Oh, please, talk about Hasty Generalization. We never eat take out, cook our own meals and do our own housework, yardwork and pool cleaning. Both of us are prochoice and have somewhat of an understanding regarding economics. Many on this board are labeling me conservative, nope. Also, how can you possibly speak for what the Conservatives want? They are split on many issues and recently it is illegal immigration and Bush’s spending like a drunken sailor.
With regards,
aspacia
I’m not saying that all-in-all conservatism is bad, per say, but rather that I disagree with several of its basic premises and I am attempting to elucidate what they are, as I see them.
Divide and Conquor in India:
cnn.com/WORLD/9708/India97/i … index.html
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divide_and_rule
So, you are basically agreeing with my statement that Conservatism is Patriarchal. This isn’t a bad perspective, but I want to make sure we are on the same page. You didn’t disagree with me, but rather re-worded what I said.
You missed the metaphor – Conservativism is outward looking. It places huge stress on foreign policy, yet is more than willing, indeed it desires, for the forces of entropy to reign supreme domestically. That’s the male-lawn metaphor.
You say I generalize, I’m not. Once you have a basic paradigm for how an ideology functions, you can see where people, on the individual level, deviate from that model. You create a rough sketch before you begin painting, no?
This claims:“Britain’s philosophy of “divide and conquer” resulted in several princely states and kingdoms battling each other. Other territories were annexed outright. And several local rulers signed peace treaties that effectively gave Britain control over most of the remainder of India.”
I thought you claimed that the British divided the Hindus and Muslims? I may have misunderstood. The above stresses several kingdoms, not necessarily a religious split instigated by Britain.
Ah, but the other link supports your claim: The strategy was used to great effect by administrators of vast empires, including the British, who would play one tribe against another to maintain control of their colonies with a minimal number of British forces. The concept of ‘Divide and Rule’ gained prominence when India was a part of the British Empire. The British used this strategy effectively to gain control of a large territory like India by keeping its people divided along lines of religion, language, caste etc. The British supported or rather took control of petty princely states in India rather than ever uniting India into a single nation.
Then the Indians woke-up after a few hundred years, banded together to force the battered Britain out after WWII. Then they started masscring each other.
Hum, I often think this regarding the USA. The divide and conquer mentality. At the moment you will find more liquor stores in the poor areas; (Redlands has more millionaires than any other city in the largest county in the world San Bernardino and there are only 2 liquor stores) when the Depression hit booze was again legally sold; we see rival Black and Hispanic gangs fighting for their bit of worthless turf, while only 1% of Whites are gang members.
Yes, many conservatives tend to be patriarchal, but many are not. Can you imagine a man trying to control a person like the conservative Laura Ingram? She would divorce his sorry ass. There are many very independent, conservative women. My other half was a Republican economic conservative for many years, but was and is totally egalitarian, as is his father, as is his son-in-law. However, there is a “friend” who I have avoided for years, who totally dominates the home, his wife and children. His wife is know as x’s little slave.
Yep, I sure missed it as I found it totally inaccurate. Another fellow created a metaphor regarding humans being dragons hording our gems of knowledge. Talk about a good laugh considering the internet and the current exchange of ideas that is occuring.
Hum, outward looking, actually it is only recently conservatives have become outward looking and argued against foreign intervention for years. Actually, the USA, both Democrats and Republicans have tried to remain isolationist, but world events disallow this.
The problem is that not all fit within the various stereotypes. Many Democrats are pro-life, many Republicans are pro-choice. The stereotypes do not fit as humans may at times jump on the bandwagon, but often disagree. For example, the Minute Men had a recent split as the two of the leaders disagreed and one created another branch of the group. Hum, isn’t this like trying to categorize all Catholics and Protestants as being the same, when they are so very diverse in their tenets.
With regards,
aspacia
Hey, we can agree to disagree without rancor, right. 
omar: You have a mixed bag here. Are you discussing the failure of conservatism or the failure of the Bush admin the last few years?
K: hay if one of the bags have jelly beans, its all good.
K: My point is simple, conservatives feel that government is evil domestically
and needs to be reduced, less taxes to fee the evil beast of
government, All the rhetoric we have heard from the GOP for
last 40 years.
O- I believe in the autonomy of men. This country was founded on conservative ideals, so that while it does flirt with liberalism/socialism, it always returns to type. How about less taxes, less government (welfare), more jobs, and more personal accountability?
K: This country was founded on LIBERAL Idea’s, not conservative.
Reread your history. How many democracies existed in 1776.
And by 1800, how many countries voted for the top official in
the state. How many different countries has a mission statement
that declared “all men are created equal” The United States was
an grand experiment and was considered such at the time.
A conservative ideal would have had an monarchy, and no voting
for the highest official in the land, and would have made no
mention of slaves. Slaves were listed as three fifth of a person
for population purposes, but they were listed. A back handed
mention I will give you, but a mention nevertheless.
A real conservative country would not have even mention it.
K: Yet, suddenly when it comes to government
in foreign affairs, it can’t do any wrong, its always right.
O- You generalize, Peter. Be fair. I have not defended all the govt does, or has done, but in foreign policy, both parties have a list of sins and in both the same phenomenon of patriotism has emerged. It is a phenomenon, not a general rule. Did Democratic administrations do everything right? What is defended is the nation, not the party. From a military point of view, I can only offer that to us it does not matter if he is a democrat or a republican. he is the Commander-in-Chief.
K: I am referring to the conservative mind. And in the conservative mind
the state domestically is evil, inept, incompetent, and yet,
when it crosses the border it becomes competent and necessary.
I am not talking about a democrat, I am referring to a conservative.
I also remember when Clinton sent troops into Bosnia, he had a great
deal of flack from conservative because he was “NATION BUILDING”,
and that was part of bush stated platform, no nation building.
Of course that was before it became convenient in Iraq."
K: To wit, disagreeing with bush in the Iraq affair is to
be a traitor, to say torture by the military is wrong
is to be “not supporting the troops”. You have heard it over
the last three years.
O- Disagreeing with Bush is a liberty we defend in this country. You might be called names, Peter, but no one has been treated as a true traitor, i.e Capital Punishment, over their disagreement with Bush. In a democracy such as ours, the president is not the unanimous choice of the people, but of the electoral (and that is fuzzy) majority of the people; so it makes perfect sense that there will be critics and anyone who labels you this or that is a retard. Pay no attention to them.
K: Omar, do you read the news? Every one who questioned bush’s
Iraq policy for the first two years was called traitor and UnAmerican.
If you doubted bush, your patriotism was question. Max cleveland
who lost three limbs in Vietnam doubted and his patriotism was
questioned. A U.S. senator lost limbs in Vietnam had his patriotism
questioned!!! And indeed lost his election on that very point in 2002.
K: Any who doubt bush has been tar and
feathered with the stain of unpatriotism when it comes to
Iraq. This very same government that is deemed evil
and a burden to mankind domestically, is praised
and defended in matter of foreign affairs.
O- It is not “this same govt”, Peter. When I say that govt is a necessary evil, I do not mean by that that Bush’s admin is evil and Clinton’s was good. I say that all govt is a necessary evil, be it republican or democrat. That does not mean that I have a problem with Bush’s domestic agenda, or that I think it is domestically an evil while the Clinton’s govt was not.
In it’s domestic aspect, I want govt to be small, not because it is evil, incompetent etc, but because I am not a socialist. We are a capitalist nation and conservatism is capitalism, in my opinion.
Let me ask you: Have you ever lived in a Socialist country? Have you any real idea of what is big government?
K: Again, my point is not bush vs Clinton, but how a conservative
views the world. I have heard conservatives call for less taxes
virtually all my adult life, I have heard conservatives call for less
government all my adult life, and yet, when it comes to the military,
I don’t think I have ever heard a conservative call for less military.
which means more government. A call for the military is a call for
more government. And conservatives since I was a kid have called
for intervention all over the world. Clinton at least went in with the
UN, but for 30 years the conservatives have been the ones driving
the use of military intervention the world over. Vietnam, had a
democratic presidents, but conservatives never once called for an
end to the war or even less involvement until right at the end.
think of the military involvement since 1975, and most have been
conservatives driving them, that great war of Grenada, gulf war,
the current debacle, the Iran-contra mess. Clinton only had a couple
on his watch and one was a true mess, somali.
K: And bush played politics in instead of keeping the country unified.
But that is another story.
O- I’ll be listening when you tell the tale.
K:You make a distinction that bush does not make.
O- I am talking about conservatism, not Bush’s govt. If you want to talk about the failure of conservatism then you will allow other opinions and not just Bush’s.
K: Globally or in common
with other individuals, we do NOT WANT OUR NATION TO BE LIMITED
BY OTHER NATIONS. We are not talking about a nation,
we are talking about a small group of people, of maybe
5000 people. That is all the members of al quida.
O- that is so naive, Peter. I have to say it even if it is rude to say it, because Al Quaida is not the only group of terrorists. You have plenty others that have over the years been a torn to the US and it’s allies. Secondly, it is an ideology that reaches more than 5,000.
If you are talking of conservatism in general then the above is true; if you are talking of Bush’s policy in general then you still have to understand that our nations foreign strategy is not just aimed at Al Qaida but recognizes, rightly or not, other nations, such as North Korea, who wants to black-mail the decisions this govt makes. Do you disagree with the statement? Do you want our country to be limited by other nations?
K: that is the problem with this country. It is so fixated on making
sure we stay the only world superpower. We have adapted a
preemptive strategy. Great, that means we have open the door
for others to adapt the exact same strategy. Instead of this current
idea of going it alone, how about we work with others. A unified
approach with other nations to help guide nations to a collective
goal. You see the problem with the GOP is they have failed to lead.
They fail to understand true leadership. True leadership is about
leading toward goal among diverse groups. North Korea is not
a threat to the U.S. It is a threat to the local nations and that is where
to start. Don’t start with us, start with that fact, that North Korea is a threat to Japan, Russia, south Korea. Exercise true leadership. which begins the understanding of the real threats. Terrorism is NOT threat
to the U.S. Actually our response to terrorism has been a greater
problem then terrorism has been. True leadership would understand
that. If is sound like I am roaming, actually I am thinking out loud.
I never realized it before but true conservatives are not, cannot be
leaders, because of their me first ideology. Leadership is about
the group and conservatives only care about the me. North Korea
is a area wide problem, but conservatives make it a me first problem.
America first, when in fact, Korea really doesn’t pose a direct threat
to us.
K: Why inside our borders is different then outside our borders
with the same government?
O- Read explanation above as to why your question confuses conservative ideals with Bush’s competence. It does not matter if Bush was the greatest domestic administrator this side of Clinton…I don’t want big govt. The greatest domestic policy would be a socialist policy and that is something I don’t want. I have been there.
there is nothing that happens at the border that makes me change my mind, nor anything that happens within the borders.
The ideal of the conservatism, and I am one, has nothing to say on the ability of government. we don’t want the competence to be concentrated on a governing body but on each individual. This democratic ideal reaches back to the Greek Ideals.
K: the individual is part of group. And that is where conservatives fails.
It only focuses on a person, whereas a person exist within
a variety of groups. We do not exist alone, isolated, but within
various group structures. And conservatism does not answer this
problem. It focuses on the one or family, yet how do deal with
overwhelming number of groups one finds themselves in.
Conservatism fails, right here. Wow, I never realized that before.
I gotta think about this for a while.
Kropotkin
So, your position concerns the proper role of government in society? No, that’s not a contradiction and certainly a valid topic for discussion. Maybe in another thread we can talk about how governments form. I still have problems with that ‘natural’ bit however and I disagree that government formed out of a need to protect one’s own.
And yet it’s not what current conservativism seems interested in:
'I’m from the government, I’m here to help." is frightening.
“I’m from the American government, I’m here to help.” is not?
A paleocon would not and does not say that, a neocon would and does say just that.
But the irony of conservatives in office or certain conservatives in office is that as long as they preach ‘government doesn’t work’ they always have an out when they screw up.
Sssshhh…your facts have no place in this conversation. 
Hello Peter K.
K: This country was founded on LIBERAL Idea’s, not conservative.
O- Democracy is not absent in the mind of the conservative. Democracy is inherently about small role of govt in the affairs of men and that is the point. “It is not what your country can do for you…” to borrow Kennedy, but what you can do for yourself. American ideals, the american Dream in fact, is the conservative dream.
K: Reread your history. How many democracies existed in 1776.
And by 1800, how many countries voted for the top official in
the state. How many different countries has a mission statement
that declared “all men are created equal” The United States was
an grand experiment and was considered such at the time.
A conservative ideal would have had an monarchy, and no voting
for the highest official in the land, and would have made no
mention of slaves. Slaves were listed as three fifth of a person
for population purposes, but they were listed. A back handed
mention I will give you, but a mention nevertheless.
A real conservative country would not have even mention it.
O- This is my problem with you Peter. You have a problem with conservatism as you imagine it, not as it is. You have abstracted, cut it, sliced it and then say:“That is conservatism and I have a problem with it.” You are not even handed but disproportionate and pick and choose what is worst in your mind about “them”.
Now you try to equal conservatism with monarchism! In your reasoning GWB wants to be King!!!
Conservatives want less taxes; smaller govt’s. Why? Because they do not want democracy?! I ask: What can be more democratic than that??!!
K: I am referring to the conservative mind.
O- Again with your prejudices and preconceptions. If someone dares to say: â€I am a conservative.†You immediately claim to know their mind.
K: And in the conservative mind
the state domestically is evil, inept, incompetent, and yet,
when it crosses the border it becomes competent and necessary.
O- Domestically it is unwanted; across the border it is a necessity. The Greeks were never a nation domestically, but against Persia, across their border you might say, for example, they were. Who invented democracy? And now you see how conservative ideals are ideally tied to Democracy.
K: I am not talking about a democrat, I am referring to a conservative.
I also remember when Clinton sent troops into Bosnia, he had a great
deal of flack from conservative because he was “NATION BUILDING”,
and that was part of bush stated platform, no nation building.
Of course that was before it became convenient in Iraq."
O- What about you Peter? What were you shouting when Clinton sent troops to Bosnia?
K: Omar, do you read the news? Every one who questioned bush’s
Iraq policy for the first two years was called traitor and UnAmerican.
If you doubted bush, your patriotism was question. Max cleveland
who lost three limbs in Vietnam doubted and his patriotism was
questioned. A U.S. senator lost limbs in Vietnam had his patriotism
questioned!!! And indeed lost his election on that very point in 2002.
O- Now you want to tie the voters decision to conservatism? Idiots abound Peter. But did Bush call Mr. Cleveland a “traitor†or “un-Americanâ€? Seems highly unlikely, but perhaps you have a website with a quote from Bush. Personally I never heard of such a quote from Bush himself. I do not wish, otherwise, to waste time on this. If Cleveland was executed for his comments or the mother of that G.I. that got killed, then it would mean something, but as it stands, those that have spoken against Bush have not been treated as traitors. It is your right Peter to disagree with Mr. Bush. It is also the right of others to disagree with you and call you “traitorâ€, “un American†or both…we have worse words in the English language which the fool or the wise could use.
By the by, I do not doubt your patriotism…
K: Again, my point is not bush vs Clinton, but how a conservative
views the world.
O- But it is clear Peter that your opponent here is not strickly conservatives but Bushites. You have confused the two and that is why I am trying to help here. I am trying to show you how I see the world.
K: A call for the military is a call for
more government.
O- Government where it is necessary.
K: And conservatives since I was a kid have called
for intervention all over the world.
O- Who took us into WW1 and WW2?
K: Clinton at least went in with the
UN, but for 30 years the conservatives have been the ones driving
the use of military intervention the world over.
O- So you still want US intervention, just not militarily. WTC attacked during the Clinton Admin. Response: vague enough to give terrorist no pause whatsoever. Sept 11, 01. Bush response is such that not other terrorist has succeeded in attacking US city. I am going with results here. Best defense sometimes is a killer offense.
K: Terrorism is NOT threat
to the U.S.
O- Tell that to the people of NYC.
K: the individual is part of group.
O- Of course. And where their individual interests meet, such as in their interest of security, let govt be as good as it can be. But where our interest do not meet, such as what should be done with my money, let no govt interfere.
K: And that is where conservatives fails.
It only focuses on a person, whereas a person exist within
a variety of groups.
O- And these groups love us so we should love them back, eh Peter?
K: Wow, I never realized that before.
I gotta think about this for a while.
O- Sure Peter. I am just here for background music…
Hello Omar, I am not ignoring you, I have been
sick as a dog for almost a week. Praying to the
porcelain god most of the time. When I can finally keep
food down, I will return.
Kropotkin