Originally Posted by AjaxPress

The ultimate problem with conservatism, at least in America, is that what's espoused is often in direct contrast to behavior. Take for example the primary mantra of conservatives: shrinking the size of the government.

Yet in practice conservatives have never shrunken the size of the government. What conservatives have done and what Chinese communists have done in that regard is disturbingly similar. They have but one aim and that is to strengthen the power of the central government.

So the problem isn't the definition of how the phrase "conservative" is used. The problem is that those who would subscribe to conservatism are so corrupt morally and intellectually that once they have a shred of power, they will stop and nothing to increase and maintain their own power, even if it involves discarding their own so called stated beliefs. But this isn't a problem in just the U.S.

In my first reply in this thread I pointed out that the only constant worldwide regarding conservatism is that one must be a hypocrite to be conservative. This is because no matter where you go in the world conservatives are saying people need to do one thing but then contradict their own words by their actions.

Originally Posted by AjaxPress

And yet, conservatives cheered and applauded for the passing of the PATRIOT ACT. If conservatives had a hint of integrity they would have fought to prevent the passing of this abomination. This is why I hold most conservatives with utmost contempt: they preach about how people should act one way but act in a contradictory manner to their own words.

Originally Posted by Steerpike

As has been pointed out, "small government" is from classic liberalism. So there is no contradiction in a conservative supporting big government.



Consider the historic position of conservatives and individual rights. It was liberal philosphers of the enlightenment who brought out the intellectual basis for individual rights. The conservative position at the time would be "divine right of kings." "Divine right of kings" - the conservative position has no problem with absolute power being vested in government.

Just because someone claims they are something doesn't mean that they are.

A person's views which fall under a specific definition demonstrate what they are despite claims to the contrary.

Originally Posted by Swoop187

Do you know what generalization means?

If there is a group of 100 people and 51 of them are black it would be appropriate for someone to call the ENTIRE group black...

Originally Posted by AjaxPress

What you're saying is absolutely correct.

I rarely us the classical definition of "liberal" in my discussions because it's not often referenced.

Originally Posted by drgoodtrips

Good to see you back around after some time, my friend.