Liberalism is self defeating

Let’s examine for a minute the differences, at their core, between Conservatism and Liberalism.

Conservatism advocates self reliance and individual responsibility. The very heart of the Conservative is based on a model patterned after the courageous adventurers that founded and first explored this great nation. Ideals, that if you work hard and maintain your actions within the parameters acceptable to society, you will prosper; and when you prosper, the gains are yours to keep.
Conservatives are more inclined to give a “hand up” and not a “hand out.” Conservatives are incredibly charitable, but not inclined to support welfare. Believing that working is far more advantageous than being supported by the government.


Liberalism advocates a fair share to everyone, this being regulated by a huge government. Liberalism does not believe that anyone deserves to prosper beyond those around them, unless that prosperity is to be doled out to those that are not working. Liberalism is simply loosely based socialism.
Liberalism believes that those that do not work should prosper from those that do. Liberalism believes in a “hand out” not a “hand up.” Liberals are charitable as long as the funds emanate from the prosperous conservatives. Liberals believe that “conservatives” should continue to work so that they can support those that will not.

Now the two paragraphs above will affront some and rightfully so. The very act of seeing ones foundational principles in writing can be very disconcerting. Look at it this way….

Conservatism’s founding principle is to pull everyone that is willing, up, and assist in making them successful; if they are willing to work hard enough.

With Liberalism, the poor and downtrodden must be allowed to continue, or the very foundation of Liberal collapses. With no poor, no downtrodden to feel sorry for, to coddle and give handouts to, Liberals have no reason to exist.

So in essence it is the Liberal goal to keep a significant portion of society in poverty. For a Liberal to help someone achieve success, the Liberal is destroying their own base support population.

That is the reason Liberals are so vehemently opposed to Conservatives. We Conservatives are dedicated to helping everyone succeed on their own merits and hard work. If Conservatism succeeds, there will be no more “poor innocent souls” for the Liberals to coddle with the stolen proceeds from the Conservative that have worked so hard to accumulate.

What would happen if all of those “over worked” citizens, that work under the ‘burden” of the wealthy, were suddenly freed from the Liberal over taxation and allowed to keep most of what they make; and suddenly became successful? The Liberals would have no one left to proclaim worked under the “cruel burden” of the evil rich. Not forgetting the fact that those that do choose those jobs and have hopes and dreams of one day being financially successful.

No, actually the evil rich that are getting richer off the backs of those poor workers are paying those poor workers a good wage for a days work and assisting them in helping themselves to succeed.

Of course the Liberals would rather they stay home and the only work they do is to go to the mail box and get their welfare check each month. That was Liberalism would flourish for eternity.

The Conservative principle that “if you make it, it is yours to keep” has no place in the Liberal concept of “Obscene Profits.” If one looks at the Liberal leaders as opposed to the Conservative leaders, one wonders why only the Conservatives profits are obscene.

So Exxon makes obscene profits, but John Kerry’s “Pimp” wife can make all the Billions she wants and that’s OK.

Teddy Kennedy can have never worked a day in his life and be worth Millions, but for the Bush’s to make money is profiteering….

What an incredible double standard..

Semper

Originally posted by semperfortis
The very heart of the Conservative is based on a model patterned after the courageous adventurers that founded and first explored this great nation.

Courageous adventurers? The American continent was stolen from Native Americans by murderers and thieves. Many of the founding fathers made their fortunes by theft and savage murder. One was very fond of feeding living natives to his hunting dogs.

Ideals, that if you work hard and maintain your actions within the parameters acceptable to society, you will prosper; and when you prosper, the gains are yours to keep.

They may have once been the case, I don't know. But it certainly isn't now. The rich get richer because investment is more rewarded over labor.

Liberalism advocates a fair share to everyone, this being regulated by a huge government.

Republican administrations since Reagan have been larger than Democrat governments.

Get your facts right.

Originally posted by rizla
Many of the founding fathers made their fortunes by theft and savage murder. One was very fond of feeding living natives to his hunting dogs.

Would you care to substantiate these claims?

Originally posted by semperfortis

Let’s examine for a minute the differences, at their core, between Conservatism and Liberalism.

Yes. Let's...

Conservatism advocates self reliance and individual responsibility.

Well, once upon a time, it seemed so. But with the advent of the Tom DeLay/Denny Hastert version of conservatism, things got kind of hinky.

The very heart of the Conservative is based on a model patterned after the courageous adventurers that founded and first explored this great nation. Ideals, that if you work hard and maintain your actions within the parameters acceptable to society, you will prosper;

even 'courageous adventurers have to follow the law (a.k.a. parameters acceptable to society), partner.

Conservatives are incredibly charitable, but not inclined to support welfare.

That is an absolute oxymoron. LOL

But, what do you expect?

That is an absolute oxymoron. LOL

But, what do you expect?

Only if one is so preprogrammed by socialist influence to believe that WELFARE is CHARITY..

It is not

Not in any way shape or form

Semper

Liberalism emphasizes individual rights. It seeks a society characterized by freedom of thought for individuals, limitations on power (especially of government and religion), the rule of law, the free exchange of ideas, a market economy that supports free private enterprise, and a transparent system of government in which the rights of all citizens are protected.

I dont think you have any idea what you are talking about. Those to the right too often assume an imperialistic outlook, assuming that their way of life is the only way to live. So everyone, should be willing to relinquish their beliefs on how one should live their life and take up the values of others. Should we all go work for daddy's business or go to law school?

Conservatism, comes from the word 'conserve' meaning 'to keep'. The concept it outdated and stuck in the past. The ideology holds on to traditions and archaic customs instead of embracing the future and moving forward. If you keep looking behind you you're just going to move backwards. There is no way society can evolve and move forward with conservatism.

Face it, the world would be a much happier place if liberalism was at the forefront.

[edit on 15-6-2007 by dreamer0]

[edit on 15-6-2007 by dreamer0]

WHAT????

Where exactly have you been the last decade???

limitations on power (especially of government

Wrong...

Democrat = Liberal = LARGE Government .... Politics 101

the rule of law

Yeah Right, now that is plain funny

Ever heard of the ACLU? How about Liberal Trial Lawyers that get their clients off on technicalities?

Good laugh though..

a market economy that supports free private enterprise

Actual Quotes from LIBERAL politicians saying it better than I can..

Hillary Clinton, "I want to take those profits......."

Barack Obama "The government can make a
difference in all of our lives. "
"That I am my brother’s keeper. That I am my sister’s keeper. "

And of course the Barak Communist Manifesto ::::
"Not just for my self, not just for my family, but also for you"

Pure Socialism...

Conservatism, comes from the word 'conserve' meaning 'to keep'

That MUST be from the LIBERAL Dictionary. Not from anyone I can find..

con·serve /v. kənˈsɜrv; n. ˈkɒnsɜrv, kənˈsɜrv/ Pronunciation Key -

1. to prevent injury, decay, waste, or loss of: Conserve your strength for the race.
2. to use or manage (natural resources) wisely; preserve; save: Conserve the woodlands.
3. Physics, Chemistry. to hold (a property) constant during an interaction or process: the interaction conserved linear momentum.
4. to preserve (fruit) by cooking with sugar or syrup.
Online Dictionary

There is no way society can evolve and move forward with conservatism.

Funny that we have created the greatest country in the history of the world based on Conservative values... hmmmmmm

Semper

Semper old buddy... I am a liberal and you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.



[edit on 15-6-2007 by grover]

Welcome Grover...

I was wondering when you would appear... Glad to have you on the thread.. We really don't talk enough..

Now about your comment...

What does that mean???

I posted my OPINION, on an OPINION board.... Simply because it disagrees with your OPINION, does not indicate that "I don't know what I am talking about."

I can appreciate your defending the "Liberal way" as for most Liberals it is as much religion as political philosophy, but could you not substantiate your claim some more?
I simply posted quotes from the "Liberal Poster Children" (And an actual dictionary definition) that are very indicative of the previous posters errors...

Glad to see you anyway...

Semper

Originally posted by grover
From Wikipedia: Liberalism refers to a broad array of related doctrines, ideologies, philosophical views, and political traditions which advocate individual liberty. Liberalism has its roots in the Western Age of Enlightenment, but the term has taken on different meanings in different time periods.
Broadly speaking, liberalism emphasizes individual rights. It seeks a society characterized by freedom of thought for individuals, limitations on power (especially of government and religion), the rule of law, the free exchange of ideas, a market economy that supports free private enterprise, and a transparent system of government in which the rights of all citizens are protected. In modern society, liberals favor a liberal democracy with open and fair elections, where all citizens have equal rights by law and an equal opportunity to succeed.

Liberalism stresses the importance of representative liberal democracy as the best form of government. Elected representatives are subject to the rule of law, and their power is moderated by a constitution, which emphasizes the protection of rights and freedoms of individuals and limits the will of the majority. Liberals are in favour of a pluralist system in which differing political and social views, even extreme or fringe views, compete for political power on a democratic basis and have the opportunity to achieve power through periodically held elections. They stress the resolution of differences by peaceful means within the bounds of democratic or lawful processes. Many liberals seek ways to increase the involvement and participation of citizens in the democratic process. Some liberals favour direct democracy instead of representative democracy.

Liberalism advocates civil rights for all citizens: the protection and privileges of personal liberty extended to all citizens equally by law. It includes the equal treatment of all citizens irrespective of race, gender and class. Liberals are divided over the extent to which positive rights are to be included, such as the right to food, shelter, and education. Critics from an internationalist human rights school of thought argue that the civil rights advocated in the liberal view are not extended to all people, but are limited to citizens of particular states. Unequal treatment on the basis of nationality is therefore possible, especially in regard to citizenship itself.

[edit on 15-6-2007 by grover]

Liberalism is not... I stress is not a monolithic system no matter what mush loosebowels tells you semper and as a political thought as varied and complex as they get. For example most of American conservatism is considered another variety of liberalism in most of Europe.

Your thread Semper simply highlights the truth of my second signature.

[edit on 15-6-2007 by grover]

Originally posted by semperfortis
Funny that we have created the greatest country in the history of the world based on Conservative values... hmmmmmm

Freedom of speech, sexual freedom, religious freedom, cognitive freedom, rule of law, equality under the law, personal accountability, the free exchange of ideas, a market economy that supports free private enterprise, a transparent system of government ect. ect. ... These are all Liberal ideas or ideals on which all western democracies (including yours) were created.

But, if you equate Liberalism with socialism or US Democratic Party I can agree with you.
To a point.

PS.
First you have to create, and then you can conserve/preserve.

PPS.
Liberalism is not a bad word.

I grew up believing John Kennedy’s famous, “Ask not what your country can do for you; rather ask what you can do for your country.” I grew up believing Martin Luther King Jr.’s, “I have a dream.” I grew up believing, “All you need is love.” I grew up believing the Earth is all we have so we’d better take care of it because moving is not an option. Besides, what good are property rights if the land is poisoned and cannot support life? I grew up believing that to change the world you must change hearts and minds first. I still believe these things. I believe that society is not just an aggregate of business concerns but a community of people. I believe that until the needs of all the people; from the mansion to the hovel are met, nothing will change. I believe that unless it is applied equally, there is no justice. I believe that if you truly want to help the poor, then they must be given a reason to hope. Because without hope why should they care, much less even try? I believe as the Rig-Veda said almost five thousand years ago, “Truth is one, sages call it by various names.” I believe that the truth of a religion is in whether it leads the heart to God, and that only the individual can determine that. In short, I am a liberal and proud of it. And, at this late date see no reason to change. I refuse to accept a grim hearted conservatism that has perverted Kennedy’s call to public service to read, ask not what you can do for your country, rather ask what tax cut and bailout your country can give to you.

I am sick and tired of liberal being used as an insult, a dirty word, and a scapegoat. We have a long and honorable history. Work eight hours a day, forty hours a week? Thank a liberal. Are you on Social Security and Medicare or Medicaid? Thank a liberal. If the air and water are cleaner today than thirty years ago, thank a liberal. A minimum wage other than what the bosses can get away with paying, safer workplaces and public education, unemployment insurance? Thank a liberal. Conservatives didn’t give us these things, indeed they fought them tooth and nail. In fact they still are and would eliminate or privatize them entirely if they thought they could get away with it and God knows they are trying. I will end my days objecting as vigorously as I can to their cold-eyed reptilian world-view until they cart me away to the re-education camps. I cannot even call them “The Right” anymore, they are so wrong.

When all the rhetoric is stripped away, the purpose of government is to provide a safe place to raise crops and children. The rest is merely icing on the cake. The question is, what is that a mandate for? Is it solely a mandate for internal policing and external defense leaving everything else up to a laissez-faire marketplace and the individual? Or, is it a mandate for broader social and environmental concerns as well? For the conservative the answer is yes to the first question. For the liberal the answer is yes to second also. Put another way, the conservatives claim the rights and freedoms of the individual are deemed paramount. For the liberal, the rights and freedom of the individual must segue with, and at some point give way to the greater concerns of community.

This is an excerpt of an essay I have posted before.... I wrote it for a political science class... we were asked to define our political viewpoints.

[edit on 15-6-2007 by grover]

You seem to equate liberalism with the Democratic party. Fair enough. This is also from Wikipedia on the Democratic parties platforms.

The Democratic Party traces its origins to the Democratic-Republican Party, founded by Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and other influential Anti-Federalists in 1792. Since the division of the Republican Party in the election of 1912, it has consistently positioned itself to the left of the Republican Party in economic matters. The pro-working class, activist philosophy of Franklin D. Roosevelt, called "liberalism" in the U.S., has shaped much of the party's agenda since 1932. Roosevelt's New Deal coalition usually controlled the national government until 1964. The Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s, championed by the party despite opposition at the time from its Southern wing, has continued to inspire the party's liberal principles.

Since the 1890s, the Democratic Party has favored "liberal" positions (the term "liberal" in this sense dates from the New Deal era, not to be confused with classical liberalism). The party has favored farmers, laborers, labor unions, and religious and ethnic minorities; it has opposed unregulated business and finance, and favored progressive income taxes. In foreign policy, internationalism (including interventionism) was a dominant theme from 1913 to the mid 1960s. In the 1930s, the party began advocating welfare spending programs targeted at the poor. The party had a pro-business wing, typified by Al Smith, that shrank in the 1930s. The Southern conservative wing shrank in the 1980s. The major influences for liberalism were the labor unions (which peaked in the 1936-1952 era), and the African American wing, which has steadily grown since the 1960s. Since the 1970s, environmentalism has been a major new component.

In recent decades, the party has advocated civil liberties, social freedoms, equal rights, affirmative action, fiscal responsibility, and a free enterprise system tempered by government intervention (what economists call a mixed economy). The party believes that government should play a role in alleviating poverty and social injustice, even if that means a larger role for government and progressive taxation to pay for social services.

Recent issue stances

Minimum wage
Democrats favor a higher minimum wage, and more regular increases, in order to assist the working poor.

Renewable energy and oil
Democrats have opposed tax cuts and incentives to oil companies, favoring a policy of developing domestic renewable energy.

Fiscal responsibility
Democrats are trying to position their party as the party of fiscal responsibility. Democrats increasingly call for responsible tax policies and government spending that keeps the budget deficit under control.

Health care and insurance coverage
Democrats call for "affordable and quality health care," and many advocate an expansion of government intervention in this area. Many Democrats favor a national health insurance system in a variety of forms to address the rising costs of modern health insurance.

Environment
The Democratic Party generally sides with environmentalists and favors conservation of natural resources together with strong environmental laws against pollution. Democrats support preservation of endangered lands and species, clean land management and regulation on pollutants.

College education
Most Democrats have the long term aim of having low-cost, publicly funded college education with low tuition fees (like in much of continental Europe) which should be available to every eligible American student, or alternatively, with increasing state funding for student financial aid such as the Pell grant or college tuition tax-deduction

Trade agreements
The Democratic Party has a mixed record on international trade agreements that reflects a diversity of viewpoints in the party. Generally, more conservative and moderate Democrats favor free trade agreements while those further to the left, supporters of fair trade, populists, and unions often oppose them.

Discrimination
Democrats support Equal Opportunity for all Americans regardless of sex, age, race, sexual orientation, religion, creed, or national origin.

Same-sex marriage and LGBT rights
The Democratic Party is divided on the subject of same-sex marriage. Some members favor civil unions for same-sex couples, others favor legalized marriage, and others are opposed to same-sex marriage on religious grounds. Almost all agree, however, that discrimination against persons because of their sexual orientation is wrong.

Reproductive rights
The Democratic Party believes that all women should have access to birth control, and supports public funding of contraception for poor women.
The Democratic Party opposes attempts to reverse the 1973 Supreme Court decision Roe v. Wade, which declared abortion to be a Constitutionally-protected right.

Stem cell research
The Democratic Party has voiced overwhelming support for all stem cell research with federal funding.

Invasion of Afghanistan
Democrats in the House of Representatives and United States Senate near-unanimously voted for the authorization of military force against "those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States" in Afghanistan in 2001, supporting the NATO coalition invasion of the nation. Most elected Democrats continue in their support of the Afghanistan conflict, and some have voiced concerns that the Iraq War is shifting too many resources away from the presence in Afghanistan.

Iraq war
In 2002, Democrats were divided as most in the Senate voted for the authorization of the use of force against Iraq while a majority of Democrats in the House (81 for, 126 against) voted against it. Since then, many prominent Democrats have expressed regret about this decision, such as former Senator John Edwards, and have called it a mistake, while others, such as Senator Hillary Clinton have criticized the conduct of the war but not repudiated their initial vote for it.

Unilateralism
Democrats usually oppose the doctrine of unilateralism, which dictates that the United States should use military force without any assistance from other nations whenever it believes there is a threat to its security or welfare. They believe the United States should act in the international arena in concert with strong alliances and broad international support.
In a general sense, the modern Democratic Party is more closely aligned with the international relations theories of liberalism, neoliberalism, and functionalism than realism and neorealism, though realism has some influence on the party.

Torture
Democrats are opposed to use of torture against individuals apprehended and held prisoner by the military of the United States, and deny that categorizing military prisoners as unlawful combatants excludes them from the rights granted under the Geneva Conventions.
All Democrats in the U.S. Senate except for Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold voted for the original USA PATRIOT Act legislation. After voicing concerns over the "invasion of privacy" and other civil liberty restrictions of the Act.

The Democratic Party believes that individuals should have a right to privacy, and generally supports laws which place restrictions on law-enforcement and intelligence agency monitoring of U.S. citizens. Some Democratic Party officeholders have championed consumer-protection laws that limit the sharing of consumer data between corporations. Most Democrats believe that government should not regulate consensual non-commercial sexual conduct (among adults), as a matter of personal privacy.

Democrats often focus on methods of crime prevention, believing that preventive measures save taxpayers' money in prison, policing and medical costs, and prevent crime and murder.

Now Please tell me what is so terrible about such stances?

BTW congress just voted to extend the G.I. Education bill to make it even easier for veterans to get a college education. Not a single Republican voted for it. So much for supporting our troops huh?

[edit on 15-6-2007 by grover]

To whom did you adress your last post grover?

Semper and whomever else seem to think that all things liberal and democrat are the root of all that is wrong with this country.... in other words people who listen to way too much talk radio and mush loosebowels.

Originally posted by grover
Semper and whomever else seem to think that all things liberal and democrat are the root of all that is wrong with this country.... in other words people who listen to way too much talk radio and mush loosebowels.

Got it.

There's a lot of this here on ATS and in my coutry too.

[edit on 15-6-2007 by yanchek]

A. Why isn't this thread in a political ideology forum? Social issues? There's clearly a "praise conservative, bash liberal" intent. I'm glad I'm neither. This belongs in either the conservative or liberal forum, IMO.

B. Semper, you've taken ONE SMALL slice of each ideology (social programs) and compared them to each other in an attempt to make liberalism look like insanity. Or not far from it. And I'm sure that's your opinion, but believe me, as someone on the outside of both boxes, each side has its crazy-making aspects.

While I agree with the social support ideals of the conservative ideology, that is BY FAR not the "core" of either ideology. Being conservative or liberal is much more complex than how one feels about social programs...

And C. John Kerry's "Pimp" wife? WTF does that mean? Pimp? And I'm supposed to respect conservatives as you stand up proudly for your side and say something like that???

Ugh!

This thread seems to me like simply one more way to strike out at the other team.

1. I just write it as I see it.

2. I do not find it, nor do many conservatives I know, necessary to "bastardize" anyones name in some childish attempt to discredit them or their profession.

3. Yes, the Liberal Ideals look good on paper, but so did the Nazi Party.

4. It is a simple fact that Liberalism depends on having poor, underprivileged people to support their ideology. Thus, for them to also promote the conservative ideals of self sufficiency would in essence destroy the liberal party base.

5. Anytime anyone praises the qualities of Conservatism, all you libs can do is spout how this party used to be this and then changed to this before becoming this. Is that because you are actually ashamed of what your party has done and you are trying to minimize the appearance of that damage by ostensibly becoming whatever party fits your particular conversation at that particular time?

6. Is it not indicative of the Liberal philosophy to "Slam" me for using the term "Pimp Wife" and make no mention of Grovers "Mush Loosebowels?" Typical Liberal attitude where libs are allowed any and all actions they so choose, but Cons are restricted to the rules made by those aforementioned libs.

7. As for the Pimp wife comment, that was in error... This being the definition of Pimp...

pimp /pɪmp/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[pimp] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. a person, esp. a man, who solicits customers for a prostitute or a brothel, usually in return for a share of the earnings; pander; procurer.

It more fits that Kerry is the Pimp and his wife the "John."

8. Striking out....

It is coming closer and closer to election time and time to begin separating the wheat from the chaff.
As I currently count 6, that is SIX, liberal slanted threads in the top listings, why not speak out against them? Or again, is it OK for those threads in which NO voice was heard stating they are "Striking out at the other team", and simply not OK for this thread because ..... WHY?
Because it is me personally?
Or
Because this has a Conservative slant?

Just asking.....

Don't take this as "Striking Out" at anyone....

I'm still friendly with you all....

What happened to the ATS philosophy of being able to discuss/debate any topic?
Is it that it is perfectly OK for me to be called a Pig in thread after thread, but NOT OK for me to speak up as a Conservative because it offends someones sensitivities?

Semper

Semper you are smarter than this thread you have started. Your view of liberalism is confused with the Democratic party and while there is some overlap they are not the same. Like I said earlier American conservatives would be considered a type of liberal in Europe. Actually read some of what I and others have posted and respond to them and we can have something to discuss.... as for me calling Rush mush reflects the contempt I hold the man in and nothing to do with my political leanings... I despise such blatant hypocrites, hate mongers and liars.... the tabloid the Globe has more credibility than mush.

Originally posted by semperfortis
2. I do not find it, nor do many conservatives I know, necessary to "bastardize" anyones name in some childish attempt to discredit them or their profession.

Bastardizing, NO... Namecalling, YES! You just call them a pimp and think it's somehow better. I was responding to YOUR post. YOUR thread. I wasn't responding to every post in here. I didn't even read them. I was responding to you, the thread originator.

5. Anytime anyone praises the qualities of Conservatism, all you libs can do

If you're talking to me, you are incorrect. I am not a liberal. I've already said I side with the conservative view on this very subject of social programs. Besides I have conservative views about gun control, border control, victimhood and others. And you know it.

But if it makes you feel better to call me a "lib" because I disagree with you on something, that's your choice.

6. Is it not indicative of the Liberal philosophy to "Slam" me for using the term "Pimp Wife" and make no mention of Grovers "Mush Loosebowels?"

No. It doesn't make me a liberal, Semper. I already said I was responding to you. I'm not the thread police. And you didn't say "Pimp Wife" and you didn't explain why you called her that.

It more fits that Kerry is the Pimp and his wife the "John."

It still doesn't explain why anyone is a pimp. I already know what it means. Actually I don't care why you think either one of them is a pimp. I just thought it was beneath you. It's an attack on someone SIMPLY because of their political party and that belongs in conversations that I don't participate in. So. Have at it and enjoy!

Oh...

As I currently count 6, that is SIX, liberal slanted threads in the top listings, why not speak out against them?

I don't look at the "top listings". I never would have seen this thread if it hadn't been "planted" in Social Issues. It's coming off my subscribed list now. But usually when someone wants to speak out against something, they do it right there in the thread instead of starting a "thread battle".

You guys have fun now, ya hear?