the Neo-republican

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

[QUOTE="Trashface"] The modern definition of liberalism is social liberalism, not classic liberalism which the fore fathers practised. I'm going out. I'll reply back in like a week or something.Trashface

Interestingly, cIassic liberalism is more in line with cIassic conservativism.

[QUOTE="Trashface"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

Interestingly, cIassic liberalism is more in line with cIassic conservativism.

jointed

That's no more true than saying there's no such thing as "modern conservatism." Both ideologies have changed drastically since their creation.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="duxup"]

I don't really understand the whole founding fathers arguments. I like the bill of rights and the constitutional framework a good guide for government. However, I think to argue that the founding fathers would have absolutely said X, Y, or Z about recent topics A, B, and C is garbage at face value. The same founding fathers who were great guys a few hundred years ago today might have far different views, or generally suck as people. The world is a different place and to argue how exactly they'd see things today seems a REALLY big stretch.

duxup

[QUOTE="duxup"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]I think their basic ideas about governments role holds up today as well....

LJS9502_basic

Interestingly, cIassic liberalism is more in line with cIassic conservativism.

Theokhoth

[Yes and modern liberalism fits with niether.Trashface

There is no such thing as "modern liberalism". Liberalism in its original form still exists in Europe however. I suggest you read Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations...he describes the fundamentals behind liberal thought.jointed

[QUOTE="jointed"][QUOTE="Trashface"] Yes and modern liberalism fits with niether.Theokhoth

That's no more true than saying there's no such thing as "modern conservatism." Both ideologies have changed drastically since their creation.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="duxup"] You missed my point.duxup

By modern liberalism, I mean social liberalism which is in direct conflict with "the pursuit of happiness". Wealth redistribution puts a cap on success and the pursuit of happiness. These boards seem a lot more civil and mature than when I used to come more often. Nice.

Trashface

[QUOTE="duxup"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]No I got your point. I just think we can't dismiss their ideas just because it's a different time frame.

LJS9502_basic

[When it comes to resdistribution(You mean like how conservatives have redistrubuted wealth to the rich?), securing their power for financial gain(Yeah, because no conservatives have ever done that...) and furthering their agenda(Which can be applied to every politician ever to step into public office), they most certainly do. They just don't see it in that way.

Trashface

When I look at neo-conservatism, and the whole social conservative movement in general, I see conservatives wanting the state to decide who can get married and who cannot (i.e. the ban on same-sex marriage), I see conservatives wanting the state to have the authority to murder (i.e. capital punishment) and I see conservatives wanting the state to have the authority to ban substances from public use (i.e. war on drugs). Today's mainstream conservatives are most definitely in favor of big government, but I guess conservatives don't see it that way.

Conservatives will live forever!the_kidisblack

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="duxup"] No you missed my point.duxup

[QUOTE="Trashface"]

[When it comes to resdistribution(You mean like how conservatives have redistrubuted wealth to the rich?), securing their power for financial gain(Yeah, because no conservatives have ever done that...) and furthering their agenda(Which can be applied to every politician ever to step into public office), they most certainly do. They just don't see it in that way.

When I look at neo-conservatism, and the whole social conservative movement in general, I see conservatives wanting the state to decide who can get married and who cannot (i.e. the ban on same-sex marriage), I see conservatives wanting the state to have the authority to murder (i.e. capital punishment) and I see conservatives wanting the state to have the authority to ban substances from public use (i.e. war on drugs). I guess conservatives don't see it that way either.

[QUOTE="duxup"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Nope. You don't think we should wonder about what the founding fathers thought because time is different. Exactly what you said. However, the basis of their ideas should not be negated...which is my point which you.....misssed.

LJS9502_basic

This Generation I think will be known as "The Worst Generation" to be honest. Lazy, Spoiled, Dependent on others to take care of them, and above all, completely unappreciative of the people that worked so hard to try to make their lives today better.InterpolWilco

[QUOTE="duxup"] You're talking about something else.

You're still talking about something else. duxup

I don't really understand the whole founding fathers arguments. I like the bill of rights and the constitutional framework a good guide for government. However, I think to argue that the founding fathers would have absolutely said X, Y, or Z about recent topics A, B, and C is garbage at face value. The same founding fathers who were great guys a few hundred years ago today might have far different views, or generally suck as people. The world is a different place and to argue how exactly they'd see things today seems a REALLY big stretch.duxup

[QUOTE="duxup"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Not really. I don't think we can apply some things from yesterday to today but I don't think we should ignore basic principles either.

MoonMarvel

[QUOTE="duxup"] You're still talking about something else. LJS9502_basic

I don't really understand the whole founding fathers arguments. I like the bill of rights and the constitutional framework a good guide for government. However, I think to argue that the founding fathers would have absolutely said X, Y, or Z about recent topics A, B, and C is garbage at face value. The same founding fathers who were great guys a few hundred years ago today might have far different views, or generally suck as people. The world is a different place and to argue how exactly they'd see things today seems a REALLY big stretch.duxup

The ideas are relevant. The idea that whatever father(s) you would choose would in fact stick to those ideas today is pure garbage.

duxup

[QUOTE="Trashface"]

[When it comes to resdistribution(You mean like how conservatives have redistrubuted wealth to the rich?), securing their power for financial gain(Yeah, because no conservatives have ever done that...) and furthering their agenda(Which can be applied to every politician ever to step into public office), they most certainly do. They just don't see it in that way.

When I look at neo-conservatism, and the whole social conservative movement in general, I see conservatives wanting the state to decide who can get married and who cannot (i.e. the ban on same-sex marriage), I see conservatives wanting the state to have the authority to murder (i.e. capital punishment) and I see conservatives wanting the state to have the authority to ban substances from public use (i.e. war on drugs). I guess conservatives don't see it that way either.

Socialized healthcare is the last thing we need. Look what its done to Canada. Republicans object to the stimulus pack because it creates too much dependancy on the gov't. Thats also the last thing we need. What we need is self-initiative, and the strengthening of small-businesses. It's things like the stimulus pack and welfare that stop the growth of entrepeneurs(Not sure of the spelling on that. lol). If we keep bailing out the big companies that got us into this horrible economic crisis, they'll never learn to take accountability for their actions. It comes down to this: Liberal Democrats wanna throw money at the problem to strengthen the gov't which creates over dependancy. Conservative Republicans wanna create self-initiative by strengthening the individual and small-businesses so we can get out of this depression the natural way.KH-mixerX

What are you suggesting it has done to Canada, and what do you base this on?

And IIRC, the kind of socialized healthcare Obama is proposing for the US isn't the same kind as we have here in Canada anyway...

[QUOTE="Trashface"]

[When it comes to resdistribution(You mean like how conservatives have redistrubuted wealth to the rich?), securing their power for financial gain(Yeah, because no conservatives have ever done that...) and furthering their agenda(Which can be applied to every politician ever to step into public office), they most certainly do. They just don't see it in that way.

-Sun_Tzu-

When I look at neo-conservatism, and the whole social conservative movement in general, I see conservatives wanting the state to decide who can get married and who cannot (i.e. the ban on same-sex marriage), I see conservatives wanting the state to have the authority to murder (i.e. capital punishment) and I see conservatives wanting the state to have the authority to ban substances from public use (i.e. war on drugs). Today's mainstream conservatives are most definitely in favor of big government, but I guess conservatives don't see it that way.

Repulicans are less conservative.....being 100% liberal is not the answer either. You need balance.

LJS9502_basic

I agree completely. Even as a very liberal Democrat I think there needs to be a size-able opposition in DC.

[QUOTE="duxup"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]No I got your point. I just think we can't dismiss their ideas just because it's a different time frame.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't it seem like a good chunk of current "Conservatives" have now become fiscal conservatives since Obama has taken office? It seems like I turn on any news network and I see them furious at Obamas spending. I absolutely agree that Obama plans to spend to much, but where were they during the Bush administration? It seems to me they turned a blind eye to the Bush administrations spending.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't it seem like a good chunk of current "Conservatives" have now become fiscal conservatives since Obama has taken office? It seems like I turn on any news network and I see them furious at Obamas spending. I absolutely agree that Obama plans to spend to much, but where were they during the Bush administration? It seems to me they turned a blind eye to the Bush administrations spending.

RmanForLife

I DO think that Neo-Republicans are on their way out. But I think more Republicans need to be more like myself. We need to stand strong on the REAL Republican issues. Smaller government, lower taxes, pro-gun rights, pro-military, etc. What we need to do is remove the religious branch of the party because they're holding us back. The religious groups are so backwards, anti-abortion, anti-science, etc. If we could stick true to our values and stop catering to the religious branch, I think we would take power back in an instant. remmbermytitans

This topic is from two months ago. . .

[QUOTE="remmbermytitans"]I DO think that Neo-Republicans are on their way out. But I think more Republicans need to be more like myself. We need to stand strong on the REAL Republican issues. Smaller government, lower taxes, pro-gun rights, pro-military, etc. What we need to do is remove the religious branch of the party because they're holding us back. The religious groups are so backwards, anti-abortion, anti-science, etc. If we could stick true to our values and stop catering to the religious branch, I think we would take power back in an instant. Trashface

I DO think that Neo-Republicans are on their way out. But I think more Republicans need to be more like myself. We need to stand strong on the REAL Republican issues. Smaller government, lower taxes, pro-gun rights, pro-military, etc. What we need to do is remove the religious branch of the party because they're holding us back. The religious groups are so backwards, anti-abortion, anti-science, etc. If we could stick true to our values and stop catering to the religious branch, I think we would take power back in an instant. remmbermytitans

[QUOTE="remmbermytitans"][QUOTE="Trashface"] You think just the religious wing is anti abortion? And much of the religious wing is NOT anti science. These are stereotypes. Whats holding Republicans back are the weak and spineless who are only interested in pandering and appeasement.

Trashface

[QUOTE="Trashface"][QUOTE="remmbermytitans"] No, I believe that the majority of the religious wing is anti-science and anti-abortion. There are exceptions to everything. If we let go of the people holding us back, then we can shoot to the top. True, core, religious-less, Republicanism should be the future of the party.remmbermytitans

The truth is a middle ground between individualism and collectivism (European Social Democracy), IMO.

or just now days conservatives, these people are a dying breed as the usa becomes more educaded it is becoming more liberal and these guys are on their way out.

the goal of the neo rebublican or the "new republican" is to squander and waste everything because they know their on their way out. bush was one and look what a mess he made, 350 billion of your money is unaccounted for and thats just the latest blunder.

conservative state leaders are refusing to take stimilus money which will help rebuild and fix the mess they made they want the us to fail.

we need more than a new administration we need the eradication of these old baby boomers, they were not the greatist generation, they will be rememberd as the generation who ruined and squanderd everything in the last 70 years that took hundreds to build.

well thats my rant, its pretty much the truth if you look at the numbers.

cruzer167

It could be worse. its not like our current president is bankrupting us to the point were he is practically running this country into the ground... oh wait...

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

Repulicans are less conservative.....being 100% liberal is not the answer either. You need balance.

btaylor2404

I agree completely. Even as a very liberal Democrat I think there needs to be a size-able opposition in DC.

You know I respect you B, and your position on this is very mature and well thought out as always.

I, however (as a very liberal democrat), want the complete destruction of the republican party! ;)

I've always been an Independant. Only having Democrat or Republican status really isn't getting us anywhere. they follow 'the company line'. Neo-republicans, new liberals, etc. is just the way these OLD parties are trying to maneuver their company line, to fool us into thinking they hold all answers.

Nobody holds faith in middle of the road politicians, but I say the middle road is exactly where america needs to start working politically. All or Nothing (Right or Left, Conservative or Liberal, Democrat or Republican) veiwpoints are only that -all or nothing. These usually end up as Only Nothing. In a diversified society of All kinds of citizens,(aka United States of America)it really isn't doing much good to pick Only left or Only right. "There can be no progress without compromise". If the majority is supposed to have their rule, then the extreme ends need to tuck back in some.

IMO

[QUOTE="btaylor2404"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

Repulicans are less conservative.....being 100% liberal is not the answer either. You need balance.

TBoogy

I agree completely. Even as a very liberal Democrat I think there needs to be a size-able opposition in DC.

You know I respect you B, and your position on this is very mature and well thought out as always.

I, however (as a very liberal democrat), want the complete destruction of the republican party! ;)

[QUOTE="TBoogy"]

[QUOTE="btaylor2404"]

I agree completely. Even as a very liberal Democrat I think there needs to be a size-able opposition in DC.

remmbermytitans

You know I respect you B, and your position on this is very mature and well thought out as always.

I, however (as a very liberal democrat), want the complete destruction of the republican party! ;)

I don't think I am that type of person. And to be honest, I don't care for labels and did not realize until fairly recently that I was "a liberal".

For me, everything is a matter of right and wrong, and I am ALWAYS right and everyone should think as I do...

Then there is nothing to fight over. A utopia for all!

Well, that's how I see it anyway.

:)