Is conservatism hostile to democracy?

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 29 2003 @ 02:49 PM
link   
I would suggest you look at Post Number: 161795.

I would also suggest that you cannot counter so you go after me personally. I expected as much. Maybe you and the other guy can plot together on the u2us to somehow come up with a cogent argument to refute my points but, I doubt it.


[Edited on 29-8-2003 by Colonel]




posted on Aug, 29 2003 @ 03:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Colonel
I would suggest you look at Post Number: 161795.

I would also suggest that you cannot counter so you go after me personally. I expected as much. Maybe you and the other guy can plot together on the u2us to somehow come up with a cogent argument to refute my points but, I doubt it.


[Edited on 29-8-2003 by Colonel]
\

well to quote you when you call us repugnants....

"i only speak the truth"

see how "the truth" is whatever you want it to be? see how it is a rather relative thing? lol

since your mind is closed there's no way any of us can get through to unless we claim to think just like you and blah blah blah. the world doesnt work that way. you really ARE an angry bitter little man. other people have a view that differs from your and what do you do? name call, insult, bash, make generalizing comments, talk about killing them, advocate violence against them, etc. so it matter not whether you want to accept this or not, the facts are clear, you have done these things, you have said these things, these things suggest the mentality of a man who is unnaccepting other other with a differing view from your own. guaranteed if i mentioned killing a whole group of people as you have you'd be all over it calling a bigot or racist or an inhumane repugnant but when you do it you compare yourself to jesus christ and pretend to be a savior of some sort.

i can sit here and point out your double standards and hypocrisies to you all day and you'll deny every bit of it until you're old gray and have one foot in the grave. but it doesnt change the facts you have done and said these things.



posted on Aug, 29 2003 @ 03:19 PM
link   
As anyone can see, you & yours still continue to ride my jock and not address the blanket statements of the father of conservatism. I have not bothered to attack you nor any of the republicans. I go after the ideology and its blatantly apparent that you can't defend it. Again, I expected as much.



posted on Aug, 29 2003 @ 03:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Colonel
As anyone can see, you & yours still continue to ride my jock and not address the blanket statements of the father of conservatism. I have not bothered to attack you nor any of the republicans. I go after the ideology and its blatantly apparent that you can't defend it. Again, I expected as much.


calling me a repugnant isnt an attack? it most certainly is when its not true. i'm not a republican. yet you keeping asserting that i am.

and i have more than addressed this blanket statement BS. one person doesnt speak for an entire group of people. PERIOD. even if he were a "representative" that still doesnt mean he speaks for everyone in that group as therre are always will be those of a differing view even within the same group. you should know this. i have adressed this AGAIN. i certainly hope you got it this time.

the ideology you are attacking isnt held by those who accuse of being a repugnant. you feel one persons comments speak for everyone and they simply do not.

and even when we tell you this you just dismiss it as a coverup and its not.

noone speaks for me but me and until you ask me directly you have no idea what MY ideology is, you only assume. and so far your assumptions have been 100% wrong.

he is not the father of anything. not in my book anyway. labels are rather stupid meaningless and lead to bigotry, you being a perfect example of this as you use labels constantly.

my ideology and my agenda is totally unknown to you and always will be but keep assuming, i'm enjoying the amusement you bring.



posted on Aug, 29 2003 @ 03:37 PM
link   

one person doesnt speak for an entire group of people. PERIOD.

Quite true.

Colonel is quite far from MLK...



posted on Aug, 29 2003 @ 03:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThePrankMonkey

Originally posted by Colonel

calling me a repugnant isnt an attack? it most certainly is when its not true. i'm not a republican. yet you keeping asserting that i am.

and i have more than addressed this blanket statement BS. one person doesnt speak for an entire group of people. PERIOD. even if he were a "representative" that still doesnt mean he speaks for everyone in that group as therre are always will be those of a differing view even within the same group. you should know this. i have adressed this AGAIN. i certainly hope you got it this time.

the ideology you are attacking isnt held by those who accuse of being a repugnant. you feel one persons comments speak for everyone and they simply do not.

and even when we tell you this you just dismiss it as a coverup and its not.

noone speaks for me but me and until you ask me directly you have no idea what MY ideology is, you only assume. and so far your assumptions have been 100% wrong.

he is not the father of anything. not in my book anyway. labels are rather stupid meaningless and lead to bigotry, you being a perfect example of this as you use labels constantly.

my ideology and my agenda is totally unknown to you and always will be but keep assuming, i'm enjoying the amusement you bring.


The point of me calling you a repugnanant is not the subject of this thread and if you have hurt feeling by it just make a thread that says, 'The mean Colonel hurt my feelings." (I may do that myself to end this wasted talk.)

" one person doesnt speak for an entire group of people. PERIOD"

So, the father and creeator of conservatism doesn't speak for all conservatives. Ok. SO conservatism is whatver you feel it is. If its a dog, its a dog. If its actually liberalism, its liberalism. Its whatever makes you happy.

This is patently stupid.

"even if he were a "representative" that still doesnt mean he speaks for everyone in that group as therre are always will be those of a differing view even within the same group."

First off, he's not the "representative." he is the creator of the conservative thought. And if others have differing views, then that owuld lead me to believe that they aren't conservative. I think that's what a rational person would surmise.

"noone speaks for me but me and until you ask me directly you have no idea what MY ideology is, you only assume. and so far your assumptions have been 100% wrong."

I could really care less what your ideology is. I am arguing a point which you repeatedly fail to comphrehend.




[Edited on 29-8-2003 by Colonel]



posted on Aug, 29 2003 @ 03:55 PM
link   
i dont know whatever you're expecting from people other than you expecting everyont to think like you i've adressed what you've said and you've done nothing but ignore it all.

i'm done with this thread. you're looking to either just anger people, expecting people to capitulate to your way of thinking or you're looking for someone to say something like bush is a bad person.

i'm not sure what your point even is other than to mindless bash and insult people.

"conservatism" was around before this fool even walked on the earth as the ideas behind conservatism have been around a lot longer than even america has been in existance. same with liberalism and other isms for that matter.

but you seem to think that every conservative or republican follows this persons ideals to the letter or soemthing and thats simply not true.

you want to find any excuse you can to feel justified to feel the hatred in your own heart. its sad really. i dont care if you hate bush or newt gingrich or any other republican. they're just politicians, just like the democrats who lie to use all, say one thing and do another. they're all the same as they all do the same thing regardless of beliefs or political affiliations.

but keep thinking whatever you want. you can even ball up your fists and shake them at the monitor and pray to your fairy tale god for them all to die but it doesnt change the fact that your ignorant narrowminded bigoted beliefs are not true. no matter how much you want them to be true...it'll never happen.



posted on Aug, 29 2003 @ 04:00 PM
link   
Waaah. The Colonel is mean and I'm gonna tell.



posted on Aug, 29 2003 @ 04:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Colonel
Waaah. The Colonel is mean and I'm gonna tell.

THAT has to be the most juvenile response I have seen in all of my years on ATS. It's just sad, really.



posted on Aug, 29 2003 @ 04:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Colonel
Waaah. The Colonel is mean and I'm gonna tell.


More like Wahhh wahhh colonel needs a good bitch slapping.



posted on Aug, 29 2003 @ 11:03 PM
link   


Waaah. The Colonel is mean and I'm gonna tell.


Wahh, the Colonel is an ignorant dolt and i'm gonna puke!



posted on Aug, 30 2003 @ 12:13 AM
link   
Xaos,

Libertarianism isnt liberalism, its the very extremes from both the conservative and liberal sides. Its basically conservatism and liberalism, two opposites, colliding and canceling each other out, thus, creating a neutral, a void, as you properly stated, anarchy.

I dont see whats wrong with anarchy. Anarchy breeds order eventually, its not a permanent state. many people are personal anarchists, like myself, we pretty much do whatever we want and ignore laws. But just because we ignore the law doesnt mean we run amok killing and robbing like loons.

I dont see anything wrong with anarchy, even in its most violent forms, because human are the most evolved cattle, and cattle always desire leadership and order. Thus, even braodscale anarchy cannot last, and eventually, order will replace chaos.

But, even then, liberals deny certain freedoms. i do believe its the individuals right NOT to be educated. not everyone needs or wants an education. Why force indoctrination? if a person choses mental oblivion, then let them. What kind of education does a lifetime slacker need? not everyone wants wealth and prosperity. Look at all the people who drop out of society willingly.

Eventually, govornment replaces anarchy, thats just natural law. But sometimes, a period of breakdown and anarchy are needed. Chaos stimulates growth, ya know.



posted on Aug, 30 2003 @ 12:17 AM
link   
And Colonel, your point about elites thinking they know whats best for the common people applies to liberals too. Liberals force what THEY think is good for everyone, even if they disagree. Liberals hide behind the illusions of utopia and philanthropy, yet are capable of a horrid kind of tyranny themselves.

What if I dont want national heath care? What if I dont want to pay so someone elses brat can go to school? What if I dont want to stop smoking? stop drinking? What if I enjoy gambling? What if I want to tell dirty or offensive jokes? What about my rights?



posted on Aug, 30 2003 @ 08:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
And Colonel, your point about elites thinking they know whats best for the common people applies to liberals too. Liberals force what THEY think is good for everyone, even if they disagree. Liberals hide behind the illusions of utopia and philanthropy, yet are capable of a horrid kind of tyranny themselves.

What if I dont want national heath care? What if I dont want to pay so someone elses brat can go to school? What if I dont want to stop smoking? stop drinking? What if I enjoy gambling? What if I want to tell dirty or offensive jokes? What about my rights?


Ok, I see your point. I'm picturing Aldous Huxley's "Brave New World" which was, I believe, the Liberal utopia and it sucked). but, I think this is liberalism carried to the extremes. And I also have to concede the bit of elitism part. I HATE the fact that they are trying to ban smoking in bars like in NY.

Maybe if you carry extreme liberalism and extreme conservatism to its farthest point, they actually meet...in some respects.



posted on Aug, 30 2003 @ 09:07 PM
link   
Youre absolutely right, Colonel. At the extreme end of each, the two meet. Much like the political compass test.

I see your point tho, on moderate liberalism, American style, ect. Since govornment is a necessary evil, I would favor one that is either isolationist and minimalized, or more moderate with a l;ittle bit from both sides.

But youre right, i was thinking brave new world and Demoliton man style Liberal utopia type hell. Scares me thinking about it, as much as an Orwellian or running man type conservative extreme.



posted on Aug, 31 2003 @ 03:42 PM
link   
IMO, whatever is hostile to a Democracy is good for the US...After all, we should be a *Republican* form of government anyway, so whatever would promote a return to the (Constitutional) Republic is fine with me.

...Chew on that for a minute...


ID

posted on Aug, 31 2003 @ 08:45 PM
link   
It is a tried and true fact that conversationalist creates an increase of knowledge and that eventually spawns change. If this change is resisted then it turns into revolution. This may be harmful to democracy but revolution always yields a better end result so while it may be harmful to democracy it is a healthily and necessary thing.



posted on Sep, 2 2003 @ 01:54 PM
link   
Man I go away for the weekend and this thing gets away from me!!
Xaos You obviously dont know what libertarians are
first for the record the Political quiz was not invented by the Libertarian party it was developed by a political scientist for college courses it was further refined and develpoed by libertarians and has been recognised by independent organisations as a valuable tool in political research.
Second we libertarians are far from anarchist dispite what the elf says. We have no problem with government or laws in fact we believe this is the very foundation of civil society. It is the boundries of government that we have problems with! Democrats and Republicans both have no limits on their idea of government they see no limit to the power government should wield the only difference is the area of your life the tyranny should cover! We libertarians do not believe in "total and ABSOLUTE freedom"your freedom is not absolute you do not have the freedom to violate the freedoms of others (life liberty property) of others through force or fraud.

Competition will exist between companies because no monopoly can exist without government help. All monopolies in the history of the US have existed because the Government secured that existance through regulation and rules. You speak of chaos and corruption and say we would allow this to exist but this is a violation of others rights thru fraud so no we would not allow coruption to exist. You say REGULATION is the only way to promote competition well its a funny thing that history doesn't support that statement regulation by its very nature constrains a company and prohibits innovation which prohibits competition!

You say people must be free but they also must be educated and make intelligent choices. Does this mean only the government can decide who is intelligent and who can make choices and where my son must be educated? You seem quite comfortable with others making decisions for you! We believe that people have a right to chose where and what type of education they get and that it is not the job of government to control the education system and demand attendence at the point of a gun because this ammounts to nothing more than state controled mindcontrol (since government controls the funds then government controls the ciriculum).
I suspect your real problem with Libertarians is that you took the quiz and you scored Libertarian. You dont want to warm up to the idea that you were mislead by the party you supported ( I dont care which one you "are"). Its OK it may take time I was a liberal till about 8 years ago when I found the Libertaian ideals it took me about a year to get over my shock and get on the side of right!



posted on Sep, 9 2003 @ 11:04 AM
link   
"Well, let's look at the core concepts of liberalism and conservatism. Liberalsim baiscally suggests that people are essentially good ..."

Which is why Democrats get us into wars and use American boys as cannon fodder. "Hitler is basically good and all ya have to do is try to see his perspective. We don't need a strong military because people are basically the same all over the world and want peace."

Liberals just hate the Second Amendment, and thus put the entire Bill of Rights into jeopardy.



posted on Sep, 9 2003 @ 11:30 AM
link   
You see why I have to come here and dispell all the blatantly stupid LIES of the RIGHT WING facist nazis? What war are you talking about? You mean the Gulf War wehre are troops have been infected with depleted uranium and are diblitated for life? How about now and the Iraqi Invaison where our troops are dying and suffering gross injuries everyday? Which war are you talking about? Huh, which one, Mr. Shock and Awe?

[Edited on 9-9-2003 by Colonel]





new topics
top topics
 
0
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join