Liberal Internet? - Page 9

Of course no rational human wants babies to die, however, social dynamics are very different than they used to be

On July 06 2010 02:49 Comeh wrote:


Most economists agree that the bailout was a necessary function in order to keep the economy alive whatsoever, both from the right and left.
Though, i'm sure there is disagreement between the execution and details of said bill, the bill itself was necessary.

On July 06 2010 03:13 phosphorylation wrote:
eh liberals think they are smart.. and sheepishly choose what "feels right" or feels intuititive
i would know, i used to be one once

edit: plus some genuinely retarded right wing rednecks give conservatives a bad name

On July 06 2010 02:07 Mothxal wrote:
@ixi.genocide, you're not the first conservative to worship at the altar of "realpolitik" and think that he's not ruled by ideology, unlike the rest. You'll actually find most of the facts in your post are completely wrong (universal healthcare wouldn't be more expensive, USA : Russia population is 1:2, not 1:3, there is a correlation between IQ and liberalism ) not to mention your invention of "real Tea-Party members", or your ridiculous generalization of why people vote for party X.

[Pretty much only keynesians supported this godawful bailout, and keynesians are retarded.

On July 06 2010 03:31 NEWater wrote:
Conservatives tend to be Christians, and as a rule of thumb I don't trust Christians, or religious people (and in turn they're always conservative in some sense) to handle anything that's important to me. I make it a point to ask if my financial advisor is religious, for instance. So do I make it a point that if I go to a specialist doctor for surgery, more often than not, I try to go to one who isn't religious.

Why? Because I can't bring myself to let someone tell me that he believes in ridiculous things like how there's this invincible, invisible, all-powerful guy in the sky who loves him, and twisted the pagan ritual of blood sacrifice into some kind of a perversely good thing, then tell me that they can be lucid enough to manage my money. Why should I trust someone whose probable first step of action in crisis is to pray to a divine being that doesn't exist and is incapable of direct intervention? Should I let my financial advisor close his eyes, pray to God and choose a hedge fund at random because 'God told me so'? Should I have a peace of mind that my surgeon won't go "Oh God oh God help me" when he screws up instead of doing something productive?

To borrow a classification from Freud, conservatives to me are like children (since the massive lot of them tend to be religious in some way). Religious people are still in their child-like state who need some kind of supernatural validation of their selves and weakly, and meekly validate their "opinions" dished out by their pastors and constantly urged to quote the Bible like it's some kind of 'universal truth'. Why? Because God induced this heavy dependence on Christians and made it impossible for them to be weaned away from their weakness.

"You will never pray again, never adore again, never again rest in endless trust; you refuse to let yourself stop to unharness your thoughts before any ultimate wisdom, goodness or power; you have no perpetual guard and friend for your seven solitudes; you live without the view of a mountain-range with snow-capped peaks and fire in its heart; there is no avenger for you anymore, no final corrector of the text of your life; there is no more reason in what happens, no love in what will happen to you; no more resting place stands open for your heart in which to find and no longer seek.."

The Gay Science by Nietzsche, in the portion named Excelsior.

This much the Christian God has imposed himself upon his followers, and they're so dependent, they know nothing else. Like the sheep that Jesus favors, they remain stupid, want to remain stupid, and rejoice in being called stupid by their betters because Jesus liked his followers to be sheep.

Liberalism (from the Latin liberalis, "of freedom"[1]) is the belief in the importance of liberty and equality.[2][3] Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but most liberals support such fundamental ideas as constitutions, liberal democracy, free and fair elections, human rights, capitalism, free trade, and the separation of church and state. These ideas are widely accepted, even by political groups that do not openly profess a liberal ideological orientation. Liberalism encompasses several intellectual trends and traditions, but the dominant variants are classical liberalism, which became popular in the 18th century, and social liberalism, which became popular in the 20th century.

Conservatism (Latin: conservare, "to preserve")[1] is a political and social philosophy that promotes the maintenance of traditional institutions and opposes rapid change in society. Some conservatives seek to preserve things as they are, emphasizing stability and continuity, while others oppose modernism and seek a return to "the way things were."[2][3] The first established use of the term in a political context was by François-René de Chateaubriand in 1819, following the French Revolution.[4] The term has since been used to describe a wide range of views. According to Hailsham, a former chairman of the British Conservative Party, "Conservatism is not so much a philosophy as an attitude, a constant force, performing a timeless function in the development of a free society, and corresponding to a deep and permanent requirement of human nature itself".[5]

English Conservatism - Edmund Burke was the private secretary to the Marquis of Rockingham and official pamphlateer to the Rockingham branch of the Whig Party.[13] Together with the Tories, they were the conservatives in the late 18th century United Kingdom.[14] Burke's views were a mixture of liberal and conservative. He supported the American Revolution but abhored the violence of the French Revolution. He accepted the liberal ideals of private property and the economics of Adam Smith, but thought that economics should be kept subordinate to the conservative social ethic, that capitalism should be subordinate to the medieval social tradition and that the business class should be subordinate to aristocracy.[15] He insisted on standards of honor derived from the medieval aristocratic tradition, and saw the aristocracy as the nation's natural leaders.[16] That meant limits on the powers of the Crown, since he found the institutions of Parliament to be better informed than commissions appointed by the executive.[17] He favored an established church, but allowed for a degree of religious toleration.[18] Burke justified the social order on the basis of tradition: tradition represented the wisdom of the species and he valued community and social harmony over social reforms.[19]

French Conservatism - Another form of conservatism developed in France in parallel to conservatism in Britain. It was influenced by Counter-Enlightenment works by men such as Joseph de Maistre and Louis de Bonald. French conservatism was less pragmatic and more reactionary than the conservatism of Burke.
De Maistre argued for the restoration of hereditary monarchy, which he regarded as a divinely sanctioned institution, and for the indirect authority of the Pope over temporal matters. He also defended the principle of hierarchical authority, which the Revolution sought to destroy. In 1819 Maistre published his masterpiece Du Pape ("On the Pope"). The work is divided into four parts. In the first he argues that, in the Church, the pope is sovereign, and that it is an essential characteristic of all sovereign power that its decisions should be subject to no appeal. Consequently, the pope is infallible in his teaching, since it is by his teaching that he exercises his sovereignty. In the remaining divisions the author examines the relations of the pope and the temporal powers, civilization and the welfare of nations, and the schismatic Churches. He argues that nations require protection against abuses of power by a sovereignty superior to all others, and that this sovereignty should be that of the papacy, the historical saviour and maker of European civilization. Bonald advocated similar views but believe in giving more power to the monarchy than the church.
Eventually conservatives added patriotism and nationalism to the list of traditional values they support. German conservatives were the first to embrace nationalism, which was previously associated with liberalism and the Revolution in France.

Realism, also known as political realism (see also Realpolitik), is a school of international relations that prioritizes national interest and security over ideology, moral concerns and social reconstructions. This term is often synonymous with power politics.
Realist theories share the following key assumptions:
The international system is in a constant state of anarchy. There is no actor above states capable of regulating their interactions; states must arrive at relations with other states on their own, rather than it being dictated to them by some higher controlling entity.
In pursuit of national security, states strive to attain as many resources as possible.
States are rational unitary actors each moving towards their own national interest. There is a general distrust of long-term cooperation or alliance.
The overriding 'national interest' of each state is its national security and survival.
Relations between states are determined by their levels of power derived primarily from their military and economic capabilities.
The interjection of morality and values into international relations causes reckless commitments, diplomatic rigidity, and the escalation of conflict.
Sovereign states are the principal actors in the international system and special attention is afforded to large powers as they have the most influence on the international stage. International institutions, non-governmental organizations, multinational corporations, individuals and other sub-state or trans-state actors are viewed as having little independent influence.
In summary, realists believe that mankind is not inherently benevolent but rather self-centered and competitive. This perspective, which is shared by theorists such as Thomas Hobbes, views human nature as egocentric (not necessarily selfish) and conflictual unless given the right conditions under which they can coexist, contrasts with the approach of liberalism to international relations. Further, they believe that states are inherently aggressive (offensive realism) and/or obsessed with security (defensive realism); and that territorial expansion is only constrained by opposing power(s). This aggressive build-up, however, leads to a security dilemma where increasing one's security can bring along even greater instability as the opponent(s) builds up its own arms in response. Thus, security becomes a zero-sum game where only relative gains can be made. There are no universal principles which all states can use to guide their actions. Instead, a state must always be aware of the actions of the states around it and must use a pragmatic approach to resolve the problems that arise.

Neorealism shuns classical realism's use of often essentialist concepts such as "human nature" to explain international politics. Instead, neorealist thinkers developed a theory that privileges structural constraints over agents' strategies and motivations.
Neorealism holds that the international structure is defined by its ordering principle, which is anarchy, and by the distribution of capabilities, measured by the number of great powers within the international system. The anarchic ordering principle of the international structure is decentralized, having no formal central authority, and is composed of formally equal sovereign states. These states act according to the logic of self-help--states seek their own interest and will not subordinate their interest to another's.
States are assumed at a minimum to want to ensure their own survival as this is a prerequisite to pursue other goals. This driving force of survival is the primary factor influencing their behavior and in turn ensures states develop offensive military capabilities, for foreign interventionism and as a means to increase their relative power. Because states can never be certain of other states' future intentions, there is a lack of trust between states which requires them to be on guard against relative losses of power which could enable other states to threaten their survival. This lack of trust, based on uncertainty, is called the security dilemma.
States are deemed similar in terms of needs but not in capabilities for achieving them. The positional placement of states in terms of abilities determines the distribution of capabilities. The structural distribution of capabilities then limits cooperation among states through fears of relative gains made by other states, and the possibility of dependence on other states. The desire and relative abilities of each state to maximize relative power constrain each other, resulting in a 'balance of power', which shapes international relations. It also gives rise to the 'security dilemma' that all nations face. There are two ways in which states balance power: internal balancing and external balancing. Internal balancing occurs as states grow their own capabilities by increasing economic growth and/or increasing military spending. External balancing occurs as states enter into alliances to check the power of more powerful states or alliances.

Party Institutionalism is an approach that sees political parties as having some capacities for adaptation, but also sees them as being "prisoners of their own history as an institution". Aspects of the ideology that a party had when it was founded, persists even though the conditions and the party-base in society have changed. Scholars of this approach claim that the party's history determines how the party adapts to modern day challenges.
The left – right is still central in order to understand a party's policy, but the core of these theories is to compare the party's beliefs and values today with the ones at their founding. In analyzing a party's ideological orientation we must begin by analyzing the very origin of the party.
The most useful framework within this tradition is offered by von Beyme who identifies nine party- groups, or "familles spirituelles", that can be found in European liberal democracies today:
Liberal and Radical parties
Conservative parties
Socialist and Social Democratic parties
Christian Democratic parties
Communist parties
Agrarian parties
Regional and ethnic parties
Right-wing extremist parties
Ecology movement
Von Beyme claims that at the time of their founding these parties reflected the needs to defend particular kind of interests, but recognized that not every European party could be fitted into this schema. He has been criticized of being tempted to try to fit too many parties into this schema, when in reality there is not grounds for doing so. It needs to be said as well that quite many of the European parties classified into the categories above are regarded as having more or less lost contact with their original "famille spirituelle".

On July 06 2010 03:37 Avid221 wrote:


probably the most irrelevant post in this thread

On July 06 2010 03:06 larjarse wrote:
The newer the generation in US, the more liberal they are in my opinion. I am not really into politics or choosing sides or whatever, but that doesn't mean I'm entirely uneducated (although I'm no politics wiz) My friends and I seem to have a belief that when something is being done that is genuinely made to benefit EVERYONE and not make the rich richer and the poor more-so, it is a good thing.

The fact is, conservative America is not at all about accepting new ideas to make things better off for everyone. Conservatives want things as they have been. They seem to want to conserve old systems and laws, even if they are inefficient and outdated. Conservative politicians seem to be aiming at the older population, and not the new generation.

I'm going to throw "pro life" out there as an example. Of course no rational human wants babies to die, however, social dynamics are very different than they used to be. There are more people out there to compete for a mate, which leads to more sex before marriage or even dating. People have sex just to see if they have an emotional attachment, instead of doing it the other way around like it used to happen. Unfortunately, this is how babies are made. There are many women who get pregnant who didn't intend to, and cannot financially support a child. If she chooses to keep it, she will be in for a very stressful life. OR she can abort it, understand her mistake, and try to give a baby a good life later on in life.

Liberals say obviously do what you want and what you feel is right. Liberals want people to decide for themselves. I'm really down with that. I am not down with being told how to act and how I should think.

On July 06 2010 03:14 Sadistx wrote:
.

Yeah, but so called conservatives have trouble understanding that "killing babies" is a lot different from "not letting them be born".

I find that most conservative opinions stem from their fear of science and religious teachings which are often irrational and prohibit things that make no logical or economic sense.

On July 06 2010 03:23 kalleralle wrote:


This is blatantly false, very few economists agreed that the bailout was necessary. Almost all economists agrees that the bailout was money down the tubes. Pretty much only keynesians supported this godawful bailout, and keynesians are retarded.

http://money.cnn.com/2010/04/26/news/economy/NABE_survey/
http://townhall.com/columnists/LarryElder/2009/02/05/the_stimulus_package_-
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/01/28/politics/otherpeoplesmoney/main4759532.shtml_all_economists_agree
http://www.atr.org/economists-agree-stimulus-failed-a4842
http://townhall.com/columnists/LarryElder/2009/02/05/the_stimulus_package_-_all_economists_agree

On July 06 2010 03:31 NEWater wrote:
Conservatives tend to be Christians, and as a rule of thumb I don't trust Christians, or religious people (and in turn they're always conservative in some sense) to handle anything that's important to me. I make it a point to ask if my financial advisor is religious, for instance. So do I make it a point that if I go to a specialist doctor for surgery, more often than not, I try to go to one who isn't religious.

Why? Because I can't bring myself to let someone tell me that he believes in ridiculous things like how there's this invincible, invisible, all-powerful guy in the sky who loves him, and twisted the pagan ritual of blood sacrifice into some kind of a perversely good thing, then tell me that they can be lucid enough to manage my money. Why should I trust someone whose probable first step of action in crisis is to pray to a divine being that doesn't exist and is incapable of direct intervention? Should I let my financial advisor close his eyes, pray to God and choose a hedge fund at random because 'God told me so'? Should I have a peace of mind that my surgeon won't go "Oh God oh God help me" when he screws up instead of doing something productive?

To borrow a classification from Freud, conservatives to me are like children (since the massive lot of them tend to be religious in some way). Religious people are still in their child-like state who need some kind of supernatural validation of their selves and weakly, and meekly validate their "opinions" dished out by their pastors and constantly urged to quote the Bible like it's some kind of 'universal truth'. Why? Because God induced this heavy dependence on Christians and made it impossible for them to be weaned away from their weakness.

"You will never pray again, never adore again, never again rest in endless trust; you refuse to let yourself stop to unharness your thoughts before any ultimate wisdom, goodness or power; you have no perpetual guard and friend for your seven solitudes; you live without the view of a mountain-range with snow-capped peaks and fire in its heart; there is no avenger for you anymore, no final corrector of the text of your life; there is no more reason in what happens, no love in what will happen to you; no more resting place stands open for your heart in which to find and no longer seek.."

The Gay Science by Nietzsche, in the portion named Excelsior.

This much the Christian God has imposed himself upon his followers, and they're so dependent, they know nothing else. Like the sheep that Jesus favors, they remain stupid, want to remain stupid, and rejoice in being called stupid by their betters because Jesus liked his followers to be sheep.

On July 05 2010 19:51 kzn wrote:

tl;dr: Conservatives are over-represented at the extreme ends of intelligence distributions, while Liberals are over-represented in the middle areas. The internet artificially selects a distribution that is biased away from the lower end of that distribution, thus resulting in an artificially high Liberal-to-Conservative ratio.

On July 06 2010 03:41 Myles wrote:
What I'd like is someone with conservative economic theory but a liberal view on individual rights. In America it doesn't seem like that's possible right now.