Browse Members |
New Members |
Spiral-Awake 20 year old female London (GB) xXx Pretty girl. Pretty boy. Pretty insane. Pretty fucked up. xXx Instant_Death 20 year old male Сталингра́ What was God doing before he made heaven? Making hell for people who ask stupid questions. Reicher_Massa... 20 year old male Al-revis (US) "Hmmm...I wonder if I can trust my heart to anyone, can I?" AlongCameAshlyn 15 year old female The 810, MI (US) No object is so beautiful that, under certain conditions, it will not look ugly. [more]
|
Author | Message | |||||
|
It's hard to be nice to the people you think are ruining everything that you love about your country and letting it become a fascist shithole sometimes. Not all the time. But sometimes. Them helping little old ladies crossing the street or being polite is little comfort when they allow heinous shit to be done in the rest of our names by voting the way they do. I don't hate you and everything you stand for... But I definitely hate what you stand for. That kinda thing. I think that's pretty understandable. But it is kinda easy for me to have this mentality when I'm progressive (read: correct in all of my political beliefs) and a self-righteous asshole. ----- He was going to put his thick, hard candy cane into her no-no place, but then the Wiggles came on! | |||||
|
"Conservative" in a social sense means.....being against freedom. You realize that right? ----- DS Bureaucracy™: All the love a troll needs. | |||||
|
uh, what? that's not what it means at all. it means that you're opposed to radical changes. since america has pretty much always been about freedom (not for everybody, but like i said, radicals on either side are trouble), how would it mean that you're against freedom? ----- insert nerdy signature here | |||||
|
Being conservative in a social sense is in support of authoritarianism, as opposed to social libertarianism. In which case one side supports active government interference in human actions based on a culture's morality(no abortion, no fags, no religious freedom, no drugs, no violent video games, no cussing, etc) while libertarians support no government interference in human activity, (i.e. social freedom). There is a stark difference between a politicians social and economic political perspective. For instance, you can be authoritarian without being a neo-liberal capitalist(like say Chavez or Castro), or you can be a neo-liberal pure capitalist and still be a social libertarian(like say Ron Paul). In America you find social conservatives who are 'pro freedom' yet against social freedoms. Republicans are more authoritarian and only support progressive 'freedom' when it comes to economics, strangely enough even this support has eroded into support of multi national monopolies instead of real capitalistic competition. Republicans have sort of evolved into a corporate socialist oligarchy concerned with corporate welfare and using anti freedom moral based authoritarian issues to drum up support among social conservatives to support their true intentions of corporate socialism. It is only rhetoric and not their true opinions that they favour social freedom, except perhaps for Ron Paul. You can't really be pro freedom and against social freedoms. And sadly enough you can't even be a real neo liberal capitalist if your intention in government is corporate socialism. Republicans have become a party of big business socialism and big authoritarian government completely divergent from its small government, libertarian, capitalist roots. ----- DS Bureaucracy™: Now expanding to meet the needs of the DS Bureaucracy™. [This post was last updated on October 29, 2009, 4:36AM by Sgath.] | |||||
|
you've got it all wrong, man. in this country, conservatives have always wanted smaller government while liberals have always wanted bigger government. reagan, for example, was known as saying, "government is not the solution to our problem. government is the problem." and now, with a liberal president and congress, there are tons of stimulus packages and bills that make government bigger. ----- insert nerdy signature here [This post was last updated on October 29, 2009, 12:26PM by rlc.] | |||||
|
*facepalm* -----  click! | |||||
|
no u ----- insert nerdy signature here | |||||
|
The Republican party is certainly not lassez faire anymore, at least not since Bush. The government increased in size and scope to a level unprecedented in U.S. history with corporate welfare and disregard for budget deficits. And I am not talking about the economic size of government. I'm talking about the governments ability to tell you what you can and can not do in terms of personal freedoms, not economic freedoms, though as I have discussed the Republican party no longer stands for the same economic freedoms Reagan did, partially of is own doing in spurring the culture of deregulation. I'm talking about their social politicla stance. Which part supports your right to do what you want more? The answer is liberals, who are socially more libertarian and less authoritarian.But social conservatives want to be able to tell you what you can and can not do because they want to enforce morals on society. This is being against social freedoms. ----- DS Bureaucracy™: Save the environment with frequent Andromeda™ purchases! | |||||
|
lol ----- DS Bureaucracy™: All the love a troll needs. | |||||
|
This post is stupid. ----- "Envy is the silliest of the seven deadly sins because there's no upside to it. You just end up sitting around making yourself sick. Now gluttony? That's a sin with some upside. I'm not even going to get into lust." - Warren Buffett | |||||
|
Also, the "science" is unnatural and isn't meant to be. You're actually being serious? I thought the USA was meant to be, you know, good, and not aspiring to be the Christian version of Iran? For all the right-wing there scare at the mention of the colour red and its use outside of their own flag for it's political affiliation with the left-wing of the political spectrum... for instance, they seem awfully fond of trying to institute their own theocratic authoritarianism within their own nation. And you know what that is? Hypocrisy, and you know the one group of people Jesus hated? The hypocrites. Amazing stuff! And it's interesting how you criticise "the science" when it comes to biological fields that could save human life, but would effectively be cutting deep into the jugular of all other "sciences" that you seem as pretentious and "unnatural". (You know what's "natural"? Fucking Ebola, that's natural. Some example of God's love that is.) But when it comes to technology that is developed based on other sciences (technological or chemical or physics based, for instance) by the industries and corporations that for some reason the Republicans get off to, then oh, science is our friend. Again, blatant contradiction and illogic. Speaking of illogic... the whole "liberal" versus "conservative" tags seem to have become over-used to be the point of insanity. God knows why the entirety of human opinion and philosophy can be neatly allocated into two generic categories and then accurately compared and contrasted? Of course not. All such things do is make outsiders think Americans are stupid and can only handle two choices when it comes to important things like politics.... and further retard the American political process. And while we're on issues of Christian morality, where does being extremely pro-business and anti-socialist come into the whole message Jesus created of... you know, giving everything you have to the poor and following him? Throwing the merchants out of the temple? Jesus was clearly a communist, and outside of the USA there are quite often supporters of socialism who are basically Christian-socialists. Because you know, they try to follow the bible and not just ignore the bits that would deny them their plasma screen TVs. For all the right-wing there complain about the left making the nation weak and pathetic, they have some nerve to accuse. They do nothing but encourage systemic retardation of the political process, dumbing down of everyone's understanding of practically everything, and let's not forget being the most interesting "Christians" I've ever seen. Pro-guns? What happened to turn the other cheek? Pro-business? What happened about the chances of a rich man going to heaven? Anti-science/socialism/stuff? What happened to tolerance and forgiveness? Yeah, pretty fucking good Christians there, since they've managed to shit all over many of the basic and important tenants of Christianity. And don't get me wrong, the democrats are just as crap as the Republicans, but they don't make quite so many hypocritical statements just so often. | |||||
|
Amen brother. ----- DS Bureaucracy™: Global warming is a myth....After you buy Andromeda™! | |||||
|
On October 31, 2009, 2:30AM, ImBeautiful said: Here is a mini-list I just found online. This can help you. I'll give you republican answers. "So here's my list so far. Yes gets 1 point. If you have more than 6 points, you are probably a Democrat. I am open to any suggestions and improvements. That's what the comment link is for. - A Balanced Budget vs. Lower Taxes - Is a balanced Federal budget more important to you than lower taxes? I answer no, because I'd rather have lower taxes. The taxes that I do pay I would want to go to the military. I believe that a strong defense is very, very important, more so with all of the weapons being developed. We need to be on top. - Tolerance vs. Morality - Is tolerance of other lifestyles more important than a moral code of conduct in our society? I answer no, because I do not support other lifestyles. I do not support gay marriage, and I think that there is a set we every family should be. I do not like abnormal families. I think parents should be married, and children should be taught religion. I honestly think that if my son ever brought home a boyfriend that I wouldn't be able to handle it. - Individual Security vs. A Gun Free Society - Is a country without guns more important to you than a secure home? I REALLY answer no to this. My family has a lot of guns. They hunt, and want to protect their families. I have a gun. There is no way to wipe out all guns ANYWAYS, and all of the good people who have them for protection would abide by the law, while the criminals would have them to commit crimes- which is why liberals want guns outlawed anyways. - Prison vs. Capital Punishment - Do you favor imprisonment for life over capital punishment? NOPE. I think people should be killed for the things that they do. Why should we pay for them to eat and survive, only to have a possibility of being released and doing whatever they did again? - Socialism vs. Capitalism - Do you favor a society with a big social safety net over a society where people get to keep more of what they make for themselves? No, You earn it, it's yours. Why give away your hard earned money for a bunch of bums to collect welfare so they can live? You have needs too. - Statesmanship vs. Unilateralism - Do you believe the US should always work in concert with other countries instead of "going it alone" when it needs to? No, because sometimes we need to. - Public vs. Private Education - Do you think the federal government should only fund public schools? No, I think that they government should fund all of the schools, public more than private. Because education is important, and all schools need the funding, even the ones collecting money from the parents. - Judicial Freedom - Do you think that judges should be free to "interpret" the laws of our country? No. Just no. - Scientific Advances - Do you think science should be allowed to advance unchecked by our moral code? No I do not. I'm all about morals. Also, the "science" is unnatural and isn't meant to be. If God wanted us to live longer, he would have made us immortal. We need to die. We're over populated. - Enviroment vs. Business - Do you think the environment should be protected even if its harmful to business? Yes & no, but mostly no. If it's something that's actually endangered, then yeah sure. If it's just 'not green' then no." Those are republican answers. Do you agree with them? Or do you agree with the liberal side? Gay marriage, Pro choice, Environment, Taxes to "help", Only public education funding, No guns, etc. i need a shower,before i cash my welfare check smoke my weed and bang my bi racial bisexual muslim gf ----- yes we could just be the dream of a gigantic robot doing the backstroke through primordial custard,but if we all lived like that the worlds supply of cannabis would dry up within weeks | |||||
|
On October 29, 2009, 1:53PM, Sgath said: The Republican party is certainly not lassez faire anymore, at least not since Bush. The government increased in size and scope to a level unprecedented in U.S. history with corporate welfare and disregard for budget deficits. And I am not talking about the economic size of government. I'm talking about the governments ability to tell you what you can and can not do in terms of personal freedoms, not economic freedoms, though as I have discussed the Republican party no longer stands for the same economic freedoms Reagan did, partially of is own doing in spurring the culture of deregulation. I'm talking about their social politicla stance. Which part supports your right to do what you want more? The answer is liberals, who are socially more libertarian and less authoritarian.But social conservatives want to be able to tell you what you can and can not do because they want to enforce morals on society. This is being against social freedoms. bush isn't exactly the best example of a conservative, dude was all over the place. and i don't know where you get your information, but liberals tend to pass laws telling people how to think and act a lot more often than conservatives do. i'm not just arguing because you're a liberal, i'd definitely debate a conservative if there were more here because they're not perfect, either. and libertarians, well, laroche is probably about the biggest idiot there is. ----- insert nerdy signature here [This post was last updated on November 2, 2009, 10:14AM by rlc.] | |||||
|
Well I was talking about the Republican party, which is not really conservative either. In fact as I explained it's become a sort of neo form of ideology that I describe as a corporate socialist oligarchy. It is true that 'liberals', tend to pass more nanny laws but this is not liberalism in the idea of social libertarianism. The desire to regulate human actions for the greater good is an authoritarian notion common to both American political parties either statistically or morally. Why? Because they're both authoritarian in their own ways. You are using the terms liberal and conservative incorrectly. I get my information from books  .Also, I'm not ideological disposed towards being a 'liberal' as you use the term. Though if I explained to you what classical liberal meant you'd probably admit you were one, what with the American ideals you seem to have in regards to personal freedoms. ----- click! | |||||
|
no, i'm using the words correctly and i know what classical liberalism means. i've taken political science classes, too. the thing is that you're talking theoretical and i'm talking practical. and i'm also an independent, so of course i'd have ideas from both sides. ----- insert nerdy signature here | |||||
|
Well why use them incorrectly just to be practical? Liberals are for more social freedoms. Social conservatives are for less and bigger government interference in human affairs. Economic conservatives are for more economic freedoms traditionally. But liberals want more regulation to provide more economic freedom to the lower and middle classes. It's all rather relative. You can't make a sweeping statement about who wants a bigger government. In doing so you were only echoing common talking points that mean almost nothing, and so not really displaying this 'theoretical' understanding of politics that you claim to have. ----- DS Bureaucracy™: All the love a troll needs. | |||||
|
because theoretical arguments look better on paper and practical arguments look better in the real world. ----- insert nerdy signature here | |||||
|
But I wasn't be theoretical. I was using the terms in an academic sense to conceptualize your statements more realistically. ----- DS Bureaucracy™: Save the environment with frequent Andromeda™ purchases! | |||||
|
Sgath is right: there is a difference between social and economic freedoms. While the Republicans (or "conservatives" in general) may often support less government intrusion economically, they have been less supportive of individual social rights. Abortion (woman's rights), gay rights, ect. In fact, when Bush was running for office, what was his main promise to the people who supported him? He said he'd do something about abortion and gay rights, if I remember correctly. In other words, he appealed to the social authoritarian desires of the conservatives who he was trying to get to vote for him in 2000. On the whole, conservatives desire strict laws which regulate behavior. What is considered unethical, immoral, or just plain offensive should be outlawed. If it doesn't conform with some stupid Christian outlook of how the world should work, conservatives tend to want it banned. And I think this is what Derrick was speaking about, and he's right on the money. Social Conservatives tend be more fascist and Nazi-like, while Social Liberals tend to be more egalitarian, in general. Social Conservatives want less rights for more people, but more protection for more people from the government. Liberals want more rights for more people and a government which must sometimes intervene in order to establish and secure these rights. In general, most Liberals would just agree with John Rawls on the entire matter of how we should be governed: that safety nets should be set up for those who fall behind. In any sense, that's my two cents on this rather mindless disagreement. One person saying that conservatives tend to be socially authoritarian is not incorrect at all. On one side of the scale you have social liberals, who do not desire to abuse the law to prevent people from doing particular things, like voting, marrying who they want, and so on. Social conservatives, on the other hand, seem very pressed against social freedom. That gay man wants to marry his gay lover??? OH NO! We must pass laws to prevent this, because it offends me, religiously. Boo-fucking-hoo. Oh no, a woman wants an abortion, which is the termination of a pregnancy at a time at which point the fetus is hardly developed at all. Logically, there seems to be nothing wrong with this. Yet, social conservatives tend to believe it's the worst abomination -- a completely unethical violation of human rights (or some stupid shit). Liberalism has more than one sense, too. Keep that in mind. |
| Last 10 Members to View This Thread | |
| Name | Time |
| ImAWhat | Nov 20, 2009, 2:33PM |
| xellence | Nov 20, 2009, 8:42AM |
| nodgene | Nov 18, 2009, 3:55PM |
| Pagan | Nov 18, 2009, 3:13PM |
| Sgath | Nov 18, 2009, 1:17PM |
| Tommi | Nov 18, 2009, 9:23AM |
| BrittanyLeigh_ | Nov 16, 2009, 10:29AM |
| x-leila-x | Nov 13, 2009, 5:20PM |
| Kashikoi | Nov 13, 2009, 4:26PM |
| Pine.Orange.Fruit.Drink | Nov 13, 2009, 5:32AM |
| nancy | Nov 12, 2009, 5:33PM |
DarkStarling Forums, v.0.8 (Virgo) © 2005 |