Conservative Skeptics?

[Manny]

I want to say someone from Pennsylvania. Franklin? Ugh. This is going to bother me now.

Franklin in Pennsylvania founded an abolition society and Hamilton and Jay in New York founded a manumission society which was all but an abolition society.

 

[punchdrunk]

Gayness was a cultural taboo of their time. The issue wasn't even on the table so it's difficult to say what they would think about. But I think some of them, based on their stated values of individual rights, could be persuaded to support gay rights (which are really individual rights).

So in short, yes. Otherwise they’d be hypocrites.

Was Thomas Jefferson a hypocrite then? Afterall, he wrote the phrase, and he owned slaves.

Who exactly?

See above.

Perhaps, but since I've never seen terms like "conservative", "liberal", "leftists" and "rightist" objectively defined I don't really have a choice.

Then perhaps neither does bagtaggar.

 

[bagtaggar]

One more thing concerning Gay rights, which seem to be the battle flag of liberals all over America:

Their "struggle" is hardly comperable to the civil rights struggle of African Americans. If the lawyers would have stopped kvetching and whining, settled on civil unions, allowed the matter to settle and society to acclemate a bit, we would have seen legalized marriage over the next decade.

 

[Mycroft]

Are you talking about classic liberals or classic democrats?

I prefer classic Coke, myself.

 

[Tony]

Then I would disagree with you that what you said was 100% true. There were those founders who were very opposed to slavery (you're going to ask me for specific names, aren't you? **trying to remember what book that was...**), but put aside that issue in order for all the colonies to come together.


I want to say someone from Pennsylvania. Franklin? Ugh. This is going to bother me now.

Don't forget Jefferson (from the orignial draft of the Declaration of Independence):

http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/movable_type/2003_archives/001698.html

He has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights of life & liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. This piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the CHRISTIAN king of Great Britain. Determined to keep open a market where MEN should be bought & sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce: and that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, & murdering the people upon whom he also obtruded them; thus paying off former crimes committed against the liberties of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the lives of another...

 

[Tony]

Was Thomas Jefferson a hypocrite then? Afterall, he wrote the phrase, and he owned slaves.

Nope, he was against slavery. See his original draft of the DoI.

 

[Tony]

Their "struggle" is hardly comperable to the civil rights struggle of African Americans.

You're right, it much more fundamental and important. Whereas the civil rights struggle of blacks dealt with fundamental rights of one race of man. The gay/individual rights struggle deals with the fundamental rights of all people to live how they want.

If the lawyers would have stopped kvetching and whining, settled on civil unions, allowed the matter to settle and society to acclemate a bit, we would have seen legalized marriage over the next decade.

Can you support this?

 

[punchdrunk]

Then I would disagree with you that what you said was 100% true. There were those founders who were very opposed to slavery

I know. My point is that Tony's definition of a classic liberal doesn't necessarily fit his description, and that a classic liberal would most likely look like a conservative today, re: support for gay rights.

 

[punchdrunk]

Nope, he was against slavery. See his original draft of the DoI.

Yet he owned them. Is that not a hypocrite?

 

[Tony]

Yet he owned them. Is that not a hypocrite?

Not necessarily. It depends on certain factors, for example, how did his slaves fair under his ownership as opposed to the treatment they'd receive as property of someone else or in general society? Furthermore, no where did I say Jefferson was perfect. I'm willing to accept that he was a hypocrite, that doesn't change the supremacy of his "life, liberty, pursuit of happiness" principle or my belief in it.

 

[bagtaggar]

The gay/individual rights struggle deals with the fundamental rights of all people to live how they want.

Ah. So the rule of law is an evil and unjust presence, right? No one should be told how to live. We should all be free to murder and pillage and rape as we see fit because this is our choice and lifestyle, right?

I'm not comparing being Gay to any of these things. But in this country you can be as gay as you wish, and spend the rest of your life with that partner (there is no law against being gay). That doesn't mean you are automatically entitled to the legal benefits of marriage. There are certain legal complications that arise if one just allows two men or two woman to be married. That is a matter of law and one that has to be settled in the courts.

My statement meant only that if they were to play their cards correctly, they might have gotten further.

After all, the black civil rights movement didn't happen overnight. It was won in steps over time.

 

[Tony]

Ah. So the rule of law is an evil and unjust presence, right? No one should be told how to live. We should all be free to murder and pillage and rape as we see fit because this is our choice and lifestyle, right?

This is a non-sequitor.

I'm not comparing being Gay to any of these things. But in this country you can be as gay as you wish, and spend the rest of your life with that partner (there is no law against being gay).

Correction, there is no law against being gay anymore.

That doesn't mean you are automatically entitled to the legal benefits of marriage.

Actually, it does.

There are certain legal complications that arise if one just allows two men or two woman to be married.

That's what they said about miscegenation.

My statement meant only that if they were to play their cards correctly, they might have gotten further.

After all, the black civil rights movement didn't happen overnight. It was won in steps over time.

Point taken, although I think you're somewhat hasty in your reasoning.

 

[Batman Jr.]

Possibly. But I haven't found left-wingers to be less certain in their beliefs; the acceptance of certain dogmas as self-evident truths that no sane person would possibly question, is just as prevalent on the left as it is on the right. The dogma is "Bush is evil" (for example) instead of "Jesus is Lord" (for example), but is held no less dogmatically and uncritically for all that.

Our "dogma" is more along these lines: "Bush is an idiot who fabricates reasons for war to appease his neocon 'freedom (really just a euphemism for pure-market economics) lovers.' Bush is an idiot who will make an executive order to preclude the furtherance of a particular branch of medical research that could dramatically ameliorate many of the world's most devastating health problems. Bush is an idiot who gives tax cuts to people who don't need them and multiplies the deficit as a result. Bush is a homophobe. Bush is an idiot who is so inarticulate that he probably couldn't even hold his own in a debate against a five-year-old. Bush is an idiot who appoints a completely unqualified person to head FEMA because this person is a friend of a friend. Bush is an idiot who is also possibly schizophrenic: he claims that he consults with God on matters of policy. Bush is an idiot who styles himself to be an enemy of tyranny wherever it arises yet counts among his closest friends members of the House of Saud. Bush is an idiot who likes to pretend that he was a war hero by boasting about his 'service' in the National Guard back when the National Guard was a refuge for rich kids from the draft. Bush is clearly too stupid to be occupying his position in government."

 

[DavidJames]

IAlso, many "Republicans" are extremely naive about a great many things, as are many "Democrats". The former, for example, is still convinced that this war is about terrorism. The latter is still convinced that this war is a fascist corporate conspiracy.

Academic discussions over the meanings of conservative and liberal are, IMO, interesting but irrelevant. Your example is exactly why I feel it's important to bring reality into the discussion. To bring in reality you have to argue Republicans and Democrats and not conservative or liberal. Public policy is dictated by who gets elected, i.e. Republicans or Democrats. Your comment about conservatives accurately represents the current administration and mainstream Republican viewpoint. Your comment about liberals does not represent the current elected Democratic representatives nor the mainstream Democratic viewpoint, it represents those much to the left of the mainstream. If you disagree, you are welcome to point out the elected Democratic representatives who talk about that "fascist corporate conspiracy". I can find any number of speeches by Bush and friends to support your view of conservatives however.

Read this forum long enough and you're find most conservative / liberal discussions following this pattern. Liberals complain about the policies of Bush, Delay, Frist etc and in return we hear about "liberal" ideas like your "fascist corporate conspiracy", or PETA, or Chomsky.

"Conservatives" on this board (along with you it seems) are currently not part of the mainstream Republican party although few, if any, will admit it. Atheist, pro-choice, Gay rights (civic unions at least) Republicans make up how many elected representatives today, 10 years ago, 20 years ago?

The Republican party has been assimilated by the Religious right and you are seeing the results and will see even more with Bush's SCOTUS stacking. The country right now is tilted heavily towards the religious and includes many Democrats (but much less then Republicans). The only hope the Democrats have now is if Bush was a complete idiot and began screwing everything up. Said another way, the Democrats are looking better every day.

Religious voters, while faithful, are not stupid. They eventually are recognizing the Bush has taken them for a ride with his trumped up, self fulfilled, war on terror (in Iraq), they see he failed with his FEMA and Miers buddy system appointments. His thought free, dogmatic approach to the budget is now being exposed. Plus, I think his allegiance to the Religious right is starting to concern those who teeter between parties.

Anyway...to summarize, when you talk about conservative and liberal policies or ideas, play fair and talk about the mainstream ideas of Republicans and Democrats, unless you want to keep it theoretical or course.

 

[bagtaggar]

Fair enough, perhaps I have charicaturized the liberal perspective a bit, I know when I'm off base.


As for the war, you're absolutely right, we have been duped. This isn't about terrorism.

It's about currency hegemony and cornering the OPEC market with our dollar.

We invaded Iraq because Saddam switched over to the Euro.

Personally? I don't really have a problem with that.

Maybe I'm evil.

 

[Earthborn]

Originally posted by bagtaggar
Classical liberals are what we call conservatives here in America.

Funny. I remember someone claiming that Libertarianism is what used to be called (classical) liberalism.

Claiming that conservatives are classical liberals is also a bit weird if you realise that in many European countries there are (classical) liberal and conservative parties that are quite distinct from eachother and very similar to what these terms meant when they were invented.

But in this country you can be as gay as you wish, and spend the rest of your life with that partner

Apperently you can also miss out on inheritance when your life long partner dies. Or be denied to visit your life long partner in hospital. Or if you are a child, you could be taken away from your parents if you happen to have two mums or two dads.

There are certain legal complications that arise if one just allows two men or two woman to be married.

Name one.

My statement meant only that if they were to play their cards correctly, they might have gotten further.

But you are not the one who is the position to tell others how to correctly play they play their cards. You are not even in the position to tell them what constitutes 'getting further'.

 

[geni]

Fair enough, perhaps I have charicaturized the liberal perspective a bit, I know when I'm off base.


As for the war, you're absolutely right, we have been duped. This isn't about terrorism.

It's about currency hegemony and cornering the OPEC market with our dollar.

We invaded Iraq because Saddam switched over to the Euro.

Doubtful. Saddam's oil sale's were a pretty small part of the market

Personally? I don't really have a problem with that.

Maybe I'm evil.

Nah the last thing europe needs right now is a stronger currency.

 

[a_unique_person]

There are quite a few conservatives here who can come out of the closet and openly admit to being atheists, which says a lot, I think.

 

[bagtaggar]

An analysis I found surfing the interwebs:

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimbob
course one of those wars was against Global Facism [sic], the other is about a lone dictator trying to kill W's daddy. Oh, and maybe some oil, if we can get them to stop fighting with themselves.

Do you honestly think that's what the war in Iraq is about? W's dad and oil? That is so short-sighted. Bush may be stupid, by the NeoCons who planned the war are not. They are very intelligent; and that's what makes them so scary to you.

You are right about economic motives, but the war goes far beyond physical oil. World trade is now a game in which the US produces dollars and the rest of the world produces things that dollars can buy. The world's interlinked economies no longer trade to capture a comparative advantage; they compete in exports to capture needed dollars to service dollar-denominated foreign debts and to accumulate dollar reserves to sustain the exchange value of their domestic currencies. To prevent speculative and manipulative attacks on their currencies, the world's central banks must acquire and hold dollar reserves in corresponding amounts to their currencies in circulation. The higher the market pressure to devalue a particular currency, the more dollar reserves its central bank must hold. This creates a built-in support for a strong dollar that in turn forces the world's central banks to acquire and hold more dollar reserves, making it stronger. This phenomenon is known as dollar hegemony, which is created by the geopolitically constructed peculiarity that critical commodities, most notably oil, are denominated in dollars. Everyone accepts dollars because dollars can buy oil. The recycling of petro-dollars is the price the US has extracted from oil-producing countries for US tolerance of the oil-exporting cartel since 1973. So even though the oil plays a role in the equation, it is less about the oil itself, and more about the US dollar.

The shift to the euro has big implications for the foreign exchange markets and the U.S. and European economies. Currency specialists say the yawning U.S. current account deficit, now at 5%, is bound to drive the dollar down further, and the euro still higher, over the next two to four years. Even if central banks increase their euro holdings by just a few percent, it will have a major impact in the markets, we're talking many billions of dollars. If not deterred, OPEC could follow suit. Libya has been urging for some time that oil be priced in euros rather than dollars.

A multilateral approach to these core problems is the one way to proceed, but the US is strong enough to dominate the world militarily. Even though economically it is in decline, less and less competitive, and increasingly in debt, the intention of the Bush crew appears to be to override economic realities with military ones. And so far it seems to be working quite well.

Frankly, we went to war because we could. It was a NeoCon show of unilateral force, a "**** you" to the rest of world. In the process we secured our own economic interests and setup a platform to project our power across the whole region. Is that a bad thing? Why do we have so many military bases in Germany? You tell me…

The war was also a message to the Arab world. For decades we had three simple rules for the Middle East. Keep the oil flowing, keep the prices low, be nice to the Jews. Other than that, we just didn't care. Then our embassy in Iran was over run. Carter did nothing in return. Then came Regan. He made some friends in the Middle East and gave them weapons to help kill one another, but these so-called friends turned out to be very bad people. Then came Clinton. He didn't do much either. He got some Israeli and Palestinians to shake hands twice, and look where it got us. September 11, 2001 changed our attitude towards the Middle East. We no longer could ignore what was going on there. We needed to get involved -- somehow. War seemed to do the trick. We sent the message to the whole region: If you are going to celebrate and bake cakes on the day 3000 of our citizens are murdered, we'll invade the very heart of the barren wasteland you call home. It had to be done.

As an added bonus, we removed a brutal dictator and may end up spreading some kind of Democratic reform. Arabs seem to like voting, just look at "Saudi Idol." It's taking off; despite the fact the Saudi government made it illegal to vote for your favorite singer, 5 million people went ahead and did it anyway.

The truth is the war in Iraq was a selfish move for the United States. However, we're there now and we're not going anywhere soon. The death count ticking over from 1999 to 2000 doesn't change a damn thing, kids. The longer the war goes on, the better. We've already won.

Unilateralism works. The implications of the this war will last a century.

 

[geni]

The problem is that the only country with any significant oil exports that was seriously considering switching to the euro was Russia who are not going to be too worried about the US setting themselves up as a target for islamic extreamists.