Posted on 04/26/2007 11:36:41 PM PDT by JohnHuang2
Conservatives and liberals approach almost every issue with completely different philosophies, underlying assumptions, and methods. That's why it's so hard to find genuine compromise between conservatism and liberalism -- because not only are liberals almost always wrong, their solutions almost always make things worse.
With that in mind, let me take a few moments to explain some of the key differences between liberals and conservative to you.
Bonus) Conservatives believe that judges should act like umpires instead of legislating from the bench. That means that judges should determine whether laws are permissible under the Constitution and settle debates about the meaning of laws, not impose their will based on their ideological leanings. Liberals view judges as a backdoor method of getting unpopular left-leaning legislation passed. They don't want umpires, they want political partisans in black robes who will side with them first and then come up with a rationale to explain it.
(Excerpt) Read more at townhall.com ...
Excellent!
The 10 differences are articulated very nicely.
My only slight grimace came from #10. The argument for the Second Amendment “right to keep and bear arms” should not emphasize citizens defending themselves against criminals, but rather defending themselves against oppressive, tyrannical government.
In discussing/debating with liberals I've often moved along this line since it's impossible for a rational person to deny that big government leads to massive waste and inefficiencies. I've even had liberals reluctantly agree on this point...but before they incorporate it into their view they spin off on a tangent. I believe this is their method to resolve the cognitive dissonance between the reality and their irrational world-view. So what they typically shift to is the following point...
1) Conservatives believe in pursuing policies because they're pragmatic and because they work. Liberals believe in pursuing policies because they're "nice" and make them feel good. Whether the policies they're advocating actually work or not is of secondary importance to them.
That is to say, when confronted by the fact that when you have huge bureaucracies you end up with huge waste. (I sometimes refer to the $150 hammer type stories). Their response is typically along the line of asking why one wouldn't value whatever feel good program they're promoting. They can't get past the fact that the program doesn't and can't work...they're so focused on what they see as the value of the INTENT of the program that they're blinded to reality and usually lose whatever minimal sense of rational thought they had.
BTTT
Hi John!
I’m still here.
What the two groups have most in common however is an uncanny capacity to paint extreme caricatures of the other groups so as to convince themselves they are correct and the other side is crazy. It is actually this point, what they have in common, that makes finding compromise impossible.
Outstanding!
And Rudy fails the conservative test on most:
Judicial activism - he says Roe vs Wade is good constitutional law, believes in the gay agenda, ie, special rights for gays, thought crimes, etc, believes gun control is consistent with the second amendment, believes McCain-Feingold is good, just needs holes plugged, believes in asset forfeiture
Guns - he’s a liberal, believes in gun control first
Color blind society - he’s a liberal, believes a minority or special interest group should receive extra rights, ie, the gay agenda
Capitalism - he’s a liberal, believes the taxpayer should fund abortions for poor women and supports welfare for illegals
Abortion - he’s a liberal, believes abortion is a constitutional right, Roe vs Wade id good constitutional law.
Big government - he’s a liberal, believes in federal government controlling guns, gay “rights,” abortion “rights,”
God - he’s a liberal, as an abortion activist, gay agenda activist and one who twists the constitution to deprive us of our unalienable rights, he obviously does not agree our rights come from God, including and especially the rights to Life and Liberty.
Policies - he’s a liberal, believes in policies that make him feel good even if they don’t work or are unconstitutional, ie, abortion, gay agenda, gun control, illegal aliens, asset forfeiture, seizing private property, authoritarian
I forgot to add, appoints liberal judges.
L
Oppressive, tyrannical government is criminal.
Except in our case, we're quite correct in diagnosing most liberals as mentally ill.
makes finding compromise impossible.
I don't want to compromise with them. I want to defeat them.
L
Defeating them implies victory for "us". What is "victory" or what is "defeat"?
To answer my own question, I would say victory is the fact that the VT shootings did not spark any real effort to pass new gun laws.
Victory is also the recent SCOTUS decision on abortion.
Do you agree or have a different definition?
Compromise may be difficult, but not impossible. You can always politely, respectfully but logically point out to libs that the reason they may THINK they have a certain agenda might not be the real reason they want that agenda, and work with them to forge a middle path.
Without name-calling or finger-pointing, I have talked sense into a number of die-hard libs (Clinton lovers, JKFcrats, Martin Luther King hand-wringers, envirobots, etc.).
The hard thing for me is dealing with liberals who are virulently anti-religion. Such people usually have deep-seated anger at their parents and of course it’s a delicate operation to get such a person to see where their angry opinions really come from, without being preachy. They have no room for tolerance, every Christian is a “radical extreme far-right-wing evangelical”, and the more insults they see heaped on religion the better. Short of mass-psychotherapy, what are you going to do with people like that?
Victory is when the last vestiges of liberalism are wiped from every single branch of the US Government and Constitutional governance is restored in strict accordance with Article 3 Section 8 of the Constitution.
I would say victory is the fact that the VT shootings did not spark any real effort to pass new gun laws
I guess you missed Schumer, Feinstein, Boxer and that whack job Congresswoman from NY tripping over themselves to see the 'AWB' reinstituted and 'strenghtened'. At best it's a holding action. That's not victory.
Victory would be Congress realizing that not only have it's efforts at gun control as crime control been miserable failures the Speakers of the House and the Senate Majority Leader would be making speeches about how they intended to repeal the 1968 GCA and the 1934 NFA.
That would be victory.
Victory is also the recent SCOTUS decision on abortion.
That was one step back towards sanity. And while it was a small victory, complete victory would be an utter SCOTUS repudiation of Roe v Wade and a return to the status quo ante.
So I guess you and I disagree on the concept of 'victory'.
I get the impression you think victory is things not getting any worse. I have a fundamentally different concept of victory.
I want liberalism vanquished, discredited, mocked, and shown up for the murderous political ideology it is. I want liberals ashamed to show their faces in public. I want the more egregious practitioners of this odious political philosophy tarred, feathered, and run out of town on rails.
I want entire sections of the Federal Code repealed en toto.
I want entire Departments, Bureaus, and Agencies abolished and replaced with nothing.
I want to hear the anguished howls of tens of thousands of government workers as they're forced by hunger to seek gainful employment in the private sector. I want to hear the even louder howls when they find out that the private sector has absolutely no use for ream after ream of impenetrable double talk masquerading as 'regulations'.
I know I'll most likely never live to see it, but that's how I would define victory.
L
Actually no. I just see small steps as part of a long march. I don't expect to see the things you want happen immediately. Not sure we share all of the same ultimate ends, but mostly. Without revolution, however, most of what you want is a process that takes about 2 generations or 40 years - which is about the amount of time it took the pendulum to swing one way.
Excellent point. Perhaps of primary import in the whole discussion. I am personally not very religious, but I am jealous of those who are.
You can always tell the liberals when they post on here in response to an article. They try to hide it but their comments give them away. Nice try but your liberalism is showing here.
bump
I said, “virulently anti-religion”. To the point where they want to destroy religion and all values associated with it. No need for sarcasm.
As a matter of fact, perhaps one day the political philosophy now known as “liberal” will be called what it really is: “destructive”. It will be refreshing when that particular spade is called a spade.
bookmark
I wasn't being the least bit sarcastic. I complimented your point and then made an additonal comment supporting it. Not sure what part you found to be sarcastic.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.