What is a "pure" conservative?

[dross]

We were much stronger defenders of Lady Liberty 70 years ago than we are today.

.

Are you referring to the internment of citizens of Japanese descent?

Prohibition?

Segregation enforced by law?

Denying basic legal rights to people based on their skin color?

Police routinely beating confessions out of suspects?

Fighting a war with mostly draftees?

Sex between consenting adults in their own homes criminalized?

The good times weren't all that good.

 

[netsecurity]

Dross has an excellent point. This country has always been flawed. If you were black in the 30's, then liberty was something you could only dream of. We've made many great advances. We all have a lot to be thankful for. Some people just like to focus on the flaws or conspiracy theories and don't seem to appreciate what a truly great country we live in.

 

[Pocketman]

We were much stronger defenders of Lady Liberty 70 years ago than we are today.

Today, we rape her in her own home.

I would love to see us return to honor of Lady Liberty... I doubt many are willing to sacrifice what she demands.

Life was less complicated when male WASPs controlled business and politics.

 

[flightsimmer]

What's mine is mine and what's yours is yours.

Equals= Conservative.

And what's yours is mine equals= Liberal.

How much more simple can you get. That seems to be what it all boils down to doesn't it?

 

[Fletch]

Are you referring to the internment of citizens of Japanese descent?

Prohibition?

Segregation enforced by law?

Denying basic legal rights to people based on their skin color?

Police routinely beating confessions out of suspects?

Fighting a war with mostly draftees?

Sex between consenting adults in their own homes criminalized?

Careful, some folks are getting turned on.

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

A conservative in general wants things to remain how they are, or possibly revert back to how things were once done.

A liberal in general wants things to change.

To take it any further, you would have to define what form of conservative or liberal. When you ask "what is a pure conservative", people will most likely answer with what form of conservative they believe is most "pure".

As you can imagine, in different periods of time and in different areas of the world, the political stances that define a conservative or liberal change. What I mean by that is, if someone 200 years ago was a liberal, holding the same beliefs may classify them as a conservative today - since things have changed in the last 200 years.

The Republican party was once dominated by liberals, was it not?

 

[J_Wales]

Are you referring to the internment of citizens of Japanese descent?

Prohibition?

Segregation enforced by law?

Denying basic legal rights to people based on their skin color?

Police routinely beating confessions out of suspects?

Fighting a war with mostly draftees?

Sex between consenting adults in their own homes criminalized?

The good times weren't all that good.

That is not what I am referring to, but valid points nonetheless.

My reference is to the expanding police state.

 

[edporch]

Equals= Conservative.

And what's yours is mine equals= Liberal.

How much more simple can you get. That seems to be what it all boils down to doesn't it?

YES!

Brings back memories of when I was a kid and my "old school" parents spoke of people with the philosophy "What's mine is mine, and what's YOURS is mine".

Describes a liberal (today "liberal" means socialist) perfectly.

 

[indiucky]

The last thing our Founders wanted was for us to "maintain world dominance". They didn't want us to become a mirror of the British Empire. Sadly, that lies at the very heart of so-called "conservative" philosophy. And it's one of the reasons we're reviled.

I know many people that ID themselves as conservative and being a "mirror" of the British Empire is furthest from their philosophy, much less the heart of it.

Many people (Americans) that think America sucks or that we are "reviled" around the world are just projecting their own self hatred and "liberal guilt" in a broad statement to try to include everyone else in it because that's how they feel about themselves. You see that alot with people in the LGBT community when you talk to them about anyone in history and they respond with "oh he was gay" whether it was Lincoln, King Richard, Jesus or whoever. It's funny and that's why your posts are so cute in a way, especially with the Butters avatar as an Anarchist. It's perfect really. It's okay to be a American Butters. It really is. A little pride is okay and you can love America and still watch "My little Pony." Relax and take pride in your citizenship and your nations history. Every Nation on this planet has things they are ashamed of and one thing about our Nation is that we do try to rectify mistakes we made. Whether it was trying to impeach Bill Clinton when he showed he was unworthy of the Office he held or the NRA helping Black Americans with firearms training when the Democrats were trying to prevent them from going to the polls to vote Republican in the south. We try to do the right thing.

Hate is not a family value Butters. Self Hatred is even worse.

 

[hornadylnl]

I know many people that ID themselves as conservative and being a "mirror" of the British Empire is furthest from their philosophy, much less the heart of it.

Many people (Americans) that think America sucks or that we are "reviled" around the world are just projecting their own self hatred and "liberal guilt" in a broad statement to try to include everyone else in it because that's how they feel about themselves. You see that alot with people in the LGBT community when you talk to them about anyone in history and they respond with "oh he was gay" whether it was Lincoln, King Richard, Jesus or whoever. It's funny and that's why your posts are so cute in a way, especially with the Butters avatar as an Anarchist. It's perfect really. It's okay to be a American Butters. It really is. A little pride is okay and you can love America and still watch "My little Pony." Relax and take pride in your citizenship and your nations history. Every Nation on this planet has things they are ashamed of and one thing about our Nation is that we do try to rectify mistakes we made. Whether it was trying to impeach Bill Clinton when he showed he was unworthy of the Office he held or the NRA helping Black Americans with firearms training when the Democrats were trying to prevent them from going to the polls to vote Republican in the south. We try to do the right thing.

Hate is not a family value Butters. Self Hatred is even worse.

Libertarians are told to affect change from within the republican party. How is that possible when may republicans won't even acknowledge that the libertarian viewpoint exists? If we don't hold republican water, we're American hating liberals. Yawn.

 

[cobber]

I'm aware that Nationalism can have a negative connotation too. But a little self respect and positive attitude can be a good thing. If we don't maintain world dominance, who will? China?

They're not interested in the job. But we never let a bogeyman go to waste.


Is world dominance is where we really want to be? As Ivan Eland wrote, we further the interests of our empire at the cost, in liberty and treasure, to our nation.


We should all tend to our gardens.

 

[netsecurity]

We should all tend to our gardens.

Isolationism. That's what we tried after WW1, and it resulted in evil growing so powerful that nearly all of Europe, part of Russia, part of Africa, and most of SouthEast Asia and the Pacific fell to conquerers of freedom. Since we joined the fight and conquered the conquerers in WW2, corrupt communist regimes then began to spread. We put a stop to that spread before it resulted in another world war. Now it is Muslim extremism and Islam that is trying to spread.

It will always be something. Evil will alway rear its ugly head in the absence of good. There will never be a neutral and peaceful state of existence! Without the USA guarding freedom worldwide, evil will spread, period. Those that think we are tyrannical or emperialist, which is apparently about three quarters of the earths population, are moronical bean brains who don't know a thing about history, yet they reap the benefits of our dead forefathers every day.

It is funny how many stupid Americans these days subscribe to the idea that the USA is a horrible Empire. The people spreading this idea all over the internet are the enemies of freedom, like communists, and also jealous allies like France and Germany, who simply want more power. We aren't perfect, take the nazi-like prosecution of the drug war for example, but the US is the best thing this planet and mankind has ever known. So go study history and see how we alone saved China from Japan, who was easily whooping their asses, before they stabbed us in the back and joined forces with Stalin. Learn how we helped make Japan and Germany the powerful free countries they are now, and how even though they were our worst enemies ever, we did not pillage their natural resources, something weve never done, but get blamed for all the time by dumbass hippies. And know for once that it was South Korea and South Vietnam who BEGGED for our help to stop communism from destroying their freedom (no. we didn't just invade them in the name of emperialism, dispite the liberal media inferring that we did).

People don't know a damn thing about our history, except what some hippie protestor wrote on a sign in a Forest Gump movie these days. It is sad that the last people to remember this history are now all dying.

 

[rambone]

Those that think we are tyrannical or emperialist, which is apparently about three quarters of the earths population, are moronical bean brains who don't know a thing about history, yet they reap the benefits of our dead forefathers every day.

lol

 

[IndyDave1776]

What is a "pure" conservative?

One who doesn't smoke, drink, chew or run around with girls who do?

 

[superjoe76]

Exactly. This is why the "get back to the constitution" crowd is ever so amusing.

I was not apart of its degradation. I want to return to it right now! Nothing funny about that.

 

[PINski1015]

Isolationism. That's what we tried after WW1, and it resulted in evil growing so powerful that nearly all of Europe, part of Russia, part of Africa, and most of SouthEast Asia and the Pacific fell to conquerers of freedom. Since we joined the fight and conquered the conquerers in WW2, corrupt communist regimes then began to spread. We put a stop to that spread before it resulted in another world war. Now it is Muslim extremism and Islam that is trying to spread.

It will always be something. Evil will alway rear its ugly head in the absence of good. There will never be a neutral and peaceful state of existence! Without the USA guarding freedom worldwide, evil will spread, period. Those that think we are tyrannical or emperialist, which is apparently about three quarters of the earths population, are moronical bean brains who don't know a thing about history, yet they reap the benefits of our dead forefathers every day.

It is funny how many stupid Americans these days subscribe to the idea that the USA is a horrible Empire. The people spreading this idea all over the internet are the enemies of freedom, like communists, and also jealous allies like France and Germany, who simply want more power. We aren't perfect, take the nazi-like prosecution of the drug war for example, but the US is the best thing this planet and mankind has ever known. So go study history and see how we alone saved China from Japan, who was easily whooping their asses, before they stabbed us in the back and joined forces with Stalin. Learn how we helped make Japan and Germany the powerful free countries they are now, and how even though they were our worst enemies ever, we did not pillage their natural resources, something weve never done, but get blamed for all the time by dumbass hippies. And know for once that it was South Korea and South Vietnam who BEGGED for our help to stop communism from destroying their freedom (no. we didn't just invade them in the name of emperialism, dispite the liberal media inferring that we did).

People don't know a damn thing about our history, except what some hippie protestor wrote on a sign in a Forest Gump movie these days. It is sad that the last people to remember this history are now all dying.

So what your saying is and if my research is correct...

Our "help" in South Vietnam was worth 58,272 American lives? And Communism still prevailed.

Our "help" in Korea was worth 36,000 American lives?

Is that the price we should pay?

 

[Pocketman]

Isolationism is a bit extreme. It isn't necessary though for the U.S. to continue being the world's police force. With the OUS economies growing, it's time for others to start taking care of themselves. We need to protect our own interests, but simply cannot afford funding something like a third of the world's military.

If conservatism favors small government, how can it support a huge military industrial complex?

 

[IndyDave1776]

So what your saying is and if my research is correct...

Our "help" in South Vietnam was worth 58,272 American lives? And Communism still prevailed.

Our "help" in Korea was worth 36,000 American lives?

Is that the price we should pay?

Isolationism is a bit extreme. It isn't necessary though for the U.S. to continue being the world's police force. With the OUS economies growing, it's time for others to start taking care of themselves. We need to protect our own interests, but simply cannot afford funding something like a third of the world's military.

If conservatism favors small government, how can it support a huge military industrial complex?

I believe that moderation is in order with the maintenance and use of teh military. We had a very good demonstration that isolationism is not a good idea, and we have also seen that jumping into every brush fire on the face of the planet is not a good idea, especially when the politicians preordain defeat with their asinine micromanagement of wars. MacArthur was absolutely correct when he declared that it is fatal to engage in any war one does not have the will to win. Had we listened to him, Korea would be a unified democratic nation and not have half of it starving under a dynasty of lunatics and my guess regarding Vietnam is that we would have been best served by realizing that the small handful of people willing to fight for freedom was unsustainable and stayed home. Giap did a masterful job of pummeling the French. Any fool could have seen that it was going to be a difficult fight with entirely new rules--it isn't like there were any surprises involved as the French had been fighting there wince the end of the Japanese occupation. At minimum, we needed to have made a decision to either do it or not do it, and Johnson made the decision to **** around feeding our young men to the grinder in order to feed the military industrial complex. After that, Nixon bowed to the national politics when he should have acted to either get the job done quickly or get the troops out quickly. In the end, the fact that the south folded before we managed to get our collective suitcase packed spoke volumes.

My conclusion is that the following questions should be answered before going to war:

1. Can it be done?
2. Should it be done? (This includes consideration for whether or not it makes any practical difference to us)
3. Are we willing to do it? (This means doing what it takes, bearing in mind that war is necessarily messy, to get in, get done, and get out, as opposed to using our troops as a live shooting gallery for the enemy.)

In practice, one question, "Do we (in the .gov) want to?" is the only question asked with the answers to the other three not seriously considered. Helping the economy (translated feeding the military industrial complex) is not an acceptable answer, even if Halliburton would beg to differ.

I would suggest that in World War II, the answers were 1., yes, 2., yes, 3., yes.

Korea: 1., yes, 2., yes, 3., no.

Vietnam 1., no, 2., maybe (at best), 3., no.

Again, in Korea, a little more willingness to finish the job would have gone a long way. I don't believe that there was any salvaging Vietnam.

My conclusion is that we need to be discerning about the wars in which we participate and when we do, we need to take them with the seriousness of a World War, not an occasion to expect our troops to act like a police department and turn into live bait for hostile men at arms.

 

[Brian S.]

In general principle, I think it is morally reprehensible to sacrifice one single tax dollar (money taken from us by force), let alone a single life (or hundreds, or thousands, or tens of thousands, etc.…) for the sake of "eliminating evil".

In the specific cases of Korea and Viet Nam it perhaps can be argued that they are justified because they are extensions of a greater so-called "cold war" with a genuine enemy who was actually a threat, USSR. However, for the sake of freeing them or stamping out their evil oppressors? No. Especially in the context of the evil known as the draft which existed in this country at that time. That is the enslavement and sacrifice of so-called "free" people for the sake of bringing freedom to others. It would be laughable if it weren't so horribly tragic.

 

[IndyDave1776]

In general principle, I think it is morally reprehensible to sacrifice one single tax dollar (money taken from us by force), let alone a single life (or hundreds, or thousands, or tens of thousands, etc.…) for the sake of "eliminating evil".

In the specific cases of Korea and Viet Nam it perhaps can be argued that they are justified because they are extensions of a greater so-called "cold war" with a genuine enemy who was actually a threat, USSR. However, for the sake of freeing them or stamping out their evil oppressors? No. Especially in the context of the evil known as the draft which existed in this country at that time. That is the enslavement and sacrifice of so-called "free" people for the sake of bringing freedom to others. It would be laughable if it weren't so horribly tragic.

If I understand you correctly, I would agree completely. War for the 'elimination of evil' (as opposed to the evil agent being a threat to US interests) is somewhat like being the global thought police, isn't it?