To where do your loyalties and agendas lie?

[Justinian]

I thought it was fitting since no one has done this yet on this apparantly new forum to take a poll on what kind of people are on it.

[Sgt Schultz]

A none of the above should have been included. I can't make a choice since my political leanings incorporate bits and pieces of some of the choices but don't align with just one.

[Think for myself]

A none of the above should have been included. I can't make a choice since my political leanings incorporate bits and pieces of some of the choices but don't align with just one.

Mine too, but I put Anti-National NWO hopeful just because.

[ArmChair General]

I thought it was fitting since no one has done this yet on this apparantly new forum to take a poll on what kind of people are on it.


hahaha...you aint no Paleocon. that made me laugh.

[Coyote]

Meh...nothing really fits so I just made a snap decision.

[vyo476]

Meh...nothing really fits so I just made a snap decision.

It's common knowledge that all quadrupeds are totalitarians :mad:

[Coyote]

It's common knowledge that all quadrupeds are totalitarians :mad:

That's right. Now give me your bone!

[vyo476]

That's right. Now give me your bone!

I love it when you talk dirty.

[Justinian]

A none of the above should have been included. I can't make a choice since my political leanings incorporate bits and pieces of some of the choices but don't align with just one.

That would mean you're an independed leaning towars one way or the other.

[Justinian]

hahaha...you aint no Paleocon. that made me laugh.

Are you trying to tell me WHO I AM!?! No, I'm a paleocon alright.

[Sgt Schultz]

That would mean you're an independed leaning towars one way or the other.

If you meant independent that is correct. My loyalties are to the Constitution of this country. I swore an oath to defend it and I will against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Just because I've retired from the military now doesn't mean I don't still hold that oath to heart.

[Coyote]

I love it when you talk dirty.

oooooo baby....I think I'm in love :p

http://www.dongettyphoto.com/captives/images/Wolves-2.jpg

[vyo476]

oooooo baby....I think I'm in love :p


Too bad I sold my soul a few years back. It seems that your feelings of romance will forever go unrequited.

[ArmChair General]

Are you trying to tell me WHO I AM!?! No, I'm a paleocon alright.

Nooo....no you are not. If you think are, that just means you have no idea what it is.

[Castle]

80% paleocon, 20% mix
So sue me for being a mutt :rolleyes:

-Castle

[Justinian]

Nooo....no you are not. If you think are, that just means you have no idea what it is.

No. Perhaps you don't...

Paleoconservatism (sometimes shortened to paleo or paleocon when the context is clear) is an anti-communist and anti-authoritarian[1] right wing movement based primarily in the United States that stresses tradition, civil society and classical federalism, along with familial, religious, regional, national and Western identity.[2] Chilton Williamson, Jr. describes paleoconservatism as "the expression of rootedness: a sense of place and of history, a sense of self derived from forebears, kin, and culture — an identity that is both collective and personal.”[3] Paleoconservativism is not expressed as an ideology and its adherents do not necessarily subscribe to any one party line.[4]

Paleoconservatives in the 21st century often focus on their points of disagreement with neoconservatives, especially on issues like immigration, affirmative action, foreign wars, and welfare.[2] They also criticize social democracy, which some refer to as the therapeutic managerial state,[5] the welfare-warfare state[6] or polite totalitarianism.[7] They see themselves as the legitimate heir to the American conservative tradition.[8]
Paul Gottfried (and possibly Andrew F. Seabrook as well) is credited with coining the term in the late 20th century.[9] He says the word originally referred to various Americans, such as traditionalist Catholics and agrarian Southerners, who turned to anticommunism during the Cold War.[10] It then began referring to the conservative opposition to neoconservatism.

No, that's exactly what I am.

[Segep]

I was torn between liberal and socialist. I thought maybe choosing socialist might rile a couple people, though.....:D

[lipmonkey]

I would have chosen none of the above because I'm not loyal to any party or their agenda. I vote across party lines for whoever best represents my views, though I have yet to find any politician or party I'm in total agreement with.

[Justinian]

I was torn between liberal and socialist. I thought maybe choosing socialist might rile a couple people, though.....:D

Liberalism, a very new idea in mainstream politics is the intellectual-formula and underclass-sympathy driven agenda to the hopeful destruction of society, moreover the world as we know it.

[vyo476]

Liberalism, a very new idea in mainstream politics is the intellectual-formula and underclass-sympathy driven agenda to the hopeful destruction of society, moreover the world as we know it.

Cause you know, "the world as we know it" is such a dandy place, I want to keep everything exactly like it was in the Middle Ages. Why wouldn't anyone want that?

[Justinian]

Cause you know, "the world as we know it" is such a dandy place, I want to keep everything exactly like it was in the Middle Ages. Why wouldn't anyone want that?

Why do you want to keep things as they were in the middle ages?

[USMC the Almighty]

I was torn between liberal and socialist. I thought maybe choosing socialist might rile a couple people, though.....:D

Anyone who choses socialist doesn't so much have a political disagreement with me, but a disagreement over life philosophies.

[Justinian]

Anyone who choses socialist doesn't so much have a political disagreement with me, but a disagreement over life philosophies.

Liberalism has merely cleared a field in which every soul and every corporate interest may fight with every other for domination (enslavement). Whoever is victorious in this struggle will make an end of liberalism; and the new order, which will deem itself saved, will have to defend itself in the following age against a new crop of rebels. Concluding, modern liberalism is not a lifestyle or ideology of a society but the actual systematic undoing of society which by nature cannot withstand the threat of new ideologies rising to dominance. Of course Liberals, socialists, intellectuals know this which requires them to tap into an infinite stream of foreigners to liberalize the populaces ideology spectrum. It is imperative for the liberal ideology's survival.

[9sublime]

Systematic undoing is not another term for the word change, I think your thesauras isn't very good.

[Justinian]

Systematic undoing is not another term for the word change, I think your thesauras isn't very good.

What are you talking about? The idea that Liberalism is the idea and advocation of change is a phony myth. Liberalism in another world once professed to advocate liberty but is now a movement for control over property, trade, work, amusements, education, religion and even marriage. Liberalism is also not an advocate of liberty today but most obviously a counterpart of forced control. Liberals, becoming an advocate of the tyranny of the state in every field, offers to us as an apology his intention of freeing the people. And freeing the people from what, you ask? Freeing the people from the very consequences of freedom. There is almost nothing rightly in the hands of power to change without the liberal exercise of public intelligence and freedom of intelligence given to them with gratious stern confidence by their ancestors before them. The Perceptive reformer combines an ability to reform with a disposition to preserve; the man who loves change is wholly disqualified , from his lust, to be the agent of change.

[9sublime]

The Perceptive reformer combines an ability to reform with a disposition to preserve; the man who loves change is wholly disqualified , from his lust, to be the agent of change.

That just simply doesn't make sense. It's like you've put it through an online translator or something, because I hope you don't honestly think thats true. A person who wants change, actualy want to preserve, and so cannot change anything even though he wants to? Its arse, plain and simple.

Nice words once again, your thesaurus is doing you proud. No real substance under there, just one or two points that could have been compressed into hard hitting points rather than you just testiculating.

[qalam]

Liberalism, a very new idea in mainstream politics is the intellectual-formula and underclass-sympathy driven agenda to the hopeful destruction of society, moreover the world as we know it.


Liberalism had its beginings in the 17th century with Hobbes and Locke. Liberalism also makes reciprocal tolerance a virtue. Individuals must be allowed to worship how they wish, have their own political opinions, and be tolerant of others with views different from their own.

[USMC the Almighty]

Liberalism had its beginings in the 17th century with Hobbes and Locke. Liberalism also makes reciprocal tolerance a virtue. Individuals must be allowed to worship how they wish, have their own political opinions, and be tolerant of others with views different from their own.

You're speaking historically. The term "liberal" in referennce to Locke, or Hobbes, or Jefferson doesn't even come close to describing modern day "liberals". In fact, they are the exact opposite of liberal for they advocate bigger government, and thus, by definition, less indiviudal sovereignty.

The ironic thing is that Thomas Jefferson, the great Liberal, created the "governs least governs best" philosophy that conservatism is based.

[9sublime]

Thomas Jefferson is surely a liberatarian then, rather than a liberal?

[USMC the Almighty]

Thomas Jefferson is surely a liberatarian then, rather than a liberal?

He's a "Classical Liberal".

[9sublime]

Yeah, but in todays world he's closer to a liberatarian.

[USMC the Almighty]

Yeah, but in todays world he's closer to a liberatarian.

and that's my point. That for galam to make a connection of today's "liberals" to the classical liberals like Locke or Jefferson is historically unfounded. They have no connection, and in fact, are practically polar opposites.

[JavaBlack]

The modern day ideologies of liberalism and conservatism are actually both products of liberalism. This represents the variation and even contradiction that occurs in the wider ideals of liberalism.
Liberalism calls for self governance, but also for protecting the "weak" from the "strong"
for democracy, but against tyranny of the majority
for equality of opportunity, but also for keeping government out of the economy
for human rights but also for defense against those hostile to the people
for good works and charity but also for individualist self interest
for an educated populous but also for free thought
for freedom of religion and seperation of church from state
for national (possibly world) unity but also for freedom to choose one's path

There are many things within the larger doctrine of liberalism that require reconciliation due to their combative nature. It is much like our government and court system... the ideology was also a product of adversarial process and balance.
Liberalism and conservatism of today reflect the point we are at now in maintaining balance over the larger liberalism.

[Truth-Bringer]

So you're over here now too, Java? Welcome aboard! Even the mods are abandoning 'political forum' now...

[JavaBlack]

I'm not abandoning it. I'm just diversifying.
PF has its days or times where the server doesn't work or where no one's posting. So I flip back and forth and sometimes to Political Crossfire as well.

[qalam]

Oh Jeez! I apologize for interjected history into the conversation, I did not know it would get panties a twist. Sorry!

So "liberals" are for big government and "Conservatives" are not, is that the simple of it?

[USMC the Almighty]

Oh Jeez! I apologize for interjected history into the conversation, I did not know it would get panties a twist. Sorry!

What are you talking about? Who's "panties got in a twist"?


So "liberals" are for big government and "Conservatives" are not, is that the simple of it?

By definition, yes.

[qalam]

Jeez not again! If by definition my statement is correct, when was the last time that was the case? When was the last time a conserv gave you a smaller government?

[USMC the Almighty]

Jeez not again! If by definition my statement is correct, when was the last time that was the case? When was the last time a conserv gave you a smaller government?

A conservative president? The last was probably Reagan. But there have been plenty of conservative senators/congressman/governors/mayors who have been effective, small gov't leaders.

It's really a philosophical disagreement, and as much as I don't like Ron Paul the man, no one articulates this better than he. If you believe that it's governments job to take care of you from cradle to grave and to run your life, then you philosophically are aligned with the liberals. That's their platform.

[Justinian]

I think Java is referring to Neoconservatism which is really not conservatism but a perversion of conservatism much more like the old school democratic platform. Conservatism, "Paleoconservatism" has its modern roots in Edmund Burke, Russel Kirk, TS Eliot, etc. However the broad nature of conservatism is ancestrally inherent, reflecting on people, political decisions and believes since all the way back. This of course leaves out imperialism which is in a category of itself.