A question about the differences between conservatives and liberals

[Dauphin]

Spence, you spelling honour with a "u". Have you been anglicised?

[notyoueither]

We had our hands on him for a few years, but he fled the Dominion.

[Felch]

Did molly bloom seriously classify Robert Mugabe as a conservative? ZANU-PF is nominally socialist, and definitely populist.

[notyoueither]

Everything evil is conservative, silly.

[TCO]

He lied.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Felch
Did molly bloom seriously classify Robert Mugabe as a conservative? ZANU-PF is nominally socialist, and definitely populist.

Let's see- he's anti gay rights, anti women's rights, anti freedom of the press, and as for being populist, so were Nazism and Italian Fascism and Franco's political grouping in Spain. Good to see how sharp your thinking still isn't.

And let's not forget the ethnic cleansing of Matabeleland under Mugabe's auspices- not exactly liberal, was it ?

Everything evil is conservative, silly.

QFT.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by molly bloom
Let's see- he's anti gay rights, anti women's rights, anti freedom of the press, and as for being populist, so were Nazism and Italian Fascism and Franco's political grouping in Spain. Good to see how sharp your thinking still isn't.

And let's not forget the ethnic cleansing of Matabeleland under Mugabe's auspices- not exactly liberal, was it ?

And also embarked on massive social programs, and land reform efforts. Not exactly conservative, is it?

Furthermore, Mr. Stalin also engaged in his own ethnic cleansing efforts.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


And also embarked on massive social programs, and land reform efforts. Not exactly conservative, is it?

He's an evil conservative, Imran. Why argue with a molly approved fact.

Stalin was a conservative too.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Oooh ooh! Can I call Marx a conservative too, then?

[DinoDoc]

Well he did found his own religion.

[Asmodean]

I'll play ball

As far as american politics is concerned, you may consider me a weird mix.

I'm very pro choice. I oppose capital punishment, and I could p-i-s-s on the 2nd amendment. (Or at least on those who interpret the 2nd amendment to allowing every man and his wife to purchase arms whenever they want to).

I also strongly oppose government meddling in people's lives. Unless there is a strong reason for it, government must not meddle. Period.

I support continued allied intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan, and regardless of WMD's or not, removing Saddam was and always will be the right choice.

On the other hand, on almost all environmental issues, you may consider me a liberal. Sue me over it, but I just think the evidence is there to support, the humans are harming the planet, and I would like to try to save it (the planet)

Hope that gives you an idea of where I am politically, SpencerH. If not, then just ask

Now, as to what colonel Nathan R. Jessup did wrong, I don't even know where to begin. First and foremost, he did what many career officers do, namely considering themselves and the system they are a part of superior and untouchable. It goes without saying, that I believe that the military should always be subject to political control, and that the laws and regulations which govern us all, apply perhaps even more to military personnel. They are armed, after all, and with that comes greater responsibility.

Second to the above, he failed to take care of people under his command. Now as a regimental commander, he would never have direct contact with the private in question, but he was there to ensure that a system was in place that would help locate and then take care of soldiers who for one reason or another did not fit in with the rest. Big failure, in my mind. But it links with what I wrote above. He thought himself and the system infallible, so when a link in the chain broke, the link, not the chain, lay at fault.

And third, of course, he ordered the code red. I can (sort of.....very, very sort of) understand his reasoning behind it. He believes that in Guantanamo, the marines are constantly at risk, and as such they have to stay sharp. Therefore, as an incentive to the personnel, whenever someone steps over the line, drastic measures have to be taken. Totally wrong, of course, but very much in line with how he is, and how he sees the system.

Nothing justifies treating personnel like that. Not even war. As I described above, I strongly believe that military personnel should be role models in how they conduct themselves. Colonel Nathan R. Jessup failed miserably to do that.

Asmodean

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


And also embarked on massive social programs, and land reform efforts. Not exactly conservative, is it?

Furthermore, Mr. Stalin also engaged in his own ethnic cleansing efforts.

As did a certain A. Hitler, A. Jackson, C. Rhodes, et cetera, et cetera.


I wasn't aware that one could not be a 'social' conservative if one was supposedly to the left of Roy Cohn- after all, China under Mao and Cuba under Castro were hardly beacons of liberal thinking or liberal acting.

And Stalin was no Alexandra Kollontai, either.

Social programmes take place under extremely conservative regimes too- in Nazi Germany, for instance.

As for Mugabe's 'land reform'- a feeble attempt at inequitable and unplanned redistribution of land in order to divert attention away from his regime's corruption and economic and social failings- not really in the same league as Arbenz-v-United Fruit in Guatemala, but feel free to tar all efforts at equitable distribution of land and resources with the same brush....

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Asmodean
I'm very pro choice. I oppose capital punishment, and I could p-i-s-s on the 2nd amendment. (Or at least on those who interpret the 2nd amendment to allowing every man and his wife to purchase arms whenever they want to).

I also strongly oppose government meddling in people's lives. Unless there is a strong reason for it, government must not meddle. Period.

I support continued allied intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan, and regardless of WMD's or not, removing Saddam was and always will be the right choice.

On the other hand, on almost all environmental issues, you may consider me a liberal. Sue me over it, but I just think the evidence is there to support, the humans are harming the planet, and I would like to try to save it (the planet)

Hope that gives you an idea of where I am politically, SpencerH. If not, then just ask

Interestingly, aside from the capital punishment and 2nd Amendment positions, I agree with you. We should start our own party (and they we can be all acrimonious and split over our capital punishment positions ).

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
He's an evil conservative, Imran. Why argue with a molly approved fact.

Stalin was a conservative too.

Well spotted.


And Alexandra Kollontai and Sylvia Pankhurst weren't, and both were of the Left.


Try very hard and instead of being feebly sarcastic, you may eventually after many years construct an argument.

[Imran Siddiqui]

China under Mao and Cuba under Castro were hardly beacons of liberal thinking or liberal acting.

And yet their economic programs and view on the role of the state in the economy were very far to the left.

As for Mugabe's 'land reform'- a feeble attempt at inequitable and unplanned redistribution of land in order to divert attention away from his regime's corruption and economic and social failings

He was considering it since the '97 end of the "willing buyer, willing selling" program (when Blair refused to fund it).