Individual enlightenment weakness for the conservative political movement?

Started by Mountainshield, February 09, 2013, 02:35:13 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

taxed

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.
#PureBlood #TrumpWon

Solar

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.
Official Trump Cult Member

#WWG1WGA

Q PATRIOT!!!

taxed

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.
#PureBlood #TrumpWon

kramarat


taxed

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.
#PureBlood #TrumpWon

kramarat

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.

taxed

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.
#PureBlood #TrumpWon

Solar

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.
Official Trump Cult Member

#WWG1WGA

Q PATRIOT!!!

Mountainshield

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

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

kramarat

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

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

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

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.

Mountainshield

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

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.

Solar

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:
Official Trump Cult Member

#WWG1WGA

Q PATRIOT!!!

kramarat

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:

Solar

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.
Official Trump Cult Member

#WWG1WGA

Q PATRIOT!!!

kramarat

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.