It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Is Conservative Ideology Finally Dead?

page: 4
23
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 9 2016 @ 09:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: MrThortan
Now if we can only replace the ideologies of both parties and be liberated from the stranglehold they have on our political system.


Doing that won't get rid of conservatism.




posted on Feb, 9 2016 @ 09:29 PM
link   
a reply to: ExNihiloRed



Come on. Tea party is by far a minority


It's the TP nutbags that are pushing Trump towards the front of the line. They are becoming a bigger and bigger section of society. As a small bit of proof, look at the popularity of Right Wing propagandists and snakeoil salesmen like Mark Levin.



State vs federal authority is an underlying principle of liberal vs conservative principles!!


Not really. Conservatives want the federal government to have plenty of power, beyond what is constitutionally-granted, just as much as the liberals. The difference is that the Right wants the federal powers to be over security, perpetual war and immigration...while the Left wants to federal powers to be used on social programs and needs.



posted on Feb, 9 2016 @ 09:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: Abysha

originally posted by: ExNihiloRed

originally posted by: Abysha

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Abysha

Not really.

You cannot have any individual liberty in a society forced to be perfectly equal in its outcomes. We are all of us different with different talents, different hopes and dreams, different aspirations. Why should I allow myself to be forced into a predetermined societal mold of the government's making in order to be exactly like everyone else and not make any feel bad because I have talents they don't? Why should I suffer and possibly eventually break in silence attempting to be able to do those things the societal mold demands I ought in order to be like everyone else and equal?

And if I fail, what then? Such societies inevitably discard the misfits.

I don't want to live in your enforced equality Utopia. I am not made to be part of the world of The Giver or 1984 or Brave New World. There is a reason why those are dystopias.



I think we both have two separate definitions of "liberty" and two separate definitions of "equality".

The equality you fear is some sort of fictional scenario where you are not allowed to excel in deference to those less skilled. However, this has nothing to do with what I think of when I say "equality". To me, it means every person is treated equally and given the same opportunities. Success does not happen in a vacuum. Every wealthy person in our nation has achieved what they have because of the system in which we all participate in and support. This means they cannot discriminate. This means they must follow the rules. If they don't like it, they need to gain their success elsewhere, where they can make their fortune without the help of an infrastructure, utilities, or an established economy. That person can go be Queen or King of the lone island they lord over.

As far as those movies all depicting dystopias for a reason, you are correct. That reason is because they are fiction novels, written by people who share your views.



Conservative believe in "Equal Opportunity" and Liberals believe in "Equal Outcome"


I can try that too:

Conservatives believe in "facilitating monopolies" and Liberals believe in "regulating a balanced market to ensure longevity and healthy competition with varied revenues".

Anybody can make blanket statements.



Ideology Matters in the Antitrust Debate
edit on 9-2-2016 by ExNihiloRed because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 9 2016 @ 09:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: ExNihiloRed

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: ExNihiloRed

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: ExNihiloRed

originally posted by: Abysha

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Abysha

Not really.

You cannot have any individual liberty in a society forced to be perfectly equal in its outcomes. We are all of us different with different talents, different hopes and dreams, different aspirations. Why should I allow myself to be forced into a predetermined societal mold of the government's making in order to be exactly like everyone else and not make any feel bad because I have talents they don't? Why should I suffer and possibly eventually break in silence attempting to be able to do those things the societal mold demands I ought in order to be like everyone else and equal?

And if I fail, what then? Such societies inevitably discard the misfits.

I don't want to live in your enforced equality Utopia. I am not made to be part of the world of The Giver or 1984 or Brave New World. There is a reason why those are dystopias.



I think we both have two separate definitions of "liberty" and two separate definitions of "equality".

The equality you fear is some sort of fictional scenario where you are not allowed to excel in deference to those less skilled. However, this has nothing to do with what I think of when I say "equality". To me, it means every person is treated equally and given the same opportunities. Success does not happen in a vacuum. Every wealthy person in our nation has achieved what they have because of the system in which we all participate in and support. This means they cannot discriminate. This means they must follow the rules. If they don't like it, they need to gain their success elsewhere, where they can make their fortune without the help of an infrastructure, utilities, or an established economy. That person can go be Queen or King of the lone island they lord over.

As far as those movies all depicting dystopias for a reason, you are correct. That reason is because they are fiction novels, written by people who share your views.



Conservative believe in "Equal Opportunity" and Liberals believe in "Equal Outcome"


Bull#.

Modern conservatives, like Hillary Clinton, believe in rigging the game and true liberals/progressives want to level the playing field when it's obvious the game has been rigged. Outcomes are in the hands of individuals.



See, this is the end of the debate. If you're going to continue to spout this nonsensical rhetoric, I am not going to waste my time trying to have intellectual discourse with you.


What rhetoric? I've been calling Hillary a Lite-Republican for some time.

At the last debate, Sanders tried to get her to talk about he progressive credentials and she couldn't do it. She aligns better with the Republicans than a true progressive or Democrat Socialist.

If you don't want to debate, that's fine, but at least put some effort in to debunking my claims before calling it quits.


Seriously? Hillary who wants big government and universal healthcare is a conservative? Ignorance is bliss I guess.


She does not want UHC. She want's to keep Obamacare, a fascist piece of crap, and "improve it". Her claims of working for UHC is just her playing to her base.



posted on Feb, 9 2016 @ 09:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: ExNihiloRed



Come on. Tea party is by far a minority


It's the TP nutbags that are pushing Trump towards the front of the line. They are becoming a bigger and bigger section of society. As a small bit of proof, look at the popularity of Right Wing propagandists and snakeoil salesmen like Mark Levin.



State vs federal authority is an underlying principle of liberal vs conservative principles!!


Not really. Conservatives want the federal government to have plenty of power, beyond what is constitutionally-granted, just as much as the liberals. The difference is that the Right wants the federal powers to be over security, perpetual war and immigration...while the Left wants to federal powers to be used on social programs and needs.


I am not going to argue with someone who just spouts their unsupported opinions without being educated on the issues. I cannot argue with ignorance.



posted on Feb, 9 2016 @ 09:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheVinylPollution
a reply to: ketsuko

So dramatic! Though your terms suit me just fine, the world would be better without people like you.


Not cool. I definitely do not agree with Ketsuko on this subject but, beyond this thread, you know nothing about her.

We are a nation of varying ideologies. If not for a fulcrum upon which we teetered, there would be no progress. Without people like her, fiscal conservatism would cease to exist and without people like you, social equality would cease to exist.

Personally, I like voices that dissent from my own. We all sharpen each other to ultimately improve our collective strength. So I would never say the world would be better without conservatives.

But she's still wrong.



posted on Feb, 9 2016 @ 09:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: ExNihiloRed

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: ExNihiloRed

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: ExNihiloRed

originally posted by: Abysha

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Abysha

Not really.

You cannot have any individual liberty in a society forced to be perfectly equal in its outcomes. We are all of us different with different talents, different hopes and dreams, different aspirations. Why should I allow myself to be forced into a predetermined societal mold of the government's making in order to be exactly like everyone else and not make any feel bad because I have talents they don't? Why should I suffer and possibly eventually break in silence attempting to be able to do those things the societal mold demands I ought in order to be like everyone else and equal?

And if I fail, what then? Such societies inevitably discard the misfits.

I don't want to live in your enforced equality Utopia. I am not made to be part of the world of The Giver or 1984 or Brave New World. There is a reason why those are dystopias.



I think we both have two separate definitions of "liberty" and two separate definitions of "equality".

The equality you fear is some sort of fictional scenario where you are not allowed to excel in deference to those less skilled. However, this has nothing to do with what I think of when I say "equality". To me, it means every person is treated equally and given the same opportunities. Success does not happen in a vacuum. Every wealthy person in our nation has achieved what they have because of the system in which we all participate in and support. This means they cannot discriminate. This means they must follow the rules. If they don't like it, they need to gain their success elsewhere, where they can make their fortune without the help of an infrastructure, utilities, or an established economy. That person can go be Queen or King of the lone island they lord over.

As far as those movies all depicting dystopias for a reason, you are correct. That reason is because they are fiction novels, written by people who share your views.



Conservative believe in "Equal Opportunity" and Liberals believe in "Equal Outcome"


Bull#.

Modern conservatives, like Hillary Clinton, believe in rigging the game and true liberals/progressives want to level the playing field when it's obvious the game has been rigged. Outcomes are in the hands of individuals.



See, this is the end of the debate. If you're going to continue to spout this nonsensical rhetoric, I am not going to waste my time trying to have intellectual discourse with you.


What rhetoric? I've been calling Hillary a Lite-Republican for some time.

At the last debate, Sanders tried to get her to talk about he progressive credentials and she couldn't do it. She aligns better with the Republicans than a true progressive or Democrat Socialist.

If you don't want to debate, that's fine, but at least put some effort in to debunking my claims before calling it quits.


Seriously? Hillary who wants big government and universal healthcare is a conservative? Ignorance is bliss I guess.


She does not want UHC. She want's to keep Obamacare, a fascist piece of crap, and "improve it". Her claims of working for UHC is just her playing to her base.


Stop. Hillary has supported universal healthcare since the 90s. Look it up.



posted on Feb, 9 2016 @ 09:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: vjr1113
i will pay a bit more taxes if it means free health care for all,


It's not a bit, and it's not free.


i dont want some depressed weeaboo to be able to purchase a goddamn ar15,


Well we can agree we don't want a mentally ill person to have a firearm. Not sure why an AR-15 is so special.


i want women to have as much freedom to do with their bodies as they wish.


So they can chop off their arms because they believe they should be an amputee or blind themselves with bleach because they believe they should be blind, and sell their kidneys for personal profit? Oh and then get free prosthetics and/or therapy for their visual disability, and dialysis afterwards?

And if women can do that, why not men?



posted on Feb, 9 2016 @ 09:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Abysha'
Wow, civil discourse. I respect you.



posted on Feb, 9 2016 @ 09:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: Abysha

originally posted by: ExNihiloRed

originally posted by: Abysha

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Abysha

Not really.

You cannot have any individual liberty in a society forced to be perfectly equal in its outcomes. We are all of us different with different talents, different hopes and dreams, different aspirations. Why should I allow myself to be forced into a predetermined societal mold of the government's making in order to be exactly like everyone else and not make any feel bad because I have talents they don't? Why should I suffer and possibly eventually break in silence attempting to be able to do those things the societal mold demands I ought in order to be like everyone else and equal?

And if I fail, what then? Such societies inevitably discard the misfits.

I don't want to live in your enforced equality Utopia. I am not made to be part of the world of The Giver or 1984 or Brave New World. There is a reason why those are dystopias.



I think we both have two separate definitions of "liberty" and two separate definitions of "equality".

The equality you fear is some sort of fictional scenario where you are not allowed to excel in deference to those less skilled. However, this has nothing to do with what I think of when I say "equality". To me, it means every person is treated equally and given the same opportunities. Success does not happen in a vacuum. Every wealthy person in our nation has achieved what they have because of the system in which we all participate in and support. This means they cannot discriminate. This means they must follow the rules. If they don't like it, they need to gain their success elsewhere, where they can make their fortune without the help of an infrastructure, utilities, or an established economy. That person can go be Queen or King of the lone island they lord over.

As far as those movies all depicting dystopias for a reason, you are correct. That reason is because they are fiction novels, written by people who share your views.



Conservative believe in "Equal Opportunity" and Liberals believe in "Equal Outcome"


I can try that too:

Conservatives believe in "facilitating monopolies" and Liberals believe in "regulating a balanced market to ensure longevity and healthy competition with varied revenues".

Anybody can make blanket statements.


Except your blanket statement actually makes sense 100%.




posted on Feb, 9 2016 @ 09:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Teikiatsu

youre right free health care is an oxymoron, i should rephrase it, id pay taxes for cheaper healthcare. and it is cheaper, Obamacare saved me hundreds so its not a myth.

ar15's arent special? kidding right, its probably one of the best weapons ever made to think anyone can show up at a mall with an ar15 because they're having a bad day is scary.

im talking of course about abortion. if a woman decides she no longer wants to be pregnant before a certain time because of health or financial issues, she should have the right to abort. fine by me less people, birth can be very dangerous to women and is a complex issue, banning abortion flat out or limiting conditions is reckless.
edit on 9-2-2016 by vjr1113 because: (no reason given)

edit on 9-2-2016 by vjr1113 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 9 2016 @ 09:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Teikiatsu


So they can chop off their arms because they believe they should be an amputee or blind themselves with bleach because they believe they should be blind, and sell their kidneys for personal profit? Oh and then get free prosthetics and/or therapy for their visual disability, and dialysis afterwards?


So that's a no on individual freedom and liberty.


This is where you conservatives contradict yourself the most.



"Individual liberty.
Stay out of my business.
No she shouldn't be allowed to abort.
Tell them they can't smoke a joint."


You're all nutso.



posted on Feb, 9 2016 @ 09:41 PM
link   
a reply to: ExNihiloRed



I am not going to argue with someone who just spouts their unsupported opinions without being educated on the issues. I cannot argue with ignorance.


Simply calling my opinions unsupported, uneducated and ignorant does not make for an effective response. Can you refute anything I have said?

Can you offer an alternative view with examples, as I have?



Stop. Hillary has supported universal healthcare since the 90s. Look it up.


Yes, and when asked about the issue while she is running as president, she claims to support a crappy program already in existence who's major flaw, the individual mandate, was supported by conservatives in the 90's.



posted on Feb, 9 2016 @ 09:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
It's the TP nutbags that are pushing Trump towards the front of the line. They are becoming a bigger and bigger section of society. As a small bit of proof, look at the popularity of Right Wing propagandists and snakeoil salesmen like Mark Levin.


Actually it's the regular GOP that are voting for Trump over the establishment candidates, as well as disaffected blue collar Democrats. The TP conservatives are voting for Cruz. You must not listen to Levin, he loathes Trump.



Conservatives want the federal government to have plenty of power, beyond what is constitutionally-granted, just as much as the liberals.


A cornerstone of conservative thought is to maintain as small a federal government as possible, and leave the rest to the individual states. Not sure what you are thinking here. Conservative != Republican.


The difference is that the Right wants the federal powers to be over security, perpetual war and immigration...while the Left wants to federal powers to be used on social programs and needs.


Defend the borders and push Peace through Superior Firepower, sure. Perpetual war... uh no. To believe that is naive and extremist in its own right. Conservatives also recognize that it is not the responsibility of the 'federal powers' to push tax dollars into social programs and needs. Again, that is the responsibility of the individual states, and the People themselves.



posted on Feb, 9 2016 @ 09:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
a reply to: Teikiatsu


So they can chop off their arms because they believe they should be an amputee or blind themselves with bleach because they believe they should be blind, and sell their kidneys for personal profit? Oh and then get free prosthetics and/or therapy for their visual disability, and dialysis afterwards?


So that's a no on individual freedom and liberty.


This is where you conservatives contradict yourself the most.



"Individual liberty.
Stay out of my business.
No she shouldn't be allowed to abort.
Tell them they can't smoke a joint."


You're all nutso.



You're generalizing.



posted on Feb, 9 2016 @ 09:44 PM
link   
a reply to: vjr1113


youre right free health care is an oxymoron, i should rephrase it, id pay taxes for cheaper healthcare. and it is cheaper, Obamacare saved me hundreds so its not a myth.


Socialist health care is cheaper by force of government threat.

Free market healthcare is cheaper from competition and voluntary charity.

Which system is going to give the better care?



posted on Feb, 9 2016 @ 09:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
a reply to: Teikiatsu


So they can chop off their arms because they believe they should be an amputee or blind themselves with bleach because they believe they should be blind, and sell their kidneys for personal profit? Oh and then get free prosthetics and/or therapy for their visual disability, and dialysis afterwards?


So that's a no on individual freedom and liberty.

This is where you conservatives contradict yourself the most.

"Individual liberty.
Stay out of my business.
No she shouldn't be allowed to abort.
Tell them they can't smoke a joint."

You're all nutso.


Not sure where I contradicted myself in that question, can you elaborate? I asked if a woman is free to self-mutilate, and then be supported by the taxpayers afterwards?

I didn't say anything about pot or abortion. Are those the only things that define freedom and liberty?
edit on 9-2-2016 by Teikiatsu because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 9 2016 @ 09:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: ExNihiloRed

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
a reply to: Teikiatsu


So they can chop off their arms because they believe they should be an amputee or blind themselves with bleach because they believe they should be blind, and sell their kidneys for personal profit? Oh and then get free prosthetics and/or therapy for their visual disability, and dialysis afterwards?


So that's a no on individual freedom and liberty.


This is where you conservatives contradict yourself the most.



"Individual liberty.
Stay out of my business.
No she shouldn't be allowed to abort.
Tell them they can't smoke a joint."


You're all nutso.



You're generalizing.


And.

It's correct.


"Stereotyping is a good thing."

I hear conservatives say that about urban youths and Muslims all the time.


Another massive contradiction.



posted on Feb, 9 2016 @ 09:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: ExNihiloRed



I am not going to argue with someone who just spouts their unsupported opinions without being educated on the issues. I cannot argue with ignorance.


Simply calling my opinions unsupported, uneducated and ignorant does not make for an effective response. Can you refute anything I have said?

Can you offer an alternative view with examples, as I have?



Stop. Hillary has supported universal healthcare since the 90s. Look it up.


Yes, and when asked about the issue while she is running as president, she claims to support a crappy program already in existence who's major flaw, the individual mandate, was supported by conservatives in the 90's.



I have provided direct rebuttals. You have spouted nonsensical rhetoric. I know when I am engaged in an intellectual debate with an educated counterparty. This is not an example.



posted on Feb, 9 2016 @ 09:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
It'll be dead when you kill us.

You can have liberty or equality. You cannot have both. So long as there are those who are conservative, there will be those who fight for liberty, and you will not have perfect equality. You will only have that over our dead bodies.


Typically conservative misunderstanding of the relationship between equality and liberty. If you are truly a lover of liberty then you should want to expand liberty to the greatest extent to the most people possible. The "conservative" position throughout history has always been one of preserving inequality by limiting the liberty of others — that's not a fight for liberty.

Right now, there are "conservative" candidates who are campaigning for president on promises such as fighting tooth and nail to deny gay people the liberty to marry who they want. Is that a fight for liberty or a fight against liberty? Other candidates are suggesting surveillance of citizens of this country based on their religious affiliation. Is that a fight for or against liberty?

Don't get me wrong, the American "left" is no beacon of liberalism either (consider the obsession with gun control) but on the whole, it's still far more liberal than the American "right."




top topics



 
23
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join