The difference between Conservatives and Liberals

[UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)]

Huh?

 

[trplnkl]

HUH? WHAT?? What part of that could you NOT understand?

 

[moreluck]

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/12/16/13-reasons-santa-claus-is-definitely-conservative/

 

[wkmac]

More,

Only you would be captured by such grossly subjective humor. Then again, maybe you do actually still think all those stories are real. Point #6 is correct but you'd have to thank Coca-Cola for that propaganda advertizing campaign.

Makes you wonder if in the future the fat man in the red suit will be replaced by polar bears. Just sayin'!

 

[wkmac]

Modern conservatism, in the United States and Europe, is confused and distorted. Under the influence of representative democracy and with the transformation of the U.S. and Europe into mass democracies from World War I, conservatism was transformed from an anti-egalitarian, aristocratic, anti-statist ideological force into a movement of culturally conservative statists: the right wing of the socialists and social democrats.........

That this is largely true for the so-called neoconservatives does not require further explanation here. Indeed, as far as their leaders are concerned, one suspects that most of them are of the latter kind. They are not truly concerned about cultural matters but recognize that they must play the cultural-conservatism card so as not to lose power and promote their entirely different goal of global social democracy.1 The fundamentally statist character of American neoconservatism is best summarized by a statement of one of its leading intellectual champions Irving Kristol:

"[T]he basic principle behind a conservative welfare state ought to be a simple one: wherever possible, people should be allowed to keep their own money—rather than having it transferred (via taxes to the state)—on the condition that they put it to certain defined uses." [Two Cheers for Capitalism, New York: Basic Books, 1978, p. 119]....

A second, somewhat older but nowadays almost indistinguishable branch of contemporary American conservatism is represented by the new (post World War II) conservatism launched and promoted, with the assistance of the CIA, by William Buckley and his National Review. Whereas the old (pre-World War II) American conservatism had been characterized by decidedly anti-interventionist foreign policy views, the trademark of Buckley's new conservatism has been its rabid militarism and interventionist foreign policy.

In an article, "A Young Republican's View," published in Commonweal on January 25, 1952, three years before the launching of his National Review, Buckley thus summarized what would become the new conservative credo: In light of the threat posed by the Soviet Union, "we [new conservatives] have to accept Big Government for the duration—for neither an offensive nor a defensive war can be waged . . . except through the instrument of a totalitarian bureaucracy within our shores."

Conservatives, Buckley wrote, were duty-bound to promote "the extensive and productive tax laws that are needed to support a vigorous anti-Communist foreign policy," as well as the "large armies and air forces, atomic energy, central intelligence, war production boards and the attendant centralization of power in Washington."

Not surprisingly, since the collapse of the Soviet Union in the late 1980s, essentially nothing in this philosophy has changed. Today, the continuation and preservation of the American welfare-warfare state is simply excused and promoted by new and neo-conservatives alike with reference to other foreign enemies and dangers: China, Islamic fundamentalism, Saddam Hussein, "rogue states," and the threat of "global terrorism."...........

The Intellectual Incoherence of Conservatism

 

[wkmac]

Why I don't much like liberals

 

[Catatonic]

The neat thing about this cartoon is I can't tell if this is pro-Government Dependency or Anti-Government Dependency.

I guess this is the meaning of "The system was never broken, it was built this way.

 

[wkmac]

I always thought of Iam as being a fair and balanced version to Moreluck.

Well, balanced anyway although at times it's pretty hard to determine with them where balanced and unbalanced begins and ends.

 

[ImWaitingForTheDay]

Ponder this one....

 

[moreluck]

 

[moreluck]

 

[rod]

 

[moreluck]

 

[UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)]

The handshake, given the setting, was an appropriate sign of respect.

 

[moreluck]

A snub was more appropriate!!!

 

[Nimnim]

Given the established political climate between the US and Cuba, a handshake is a very generous move. Personally I'd have expected no physical contact but a visible acknowledgement of them. A handshake isn't something that should be a concern though.


More on a slant I'm not surprised Obama did this, he seems to always give more, really not sure of the word here, "relaxed" gestures towards leaders of countries that we're at odds with for one reason or another. I'm not sure if that's a sign of statesmanship or weakness.

 

[UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)]

A snub was more appropriate!!!

Had it been anywhere else I would agree but given the setting a handshake was the appropriate thing to do.

 

[moreluck]

Circumstances don't change my opinion of someone. If a snub is the way to go, then it doesn't matter where I am.

 

[UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)]

Thank goodness you will never be asked to represent this country on diplomatic affairs.

 

[moreluck]

No, we have Kerry..........he's like that guy that froze on stage in Vegas the other day. Real effective !!!