Is individual enlightenment a weakness for the conservative political movement as a collective?
I couldn't think of a better formulation of the question in this moment (if someone has then please post and I can change the title), but basicly the conservative movement is made up out of people with strong values, individualism, macro economic comprehension, fascination with history/historical accuracy and of course the good stuff like quirky traits that make our movement so diverse and lovely compared to the other side. Gun enthusiasts, biblical fundementalists, interventionalists (against tyrannies), isolationists, history freaks and extreme libertarian economists etc etc :cool: all this make it very hard to form a united movement.
One of the structural benefits of the socialist-communist movement is that they all share a defined creed and manifesto they all adhere too and worship, both socialists, anarcho-syndicalists (at least in practice) and communists worship the communist the manifesto and marxism, some want radical change at a faster pace than others, but they all agree on the necessity of a totalitarian government. Now I think the end result, the utopia they envision may differ somewhat with regards to the state, as some marxist claim radical totalitarianism aka oligarchy will lead to a stateless society with material equality :confused: while others, especially labor socialists seem to want perpetual state control over the entire economy to ensure material "equality".
They all agree on the agenda which is very simple, state control/expansion=progress. So getting behind a single movement is very easy to organize, the individual power wrestling may lead to different parties and conflict but the movement stays the same. The spanish civil war is a good example of this imo, Anthony Beevor book on this is very comprehensive and its fascinating to see all the different socialists, communists and anarchists were able to form a combined movement. The conservatives during this time were divided but Faith and biblical values held them together even though they supported different lineages in the monarchy.
We on the other hand, even though we all share love of freedom, believe the government that governs the least governs best (minimal regulation/taxation), biblical foundation, love strong social values, compassion through voluntarism/charity and economic freedom. Because every "faction" have their own priorities first and differ on the means to achieve these values the organizations are splintered and nobody seem to agree on the agenda for the progress of freedom. Take this election with the division in the republican party, the libertarians and the other groups that doesnt vote because the GOP establishment are rhinos etc caused Obama to win the election with only about 30% of the vote...
Same thing with the Taft vs Teddy election, Theodore Roosevelt was by no definition a progressive in the modern sense of the word, but because he believed in empire building as necessity to keep US strong, and the need to curb corporatism in the US there was a division between Taft fiscal conservatives/isolationists and Teddy interventionalists/right wingers that caused Woodrow Wilson to win the election.
Same thing in Norway, the Conservative Party and the Right Wing Party have majority, but because they can't agree 100% on the agenda the Red-Green Parties are able to form a coalition easily because they agree on the agenda. I.e Labor Party and Socialist Left Party are historical enemies due to the NATO issue, but because they both agree on the agenda which is expansion of the state and more state spending they form government without any real drama.
So because conservatives don't have a simple manifesto, and instead make our own opinions based on knowledge/wisdom are we weaker for this? Should we change this if possible? Or is it for the better that we don't have a single guideline?
In the US, there is a simple manifesto for conservatives.........limited government that behaves responsibly, adherence to the constitution and our founding, and individual freedom.
When we say left and right, it is actually four entities, which then split into sub-groups:
On the left, we have the democrats in government, which are currently pushing a socialist agenda; and then we have the liberals in society that want all kinds of things. Some want to save the planet, some want to save the whales, some want same sex marriage..........Liberals share a commonality, in that they all want their ideas implemented by government, but they aren't typically socialists. In fact, many don't know the meaning of the word.
On the right, we have the republicans in government, which at one time in history, were really a party of constitutional conservatives. At the moment, the majority seem to also want big government and big government rule, but with different objectives, so we have a disconnect with conservatives in society.
We also have individuals that call themselves conservatives, but also want laws passed that are intended to control behavior, at the federal level; abortion and drug laws being an example. Personally, I think federal involvement should be kept to a minimum, with the bulk of decision making remaining with the individual states. I also think that, (within the states), the big ticket items like drug laws, gay marriage, abortion, etc., should be decided by popular vote.
The beauty of having 50 individual states that operate independently of the federal government, is that it opens the door for lots of different things to be tried, and the failures and successes will take place on a fairly small scale. The failures can be quickly shuttered, and the successes can be adopted by other states, if they choose.
Unfortunately, we currently have a full blown Marxist for a president, that has chosen to ignore his oath to uphold and defend the constitution, and sees fit to sue individual states that dare attempt to act independently. He firmly believes in collective salvation through government, and has been quoted as saying that we will rise or fall as a nation...........collectively.
For better or worse, to describe the conservative movement as a "collective", is an oxymoron. It is a group of widely dispersed individuals, that firmly believe in individual liberty and freedom, along with a strictly limited government role in our lives. It's a simple message that everyone should be able to identify with. Unfortunately, we don't have very many in Washington that can either identify with it, or say it out loud in a coherent manner.
Every major problem that we face in the US, can be traced back to government, either not doing it's job, (like securing our borders), or doing things that they are not authorized to do, (like using welfare as a means to redistribute wealth, and enable what could be productive citizens, to spend their entire lives doing absolutely nothing).
If things like abortion, drugs, gay marriage, etc., were decided by the states, individuals would have the freedom to go live in a state that fit their personal preferences.
Quote from: Mountainshield on February 09, 2013, 02:35:13 AM
Is individual enlightenment a weakness for the conservative political movement as a collective?
I couldn't think of a better formulation of the question in this moment (if someone has then please post and I can change the title), but basicly the conservative movement is made up out of people with strong values, individualism, macro economic comprehension, fascination with history/historical accuracy and of course the good stuff like quirky traits that make our movement so diverse and lovely compared to the other side. Gun enthusiasts, biblical fundementalists, interventionalists (against tyrannies), isolationists, history freaks and extreme libertarian economists etc etc :cool: all this make it very hard to form a united movement.
One of the structural benefits of the socialist-communist movement is that they all share a defined creed and manifesto they all adhere too and worship, both socialists, anarcho-syndicalists (at least in practice) and communists worship the communist the manifesto and marxism, some want radical change at a faster pace than others, but they all agree on the necessity of a totalitarian government. Now I think the end result, the utopia they envision may differ somewhat with regards to the state, as some marxist claim radical totalitarianism aka oligarchy will lead to a stateless society with material equality :confused: while others, especially labor socialists seem to want perpetual state control over the entire economy to ensure material "equality".
They all agree on the agenda which is very simple, state control/expansion=progress. So getting behind a single movement is very easy to organize, the individual power wrestling may lead to different parties and conflict but the movement stays the same. The spanish civil war is a good example of this imo, Anthony Beevor book on this is very comprehensive and its fascinating to see all the different socialists, communists and anarchists were able to form a combined movement. The conservatives during this time were divided but Faith and biblical values held them together even though they supported different lineages in the monarchy.
We on the other hand, even though we all share love of freedom, believe the government that governs the least governs best (minimal regulation/taxation), biblical foundation, love strong social values, compassion through voluntarism/charity and economic freedom. Because every "faction" have their own priorities first and differ on the means to achieve these values the organizations are splintered and nobody seem to agree on the agenda for the progress of freedom. Take this election with the division in the republican party, the libertarians and the other groups that doesnt vote because the GOP establishment are rhinos etc caused Obama to win the election with only about 30% of the vote...
Same thing with the Taft vs Teddy election, Theodore Roosevelt was by no definition a progressive in the modern sense of the word, but because he believed in empire building as necessity to keep US strong, and the need to curb corporatism in the US there was a division between Taft fiscal conservatives/isolationists and Teddy interventionalists/right wingers that caused Woodrow Wilson to win the election.
Same thing in Norway, the Conservative Party and the Right Wing Party have majority, but because they can't agree 100% on the agenda the Red-Green Parties are able to form a coalition easily because they agree on the agenda. I.e Labor Party and Socialist Left Party are historical enemies due to the NATO issue, but because they both agree on the agenda which is expansion of the state and more state spending they form government without any real drama.
So because conservatives don't have a simple manifesto, and instead make our own opinions based on knowledge/wisdom are we weaker for this? Should we change this if possible? Or is it for the better that we don't have a single guideline?
Maybe then one of my favorite statements is the biggest problem for the Republican party. I always say libs can not thing for themselves which is true, they mimic MM, the DNC and a few others.
I/we as Republicans or Conservatives think for ourselves so even though we may be of the same party we are different and think for ourselves?
Quote from: The Stranger on February 09, 2013, 05:16:43 AM
Maybe then one of my favorite statements is the biggest problem for the Republican party. I always say libs can not thing for themselves which is true, they mimic MM, the DNC and a few others.
I/we as Republicans or Conservatives think for ourselves so even though we may be of the same party we are different and think for ourselves?
I also think there's a rift within the republican party, because a majority of republicans want to
control Washington; while Tea Party types and conservatives want to set about removing and knocking down government control. Something's gonna have to give.
As a conservative, I have no more desire for a right wing, all powerful, controlling government, than I do a left wing socialist style government.
Ultimately individual enlightenment is important. If a minimal government is to be had than we all need to step up to ensure it stays that way.
In terms of the macro-scale, the constitution was written to prevent sweeping changes. I think this is why Obama is focused on increasing presidental power. Any conservative in power would be unable to completly rectify Ovama's damage, let alone completly fix our government. It would take time, and 'they' on the left feel they have all the time in the world (how else could they justify there spending).
Pertaining to conservatives, individuality would of course be tempered with the idea of personal responsibility. If we want to thrive, be sucessful, stay off Uncle Sam's left teet then we have to be able of some self government and collective community control. Trafitionally it was through parental guidance, church, education, and
folk tales (remember hearing about how righteousness prevailed and undesirables got weeded out, how the hero(ine) would have to mature, take responsiblity of their own fate to survive) or other similar stories that taught the importance of our values.
Today tv plays a huge part in our countries woes. We all know about some of the filth there. But what about the slighly less innoculous? Spongebob (the homosexual sponge), Dora the no-antagonist Explorer, and the Family Guy. FG. . . I could go on for hours about that show and how it is a detriment to society. Instead I ask you only to write down every time it asserts a liberal or erroneous claim (like Peter being catholic and regularly attending church, Lois being a rich Jew but them living in that hole, which is held together by Peter, who hasnt had a job since he was a fisherman. so many more too). The less obvious implications behind tv shows is as worrisome as the obvious, imo.
To rerail myself, individuality is essential to a conservative, but only when tempered by the proper morees. The ones in office need to unify themselves, and push to wrest the power of administration away from these socialists. Ill not call anyone comrade. Perhaps we need to put forth a common goal too. One that is definitive and somewhat in the future. So what will happen when They are done with guns? divided we fall one by one.
Quote from: pisskop on February 09, 2013, 08:55:07 AM
Ultimately individual enlightenment is important. If a minimal government is to be had than we all need to step up to ensure it stays that way.
In terms of the macro-scale, the constitution was written to prevent sweeping changes. I think this is why Obama is focused on increasing presidental power. Any conservative in power would be unable to completly rectify Ovama's damage, let alone completly fix our government. It would take time, and 'they' on the left feel they have all the time in the world (how else could they justify there spending).
Pertaining to conservatives, individuality would of course be tempered with the idea of personal responsibility. If we want to thrive, be sucessful, stay off Uncle Sam's left teet then we have to be able of some self government and collective community control. Trafitionally it was through parental guidance, church, education, and
folk tales (remember hearing about how righteousness prevailed and undesirables got weeded out, how the hero(ine) would have to mature, take responsiblity of their own fate to survive) or other similar stories that taught the importance of our values.
Today tv plays a huge part in our countries woes. We all know about some of the filth there. But what about the slighly less innoculous? Spongebob (the homosexual sponge), Dora the no-antagonist Explorer, and the Family Guy. FG. . . I could go on for hours about that show and how it is a detriment to society. Instead I ask you only to write down every time it asserts a liberal or erroneous claim (like Peter being catholic and regularly attending church, Lois being a rich Jew but them living in that hole, which is held together by Peter, who hasnt had a job since he was a fisherman. so many more too). The less obvious implications behind tv shows is as worrisome as the obvious, imo.
To rerail myself, individuality is essential to a conservative, but only when tempered by the proper morees. The ones in office need to unify themselves, and push to wrest the power of administration away from these socialists. Ill not call anyone comrade. Perhaps we need to put forth a common goal too. One that is definitive and somewhat in the future. So what will happen when They are done with guns? divided we fall one by one.
"Any conservative in power would be unable to completly rectify Ovama's damage, let alone completly fix our government. It would take time, and 'they' on the left feel they have all the time in the world (how else could they justify there spending)."
I think pisskop may have swereved into a brilliant campaign strategy for the GOP in 2016. By election time all the regualtions and EO's will have placed our country in one hell of a mess. The GOP should research and doccument some of the most outrageous. Then in every speech and through advertising outline these and their impacts with a pledge to do undo them by EO on 1/20/2017. I think this could be an offensive and effective strategy. No more just defense in response to dem lies.
Quote from: supsalemgr on February 09, 2013, 09:41:45 AM
"Any conservative in power would be unable to completly rectify Ovama's damage, let alone completly fix our government. It would take time, and 'they' on the left feel they have all the time in the world (how else could they justify there spending)."
I think pisskop may have swereved into a brilliant campaign strategy for the GOP in 2016. By election time all the regualtions and EO's will have placed our country in one hell of a mess. The GOP should research and doccument some of the most outrageous. Then in every speech and through advertising outline these and their impacts with a pledge to do undo them by EO on 1/20/2017. I think this could be an offensive and effective strategy. No more just defense in response to dem lies.
One small problem........
The GOP doesn't appear to be interested in undoing anything. :cry:
Quote from: kramarat on February 09, 2013, 10:19:00 AM
One small problem........
The GOP doesn't appear to be interested in undoing anything. :cry:
Valid point. Why are they afraid? I can't believe they are so naive to believe that the MSM might be objective.
Quote from: supsalemgr on February 09, 2013, 11:02:40 AM
Valid point. Why are they afraid? I can't believe they are so naive to believe that the MSM might be objective.
I don't think they're afraid of anything. I think they want to run Washington, and the best way to do it, is to run as fiscally conservative democrats. Although, even that is questionable.
Quote from: supsalemgr on February 09, 2013, 11:02:40 AM
Valid point. Why are they afraid? I can't believe they are so naive to believe that the MSM might be objective.
Kram kind of touched on it, but I'm guessing the RINO know that a lot of corporate entities are leaching off the tax payer via Dims in office, the RINO knows this and wants to tap into it.
I think they are planning long term, assuming the country survives. Lets take ethanol, a completely useless product where fuel is concerned, yet the Pubs refused to touch it and even helped it along.
Who is profiting from this? Big AG, those corps that own huge farms producing corn, not only do they make a killing in profits, but Govt subsidies make it a win win, and the RINO know they will get hammered if they kill it, so as the old saying goes, "If you can't beat em, join em.
Big AG, Big Pharma, all their money is going to Dims and RINO want a cut, rather than doing the right thing.
Politics is a disgusting industry, and it's one of the reasons you don't find Conservatives in politics, it's akin to a straight guy going to a gay bar, not only are you disgusted by the whole thing, you're not even welcome.
That's why I see Rand as a breath of fresh air, he's willing to say exactly what they don't want to hear.
Quote from: Solar on February 09, 2013, 03:04:12 PM
Kram kind of touched on it, but I'm guessing the RINO know that a lot of corporate entities are leaching off the tax payer via Dims in office, the RINO knows this and wants to tap into it.
I think they are planning long term, assuming the country survives. Lets take ethanol, a completely useless product where fuel is concerned, yet the Pubs refused to touch it and even helped it along.
Who is profiting from this? Big AG, those corps that own huge farms producing corn, not only do they make a killing in profits, but Govt subsidies make it a win win, and the RINO know they will get hammered if they kill it, so as the old saying goes, "If you can't beat em, join em.
Big AG, Big Pharma, all their money is going to Dims and RINO want a cut, rather than doing the right thing.
Politics is a disgusting industry, and it's one of the reasons you don't find Conservatives in politics, it's akin to a straight guy going to a gay bar, not only are you disgusted by the whole thing, you're not even welcome.
That's why I see Rand as a breath of fresh air, he's willing to say exactly what they don't want to hear.
:thumbsup:
Quote from: Solar on February 09, 2013, 03:04:12 PM
Kram kind of touched on it, but I'm guessing the RINO know that a lot of corporate entities are leaching off the tax payer via Dims in office, the RINO knows this and wants to tap into it.
I think they are planning long term, assuming the country survives. Lets take ethanol, a completely useless product where fuel is concerned, yet the Pubs refused to touch it and even helped it along.
Who is profiting from this? Big AG, those corps that own huge farms producing corn, not only do they make a killing in profits, but Govt subsidies make it a win win, and the RINO know they will get hammered if they kill it, so as the old saying goes, "If you can't beat em, join em.
Big AG, Big Pharma, all their money is going to Dims and RINO want a cut, rather than doing the right thing.
Politics is a disgusting industry, and it's one of the reasons you don't find Conservatives in politics, it's akin to a straight guy going to a gay bar, not only are you disgusted by the whole thing, you're not even welcome.
That's why I see Rand as a breath of fresh air, he's willing to say exactly what they don't want to hear.
Nah. Corporations tend to hedge their bets and play both horses. Everyone in Washington is somebody's whore.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/26/corporate-campaign-contributions-industries-bipartisanship_n_1456071.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/26/corporate-campaign-contributions-industries-bipartisanship_n_1456071.html)
Quote from: kramarat on February 09, 2013, 05:16:12 PM
Nah. Corporations tend to hedge their bets and play both horses. Everyone in Washington is somebody's whore.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/26/corporate-campaign-contributions-industries-bipartisanship_n_1456071.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/26/corporate-campaign-contributions-industries-bipartisanship_n_1456071.html)
Yes they are, that's the whole point.
The Dims have been winning ever since Clinton, when he had the backing of the giants of industry, like ATT, GE, Monsanto etc. The left has done so much to line their pockets, look at the head of GE, had a seat in his Cabinet.
Is it any wonder RINO are worried?
Two things, Conservatives want to cut the cord where Govt manipulates the free mkt, RINO realize they will lose monitory backing if Conservative take power, as well as Dims, so the money is flowing to the left at the moment.
There's a vicious momentum building toward Nationalizing, business will do what it has to to stay afloat, even if it means dealing with the Devil.
And it continues to get worse, this graph is three years old, but you get the point.
Now you tell me why would business give to a Socialist party?
(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.opensecrets.org%2Fnews%2FCorporatePACMoney.jpg&hash=e9d0628a4851519c5b8b620902392526cfd6fe11)
To help explain this phenomena, think of all the subsidies Husein doled out to his friends in the business community, nearly a trillion dollars of our money bought and paid for an entire new failed industry, the Green energy industry.
Do you honestly think these people were surprised like a child on Christmas day when he did this?
Of course not, he promised them nearly a trillion in handouts, a one thousand % return for their contributions to get him elected.
Read the following:
A decade ago, corporate PACs favored Republicans over Democrats by about a two-to-one ratio.
By the 2008 election cycle, however, when Democrats were poised to control both chambers of Congress and the White House, contributions from business PACs were split about evenly between Republican and Democratic candidates and groups. During the 2010 election cycle, that parity continued -- almost down to the last dollar.
Corporate PACs donated $164.3 million to Republican candidates and committees during the 2010 election cycle, according to the Center's research. During the same period, corporate PACs also contributed $164.3 million to Democratic candidates and committees.
During the 2000 election cycle, on the other hand, Democrats collected $67.9 million from business PACs, according to the Center's research. That's a 142 percent increase between the 2000 and 2010 election cycles in the amount of money business PACs have contributed to Democrats.
For their part, Republicans collected $123.4 million from business PACs during the 2000 election cycle, according to the Center's research. GOP groups and candidates experienced an increased flow of only 33 percent of money from these sources during that period.
All the while, labor union PAC contributions hovered between $59 million and $73 million, typically with 90 percent or more of those dollars supporting Democrats each election cycle, according to the Center's research.
While corporate PACs doled out 73 percent more money during the 2010 election cycle than they did during the 2000 election cycle, union PACs donated just 17 percent more.
http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2011/03/unions-businesses-vie-to-fill.html (http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2011/03/unions-businesses-vie-to-fill.html)
Well, yeah. We also don't hear dems complaining about the pubs being bought by corporations anymore.
What the stupid RINOS don't realize, is that corporate America wants conservatism. It's the very best scenario for business to thrive.
I think the reason that we're seeing more corporate money going to buy off dems, is because the republicans won't commit to conservatism. They have to suck up to the dems or they'll be destroyed. It's basically extortion. They aren't paying off the dems because they love them.
Quote from: kramarat on February 09, 2013, 07:02:18 PM
Well, yeah. We also don't hear dems complaining about the pubs being bought by corporations anymore.
What the stupid RINOS don't realize, is that corporate America wants conservatism. It's the very best scenario for business to thrive.
I think the reason that we're seeing more corporate money going to buy off dems, is because the republicans won't commit to conservatism. They have to suck up to the dems or they'll be destroyed. It's basically extortion. They aren't paying off the dems because they love them.
I'd say yes and no. There are enough folks high up in large corps that, when the though of having to compete enters their mind, they break out in a cold sweat.
Quote from: taxed on February 10, 2013, 03:47:14 PM
I'd say yes and no. There are enough folks high up in large corps that, when the though of having to compete enters their mind, they break out in a cold sweat.
Many corps are nothing but extensions of political movements.
Look at Proctor and Gamble, they were a highly respected corp for decades, but libs took it over, pushed the gay agenda and aligned with the Dims for Govt contracts.
This is being repeated across the board, Disney is another, tons of IT companies in Mountain View Ca.
Google ring a bell?
These libs know what profit means, they also learned how to tap the taxpayers wallet via the Dim party.
We really need to break the tie between the two, like Husein giving billions to the green industry, all the while killing an established industry.
Quote from: Solar on February 10, 2013, 03:58:04 PM
Many corps are nothing but extensions of political movements.
Look at Proctor and Gamble, they were a highly respected corp for decades, but libs took it over, pushed the gay agenda and aligned with the Dims for Govt contracts.
This is being repeated across the board, Disney is another, tons of IT companies in Mountain View Ca.
Google ring a bell?
These libs know what profit means, they also learned how to tap the taxpayers wallet via the Dim party.
We really need to break the tie between the two, like Husein giving billions to the green industry, all the while killing an established industry.
Totally! A tiny bit of competition would drive the GEs of the world into the ground and really open up innovation.
The whole thing has become a sick incestuous mess. :sad:
Quote from: kramarat on February 10, 2013, 05:29:11 PM
The whole thing has become a sick incestuous mess. :sad:
Unfortunately, yes. The libs will try to blame the corporations, of course, but the government controls the laws, military, and is able to take money out of your pocket at will.
Quote from: taxed on February 10, 2013, 05:31:54 PM
Unfortunately, yes. The libs will try to blame the corporations, of course, but the government controls the laws, military, and is able to take money out of your pocket at will.
It's another lie that is perpetuated, and
believed by the useful idiots. I hear it often.
Most dem voters honestly don't believe that the dems are in the sack with the corporations. It's frustrating.
Quote from: kramarat on February 10, 2013, 05:37:39 PM
It's another lie that is perpetuated, and believed by the useful idiots. I hear it often.
Most dem voters honestly don't believe that the dems are in the sack with the corporations. It's frustrating.
Totally. They use the GEs and GMs of the world to represent business and capitalism, when those are the furthest thing from how business and capitalism works.
Quote from: taxed on February 10, 2013, 05:56:04 PM
Totally. They use the GEs and GMs of the world to represent business and capitalism, when those are the furthest thing from how business and capitalism works.
Exactly!!!!
God knows I have no issue with corporations, incorporating is what business does to protect it's self from Govt, but it seems some of the largest have used the govt in an incestuous relationship to monopolies certain industries.
Quote from: kramarat on February 09, 2013, 04:44:11 AM
In the US, there is a simple manifesto for conservatives.........limited government that behaves responsibly, adherence to the constitution and our founding, and individual freedom.
When we say left and right, it is actually four entities, which then split into sub-groups:
On the left, we have the democrats in government, which are currently pushing a socialist agenda; and then we have the liberals in society that want all kinds of things. Some want to save the planet, some want to save the whales, some want same sex marriage..........Liberals share a commonality, in that they all want their ideas implemented by government, but they aren't typically socialists. In fact, many don't know the meaning of the word.
On the right, we have the republicans in government, which at one time in history, were really a party of constitutional conservatives. At the moment, the majority seem to also want big government and big government rule, but with different objectives, so we have a disconnect with conservatives in society.
We also have individuals that call themselves conservatives, but also want laws passed that are intended to control behavior, at the federal level; abortion and drug laws being an example. Personally, I think federal involvement should be kept to a minimum, with the bulk of decision making remaining with the individual states. I also think that, (within the states), the big ticket items like drug laws, gay marriage, abortion, etc., should be decided by popular vote.
The beauty of having 50 individual states that operate independently of the federal government, is that it opens the door for lots of different things to be tried, and the failures and successes will take place on a fairly small scale. The failures can be quickly shuttered, and the successes can be adopted by other states, if they choose.
Unfortunately, we currently have a full blown Marxist for a president, that has chosen to ignore his oath to uphold and defend the constitution, and sees fit to sue individual states that dare attempt to act independently. He firmly believes in collective salvation through government, and has been quoted as saying that we will rise or fall as a nation...........collectively.
For better or worse, to describe the conservative movement as a "collective", is an oxymoron. It is a group of widely dispersed individuals, that firmly believe in individual liberty and freedom, along with a strictly limited government role in our lives. It's a simple message that everyone should be able to identify with. Unfortunately, we don't have very many in Washington that can either identify with it, or say it out loud in a coherent manner.
Every major problem that we face in the US, can be traced back to government, either not doing it's job, (like securing our borders), or doing things that they are not authorized to do, (like using welfare as a means to redistribute wealth, and enable what could be productive citizens, to spend their entire lives doing absolutely nothing).
If things like abortion, drugs, gay marriage, etc., were decided by the states, individuals would have the freedom to go live in a state that fit their personal preferences.
Yes, I can't believe I forget the constitution of the United States, combined with the federalist papers to provide context to the constitution I agree that the US constitution is the best principles conservatives as collective can unite behind.
I agree with your definition of libs and dems that they all agree on using state power to project radical social change, and as long its more power to the state, the more centralized the better, libs and dem share the same agenda, even though libs don't they are in fact pushing socialist agenda. The libs are usefull idiots as Lenin called those who aid the communist cause.
What I disagree with you on is the definition of Right Wing. But this becomes a question of semantics about the definition of right wing. I.e the socialists have been 100% successfull in creating the illusion/definition of the National
Socialist Party of Germany and the Socialist Mussolini was right wing. Through control of education and mass media they were able to do this. If you actually take the time to read about Mussolini, Hitler and Fascism it is infact Socialism, its right there, you don't even have to read much to understand it. But because they control the media/education directorates they are able to sustain this myth that right wing means fascism.
Right wing is in fact the ideology of limited government, personal freedom aand responsability. A global right wing government would be a totally different scenario than a left wing global government
I suggest watching this documentary to understand the differences and problem with semantics more clearly.
Overview of America 1 of 4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RTQQJOEn9yI#)
The Federal system is a good way of experimenting with different policies and legislation withtout ruining the entire nation, but the socialists want centralization into washington in order to push national legislation that overwrites all state legislation. And of course the United Nation to control national legislation on top of this to even further centralize political power away from the citizens and into the hands of a small oligarchy of all powerfull communists.
Even though conservatism and collective is an oxymoron when it comes too political ideologies, but when you are decribing a movement then it is a collective movement that is opposed to collectivism. This is just semantics again though.
This thread quickly went into discussion about corporations, but I guess this is good due tot he fact that capitalism, corporatism, free enterprise and government subsidies are concepts that bring together the conservative movement and divides us with the RHINO's in power. (I'm using RHINO as a socialist in practice, consverative in rethorics on international level).
QuoteExactly!!!!
God knows I have no issue with corporations, incorporating is what business does to protect it's self from Govt, but it seems some of the largest have used the govt in an incestuous relationship to monopolies certain industries.
Indeed, this incestous relationship is the definition of neo-corporatism from what I understand from Wikipedia.
Corporatism may also refer to economic tripartism involving negotiations between business, labour, and state interest groups to establish economic policy. I.e Norway has a corporatist economy due to the largest corporations that control the economy are 40-50% State owned, the National Labor Organization LO controls the unions of all of them, The Labor Party which is part of the structural organization of LO controls government and legislation. This type of organization is common too all huge multinational and national corporations. They don't want free market because they benefit from closed markets and state subsidies, so socialists are the natural ally for big capitalists. Calling it crony capitalism as the GOP Rhino's does is a big mistake, because it is corporatism (I guess they are afraid of offending their own corporatist interests). Big Business will always favor the socialist agenda, they did so in Nazi Germany and they do so now in USA and all other countries of the world.
Link
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_Confederation_of_Trade_Unions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_Confederation_of_Trade_Unions)
Quote from: Mountainshield on February 11, 2013, 04:21:41 AM
Yes, I can't believe I forget the constitution of the United States, combined with the federalist papers to provide context to the constitution I agree that the US constitution is the best principles conservatives as collective can unite behind.
I agree with your definition of libs and dems that they all agree on using state power to project radical social change, and as long its more power to the state, the more centralized the better, libs and dem share the same agenda, even though libs don't they are in fact pushing socialist agenda. The libs are usefull idiots as Lenin called those who aid the communist cause.
What I disagree with you on is the definition of Right Wing. But this becomes a question of semantics about the definition of right wing. I.e the socialists have been 100% successfull in creating the illusion/definition of the National Socialist Party of Germany and the Socialist Mussolini was right wing. Through control of education and mass media they were able to do this. If you actually take the time to read about Mussolini, Hitler and Fascism it is infact Socialism, its right there, you don't even have to read much to understand it. But because they control the media/education directorates they are able to sustain this myth that right wing means fascism.
Right wing is in fact the ideology of limited government, personal freedom aand responsability. A global right wing government would be a totally different scenario than a left wing global government
I suggest watching this documentary to understand the differences and problem with semantics more clearly.
Overview of America 1 of 4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RTQQJOEn9yI#)
The Federal system is a good way of experimenting with different policies and legislation withtout ruining the entire nation, but the socialists want centralization into washington in order to push national legislation that overwrites all state legislation. And of course the United Nation to control national legislation on top of this to even further centralize political power away from the citizens and into the hands of a small oligarchy of all powerfull communists.
Even though conservatism and collective is an oxymoron when it comes too political ideologies, but when you are decribing a movement then it is a collective movement that is opposed to collectivism. This is just semantics again though.
This thread quickly went into discussion about corporations, but I guess this is good due tot he fact that capitalism, corporatism, free enterprise and government subsidies are concepts that bring together the conservative movement and divides us with the RHINO's in power. (I'm using RHINO as a socialist in practice, consverative in rethorics on international level).
Indeed, this incestous relationship is the definition of neo-corporatism from what I understand from Wikipedia. Corporatism may also refer to economic tripartism involving negotiations between business, labour, and state interest groups to establish economic policy. I.e Norway has a corporatist economy due to the largest corporations that control the economy are 40-50% State owned, the National Labor Organization LO controls the unions of all of them, The Labor Party which is part of the structural organization of LO controls government and legislation. This type of organization is common too all huge multinational and national corporations. They don't want free market because they benefit from closed markets and state subsidies, so socialists are the natural ally for big capitalists. Calling it crony capitalism as the GOP Rhino's does is a big mistake, because it is corporatism (I guess they are afraid of offending their own corporatist interests). Big Business will always favor the socialist agenda, they did so in Nazi Germany and they do so now in USA and all other countries of the world.
Link
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_Confederation_of_Trade_Unions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_Confederation_of_Trade_Unions)
Thanks, but I understand the semantics very clearly.
Let me explain better. There are people, (within the US), that are on the far right side of the ideological spectrum, and consider themselves to be "conservatives". They are okay with intrusive laws and intrusive government, as long as those laws and intrusions are based in a Christian, or Biblical morality. I can't agree with this. We have to remember, that the Islamists that impose sharia law, are considered to be ultra-conservative.
We don't want a system of government in which, God supplants allah, and the Bible takes the place of the koran. If we truly want freedom and liberty, it has to include giving the people the freedom to do things we don't like. As a Christian, I think that Biblical morals should always be encouraged, but never forced, particularly by government.
These people would be an extreme example of who I'm talking about:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westboro_Baptist_Church (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westboro_Baptist_Church)
Of course we need laws, and many of those laws are also covered in the ten commandments,
but, those laws are based on a universal acceptance of what constitutes bad behavior that is detrimental to society, or impinges on another individual's freedom, not, (as some would like to think), an imposition of Christian morals on society.
So, while the US was built upon what could be called "Judeo-Christian" morality, there was a specific reason for not allowing the government to establish a national religion. Our laws are, and
should be, based on the overlap in which Christians, Jews, every other religion, as well as athiests and non-believers, all fall into the same place, in regard to what is right and wrong.
Quote from: kramarat on February 11, 2013, 05:41:18 AM
Thanks, but I understand the semantics very clearly.
Let me explain better. There are people, (within the US), that are on the far right side of the ideological spectrum, and consider themselves to be "conservatives". They are okay with intrusive laws and intrusive government, as long as those laws and intrusions are based in a Christian, or Biblical morality. I can't agree with this. We have to remember, that the Islamists that impose sharia law, are considered to be ultra-conservative.
We don't want a system of government in which, God supplants allah, and the Bible takes the place of the koran. If we truly want freedom and liberty, it has to include giving the people the freedom to do things we don't like. As a Christian, I think that Biblical morals should always be encouraged, but never forced, particularly by government.
These people would be an extreme example of who I'm talking about:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westboro_Baptist_Church (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westboro_Baptist_Church)
Of course we need laws, and many of those laws are also covered in the ten commandments, but, those laws are based on a universal acceptance of what constitutes bad behavior that is detrimental to society, or impinges on another individual's freedom, not, (as some would like to think), an imposition of Christian morals on society.
So, while the US was built upon what could be called "Judeo-Christian" morality, there was a specific reason for not allowing the government to establish a national religion. Our laws are, and should be, based on the overlap in which Christians, Jews, every other religion, as well as athiests and non-believers, all fall into the same place, in regard to what is right and wrong.
I completely agree with you, I'm Christian as well and believe Biblical principles should never be enforced only encouraged, but at the same time allow people to pray/read bible in all public spaces, and read the koran or marxist manifesto for that matter. When Jesus Christ returns society is going to go through changes in any case, and until that time freedom should be the only social engineering law.
The West Baro Baptist Church are not christians, they are either atheists or satanic trying to destroy christianity.
QuoteSo, while the US was built upon what could be called "Judeo-Christian" morality, there was a specific reason for not allowing the government to establish a national religion. Our laws are, and should be, based on the overlap in which Christians, Jews, every other religion, as well as athiests and non-believers, all fall into the same place, in regard to what is right and wrong.
I agree, so in conclusion the US Constitution should be the binding philosophy of all conservative movements?
If the answer is no, then I see no way conservatives can win against socialist-communist agenda as we simply dont have the cohesion for a united party or coalition to be able to control the government even though we have the numbers.
Quote from: kramarat on February 11, 2013, 05:41:18 AM
Thanks, but I understand the semantics very clearly.
Let me explain better. There are people, (within the US), that are on the far right side of the ideological spectrum, and consider themselves to be "conservatives". They are okay with intrusive laws and intrusive government, as long as those laws and intrusions are based in a Christian, or Biblical morality. I can't agree with this. We have to remember, that the Islamists that impose sharia law, are considered to be ultra-conservative.
Like the Bill of Rights? Inalienable Rights granted by God.... :wink:
Quote from: Solar on February 11, 2013, 06:21:52 AM
Like the Bill of Rights? Inalienable Rights granted by God.... :wink:
Right............and people that don't believe in God, don't have those rights. Correct? :rolleyes:
Quote from: kramarat on February 11, 2013, 06:29:35 AM
Right............and people that don't believe in God, don't have those rights. Correct? :rolleyes:
What I'm saying is Conservatives imposed their Religious views on govt before it was enabled, as opposed to the obverse occurring.
Quote from: Mountainshield on February 11, 2013, 06:01:56 AM
I completely agree with you, I'm Christian as well and believe Biblical principles should never be enforced only encouraged, but at the same time allow people to pray/read bible in all public spaces, and read the koran or marxist manifesto for that matter. When Jesus Christ returns society is going to go through changes in any case, and until that time freedom should be the only social engineering law.
The West Baro Baptist Church are not christians, they are either atheists or satanic trying to destroy christianity.
I agree, so in conclusion the US Constitution should be the binding philosophy of all conservative movements?
If the answer is no, then I see no way conservatives can win against socialist-communist agenda as we simply dont have the cohesion for a united party or coalition to be able to control the government even though we have the numbers.
I agree, so in conclusion the US Constitution should be the binding philosophy of all conservative movements?Absolutely!!!
At least here in the US. The rest of the world can define and practice conservatism however they want.
As far as the WBC goes, they claim to be Christians that adhere to a strict
literal translation of the Bible, but I'm not going to waste any time looking any further than that. I WILL continue to fight to make sure that they have the freedom to spew their vile hatred.
Quote from: Mountainshield on February 11, 2013, 04:21:41 AM
Indeed, this incestous relationship is the definition of neo-corporatism from what I understand from Wikipedia. Corporatism may also refer to economic tripartism involving negotiations between business, labour, and state interest groups to establish economic policy. I.e Norway has a corporatist economy due to the largest corporations that control the economy are 40-50% State owned, the National Labor Organization LO controls the unions of all of them, The Labor Party which is part of the structural organization of LO controls government and legislation. This type of organization is common too all huge multinational and national corporations. They don't want free market because they benefit from closed markets and state subsidies, so socialists are the natural ally for big capitalists. Calling it crony capitalism as the GOP Rhino's does is a big mistake, because it is corporatism (I guess they are afraid of offending their own corporatist interests). Big Business will always favor the socialist agenda, they did so in Nazi Germany and they do so now in USA and all other countries of the world.
Link
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_Confederation_of_Trade_Unions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_Confederation_of_Trade_Unions)
Excellent examples, and proof of Husein's agenda in taking over the auto industry (Hitler's Volks Wagen, Husien' Chevy Volt).
Then there is the destruction of our energy infrastructure in his attempt to force an inferior technology, in turn driving up the cost of energy, with an end goal of Nationalizing energy production.
Did I mention health care?
And the libs blindly follow, like cattle to the slaughter...
Quote from: Solar on February 11, 2013, 06:43:49 AM
Excellent examples, and proof of Husein's agenda in taking over the auto industry (Hitler's Volks Wagen, Husien' Chevy Volt).
Then there is the destruction of our energy infrastructure in his attempt to force an inferior technology, in turn driving up the cost of energy, with an end goal of Nationalizing energy production.
Did I mention health care?
And the libs blindly follow, like cattle to the slaughter...
Or a wild pig.....
http://www.fastcompany.com/1055574/catch-wild-pig-parable-about-society-offers-valuable-lessons-leaders (http://www.fastcompany.com/1055574/catch-wild-pig-parable-about-society-offers-valuable-lessons-leaders)
Quote from: kramarat on February 11, 2013, 06:57:07 AM
Or a wild pig.....
http://www.fastcompany.com/1055574/catch-wild-pig-parable-about-society-offers-valuable-lessons-leaders (http://www.fastcompany.com/1055574/catch-wild-pig-parable-about-society-offers-valuable-lessons-leaders)
I love that parable!
However I disagree with the analysis by the author of the site, he fails to see the pigs are also now running the farm. :blink:
Quote from: Solar on February 11, 2013, 06:31:41 AM
What I'm saying is Conservatives imposed their Religious views on govt before it was enabled, as opposed to the obverse occurring.
Some of them more than others. While most of them may have been Christians, they were fully aware of the fights and disagreements that took place between Christian denominations; disagreements that continue today. Granted, they couldn't have seen the influx of so many different religions coming, or even that there would be so many people with no religious affiliation at all, or even belief in God.
That said, the intentional vagueness in the first amendment in regard to religion, apart from saying that the government can't establish one, or pick one over the other, turned out to be brilliant.
This is an interesting read. I like what Heritage has to say about it too....."God" given or "Natural" rights.
http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel06.html (http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel06.html)
Quote from: kramarat on February 11, 2013, 06:38:35 AM
I agree, so in conclusion the US Constitution should be the binding philosophy of all conservative movements?
Absolutely!!!
At least here in the US. The rest of the world can define and practice conservatism however they want.
As far as the WBC goes, they claim to be Christians that adhere to a strict literal translation of the Bible, but I'm not going to waste any time looking any further than that. I WILL continue to fight to make sure that they have the freedom to spew their vile hatred.
Well one can dedicate a whole thread to the disgusting WBC.
The problem though, how can we get all the conservative groups to work together with the constitution as framework?
Obama won with only 25-30% of the vote, so the socialists are not in majority, same in other countries around the world. The socialista are able to form minority government control because the conservatives don't work together.
In Norway this year its election, so it will be interestent to see but as always I fear the conservative groups will not work together. Just as the libertarians and social conservative will not work together in USA, the Christian peoples party, conservative party and the progress party (the most right wing party in norway) will not work together in Norway, even though in both countries
"the right" is in majority.
Quote from: Solar on February 11, 2013, 06:43:49 AM
And the libs blindly follow, like cattle to the slaughter...
And as principled conservatives, we can't compromise with each other in order to stop them from taking us with them to the slaughter :sad:
EDIT:
Quote""Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." "
So why isnt the second part of this law taken into practice? In the US children are being expelled from practicing their free excersise of religion.
Quote from: The Stranger on February 09, 2013, 05:16:43 AM
Maybe then one of my favorite statements is the biggest problem for the Republican party. I always say libs can not thing for themselves which is true, they mimic MM, the DNC and a few others.
I/we as Republicans or Conservatives think for ourselves so even though we may be of the same party we are different and think for ourselves?
Indeed, and because we think for ourself we come different conclusions when it comes to specifics even though we all love freedom. And these specifics like i.e gay marriage, foreign interventions and immigration prohibits us from forming a united coalition as the socialists do. We differ on the path to our "ideal" society/government adn therefor we have problems uniting, while the socialists all agree on the path to their utopia even though differ on specifics. So they are able to form minority government as the specifics are not as important as the overall agenda.
Quote from: Mountainshield on February 11, 2013, 08:12:37 AM
Well one can dedicate a whole thread to the disgusting WBC.
The problem though, how can we get all the conservative groups to work together with the constitution as framework?
Obama won with only 25-30% of the vote, so the socialists are not in majority, same in other countries around the world. The socialista are able to form minority government control because the conservatives don't work together.
In Norway this year its election, so it will be interestent to see but as always I fear the conservative groups will not work together. Just as the libertarians and social conservative will not work together in USA, the Christian peoples party, conservative party and the progress party (the most right wing party in norway) will not work together in Norway, even though in both countries "the right" is in majority.
And as principled conservatives, we can't compromise with each other in order to stop them from taking us with them to the slaughter :sad:
EDIT: So why isnt the second part of this law taken into practice? In the US children are being expelled from practicing their free excersise of religion.
I hate to say this, but anyone that is not willing to make the US constitution the bedrock of their political beliefs, is not a conservative, in the
political sense of the word.
We have people that are conservatives, but look at things from a strictly Christian position. These are the people that only want abortion illegalized.............at any cost.
I hate abortion also, but I have to temper that hatred so that I can make my argument in a constitutional framework. Which is not to go after abortion itself, but to bring up the unconstitutionality of forcing people to pay taxes, and then put their tax money toward government funded abortions. The people that are adamantly opposed to abortion, are typically Christians or other religious people that feel that abortion is murder. It is unconstitutional for the government to take their money and apply it to something that is strictly forbidden within their religion, and it flies in the face of guaranteed religious freedom.
I don't think that abortion will ever be eliminated; we might as well face it. However, I think it is entirely possible to strip it of government funding, which, if explained properly, I think would be backed by, (at least some), democrats as well.
So how do you get if at all possible the libertarians and conservative christians to work together and set aside the abortion issue, and get isolationists and pro interventionalist to put aside foreign policy and all together work towards implementing the constitutional restriction and reduction on government first?
Quote from: Mountainshield on February 11, 2013, 09:59:17 AM
So how do you get if at all possible the libertarians and conservative christians to work together and set aside the abortion issue, and get isolationists and pro interventionalist to put aside foreign policy and all together work towards implementing the constitutional restriction and reduction on government first?
For the most part, they are working together. It's the damned republican party that's adrift. :mad:
Each group has it's members that are out on the fringes, but all are against socialism. The people that choose to sit out elections, based on whatever agenda they may have, are no better than Obama democrats as far as I'm concerned. If they refuse to help stop it, they might as well learn to like it; because it's not going away without a concerted effort.
I hate to say I did not vote in the last election because I was felt betrayed by the progress party and conservative party due to some of it members being "RHINO". That being said, you can't defeat the democrats without rallying the non voters. It seems swift destruction/reformation of the Republican party is necessary in the US.
The problem in Norway is that two biggest right wing parties, the Conservative Party and the Progress Party focuses on stealing each other votes and scoring political points against each other instead of working together. I hope this changes this election though but I don't think so.
And it also looks to me as the libertarians want to focus on that they are for gay marriage by not wanting state legislating it and want abortion to be free just to score political favor with the libs and pissing off the social conservatives. So I don't really see the sides working together.
And for the moment it seems that the Left is winning with minority government when the right has the most votes. How can this be stopped?
Quote from: kramarat on February 11, 2013, 10:10:25 AM
For the most part, they are working together. It's the damned republican party that's adrift. :mad:
Each group has it's members that are out on the fringes, but all are against socialism. The people that choose to sit out elections, based on whatever agenda they may have, are no better than Obama democrats as far as I'm concerned. If they refuse to help stop it, they might as well learn to like it; because it's not going away without a concerted effort.
"Each group has it's members that are out on the fringes, but all are against socialism. The people that choose to sit out elections, based on whatever agenda they may have, are no better than Obama democrats as far as I'm concerned. If they refuse to help stop it, they might as well learn to like it; because it's not going away without a concerted effort."
What drives me nuts is we have have too many single issue folks on our side. An example is there is a group of Christians that do not accept Mormonism as a Christian religion. I believe some of those stayed home and did not vote. My goodness a Mormon is no comparison to what Obama is.
Quote from: Mountainshield on February 11, 2013, 10:22:35 AM
I hate to say I did not vote in the last election because I was felt betrayed by the progress party and conservative party due to some of it members being "RHINO". That being said, you can't defeat the democrats without rallying the non voters. It seems swift destruction/reformation of the Republican party is necessary in the US.
The problem in Norway is that two biggest right wing parties, the Conservative Party and the Progress Party focuses on stealing each other votes and scoring political points against each other instead of working together. I hope this changes this election though but I don't think so.
And it also looks to me as the libertarians want to focus on that they are for gay marriage by not wanting state legislating it and want abortion to be free just to score political favor with the libs and pissing off the social conservatives. So I don't really see the sides working together.
And for the moment it seems that the Left is winning with minority government when the right has the most votes. How can this be stopped?
Not by destroying the republican party.
It stops by wiping the table clean, and forming an alliance that is based completely on the US constitution, the constitutional role of government, the role of state government, and the idea of individual freedom that this country was founded on. Everything else is white noise distraction. Reagan did it, and democrats voted for him.
"The problem in Norway is that two biggest right wing parties, the Conservative Party and the Progress Party focuses on stealing each other votes and scoring political points against each other instead of working together. I hope this changes this election though but I don't think so."
This is the reality of a third party movement. The two right leaning parties would spend all their time trying to reach supporters of the other party. The dems would love it.
Quote from: supsalemgr on February 11, 2013, 10:59:24 AM
This is the reality of a third party movement. The two right leaning parties would spend all their time trying to reach supporters of the other party. The dems would love it.
IOh yes, it is the reason I made this thread. Socialists, Communists, Greens (watermelons) and liberals on the left have no problem cooperating with each other even though they differ on specifics.
For example
Labor Party focuses on jobs/empoyment through government intervention in the economy, often too some degree of detrimental impact on the environment. Labor Party is also pro nato and pro EU
Socialist Left focuses on wellfare and open immigration/refugee, foreign aid to totalitarian regimes, anti EU/NATO and pro LGBT issues
Green focuses on environment through taxation, creating national parks, stopping infrastructure and housing development
But they all agree on the expansion of state, sometimes socialist left protests against labor party pro NATO warmongering, green protests Labor party infrastucture for media circus, but nothing changes as they all agree on the socialist-communist agenda.
While on the right you have
Conservative Party want less taxation/regulation but also spending 80% of their time distancing themselves from the progress party in order to not be viewed as racist due to the progress party view on immigration.
Progress Party want less taxation/regulation but also stricter immigration and spend 80% of their time dealing/answering political uncorrectness issues from the left.
Instead of both focusing on cooperation on taxation they try to squeeze as many voters from the other right party as possible.
Quote from: Mountainshield on February 12, 2013, 05:01:12 AM
IOh yes, it is the reason I made this thread. Socialists, Communists, Greens (watermelons) and liberals on the left have no problem cooperating with each other even though they differ on specifics.
For example
Labor Party focuses on jobs/empoyment through government intervention in the economy, often too some degree of detrimental impact on the environment. Labor Party is also pro nato and pro EU
Socialist Left focuses on wellfare and open immigration/refugee, foreign aid to totalitarian regimes, anti EU/NATO and pro LGBT issues
Green focuses on environment through taxation, creating national parks, stopping infrastructure and housing development
But they all agree on the expansion of state, sometimes socialist left protests against labor party pro NATO warmongering, green protests Labor party infrastucture for media circus, but nothing changes as they all agree on the socialist-communist agenda.
While on the right you have
Conservative Party want less taxation/regulation but also spending 80% of their time distancing themselves from the progress party in order to not be viewed as racist due to the progress party view on immigration.
Progress Party want less taxation/regulation but also stricter immigration and spend 80% of their time dealing/answering political uncorrectness issues from the left.
Instead of both focusing on cooperation on taxation they try to squeeze as many voters from the other right party as possible.
The immigration problem should be an easy sell. There is ample evidence to show what the influx of Muslims, emergence of Islam, and ever growing populations in relation to the natives, are doing to the other European countries. It's not good.
Of course, I suppose that Norway also has a set of politically correct blinders they can put on.
Quote from: Mountainshield on February 12, 2013, 05:01:12 AM
IOh yes, it is the reason I made this thread. Socialists, Communists, Greens (watermelons) and liberals on the left have no problem cooperating with each other even though they differ on specifics.
For example
Labor Party focuses on jobs/empoyment through government intervention in the economy, often too some degree of detrimental impact on the environment. Labor Party is also pro nato and pro EU
Socialist Left focuses on wellfare and open immigration/refugee, foreign aid to totalitarian regimes, anti EU/NATO and pro LGBT issues
Green focuses on environment through taxation, creating national parks, stopping infrastructure and housing development
But they all agree on the expansion of state, sometimes socialist left protests against labor party pro NATO warmongering, green protests Labor party infrastucture for media circus, but nothing changes as they all agree on the socialist-communist agenda.
While on the right you have
Conservative Party want less taxation/regulation but also spending 80% of their time distancing themselves from the progress party in order to not be viewed as racist due to the progress party view on immigration.
Progress Party want less taxation/regulation but also stricter immigration and spend 80% of their time dealing/answering political uncorrectness issues from the left.
Instead of both focusing on cooperation on taxation they try to squeeze as many voters from the other right party as possible.
Sad that they allowed it to be framed as a racial issue, rather than the cultural component it is.