Conservative VS Liberals....is there a difference at all?

[HUNGHUGE11X7]

Just wondering as to your perception as to what makes a conservative a conservative and a liberal a liberal? Curious to know your answers. I am all ears on this one.

ONE THINKS AND ONE IS TOLD WHAT TO THINK ....I will let you decide which is attributable to whom !


HH

 

[B_Enough_for_Me]

Tri, is it possible that you are mistaking this - because conservatives are generally against fiscal gov't intervention and transfer payments and liberals are generally for it - that you extrapolate a lack of empathy?

Your claim about waging war is disproven easily:



Final Score: Democrats: 16
Republicans: 10

Source: Copied from Wiki

Please, don't cite facts at Tripod, he's factose intolerant; they give him serious verbal diarrhea!

 

[B_VinylBoy]

Final Score: Democrats: 16
Republicans: 10

Source: Copied from Wiki

Isn't it great when you eliminate the details behind every war and how it impacted our nation on a domestic level, you can take any set of numbers and distort them to suggest that the people you detest are evil? I applaud you, star... 6 more wars! Ooooooooooh! Call Amnesty International!!

Here's another number... 139.
That's roughly the number of times the minority party have filibustered in our current Congress, purposely stalling any kind of real progress in our Nation while they turn right around and scream phony outrage about bipartisanship. By all means, live in the past and source out all of the wars started by Democrats before women & minorities even had a right to vote. If you have to reach back that far, you're missing the point.

But I digress... everyone knows the difference between Conservatives vs. Liberals has something to do with spitting and swallowing. I'm surprised nobody has brought this up yet! :biggrin1:

 

[B_24065]

In my eyes, these terms are meaningless labels...rhetorical crutches without which the resident polemicists haven't any leg to stand upon.

Implements of a false dichotomy, they're vulgar vehicles of ad hominem...an easy means for those inclined to disengage their brains and spew their vitriol without bothering to actually analyze a situation.

If what you are saying is true, then ALL words are meaningless labels...including yours.

 

[B_24065]

Conservatives and liberals are VERY similar except for one simple difference in their brains. Conservatives do NOT have the ability to feel empathy very well which leads to their lack of compassion. It's largely genetic and that is why most people come from a long line of conservatives or liberals.

A conservative can only care about their immediate circle because of their lack of empathy and do NOT GIVE A FUCK ABOUT ANYONE OUTSIDE OF THEIR CIRCLE. That is why they bellicosely wage war like Ming the Merciless and recklessly ruin the earth's environment for future generations. The Madoffs of the world greedily take all of our money and feel NOTHING... absolutely no guilt. They absolutely CANNOT feel guilt because of their lack of empathy... very similar to the criminal mind.

Reincarnated vikings they are... raping and pillaging with no thought about their consequences.

It's the fucking truth whether anyone likes it or not.

Tripod, please read a book. I know you have a tremendous amount of anger some reason but your generalizations are childish and ignorant. Its a fact that those who consider themselves to be conservatives are more charitable than those who consider themselves to be liberals. RealClearPolitics - Articles - Conservatives More Liberal Givers ,whereas liberals far outspend conservatives when it comes to political activism, i.e., causes that transfer power to the collective away from the individual Liberal Democrats Top Conservative Republicans in Donations, Activism - Pew Research Center So, there goes your arguement right out the window.

The difference between Conservatives and Liberals isnt a matter of who cares more about the less fortunate. Its a matter of spectrum between the supremecy of the individual will or the collective will. I would argue that liberalism is inhumane at its core and enslaves individuals. Not only those who are forced to be responsible for the less fortunate, but it enslaves the less fortunate as well. You on the other hand believe conservativesm is inhumane. Its a difference in worldview, not in empathy.

 

[B_24065]

I've said before and i'll say it again. Party politics are bad. Some day, it will be realised slowly that the democracy of the 20th century and early 21st century was good but far from great. The sooner the people have more say the better. Should we do this or should we do that? Let's ask the people after a campaign, after a televised debate, after hearing from experts outside of politics. That is the way it should be and not "we will do this, so please tick a box so we can get into power and do it, thus pissing off the opposition or not doing it and proving ourselves to be as useless as the opposition."

Political parties have been around since the beginning of western civilization. They arent going anywhere anytime soon.

 

[tripod]

Tripod, please read a book. I know you have a tremendous amount of anger some reason but your generalizations are childish and ignorant.

Well, that just proves that you are of the type that lacks the requisite empathy to know that you are being a total jerk... if you did, you would have handled the matter of debating me much more artfully and not sunk to hurling poop at me like a chimpanzee.

I will answer your challenge with much more respect than the kind that you have given me. All Mr. Brook's study does is point out that RED STATES CONTAIN MORE RELIGIOUS PEOPLE. Many of the nation's charitable entities rely on the infrastructures of the various churches to provide the majority of their funding and distribution. Everytime a Baptist church builds a church in Guatemala, that is a CHARITY. MANY OF THE CHURCHES IN THE RED STATES ARE OBSESSED WITH MISSIONARY WORK IN CENTRAL AMERICA AND THAT IS ALL IN THE NAME OF CHARITY. They aren't helping one darn American by building churches in Guatemala or El Salvador.

If you want to see some churches actually feed the poor of America, go up to the blue states and see the Catholic services operating the homeless shelters and soup kitchens.

In Statesville North Carolina, we have churches that routinely spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on charitable missionary efforts in Central America. These same churches have VERY LITTLE money to contribute to our local homeless shelter which is always in dire need of funds.

Oh and the author of the study is none other than Arthur C. Brooks... THE PRESIDENT OF THE GODDAMN AMERICAN ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE. The most conservative think tank in the world.

We already had this damn discussion earlier when one of you dolts started the thread about the study and was waving it around like you discovered the fucking Dead Sea Scrolls.

Brook's book is a study into how to manipulate data to serve your purpose.

You point has just been effectively countered and rendered mute. Do not mess with me.

 

[mitchymo]

Political parties have been around since the beginning of western civilization. They arent going anywhere anytime soon.

You wanna bet man? you wanna bet?, i'm a one man revolution just waiting to happen!

 

[B_24065]

Well, that just proves that you are of the type that lacks the requisite empathy to know that you are being a total jerk... if you did, you would have handled the matter of debating me much more artfully and not sunk to hurling poop at me like a chimpanzee.

I will answer your challenge with much more respect than the kind that you have given me. All Mr. Brook's study does is point out that RED STATES CONTAIN MORE RELIGIOUS PEOPLE. Many of the nation's charitable entities rely on the infrastructures of the various churches to provide the majority of their funding and distribution. Everytime a Baptist church builds a church in Guatemala, that is a CHARITY. MANY OF THE CHURCHES IN THE RED STATES ARE OBSESSED WITH MISSIONARY WORK IN CENTRAL AMERICA AND THAT IS ALL IN THE NAME OF CHARITY. They aren't helping one darn American by building churches in Guatemala or El Salvador.

If you want to see some churches actually feed the poor of America, go up to the blue states and see the Catholic services operating the homeless shelters and soup kitchens.

In Statesville North Carolina, we have churches that routinely spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on charitable missionary efforts in Central America. These same churches have VERY LITTLE money to contribute to our local homeless shelter which is always in dire need of funds.

Oh and the author of the study is none other than Arthur C. Brooks... THE PRESIDENT OF THE GODDAMN AMERICAN ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE. The most conservative think tank in the world.

We already had this damn discussion earlier when one of you dolts started the thread about the study and was waving it around like you discovered the fucking Dead Sea Scrolls.

Brook's book is a study into how to manipulate data to serve your purpose.

You point has just been effectively countered and rendered mute. Do not mess with me.

Where is your data? There is no doubt liberals are all about giving away SOMEONE ELSES money.But where are your facts and data to support your position that conservatives are less empathetic than liberals?

 

[D_Andreas Sukov]

You wanna bet man? you wanna bet?, i'm a one man revolution just waiting to happen!

Can i join?

 

[mitchymo]

Can i join?

Yeah man. See, the revolution grows!!!

 

[D_Andreas Sukov]

To the woods!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[mitchymo]

What, mate? You wanna take over the forests? :biggrin1:

 

[Smooth88]

You wanna bet man? you wanna bet?, i'm a one man revolution just waiting to happen!

Coun't me in.

I consider myself liberally apathetic.

Socially liberal. Fiscally moderate.

Politicians they're all crooks they're scumbuckets. From the top to the bottom.

 

[B_Enough_for_Me]

Its a fact that those who consider themselves to be conservatives are more charitable than those who consider themselves to be liberals. RealClearPolitics - Articles - Conservatives More Liberal Givers ,whereas liberals far outspend conservatives when it comes to political activism, i.e., causes that transfer power to the collective away from the individual Liberal Democrats Top Conservative Republicans in Donations, Activism - Pew Research Center So, there goes your arguement right out the window.

The difference between Conservatives and Liberals isnt a matter of who cares more about the less fortunate. Its a matter of spectrum between the supremecy of the individual will or the collective will. I would argue that liberalism is inhumane at its core and enslaves individuals. Not only those who are forced to be responsible for the less fortunate, but it enslaves the less fortunate as well. You on the other hand believe conservativesm is inhumane. Its a difference in worldview, not in empathy.

Interesting you bring this up. I'm reading Failed Utopias, one of the arguments they have against communism is that when you eliminate "evil corporations" and the bourgeoisie you're left with just the workers. Of course communist politicians put the party in charge of everything, including the unions. When society isn't doing as well as desired the politicians (labor leaders) will blame the workers first and last. Further, the worker is then the single unit of success or failure. Imagine if the United States had laws that would put a worker in prison if they were late for work. Well, those existed in these wonderful, compassionate, 'progressive' liberal societies. Further, the unions had control over the "empowered" worker. For example, the Soviet constitution required all workers to have a job; if they didn't they had to accept any job offered to them by the state. This wasn't just Stalin, this went all the way to the Bolsheviks; who cited communist doctrine. If we tie it altogether we end up in a world where the worker is to blame for all failures of society, and no worker has security from personal reprisal. Liberal society also ensured that no worker did any better than his neighbor; meaning that everyone ended up poor (not rich like Marx promised). The rest is history buried in the tundras of Russia. Let us not act like it only happened in Russia either.

At it's heart American liberal doctrine is saying the exact same thing: "evil corporations" should be stripped of all power, workers should replace these "evil corporations" to ensure that profits are not being wasted on executive salary. Further, we have one party (I'll let you guess) that is financially propped up by the unions and in full agreement with these previously communist ideals. The politicians would never let the "uneducated" worker control industry; thats absurd even to mention. In fact, to the American liberal the idea of individual freedom will be subject to the whims and rants of the politicians.

On the other hand we have the conservatives who say the individual should, by law, be allowed to choose the existence the feel is best for them.

 

[nasty1]

I think there is a definite difference in the ideals.

Where there isn't a lot of difference is in policiticians these days. Everyone, except for crazy extremists, seems to position themselves in the middle of the political spectrum in an effort to appeal to everyone and appease all views and therefore gain a greater voter share.

I think this is why there is a slight trend of people turning to far right parties and the growth of the BNP in England, the mainstream parties are so similar now, it's hard to differentiate.