I'm not sure I've been getting a clear answer on this from folks, especially self-proclaimed conservatives here in the States, and I wanted to get your guy's input on it.
How much do guys like William F. Buckley and Robert A. Taft have in common with modern, self-proclaimed conservatives like Ted Cruz and Charles Krauthammer as far as ideology is concerned?
>>873884
Opposition to liberal ideology. Thats it.
>>873916
Plus guns and freedumb of speech.
>>873884
It used to mean a desire to follow the Constitution's goal of limited federal government, state control of most issues, and judicial interpretation of the Constitution only.
Now we have "conservatives" wanting bigger, more centralized government, and justices who want to use judicial review to re-write laws, and change the existing laws, constantly.
Every right thinking person in America votes conservative; unfortunately, there are at least twice as many wrong thinking people in America, who merely want to vote themselves money from the treasury in one form or another.
>>873928
Which makes me wonder - is John Kasich actually the most conservative candidate running for President right now (based on his voting record in the House and his time as governor)?
Also, in this context, where do actual American Conservatives stand on foreign policy. Are they "bomb 'em all and let God sort 'em out" kind, ensuring American dominance, or are they, mostly, non-interventionists, that see the price tag that goes along with war and the subsequent clean-up? Conservatism can't really seem to make up its mind about this, it seems.
>>873928
I feel part of the problem with "American Conservatism" is that it became associated as "the ideology of the Republican party". But the Republican party has no ideology as it's just a coalition of every group that is able to say "We aren't the democrats".
Looking at the Republican presidential candidates over the past few years shows this well
>Theocrats
>Neo-cons
>Libertarians
>Paleoconservatives
>Mormons
>People who disagree with the Democrats and need a party to get elected
Assuming the Republican party speaks with one voice and one intent makes it seem as if the Elephant is schizophrenic. But it's not, it's twenty retards sharing the same life preserver.
>Krauthammer
Gets me every time.
American conservatives are like any other group of conservatives, except in America's case there's a lot of hypocrisy when authoritarian tendencies are promoted through the guise of protecting "freedom" or adhering to the Constitution (which many conservatives conveniently throw out the window when it concerns something they don't like).
>>873954
He is the only one who really talks about taking federal power, "putting it in buckets", and sending it back to the states.
I don't see him as a conservative for his expansion of Medicaid, support of unions, common core, etc.
>>873960
This is the first time in my life I wondered "who the fuck owns the Republican Party, and how did they come to own it?"
>>873970
Where was Krauthammer during the Reagan Revolution? Oh, yeah, supporting the other guy.
>>873960
Yeah, but you could say that Elephant has always been schizophrenic. I mean, they were the "big tent party" at one time, covering former Whig bankers and radical abolitionists at the same at the beginning.
Yet, it seems they've always been able to find a place for them.
>>873970
This is one of the things that really bugs me about conservatives. This, and their seemingly two faced interpretation of "small government."
>>873920
>freedumb of speech.
No, it's literally
>Opposition to liberal ideology.
It's freedumb of speech if it's TEA party protesters. Anti-Trump protestors deserve censorship and are infringing on Trump's free speech by exercising their free speech by protesting. Yes, there are SJWs that want to censor things. Evangelicals also want to censor a lot of shit. Free speech is not a conservative issue.
American conservatism is being wary about how the growth of the military-industrial complex detracts from our many other vital social and infrastructural programs, just like Ike
>>874046
>Support of Unions
Are you sure about that?
http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2015/03/gov_john_kasich_wears_sb_5_uni.html
Also, it's my understanding he likes the ideas behind Common Core, but thinks its been executed in a really shitty way. I think he's also very pro-School Choice.
I'll give you Medicaid, but most modern conservatives seem to shy away from that issue since their core voter base benefits from it.
>>874094
>Free speech is not a conservative issue.
Free speech is an American issue. It isn't along party lines. I don't even understand your reasoning.
>>874064
>Yeah, but you could say that Elephant has always been schizophrenic. I mean, they were the "big tent party" at one time, covering former Whig bankers and radical abolitionists at the same at the beginning.
To be fair, the same can be said for the Democratic Party. Progressive, highly educated and secular whites allied with highly religious and poorly educated black and Hispanic social conservatives.
I'm a Democrat because I basically have to be, not because I like the party.
>>874110
The poster he was replying to said free speech was a conservative issue when it isn't.
>>873920
>making fun of freedom of speech
>>874102
yeah, i am
Gov. Kasich opposes legislation making Ohio a right-to-work state ...
>>874110
The left wants to criminalize hate speech; the fucking DOJ head said she was looking in to how to do that.
>>874143
Freedom of speech is sort of (and I mean "sort of" as lightly as I can) a liberal issue mainly because liberals didn't hold power for most of history, so saying stuff like "women should be able to vote" or "blacks should get to piss in every bathroom" would get you jailed.
Historically the 1st Amendment has been much more favorable for liberals who want to shake up the system than conservatives trying to preserve the status quo.
>>874152
The Democratic party has been hijacked by the far-Left. This is a natural consequence. We need another McCarthyism.
>>874152
>muh censorship
>http://www.theharrispoll.com/health-and-life/Censorship_2015.html
desu conservatives want to censor your pixel free speech boobies more than sjws
>>873884
In few words, adherence to the Constitution (so freedom of speech, pro-gun rights, etc.), limited government power and federalism, and pro-free market policies.
So, there's not much of a difference ideologically between Ted Cruz and William F. Buckley.
>>874110
Except the left are the ones shitting on the 1st Amendment and the Constitution in general.
>>874073
> Kasich has received most of his funding from George Soros, the leftist billiionaire. Hardly a genuine conservative running on genuine conservative values.
Are you saying he isn't a conservative because he's funded by Soros?
>>874192
> adherence to the Constitution (so freedom of speech, pro-gun rights, etc.)
>guns
>muh originalism
>muh militias
>muh cherrypicking founding fathers who i can say agree with me even though they dead
>>874211
/pol/ is
>>874214
I don't understand. Are you saying you want to reject the Constitution?
>>874214
>muh "muh" memes
nice "higher discourse" you got there.
>>874218
>/pol/ is funded by soros to make conservatives look bad
I knew it
>>874128
Not to mention the highly religious, poorly educated, and socially conservative southern whites and that used to be a part of the party until the GOP enacted the Southern Strategy in the 1960s.
But, we digress -
Like I asked at the beginning: what exactly *is* a conservative in America? What are the things that have united conservatives through the generations, because it seems to me that a conservative a century ago is not the same as a conservative today on some pretty fundamental issues.
>>873928
>Now we have "conservatives" wanting bigger, more centralized government, and justices who want to use judicial review to re-write laws, and change the existing laws, constantly
What you're describing is right wing progressives. Some call them Neo-Cons, some call them RINOs, but they used to be called Rockefeller Republicans. Modern day genuine conservatives are rare in the Republican party, and of the remaining candidates Cruz would be considered a classic conservative. That's why the Republican Establishment hate him, he actually opposed most of their agenda in the Senate.
>>874214
As opposed to shitlibs who make shit up about the Constitution under the "living document" belief? How about the "emanation from a penumbra?"
Claiming the Founding Fathers weren't classical liberals (i.e. American conservatives or libertarians) is ludicrous.
>>874231
Read this
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/what-is-a-conservative/
>>874244
M I L I T I A
I
L
I
T
I
A
>>874231
That's because everything about American politics has changed since the GOP was founded. Are you suggesting that, because people's opinions and the issues they relate to change over time, there's no such thing as conservatism in America? I just don't understand.
>>874231
>Southern Strategy meme
Many religious folks began voting Republican after the Democrats began to consider religious people pariahs after 1968. Most of the South didn't become strongly Republican until the 1980s or 90s either, and there are a lot of Democrats in office in the Deep South today.
As for the rest of your question, I answered it here:
>>874192
An American conservative is what would be considered a "classical liberal" elsewhere.
>>874261
>no true american conservative
>>874218
Well it's a genetic fallacy and a really dumb one since you can in this very moment look up Kasich stance in this very moment. I'm not Americans so I don't have enough knowledge to judge if he's an American conservative or not.
HOWEVER; I'd argue that one should look at Edmund Burke to see if someone is a conservative or not. Is he a pragmatist? Do he view individuals as people who can help themselves? Do he believe that social progress should advance slow and steady based on people with different ideas having to compromise to now shake the ground the society is built upon? If Kasich would agree then he's probably a conservative.
>>874225
All makes sense now desu.
>>874192
Fair enough, and they do seem to agree on this points, but what of foreign policy? Conservatives at the onset of World War I, especially, were wildly isolationist and advocated high tariffs on foreign goods. Now, when it seems many conservatives want heavy involvement in overseas affairs and are among the biggest proponents of free trade (one of the few bipartisan issues we still have in this country).
Furthermore, as far as "small government" goes - just how small are we talking here? You have libertarians who truly want the federal government to play a incidental role in personal affairs, to theocrats and other social conservatives that seem especially interested in personal affairs.
>>874141
oH, i didn't think it was a conservative one, just that it differs US conservatives from European ones.
>>874244
>Claiming the Founding Fathers weren't classical liberals (i.e. American conservatives or libertarians) is ludicrous
Claiming modern day conservatism is anything like classical liberalism is far more ludicrous.
Even more ludicrous is the meme that all of the Founding Fathers shared the exact same opinion regarding government.
>>874275
I'd like to add that there's a guy on /his/ who wrote a 20 page thesis on Burke and there's been several threads about conservative political philosophy in the past so I know there's people lurking who know their shit.
>>874281
Foreign policy is an area of contention. Some like Ron Paul are strongly isolationist, while many others are in favor of NATO and intervening whenever allies interests are threatened. Much of this stems from the US becoming the main player on the world stage and having a direct hand in the global economy.
Few conservatives are in favor of high tariffs as that's government intervention in the economy.
>>874286
How is the desire for personal and economic freedom and the distrust of strong centralized government NOT the bedrock of Anglo-American conservatism/libertarianism?
I never said the Founding Fathers had the exact same opinions either. However, they tended towards libertarian political opinions.
>>874282
That makes a lot more sense, but as you can see from posters in this thread, there are American conservatives that unironically think free speech is a conservative issue.
>>874235
Agreed. Hence our choice of speeding off the cliff into calamity, or just going kind of quickly off the cliff into calamity.
>>874319
It used to be.
People are shunning it for raiding the treasury.
>>874376
The left constantly destroys free speech. Look at the left towards Ben Shapiro at CSULA. Look at the left towards Trump in Arizona. Look at the left anywhere; they're very loud, and rhyme a lot.
WHAT DO WE WANT?
EVERYTHING!
WHEN DO WE WANT IT?
NOW!
>>874319
>How is the desire for personal and economic freedom and the distrust of strong centralized government NOT the bedrock of Anglo-American conservatism/libertarianism?
I can agree with this statement, but
>I never said the Founding Fathers had the exact same opinions either. However, they tended towards libertarian political opinions.
This is just your own bias showing. The Founding Fathers were only unified in their mutual dislike of the English Monarchy who thought they could impose any act on the colonists without a reaction.
Jefferson and his allies certainly tended towards those positions while Hamilton and his allies did not. It also doesn't explain the really radical (at the time) ideals held by a few American revolutionaries, e.g. Thomas Paine.
The Revolution was led by a disparate group of Americans all with their own personal interests and, most importantly, state interests. The only shared ideal was that they didn't want their government to be controlled by England. Every other issue was hotly contested, with conservative Southern plantation gentry, New York financiers or radical Bostonians all fighting for a piece of the pie.
>>874415
You're ignoring how conservatives have wanted to censor films, video-games and music for almost half a century.
>>874429
how about we just say both parties have elements that do not view freedom of speech favorably.
>>874319
Well, I don't know about that. I mean, Jefferson was a deep admirer of the French Revolutionary ideals (and let's not forget the actions leading up to, and sparking, those events helped coin the term "left-wing") and Hamilton based part of his economic philosophy on creating credit through a large, national debt, amassed and paid off by a strong, central government.
>>873884
Daily reminder that this is not pol and while It has the potential to be his related the first few posts are definitely more pol related.
Daily reminder we have boards for politics.
>>874429
Speech. Actual speech. The actual ability to actually speak my mind, in public.
The left hates this, and tries to kill it.
I'm not talking about what products meet what standards; I'm talking ABOUT ACTUAL SPEECH.
>>874436
100% agree. Both American liberalism and American conservatism are very broad ideologies that house a lot of people so it's bound to be differences. My only objection is that free speech is a core issue for conservatism.
>>874440
Jefferson raped his slaves, kowtowed to muslims, literally invented "separation of church and state" from one letter he wrote to a church. Into the trash he goes!
>>874429
Tipper Gore was a Democrat.
>>874458
> My only objection is that free speech is a core issue for conservatism.
Before you go down this road you have to ask yourself what exactly is "speech" in the first place, let alone free speech.
Considering actions to be "speech" is a very recent development in our nation's history.
>>874436
Yeah, pretty much.
>>874463
The more I read about Jefferson, the hardest he is to "pin down," especially from a political standpoint. A lot of his ideals, especially about states rights and taxation, are the basis of modern conservatives; but at the same time, he was a staunch secularist and all but loathed the Constitution, which is almost scripture to most conservatives.
>>873884
KKK members who took off their robes.
>>874503
And as to actual scripture, let's not forget the Jefferson bible, where he literally cut out all of the pages he didn't like!
>>874054
You mean the Reagan reaction/ American Thermidor
>>874429
Yet you can't give any examples.
>>874416
The Constitution clearly tended towards classical liberalism in its philosophy, regardless.
>>874440
Jefferson was really into the anti-monarchism proclaimed liberty behind the French Revolution, but would later condemn Robespierre for the radical left turn the revolution would take.
https://www.monticello.org/site/research-and-collections/french-revolution
>>874512
KKK were statist Democrats. See Robert Byrd.
>>874503
You have to keep in mind that Jefferson was also severely autisctic.
>Put up the first draft for the declaration of independence
>Delegation needs to edit it
>Sulk in a corner for the rest of the night
>Jefferson is making up bullshit proverbs
>>874149
Is that a bad thing?
I don't understand why everyone hates unions. Yes we've had shitty people in them, but we've had shitty people in big business and government, and we don't hold them to the same standard.
I'd like to be able to unionize if my patron is cheating me. If we have a good working relationship then unions aren't needed, but there are times when that just isn't the case.
American conservatism is some weird psychological phenomenon of white men who feel inferior sexually to minorities and are afraid of having their women stolen.
>>874535
I hate all communism, and unions are communism lite.
>>874455
There's no such as freedom of consequences from speech. It's an common mistake.
>>874538
>somehow supporting pro-freedom policies and nationalism mean you feel sexually inferior to minorities
conservatism isn't an ideology, americans get it all wrong
if it were it would be thousands of years old
>>874524
>Muh Statist meme
Dog whistle politics is yuuuge in the republicans.
>>874528
>It goes away if I deny it enough
Democrats are the good guys in American history
>>874546
I really hate this meme, as it completely misses the point of the American concept of free speech.
>>874143
Go back to /pol/ with your retarded memes son.
>>874538
A FUCKING WHITE MAN
No roastie, conservatism is what most societies have followed throughout history. Lets stay stable, continue our old way of life, etc. You can be against that, but strawman their POV is why we're descending into tribalism
>>874158
>liberals
>wanting to shake up the system
the people that do that are socialists, anarchists, etc.
liberals are right-wingers
>>874575
Ah, you tricked me with that fake (You)!
>>874565
this whole fucking board is fulled with shitty unfunny memes you fucking faggot
This board isn't good and it never will be
get the fuck out
>>874561
>Democrats are the good guys in US history
>Not one southern state voted republican in the 1860 election
Why are you posting on a history board?
>>874575
>Implying paved roads were made by USA Road Service.
>>874602
>uh oh he's calling me out, i-i-i better c-call him a faggot
Yeah the board isn't good because idiots like you pollute it when you're out of your natural habitat. Fuck off back to /pol/.
>>874302
But all are in favor of supporting Israel unconditionally, including Trump.
#feelthebern
>>874564
No it doesn't. You're allowed to use your free speech in response to other people's free speech.
You can say X
Someone else can say they don't agree with X
Someone can say saying X should be banned
It's only when the state actually tries to go through with passing a law that bans X does American free speech start to be infringed.
>>874524
http://www.jjmccullough.com/Nintendo.php
I didn't even read it, I just googled nintendo and censorship.
>>874415
Trump unironically wants to censor the internet and lower the bar for libel.
>>874788
>free speech
>>874564
>>874631
>anything i don't like is /pol/
No wonder why this board sucks.
>>874939
>be from a board with constant shitposting, and posters that constantly shitpost on other boards
>be surprised when people smell the shit stink on your posts
>>874939
You wish you got close enough to pussy to get Cucked.
>>874959
But I don't browse /his/.
>>874969
You are now, fag.
modern Conservatism in its current form is corporate welfare, simply put.
it was founded in the '60s after the great society legislation and was a natural reaction to the social changes.
rich dudes like the kochs looked to legitimaze the idea of no government oversight and regulations by helping found think tanks in DC that turned out conservative "scholars."
that's all. it's a front for corporations to do whatever. everything else is hokum.
American Conservatism as defined by William F. Buckley and his successors is the most pathetic and shallow political ideology that ever existed in the history of mankind. It has absolutely no political victories, no cultural basis, no institutional control over any part of civil society. It is weak and disgusting and it deserves to die.
It could have been different. In the 1960s, the John Birch Society was one of the largest social movements in the United States, but Buckley purged them because he wanted "respectability" with liberals. In the 1990s, Pat Buchanan showed the way that American Conservatism could be renewed with popular support, and then he and his followers were purged because mainstream Conservatism wanted "respectability" with liberals.
You know the worst part? It didn't even work, just look at this thread. No one respects Conservatism, because there is nothing to be respected about a movement composed of actual cuckold fetishists and losers.
The good thing about the whole Trump debacle is that it's killing this whole bullshit movement.
>>874903
When civil society engages in self-censorship, you know you reached the last state in the establishment of totalitarianism.
Read Vaclav Havel's "The Power of the Powerless" and Czeslaw Milosw "The Captive Mind" to see what I'm talking about. Late Soviet government didn't need to arrest anyone for dissent too, because all the institutions it controlled engaged in purging dissidents naturally, it's the same with "anti-racism" in the United States and it's universities and corporations.
>>874939
>Complains about /pol/groms
>while posting /pol/ memes
Get the fuck back to /pol/
seriously there are good voices for conservatism in this thread, your shitty memes just pollute the board.
>>874455
>Speech. Actual speech. The actual ability to actually speak my mind, in public.
How are you going to speak your mind if all of the media has been censored? Media and speech are inseparable.
>The left hates this, and tries to kill it.
Authoritarians hate this, and they exist in large numbers on both sides of the spectrum. The fact that you can't smell the shit in our own stable suggests a ridiculously strong bias. If you don't believe me go to /pol/ and say "we should be tolerant of other people's opinions" We'll see how much they care about freedom of conscience.
>I'm not talking about what products meet what standards; I'm talking ABOUT ACTUAL SPEECH.
Again, speech and media are inseparable. Censorship of media is censorship of speech.
>>875084
Not to mention the whole intellectual shallowness.
Really, it's pathetic, I actually pity them. It's no wonder they are so associated with stupidity, and they can fight back because they are really stupid.
Tell me, who is the great "conservative intellectual"? David Brooks? George Will? These people only speak among themselves. Conservative thought has no impact in academia, and without that, it can't really have any influence in public policy.
>>873884
Since Reagan, the Democratic Party has been generally conservative and the Republicans have been generally reactionary
Obviously, progressive Democrats and conservative Republicans exist, but most GOP politicians are more right-revolutionary than stationary.
I think the real problem with American Conservatism is that the people who were more likely to provide it with a social basis were all expelled to Canada in 1783.
Just look at Europe or even Canada. Conservatism in these countries was always associated with the landed gentry, the old nobility. This origins in feudal relations granted such conservatism a certain "noblesse exige", better seem in the phenomenom of "Red Toryism" in UK and Canada or Gaullism in France.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Tory
Conservatism in the United States is classical liberalism minus empathy and intellectualism.
>>875154
I wish.
>>873960
Don't forget the Orthodox Jews, Cubans, and quasi-fascists
>>875135
Tbqh, conservatives are almost entirely unwelcome in academia. It's not their fault that they're not present in colleges or universities, it's the fault of hardline (social) liberals.
There have been studies that show that most professors in most departments are (socially, not classically) liberal, and that the more liberal they are the more they would reject a conservative hire. So you just need one liberal guy in a department to block all conservatives from coming on board to the department, and within a few years there are no conservatives left and none likely to ever come in.
Over time this has led most colleges to move farther and farther to the left, as groupthink sets in and they drift farther away from the "moderate" center: https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2012/10/24/survey-finds-professors-already-liberal-have-moved-further-left
And the further left they are the more they discriminate against conservatives: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/aug/1/liberal-majority-on-campus-yes-were-biased/?page=all
So the liberal theory that there are no "intellectual" conservatives has been a self-fulfilling prophecy. And then you get Trump; the dumbing down of conservatism will not only hurt Republicans, but (social) liberals as well as they turn to crass forms of politics that still allow them to resist (social) liberals.
So you reap what you sow, I guess.
t. classical liberal
>>873960
The 2 party system in America needs to be shattered. Hopefully trump and sanders will be able to do this, probably they won't.
>>875192
Our government's setup is actually conducive to two-party politics. Most governments like ours develop into two big parties that lock horns every election cycle with tiny little parties getting a few crumbs.
There is likely no escape from American two-party politics, but if you look at Europe's multi-party coalitions then you realize it's not so bad. Multi-party systems are basically like having one big party with a lot of little competitors getting nothing (basically our two party system works out coalitions before we even get to the ballot by sheer necessity), and European party elites are far more entrenched and exercise much more decisive influence in politics than ordinary citizens. In the US we have open primaries, where in Europe most parties decide who runs, where they run (so if you don't like a new radical come to shake things up you can exile them to a province you'd never win), who stays in the party, etc.
The grass is greener over here to be honest.
>>875110
>when I get told I'm an asshole for bing an asshole, but the government won't lift a finger to stop me, that's the REAL tyranny
The idea that someone could unironically believe this astounds me.
>>875219
Your thoughts on a ballot by order of rank as opposed to first past the poll?
>>875191
"oh yea and also conservative hate intellectuals"
maybe that's the bigger factor, no?
>>875479
Do they hate intellectuals, or do they hate people who use the role of the intellectual to act against the good of their own in-group?
>>874939
We actually discuss things here and there are often a great number of varying viewpoints discussed.
/pol/, on the other hand, is filled with kiddies fresh off of /b/ in search of dank memes and shitposting.
>>875487
Stop feeding the troll.
>>875479
Conservatives don't hate 'intellectuals', they hate self-important fucktards. The problem is that there is a lot of cross-over between the two.
>>873884
From the mainstream libertarian sense, it's "leave me the fuck alone."
And this is what I agree with. Infrastructure, defense, sovereignty, free market, and the insurance of the aforementioned with a basic safety net are preferred.
When citizens try to use democracy to overthrow individual rights for "what feels best" seems to be the front of liberalism at this point.
Not to mention fiscal conservatism being the direct opposite of giving government complete control, and let them determine their own financial infrastructure to achieve their financial ends. That just results in corruption as a practice, as opposed to a side effect.
>>875219
It depends heavily on the country. Where I'm from we recently progressed from a basically 2 party system to a multiparty one. Most people prefer it this way. Also PR is better than first past the post in my opinion.
Most of your complaints don't apply to my country, though I'm sure they do in some places, I also understand that the american system is conducive to 2 parties.
>>875449
By order of rank? Do you mean where people rank the candidates they want and then it basically runs a bunch of mini-runoff elections and eliminates candidates who didn't garner a lot of votes?
I don't know too much about that or how that would function.
>>875479
Well because most intellectuals have been social liberals, because they've dominated academia for so long, I'd say this is putting the cart before the horse.
>>875686
Is that Australia you're talking about, perchance? And is PR the same thing the other poster was talking about, ranking candidates in an election?
>>874455
>Speech. Actual speech. The actual ability to actually speak my mind, in public.
Freedom of speech have never been restricted to only mean actual speech but include other mediums such as books or pictures. I don't know where anyone have claimed otherwise. It seems silly that someone would be jailed for blogging about their goverment and later told that they should have said it instead because blogging isn't included in freedom of speech.
And saying the 'left' hates it is simply false due to being a shitty oversimplification.
>>874524
>Yet you can't give any examples.
It seems strange that I'd have to give any. Best example from the top of my head is pictures and art being censored due to obscenity and pornographic content, regulated by the US Obscenity laws. But there's plenty.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pornography-censorship/#ConArgForCen
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/28/dunkin-donuts-pulls-ad-fe_n_103859.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A64548-2005Mar1.html
>>874484
'Speech' would include any sort of opinion or message being spread trough a medium such as book and 4chan posts. The most abstract and far-fetched example would be art installations but I'm not sure I'd be ready to defend it as being part of free speech. By free I mean free from government intervention.
>>874416
>Jefferson v Hamilton dichotomy
Dude, while it was a good musical, Hamilton is not exactly the best place to get historical data from.
it's multinationalism with a paint job ever since there was no gommunism boogeyman to hold it together
In effect?
More or less slow-motion progressiveism.
>>876458
>Is that Australia you're talking about, perchance?
Ireland
>And is PR the same thing the other poster was talking about, ranking candidates in an election?
Yeah. It stands for proportional representation.
>>876495
The goal of the left is to shut down debate, to shut down free speech, to choke off all dissent, and to rule with an iron fist. It has always been this way.
We analogize many things from the 18th century today; a blog would be a letter, and a letter would be free speech. And yet, the left crucifies people for things they blog about. Constantly.
>>877875
> dry as fuck strawman
You can say whatever you pol scum but you should be prepared to defend your ideas logically instead of running crying to the government you hate so much you baby bitch
>>873884
This annotated bibliography has tons of literature on the subject:
20th century american conservatism
http://pastebin.com/i66wz2E4
the ideal
>proud protectors of the constitution, small government and the tenets of classical liberalism
the all too common reality
>rabid imperialism, egregious racism, clinging to the right to bear arms but shitting on the rest of the constitution, huge overwhelming government
most of the others are no better
>>874128
What demographic are you a part of?
>>877875
you're an actual child 2bh.
>>873954
>Also, in this context, where do actual American Conservatives stand on foreign policy. Are they "bomb 'em all and let God sort 'em out" kind, ensuring American dominance, or are they, mostly, non-interventionists, that see the price tag that goes along with war and the subsequent clean-up? Conservatism can't really seem to make up its mind about this, it seems.
Neoconservatives want to bomb them all (but, y'know, win their hearts and minds too)
Paleoconservatives are mostly noninterventionist.
>>877938
You should stop running to government when someone hurts your feelings.
The American right probably has 4 or 5 sects, and an individual in any given sect may well claim to be a conservative.
I am not sure what it means at this point.
Traditionally, before any tea party or christ shit, it means small government, let markets work when markets work, federalist approach to as many policies as possible (esp. re: social issues), big stick foreign policy, and that sort of thing.
>>880175
Constrasted to big government, government can be a force for good in a way that markets cannot, antifederalist approach to most policy, FP doves, that stuff.
>>873884
>you live in an era where liberals are called "conservatives", socialists " liberals", and conservativism is dead.
I want off.
>>880830
Libertarian here. Come hang out on my weed field defended with my guns.
>>880830
>you live in an era
You live in a place that does that. Anglo-saxon political terms dont make much sense anymore.
>>880830
not an era, a country
a country called united states of america
>>874235
They hate Cruz partially because of his views, but I think mostly because he didn't "pay his dues" as a freshman Senator.
>"Conservatives"
>literally the only one who doesn't want to give 11 to 30 million foreign criminals free citizenship is the Populist Nationalist all big names hate
So what are they conserving exactly?
Because it sure isn't the nation or the state of life of previous generations.
>>876495
>'Speech' would include any sort of opinion or message being spread trough a medium such as book and 4chan posts.
That's freedom of the press, not freedom of speech.
>>880944
You should really be my enemy but the current situation necessitates friendship. ;_;
>>876495
The Dunkin Donuts had nothing to do with censorship, it was private citizens complaining about the company apparently giving aid to a political cause they disagreed with.
Ted Stevens wasn't exactly a conservative, the guy had a thing for big government.
The pornography controversy stems from the belief that it is intrinsically damaging to society rather than "I don't like it/it makes my political party look bad, therefore it should be banned." The former can be defensible in certain cases, the latter cannot.
Not much.
But there isn't a lot to expect. America is a whig nation. We were founded on liberal ideals and will continue to flourish on those liberal values. If you mention cutting SS/Defense, people lose their shit and you then have 0 chance of getting elected.
American Conservatism is dead.
Also tbqh British Conservatism (read Tory/High Tory) is much better.
>>874415
> Like 50 people are protesting and using their words to basically no avail
> Trump actually wants to censor the internet and lower libel restrictions so that protesters can't say mean things
> Somehow the screaming banshees are the worst violators of the first amendment
Christ, in America the brand of SJW that wants to restrict language isn't even that prevalent in daily life. Just because they get a few speeches in and have big YouTube channels doesn't make them an existential threat to free speech. Trump is.
