American Conservatives: Why Not Admit You Are Liberals? - Page 3 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Traditional 'common sense' values and duty to the state.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14636870
Jeliza-Rose wrote:
Jeffersonian Republican - aka - Democratic-Republican

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democrati ... ican_Party

The point is - we're all leftwing - the only true rightwingers are Monarchists.


That's the point

Were all rightwing

The Democrat-REPUBLICAN party came after the Jeffersonian REPUBLICAN party not before. So, to use your argument, we're all right wing.

So your trying to say the Jeffersonian Republicans were monarchist?

Or maybe the Federalist were monarchist..

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_Party

No, it doesn't look that way.
Last edited by so_crates on 30 Dec 2015 01:18, edited 1 time in total.
#14636875
Jeliza-Rose wrote:The point is - we're all leftwing - the only true rightwingers are Monarchists.

There are elements of that to be found in the Neo-Con faction of our present republican party ... I'd say it's focused more on an aristocracy than a monarch ... But then, Donald Trump certainly does seem to have some pretensions given a few of the "Changes" he advocates.

Zam
#14636877
The curious thing is how conventional US conservatives view the conservative/ liberal axis as the central political struggle of our time...a life-and-death struggle between two opposing forces representing good and evil. Even many "liberals" think the same way (not too many on this forum, I don't think).

The liberal/conservative axis is in fact irrelevant. It is an artificially engineered conflict designed to divert the public. Both US political parties (and the accompanying ideological baggage) are utterly beholden to the corporatist plutocracy (AKA 'liberal capitalism' in pofo) that has governed America since the late nineteenth century. Liberals and conservatives do serve a purpose for their masters - one tacks a bit left and one tacks a bit right, but nothing significant changes.
#14636883
quetzalcoatl wrote:The liberal/conservative axis is in fact irrelevant. It is an artificially engineered conflict designed to divert the public. Both US political parties (and the accompanying ideological baggage) are utterly beholden to the corporatist plutocracy (AKA 'liberal capitalism' in pofo) that has governed America since the late nineteenth century. Liberals and conservatives do serve a purpose for their masters - one tacks a bit left and one tacks a bit right, but nothing significant changes.

That's a reasonable representation, but I think exceptions occur when we hit deep do-do. Then idealists get their shot and things -DO- change, forcing the elite to adjust. Woodrow Wilson was a small hiccup. FDR was a much larger one. Personally, I think we're in that spot again. The economic collapse in 2008 sidelined Obama and pushed the US (and world) economy into a much deeper recession than was intended. It's up to Hillary to correct that. Along the way I suspect she's going to revise the payment plan and shift the burden OFF the average American and onto backs that are reluctant to carry it. It'll take a while for THAT to be adjusted.

Zam
#14636885
Zamuel wrote:That's a reasonable representation, but I think exceptions occur when we hit deep do-do. Then idealists get their shot and things -DO- change, forcing the elite to adjust. Woodrow Wilson was a small hiccup. FDR was a much larger one. Personally, I think we're in that spot again. The economic collapse in 2008 sidelined Obama and pushed the US (and world) economy into a much deeper recession than was intended. It's up to Hillary to correct that. Along the way I suspect she's going to revise the payment plan and shift the burden OFF the average American and onto backs that are reluctant to carry it. It'll take a while for THAT to be adjusted.

Zam


It's true that the Great Depression was a larger hiccup than normal. The end of that blip was LBJ's new deal, succeeded by a steady rightward drift. Politically we have returned to the McKinley era. Where I disagree is with the idea that we are on the cusp of another New Deal style change. We are not. Corporocracy has seized all the elements of political control - electoral politics cannot force even a temporary change, as happened in the Great Depression.
#14636889
quetzalcoatl wrote:It's true that the Great Depression was a larger hiccup than normal. The end of that blip was LBJ's new deal, succeeded by a steady rightward drift. Politically we have returned to the McKinley era. Where I disagree is with the idea that we are on the cusp of another New Deal style change. We are not. Corporocracy has seized all the elements of political control - electoral politics cannot force even a temporary change, as happened in the Great Depression.

I see post FDR politics as a cycle of accommodations and revisions by alternating administrations ... the "adjustment" I mentioned. But due to the generic shift in the level of human consciousness (60s & 70s) the "grip" on social control loosened and with Obama, it slipped completely. Trump is an excellent example of that "Grip" trying to reassert itself. If it fails ... it's on ... Hillary has already illustrated her eagerness to apply "the full extent of the law" to elitist corporate structures.

Corpocracy ... I like that term, but not the competition stifling reality of it. Thus far it's operation has not been publicly beneficial. Unless it can offer the Average American growth and an improving life style, I don't think it's sustainable or that it can effectively control the ballot box.

Zam
#14636912
taxizen wrote:This thread, like every thread on this forum, only confirms that King Tricky Dick 2 (- the sequel) was bang on the money when he said this:

    You wretches (peasants) are detestable both on land and on sea. You seek equality with the lords, but you are unworthy to live.


Both on land and on sea!

Absolutely comprehensive, that is simply epic.
#14636916
so_crates wrote:
That's the point

Were all rightwing

The Democrat-REPUBLICAN party came after the Jeffersonian REPUBLICAN party not before. So, to use your argument, we're all right wing.

So your trying to say the Jeffersonian Republicans were monarchist?

Or maybe the Federalist were monarchist..

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_Party

No, it doesn't look that way.


wtf ?!

You do realize that Robespierre and Jefferson were republicans (meaning - they ended the Monarchy)
This is where we get the terms Left and Right.

Pro-Republic = lefties
Pro-Monarch = righties

I can't believe I'm back in this effed-up forum.
Bye boys, have fun with your pissing contests.
#14650096
Zamuel wrote:I see post FDR politics as a cycle of accommodations and revisions by alternating administrations ... the "adjustment" I mentioned. But due to the generic shift in the level of human consciousness (60s & 70s) the "grip" on social control loosened and with Obama, it slipped completely. Trump is an excellent example of that "Grip" trying to reassert itself. If it fails ... it's on ... Hillary has already illustrated her eagerness to apply "the full extent of the law" to elitist corporate structures.

Corpocracy ... I like that term, but not the competition stifling reality of it. Thus far it's operation has not been publicly beneficial. Unless it can offer the Average American growth and an improving life style, I don't think it's sustainable or that it can effectively control the ballot box.

Zam


Frankly, I believe that analyzing this situation from a purely economic standpoint is flawed. It is not realistic to assume that economic principles are the primary concern, or even of concern at all for every American. The dixiecrats didn't leave the Democratic party over economics. It may be difficult to believe, but there are people who insist that America fails instead of becoming a nation where white orthodox-Christian ethnocentrism isn't dominant politically and socially.
#14650562
Zamuel wrote:Corpocracy ... I like that term, but not the competition stifling reality of it. Thus far it's operation has not been publicly beneficial. Unless it can offer the Average American growth and an improving life style, I don't think it's sustainable or that it can effectively control the ballot box.
DrSteveBrule wrote:Frankly, I believe that analyzing this situation from a purely economic standpoint is flawed. It is not realistic to assume that economic principles are the primary concern, or even of concern at all for every American.

It's all about bread and circuses ... right now Americans are short on bread and have had about enough circuses. This NEXT administration is going to be expected to deliver the goods ... if it doesn't ? things may get ugly.

Zam
#14657863
Yes, American Conservatives are economic liberals, that means they believe in the free, unregulated market and are usually opposed to government intervention anywhere.

American Liberals are Social Liberals, and Social Liberalism is the idea that we should find a balance between individual liberty and social justice. So, basically proponents of a mixed market, government intervening here and there sometimes to make sure everyone is being treated like human beings.

The Conservatives usually belong to the Republican Party and Liberals usually the Democratic Party. Glad I could teach you a little bit about politics in my country

So, we have a two-party system here, which I really dissaprove of, but it's basically these two forces battling it out for control in my country. Both are very corrupt though and cow-tow to big businesses. While the Democrats claim to stand for the little man they are screwing him over just as well as the Republicans do.
#14657880
GrimmMoore wrote:Yes, American Conservatives are economic liberals, that means they believe in the free, unregulated market and are usually opposed to government intervention anywhere.

No, actually, like all rightists they are elitists; so they simply favor government interventions that serve the interests of rich, greedy takers, and only oppose government interventions that defend ordinary citizens from the rapacity of rich, greedy takers.
While the Democrats claim to stand for the little man they are screwing him over just as well as the Republicans do.

While both parties serve the interests of rich, greedy takers at the expense of ordinary citizens, the Democrats at least have the good grace to be ashamed of it. The Republicans are proud of it.
#14658132
Truth To Power wrote:No, actually, like all rightists they are elitists; so they simply favor government interventions that serve the interests of rich, greedy takers, and only oppose government interventions that defend ordinary citizens from the rapacity of rich, greedy takers.
While both parties serve the interests of rich, greedy takers at the expense of ordinary citizens, the Democrats at least have the good grace to be ashamed of it. The Republicans are proud of it.


I was referring to the people that generally vote Republican - not the politicians themselves. Yes, I agree, the politicians are in it for the dough.
Blackface: Canada's Racist PM

It's absolutely priceless that this is happening t[…]

Here is some propaganda, facts, and fake news for […]

Huh. From the Guardian: Gunmaker Colt says it i[…]

Some might, but since that has nothing to do with[…]