|
|
Post by Prometheus on Apr 19, 2021 3:42:14 GMT
dictionary.com says:
Since this is the politics board, we can toss #3, and since I didn't capitalize in the subject line, we can toss #4 as well. So I guess we're going to talk about 1 and 2.
1. disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.
I think this is the definition that springs to mind for most people these days when they hear the word, so their tendency is to think that conservativism is completely averse to change. Indeed many modern conservatives do seem averse to the notion, but not all of them. The problem is that it's simply too easy to shout down someone who expresses an idea before they've had a chance to fully explain their meaning. We live in a world of soundbites without context run by a bunch of political "hooligans" (think "football hooligans") who are so blindly devoted to their ideology that they can no longer see the forest for the trees.
Let's talk about the 1950's. If a politician says anything positive about the 50's, he or she will immediately be inundated with rants about civil rights and women's rights and so on and so forth. But maybe, the speaker just wants to talk about the positives (and there were many). There was prosperity and stability. There was opportunity. There was a general happiness.
"Except for..." the naysayers shout.
Hang tight. Wait a moment before you start shouting. What if we could have all of those things like we did in the 50's but have them for everyone? You might have heard that if you ever let anyone finish a fucking sentence once in a while. [C]onservatives might not be so "reactionary" if you'd just let them have a moment to speak.
Seriously take a moment to think about it. Wouldn't it be nice if EVERYONE had the chance to share in a country like the white folks had in the 50's? Isn't that what all the activism is about: for everyone to have what straight, white men had in the 50's?
2. cautiously moderate or purposefully low
[C]onservatives of this ilk, often get lumped in with group 1, which I think is more than a bit unfair... and stupid. I don't see anything wrong with wanting to take a more deliberate approach to an issue rather than just dive in headlong. Just ask those kids who die every year by jumping into water without verifying the depth first.
So-called "progressives" are the kids diving without checking. Sadly, they've grabbed the arms of the rest of us and forced us to dive too.
I'm all for equality and social justice and public goods that make the US a better, stronger nation.
BUT
I don't just look at the "end result" and jump. I want to make sure the water's deep enough. If it isn't, I want to check out other spots to dive from. Maybe I have to take several dives from progressively higher vantages to make sure it's going to work out, not just for me, but for my friends as well.
Let's look at UHC. It's a good idea. Single-payer UHC is really the best form that I can think of. Did we look into it? Did we take the time to see about how it could and should be implemented?
NOPE
What we got was "Obamacare" (which is NOT UHC) and it was slipped past us so that no one had a chance to check out the feasibility and it was implemented with a host of problems.
"But it's a stepping-stone...!"
No it isn't... unless you think that somehow people are going to start clambering for single-payer UHC in the wake of "Obamacare's" abject failure.
"We shouldn't dive here, but no one's going to believe us until Billy jumps in and gets killed first. Hey, Billy!...."
Really? Is that how you think we should approach progress?
In the end, it's OK to want the best of the 50's as long as we leave out the worst, and we have to do it with deliberation so that we can fix our small mistakes BEFORE they become big mistakes.
We have to be "conservative" in our approach so that our "progress" can be realized.
/Monday Morning Rant
|
|
|
|
Post by abbey1227 on Apr 19, 2021 4:38:26 GMT
Really? Is that how you think we should approach progress?
In the end, it's OK to want the best of the 50's as long as we leave out the worst, and we have to do it with deliberation so that we can fix our small mistakes BEFORE they become big mistakes.
We have to be "conservative" in our approach so that our "progress" can be realized.
/Monday Morning Rant
Jesus, that's a beautiful way of putting it.
I've always thought of myself as conservative in many ways......until someone proves to me that a newer approach or method actually works better than what I've been doing. Then I'm more than willing to adjust to the newer, better way.
I don't think you went far enough in all of the negative connotations that come with the word 'conservative' these days, though. Heckuva anti-marketing campaign they've had in place for years.
|
|
|
|
Post by Prometheus on Apr 20, 2021 2:29:17 GMT
Really? Is that how you think we should approach progress?
In the end, it's OK to want the best of the 50's as long as we leave out the worst, and we have to do it with deliberation so that we can fix our small mistakes BEFORE they become big mistakes.
We have to be "conservative" in our approach so that our "progress" can be realized.
/Monday Morning Rant
Jesus, that's a beautiful way of putting it.
I've always thought of myself as conservative in many ways......until someone proves to me that a newer approach or method actually works better than what I've been doing. Then I'm more than willing to adjust to the newer, better way.
I don't think you went far enough in all of the negative connotations that come with the word 'conservative' these days, though. Heckuva anti-marketing campaign they've had in place for years.
1. Thank you. I thought it was a nice turn of phrase myself. 
2. Me too. I still don't pay for things with my phone - which drives others crazy - but the thing is: I know myself and I know that the easier things are to buy, the more things I will buy. Using cash helps keep me [more] frugal. ![[giveup]](//storage.proboards.com/7182076/images/FSYefibmKqtatIXMgHZg.gif)
3. Hours in a day, Abs. Hours in a day....
As for the "anti-marketing campaign," the Republicans haven't done themselves any favors either. They've become the embodiment of the worst parts of definition 1 and reall only pay lip-service to Definition 2.
I think if you showed my post to a bunch of people who call themselves "moderates," they'd all start nodding their heads, much to the chagrin of their "progressive" pals and the consternation of their "Definition 1" friends.
|
|
Nightman
Ardipithecus
Original Eight
Posts: 122
|
Post by Nightman on Apr 20, 2021 4:23:01 GMT
Really? Is that how you think we should approach progress? In the end, it's OK to want the best of the 50's as long as we leave out the worst, and we have to do it with deliberation so that we can fix our small mistakes BEFORE they become big mistakes.
We have to be "conservative" in our approach so that our "progress" can be realized. /Monday Morning Rant
Jesus, that's a beautiful way of putting it. I've always thought of myself as conservative in many ways......until someone proves to me that a newer approach or method actually works better than what I've been doing. Then I'm more than willing to adjust to the newer, better way. I don't think you went far enough in all of the negative connotations that come with the word 'conservative' these days, though. Heckuva anti-marketing campaign they've had in place for years.
It is rather hard for cons to have a positive image when they have not done anything positive for people in decades, if ever.  |
|
Nightman
Ardipithecus
Original Eight
Posts: 122
|
Post by Nightman on Apr 20, 2021 4:57:05 GMT
Jesus, that's a beautiful way of putting it.
I've always thought of myself as conservative in many ways......until someone proves to me that a newer approach or method actually works better than what I've been doing. Then I'm more than willing to adjust to the newer, better way.
I don't think you went far enough in all of the negative connotations that come with the word 'conservative' these days, though. Heckuva anti-marketing campaign they've had in place for years.
1. Thank you. I thought it was a nice turn of phrase myself.
2. Me too. I still don't pay for things with my phone - which drives others crazy - but the thing is: I know myself and I know that the easier things are to buy, the more things I will buy. Using cash helps keep me [more] frugal.
3. Hours in a day, Abs. Hours in a day....
As for the "anti-marketing campaign," the Republicans haven't done themselves any favors either. They've become the embodiment of the worst parts of definition 1 and reall only pay lip-service to Definition 2.
I think if you showed my post to a bunch of people who call themselves "moderates," they'd all start nodding their heads, much to the chagrin of their "progressive" pals and the consternation of their "Definition 1" friends.
I think technology is part of the problem. Progressives, and moderates to an extent, are able to communicate with people in western Europe and other areas, and see how well things they want here are working overseas. Or they want policies that are more liberal than they are in Europe. And they want those policies implemented now, with little regard to the fact that the US has a much higher population than the other nations; things may not work as well here with that fact. The perception of "conservatism" today is a more extreme version of the definitions in the op: Holding the country back just for the sake of holding it back. No debate about anything, no thought, just holding everything back to own the libs. That's really what it's about nowadays, doing whatever they can to irritate people they hate. They don't care if they hurt or kill themselves in the process. That, and denying reality for no apparent reason, only paying lip service to science when they think they can use it to oppress a minority or annoy a lib. As for the 1950s stuff, there will have to be serious implementation of lib ideas to make that a reality again. High corporate taxes, price controls, and controlling corporations more in general. If you want to make everybody as happy and as powerful as straight white men in that era, that means no more governmental and corporate rules limiting them. So cons will have to sit down and stfu in that area as well. |
|
|
|
Post by Prometheus on Apr 20, 2021 5:35:53 GMT
1. Thank you. I thought it was a nice turn of phrase myself.
2. Me too. I still don't pay for things with my phone - which drives others crazy - but the thing is: I know myself and I know that the easier things are to buy, the more things I will buy. Using cash helps keep me [more] frugal.
3. Hours in a day, Abs. Hours in a day....
As for the "anti-marketing campaign," the Republicans haven't done themselves any favors either. They've become the embodiment of the worst parts of definition 1 and reall only pay lip-service to Definition 2.
I think if you showed my post to a bunch of people who call themselves "moderates," they'd all start nodding their heads, much to the chagrin of their "progressive" pals and the consternation of their "Definition 1" friends.
I think technology is part of the problem. Progressives, and moderates to an extent, are able to communicate with people in western Europe and other areas, and see how well things they want here are working overseas. Or they want policies that are more liberal than they are in Europe. And they want those policies implemented now, with little regard to the fact that the US has a much higher population than the other nations; things may not work as well here with that fact. The perception of "conservatism" today is a more extreme version of the definitions in the op: Holding the country back just for the sake of holding it back. No debate about anything, no thought, just holding everything back to own the libs. That's really what it's about nowadays, doing whatever they can to irritate people they hate. They don't care if they hurt or kill themselves in the process. That, and denying reality for no apparent reason, only paying lip service to science when they think they can use it to oppress a minority or annoy a lib. As for the 1950s stuff, there will have to be serious implementation of lib ideas to make that a reality again. High corporate taxes, price controls, and controlling corporations more in general. If you want to make everybody as happy and as powerful as straight white men in that era, that means no more governmental and corporate rules limiting them. So cons will have to sit down and stfu in that area as well. They way you answered is exactly why I made a point of using the word "Republican" distinctly from "conservative": conflation
And "higher corporate taxes and price controls" sounds a lot like "libs just wanting to hurt Republicans because they can." 
And I say that as a "radical" capitalist who would eliminate corporations if given the chance and make sole proprietorships and partnerships (with a certain degree of limited liability) the only business ownership forms available.
Corporate taxes in the ever-loved-by-libs Scandinavian countries are much lower than personal income taxes. It ensures that the people pay for their entitlements while letting the businesses have a break in order to keep operating and keep paying those higher wages that are then stripped bear by 40 to 50% (or higher) personal income tax rates.
In this era of globalization, slamming corporations with higher tax rates will just force them to move to a better tax environment and put thousands of Americans on the dole with no one to pay the taxes to make sure the dole is funded.
The corporate tax rate in Sweden in only 0.4% higher than the US. Denmark and Norway: 1% higher. Finland's corporate tax rate is 1% lower than the US.
Finland also has the highest marginal income tax rate in the world at nearly 67%. Finland even taxes you to be a member of their church. No wonder membership is falling. It's cheaper to be an atheist.
|
|
|
|
Post by abbey1227 on Apr 20, 2021 6:37:13 GMT
It is rather hard for cons to have a positive image when they have not done anything positive for people in decades, if ever.
oh? What exactly do you need to have done for you, sweetheart?
Just admit, it's easier to be the Party of Yes, than the Party of No
Free shit sells so well.........even if it's the major problem in the US today.
|
|
Nightman
Ardipithecus
Original Eight
Posts: 122
|
Post by Nightman on Apr 20, 2021 14:01:04 GMT
I think technology is part of the problem. Progressives, and moderates to an extent, are able to communicate with people in western Europe and other areas, and see how well things they want here are working overseas. Or they want policies that are more liberal than they are in Europe. And they want those policies implemented now, with little regard to the fact that the US has a much higher population than the other nations; things may not work as well here with that fact. The perception of "conservatism" today is a more extreme version of the definitions in the op: Holding the country back just for the sake of holding it back. No debate about anything, no thought, just holding everything back to own the libs. That's really what it's about nowadays, doing whatever they can to irritate people they hate. They don't care if they hurt or kill themselves in the process. That, and denying reality for no apparent reason, only paying lip service to science when they think they can use it to oppress a minority or annoy a lib. As for the 1950s stuff, there will have to be serious implementation of lib ideas to make that a reality again. High corporate taxes, price controls, and controlling corporations more in general. If you want to make everybody as happy and as powerful as straight white men in that era, that means no more governmental and corporate rules limiting them. So cons will have to sit down and stfu in that area as well. They way you answered is exactly why I made a point of using the word "Republican" distinctly from "conservative": conflation
And "higher corporate taxes and price controls" sounds a lot like "libs just wanting to hurt Republicans because they can."
And I say that as a "radical" capitalist who would eliminate corporations if given the chance and make sole proprietorships and partnerships (with a certain degree of limited liability) the only business ownership forms available.
Corporate taxes in the ever-loved-by-libs Scandinavian countries are much lower than personal income taxes. It ensures that the people pay for their entitlements while letting the businesses have a break in order to keep operating and keep paying those higher wages that are then stripped bear by 40 to 50% (or higher) personal income tax rates.
In this era of globalization, slamming corporations with higher tax rates will just force them to move to a better tax environment and put thousands of Americans on the dole with no one to pay the taxes to make sure the dole is funded.
The corporate tax rate in Sweden in only 0.4% higher than the US. Denmark and Norway: 1% higher. Finland's corporate tax rate is 1% lower than the US.
Finland also has the highest marginal income tax rate in the world at nearly 67%. Finland even taxes you to be a member of their church. No wonder membership is falling. It's cheaper to be an atheist.
Indeed. Higher corporate taxes and price controls hurts a disturbing number of libs as well. For some reason, it isn't acknowledged how many libs are greedy jerks as well. That's what happens when people who aren't frothing at the mouth insane are lumped with genuine libs, the term "liberal" is too broad. Yep, but that part doesn't come across well; Scandinavians don't mention it for some reason. |
|
|
|
Post by Prometheus on Apr 20, 2021 15:58:16 GMT
They way you answered is exactly why I made a point of using the word "Republican" distinctly from "conservative": conflation
And "higher corporate taxes and price controls" sounds a lot like "libs just wanting to hurt Republicans because they can."
And I say that as a "radical" capitalist who would eliminate corporations if given the chance and make sole proprietorships and partnerships (with a certain degree of limited liability) the only business ownership forms available.
Corporate taxes in the ever-loved-by-libs Scandinavian countries are much lower than personal income taxes. It ensures that the people pay for their entitlements while letting the businesses have a break in order to keep operating and keep paying those higher wages that are then stripped bear by 40 to 50% (or higher) personal income tax rates.
In this era of globalization, slamming corporations with higher tax rates will just force them to move to a better tax environment and put thousands of Americans on the dole with no one to pay the taxes to make sure the dole is funded.
The corporate tax rate in Sweden in only 0.4% higher than the US. Denmark and Norway: 1% higher. Finland's corporate tax rate is 1% lower than the US.
Finland also has the highest marginal income tax rate in the world at nearly 67%. Finland even taxes you to be a member of their church. No wonder membership is falling. It's cheaper to be an atheist.
Indeed. Higher corporate taxes and price controls hurts a disturbing number of libs as well. For some reason, it isn't acknowledged how many libs are greedy jerks as well. That's what happens when people who aren't frothing at the mouth insane are lumped with genuine libs, the term "liberal" is too broad. Yep, but that part doesn't come across well; Scandinavians don't mention it for some reason. Libs tend to promise the moon but only ever serve up a 50-year-old Polaroid of it and say, "Soon...."
Why?
Because they're greedy jerks and they get to blame Republicans for failed legislation (that they didn't really want either) and they get to ask for "liberal" votes over and over.
Some people call that concept, "The Democratic Plantation" which really irks a certain segment of voters for some strange reason.... 
Scandinavians don't mention it and neither do the "socialists" like AOC. She'll tell you that McDonald's workers in Denmark make $22 an hour without ever mentioning that it's only about $11 after taxes. And she'll never mention that a Big Mac Meal in Denmark costs about $12... but I can't remember if that's before or after the 25% VAT.
It's hard to sell a dream when people know the reality.
In all honesty, the US probably wouldn't have to worry about raising taxes if they just closed the loopholes and taxed capital gains as income.
So it goes....
|
|
|
|
Post by abbey1227 on Apr 21, 2021 1:37:03 GMT
It's hard to sell a dream when people know the reality.
NOT a very popular state of being in the US
|
|
|
|
Post by papamihel on Apr 26, 2021 5:29:50 GMT
In the US it is supposed to mean someone who's true to the political philosophy of Classical Liberalism. In theory...
|
|
|
|
Post by abbey1227 on Apr 26, 2021 7:00:01 GMT
In the US it is supposed to mean someone who's true to the political philosophy of Classical Liberalism. In theory...
At the same time the 'follow the science' types are pointing out that Neanderthals were actually very advanced......... they're calling anyone who doesn't believe in their cult 'Neanderthals'.
|
|
|
|
Post by Prometheus on Apr 27, 2021 1:08:29 GMT
In the US it is supposed to mean someone who's true to the political philosophy of Classical Liberalism. In theory... I suppose that the younger ones simply think of "classical" as meaning "old" and they want things to be "new."
Sadly they don't yet realize that nothing they are selling is "new" either.
|
|
![[giveup]](http://storage.proboards.com/7182076/images/FSYefibmKqtatIXMgHZg.gif)
![[cheers]](http://storage.proboards.com/7182076/images/engyBVslEdpmpmdnBwZQ.gif)