A comment I just read says it succinctly
"By drawing down US forces in Syria to zero and Afghanistan to half, he has exposed his paltry grasp on what actually keeps Americans, their interests, and global stability on an even keel." - Nic Robertson
For months on various other social media, liberals have been predicting Trump would probably start a war. Now we seem to be pulling out of Syria and Afghanistan. Darned if you do etc.
The starting a war was because of accident coupled with incompetence. Syria is an example of purposeful incompetence. Liberals couldn't conceive of him doing something so stupid.
But, because of Trump's unpredictability, he is a Darned if you do kind of guy.
Liberals have been decrying our involvement in the Middle East and Afghanistan for years - doves, as it were. Conservatives are usually the ones wanting to send in the troops.
Now, that's suddenly reversed? Liberals are attacking Trump for taking our troops out?
This seems really weird to me. Explain.
You know what the answer is: nobody has the slightest clue what to do in the Middle East and Afghanistan. NOT THE SLIGHTEST CLUE.
Stay in or get out? Everyone seems to be rolling dice.
What everybody understands except Trump and the Pauls, is that once there, you can't get out without seeding the field to your enemies. Basically, he has given Putin and Iran carte blanche to do what ever they want in the oil rich cross-roads of the world.
He also gave thousands of our allies, the Kurds, their death warrant.
I don't disagree with that strategic assessment. What I am trying to address is the normal position of liberals, usually referred to as doves, who advocate for disengagement and resisting the urge to police the world, and hawks - conservatives, - who usually advocate for sending our troops into these situations.
Those position now seem reversed. Rather than sticking to an ideology, many seem to be arguing for their position out of political expediency.
I am a liberal but would not consider myself a "dove." For example, I supported the invasion of Afghanistan after 9/11, but not the invasion of Iraq. I believe armed conflict is, sadly, sometimes a necessity in this world. I would like to see us pull out of some of these countries, but I expect us to do it intelligently and with proper preparation and forethought in cooperation with other countries. All that said, I realize I am woefully under informed compared to those in our government whose job it is to be immersed in the details and subtle nuances of these situations. Where I have a problem right now is I don't believe Donald Trump has immersed himself in the details and subtle nuances of these situations. Nothing about him or his conduct leads me to believe he has made these decisions with proper knowledge and forethought. That wouldn't be a problem, if he were following the recommendations of those who ARE immersed in the details and subtle nuances, but it is obvious he isn't doing that, either.
It is truly scary having this ill-tempered, uninformed, and arrogant man making foreign policy decisions.
I agree with everything you said, but it's interesting that conservatives have been making the argument for years that the generals are the best informed people who should be making these decisions, often arguing against liberals who want us to stop sending troops all over the place.
Now the liberals are saying we should listen to the generals and the conservatives (not all of them, but a lot of them) are arguing for withdrawing.
Yes, well, I believe most people are logical and rational about their positions. Dubya said he was listening to his generals, but he went through a few of them before his found one who agreed with Cheney/Rumsfeld foreign policy.
Trump supporters have already shown they will turn on a dime to support their man. Getting along with Putin is now more important than getting along with our allies. They no longer care about adultery. Corruption is A-okay, too. And, you know, Hillary is a criminal even though she's never been brought up on charges while Donald is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.
I'm really not surprised that they're suddenly in favor of withdrawing troops against the recommendations of pretty much everyone except their dear leader, The depths of their loyalty has shown no bounds. Why start now?
[Sorry, I really have lost faith in this segment of the population.]
There is one of the strongest currents of isolationism running through the country we've seen in awhile. Globalists are evil. Everyone wants to close their borders to everyone, build walls, and disengage.
That might have been fine back in the 1930s, but now it's basically impossible and unrealistic.
If you look back in history, it is the left-side that digs America out the economic hole the right-side put us in.
Conversely, it is the right-side that has pulled America out of armed conflicts.
Ironic and counter-intuitive, but nevertheless true.
Yeah, he sure looks like a well 72 year old doesn't he ??
The RECIPE for World War 3: Bozo Trump is withdrawing our troops in a reckless, insane manner without notice to OUR Own Defense Department or our allies, without a plan and given his propensity to publicly appease dictators, he could conceivably be doing it at the direction of Vladimir Putin which will only embolden Russia. Syria, Iran and China and leave poor Israel in an extremely vulnerable situation: INSANITY:
No need for woe and despair. I believe Israel was delivering air strikes on Christmas, to fulfill any Christmas carnage desires. And... The "World Order"; a new coat of paint, a lil duct tape, some tinsel and trimming, will be good as new.
That's not what General Mattis seems to think, he just resigned in protest to this woefully inept, lunatic perched in our oval office who seems to find great pleasure in appeasing our enemies and disrespecting our allies right on global television for the entire world to witness:
Talk about your betrayals of the nations trust: The good news is our court system seems to still be in working order so far and that spells legal nightmare and inevitable DOOM for the Trumps:
Yes, thankfully we still have justice. Where the accused ("Trumps" ie Trump and anyone else with the last name Trump) are afforded a fair and impartial trial before their "inevitable doom".
If there ever was a definitive case to 'waive' and or 'suspend' due process and imprison the defendants immediately in the name of saving what's left of this country it's right here, right now with the Trump's:
I've NEVER seen such a mountain of damning public evidence in my life which means there is even another gigantic treasure trove of damning evidence being unearthed by the criminal investigations into the Trump campaign and his business practices:
He's already considered an un-indicted co-conspirator in one criminal case and the NY Attorney General has said she and prosecutors have uncovered a "Shocking Pattern of Illegality" within his soon to be defunct Trump Foundation, abominable unholy acts for which he and his children will be sentenced to the devils underground when they depart this planet:
Lock em' Up NOW, before it's too late, just like his close partners in crime:
We were checking ISIS. And we were successful. Why is no one else stepping up to the plate to maintain what we accomplished? We can't stay there forever!
"Checking ISIS?" ISIS is not defeated yet. That is a conundrum that George Bush got us into. As soon as we leave, ISIS will be back with a vengeance. We should never have gone there in the first place. Trump criticized Obama for pulling troops out of Iraq and claimed that by doing so, Obama "founded ISIS." Now the same accusation is being made at Trump, and not just by Democrats. Here's what Fox News has to say:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics … ar-BBRgd6j
The reality of what Syria is about can be summed up in oil & gas pipelines and EU dependency on foreign oil and NG.
If the EU wants pipelines through Syria that badly, or more to the point international oil&gas corporations, perhaps they should negotiate with Syria about it... oh, that's right, Syria is a close ally of Russia.
And who is the EU most dependent on for piped in Oil and NG... I believe it is Russia. So, perhaps Syria wasn't overly interested in having pipelines go through, because that would harm the relationship it has with Russia?
As for ISIS, we (as in America through military and CIA actions) enabled and equipped ISIS (aka ISIL) to come into existence. Our failed efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan, our arming of rebels in Syria, etc.
This would not likely be the case if we had dealt with Iran which funds and supports such terrorists and extremists, this is the root of the conflicts in the Middle East, and has been since we allowed the radical religious leader Ayatollah Khomeini overthrow the Shaw back in 1979.
The entire region has been embroiled in conflict ever since, and when we took out Saddam Hussein we left a vacuum in place of a dictatorship that kept a lid on that religious fanaticism from sweeping over the entire region. Of course, there is the fact that MI companies have made billions, if not trillions, off of these conflicts.
Anyways, the point being since we don't need those pipelines, and we don't need oil from that region (we have our own, and allies like Saudi Arabia after all) then why don't we let the EU go fight those battles and secure their source of oil and gas for themselves?
Just so long as you understand that this is not about people in those countries being free, or better off... obviously people in Syria and Libya are far worse of now than before we interfered.
We are ruthlessly inflicting immense horror and tragedy on tens of millions of people, destroying their cities and homes and societies, for the sake of the EU getting oil and gas, if you understand and accept that, then your opinion may be valid.
You are the first where I have heard about the pipeline connection. What is your source?
You are right and wrong about ISIS. You are right that Bush left a vacuum for them to grow in, but wrong about everything else you said.
Iran is NOT the root of the Middle East conflicts, it is the fight between the two factions of Islam. Just like in Ireland, the war there was between Christian factions.
I assume your "dealing with" Iran is going to war with them and conquering their territory. Otherwise you are left with hated diplomacy which was working, to some degree, until Trump upset the apple cart and sent us back 20 years.
Let EU fight those battles?? Because ISIS, if given the platform, which Trump is now doing, has America in its sites. Just like al Qeada will when Trump gives back Afghanistan to the them.
Your last paragraph is just plain stupid.
"Iran is NOT the root of the Middle East conflicts, it is the fight between the two factions of Islam. Just like in Ireland, the war there was between Christian factions."
You are correct in that it is two religious factions fighting. But "just like"? I don't think so. I don't have any recall where either the Catholics or Protestants taught their children that killing anyone not of their faction would put them in heaven. I have no recollection of either side using children as cannon fodder in their wars. And I have no remembrance of either side making open statements that the rest of the world either join their faction, observing their rules, or die under the sword.
There is very little to compare here, unless you choose to go back a thousand years or more and compare Christianity then to radical Islamists now. If you do that, they are much the same, but not when comparing the conflict in Ireland to the middle east extremists today.
You need to go back and read your Christian history. Christians are no better than Islam in that regard.
I also refer you to
The Hussite Wars (1419–1434) in the Lands of the Bohemian Crown
Conflicts immediately connected with the Reformation of the 1520s to 1540s:
The Knights' Revolt (1522–1523) in the Holy Roman Empire
The German Peasants' War (1524–1526) in the Holy Roman Empire
The Wars of Kappel (1529–1531) in the Old Swiss Confederacy
The Tudor conquest of Ireland (1529–1603) on the Catholic population of Ireland by the Tudor kings of England and their Protestant allies
The Kildare Rebellion (1534–1535)
The First Desmond Rebellion (1569–1573)
The Second Desmond Rebellion (1579–1583)
The Nine Years' War (1593–1603)
The Münster rebellion (1534–1535) in the Prince-Bishopric of Münster
The Count's Feud (1534–1536) in the Kalmar Union (Denmark and Norway)
The Anabaptist riot (1535) in Amsterdam
Bigod's rebellion (1537) in England
The Schmalkaldic War (1546–1547) in the Holy Roman Empire
The Prayer Book Rebellion (1549) in England
The Second Schmalkaldic War or Princes' Revolt (1552–1555)
The French Wars of Religion (1562–1598) in France
The Eighty Years' War (1566/68–1648) in the Low Countries
The Cologne War (1583–1588) in the Electorate of Cologne
The Strasbourg Bishops' War (1592–1604) in the Prince-Bishopric of Strasbourg
The War against Sigismund (1598–1599) in the Polish–Swedish union
The War of the Jülich Succession (1609–10, 1614) in the United Duchies of Jülich-Cleves-Berg
The Thirty Years' War (1618–1648), affecting the Holy Roman Empire including Habsburg Austria and Bohemia and Moravia, France, Denmark and Sweden
Bohemian Revolt (1618–1620) between the Protestant nobility of the Bohemian Crown and their Catholic Habsburg king. This revolt started the Thirty Years' War, causing additional conflicts elsewhere in Europe, and subsuming other already ongoing conflicts.
Hessian War (1567–1648) between the Lutheran Landgraviate of Hesse-Darmstadt (member of the Catholic League) and the Calvinist Landgraviate of Hesse-Kassel (member of the Protestant Union)
The Huguenot rebellions (1621–1629) in France
The Wars of the Three Kingdoms (1639–1651), affecting England, Scotland and Ireland
Bishops' Wars (1639–1640)
English Civil War (1642–1651)
Scotland in the Wars of the Three Kingdoms (1644–1651)
Irish Confederate Wars (1641–1653) and the Cromwellian conquest of Ireland (1649–1653)
The post-Westphalian wars:
The Savoyard-Waldensian Wars (1655–1690) beginning with the Piedmontese Easter (Pasque piemontesi) of April 1655 in the Duchy of Savoy
The First War of Villmergen (1656) in the Old Swiss Confederacy
The Second Anglo-Dutch War (1665–1667) between England and the Dutch Republic
The Nine Years' War (1688–1697)
The Glorious Revolution (1688–1689)
The Williamite War in Ireland (1688–1691)
The Jacobite rising of 1689 in Scotland saw Roman Catholics and Anglican Tories supporting the deposed Catholic king James Stuart take up arms against the newly enthroned Calvinist William of Orange and his Presbyterian Covenanter allies; the religious component may be regarded as secondary to the dynastic factor, however.
The War of the Spanish Succession (1701–1714) across Europe had a strong religious component
The War in the Cevennes (1702–1710) in France
The Second War of Villmergen or Toggenburg War (1712) in the Old Swiss Confederacy
And then there is the Christian religeous persecution in England that led to America being created. As well as the ongoing war in Northern Ireland, albeit in remission at the moment.
And please don't talk to me about how only Islam is morally corrupt. Christianity took that mantel long before there ever was an Islam. The atrocities committed by Christians in the name of their God is long and continuing.
And then there is:
- In the years 1942-1943 also in Croatia existed numerous extermination camps, run by Catholic Ustasha under their dictator Ante Paveliç, a practicing Catholic and regular visitor to the then pope. There were even concentration camps exclusively for children! Mass murder was performed here.
- 1. As soon as Christianity became legal in the Roman Empire by imperial edict (315), more and more pagan temples were destroyed by Christian mob. Pagan priests were killed.
2. Pagan services became punishable by death in 356.
3. In 6th century pagans were declared void of all rights.
4. Pagan slaughter followed numerous years passed this!
- 1.In the early fourth century the philosopher Sopatros was executed on demand of Christian authorities.
2.The world famous female philosopher Hypatia of Alexandria was torn to pieces with glass fragments by a hysterical Christian mob
3.Emperor Karl (Charlemagne) in 782 had 4500 Saxons, unwilling to convert to Christianity, beheaded.
4.John Huss, a critic of papal infallibility and indulgences, was burned at the stake in 1415.
5.Michael Sattler, leader of a baptist community, was burned at the stake in Rottenburg, Germany, May 20, 1527. Several days later his wife and other follwers were also executed.
And that's just 5...
- 1.Peasants of Steding (Germany) unwilling to pay suffocating church taxes: between 5,000 and 11,000 men, women and children slain 5/27/1234 near Altenesch/Germany.
2.15th century Poland: 1019 churches and 17987 villages plundered by Knights of the Order. Number of victims unknown.
3.First Crusade: 1095 on command of pope Urban II. [WW11-41]
Semlin/Hungary 6/24/96 thousands slain. Wieselburg/Hungary 6/12/96 thousands. [WW23]
9/9/96-9/26/96 Nikaia, Xerigordon (then Turkish), thousands respectively. [WW25-27]
Until January 1098 a total of 40 capital cities and 200 castles conquered (number of slain unknown) [WW30]
Christianchronicler Eckehard of Aura noted that "even the following summer in all of Palestine the air was polluted by the stench of decomposition". One million victims of the first crusade alone.
4.After 6/3/98 Antiochia (then Turkish) conquered, between 10,000 and 60,000 slain. 6/28/98 100,000 Turks (incl. women and children) killed.
5.Marra (Maraat an-numan) 12/11/98 thousands killed. Because of the subsequent famine "the already stinking corpses of the enemies were eaten by the Christians" said chronicler Albert Aquensis.
6.Jerusalem conquered 7/15/1099 more than 60,000 victims (Jewish, Muslim, men, women, children).
7.Battle of Askalon, 8/12/1099. 200,000 heathens slaughtered "in the name of Our Lord Jesus Christ".
8.Fourth crusade: 4/12/1204 Constantinople sacked, number of victims unknown, numerous thousands, many of them Christian. [WW141-148]
Rest of Crusades in less detail: until the fall of Akkon 1291 probably 20 million victims (in the Holy land and Arab/Turkish areas alone). [WW224]
9.Manichaean heresy: a crypto-Christian sect decent enough to practice birth control (and thus not as irresponsible as faithful Catholics) was exterminated in huge campaigns all over the Roman empire between 372 C.E. and 444 C.E. Numerous thousands of victims.
10.Albigensians: the first Crusade intended to slay other Christians. [DO29]
The Albigensians (Cathars) viewed themselves as good Christians, but would not accept Roman Catholic rule, and taxes, and prohibition of birth control. [NC]
Begin of violence: on command of pope Innocent III (the greatest single mass murderer prior to the Nazi era) in 1209. Beziérs (today France) 7/22/1209 destroyed, all the inhabitants were slaughtered. Number of victims (including Catholics refusing to turn over their heretic
neighbors and friends) estimated between 20,000-70,000. [WW179-181]
Carcassonne 8/15/1209, thousands slain. Other cities followed. [WW181]
And that's just 10....
- 1.16th and 17th century Ireland. English troops "pacified and civilized" Ireland, where only Gaelic "wild Irish", "unreasonable beasts lived without any knowledge of God or good manners, in common of their goods, cattle, women, children and every other thing." One of the more successful soldiers, a certain Humphrey Gilbert, half-brother of Sir Walter Raleigh, ordered that "the heddes of all those (of what sort soever thei were) which were killed in the daie, should be cutte off from their bodies... and should bee laied on the ground by eche side of the waie", which effort to civilize the Irish indeed caused "greate terrour to the people when thei sawe the heddes of their dedde fathers, brothers, children, kinsfolke, and freinds on the grounde".
Tens of thousands of Gaelic Irish fell victim to the carnage.
2.Crusades Eye Witness Reports...
In the words of one witness: "there [in front of Solomon's temple] was such a carnage that our people were wading ankle-deep in the blood of our foes", and after that "happily and crying for joy our people marched to our Saviour's tomb, to honour it and to pay off our debt of gratitude."
The Archbishop of Tyre, eye-witness, wrote: "It was impossible to look upon the vast numbers of the slain without horror; everywhere lay fragments of human bodies, and the very ground was covered with the blood of the slain. It was not alone the spectacle of headless bodies and mutilated limbs strewn in all directions that roused the horror of all who looked upon them. Still more dreadful was it to gaze upon the victors themselves, dripping with blood from head to foot, an ominous sight which brought terror to all who met them. It is reported that within the Temple enclosure alone about ten thousand infidels perished."
Christian chronicler Eckehard of Aura noted that "even the following summer in all of Palestine the air was polluted by the stench of decomposition".
One million victims of the first crusade alone.
GRANTED - all this is old, but it is nevertheless Christian history. Did you know the last inquisition execution was in 1826 where a school teacher was garroted. In Spain, the inquisition ended in 1834, not that long ago. In Italy, it is still legal; but they changed the name to Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
Yep, Islam is really bad, isn't it>
All of this says says pretty much what I said. Christian evil may have existed a little closer to modern times than 1,000 years, but it (mostly) ended a long time ago. Islam radicals, on the other hand, just now seem to be really cranking up. My fault; I tend to view the middle ages as ancient history and it really is not. And certainly the 1800's are not as long ago as I view them as being.
That's not a blow at Islam, for I actually believe that the typical "Muslim in the street" is a reasonable person, not wanting to force much of anything outside of their own neighborhood, and even then not happy with anything even approaching the force and tactics of the radicals.
My point is, a zebra doesn't change its stripes. That kind of behavior is embedding in Christianity. It may be dormant now, but when will it erupt again? I have no doubt it will.
Guess I have a little more faith in mankind. There will always be those whose ego makes them superior to others, there will always be those that demand control over others.
But I see man as a slowly developing creature, forever reaching for the high ground and forever, as a species, improving there.
So yes, a zebra CAN change it's stripes.
"But I see man as a slowly developing creature, forever reaching for the high ground and forever, as a species, improving there." - unfortunately, Wilderness, conservative theory does not allow for that evolution to where everyone has the same expectation to equal treatment as any other person.
For example, under conservative theory, women will never be allowed to have the same rights as men. Why, because, according Kirk, it is "natural" that there be superiors and inferiors in society. That is why I reject conservatism out of hand.
Since when does conservatism not give women equal rights?
Since forever. The difference between conservative and liberal principles is that conservatism does not provide for equal rights, in fact it flat out says that the only time rights are equal are at birth and at death, but not in between. Liberal philosophy, on the other hand, flat out says everybody should have equal rights at all times.
When has women ever have equal rights with men?? You come closer and closer to by each push from progressives while conservatives try to diminish it through laws and judicial rulings.
"Liberal philosophy, on the other hand, flat out says everybody should have equal rights at all times."
Not hardly. If nothing else liberal philosophy says that rich people cannot keep their earnings while poor people can. It says the poor gets what the rich(er) earned, while the rich(er) only get to give it away. That's hardly "equal rights".
But in other, social, rights I think you're correct. Liberals are the bastion of equality and conservatives fall short. It's primarily in the economic field where the difference is reversed. It is my own greatest disagreement with both: liberals want your pocketbook while conservatives want your lifestyle and religion. Neither one is acceptable, at least to the degree they are demanded.
" If nothing else liberal philosophy says that rich people cannot keep their earnings while poor people can. It says the poor gets what the rich(er) earned, while the rich(er) only get to give it away. "
- Prove it. But, then you can't; to use your reasoning, you told a lie.
I am with Buffet, Jobs, Soros, and many other very rich people - they aren't taxed enough to make up for the value of free privilege they get simply because they are very rich. Personally, I think the top tax rate should be 50% - 55% on, say, over $10,000.000
"- Prove it. But, then you can't; to use your reasoning, you told a lie."
OMG Eso, it is statements like this that takes a "debate" with you and turns it into a comedy routine. You want proof, take a look at the tax tables and see who has money taken from them. Then take a look at the requirements for welfare entitlements and see who gets it.
And when you're done, read your final paragraph again where you advocate, as a liberal, doing more of the same.
LOL Comedy, pure and simple; your desperate twisting and spin only reinforces that you cannot possibly be sincere in doubting that the richer pay and the poorer take, all while you claim it is equal.
Again, prove it. You make a false claim and then call it comedy.
You do know, don't you, that the last tax table is a GOP creation. Before that, the Obama tax table was a minor modification of the Bush tax table.
Now it is true that Bush cut taxes and turned Clinton's budget surpluses into big deficits.
Clinton and Bush Sr. Tax Tables helped lead to a historical run of increasing GDP.
You make it sound like the ONLY side that creates tax tables are the Dems; think again
Further, if you studied economics you would see that the transfer of wealth, after the Korean War was only in one direction - from the poor to the rich. This can easily be seen by the continuously increasing Gini index of income and wealth inequality.
IF, as you claim, wealth and income are transferring from the Rich to the Poor, then that index would be getting SMALLER. Instead, it is getting LARGER!! Why??
It's so ridiculous to compare Christians from 400 years ago to people today. Islamists have just as many horrors in their history, and they continue into our time. Try having a look at the amount of violence committed in the name of Allah over the last 20 years. I guarantee no sane person shouts out the name of Jesus before blowing themselves up and killing everyone around them.
Also you are wrong about the so called radical minority of Islam. According to 2016 Pugh research statistics there are over 600 million Muslims who hold radical views, which include favorable views of Bin Laden, and terrorist organisations such as Al Queda, Hamas, and the Taliban, support strict Sharia Law, believe honor killings of women and suicide bombings can sometimes be justified, and are in favor of attacks on Israel.
What do Christians have? The West Boro Baptists? A group that nobody holds favorable views towards.
There is literally no comparison.
It's too bad you have forgotten the maxim which goes something like "if you refuse to study history, you WILL repeat its mistakes." And it seems like conservatives forget (worse, reject) the lessons of history.
As to your Pugh research, they claim they made no such claim. Please provide the link (or are you quoting another Trump lie.)
Fundamentalist religions by their very nature, commit atrocities against mankind. It is sort of like death and taxes. Give fundamentalist Christians enough time, they will murdering men, women, and children again.
... again I ask how does conservatism deny equal rights for women?
If they do not get paid as much as men, whose fault is that?
Women can demand fair wages.
The people can rectify the situation, as the people have the power when they bother to take it.
Yes, equal pay (to men) is being fought by women. Who else?
Yes, we need to fight harder.
And demand more maternity-leave time.
(And if an employer doesn't allow his or her valued female employee to leave for at least six months, (as in Europe,) well, maybe she should have thought twice about getting pregnant.)
And once again, conservative principles do not deny it, but they don't encourage it either. In fact, if it exists, they encourage its continuance. Since placing women below men had been a tradition, custom, etc for eons, conservatives don't want to change something that works.
"Conservatives are champions of custom, convention, and continuity because they prefer the devil they know to the devil they don’t know. Order and justice and freedom, they believe, are the artificial products of a long social experience, the result of centuries of trial and reflection and sacrifice."
"Therefore conservatives very often emphasize the importance of prescription—that is, of things established by immemorial usage, so that the mind of man runneth not to the contrary. There exist rights of which the chief sanction is their antiquity—including rights to property, often. Similarly, our morals are prescriptive in great part. Conservatives argue that we are unlikely, we moderns, to make any brave new discoveries in morals or politics or taste. It is perilous to weigh every passing issue on the basis of private judgment and private rationality. The individual is foolish, but the species is wise, Burke declared. In politics we do well to abide by precedent and precept and even prejudice, for the great mysterious incorporation of the human race has acquired a prescriptive wisdom far greater than any man’s petty private rationality."
"They [Conservatives] feel affection for the proliferating intricacy of long-established social institutions and modes of life, as distinguished from the narrowing uniformity and deadening egalitarianism of radical systems. For the preservation of a healthy diversity in any civilization, there must survive orders and classes, differences in material condition, and many sorts of inequality. " - If slavery exists for a long time, it must be good and shouldn't be changed. If inequality between men and women exists for a long time, it must be good and shouldn't be changed.
"To seek for utopia is to end in disaster, " - So why even try?
And then goes on to say "All that we reasonably can expect is a tolerably ordered, just, and free society, in which some evils, maladjustments, and suffering will continue to lurk. By proper attention to prudent reform, we may preserve and improve this tolerable order. But if the old institutional and moral safeguards of a nation are neglected, then the anarchic impulse in humankind breaks loose:" - This is the first place Kirk makes any reference of trying to fix bad things. But it has a strict governor on it - Prudence.
Kirk's 10th principle is dedicated to progress with a small 'p'. In it, he admits a little progress is needed to keep the body fresh. But, only a little and very slowly. It is here, in a defeatist sort of way he says "When a society is progressing in some respects, usually it is declining in other respects. " - Why, I ask, must that be so?
You wrote - "well, maybe she should have thought twice about getting pregnant.)" - So a woman doing what is necessary to propagate the species is to be punished for doing so??? To put it another way, in order to propagate the species, a woman must lose her job (which also contributes to the betterment of society as a whole.) if she has one - interesting perspective, that.
According to Esoteric:
A. Conservatism: "The only time rights are equal are at birth and at death, but not in between." HUH?
B. Liberalism: "Everybody should have equal rights at all times." In what way is this true?
C. "When have women ever had equal rights as men? You come closer and closer to it with each push of the progressives, while conservatives try to diminish it through laws and judicial rulings." Perhaps you could enlighten us with examples.
The ACTUAL liberal view in regards to equality:
"Everybody should have equal rights at all times ..." with certain exceptions:
Citizens who own guns.
Religious business owners.
Hard working citizens who have the right to keep the money they earn.
Well-educated descendants of the Saxons applying to institutes of higher learning across the country.
Hard working successful moral, law abiding citizens.
A. Kirk says "The only true forms of equality are equality at the Last Judgment and equality before a just court of law" (I guess I was wrong about saying people of equal rights at birth; I guess they don't.
B. Have you read the Declaration of Independence or Constitution lately?
C. Example, the 19th Amendment which Conservatives fought tooth and nail in trying to prevent it from happening.
Citizens who own guns. - Liberal philosophy does not prevent this
Religious business owners. - Liberal philosophy does not prevent this, in fact it encourages it. What liberal philosophy does not encourage is taking away somebody else's rights in the name of religion.
Religious schools. - Liberal philosophy does not oppose this, it encourages it through free expression of liberty
Hard working citizens who have the right to keep the money they earn. - Liberal philosophy doesn't say they can't.
Well-educated descendants of the Saxons applying to institutes of higher learning across the country. - Liberal philosophy doesn't oppose this either. What they oppose is denying non-Saxons the right to apply to schools of higher learning based on the fact they are non-Saxons.
Pro-lifers. - Liberal philosophy does not oppose this belief. What liberals oppose is foisting your personal belief on someone else.
Hard working successful moral, law abiding citizens. - Liberal philosophy whole-heartedly encourages this as well.
It is clear from your list is that you have been done in by conservative propaganda.
by Scott Belford 2 years ago
I lived through the fear of nuclear war between the old Soviet Union and America. I remember practicing what to do in elementary school in case of an attack. I remember the television commercials advertising bomb shelters. I remember the Missile Crisis.And now, Vladimir Putin...
by Tessa Schlesinger 2 years ago
How many allies will America lose if Trump becomes president and why do they dislike him?The dislike of Donald Trump is intense in the UK. So much so that a massive petition forced Parliament to vote on barring him entry to the country. Neuroscientist, Howard Gardner, says Trump is a text book...
by Grace Marguerite Williams 2 years ago
To Liberals, what do you fear about President-Elect Donald Trump? His sociopolitical stance on immigration & health care? Why do you contend that under Trump's presidency, America will regress to pre-Civil Rights days when Blacks & other non-Caucasians were marginalized or...
by G. Diane Nelson Trotter 11 months ago
1. Send the military to the southern border2. Amazon is not paying their fair share to USPS and taxpayers are having to pay for it3. DJT is higher in the Rasmussen poll than cheating Obama was at this point in his presidency4. DJT wants to talk to Special Counsel because he...
by Brandon Lobo 12 days ago
Since the Republicans seem to hop into territories they have no clue about, let me join the party and point out something, but this time I point out some facts and not my opinion on them. What's your take on this ? Some interesting discussions here .
by Ralph Deeds 8 years ago
The phrase is being used as shorthand by some prominent conservatives for a kind of closed-mindedness in the movement, a development they see as debasing modern conservatism’s proud intellectual history. First used in this context by Julian Sanchez of the libertarian Cato Institute, the phrase...
Copyright © 2019 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|