Followed by:

""The government of an exclusive company of merchants is, perhaps, the worst of all governments for any country whatever."

Have not / Will not read the thread. All I see is "Putin" (EVERYTHING wrong IN THE WORLD....even before 1776...is the United States fault!!! I LOVE Communism....but don't ask me to give up my lush, Capitalist life-style....because I'm a hypocrite....)....President Eden, a little Tolstoy...and Putin Putin Putin. Waste of fucking electricity....Putin....go the fuck away.

"my lush, Capitalist life-style."

ROFL

"Adam Smith, a socialist in all but name"

Lolwut? Yes, both Marx and Smith agreed with the Labour Theory of Value but you can't call Adam Smith a socialist.

Smith was a savage critic of capitalism and capitalists.

This disposition to admire, and almost to worship, the rich and powerful, and to despise or, at least, neglect persons of poor and mean conditions, though necessary both to establish and to maintain the distinction of ranks and the order of society, is, at the same time, the great and most universal cause of the corruption of our moral sentiments.

Sounds like an apt and scathing indictment of all the rightwing dittoheads around here.

Also this:

Every tax, however, is to the person who pays it a badge, not of slavery but of liberty. It denotes that he is a subject to government, indeed, but that, as he has some property, he cannot himself be the property of a master.

It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expence, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.

"Sounds like an apt and scathing indictment of all the rightwing dittoheads around here."

No, it isn't, and it's not even close. I'm pretty sure literally only Tettleton's Chew actually worships the rich and powerful.

Aww, krellin didn't even say anything except mentioning my name. I figured he in particular would appreciate my opening post, since he's one of the most transparent examples of people who do the bastardizing of "conservative" and "liberal" (especially the latter) that I referenced.

Good Lord! Do you know how ignorant you people sound? Why don't you all take some time to actually consider that you may be wrong, and think about the flaws in your arguments. At the very least, it will make you feel stronger about your own opinions...

This coming from someone whose posts sound like 80% US Government AP notes and 20% daddy's opinion? Keep it coming.

PE how on Earth did you crack my formula?

"So I'd really like to discourage trying to summarize politics with an axis or two. The issues run much, much deeper."

Bah. If you ever meet me in a dark alley outside a cable news show I will yell at you so loudly my side is sure to win!

ultimately, joeschoen, it doesn't matter at all

just vote for candidates who say things you think are good

Political labels are, for the most part, a sham and don't have much more significance than the name of your local football team. However, even though the two axis view put forward by politicalcompass.org is far from perfect, it's still superior to the traditional dichotomy of left and right,
and serves to reveal the double-think that people seem to be practicing. Most politicians pursue policies radically different from the views they purport to hold and those that do actually want to effect meaningful change, run into a political process that is skewed to concentrate power in the hands of the elite.

Forget the labels. Forget the parties. The question that we in the west really need to be asking ourselves is - do we really want to continue living in our current financial oligarchy or do we want to try actual democracy for a change?

The anti-label/every person is a unique political snowflake thing doesn't clarify or help matters at all. You need to work with like-minded people to effect change. That's impossible without group identifications. Politics is a team sport.

So your saying you can't "work with like-minded people to effect change" without using a label? Seriously though, I didn't mean literally do away with the labeling of political ideas but rather that people should examine more carefully the discrepancies between the labels and the actual policies enacted.

Conservatism works-i.e. Calvin Coolidge (Roaring Twenties), Ike Eisenhower (50's), and Ronald Reagan (80's, End of Cold War, Etc.)

Liberalism FAILS-i.e. New Deal (yes, it did), Truman, LBJ, Carter, and my favorite, the false messiah himself, Barack Hussein Obama.

"who support regulating women's vaginas, imposing the church on non-believers, anti-gay laws"

How do conservatives do that?

Coolidge is so underrated. And so is James K. Polk.

I agree. Coolidge was one of the best.

Reagan 2012!

Conservatives just don't want progress, and this belief doesn't win them support in the younger generations that are eager for change. This deficit was instrumental in Obama's win against McCain in 2008.

Damn, djak, you ruined the conservative circle jerk.

Most young people (who posses common sense at least) realize that Social Security and Medicare are responsible for the greatest transfer of wealth between generations in the history of mankind, from the post Baby Boomers to the Baby Boomers.

Some inexperience, misguided, or dumber than a bag of rocks individuals misuse words like "progress" and "change" to describe what is "decay" and "destruction."

Europe's fiscal disintegration is a shot across the bow of the sinking ship Obama.

Individual liberty that allows people the freedom to pursue their own economic self-interest is the only path to real job producing growth. There is no hope for anyone with an insatiable appetite for entitlements. The only sustainable model for society is one where individuals receive nothing they didn't produce for themselves unless they are "truly" in need.

Wanting to stay stoned all day and hang out in the basement playing webdip is an admirable goal in life, but not one that demonstrates "true need."

An interesting fact to pass on to the mindless idiots who support Obama and the Democrats.

In January 2007 when Pelosi and Reid took over leadership of both houses of Congress the unemployment rate in this United States was 4.7%. The unemployment rate in January 2011 when the American people end total Democratic control of Congress was 9.0.

Vote Romney, and vote to give yourself a chance to succeed!

Coolidge caused the Great Depression. Hoover was just left holding the bag. Seriously how can anyone think the guy who slept through his entire Presidency was a good President.

"How do conservatives do that?"

No wonder you're a conservative, you don't bother paying attention to what your ilk are doing to this country.

"Conservatism works-i.e. Calvin Coolidge (Roaring Twenties), Ike Eisenhower (50's), and Ronald Reagan (80's, End of Cold War, Etc.)

Liberalism FAILS"

Liberals cleaned up all the messes Conservatives left them.

The "Roaring 20s" caused the Great Depression, fixed by Democrats.
Eisenhower left office with the economy in a recession. Kennedy-LBJ fixed that.
Nixon left the country in the biggest political shitshow of the century, had to leave on a damn helicopter. Carter fixed that and the economy too.

Reagan-Bush left this country in massive debt, with over a decade of non-stop urban decay. Clinton turned the deficits into surpluses.

Bush left this country in utter ruins. Financial collapse, cities drowned, wars of aggression costing us billions, while giving tax cuts to the rich. Deficits soared. The global economy was in tatters. We were hemorrhaging hundreds of thousands of jobs.

Obama fixed that.

So get your facts straight.

"The "Roaring 20s" caused the Great Depression, fixed by Democrats."

Margin buying, not Republicans, caused the market crash, but you probably aren't interested in facts. And Democrats didn't fix the Great Depression. Unemployment didn't get below 15% until the start of the war. If anything, the Japanese fixed the Great Depression.

"Eisenhower left office with the economy in a recession. Kennedy-LBJ fixed that." "wars of aggression costing us billions"

So, you're saying that Iraq and Afghanistan are wars of aggression, and that the Korean and Vietnam Wars (started and lost by Democrats) were not expensive wars of aggression?

"Nixon left the country in the biggest political shitshow of the century"

True. No one is disputing that. Nixon also cleaned up after the Democrat-started Vietnam shitstorm, which is infinitely bigger and more of a clusterfuck than Watergate.

"Carter fixed that and the economy too."

Completely untrue statement. Next.

"Reagan-Bush left this country in massive debt"

Reagan and Bush left the country with a booming economy and peace of mind after smashing communism into little pathetic Marxist bits.

"Clinton turned the deficits into surpluses."

He did so by nearly wrecking the military. He is also one of only two presidents to be impeached and should have been removed from office for perjury.

"Bush left this country in utter ruins. Financial collapse, cities drowned, wars of aggression costing us billions, while giving tax cuts to the rich. Deficits soared. The global economy was in tatters. We were hemorrhaging hundreds of thousands of jobs."

Who was in control of Congress when the economy collapsed?

"Obama fixed that."

Oh, really? Tell me how? Get your facts straight.

Someone help me!
My world is fading...
My life hangs by a thread...

I just +1ed TC.

I'm generally apolitical, but in a strictly ideological sense, I definitely lean conservative and libertarian. Why? Because liberals want progress, and progress nowadays is defined as improving the lot of the unfortunate, like the poor, elderly, and sick. However, this is accomplished by taking from the prosperous, young, and hale members of the population, which includes me. I don't like the Affordable Care Act because it means that I'll be paying more for health insurance to subsidize those with costly health problems. I don't like Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid because they're incredibly expensive programs, and all the money comes from people like me. I don't support a large military and foreign intervention because, you guessed it, those things are hella expensive and reflect their cost in the higher taxes that I pay. In fact, I would not support any government program that does not benefit me.

This is the conservative ideology, though nobody is brave enough to admit it. Liberals want to help others; conservatives want to help themselves. To give as little as possible and get as much as you can, that's the American way. Anything else is just idiocy.

Of course, as soon as I cease to be a productive member of the workforce (i.e. retire), I'll instantly be in full support of Medicare, Social Security, and anything else that helps out old people at the expense of the young. Again, it's just common sense. Why would I care about millions of people who I'll never meet when it goes against my self-interest?