Why did our founding fathers hate corporations?

No, Russia and China are communist which is conservative. If Russia and China were 'liberal', they would be a run by a bunch of 'tree huggers'

You folks just can't make the connection. EVERY oppressive or totalitarian society is ruled by conservatives, it is what they do...

Socialism is liberal. More people (preferably everyone) have some say in how the economy works. Democracy is liberal. More people (preferably everyone) have some say in how the government works. "Democracy," said Marx, "is the road to socialism." He was wrong about how economics and politics interact, but he did see their similar underpinnings.

Communism is conservative. Fewer and fewer people (preferably just the Party Secretary) have any say in how the economy works. Republicans are conservative. Fewer and fewer people (preferably just people controlling the Party figurehead) have any say in how the government works. The conservatives in the US are in the same position as the communists in the 30s, and for the same reason: Their revolutions failed spectacularly but they refuse to admit what went wrong.

A common mistake is to confuse Socialism, the economic system, with Communism, the political system. Communists are "socialist" in the same way that Republicans are "compassionate conservatives". That is, they give lip service to ideals they have no intention of practicing.

Its hilarious that you have to make up your own definitions for conservative to justify your beliefs. Why not rely on the definition that the leading proponents of American Conservatism use for themselves?

Here's the principles of American Conservatism, defined by actual conservatives:

We, as young conservatives, believe:
• That foremost among the transcendent values is the individual’s use of his God-given free will, whence derives his right to be free from the restrictions of arbitrary force;
• That liberty is indivisible, and that political freedom cannot long exist without economic freedom;
• That the purpose of government is to protect those freedoms through the preservation of internal order, the provision of national defense, and the administration of justice;
• That when government ventures beyond these rightful functions, it accumulates power, which tends to diminish order and liberty;
• That the Constitution of the United States is the best arrangement yet devised for empowering government to fulfill its proper role, while restraining it from the concentration and abuse of power;
• That the genius of the Constitution—the division of powers—is summed up in the clause that reserves primacy to the several states, or to the people, in those spheres not specifically delegated to the Federal government;
• That the market economy, allocating resources by the free play of supply and demand, is the single economic system compatible with the requirements of personal freedom and constitutional government, and that it is at the same time the most productive supplier of human needs;
• That when government interferes with the work of the market economy, it tends to reduce the moral and physical strength of the nation; that when it takes from one man to bestow on another, it diminishes the incentive of the first, the integrity of the second, and the moral autonomy of both;
• That we will be free only so long as the national sovereignty of the United States is secure; that history shows periods of freedom are rare, and can exist only when free citizens concertedly defend their rights against all enemies;
• That the forces of international Communism are, at present, the greatest single threat to these liberties;
• That the United States should stress victory over, rather than coexistance with, this menace; and
• That American foreign policy must be judged by this criterion: does it serve the just interests of the United States?
http://www.conservative.org/about-acu/principles/

And here's the principles of American Liberalism:

We believe that Liberalism is an evolutionary advance over Conservatism and that it represents the better nature of human beings. Accordingly, we believe that the politics of conservatives in America are grounded in a culture of fear and a false and ugly view of humanity, one which much of the thinking arising in the Enlightenment and of consequence in the founding of the United States of America both disputes and dispels.
http://americanliberalism.org/showDiary.do?diaryId=4893

Notice that liberals don't have the courage to define their own movement, except to say that they are 'against conservatives'. Like you, they try to define conservatism in an absurd way. :)
 
Its hilarious that you have to make up your own definitions for conservative to justify your beliefs. Why not rely on the definition that the leading proponents of American Conservatism use for themselves?

Here's the principles of American Conservatism, defined by actual conservatives:

http://www.conservative.org/about-acu/principles/

And here's the principles of American Liberalism:

http://americanliberalism.org/showDiary.do?diaryId=4893

Notice that liberals don't have the courage to define their own movement, except to say that they are 'against conservatives'. Like you, they try to define conservatism in an absurd way. :)

It's amazing the mental gymnastics and level of denial conservatives have to employ to deny their core beliefs. The history of conservatism is clear.

Conservatism is the domination of society by an aristocracy.

Conservatism is incompatible with democracy, prosperity, and civilization in general. It is a destructive system of inequality and prejudice that is founded on deception and has no place in the modern world.

These ideas are not new. Indeed they were common sense until recently. Nowadays, though, most of the people who call themselves "conservatives" have little notion of what conservatism even is. They have been deceived by one of the great public relations campaigns of human history. Only by analyzing this deception will it become possible to revive democracy in the United States.

The Main Arguments of Conservatism

From the pharaohs of ancient Egypt to the self-regarding thugs of ancient Rome to the glorified warlords of medieval and absolutist Europe, in nearly every urbanized society throughout human history, there have been people who have tried to constitute themselves as an aristocracy. These people and their allies are the conservatives.

The tactics of conservatism vary widely by place and time. But the most central feature of conservatism is deference: a psychologically internalized attitude on the part of the common people that the aristocracy are better people than they are. Modern-day liberals often theorize that conservatives use "social issues" as a way to mask economic objectives, but this is almost backward: the true goal of conservatism is to establish an aristocracy, which is a social and psychological condition of inequality. Economic inequality and regressive taxation, while certainly welcomed by the aristocracy, are best understood as a means to their actual goal, which is simply to be aristocrats. More generally, it is crucial to conservatism that the people must literally love the order that dominates them. Of course this notion sounds bizarre to modern ears, but it is perfectly overt in the writings of leading conservative theorists such as Burke. Democracy, for them, is not about the mechanisms of voting and office-holding. In fact conservatives hold a wide variety of opinions about such secondary formal matters. For conservatives, rather, democracy is a psychological condition. People who believe that the aristocracy rightfully dominates society because of its intrinsic superiority are conservatives; democrats, by contrast, believe that they are of equal social worth. Conservatism is the antithesis of democracy. This has been true for thousands of years.

The defenders of aristocracy represent aristocracy as a natural phenomenon, but in reality it is the most artificial thing on earth. Although one of the goals of every aristocracy is to make its preferred social order seem permanent and timeless, in reality conservatism must be reinvented in every generation. This is true for many reasons, including internal conflicts among the aristocrats; institutional shifts due to climate, markets, or warfare; and ideological gains and losses in the perpetual struggle against democracy. In some societies the aristocracy is rigid, closed, and stratified, while in others it is more of an aspiration among various fluid and factionalized groups. The situation in the United States right now is toward the latter end of the spectrum. A main goal in life of all aristocrats, however, is to pass on their positions of privilege to their children, and many of the aspiring aristocrats of the United States are appointing their children to positions in government and in the archipelago of think tanks that promote conservative theories.

Conservatism in every place and time is founded on deception. The deceptions of conservatism today are especially sophisticated, simply because culture today is sufficiently democratic that the myths of earlier times will no longer suffice. ref
 
It's amazing the mental gymnastics and level of denial conservatives have to employ to deny their core beliefs. The history of conservatism is clear.

Conservatism is the domination of society by an aristocracy.

Conservatism is incompatible with democracy, prosperity, and civilization in general. It is a destructive system of inequality and prejudice that is founded on deception and has no place in the modern world.

These ideas are not new. Indeed they were common sense until recently. Nowadays, though, most of the people who call themselves "conservatives" have little notion of what conservatism even is. They have been deceived by one of the great public relations campaigns of human history. Only by analyzing this deception will it become possible to revive democracy in the United States.

The Main Arguments of Conservatism

From the pharaohs of ancient Egypt to the self-regarding thugs of ancient Rome to the glorified warlords of medieval and absolutist Europe, in nearly every urbanized society throughout human history, there have been people who have tried to constitute themselves as an aristocracy. These people and their allies are the conservatives.

The tactics of conservatism vary widely by place and time. But the most central feature of conservatism is deference: a psychologically internalized attitude on the part of the common people that the aristocracy are better people than they are. Modern-day liberals often theorize that conservatives use "social issues" as a way to mask economic objectives, but this is almost backward: the true goal of conservatism is to establish an aristocracy, which is a social and psychological condition of inequality. Economic inequality and regressive taxation, while certainly welcomed by the aristocracy, are best understood as a means to their actual goal, which is simply to be aristocrats. More generally, it is crucial to conservatism that the people must literally love the order that dominates them. Of course this notion sounds bizarre to modern ears, but it is perfectly overt in the writings of leading conservative theorists such as Burke. Democracy, for them, is not about the mechanisms of voting and office-holding. In fact conservatives hold a wide variety of opinions about such secondary formal matters. For conservatives, rather, democracy is a psychological condition. People who believe that the aristocracy rightfully dominates society because of its intrinsic superiority are conservatives; democrats, by contrast, believe that they are of equal social worth. Conservatism is the antithesis of democracy. This has been true for thousands of years.

The defenders of aristocracy represent aristocracy as a natural phenomenon, but in reality it is the most artificial thing on earth. Although one of the goals of every aristocracy is to make its preferred social order seem permanent and timeless, in reality conservatism must be reinvented in every generation. This is true for many reasons, including internal conflicts among the aristocrats; institutional shifts due to climate, markets, or warfare; and ideological gains and losses in the perpetual struggle against democracy. In some societies the aristocracy is rigid, closed, and stratified, while in others it is more of an aspiration among various fluid and factionalized groups. The situation in the United States right now is toward the latter end of the spectrum. A main goal in life of all aristocrats, however, is to pass on their positions of privilege to their children, and many of the aspiring aristocrats of the United States are appointing their children to positions in government and in the archipelago of think tanks that promote conservative theories.

Conservatism in every place and time is founded on deception. The deceptions of conservatism today are especially sophisticated, simply because culture today is sufficiently democratic that the myths of earlier times will no longer suffice. ref

Again, we are talking about modern American conservatism.
 
No, Russia and China are communist which is conservative. If Russia and China were 'liberal', they would be a run by a bunch of 'tree huggers'

Damn, I wish it was time to replace my sig! That's a good one!

Communism is state-run socialism, is LIBERALISM!

Go look up the word "Conservative" and you will find it means, "TO CONSERVE" as in land conservation, water conservation, energy conservation, etc. Some conservatives I know, are the biggest "tree huggers" you can find... Oh, they don't literally hug trees and chain themselves to them, like some pinhead environmentalists... but they do actual work with conservation groups, and their actions speak louder than words...(or chaining themselves to trees).

Liberals also stake a claim to be "for the working man" ...as Liberal policies drive unemployment to near 20% and cheer on unions who are literally killing their host. Liberals are for Liberal Power! They want power so they can tell us what to eat, where to set our thermostat, what kind of car we can drive, and what we have to tolerate socially. Whatever they can do, lie, cheat, steal, cause violence... doesn't matter, as long as they gain Liberal Power... that's what Liberals stand for!
 
No, Russia and China are communist which is conservative. If Russia and China were 'liberal', they would be a run by a bunch of 'tree huggers'

You folks just can't make the connection. EVERY oppressive or totalitarian society is ruled by conservatives, it is what they do...

Socialism is liberal. More people (preferably everyone) have some say in how the economy works. Democracy is liberal. More people (preferably everyone) have some say in how the government works. "Democracy," said Marx, "is the road to socialism." He was wrong about how economics and politics interact, but he did see their similar underpinnings.

Communism is conservative. Fewer and fewer people (preferably just the Party Secretary) have any say in how the economy works. Republicans are conservative. Fewer and fewer people (preferably just people controlling the Party figurehead) have any say in how the government works. The conservatives in the US are in the same position as the communists in the 30s, and for the same reason: Their revolutions failed spectacularly but they refuse to admit what went wrong.

A common mistake is to confuse Socialism, the economic system, with Communism, the political system. Communists are "socialist" in the same way that Republicans are "compassionate conservatives". That is, they give lip service to ideals they have no intention of practicing.

:confused:
 
It's amazing the mental gymnastics and level of denial conservatives have to employ to deny their core beliefs. The history of conservatism is clear.

Conservatism is the domination of society by an aristocracy.

Conservatism is incompatible with democracy, prosperity, and civilization in general. It is a destructive system of inequality and prejudice that is founded on deception and has no place in the modern world.

These ideas are not new. Indeed they were common sense until recently. Nowadays, though, most of the people who call themselves "conservatives" have little notion of what conservatism even is. They have been deceived by one of the great public relations campaigns of human history. Only by analyzing this deception will it become possible to revive democracy in the United States.

The Main Arguments of Conservatism

From the pharaohs of ancient Egypt to the self-regarding thugs of ancient Rome to the glorified warlords of medieval and absolutist Europe, in nearly every urbanized society throughout human history, there have been people who have tried to constitute themselves as an aristocracy. These people and their allies are the conservatives.

The tactics of conservatism vary widely by place and time. But the most central feature of conservatism is deference: a psychologically internalized attitude on the part of the common people that the aristocracy are better people than they are. Modern-day liberals often theorize that conservatives use "social issues" as a way to mask economic objectives, but this is almost backward: the true goal of conservatism is to establish an aristocracy, which is a social and psychological condition of inequality. Economic inequality and regressive taxation, while certainly welcomed by the aristocracy, are best understood as a means to their actual goal, which is simply to be aristocrats. More generally, it is crucial to conservatism that the people must literally love the order that dominates them. Of course this notion sounds bizarre to modern ears, but it is perfectly overt in the writings of leading conservative theorists such as Burke. Democracy, for them, is not about the mechanisms of voting and office-holding. In fact conservatives hold a wide variety of opinions about such secondary formal matters. For conservatives, rather, democracy is a psychological condition. People who believe that the aristocracy rightfully dominates society because of its intrinsic superiority are conservatives; democrats, by contrast, believe that they are of equal social worth. Conservatism is the antithesis of democracy. This has been true for thousands of years.

The defenders of aristocracy represent aristocracy as a natural phenomenon, but in reality it is the most artificial thing on earth. Although one of the goals of every aristocracy is to make its preferred social order seem permanent and timeless, in reality conservatism must be reinvented in every generation. This is true for many reasons, including internal conflicts among the aristocrats; institutional shifts due to climate, markets, or warfare; and ideological gains and losses in the perpetual struggle against democracy. In some societies the aristocracy is rigid, closed, and stratified, while in others it is more of an aspiration among various fluid and factionalized groups. The situation in the United States right now is toward the latter end of the spectrum. A main goal in life of all aristocrats, however, is to pass on their positions of privilege to their children, and many of the aspiring aristocrats of the United States are appointing their children to positions in government and in the archipelago of think tanks that promote conservative theories.

Conservatism in every place and time is founded on deception. The deceptions of conservatism today are especially sophisticated, simply because culture today is sufficiently democratic that the myths of earlier times will no longer suffice. ref

WOW!

Where did you get educated?
 
Again, we are talking about modern American conservatism.

Again (try to understand this time, I am typing real slow just for you)

There is NO difference! There is no MODERN conservative, there are only conservatives, transending all of human history.
 
Again (try to understand this time, I am typing real slow just for you)

There is NO difference! There is no MODERN conservative, there are only conservatives, transending all of human history.

This proves you're complete lack of historical and political knowledge; obviously a product of the fine Cape Cod education system. Stick with mending fences. :good4u:
 
This proves you're complete lack of historical and political knowledge; obviously a product of the fine Cape Cod education system. Stick with mending fences. :good4u:

The stupid chart you presented proves nothing. Bfgn's post explains it perfectly and I agree. I don't expect you to agree, you are in complete denial.
 
Damn, I wish it was time to replace my sig! That's a good one!

Communism is state-run socialism, is LIBERALISM!

Go look up the word "Conservative" and you will find it means, "TO CONSERVE" as in land conservation, water conservation, energy conservation, etc. Some conservatives I know, are the biggest "tree huggers" you can find... Oh, they don't literally hug trees and chain themselves to them, like some pinhead environmentalists... but they do actual work with conservation groups, and their actions speak louder than words...(or chaining themselves to trees).

Liberals also stake a claim to be "for the working man" ...as Liberal policies drive unemployment to near 20% and cheer on unions who are literally killing their host. Liberals are for Liberal Power! They want power so they can tell us what to eat, where to set our thermostat, what kind of car we can drive, and what we have to tolerate socially. Whatever they can do, lie, cheat, steal, cause violence... doesn't matter, as long as they gain Liberal Power... that's what Liberals stand for!

I know what conservative means, so tell me Dixie, WHAT traditions, tenets, beliefs and orthodoxy would a conservative in Russia want to CONSERVE? Free market capitalism?

I have never heard a conservative actually called a tree hugger. Why do CONSERVE-atives mock liberals who want to protect the environment? WHY are the worst environmental Congressman and Senators Republicans? WHY do conservatives parrot the propaganda of the worst polluters on the planet, like Gov Walker's puppet masters, the Koch brothers?

WHY are all but one of the Congressman and Senators on the League of CONSERVATION voters Dirty Dozen Republicans?

LCV 2010 Dirty Dozen

LCV's trademark Dirty Dozen program targets candidates for Congress — regardless of party affiliation — who consistently vote against clean energy and conservation and are running in races in which LCV has a serious chance to affect the outcome. Since 1996, more than 60 percent of the Dirty Dozen have been defeated. Click here to view the gubernatorial and state legislative candidates named to LCV's inaugural state-level Dirty Dozen.
http://www.lcv.org/campaigns/dirty-dozen/
 
He dropped out of college, but attempts to speak like a professor but with an 8th graders grasp of economics. thus the complete fail:whoa:

And the 'college' boy can't conjugate anything beyond a blurt. They never covered paragraphs and essays in 'college'

And they didn't teach ethics or morals in 'college' either, because Lowspine is aware of the tragic death of my mother and young siblings left behind that was the reason for my decision, yet he acts like someone raised by wolves.
 
And the 'college' boy can't conjugate anything beyond a blurt. They never covered paragraphs and essays in 'college'

And they didn't teach ethics or morals in 'college' either, because Lowspine is aware of the tragic death of my mother and young siblings left behind that was the reason for my decision, yet he acts like someone raised by wolves.

listen dropout, your exaclty opposite attempt at explaining economics is directly related to your zero economics classes. If it makes your uneducated ass feel better to crack on my spelling go for it. Please don't stop the retarded nonsensicle economics rants though, they are priceless.
Kids, stay in school or you'll be an angry salesman like BF. Newsflash bf, people die it happens. excuses are for losers, maybe you couldn't handle college.:awesome:
 
listen dropout, your exaclty opposite attempt at explaining economics is directly related to your zero economics classes. If it makes your uneducated ass feel better to crack on my spelling go for it. Please don't stop the retarded nonsensicle economics rants though, they are priceless.
Kids, stay in school or you'll be an angry salesman like BF. Newsflash bf, people die it happens. excuses are for losers, maybe you couldn't handle college.:awesome:

"People die, it happens"...wow, now I wish I had decided to abandon my family responsibilities and only thought of myself. I missed so much knowledge!

Man, I sure wish I had that gem of college educated knowledge at my mom's funeral breakfast. When my grandfather cried and talked about his little girl, and how it seemed like only yesterday she was playing in the yard. Instead of comforting him, and telling him how good he was to my mother, I should have said: 'Get over it old man, people die, it happens. Now stop your whining, she lived 47 years.'


If you can be well without health, you may be happy without virtue.
Edmund Burke
 
both my parents died, I still went to college.
Education means more to some than to others. I also got married and took care of two kids, I'm not whining about it, it's called responsibility. College was easy for me, heck maybe you wouldn't have even gotten in.
 
both my parents died, I still went to college.
Education means more to some than to others. I also got married and took care of two kids, I'm not whining about it, it's called responsibility. College was easy for me, heck maybe you wouldn't have even gotten in.

Did you have siblings you needed to take care of?
 
both my parents died, I still went to college.
Education means more to some than to others. I also got married and took care of two kids, I'm not whining about it, it's called responsibility. College was easy for me, heck maybe you wouldn't have even gotten in.

I was already in college when my mom died. My father was terminally ill. The doctors at the VA who removed his lung, placed a hole in his pleural cavity about 6 inches below his armpit because of an infection that developed. The cavity had to be irrigated 4 times a day, something my dad couldn't do on his own.

My little brother was 7 years old, and was without a mother or for all intents and purposes without a father. My sister was 13. I was the person who had to take the personal responsibility to look after my family. My mom was in a coma for 9 days. The doctors said she had brain damage but they wouldn't know the extent unless she regained consciousness. She never did. But I could see and sense that she was distressed and I knew what was most important to her...I held her hand and told her it was OK to let go, I promised her that I would take care of my brother and sister.

I have no regrets. I was an easy decision. My regrets are that my parents never got to see their kids grow up or meet their grandchildren.

Life happens. We deal with it in our own way. You would have abandoned your family, I didn't. And if I had I wouldn't be able to visit my parents grave, or look at myself in the mirror.

So you have just defined to value of a college education...tell it to St Peter, before he sends you for a hot, intense eternal education.
 
My sister got her first degree in her 40's. You said you have kids, if it was to tough for you in your 20's, what about your 30's and 40's.
Education is obviously not very important to you.
You don't know dick about what I would do, I finished my first degree after getting married, balanced coaching little league with getting an MBA.
exuses are for losers.
 
Back
Top