Conservatism = 21st Century racism?

[chomerics]

:doh: are you serious or did Rush Limbaugh tell you to say that?

The sad part is that he believes it too!

[JMS]

Conservatism is defined as the disposition to preserve or restore what is established and traditional and to limit change.

I would further clarify this definition by adding... some libertarian beliefs of smaller less obtrusive government, and the belief that a true market economy is better able to handle most problems rather than government intervention.

By these definitions one would be hard pressed to equate conservatism with racism. What defining conservatism does however is highlight the partition between conservatism and those who are calling themselves conservative in the Bush administration.

Bush believes..

In larger more intrusive government, just not paying for it. (Grown domestic spending record amounts, while doubling the military budget, while conducting two off budget wars, while giving tax cuts)...

In inserting his big nose between doctors and their patients. (Shivo, women's right to choose, limiting medical treatment for the indigent based upon his religious belief. etc.)

Inserting his big nose between drug companies and their customers to limit their customer’s ability to negotiate as a block, or enter other markets in order to promote competition.

Allowing big oil to not only define but actually write our energy policy, just like he allows Pharmaceutical and Insurance companies to write our regulatory laws for their segments of the economy.

The list goes on...

What it comes down to is that Bush is not a conservative. He's more in line with a Big Government Democrat of the late 1970's. Only rather than promoting social programs to the detriment of the free market economy, Bush promotes handing over trillions to big business without any return to the American taxpayer for their money.

[luckydevil]

I'm not so sure the label is that ill-fitting, Predicto. Our current system is too socialist for me already. I'd like to see it become a lot more capitalistic in nature.

Mass,

Stop portraying yourself as some die-hard capitalist. It is dishonest.

There is nothing capitalist about your views. You can't be a capitalist and oppose free trade. You don't even support protectionist trade; you want to shut down trade. You are a economic nationalist.

The truth is Predicto is more of a capitalist than you are. Though his brand of liberalism is very managerialist .

[AJ_Skins]

:doh: are you serious or did Rush Limbaugh tell you to say that?

That's my own observation, and it is the truth.

[JMS]

Mass,

You can't be a capitalist and oppose free trade.

.

Like there is anything free about our trade policy?

The United States has had massive historic trade deficites for the last 35 years of our existance. If that's free trade then name me another country on the face of the globe which subscribes to this insane trade policy or routinely allowing huge trade deficites? If you can't, and I know you can't; I would ask you to explain to me how we can have free trade if all the outher countries on the face of the earth who we trade with manage their trade to such an extent?

We don't have free trade, we have gready ****s running the country who have figured out that they can make a nice buck by betraying the American middle class.

Free trade is a sham. It's like neo conservative.. those morons aren't new and they certainly weren't conservative.

One more point while I'm on a rant...

Last time I checked Bush outlawed senior citizens traveling up to Canada to buy Low priced American perscription drugs from Canada. ( American companies sell their drugs cheaper in Canada because they actually have to compete for market share there )..... What does it say about your "free trade" system when

(1) it is out competed domestically by a socialist Canadian system on price point..

(2) It has to outlaw its citizens from introducing competition from abroad?

What it says is the American system isn't free and it's not set by the market- place.

[luckydevil]

Like there is anything free about our trade policy?

The United States has had a trade deficite for the last 35 years of our existance. If that's free trade then name me another country on the face of the globe which subscribes to this insane trade policy or routinely allowing huge trade deficites? If you can't, and I know you can't; I would ask you to explain to me how we can have free trade if all the outher countries on the face of the earth who we trade with manage their trade to such an extent?

We don't have free trade, we have gready ****s running the country who have figured out that they can make a nice buck by betraying the American middle class.

Free trade is a sham. It's like neo conservative.. those morons aren't new and they certainly weren't conservative.

One more point while I'm on a rant...

Last time I checked Bush outlawed senior citizens traveling up to Canada to buy Low priced American perscription drugs from Canada. ( American companies sell their drugs cheaper in Canada because they actually have to compete for market share there )..... What does it say about your "free trade" system when

(1) it is out competed domestically by a socialist Canadian system on price point..

(2) It has to outlaw its citizens from introducing competition from abroad?

What it says is the American system isn't free and it's not set by the market- place.

I know the American system isn't free and our current trade policy is indeed a sham. I wasn't defending the current establishment policy.

[WARLORD1863]

Wow. Chiefbigmeat there is so much wrong with what you said.

I am a Japanese-American who is a conservative and lives in New Jersey.

I just proved your entire post of stereotypical generalizations wrong with that sentence.

[AJ_Skins]

I know the American system isn't free and our current trade policy is indeed a sham. I wasn't defending the current establishment policy.

No system is 100% perfectly aligned with a particular viewpoint. Bringing up individual cases where policy does not line up with a pure free trade approach is not much of an argument. There are always exceptions.

That said, I don't know exactly what my view is on free trade. I think it is probably the ideal way to go from a purely economic standpoint, but I think from a government policy standpoint, the government has to do what is in the interest of the country and the people it represents, and sometimes those two goals may not be in alignment. What may be best economically may not be best in other respects. It's a very tricky area.

[skinfan133]

Sorry, but "moderate" is simply a code word for "Liberal who's still in the closet". There are no great "Moderates" in history. Some day that fence you're standing on is going to fall down and you're actually going to have to announce to the world that you're actually a Liberal; so why not get it over and done with now and save yourself the trouble?

The fact that there are more Moderates/Liberals in this country than Conservatives is one of the main reasons I can say with complete confidence that the United States of America, as our forefathers envisioned it, is dead.

If you want a great guy who loves America and wants to see America succeed in office, look for a Conservative (note I didn't say Republican); because there is no such thing as a great guy, a person who loves America, or a person who wants to see America succeed who is a Moderate/Liberal. Those things just don't go together.

ask the liberals on this board. i am not one of them, and never will be. im a moderate conservative. i say that because i dont regurgitate the same rhetoric as other republicans, i think for myself, and i happen to agree with conservative principles more than some of the crazy things liberals do. the things i tend to disagree with republicans about is the environment, the second amendment, and education priorites. thats it. the environment shouldnt be put before humans, but we should try and preserve it when possible, it is Gods creation after all and we are supposed to be tending it, not destroying it. as for gun control, everything should be allowed except semi and full autos. for those you need an elaborate permit and background check. i believe the saftey of the majority is more important than the "rights" of the minority. and as for education, teachers should be paid more and schools should have slightly larger budgets. other than that im 100% conservative in all cases. i believe in limited govt, tax cuts for every citizen and states rights among things. just becasue im not a hate spewing neo-con doesnt mean im not a moderate conservative.

ill vote conservative too as sson as i can, starting i 08 when i vote for the president.

and im surprised im fealing you wrath, im often on your side on most issues (if not to the extreme that you are, i agree in principle)

[Mass_SkinsFan]

Mass,

Stop portraying yourself as some die-hard capitalist. It is dishonest.

There is nothing capitalist about your views. You can't be a capitalist and oppose free trade. You don't even support protectionist trade; you want to shut down trade. You are a economic nationalist.

The truth is Predicto is more of a capitalist than you are. Though his brand of liberalism is very managerialist .

I totally disagree. The only difference between me and most of the die-hard capitalists out there is the scope of the environment that the system is allowed to work in. Instead of concentrating on the "World" as the scope, I would prefer to see a system that works on the "USA" as its scope. Beyond that, I'm probably about as capitalisticly minded as anyone around here.

If you want to call that nationalist-capitalism, then fine; but the system I would prefer IS a capitalist one. It may not be as broad as some others might like, but that's their problem, not mine.

[Mass_SkinsFan]

ask the liberals on this board. i am not one of them, and never will be. im a moderate conservative. i say that because i dont regurgitate the same rhetoric as other republicans, i think for myself, and i happen to agree with conservative principles more than some of the crazy things liberals do.... .....i believe in limited govt, tax cuts for every citizen and states rights among things. just becasue im not a hate spewing neo-con doesnt mean im not a moderate conservative.

skinfan13, nothing personal but you seem to be making one of the classic political mistakes of this day and age.... equating Conservatism with the Republican party. Those two things have nothing in common. The vast majority of Republicans are either moderates or Liberals (essentially the same thing). True Conservatism isn't about a party, which is why I'm not a member of any political party. It's about ideals, ideas, and putting those things into practice. One thing it is NOT about, is compromising on those ideals and ideas. Therefore there is no such thing as a moderate Conservative, so far as I am concerned.

ill vote conservative too as sson as i can, starting i 08 when i vote for the president.

Unfortunately, I don't believe there will actually be a Conservative candidate anywhere on the ballot in 2008. The closest we've come to a true Conservative Presidential candidate in my lifetime would be Ronald Reagan, and he's dead, so I'm pretty sure the Republicans can't nominate him.

and im surprised im fealing you wrath, im often on your side on most issues (if not to the extreme that you are, i agree in principle)

The difference between us IS those extremes, skinfan. I don't say that to be rude or insulting, it's just a fact of life as I see it.

[luckydevil]

I totally disagree. The only difference between me and most of the die-hard capitalists out there is the scope of the environment that the system is allowed to work in. Instead of concentrating on the "World" as the scope, I would prefer to see a system that works on the "USA" as its scope. Beyond that, I'm probably about as capitalisticly minded as anyone around here.

If you want to call that nationalist-capitalism, then fine; but the system I would prefer IS a capitalist one. It may not be as broad as some others might like, but that's their problem, not mine.

You can not call yourself a diehard capitalist and supported regulated trade. It is fundamentally anti-capitalist to say you can trade with some people, but not with others. Of course it is nationalism

[AJ_Skins]

Mass_SkinsFan is the kind of guy who would undoubtedly like to go out holed up in a cabin like Ruby Ridge. He's also apparently an atheist. He isn't necessarily the ideal representative of most conservatives, "extreme" or otherwise. I think he needs his own category. Pat Buchanan may be the closest analogy.

[Mass_SkinsFan]

You can not call yourself a diehard capitalist and supported regulated trade. It is fundamentally anti-capitalist to say you can trade with some people, but not with others. Of course it is nationalism

But luckydevil, what if you don't consider those entities outside the United States as people to begin with? That seems to throw a small monkey-wrench into your analogy. Whether you call it capitalism (as I always will) or economic nationalism (as you appear to prefer), the system I prefer is the same... A pretty much completely unregulated system of private business in the United States that allows no imports and no exports. Seems like the best of all worlds for the citizens of the United States, so far as I can see.

[Sarge]

But luckydevil, what if you don't consider those entities outside the United States as people to begin with? That seems to throw a small monkey-wrench into your analogy. Whether you call it capitalism (as I always will) or economic nationalism (as you appear to prefer), the system I prefer is the same... A pretty much completely unregulated system of private business in the United States that allows no imports and no exports. Seems like the best of all worlds for the citizens of the United States, so far as I can see.

Jefferson Davis tried that. Didn't work very well

Now tariffs........................

[No_Pressure]

Mass Skins is a capitalist, but a Pat Buchanan style one who wants to protect American interests.

I dont think that it contradicts capitalism to not promote free trade, it is just narrowing your capitalism to your own country. As long as any member of your nation can freely do business with any other member it is capitalism, it just isnt global capitalism.

Not that I believe in the Pat Buchanan ideal, I think international trade with limits is a good thing, but both ways support capitalism.

[Mass_SkinsFan]

Mass_SkinsFan is the kind of guy who would undoubtedly like to go out holed up in a cabin like Ruby Ridge. He's also apparently an atheist. He isn't necessarily the ideal representative of most conservatives, "extreme" or otherwise. I think he needs his own category. Pat Buchanan may be the closest analogy.

AJ, that's not quite true. Actually, I prefer the urban or suburban environment to the boonies for a number of reasons. I am however a proponent of limiting the government's role in people's lives as much as possible.

Just because I'm not a Christian doesn't make me an atheist either. Believe it or not Christianity doesn't have a trademark on religion and definitely doesn't have one on morality. Neither does any other religion, by the way.

You are correct in one thing.... I'm not an ideal representative of the people who currently call themselves conservatives in this country. I'm the ideal representitive of what Conservatism is supposed to be. Then again the current definition of conservatism has about as much in common with the reality of what it's supposed to be as the aircraft Orville and Wilbur Wright flew at Kitty Hawk has with the Space Shuttle. It's a nice framework, but they're not even in the same stratosphere otherwise.

As for Pat Buchanan.... I don't think so. He may be a little further "Right" than most conservatives, but he's still got a long way to go.

[luckydevil]

Mass Skins is a capitalist, but a Pat Buchanan style one who wants to protect American interests.

I dont think that it contradicts capitalism to not promote free trade, it is just narrowing your capitalism to your own country. As long as any member of your nation can freely do business with any other member it is capitalism, it just isnt global capitalism.

Not that I believe in the Pat Buchanan ideal, I think international trade with limits is a good thing, but both ways support capitalism.

The thing is Buchanan doesn't pretend to be a supporter of the uber-capitalist viewpoint. Mass does. In fact, Pat often decries the evils of the free market.

[skinfan133]

heres my views on trade. we need to protect american interests at all costs. we need protective tarifs that make imorting goods very expensive. we need to encourage quality production again as a country. we need to DEFINATLY at all costs sever most ties with china while we still can; they own too much of us and our nation. we need to slap a HUGE tax on businesses that outsorce to any nation. we need to only trade for what we absolutly cannot manufacture on a large scale ourselves, which when you put thought to it isnt a whole lot of stuff. and we need to stop trading with communist and totalitarin states. we need to somehow get these jap car companies out of the american market. then we need to improve the american product; copy what they do to sucsced and blow them out of the water. (thank God mitsubishi is tanking as we speak, those mother ****ers funded the japanese empire during the war and put considerable money into their death camps.)

again america comes before the rest of the world businesswise.

[JMS]

No system is 100% perfectly aligned with a particular viewpoint. Bringing up individual cases where policy does not line up with a pure free trade approach is not much of an argument. There are always exceptions.

That said, I don't know exactly what my view is on free trade. I think it is probably the ideal way to go from a purely economic standpoint, but I think from a government policy standpoint, the government has to do what is in the interest of the country and the people it represents, and sometimes those two goals may not be in alignment. What may be best economically may not be best in other respects. It's a very tricky area.

It's not a tricky area at all. IT's your jingoistic reasoning which must be identified. Free trade is a dogmatists phrase designed to obfuscate reality. It's like calling a new nuke the Peace Maker. Or calling a new law rolling back civil rights the Patriot Act.

America has run massive trade deficites for three decades. Those deficites are run primaraly and historically with Europe and Japan and just recently with China. Would you describe any of these "trade partners" as having free trade? Have any of these "partners" ran a significant deficite with anybody else in the world. Noooooo!!! It's because they manage trade. They balance trade when their industries are at a disadvantage. How can you have free trade with countries where trade is by definition one sided!!!! You can't. Throw out your dogmatic phrase "Free Trade" and come up with a more descriptive phrase which describes our one sided policy....

Exploitive trade cause it allows for the exploitation of foreign workers,

Destructive Trade because it is has destroyed our manufacturing base and the blue colar middle class,

Preditory Trade because it prays upon our otherwise healthy profitable middle class job base?

Profitable trade because by screwing thousands a few folks have been able to make a lot of coin... my favorate is a hybrid..... Profitable Preditory Exploitive Destructive Trade.... Freedom has nothing to do with it.

[WARLORD1863]

America has run massive trade deficites for three decades. Those deficites are run primaraly and historically with Europe and Japan and just recently with China. Would you describe any of these "trade partners" as having free trade? Have any of these "partners" ran a significant deficite with anybody else in the world. Noooooo!!! It's because they manage trade. They balance trade when their industries are at a disadvantage. How can you have free trade with countries where trade is by definition one sided!!!! You can't. Throw out your dogmatic phrase "Free Trade" and come up with a more descriptive phrase which describes our one sided policy....

What about the stock market? Dow and Nasdaq has always been relatively steady, and now are back to breaking records after 9/11 stunted the market's growth. China's market is incredibly unstable, every day it teeters with collapse. Investors who consider American companies as risks will tell you that they will not invest a cent into chinese companies. Japan's Nikei is also unstable, although a heck of a lot better than what China has. I'd take our current market over their's any day.

[skinfan133]

What about the stock market? Dow and Nasdaq has always been relatively steady, and now are back to breaking records after 9/11 stunted the market's growth. China's market is incredibly unstable, every day it teeters with collapse. Investors who consider American companies as risks will tell you that they will not invest a cent into chinese companies. Japan's Nikei is also unstable, although a heck of a lot better than what China has. I'd take our current market over their's any day.

and in turn i would take a market that isnt DEPENDENT on what you just descibed, even if it is inacurate.

in reality china is becomeing very dangerous, too dangerous for my tastes. i dont know where you get your info but the chineese ae exponetially growing in 3 dangrous areas; people, economy, and most dangerous of all military.

current projections based on anual trends put china passing the US economy in stregth by between 2035-2050. the chinese military at its and our curren rates will surpaseus technlogically n proportion to manpower and quickstrike capability in only a decade. thats scary. even scarier? we're funding it and most everyone is oblivious too.

[Thiebear]

The sad part is that he believes it too!

I believe it also:

Democrat "Leadership" does everything they can. The 527s do everything they can to foster resentment in blacks and hispanics towards the republican party. If you don't see that every election cycle your blind.

but,

Take out the word Democrat, insert Republican and the above paragraph does not change....

[Thiebear]

You can not call yourself a diehard capitalist and supported regulated trade. It is fundamentally anti-capitalist to say you can trade with some people, but not with others. Of course it is nationalism

Yes you can;

You can say you don't wish to trade with xyz country as they expoit little children and women to make items while dying in their assembly lines..

You can say you don't wish to trade with xyz country as they are providing planet killing technology to a rogue nation that will use it.

You can be a diehard capitalist and still have morals right?