Sorry for my post being all over the place..
"Some 'conservative' positions are flat-out bigotry. Opposition to gay marriage, for example. This may technically be a conservative viewpoint, however, it does not make it the correct viewpoint."
So because I may be against gay marriage, I naturally hate gay people? Or maybe I have a phobia about them?
No, being against gay marriage, while supporting state sanctioned marriage, means you wish to assign more rights to yourself than to another class of people, for no empirical reason.
Since I'm against the mosque at Ground Zero, I'm just a paranoid fear-mongerer?
Considering the only mosque ever at Ground Zero, or with plans at Ground Zero, was destroyed in the attacks
, I'd call using language like that fearmongering.
If you have an issue with Islam and/or religion directly, you can criticize its tenets directly. It has no particular empirical sacredness over any other religion.
Demonizing a position for it's idea or creed is considered bigotry.
This sentence is nonsense on its face. You are claiming, here, that opposing any atrocity, anywhere, at any time, for any reason, is bigotry.
Just because you think you're correct or you have the moral high-ground doesn't mean you can call someone a neo-nazi, baby-eating, bible-thumping redneck for disagreeing with you.
Please cite where, prior to this post in this thread, I - or anyone save yourself - used one of the following terms:
"Some 'conservative' positions may be fairly sound - nuclear power, missile defense - but these are not technically conservative."
A strong defense/high budget has always been a tenant of conservatism, from the Old Right to the New Right. The same cannot be said of the left, generally speaking.
Because Herbert Hoover was known for his warmongering, and FDR for his pacifism.
...for crying out loud, Edmund Burke, founder of modern conservatism, was not exactly against the American Revolution.
Conservatism, in a nutshell, is about maintaining the status quo, or returning to an older status. A large military can be a tool for maintaining the status quo, or enacting a great deal of change. It is more appropriately regarded as an authoritarian structure.
As for the other ones, I don't support them. While Neocons (who are mostly disillusioned progressives that decided to become "conservative" in the 1960s) are the more authoritarian, interventionist branch of conservatism; there sure as heck are statist, interventionist Liberals, or things like the PATRIOT Act wouldn't have been reauthorized in 2009.
Democrat does not mean liberal. Obama has been very keen on keeping expanded executive powers, and organizations like Fox have been very quiet on that front.
I'm curious as to what your definition of a true conservative is. Especially considering the fact you said "conservative" and "liberal" are two very broadly defined groups, nor do you come off as a "conservative" in general.
Conservative: Maintain current status quo, or return to an older status quo.
Progressive: Opposite of conservative: progress from the current status quo, prevent returning to an older one
Liberal: Support individual liberty and egalitarianism.
Authoritarian: Opposite of liberal: Subject personal freedom and individual rights to an authority.
None of these are flat out, by definition wrong. We accept limitations on personal liberties, we do not accept limitations on others, we accept that some things should change. We accept that some things should remain the same.
I believe that muddling with these definitions has a lot to do with why politics in America is so messed up, so to speak.
As for corporate bias in the media or even by lobbyist groups...of course it exists. But it's pretty self-evident to me some are clearly left or right-wing, or maybe Democrat and Republican would be more accurate.
Fox is a republican-oriented political operation.
MSNBC is more supportive of democrats, but it hasn't reached the level of a full-blown, authoritarian political propaganda machine the way Fox has.
There are organizations that are well-placed to become new media mega-empires, that certainly have heavily liberal tendencies. Google and Facebook, to name two.
No, it doesn't. If a lie is repeated often enough then it will be treated as truth.
Repeating a lie does not change the truth, no matter how it is being treated. And for crying out loud, there are still global warming deniers in America, but policy wise, America is going full bore into preparing to stake its claims under the collapsing Arctic icecap.
I'm really shocked by the fact that this is a 2 page thread. Ultimately what it comes down to is a simple statement of fact:
The vast majority of politicians are in it for themselves and their close associates, not We The People. Therein lies the distinction between being a politician and being a statesman.
We need more old school classic statesmen and fewer politicians.
Ultimately, at the end of the day, both Republicans and Democrats as a whole have failed us; and Liberals and Conservatives have gotten wrapped up in their personal war and forgotten the people they're supposed to be serving.
As bad as things may seem now, its really hard to find an era where you can definitively say the world was better off. You peel back the painted, silvery veneer people place on history and you find a lot of horrific facts, and get an epiphany about just how far we've come.