern era of authoritarian conservatism as a plutocracy.
The history of conservatism IS social Darwinism.
When I use a word, Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, it means just what I choose it to meanneither more nor less.
The question is, said Alice, whether you can make words mean so many different things.
The question is, said Humpty Dumpty, which is to be master thats all.
Alice was too much puzzled to say anything, so after a minute Humpty Dumpty began again. Theyve a temper, some of themparticularly verbs, theyre the proudestadjectives you can do anything with, but not verbshowever, I can manage the whole lot! Impenetrability! Thats what I say!
Conservatives believe in a hierarchy, and always try to build some form of it. In the 19th century it was a plutocracy. And it has returned in the modern era of authoritarian conservatism as a plutocracy.
Nothing you claim has any bearing on reality.
You post your prejudice and hatred. Meaningless twaddle.
You are but a hyperpartisan fool.
Look out your window...are pigs flying?
Even a scant knowledge of American history would inform you that a bipartisan groundswell called the progressive movement, and the progressive era that followed was spawned by direct opposition to the social Darwinism of the Gilded age.
Yes; conservatives in the 19th century were renowned for their embrace of Darwinism.
You're as informed as you are honest...
ROFL
The history of conservatism IS social Darwinism. Conservatives believe in a hierarchy, and always try to build some form of it. In the 19th century it was a plutocracy. And it has returned in the modern era of authoritarian conservatism as a plutocracy.
Which must be why it's recognized as a PROGRESSIVE ideology.
I see this over and over. Conservatives are for limited government. Just because we say we don't want government doing things where government is inept, counterproductive, wasteful or whatever, does not mean that we should shut it down totally.
Yes, we do need roads, bridges, highways, jails, schools, aircraft carriers, GPS satellites, standard weights and measures, courts, etc etc. Saying we don't need subsidies for crummy cars badly built and still with astronomical prices does not mean we don't need highways.
The conservative view is that the government should be a useful servant of the people's needs. However, you give it too much money, power, authority it becomes the worst sort of master.
This is interesting to me because I have VERY strong opinions - some which coincide with Conservative values and some with Liberal Values. I find Liberals much better debaters, overall.
Why?
I recently disagreed with Liberals in a thread on Global Warming (one of the few issues in which my opinion is simply "I don't know but I'm not completely convinced". I'm not a scientist). They get furious on this issue! The provide links to 5,000 science mags, universities, wiki etc... Then when I still don't concede their point (which I don't) they say I'm an idiot.
When I disagree with a Conservative on an issue, they instantly label me a "Liberal" without knowing my overall political views or even caring. They don't care. Disagree with a ConservaRepubLitari (e.g. I believe we could completely get rid of 2 dozen Fed agencies - just not the same ones Conservatives want to start with) an on any single issue, and they have been trained to call yo a Liberal.
Also, they tend to post much more about the people they disagree with, than the issue.
Obviously, there are some highly intelligent and well-reasoned Conservatives here. But the majority seem to label, dodge the issue, use moral comparatives, label, insult, change the subject, label...
I wonder if a Conservative will prove my point in this thread?
