Debate a Conservative

Don't try to convert me to liberalism however; I'll tell you right now, you'll just be wasting your time.

On March 08 2008 10:25 Hippopotamus wrote:
1. Why do you not (or perhaps you do?) support fascism?
2. Do you honestly associate yourself with these retards?
3. Got an opinion on net neutrality?
4. Do you think rape victims should be allowed to have an abortion? If yes, explain how their babies' lives are worth any less than the life of regularly conceived babies. If you think their suffering outweighs the baby's life, tell explain why can you so arbitrarily draw a line as to when a life is sacred and when it is not. If your answer is no, explain how you can be such a callous person?
5. Neo-nazis, do they have freedom of speech or freedom of STFU?
6. Homosexuals, death penalty or life imprisonment?
7. Do you subscribe to intelligent design and intelligent falling movements?
8. How realistic do you think laissez faire economics are in the 21st century?

On March 08 2008 10:27 Lemonwalrus wrote:
Death sentence is government sanctioned murder.
George Bush sucks.
The Patriot act was like taking a big steaming dump on the Constitution.
Holy Christ on a stick, evolution exists, deal with it.
The rich ARE getting richer, and the poor ARE getting poorer.
GEORGE BUSH SUCKS.
Give us back our Social Security.
Dick Cheney is composed entirely of evil.
Chocolate is better than Vanilla.
Give me $10.
Mike Huckabee supporters shouldn't be allowed outside on their own.
Health Care is an important issue.

There, that covers most of my gripes with the republican party, as well as a few things that I don't actually believe, do with it as you please.

On March 08 2008 10:32 Caller wrote:


Hippopotamus not to be offensive but some of your questions are incredibly stereotypical based and not actually conservative related. Basically, you're loading some questions based on the contemporary "conservative" which is very different from an older conservative base.

1. Fascism is a sign of a strong government. It oppresses people and controls the economy. In that sense, it is actually more similar to liberalism than conservatism.
4. That's such a loaded question lol. It applies to religious conservatives only.
5. That applies to liberals and conservatives.
6. Come on. Is that really necessary?
7. Again, really necessary?
8. Considering that the US economy has never been actually laissez-faire, you have no background to make this judgement. The 1920's wasn't laissez faire, that was corporatism. Kind of like today.

On March 08 2008 10:36 Ancestral wrote:
Liberalism is not associated with big government. Unless you mean modern American liberalism, but since you're talking about an "older conservative base," I assume you must also be discussing an "older liberal base," which consists of thought advocating a free and open economy, democracy, and individual rights.

On March 08 2008 10:27 Lemonwalrus wrote:
Death sentence is government sanctioned murder.
George Bush sucks.
The Patriot act was like taking a big steaming dump on the Constitution.
Holy Christ on a stick, evolution exists, deal with it.
The rich ARE getting richer, and the poor ARE getting poorer.
GEORGE BUSH SUCKS.
Give us back our Social Security.
Dick Cheney is composed entirely of evil.
Chocolate is better than Vanilla.
Give me $10.
Mike Huckabee supporters shouldn't be allowed outside on their own.
Health Care is an important issue.

There, that covers most of my gripes with the republican party, as well as a few things that I don't actually believe, do with it as you please.

On March 08 2008 10:36 Ancestral wrote:
Liberalism is not associated with big government. Unless you mean modern American liberalism, but since you're talking about an "older conservative base," I assume you must also be discussing an "older liberal base," which consists of thought advocating a free and open economy, democracy, and individual rights.

On March 08 2008 10:42 Lemonwalrus wrote:

Idk, I was using the shotgun strategy, hoping one of them would stick and start up some friendly debate.

Oh, and srsly, give me $10.

On March 08 2008 10:43 Try wrote:


21st century conservatism=19th century liberalism. Nowadays, liberalism is huge government, as opposed to the old days when liberalism meant lack of government.

On March 08 2008 10:14 Rev0lution wrote:
what kind of conservative are you

social, fiscal, foreign policy ?

On March 08 2008 10:45 Try wrote:


social (not really death penalty though) and fiscal. Not so much foreign policy, but I do believe in the War on Terror and defending ourselves. And I'm strongly anti illiegal immigration, my parents spent years of their lives working hard for their green cards.

On March 08 2008 10:14 Ancestral wrote:

This is a common problem, for humans, not conservatives. You sound like you're not interested in facts unless they vindicate opinions you already have. You should seek the truth, not something you believe for fun.

That being said, what's wrong with liberalism? Most people agree, property rights, democracy, civil rights and liberties are pretty good. Not that there is much democracy in the United States, but we're still pretty good about it.

On March 08 2008 10:47 Lemonwalrus wrote:
Do you make a distinction between the war on terror and the war in Iraq?

On March 08 2008 10:46 Caller wrote:


If you are a fiscal conservative, why do you support the War on Terror as it is racking up billions if not trillions of government spending a year?

On March 08 2008 10:50 Ancestral wrote:
Ok, right to bear arms.

Countries with very strict gun control have fewer gun deaths. What's so great about guns? I know it's the whole "liberty" thing, and people should be trusted, but they can't be always. I am on the fence on the issue, but how do you justify lax gun laws?

On March 08 2008 10:56 Ancestral wrote:
It depends on how easy illegal guns are to get. If they're very easy, any petty criminal will get them. If not, only criminals who are going to kill anyway would get them. If every home in the US had guns, I bet gun deaths would go up. Because people would be more likely to use them in situations where they see it as reasonable, but might not have if they didn't have a gun.

[/pure speculation]

On March 08 2008 10:47 Ancestral wrote:
Caller, I was under the impression neoliberalism = strict philosophy of free trade, which is something I advocate. For a point of reference as to where I'm coming from, the best classification for my views is libertarian socialism. What is your interpretation (and perhaps the right interpretation) of neoliberalism?

As for conservatism, what's you interpretation of it, try? I need more information as to what you mean by conseravive.

On March 08 2008 10:25 Hippopotamus wrote:
1. Why do you not (or perhaps you do?) support fascism?
2. Do you honestly associate yourself with these retards?
3. Got an opinion on net neutrality?
4. Do you think rape victims should be allowed to have an abortion? If yes, explain how their babies' lives are worth any less than the lives of regularly conceived babies. If you think their suffering outweighs the baby's life, tell explain why can you so arbitrarily draw a line as to when a life is sacred and when it is not. If your answer is no, explain how you can be such a callous person?
5. Neo-nazis, do they have freedom of speech or freedom of STFU?
6. Homosexuals: death penalty or life imprisonment?
7. Do you subscribe to intelligent design and intelligent falling movements?
8. How realistic do you think laissez faire economics is in the 21st century?

On March 08 2008 10:56 Boblion wrote:
This blog is funny

Free weapons for everyone !

What do you think of UN ?

http://www.conservapedia.com/Evolution#Creation_Scientists_Tend_to_Win_the_Creation-Evolution_Debates
hahha conservatism = win

On March 08 2008 10:56 Ancestral wrote:
It depends on how easy illegal guns are to get. If they're very easy, any petty criminal will get them. If not, only criminals who are going to kill anyway would get them. If every home in the US had guns, I bet gun deaths would go up. Because people would be more likely to use them in situations where they see it as reasonable, but might not have if they didn't have a gun.

[/pure speculation]

On March 08 2008 10:56 Boblion wrote:
This blog is funny

Free weapons for everyone !

What do you think of UN ?

http://www.conservapedia.com/Evolution#Creation_Scientists_Tend_to_Win_the_Creation-Evolution_Debates
hahha conservatism = win

On March 08 2008 11:17 Try wrote:



UN are a bunch of ineffective morons who sit around, have no power, and talk alot but do absolutely nothing.

And creationism=stupidity, not all conservatives are extreme fundamentalist Christians.

On March 08 2008 11:20 Mindcrime wrote:


Isn't talking what the UN is supposed to do? Is the UN supposed to have power? Would you prefer that it were a supranational organization?

On March 08 2008 11:23 Boblion wrote:
He probably means that UN had to support war against Iraq :>

On March 08 2008 11:23 Boblion wrote:
He probably means that UN had to support war against Iraq :>

On March 08 2008 10:50 Ancestral wrote:
Ok, right to bear arms.

Countries with very strict gun control have fewer gun deaths. What's so great about guns? I know it's the whole "liberty" thing, and people should be trusted, but they can't be always. I am on the fence on the issue, but how do you justify lax gun laws?

On March 08 2008 11:30 ahrara_ wrote:
Stimulus Package -- Helpful or Placebo?

I'll write more here and take a position when I get the time. I promise if you respond with a well-fleshed out argument, I'll respond in like. ATM, i have to do laundry and deal with my car accident.

I believe in freedom.

6. Neither, just don't defile the sacred entity of marriage.

8. With the oppression and overburdening of taxes that governments lay down on our people nowadays, it is a grand goal to strive for, but an unrealistic goal to acheive. I prefer taking it step by step, slowly lowering tarriffs between nations and such.

On March 08 2008 11:49 Hippopotamus wrote:


What does you definition of freedom include allowing?

-Freedom to smoke marijuana?
-Freedom to not be surveilled by the government?
-Sexual freedom?
-Freedom to give up money to the government in return for certain guarantees in life?



But why is marriage so sacred? It's not exclusively a Christian custom, although I would assume many homosexuals would opt to perform their marriage ceremonies in Christian churces simply because most of them believe themselves to be Christian. In the society that permits divorce has the traditional concept of marriage not already been undermined? Is forbidding gay marriage not tantamount to forbidding neo-nazis from speaking--something that you do not support? Gay marriage may raise questions about the sanctity of marriage, but neo nazis raise questions about the right of non-aryan citizens and lawful residents to be treated equally.



But since you seem also support things such as militaries for protection, you must expect some taxes, yes? What do you consider to be a just level of taxation? Additionally, do you advocate for a flat tax, a progressive tax or (gasp) a regressive tax?

Further on the subject of economy. What about 3rd world countries? How should they (or should they not be at all?) helped? Structural adjustment, import substitution, something else? What about outsourcing, do you support it? If you do not, what would you suggest as a solution that would not involve massive governmental intervention?

"Another kind of inequality arising through the operation of the market is also required, in a somewhat more subtle sense, to produce equity of treatment, or to put it differently to satisfy men's tastes. It can be illustrated most simply by a lottery. Consider a group of individuals who initially have equal endowments and who all agree voluntairly to enter a lottery with very unequal prizes. The resultant inequality of income is surely required to permit the individuals in question to make the most of their initial equality. Redistribution of the income after the event is equivalent to denying them the opportunity to enter the lottery. This case is far more important in practice than would appear by taking the notion of a "lottery" literally. Individuals choose occupations, investments, and the like partly in accordance with their taste for uncertainty. The girl who tries to become a movie actress rather than a civil servant is deliberately choosing to enter a lottery, so is the individual who invests in penny uranium stocks rather than government bonds. Insurance is a way of expressing a taste for certainty. Even these examples do not indicate fully the extent to which actual inequality may be the result of arrangements designed to satisfy men's tastes. The very arrangments for paying and hiring people are affected by such preferences. If all potential movie actresses had a great dislike of uncertainty, there would tend to develop "cooperatives" of movie actresses, the members of which agreed in advance to share income receipts more or less evenly, thereby in effect providing themselves insurance through the pooling of risks. If such a preference were widespread, large diversified corporations combining risky and non-risky ventures would become the rule. The wild-cat oil prospector, the private proprietorship, the small partnership, would all become rare.

Indeed, this is one way to interpret governmental measures to redistribute income through progressive taxes and the like. It can be argued that for one reason or another, costs of administration perhaps, the market cannot produce the range of lotteries or the kind of lottery desired by the members of the community, and that progressive taxation is, as it were, a government enterprise to do so. I have no doubt that this view contains an element of truth. At the same time, it can hardly justify present taxation, if only because the taxes are imposed after the blanks in the lottery of life, and the taxes are voted mostly by those who think they have drawn the blanks. One might, along these lines, justify one generation's voting the tax schedules to be applied to an as yet unborn generation. Any such procedure would, I conjecture, yield income tax schedules much less highly graduated than present schedules are, at least on paper.

On March 08 2008 11:47 Try wrote:


To tell you the truth, this is one of the economic acts that I am somewhat unsure what the results will be until it actually plays out. It is a good idea, but the US market and the economy is so volatile and unpredictable right now. However, I am sure that any raising of taxes would severely punish a struggling economy. Of course, first I'm going to bombard you with the traditional rhetoric of "When the government cuts individual taxes, that encourages individual spending, which then encourages business spending," but it's obvious you are looking for something more indepth.

While the individual tax rebates are something, I think the business tax incentives might actually get us somewhere. Although right now I have to go soon and I can't go really indepth, the investment incentives are really quite appealing to businesses and will improve investment rates. By raising FHA and GSE limits as well, the housing price decline should be able to be slowed.

I will edit and improve this post later, so check back tomorrow.

On March 08 2008 10:27 Lemonwalrus wrote:

The rich ARE getting richer, and the poor ARE getting poorer.

On March 09 2008 00:26 FieryBalrog wrote:


People are such morons when it comes to economics.

On March 08 2008 17:01 ahrara_ wrote:

As far as I'm concerned, cutting individual taxes is the same thing as give out rebates. What irks me about the stimulus package is the expectation that people will spend the rebates. A lot of it will end up being saved, because there's no expiration date, and people are naturally more likely to save money during a recession. In the short run, I agree with you the stimulus package is effective in increasing demand and investment. In the long run, I don't think you should cut taxes when you're already spending on deficit.