posted
They say there are Conservatives at Hatrack. Of course, you can't blanket say there aren't. I do, along with two or three others, post a few times.
Frankly, however, I feel that Conservatives are misreprented on the board. I don't just mean numerical quantity. The small amount who post on a regular basis are not true Conservatives. At best they hold some positions that can be recognized as such, but overall they too often hold positions that are considered moderate. Liberals like to point to them whenever someone tries to express the lack of true political representation. But, actual Conservatives hold most of those token members as suspect. Those who represent the majority Conservative consensus are, even by the moderate Conservatives (and that is generosity), yelled at and harrased and called Trolls.
This shouldn't be surprising considering the overabundant and extremist liberals that post here. Rather ironic, considering OSC is supposed to be a Conservative. Interesting that often times OSC's comments are lambasted with the same force and bias as those who the liberals (and at best moderate Conservatives)here call Trolls.
I am not suggesting change. In fact, I don't believe this will be taken as anything more than "hogwash" for its mere existance. Its just an observation that many Conservatives have recognized and therefore stayed away from posting here. From what I have seen, this isn't the first time this observation has been expressed. Most likely, it won't be the last. Those who post as Conservatives on a regular basis have no idea, or refuse to recognize, how much true majority Conservatives shake their heads in disbelief. You may not give them much respect, but they don't hold you with it either. In fact, some are very angry that you who call yourselves Conservatives do not stand up and tell the liberals here where to stuff it as they have had happen to them many times.
With that said, let the denials begin. My only hope is that the "Trolls" will read this, take courage, and swamp the place with recognition of what I have said. Of course, not wanting to take the abuse this place often gives I am not surprised by their relative silence.
-- Inspired by Jay. You lift my spirits and give me hope.
posted
People are called trolls because of how they express their ideas, not the ideas themselves. If someone cannot express their ideals civily and be concidered a "true conservative", I do not care to have any of them around.
I am not saying I think Jay is a troll. I have not read enough of his posts to determine that.
Posts: 1015 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, for starters, it means you Synth. But, to be honest those who are extreme never consider themselves that label.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
So is it Jay calling everyone who disagrees with him in the slightest idiots that makes him a real conservative, or is it his ignoring people's counterarguments?
If a "real conservative" by your definition could come here and not be insulting and actually respond to people's counterarguments with evidence, they would be welcome. As neither you nor Jay seem to have mastered those skills wrt political threads, you are generally not welcome in those threads because your presence typically impedes productive discussion.
edit: forgot a qualifier from the first p in the second.
I seem to recall it being the general consensus that whatever people's tendencies are around here, just about everyone thinks the forum is mostly the "other side."
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:If a "real conservative" by your definition could come here and not be insulting, they would be welcome.
Not that any are actually welcome to start with.
quote:Who knew Jay had more than one logon?
See, that is what is so funny. Everyone is in so much denial that they can't fathom that Jay is not the only Conservative that believes that way he does. Yet, he and others like him are the true representation of Conservatives attitutes and beliefs. As I have said, you don't believe me than you should see what is said about OSC compared to what is said about Jay and others like him (and me).
quote: overabundant and extremist liberals that post here
I believe that I am considered as part as this 'package', and yet in many countries I am actually moderate in my position in many countries- as a voter in Canada, for example, I am a supporter of the central party, and lean a little to the left of that. I think that "extremist liberals" (communists?) are as rare here as "extremist conservatives". Most people are somewhere in the middle, and that is the way it should be.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, Jay is almost certainly distinct from Occasional, though I don't know if he has more than one logon.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I find this thread highly ironic, given that it's here at Hatrack that I first heard a conservative viewpoint on various issues presented so intelligently and eloquently and persuasively that I actually revised several of my views more toward the center.
Oh, and just to clarify, it certainly isn't posters like Jay that are persuasive and eloquent. I've named names elsewhere, and they know who the are.
posted
Oh, some of the "liberals" definitely are insulting at times. I actually find it funny that I would no doubt be called liberal by you, as I'm many times more conservative, both economically and governmentally, than Bush. In certain areas some would term me a social liberal, but hardly an extreme one.
However, I believe we're still waiting from answers from you for, oh, nearly every time you've been challenged to provide evidence for a position. How about you start with this one:
Provide evidence for Clinton or Herbie's administration using taxpayer money to pay journalists (or people acting like journalists) to hype their political agendas and specifically not disclose the connection. I'll take as little as a single instance; should be easy, you've alleged its a common practice.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, I don't think Jay is by any means the only "Conservative" who believes as he does. I know that there are tons of people you would call conservatives who believe as he does.
I consider all the people who act as he does (liberal or conservative) to be idiots.
posted
The reason that the conservative trolls get jumped on more than liberals is that the intelligent, respectful conservatives are sick and tired of being thought of as stupid bigots. It's the more conservative posters who dogpile the trolls. If you see that as a break in loyalty, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. To be fair, when we do get a rude and ignorant liberal, we're very nasty to them as well.
If I am interpreting your post correctly, you're seeing this as a fight between liberals and conservatives, and you see the unwillingness to demonize the other side as a weakness. It's not; it's a strength, and it's far more productive. This isn't about winning a fight. It's about trying to figure out what policies and attitudes are healthiest for us and our countries, and then adopting them--even if the other side came up with them first.
posted
I find Hatrack writ large so conservative that there are certain issues I simply will not discuss here. Then again, an American conservative would certainly call me an extremist liberal (a Canadian conservative might not). Of course, from my Canadian liberal standpoint I'd certainly call Occasional an extremist conservative. Were I an American liberal I might not.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Before we get in an argument either way, define extreme liberal and extreme conservative. Otherwise we may end up talking past each other. Posts: 903 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
As twinky's post made very clear, extreme is very, very, very relative in terms of political scale. That's why it's a good term to use very, very sparingly.
Posts: 4077 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:conservative, both economically and governmentally, than Bush.
Than you have proven my point. I don't think you know what "conservative" means anymore. The old definition doesn't fit, and those who are at best moderate Conservatives don't seem to recognize that fact.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
wow, and that same response could go here right after Occasional's too.
Care to elaborate, dear friend? I notice you still haven't even commented on your lack of substantiation of even such a simple thing.
edit: well, if this were right after Occasional's. Also, what I mean by elaborate is, how about you furnish some working definitions of Conservative (and liberal, if you care to) that we can rip to shreds?
posted
Extreme, maybe not, I'm looking for middle ground, equality, fairness. If I criticise Bush, I'm calling it like I see it. I see corruption, I see Bush doing things that are wrong, what am I supposed to do, be silent about it? Even some conservatives might say the same thing.
But, are you the same one who said something about using the same sort of tactics the enemy is using or was that someone else?
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ah, watch him ignore the responses that he doesn't have a good response to and sieze on the largely irrelevant ones.
edit: actually, I should say, ones less likely to show his lack of thoughtfulness. Who the conservatives are on the board is relevant, but almost entirely a matter of opinion, and as he seems to have already defined conservative as someone who holds no opinions that could be considered other than conservative whatsoever, the likelihood of his finding a single conservative is low.
Which is good, I'd hate to find people so stupid they didn't have complicated thoughts. Actually, I don't think Occasional is so stupid that he has no positions that could be considered anything other than Conservative. I'm not saying Conservative positions are stupid, I'm saying that people whose entire political thoughts are easily classified are stupid.
posted
But will you respond to any of the questions and points posed to you? That's the real question.
Posts: 4077 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
twinky sums up the "Canadian Dilemma" perfectly ( ). As a Canadian liberal, discussing politics with an American liberal is in many cases like talking with a Canadian conservative- the scales are totally out of line with one another!
Also, as I discovered reading a book filled with a multitude of articles on American politics the terms "liberal" and "conservative" are themselves confusing. In one article (as I eventually divined) what I would call a liberal was saying things disparaging things about liberal policies. This confuzzled me. I now realise that when he was saying "progressives" (a word I associate with conservatives) he meant what are commonly called "liberals". Confused? I was.
There also exists the ideas of the original Liberal Philosophers on which America was founded. However, with the split between economic, foreign, religious/traditional and social policies, no one person truly lines up neatly with one single label.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Then* I think you're missing the point of the forum, which is, in fact, as I (and many, many other posters all over the political spectrum) call it, discussion.
*Note the spelling. Learn it. Love it.
Posts: 4077 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Feel free to respond to my points on the threads where they were made, then . You can start with the one I suggested, which you can conveniently find by going to your recent posts and clicking on the second link that regards the bush's character thread (I know that one's on the same page).
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It would be nice if the terms liberal and conservative were defined clearly and what it means to be on the extreme side... When I think of extreme conservatives I think of those scary men who are lunky and wave flags all the time and strongly dislike gays and foreigners... When I think of extreme liberals I think of hippy peta types who have dreadlocks, don't bath that much and wear a lot of hemp. Both are kind of scary...
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
Exteme Liberal--Anyone who is much more liberal than you are.
Conservative--Anyone who is more conservative than you are.
Extreme Conservative--Anyone who is much more conservative than you are.
If you are ultra conservative in all of your ideals, than the person not so conservative would be considered a liberal.
Of course, these definitions are self-defining, meaning that they mean nothing.
Power players in politics have deliberately fuzzied these terms to try and bring in the most people into their political territory. If everyone thinks they are a conservative, they will vote for the guy calling himself conservative.
Conservative & Liberal--Politcal brands used by politicians to get elected. Vaguely meaning Big Business/Old Time Values ideas v.s. Worker/Populist Values.
You want to get people to see your point of view? Talk facts not brands.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The problem with naming the conservatives is that in many cases it's not clear. I sometimes remember who says something that I would call particularly extreme, but not on a regular basis.
I'd still prefer a list of basic tenants that defines a conservative versus a liberal. Am I a conservative because I want a very decentralized government, or even that if it were my decision, we'd live in a constitutional monarchy? Am I a liberal because I don't support our modern prison system or I'm in favor of state-funded contraceptive programs?
I've given up trying to jump into either pool, since I hate being grouped with ideas I don't agree with. Is there any reason why a hawkish stance on foreign policy should be correlated with an opposition to gay marriage or abortion?
Posts: 903 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
None of those concepts make any kind of sense to me, like feminine and masculine make no sense. I hate when people through around empty terms like they mean something...
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, and I'm waiting on your definition of conservative, preferably the one that Bush fits in any economic or governmental sense. I'm wondering how you're going to work in "big government" in a definition of conservative.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I will actually have to go with Teshi on this one. It would be almost impossible to define Conservative and Liberal. It isn't about a set of definitions as much as many positions and attitudes. There, at least in the United States, no longer exists delineatable philosophies.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
And no need to say the ways in which you're not going to respond, I think most of us here sort of assume non-response is the default for you. Positive responses to those things you will respond to will be sufficient.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Should have said that earlier, we have yet another post in which you've told us what you're not responding to.
How about you talk about those attitudes? I'm waiting for the conservative attitude which Bush has that involves "nosing about in as much state business as possible and growing government bureaucracy".
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: To tell you the truth, I want to hear from some Conservatives about this topic. I already know what liberals think.
What topic? As political camps are generally defined by thier stance on a given issue, and we have yet to hear what you think about any actual "issues," other that I M conservative, U R liberal, I am at a loss.
Further, you've only provided us with one "defined" conservative--you.
Hmm. Me thinks we will not get far on the "debate" front.
bunbun not so much an IMer dagonee neither sorry
Posts: 516 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Yet, he and others like him are the true representation of Conservatives attitudes and beliefs.
No. Jay is not a true representation of Conservative attitudes. I've never seen him mention the social contract; I've never seen him mention fiscal responsibility; he's advocating federal intrusion into one of the most traditionally state-driven areas of governance. Most of the policies he decides to speak on are not actually in favor of lessening government interference with the social and economic fabric of society.
I voted for Bush because, as much as I disagree with him, Kerry was farther away from my position on many, many more issues.
Except for civil gay marriage and possibly the death penalty, I line up with almost every litmus-test Conservative issue: abortion, gun control, government regulation, limitation of federal intrusion into state arena through the fiction of the commerce clause, hate crime legislation, taxation, market tactics for environmental regulation, drilling in the Arctic, and health care. On foreign policy, I submit there is no longer a clear "Conservative" position any more, except for a general unwillingness to submit American sovereignty to international authority.
Most of these stem from some common underlying principals that are not compatible with knee-jerk name calling of those who disagree with him.
I have avoided as many of the "Is Bush Good or Bad?" threads as I've been able to resist, and not just because of the more egregious behavior by the "liberals." Bush's defenders on this board have too often resorted to the same tactics as his detractors, and the more annoying on both sides have made reasoned discourse difficult or impossible.
But don't you dare question my Conservative credentials because I choose to not come to the defense of people who by all rights should be an embarrassment to those they agree with.
posted
I know you object to it, but perhaps you should read G.W. Bush's inaugaration speech. His statements are pretty close to the Conservative "attitudes" I am talking about.
I will define Conservatism this way:
The belief in God, Country, Family as it traditionally existed. Taxes should be small and government should protect the sanctity of the above three.
quote:No. Jay is not a true representation of Conservative attitudes.
How many Conservatives have you actually talked with? Perhaps its from where I come from, but Jay is closer to the Conservatives I know than you are.
quote:There, at least in the United States, no longer exists delineatable philosophies.
This is where the problem is. The Conservatism I hold has the basic point that government should do the minimum necessary, with necessary being defined realistically, not as the libertarians do. Governmental tasks should be conducted at the level of government closest to the people capable of doing the job. People who use resources should compensate the owners of those resources, and when the owner of those resources is the government, compensation is still due. The market should be allowed to work in many situations, but this means government enforcement of information accuracy is needed. People should be left to expend their energy and exercise their conscience to the greatest extent possible while still maintaining a community.
This is very consistent, and especially consistent in one facet: every one of these principals has values that must be balanced against each other. Given the permutations available, there are millions of combinations of possible policy preferences that can legitimately be said to stem from Conservative principles.
posted
I question your conservative credentials, Dag . I'm going to keep calling you a moderate, so deal with it .
Of course, that's more under an associative definition rather than a philosophical one.
For one thing,
quote:limitation of federal intrusion into state arena through the fiction of the commerce clause
hardly seems to pop up in practice . Actually, I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts as to why we need to drill in ANWR.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Yet, [Jay] and others like him are the true representation of Conservatives attitutes and beliefs.
I'm wondering who appointed you the Arbiter of True Conservatism. I suspect it is yourself.
Shigosei wrote:
quote:The reason that the conservative trolls get jumped on more than liberals is that the intelligent, respectful conservatives are sick and tired of being thought of as stupid bigots. It's the more conservative posters who dogpile the trolls.
Exactly. I was one of the early votes telling Jar Head to leave, because he was such an obnoxious person that opinions I agree with sound bad coming out of his mouth. When liberals are obnoxious, I don't much care, because they're only making themselves look like fools and discrediting their own positions.
I expect a higher standard of class from my team than from the other side. Conservatives win by having the best ideas, not by pissing the most people off.
[ January 25, 2005, 10:10 PM: Message edited by: Yozhik ]
Posts: 1512 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
posted
Small government is no longer part of the Conservative philosophy as I have heard it expressed (at most that simply means stay away from my pocket book). These days its about a more effective government to withstand attacks on American traditionalism. For instance, when was the last time you heard a Conservative organization argue for smaller government? I think that idea is quickly going out the door.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
). As a Canadian liberal, discussing politics with an American liberal is in many cases like talking with a Canadian conservative- the scales are totally out of line with one another!![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
. I'm going to keep calling you a moderate, so deal with it ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
.
