If the liberals are supposed to be 'evil' and hell-bent on ruining people's lives, then why is it that the conservatives are the ones changing everything?
Thats just something you liberals would say.
~Rico
*sued by Jimro for copyright infringement*
Conservatives, by definition, are against change, particularly on moral or social issues.
Liberals, by definition, are progressive and for increased liberties. However, this leads to conflicts when, inevitably, people's liberties conflict with the liberties of others. And the definition of 'liberal' varies depending on where you are. However, liberals (at least, the Leftist liberals in America) tend to be tolerant to those who follow their viewpoints. If you're progressive, good for you! If you're a conservative/Christian/etcetera, then you're just a backwards hick who doesn't know any better.
Mind giving some examples of these changes, Marauder?
Quote:
Mind giving some examples of these changes, Marauder?
Duh, which way did he go, George?
If you have to ask, you'll never know.
How lovely. Just give me some examples, if you don't mind. I want to hear your opinion on the matter.
If these 'changes' happen to be against conservative principles, then the ones making the changes are not conservatives. Just because conservatives tend to identify with the Republican Party doesn't mean that all Republicans are conservative (considering the spending and lack of Republican backbone in regards to the border and illegal immigration, that would explain the slow rise of a third party known as the Constitution Party).
You might want to add, Ultra, that you are using the classical definitions of these terms. Although I have to disagree that traditional conservatives are against change. They just promoted change at a much more gradual rate than 19th century liberals.
Kudos for having the only intelligent comment to this thread. I'm pleasantly suprised.
Quote:
Although I have to disagree that traditional conservatives are against change. They just promoted change at a much more gradual rate than 19th century liberals.
True that stumbleina. After all, the first Republican president happened to be a man named Abraham Lincoln. What major change in American society occurred during his term in office? Why, the Emancipation Proclamation, which brought about the end of slavery.
While it is true that Abraham Lincoln was in office when slavery was abolished, his main goal was the preservation of the USA, not the abolition of slavery. Several times Lincoln tried to bargain with the confederate states to come home to the fold and they would be allowed to stay "slave states".
Altho I guess "I don't get it" because I don't see how conservatives are changing anything faster or more greatly than liberals. Social changes come from more areas than just the government.
Jimro
Liberalism is an ideology, philosophy, and political tradition which holds liberty as the primary political value. Broadly speaking, liberalism seeks a society characterized by freedom of thought for individuals, limitations on power, especially of government and religion, the rule of law, the free exchange of ideas, a market economy that supports private enterprise, and a transparent system of government in which the rights of minorities are guaranteed. In modern society, liberals favour a liberal democracy in the form of either a republic or a constitutional monarchy, with open and fair elections, where all citizens have equal rights by law and an equal opportunity to succeed. Liberalism rejected many foundational assumptions which dominated most earlier theories of government, such as the Divine Right of Kings, hereditary status, and established religion. Fundamental human rights that all liberals support include the right to life, liberty, and property. In many countries, modern liberalism differs from classical liberalism by asserting that government provision of some minimal level of material well-being takes priority over freedom from taxation. Liberalism has it roots in the Western Enlightenment, but the term now encompasses a diversity of political thought, with adherents spanning a large part of the political spectrum, from left to right. In the context of economics, the term "liberalism" refers to economic liberalism.
Conservatism is a philosophy defined by Edmund Burke as "a disposition to preserve, and an ability to improve". The term derives from conserve; from Latin conservare, to keep, guard, observe. Classical conservatism does not readily avail itself to the ideology of objectives. It is a philosophy primarily concerned with means over ends. To a conservative, the goal of change is less important than the insistence that change be effected with a respect for the rule of law and traditions of society. The traditional enemy of conservatism, therefore, is radicalism (not, as is often asserted, liberalism). Because conservatism is tethered to the traditions of a given society, it cannot hold any single, universal meaning across the world. Additionally, conservative 'means' are often combined with other ideological 'ends'. Conservatism is older than the left-right division in politics; and conservatives may align with either the left or right depending on the time and place.
Wow, that was an awesome explanation, Cycle. 😉 I also like the fact that you added the part about radicals, which is almost never taken into consideration and is usually just grouped in with liberals by most people.
I would guess that Marauder is possibly referring to attempts to have fed/state/local tax money help fund religious schools in addition to public schools, or maybe changing immigration laws instead of just enforcing the ones that are already on the books--particularly ones that deal with punishing companies for hiring illegal workers--that are being ignored. I'm sure anyone can come up with a lot of examples depending on the type of "conservative" one is talking about.
Quote:
changing immigration laws instead of just enforcing the ones that are already on the books--particularly ones that deal with punishing companies for hiring illegal workers--that are being ignored.
That is, at the moment, my biggest problem with President Bush.
I would guess that Marauder is possibly referring to attempts to have fed/state/local tax money help fund religious schools
I'm assuming you are actually referring to the school voucher issue?
It makes a difference when you say, "We want parents to have more schooling options for their children" than when you say, "Republicans want to divert tax money to religious schools"
Which is interesting, because the financially struggling (normally a Liberal/Democrat voter block) overwhelmingly support the idea of vouchers allowing them to get their kids out of largely ineffective state schools.
The "Charter School" system in Oregon has proven that alternative educational opportunities to the State Beaurocracy are very effective.
Jimro
Quote:
I'm assuming you are actually referring to the school voucher issue?
No, I'm not referring to school vouchers. I'm referring to the funding of religious schools, i.e. Catholic schools, that is suggested should happen as well as school vouchers.
Source please, I'm familiar with vouchers, tax credits, and charter schools, but diverting public moneys directly to private schools is a new one on me.
Jimro
This one from New Jersey is the only recent one in my neck of the woods (living in downstate New York causes me to get a bit of New Jersey news). Sure, most of the time it is coming from letters written by people to the editorial/opinion pages complaining about Catholic schools (sometimes other parochial schools, but usually it's the Catholic ones) needing more money and can therefore be ignored than it is actually legislation. Of course, if I wasted time in terms of searching Supreme Court rulings, I'd find more examples because I know there was one since Bush took office that basically "opened up" the whole adding religious schools to tax credits.
Thanks, I'm out west so I don't really pay much attention to the state issues of the Northeast except as they play into gun control and hunting issues. I don't know if the state constitution of New Jersey allows for that, but I do know that the Federal government has very strict guidelines about funding religious organizations, for example they can provide community services but not require any declaration of faith as a prerequisite of service.
Catholic Community Services, and Lutheran Community Services, are two religious entities that provide public services on a contractual basis for the states of Washington and Wisconsin, respectively.
Jimro
