• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Does this video explain conservatism accurately?

Does this video portray conservatism accurately?

  • Total voters
    16
That conservatism has, to me, become a dirty word due to their extremists....is a shame...
IMO, both the tea baggers, the conservatives, and the libertarians are all polluted with extremists.

I'll not waste my time on their childish videos and no vote ( at this time ) of course..
 
The General said:
May by I am giving them to much credit. But they were very intelligent. They wrote the constitution, but recently it have starred to be ignored by law makers.
Click to expand...

The Constitution was always a matter of debate from those that created or accepted its presence. Present concerns are present concerns, but the battle over the Constitution started during the Washington administration.
 
earthworm said:
That conservatism has, to me, become a dirty word due to their extremists....is a shame...
IMO, both the tea baggers, the conservatives, and the libertarians are all polluted with extremists.

I'll not waste my time on their childish videos and no vote ( at this time ) of course..
Click to expand...

What's the good conservatism?
 
iliveonramen said:
This is where it gets tricky..."small government" conservatives under Bush like Paul Ryan were voting for his big government agenda.

Small government conservatives have passed things like a Doctor isn't allowed to ask a patient if they own a gun, pregnant women are forced to get ultrasounds before an abortion, they've supported laws to create a state religion, they always pushed for more spending on the military....honestly if you believe in small government and are afraid of a government take over how do you support a military anywhere the size of ours.

Small government how? States rights? It was the Federal Government that ended segregation and ended slavery.

Small government as in less government intervention across the board? Do you agree or disagree with the Sherman Anti-Trust Act? The creation of national parks? So that Yellowstone is open to the public and kept clean rather than surrounded by touristy high rises?

What does exceptionalism mean? I've seen it used as a stick to beat to criticism of the government. Why do conservatives tend to label things like "anti-american" or "doesn't believe in exceptionalism" at persons that disagree with the actions of a government. Doesn't exceptionalism take work? Like sometimes you have to criticize the government in order to meen any idea of exceptionalism?

Edit: I also think this guy spends a lot of time attacking views of a very small % of the population...or at least creating broad generalizations for the "other side".
Click to expand...

Not conservatives, but republicans. The mistake is understandable, but they are not one and the same by a long shot.

Yes the federal gov't got rid of slavery, but they didn't start a war to do it, the south started it. This gave Lincoln the perfect opportunity to end one of the greatest injustices the U.S. has ever seen.

I do agree with the Sherman anti trust acts mainly because these were inter-state monopolies and thus could not be handled by the states alone. National parks should be state parks and state run IMO.

Exceptionalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
However, Whittle means something mildly different. America is exceptional in that it is the most productive per unit of population in the world. There is something exceptional about the U.S.
 
Indeed said:
Click to expand...


No, he's as full of **** as any other teabagger

They don't believe in small govt. They want a totalitarian govt that forces children to pray, forbids teachers from teaching about reproductive science and evolution, forces teachers to teach absurd religious doctrine.

Oh, I know what you're thinking - "The Tea Party isn't about social issues!!!!". Well, that's BS. They do.

But even if you leave the social issues aside, and concentrate on Big Govt, the fact is the teabaggers support Medicare and Social Security, and if you ask them what programs they want to cut, they can't name anything that comes close to costing more than 1% of the budget.
 
Indeed said:
Not conservatives, but republicans. The mistake is understandable, but they are not one and the same by a long shot.
Click to expand...

That differentiation is dependent upon past coalitions and that coalition's placement on a spectrum. From what Sangha has described is part of a conservative philosophy, and the mechanism for ensuring that conservative viewpoint is through governmental action and regulation. Just because there are paradoxes or contradictions does not make it not part of conservatism.
 
Indeed said:
Not conservatives, but republicans. The mistake is understandable, but they are not one and the same by a long shot.

Yes the federal gov't got rid of slavery, but they didn't start a war to do it, the south started it. This gave Lincoln the perfect opportunity to end one of the greatest injustices the U.S. has ever seen.

I do agree with the Sherman anti trust acts mainly because these were inter-state monopolies and thus could not be handled by the states alone. National parks should be state parks and state run IMO.

Exceptionalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
However, Whittle means something mildly different. America is exceptional in that it is the most productive per unit of population in the world. There is something exceptional about the U.S.
Click to expand...
By what standard???
 
Indeed said:
Not conservatives, but republicans. The mistake is understandable, but they are not one and the same by a long shot.

Yes the federal gov't got rid of slavery, but they didn't start a war to do it, the south started it. This gave Lincoln the perfect opportunity to end one of the greatest injustices the U.S. has ever seen.

I do agree with the Sherman anti trust acts mainly because these were inter-state monopolies and thus could not be handled by the states alone. National parks should be state parks and state run IMO.

Exceptionalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
However, Whittle means something mildly different. America is exceptional in that it is the most productive per unit of population in the world. There is something exceptional about the U.S.
Click to expand...

For the most part I agree...yes Republican does not equal conservative but I believe the parties are split don't purely ideological views (conservative vs liberal) than they've ever been.

Yes the south fired the first shot but when the abolishionist won the House and Executive branch the writing was on the wall for the south. They could always count on some northern Dems and Whigs to vote in their favor at that point a party was created based solely on slavery won control.

For the Sherman anti-trust and national parks...I guess I mainly pointed those out because you really have attacked "progressivism" as some great evil but both are example of progressivism in action. The conservative view at the time was for non-intervention into US markets.

As for the exceptionalism this is where I widely disagree with Whittle.
 
I had to vote yes and no. Some of it is right on, some of it isn't. It's just not an all-or-none proposition.
 
kerussll said:
Apparently communism and death, lol
Click to expand...

Then you didn't pay attention. He said that the ideas liberals want to put into practice have already been tried, and have been massive failures in the past.
 
Cephus said:
Then you didn't pay attention. He said that the ideas liberals want to put into practice have already been tried, and have been massive failures in the past.
Click to expand...

I paid attention. It's a stupid message.
 
Neomalthusian said:
I think this video nails the philosophical underpinnings of conservatism.

The Philosophy of Liberty - YouTube
Click to expand...
When you start with a false premise the rest of your reasoning is questionable.

There are many ideas presented that almost everyone in the Western world agrees with but that doesn't mean they agree with how you got there.
 
MoSurveyor said:
When you start with a false premise the rest of your reasoning is questionable.
Click to expand...

I will grant you that the "ownership" piece of self-ownership has always felt slightly amiss to me, but I don't think that makes it a false premise. What I would have said instead of "you own yourself" is "you have inalienable rights."
 
Neomalthusian said:
I will grant you that the "ownership" piece of self-ownership has always felt slightly amiss to me, but I don't think that makes it a false premise. What I would have said instead of "you own yourself" is "you have inalienable rights."
Click to expand...

There is nothing amiss about it. It's the backbone of liberty and life and the extension of estate.

Ownership- the exclusive right to control something. How is it possibly amiss?
 
Henrin said:
There is nothing amiss about it. It's the backbone of liberty and life and the extension of estate.

Ownership- the exclusive right to control something. How is it possibly amiss?
Click to expand...

I agree with it personally but I call it slightly amiss in terms of how I would phrase my defense of liberty to those who aren't particularly fans of it. Ownership to most people implies transferability and they nitpick about that, whereas inalienability is not open to transferability (pardon the redundancy). That's why I would reference inalienability -- so that those who have a weaker concept of liberty have a better chance of comprehending.
 
Neomalthusian said:
I will grant you that the "ownership" piece of self-ownership has always felt slightly amiss to me, but I don't think that makes it a false premise. What I would have said instead of "you own yourself" is "you have inalienable rights."
Click to expand...
That's vague and difficult to build off of. Even specifying those rights does you little good because there are most likely exceptions. The only "inalienable" rights I know of, and some have argued they're so basic they're not rights at all, is the right to attempt to survive and the right to attempt to reproduce. All animals have these basic "rights" or attributes, if you prefer. Past that you're into man-made constructs.
 
Last edited:
Neomalthusian said:
I agree with it personally but I call it slightly amiss in terms of how I would phrase my defense of liberty to those who aren't particularly fans of it. Ownership to most people implies transferability and they nitpick about that, whereas inalienability is not open to transferability (pardon the redundancy). That's why I would reference inalienability -- so that those who have a weaker concept of liberty have a better chance of comprehending.
Click to expand...
It's not a matter of a "weaker concept of liberty". Pure anarchists might believe you have a "weaker concept of liberty", so that phrase really goes nowhere - unless you're a pure anarchist, meaning no law at all.

Ownership does, indeed, imply the ability to transfer/sell. That's not nit-picking, that's the truth. In fact, in this particular case, they go on to point out the ability to buy/sell what you own as you please when you please as long as it's mutual - so "transferability" of property is a significant point in the further development of this ideal. If that point doesn't stand at the foundation then any further development of property in that direction is arbitrary.
 
I voted YES. I didn't listen to the whole thing, just the first few minutes. I have listen to Bill on several accounts before. Already agree with him.
 
Cephus said:
Then again, you're a liberal, so that doesn't say much. :roll:
Click to expand...

Yeah, I am a liberal so what do I know? Half the country's too dumb to comprehend your groundbreaking video :roll:
 
I think this quote characterizes Liberalism and Conservatism:
"Liberalism is the philosophy for our time, because it does not try to conserve every tradition of the past, because it does not apply to new problems the old doctrinaire solutions, because it is prepared to experiment and innovate and because it knows that the past is less important than the future."
 
kerussll said:
Yeah, I am a liberal so what do I know? Half the country's too dumb to comprehend your groundbreaking video :roll:
Click to expand...

I didn't make the video, I didn't post it here. You were saying something about dumb?
 
Neomalthusian said:
I will grant you that the "ownership" piece of self-ownership has always felt slightly amiss to me, but I don't think that makes it a false premise. What I would have said instead of "you own yourself" is "you have inalienable rights."
Click to expand...

Says who? Just because a bunch of guys, standing around a table, signing a piece of paper thought so 250 years ago doesn't make it so. There's no such thing as inalienable rights.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom