Conservatives v. Liberals/Liberals v. Conservatives

[rambone]

The difference is that conservatives can constantly look at the founding fathers and realize that they were on our side. Conservatives defend our liberties. Conservatives want to conserve the constitution.

Liberals scoff at the founding fathers, erode our liberties, and want to rewrite the constitution.

They are absolutely ideological opposites. Don't let shoddy examples of conservatives muddle your view of conservatism.

 

[Andy219]

Well I consider myself Libertarian, so anytime somebody wants to place restrictions on me, or anyone else as a matter of fact, I don't like it. That being said, Bush did some things I was ok with and others I wasn't. But everytime Obama opens his mouth he speaks of more govermental control which means placing more restrictions on my freedom, liberty and pursuit of happiness. Until there is a strong libertarian running for office, I'll stick with conservatives. If thats not an option like it hasn't been since before I could vote, I just choose the less liberal. Thats my two cents anyway.

 

[photoshooter]

I am curious what a "constitutional Democrat" is. Do they believe in the Constitution, or what they envision it could be, if they could change it to suit their ideals? The moniker "constitutional Democrat" almost seems like an oxymoron, as they have been promoting a "progressive" (Socialist/Marxist/Maoist/Communist/Collectivist) ideal since they've been a viable political force. (I like Mark Levin's term of Statist, since it encompasses all of the Collectivist ideologies in a simple definition), and none of their agenda has much to do with the Constitution.

IMO: A constitutional democrat is a constitutionalist without the moral based issues that fuel the religious right. (Gay marriage or legalizing drugs)

In other words: A libertarian that hangs in one of the two mainstream parties. If I were a "libertarian leaning" political type in South Bend or Gary, I'd try to run as a democrat if I thought I had a 50/50 shot of making through the primary.

Being in one of the two main parties normally gets you more notice and votes (and campaign money) than hanging in one of the third parties.

 

[Raoc]

It sounds like your beef is with Democrats and Republicans, not liberals and conservatives. As you noted, the two are not the same. Democrats are not necessarily liberals, and Republicans are not necessarily conservatives. As a conservative, myself, I find Hannity and Limbaugh to be annoying to listen to, and and I blame Bush for our current mess almost as much as Obama. Bush broke down the doors, Obama is just walking right through.

 

[Calvin]

They are all bought and paid for by the same folks. The purchasers are very smart folks who do not invest where there is not a return. That is why I consider both parties to be the same thing. The same people own them both.

 

[photoshooter]

Watch the cheesy vids (click here)... get on the mailing list!

Knowledge is power.

 

[El Cazador]

IMO: A constitutional democrat is a constitutionalist without the moral based issues that fuel the religious right. (Gay marriage or legalizing drugs)

In other words: A libertarian that hangs in one of the two mainstream parties. If I were a "libertarian leaning" political type in South Bend or Gary, I'd try to run as a democrat if I thought I had a 50/50 shot of making through the primary.

Being in one of the two main parties normally gets you more notice and votes (and campaign money) than hanging in one of the third parties.

That seems a very convoluted way of thinking. So you think a libertarian cannot stand as a libertarian in northern Indiana? You would have to hide in another party to be a viable candidate? And why Democrat instead of Republican, if all you are doing is using an established party as a blind?

By the way, nice blog. Doesn't read as a libertarian concealing himself as a Democrat

They are all bought and paid for by the same folks. The purchasers are very smart folks who do not invest where there is not a return. That is why I consider both parties to be the same thing. The same people own them both.

I've read this before, here and elsewhere, and I always wonder "Who are these supposed buyers of these people?" I've always thought Bush's "squishiness" came from his faith, and the belief the United States was so powerful and right, that it could absorb a lot of the world's wrongs and correct them without suffering critical damage itself. No purchaser there, only an almost absolute belief in the good of the USA.

In the same vein, I'm sure Obama is a product of his "'raisin". His disdain for the US comes from his parents, grandparents, and those he surrounded himself with. Even his "faith" bolstered his disdain. He is just following what he learned at his grandmother's knee, and what was re-enforced by his college and early working years. He hates and reviles what everyone around him hated and reviled about the US. No purchaser there, either. Sycophants, enablers, mentors, and allies with their own agendas, but no "purchaser".

 

[SavageEagle]

It sounds like your beef is with Democrats and Republicans, not liberals and conservatives. As you noted, the two are not the same. Democrats are not necessarily liberals, and Republicans are not necessarily conservatives. As a conservative, myself, I find Hannity and Limbaugh to be annoying to listen to, and and I blame Bush for our current mess almost as much as Obama. Bush broke down the doors, Obama is just walking right through.

Bush 1 stirred the pot, Clinton sat on his :bigballs: too long to stop the storm, Bush 2 screwed the pooch, and obamatard is capitalizing on the destruction...

I blame them all.

 

[Manan]

Until the majority of the voting public get it in their mind what the role of government should be, we'll have what we got.

The way to get votes is through promises. Promises of something for nothing. It's human nature to want something for nothing.

The Democratic Party currently promises that. Utopia is a wonderful fantasy. It just won't work. Conservative capitalism is the only fair way to organize a free society. Where a man is rewarded for his successes, not someone elses.

I think I read somewhere in this forum that:

Instead of sharing my wealth, I'd like to share my work ethic.

I agree.

 

[photoshooter]

That seems a very convoluted way of thinking. So you think a libertarian cannot stand as a libertarian in northern Indiana? You would have to hide in another party to be a viable candidate? And why Democrat instead of Republican, if all you are doing is using an established party as a blind?

Fight to win. If I WERE a libertarian in Gary, I doubt I could win against a dem candidate... but, if I could get my message out about following rules as laid out in the constitution, while running as a Dem in the primary, I might try that.

Unfortunately, I'm neither Libertarian nor Democrat.

By the way, nice blog. Doesn't read as a libertarian concealing himself as a Democrat

Probably the best way I could describe myself is as a non-religious constitutional conservative with Libertarian leanings. I don't have the moralistic baggage that the religious right has about some hot button issues (gay rights, etc).

I understand the basic ideas of the founding fathers who wrote the US Constitution - and it doesn't say a thing about being a "Living" document. Thems the rules... live with them, or use the rules to get the rest of the country to go along with changing them.

Hope that clears it up about as good as mud.

 

[xamsx]

Since I'm drinking I don't feel like reading every post so I will just answer the OP with my own . My response in BLUE.





Yes, we are all screwed. Unless the People wake up to the tyranny they have been living with all their lives. That is, IF people can be unindoctrinated....

 

[leftsock]

There's a problem that we can't get a solid definition of what it means to be a Democrat, Republican, liberal, or conservative. Even if we broke out the dictionary, not everyone would agree to abide by the definitions.

Personally, I like the ideas of classical liberalism. I suppose that would lump me into a group of what most people would consider to be conservative. Though, in practice, I can identify more closely with the Libertarian Party than the Republicans or Democrats, but even libertarianism has its differences with classical liberalism.

I wouldn't feel comfortable using the words "conservative" or "liberal" to describe Republicans or Democrats in general. Too many people in those parties have practically identical behaviors when it comes to running the local, state, and national governments, so I don't know how I would say that one group is one way and the other is any different.

Heck, we can take a lesson from George Orwell's "Nineteen Eighty-Four." Keeping the masses afraid and instructing them that their enemies are some other group allows the few at the top to, basically, do as they please under the guise of acting on their constituent's best interests against those enemies. Keep us afraid and we'll agree to anything!

 

[cklein6576]

we're boned

All I know is that my friends are all angry, and something at some point will have to give. We dont want a hand out or a paris hilton role model. We want a strong country/community that has neighbor helping neighbor and a return to common sense.

I might as well go **** up a rope as far as my wishes go, so I will teach what i can to family, and hopefully something I say will stick.

Man, I am one angry 33 year old that misses the 1950s. Oh well...

In short neither party can fix this CF so I hate them both. I'll just vote for the best spoken lier from now one. It hurts less when they can string a sentence together.

Bastards.

 

[Hoosier8]

All I know is that my friends are all angry, and something at some point will have to give. We dont want a hand out or a paris hilton role model. We want a strong country/community that has neighbor helping neighbor and a return to common sense.

I might as well go **** up a rope as far as my wishes go, so I will teach what i can to family, and hopefully something I say will stick.

Man, I am one angry 33 year old that misses the 1950s. Oh well...

In short neither party can fix this CF so I hate them both. I'll just vote for the best spoken lier from now one. It hurts less when they can string a sentence together.

Bastards.

You bring up an interesting point that the MSM has missed entirely and that is the disenfranchised. That is, unless they are calling people like you and me "teabagers" or "nutcases". I am one angry 55 year old and see us losing what I grew up with. Both parties are the CF and that is the problem. Politics has not changed for 200 years, but our country has changed and is changing in a direction that we would like to reverse. It is like trying to run in quicksand.

When you vote for anyone in Washington, it must be remembered, that anyone that goes to Washington, sells their soul to get there; therefore, except for the fundamental rights protected by our Federal constitution, remember to fight for our State rights too.

I wish there were an easy answer but like the old saying, "Freedom is not free", we must always be vigilant and fight for what is right. Godspeed.

 

[photoshooter]

Folks... there will be some new faces running in 2010.

Not all of the SOBs need to be kicked out of congress... but some definitely need to be given the boot.

There are some great organization starting to mobilize right now.

icaucus.com and inteaparty.com are two good ones here in Indiana.

It's not enough to just go vote the SOBs out.

If you're PO'd, then get involved with an org like those two... then this coming spring, key in on a good candidate. Indiana has a Senator up for re-election this year. Time to get someone else in that seat.

You can pick a challenger candidate and work on their behalf. If your challenger doesn't make it through the primary, and someone else gets the nomination... don't give up. Switch to the other person and work on their behalf.

Getting a pro-Constitution person into that Senate seat is very important this election cycle.

And the other Senator in Indiana is up for reelection in 2012. He needs to face ONE good challenger in the primary. But, we'll worry about that in 2011. Let's get organized to knock the lib out the senate seat in 2010.

 

[spartan933]

The difference is that conservatives can constantly look at the founding fathers and realize that they were on our side. Conservatives defend our liberties. Conservatives want to conserve the constitution.

Liberals scoff at the founding fathers, erode our liberties, and want to rewrite the constitution.

They are absolutely ideological opposites. Don't let shoddy examples of conservatives muddle your view of conservatism.

I understand your point and agree to an extent with your definition. However, I feel that you are correct in that "shoddy examples" are muddling the view of the Republican Party and Conservatism. Shoddy examples are all people see right now.

On a side note, I find it very interesting that the Republican Party has not been able to court minorities more effectively. Somewhere along the line, probably around the Nixon Era, the Republican Party became disassociated with the idea of assisting minorities. Here is something I think about constantly:

The Republican Party helped usher in the Civil Rights movement, due largely in part to it's association with family values and Christianity. It is true Presidents Kennedy and Johnson got the ball rolling and the job done. But, Southern Democrats in Congress were against the Civil Rights Bill. Not the Republican Party. In essence, the Presidents' had to ally themselves with the opposite party to get the job done.

Also, having done a Semester Abroad in Central Mexico, I know that the Mexican people are more closely aligned with the views of the Republican Party than the Democratic Party. Mexicans are for the most part Roman Catholic. They live by hardcore family values and they work, hard. Their feelings on family responsibility and Christianity/Catholocism are exactly what the Republican Party needs. The issue that keeps them away is immigration. It is not Welfare, handouts, etc. I truly believe that if the Republican Party can make headway with the Hispanic population in the next 8 years, they will be victorious in 2012 and for a couple of elections after that.

I know this last part doesn't have much to do with my original post, but it's on my mind this morning and my two cats don't have much to say about it.

 

[level.eleven]

They are all bought and paid for by the same folks. The purchasers are very smart folks who do not invest where there is not a return. That is why I consider both parties to be the same thing. The same people own them both.

Excellent response. A simple glance at the top donors for the 2 major party candidates in the past presidential election reveals where the power is coming from. Goldman Sachs, Citibank, JP Morgan Chase, Morgan Stanley, Merrill Lynch, BOA...Our biggest areas of business as a country are finance, insurance, and real estate and the those with the most amount of money are shaping policy.

 

[finity]

Bush was not responsible either with money but no where near the extent that Obama is.

Bush (& his Republican enablers) doubled the national debt in his 8 years from ~5 trillion to ~10 trillion. Obama isn't anywhere near that...yet.

Bush kept this country safe after 9/11.

And Clinton kept the country safe from terrorism after the first WTC bombing...so what? Unless your going to try to use the argument that it was Clintons fault that something that happened in September (8 months after Bush took office) but that somehow Obama is at fault for the economic woes we are now in when he was given this mess by the previous administration on his first day in office?

There is nothing more disrespectful in my eyes than our president giving constitutional rights to someone who would love to see America as we know it burn to the ground. (The Terrorist)

Strange idea.

As far as I knew the president didn't "give" Constitutional rights to anybody. I always thought those rights were inherent in us when we were born. No matter where that was, no matter who we were, no matter what we did until those rights were taken away by due process of law.

The difference is that conservatives can constantly look at the founding fathers and realize that they were on our side. Conservatives defend our liberties. Conservatives want to conserve the constitution.

Liberals scoff at the founding fathers, erode our liberties, and want to rewrite the constitution.

They are absolutely ideological opposites. Don't let shoddy examples of conservatives muddle your view of conservatism.

Conservatives want to defend our liberties?

Did you sleep for the last 8 years?

Newsflash.. The founders were the progressives of their time. They came up with a new form of government & broke ties with the traditional one.

Don't get me wrong I think the form of government they created is the best there is (so far) & the Constitution shouldn't lightly be messed with...

but even the founders knew that it wasn't perfect so they created a way to amend it later if necessary.

If we followed the conservatives ideas back then we would all still be British subjects today.

IMO: A constitutional democrat is a constitutionalist without the moral based issues that fuel the religious right. (Gay marriage or legalizing drugs)

Excellent description.

On a side note, I find it very interesting that the Republican Party has not been able to court minorities more effectively. Somewhere along the line, probably around the Nixon Era, the Republican Party became disassociated with the idea of assisting minorities. Here is something I think about constantly:

The Republican Party helped usher in the Civil Rights movement, due largely in part to it's association with family values and Christianity. It is true Presidents Kennedy and Johnson got the ball rolling and the job done. But, Southern Democrats in Congress were against the Civil Rights Bill. Not the Republican Party. In essence, the Presidents' had to ally themselves with the opposite party to get the job done.

The Southern Democrats were the conservatives at one time. I think that changed around the time Nixon became president & the Republicans started courting the southern conservatives to get their vote.

Google "Dixiecrats" for more information.

The original Republican party had as its goal the modernization of the US & instituted many "progressive" policies.

The Democratic Party (non-south) since Truman has been very pro-civil rights. The southern Democrats moved to the Republican party specifically due to the Democratic party's civil rights stance.

Let's also not forget that Lincoln had no intention of freeing the slaves until after the Civil War started. Even then he had very racist beliefs.

 

[rambone]

Conservatives want to defend our liberties?

Did you sleep for the last 8 years?

Newsflash.. The founders were the progressives of their time. They came up with a new form of government & broke ties with the traditional one.

I think we define conservatism differently.... And Bush wasn't very conservative but compared to John Kerry.... Whatever. We haven't had a conservative in office since Reagan.

 

[Phil502]

The 2 parties cater to their voters somewhat. They are almost all crooks in one way or another, I don't think many of them have a conscience.

The Democrats are collectivists because a damn big portion of their supporters need assistance of some kind (and I don't mean retired guys.) These guys pay less in taxes overall.

The Republicans are individualists because a damn big portion of their supporters don't need assistance of any kind. These guys are paying the taxes.

I don't like the government taking my money and giving it to deadbeats, it's that simple for me although I know it's more complicated then that.