0

They're the one's going for keeping immigration policy the same, abortion the same, and going even more socialist in health care?

"con·ser·va·tive (kən-sûr'və-tĭv) pronunciation
adj.

1. Favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change."The liberals want the immigration policy to be less strict, the abortion laws to be less strict, and nationalized health care..

Somewhere back about government "making" money.

haha.. if you're referring to this post, then I guess you really can't read:

Your statement was not correct, though. Your 'opinion' was that the government does not make money on its own.. which is both literally and metaphorically incorrect. (The United States treasury 'makes' money by ordering to be printed;))

I never said anything about the U.S. going out and just printing money for the hell of it.. that would be idiotic..

Government is a tolerated parasite living on the backs of people who work. More government is antithetical to capitalism.

haha.. that's an anarchist way to put it.. Capitalists don't disagree with a government, they just think it should be restricted.. which it is.

0

"con·ser·va·tive (kən-sûr'və-tĭv) pronunciation
adj.

1. Favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change."The liberals want the immigration policy to be less strict, the abortion laws to be less strict, and nationalized health care..

Put down the dictionary and open your mind.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberal

haha.. if you're referring to this post, then I guess you really can't read: I never said anything about the U.S. going out and just printing money for the hell of it.. that would be idiotic..

If you think it's about the printing of money, then you are indeed a useful idiot.

haha.. that's an anarchist way to put it.. Capitalists don't disagree with a government, they just think it should be restricted.. which it is.

Keep looking. Find an element of capitalism that benefits from government removing profits.

0

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberal

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberal
Are these not the terms that you are talking about?

If you think it's about the printing of money, then you are indeed a useful idiot.

If whats about the printing of money? huh? I said that the government literally makes money by printing it.. which they do to replace damaged currency. The government earns money from taxes which is placed on us b/c we agreed to have them (after the articles of confederation..).

Keep looking. Find an element of capitalism that benefits from government removing profits.

What are you saying? That capitalists are anarchists?

0

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberal
Are these not the terms that you are talking about?

So you are saying the conservatism is liberal and vice versa?

If whats about the printing of money? huh? I said that the government literally makes money by printing it.. which they do to replace damaged currency. The government earns money from taxes which is placed on us b/c we agreed to have them (after the articles of confederation..).

The government earns zilch, nothing, nada. It is confiscated with your blessing.

What are you saying? That capitalists are anarchists?

No. That you don't appear to have the scope of understanding, yet.

0

I disagree. I mean, the writers of the constitution did several things to try to limit the power of the common man, but the U.S. has many checks and balances and fail-safes that help it to run much smoother.. 200+ years, and only one revolutionary war ain't bad ;)

Two. The so-called 'Civil War' was an attempted revolution, in which the revolt was crushed.

A Civil War, as the term is commonly used, means a war in which multiple groups are fighting to gain control of the governmental structure. This did not happen during the War between the States (a misnomer in itself; it's not like, say, Massachusetts declared war on, say, Tennesee); instead, two separate governmental bodies, that of the United States of America (Union) and the Confederate States of America (Confederacy), were at war with each other. The individual governments of the separate states which went on to form the Confederacy felt that their constitutionally guaranteed rights to self-government were being violated by the federal government, and in accordance with what I keep thinking of as the Virginia Conditional Ratification*, declared themselves to be no longer a part of the constitutional union. They then banded together themselves, setting up a government which would
honor states rights. There wasn't really that much difference between the American Revolution of 1775-on (sorry, can't recall ending date) and the Confederate Revolution now called the 'Civil War' except for the fact that in the first, the individuals revolting against the high-scale government won, and in the second they lost.

*Virginia Conditional Ratification: A few states, Virginia among them, refused to ratify the US Constitution without a condition attached saying that they had the right to leave the constitutionally defined union of states should their individual rights as states be violated by the federal government. Of those states which put forth this condition, Virginia is so far the only one which has invoked the terms of this condition.

0

Josh, I truly think you use all these "buzz" words like anachist, conservatism, and liberals, without understanding what they mean.
Everytime you write about them, that's the impression that I get out your comments.

0

The government earns zilch, nothing, nada. It is confiscated with your blessing.

True, but the funds also go to services such as building parks, research, environment safety, maintenance, police and firefighters, military, health, etc. (these are all services funded by a democratic government) All this has to be paid for..

A Civil War, as the term is commonly used, means a war in which multiple groups are fighting to gain control of the governmental structure. This did not happen during the War between the States (a misnomer in itself; it's not like, say, Massachusetts declared war on, say, Tennesee); instead, two separate governmental bodies, that of the United States of America (Union) and the Confederate States of America (Confederacy), were at war with each other. The individual governments of the separate states which went on to form the Confederacy felt that their constitutionally guaranteed rights to self-government were being violated by the federal government, and in accordance with what I keep thinking of as the Virginia Conditional Ratification*, declared themselves to be no longer a part of the constitutional union. They then banded together themselves, setting up a government which would
honor states rights. There wasn't really that much difference between the American Revolution of 1775-on (sorry, can't recall ending date) and the Confederate Revolution now called the 'Civil War' except for the fact that in the first, the individuals revolting against the high-scale government won, and in the second they lost.

It was still a civil war... the American citizens declared their independence too during the revolutionary war.. but this doesn't make it just a general war because there are truthfully two countries fighting each other. The American Civil War was a war within one country, and this does not change by the fact that the Confederates created their own government, constitution, and currency. The Union argued that the states did not have the right to rebel from the Union, but the confederates thought they did.. thus a war was fought, and it was determined that states do NOT have the right to nullify Federal laws or leave the union.

0

So you are saying the conservatism is liberal and vice versa?
...
No. That you don't appear to have the scope of understanding, yet.

Josh, I truly think you use all these "buzz" words like anachist, conservatism, and liberals, without understanding what they mean.
Everytime you write about them, that's the impression that I get out your comments.

...

I just always thought that in their most basic form, conservatives favored tradition and convention, and the liberals favored change..

Anarchists are against government or a central form of governing, capitalists basically favor democracy and the market economic system.. they don't like government control of resources or businesses..

0

It was still a civil war... the American citizens declared their independence too during the revolutionary war.. but this doesn't make it just a general war because there are truthfully two countries fighting each other. The American Civil War was a war within one country, and this does not change by the fact that the Confederates created their own government, constitution, and currency. The Union argued that the states did not have the right to rebel from the Union, but the confederates thought they did.. thus a war was fought, and it was determined that states do NOT have the right to nullify Federal laws or leave the union.

If the entire position of the Union was that the Confederacy was not a separate nation, then how come after the war, the Republican Congress insisted on treating the Confederate states as conquered territories rather than as rebellious portions of the United States? And the 'no right to leave' was started by Lincoln; his predecessor in office had tacitly admitted the right of the states to leave by permitting them to peacefully secede.

0

...

I just always thought that in their most basic form, conservatives favored tradition and convention, and the liberals favored change..

Once upon a time, that was true. Now, though, the socialiberals in America have gotten the country largely ordered along the lines they were aiming for; that is, they have already succeeded in causing the change. As a result, the two terms have somewhat reversed themselves. Political conservatives seek to change things back to the way they were, political liberals seek to maintain the current (socialiberal-enduced) status quo.

0

If the entire position of the Union was that the Confederacy was not a separate nation, then how come after the war, the Republican Congress insisted on treating the Confederate states as conquered territories rather than as rebellious portions of the United States? And the 'no right to leave' was started by Lincoln; his predecessor in office had tacitly admitted the right of the states to leave by permitting them to peacefully secede.

.. its the same exact thing as the revolutionary war. The Confederates declared their independence in the exact same way as the American colonists. The Confederates declared themselves as a separate nation, but no country, including the United States, actually acknowledged the Confederacy as its own country. (As opposed to France accepting the Americans as their own country in the rev. war) Had the Brits conquered the American citizens in the revolutionary war, then they would be treated like a conquered nation b/c the citizens committed the act of treason.

0

Okay, one country/city recognized the confederacy.. the fact is that the U.S. did not recognize the confederates. The U.S. was never truly its own country until Great Britain recognized the U.S. as its own country..

0

There are many ways in which people can interact with our elected officials. Petitions, writing members of congress, rallies, assemblies, etc.
Well, the electoral college was originally set up b/c the fathers of the constitution didn't think the common man was intelligent enough to decide who to vote for (can't say that I disagree). The system was built as a fail-safe, and there has been talk about changing it, specifically after the last couple of elections. However, many people like the electoral college because it is a tradition as old as the U.S. itself. But yea, I think only the popular vote should be used to elect the president.

True, but the Cold War was difficult to fight, and the government thought that supplying terrorists with military support might aide democracy.. came back to bite us in the a$$ though.

I disagree. I mean, the writers of the constitution did several things to try to limit the power of the common man, but the U.S. has many checks and balances and fail-safes that help it to run much smoother.. 200+ years, and only one revolutionary war ain't bad ;)

Nope. The Civil War. Had the south won, they would have called it a revolutionary war. The only difference between a civil war and a revolutionary war is who wins.

There may be many checks and balances but that is just what makes corruption available for politicians and bureaucrats. This makes a, "You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours" policy where illegal things can happen behind the scenes and never become public. And who's to check the government when all branches have the same goal that is in conflict with the goal of the people?

0

Josh is really being attacked based on his knowledge of the political world. Even though I disagree with him, he definitely knows his stuff and some of the attacks made against him have no basis and are really just stupid. I'm not talking about the Civil War thing though.

0

Okay, one country/city recognized the confederacy.. the fact is that the U.S. did not recognize the confederates. The U.S. was never truly its own country until Great Britain recognized the U.S. as its own country..

It sounds like you're contradicting yourself here. Earlier, you implied that French recognition was part of your prereq for 'de facto' recognition of the US as its own nation, while claiming that no nation officially recognized the Confederacy. In the same post, you stated the following:

Had the Brits conquered the American citizens in the revolutionary war, then they would be treated like a conquered nation b/c the citizens committed the act of treason.

Would this not also imply 'de facto' admission of nationhood? I would think that, if the British truly had not recognized the colonies as a nation, then in victory they would have treated the rebels as treasonous subjects of the Empire rather than as a conquered nation.

Nope. The Civil War. Had the south won, they would have called it a revolutionary war. The only difference between a civil war and a revolutionary war is who wins.

I think he was referring to the 1776-era incident at the time. I'd also say that, while I recognize the use of the terminology, there's no such thing as a 'civil' war. And that's not including the bloodshed on all sides of any given war. The below is a minor sample of what I mean.

"As the officers and soldiers of the United States have been subjected to repeated insults from the women (calling themselves ladies) of New Orleans, in return for the most scrupulous noninterference and courtesy on our part, it is ordered that hereafter when any female shall, by word, gesture, or movement, insult or show contempt for any officer or soldier of the United States, she shall be regarded and held liable to be treated as a woman of the town plying her avocation."

0

I don't think he has being attacked. In fact he has been using more stronger language that anybody else.

>he definitely knows his stuff
That's dabatable. Exactly what is happening here.

>some of the attacks made against him have no basis and are really just stupid. I'm not talking about the Civil War thing though.

Usually, making such a general comment doesn't convey what you really mean. Be more specific, perhaps even quote many of those "attacks" that you talk about. For sure we know that is not about the Civil War.

0

I don't think he has being attacked. In fact he has been using more stronger language that anybody else.

>he definitely knows his stuff
That's dabatable. Exactly what is happening here.

>some of the attacks made against him have no basis and are really just stupid. I'm not talking about the Civil War thing though.

Usually, making such a general comment doesn't convey what you really mean. Be more specific, perhaps even quote many of those "attacks" that you talk about. For sure we know that is not about the Civil War.

In general, Dave Sinkula said a lot of things earlier in multiple posts of his.

0

It sounds like you're contradicting yourself here. Earlier, you implied that French recognition was part of your prereq for 'de facto' recognition of the US as its own nation, while claiming that no nation officially recognized the Confederacy. In the same post, you stated the following


Would this not also imply 'de facto' admission of nationhood? I would think that, if the British truly had not recognized the colonies as a nation, then in victory they would have treated the rebels as treasonous subjects of the Empire rather than as a conquered nation.

There is a difference between the French and British recognizing a country and the Vatican. The French and British were both world super powers during the American Revolutionary war, and having one of them recognize a country is a lot different from the Vatican recognizing a country as independent..

0

There is a difference between the French and British recognizing a country and the Vatican. The French and British were both world super powers during the American Revolutionary war, and having one of them recognize a country is a lot different from the Vatican recognizing a country as independent..

A political power with the self-implied authority to choose the difference between heaven and hell for its believers, believers who live in many places across the world, doesn't qualify as a superpower?

0

? The Vatican doesn't choose the difference btwen heaven and hell for its believes.. I dunno how you came up with this.. The Vatican is small, and relatively weak compared to other nations. It is simply the central point for catholicism.. and the Vatican can't back up who it recognizes as a country. Do they have a large army? Who would you rather have on your side: the British, who have a large army, powerful navy, etc. or the Vatican who has the pope?

0

Ever heard of excoummunication? And you were the one who pointed out the relatively large catholic population of the world.

0

The Vatican isn't going to excommunicate people simply b/c they don't recognize a country as independent..

lol.. why are you arguing this with me anyway? It's trivial.. the fact of the matter is the American colonists were backed up by a world superpower, and aided in their revolution. The Confederates did not initially want a war, but illegally succeeded from the Union.. The United States did what was necessary, and was forced to use military force to restore order across the country. The confederates were backed up by no superpower.. they had no one significantly aiding them in the war.. they were not recognized as their own country, and their civil rebellion was over in about 4 years.

0

> The Confederates did not initially want a war, but illegally succeeded from the Union..

seceded. It's spelled seceded.

And Virginia joined with a clause that it could leave if it likes. So either Virginia had the right to leave, or, it never formally joined the Union in the first place.

0

Slavery aside, does anyone think that the southern states had the right to secede (or should I start a new thread)?

0

Slavery aside, does anyone think that the southern states had the right to secede (or should I start a new thread)?

That was the same reason why there was a war. Do you want to start another?. ;)

0

I just think it's interesting that the Constitution only required the ratification of a certain number of states but not all. In that way they would be forcing other states to abide by the Constitution and be a part of that country without ever actually ratifying the Constitution. This only applies to the original thirteen of course.

This topic has been dead for over six months. Start a new discussion instead.
Have something to contribute to this discussion? Please be thoughtful, detailed and courteous, and be sure to adhere to our posting rules.