Poly is making me right wing

[MOBIUS]

Interestingly Ben and Imran are arguing over a time when the Conservatives were busily fighting to prevent the abolition of slavery, the enfranchisement of working classes (let alone women!), allowing 'the masses' to educate themselves...

Pretty much all things that Che says about being "in front of every major social change, fighting to keep it back".

The Right wing is against enlightenment and progress in virtually all its forms, being that it has upheld and fought to retain, at various times:

Racism
Elitism
Chauvinism
Greed
Selfishness
Homophobia
Religion

All of these obviously are wrong in an enlightened and fair society (as per my point earlier), and it is also interesting to see that Gladstone (like some of the smarter Poly posters) actually saw the light and decided to throw down his right wing views and embrace some of those obvious common sense reforms in later life as a liberal thinker...

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp
I think it's a little unfair to blame Poly when it might easily be a hideous and degenerative brain disorder.

What's the difference, again?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
They aren't. Your whole republic was modelled on the French Revolution. That was the whole concept. They might be considered at best classical liberals.

*cough* Enlightenment *cough*

Psst. The French hadn't had the rotten bread yet when the Yanks were tossing the tea.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

I would say no. You can't be a sincere socialist and a Christian at the same time.

Can anyone think of the name of that Nazarene bloke from about 2000 years ago who took a relaxed attitude to state taxes and was big on everyone sharing the bread and fish together? It's completely slipped my mind, but I think he might have been a Christian.

[Wiglaf]

CHECK FACTS

YOUR NOT CLEVER STOP PRETENDING. The reality is that Jesus overturned the money tables in front of the temple and said MONEY CAPITALISM IS OKAY BUT JUST NOT IN THE TEMPLE AREA.

Maybe when you buy your next book you will invest in a bookmark. I am tired of you, the way you lose your place repeatedly makes me think you need to bookmark your genitals to remember where they are when it comes time to have sex with that Monkey inflatable from those Star Trek episodes, what were they, tribbles? They were so cute I bet you bought five dozen of them and now have no other use for them but to , well, YOU KNOW

The value of those toys peaked in like the 1970s Halloween season I bet. How embarrassing, FOR YOU

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp
Can anyone think of the name of that Nazarene bloke from about 2000 years ago who took a relaxed attitude to state taxes and was big on everyone sharing the bread and fish together? It's completely slipped my mind, but I think he might have been a Christian.

I'm pretty sure he was Jewish, actually.

[C0ckney]

calm down dear

Originally posted by Agathon


You couldn't do it. As if you have any talent for anything anyway. You must be one of them "aspirationals".

I'd love to see you defend your views, but of course you can't so you won't. That makes you pathetic.

touched a nerve i see.

[Ben Kenobi]

*cough* Enlightenment *cough*

Psst. The French hadn't had the rotten bread yet when the Yanks were tossing the tea.

True, but the constitution didn't actually begin to take force until the same year the French Revolution started.

Wasn't until several years later that the Bill of rights were added onto it. It's true the American Revolution was before the French but the Constitution along with the Bill of Rights was inspired by the French Revolution.

[Ben Kenobi]

Can anyone think of the name of that Nazarene bloke from about 2000 years ago who took a relaxed attitude to state taxes and was big on everyone sharing the bread and fish together? It's completely slipped my mind, but I think he might have been a Christian.

I don't know many socialists today who would affirm a spiritual world.

[Ben Kenobi]

The second statement is true, but only because they've been in front of every major social change, fighting to keep it back. It's the left that lead the way forward.

Wilberforce was a Liberal?

He was a Tory. Where were all the liberals and why weren't they calling for the abolition of slavery?

[Ben Kenobi]

So there have not been any conservatives as President ever?

There have been some, but not all that many. Reagan and Coolidge perhaps in this century. Nixon, I'm not sure what to make of.

I'd imagine once there was an American tradition to preserve, those who did so where the Conservatives.

To a certain extent, but how many presidents have been elected on that platform to 'preserve' rather then to expand the republic? Not many.

How is manifest destiny a "classical liberal" position when the greatest classical liberal in American history, Thomas Jefferson, did not believe in it (and before you say "Louisiana Purchase", Jefferson never believed it was an ideological idea to physically expand the country... it was just an example of great pragmatism... something more associated with his friend John Adams than him actually).

So the biggest classical liberal purchased the largest increase in US territory ever? Open and shut case. Sorry Imran. Manifest Destiny is a classically liberal idea, you can try to explain it away to no avail.

So you are saying Gladstone was showing himself to be more of a liberal than a statist?

His government funding was not allocated in a very 'liberal' manner.

Which was... of course... bull****. The party, if anything, got less liberal from the time Reagan was a Democrat. I mean, compare FDR to JFK.

He switched over in 1962. Compare JFK to Stevenson.

I am not very familiar with the government funding for churches issue... and Googling it, apparently it isn't considered all that important. Though I would imagine with an official church (Anglican), money does have to go to the church.

More than any other statesman of his age, he was able to mobilize the idealism of the British public. He succeeded in part because of his strong religious convictions. A daily reader of the Bible and the author of numerous books on religion, he believed that, through politics, religion could be reflected and made practical.

How is that any different from what I'm saying. He is liberal on trade, but the rest is very much conservative. Disraeli was a conservative on trade (favouring tariffs), but a liberal otherwise.

Despite his long public life, Disraeli is still regarded as an enigma. His multitude of enemies regarded him as an opportunist and a seeker of power; his legions of followers (some of whom founded the Primrose League in his memory) saw him as a man of high principle. These opposing views probably resulted from the contradictions inherent in his public acts. He was at once a Conservative and a Radical and perhaps embodied the best of both traditions.

How does this differ from what I said? My issue with wikipedia is not so much the encyclopedia but the fact that it changes so quickly.

[Imran Siddiqui]

There have been some, but not all that many. Reagan and Coolidge perhaps in this century. Nixon, I'm not sure what to make of.

Reagan, the man who did absolutely nothing for abortion or "traditional values", who appointed a defender of abortion on the Supreme Court (Sandra Day O'Connor) when he had a chance of getting rid of Roe.

His main legacies are all in the economic and foriegn affairs field.

If he's your conservative, then I'm not sure why you quibble so.

So the biggest classical liberal purchased the largest increase in US territory ever? Open and shut case. Sorry Imran. Manifest Destiny is a classically liberal idea, you can try to explain it away to no avail.

You do realize what "Manifest Destiny" means right? (Wait, obviously you don't, not really knowing much about American history) Purchasing land has nothing to do with a God given right to expand.

And besides, I think that perhaps the expansion of US territory under Polk may have been greater.

He switched over in 1962. Compare JFK to Stevenson.

JFK being far more conservative than Stevenson, you mean?

He is liberal on trade, but the rest is very much conservative. Disraeli was a conservative on trade (favouring tariffs), but a liberal otherwise.

How was Disraeli a liberal otherwise? The group that was founded based on his politics (Primrose League) were concerned with British traditions.

The HUGE fallacy you've brought forward is that liberals and socialists can't be religious. That is so utterly false that we ALL are laughing at you. Please, tell me, is Jon Miller not a Christian to you then?

[Zevico]

The Right wing is against enlightenment and progress in virtually all its forms, being that it has upheld and fought to retain, at various times:

There have been countless movements of all political stripes that have supported the ideologies you mention in in practice and in theory.
You are simply making a fool of yourself by speaking about the terms 'left' and 'right' wing without limiting your argument to a predefined and extremely limited context.

[Arrian]

I find the assertion that conservatives have been at the forefront of every major social change deliciously hilarious.

There is Che's interpretation - that they've sure been involved (fighting the changes). There is also the fact that change isn't necessarily 1-way. A shift back toward more traditional conservative values would be a change nonetheless, and that's clearly happened at times (2 steps forward, 1 step back, etc). So give them their reactionary due there

Anyway, they wouldn't be called "conservatives" if they were agents of social change.

-Arrian

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by BeBro

"If you're not a communist by 20 you have no heart and if your not a capitalist by 30 you have no brain"

So it appears that I, a hardcore right-winger since around age of sixteen, am completely heartless?