News: Registration requires "verification" before you are allowed to post.  Be sure to check your "spam" folder to make sure that you receive the verification link.  The e-mail should come from "Onnidan Fan Forum" with the return address -> staff@onnidan.com.

Author Topic: Y,Oldsport,Uchi. A discussion on conservatism  (Read 2567 times)

Offline Neymar

  • Assistant GM
  • *****
  • Posts: 12,398
  • Karma: +106/-1390
  • Forum Administrator
    • View Profile
Y,Oldsport,Uchi. A discussion on conservatism
« on: July 30, 2013, 06:29:59 PM »
I think this would be an interesting thread for discussing conservatism as a political, and social, belief system.

Oldsport mentioned in another thread of how he agreed with me on the fact that the republican party today is a pretty poor representation of conservatism.

I had an article published in the new statesman in 2003(Barely even a teen...Westminster had us hardcore at school :lol:) talking about conservative beliefs on government, and the role of the military as an act of globalization in the 21st century. The role of the government, as the largest power of the government, from my research showed Reagan's heavy funding as the bench mark for how conservatives(or even neo-Conservatives as Reaganites have shown themselves to be) view their government.

I'd like to ask you three how do you reconcile your belief(as conservatives) for smaller government with increased or even the need for a large military complex? This century how would you like the US government to look? :)


To Kill a Mockingbird

Offline Bison66

  • Assistant GM
  • *****
  • Posts: 24,647
  • Karma: +122/-77
  • What I discovered about my Ancestor was AMAZING!
    • View Profile
    • CLANDESTINE - The Book
Re: Y,Oldsport,Uchi. A discussion on conservatism
« Reply #1 on: July 31, 2013, 06:27:53 AM »
Neymar,

Good luck with this one.

Those three are incapable of that kind of nuanced thinking.  Regurgitation, yes.  Original, logical, fact-based discussion - NO.

Why not post your essay from 2003?  Sounds interesting.
O0

Offline oldsport

  • Assistant GM
  • *****
  • Posts: 33,838
  • Karma: +38/-686
    • View Profile
Re: Y,Oldsport,Uchi. A discussion on conservatism
« Reply #2 on: July 31, 2013, 08:26:12 AM »
I think this would be an interesting thread for discussing conservatism as a political, and social, belief system.

Oldsport mentioned in another thread of how he agreed with me on the fact that the republican party today is a pretty poor representation of conservatism.

I had an article published in the new statesman in 2003(Barely even a teen...Westminster had us hardcore at school :lol:) talking about conservative beliefs on government, and the role of the military as an act of globalization in the 21st century. The role of the government, as the largest power of the government, from my research showed Reagan's heavy funding as the bench mark for how conservatives(or even neo-Conservatives as Reaganites have shown themselves to be) view their government.

I'd like to ask you three how do you reconcile your belief(as conservatives) for smaller government with increased or even the need for a large military complex? This century how would you like the US government to look? :)

I believe our military should be capable of meeting threats. The size and composition (weapons systems) of our military will be dictated by whatever threat they have to defeat to maintain the security of this nation.

I believe the US government is overextended with respect to it's constitution design (i.e. department of education etc.). The size and scope of US government should be in line with the enumerated powers the constitution directs.

Offline y04185

  • Assistant GM
  • *****
  • Posts: 71,258
  • Karma: +84/-1127
  • Assistant GM
    • View Profile
Re: Y,Oldsport,Uchi. A discussion on conservatism
« Reply #3 on: July 31, 2013, 08:58:21 AM »
I think this would be an interesting thread for discussing conservatism as a political, and social, belief system.

Oldsport mentioned in another thread of how he agreed with me on the fact that the republican party today is a pretty poor representation of conservatism.

I had an article published in the new statesman in 2003(Barely even a teen...Westminster had us hardcore at school :lol:) talking about conservative beliefs on government, and the role of the military as an act of globalization in the 21st century. The role of the government, as the largest power of the government, from my research showed Reagan's heavy funding as the bench mark for how conservatives(or even neo-Conservatives as Reaganites have shown themselves to be) view their government.

I'd like to ask you three how do you reconcile your belief(as conservatives) for smaller government with increased or even the need for a large military complex? This century how would you like the US government to look? :)

Q:  I'd like to ask you three how do you reconcile your belief(as conservatives) for smaller government with increased or even the need for a large military complex?

A:  Historically this country has had a military that was too small to defend us.  Look at the War of 1812, The Civil War, The Spanish-American War, WW1, WW2, The Korean Conflict, Vietnam, the Persian Gulf, and even the War on Terror.  With the Persian Gulf we had to heavily depend on reservists and the National Guard.  We had to have a draft in most of the other wars because we were not prepared militarily. 

We can have a small government and a military large enough to defend us. 

Q.  This century how would you like the US government to look?

A.  The legislative side of government needs to stop being so partisan and work for the good of the country.  If you are for something it should not matter if someone from another party says they are for the same thing you are.  It makes no sense.  All Republicans are not conservative.  All democrats are not liberal.  There are conservative democrats. 

We can not be the world police.  We also can not sit idly by when injustices are done throughout the world.  It's a fine line to walk.  We haven't been perfect.  I believe we have done a good job. 

On the judicial side we need to stop narrowing the nominees for the Supreme Court to judges.  Judges aren't the only ones who are qualified to be on the Supreme Court.  Look at how we select Supreme Court justices.  The president nominates someone.  The president is not required to be a judge.  The Senate confirms the nomination.  Senators aren't required to be a judge.  Yet, they believe only judges should be nominated.  If you find someone with sound judgment, that is fair minded, and will be able to decide cases on the merits.  Not on a political ideology. 

The executive has to always show strength.  Take the current president.  He has consistently signed the order to kill the No. 2 Al Qaeda person.  He took out Bin Laden with intel from 2007.  We don't need a perceived pushover in the Oval Office.  We also don't need a bully either. 

Fayetteville State by choice. Bronco by the Grace of GOD.

Offline Neymar

  • Assistant GM
  • *****
  • Posts: 12,398
  • Karma: +106/-1390
  • Forum Administrator
    • View Profile
Re: Y,Oldsport,Uchi. A discussion on conservatism
« Reply #4 on: July 31, 2013, 11:22:32 AM »
I think this would be an interesting thread for discussing conservatism as a political, and social, belief system.

Oldsport mentioned in another thread of how he agreed with me on the fact that the republican party today is a pretty poor representation of conservatism.

I had an article published in the new statesman in 2003(Barely even a teen...Westminster had us hardcore at school :lol:) talking about conservative beliefs on government, and the role of the military as an act of globalization in the 21st century. The role of the government, as the largest power of the government, from my research showed Reagan's heavy funding as the bench mark for how conservatives(or even neo-Conservatives as Reaganites have shown themselves to be) view their government.

I'd like to ask you three how do you reconcile your belief(as conservatives) for smaller government with increased or even the need for a large military complex? This century how would you like the US government to look? :)

I believe our military should be capable of meeting threats. The size and composition (weapons systems) of our military will be dictated by whatever threat they have to defeat to maintain the security of this nation.

I believe the US government is overextended with respect to it's constitution design (i.e. department of education etc.). The size and scope of US government should be in line with the enumerated powers the constitution directs.

Very Interesting.

That example, the department of education, raises a great question on standards. Who sets the standard then if not the government?

It seems government regulations have come into place to steady, for lack of a better term, the ship in terms of quality in things such as food and agriculture(USDA), Aviation safety(FAA), or even such basic things as infrastructure(USDOT). If such things are not present who establishes the standard of safety, and who builds. I'm sure the latter is answered by small businesses, but what about the former?


To Kill a Mockingbird

Offline Neymar

  • Assistant GM
  • *****
  • Posts: 12,398
  • Karma: +106/-1390
  • Forum Administrator
    • View Profile
Re: Y,Oldsport,Uchi. A discussion on conservatism
« Reply #5 on: July 31, 2013, 11:35:57 AM »
I think this would be an interesting thread for discussing conservatism as a political, and social, belief system.

Oldsport mentioned in another thread of how he agreed with me on the fact that the republican party today is a pretty poor representation of conservatism.

I had an article published in the new statesman in 2003(Barely even a teen...Westminster had us hardcore at school :lol:) talking about conservative beliefs on government, and the role of the military as an act of globalization in the 21st century. The role of the government, as the largest power of the government, from my research showed Reagan's heavy funding as the bench mark for how conservatives(or even neo-Conservatives as Reaganites have shown themselves to be) view their government.

I'd like to ask you three how do you reconcile your belief(as conservatives) for smaller government with increased or even the need for a large military complex? This century how would you like the US government to look? :)

Q:  I'd like to ask you three how do you reconcile your belief(as conservatives) for smaller government with increased or even the need for a large military complex?

A:  Historically this country has had a military that was too small to defend us.  Look at the War of 1812, The Civil War, The Spanish-American War, WW1, WW2, The Korean Conflict, Vietnam, the Persian Gulf, and even the War on Terror.  With the Persian Gulf we had to heavily depend on reservists and the National Guard.  We had to have a draft in most of the other wars because we were not prepared militarily. 

We can have a small government and a military large enough to defend us. 

Q.  This century how would you like the US government to look?

A.  The legislative side of government needs to stop being so partisan and work for the good of the country.  If you are for something it should not matter if someone from another party says they are for the same thing you are.  It makes no sense.  All Republicans are not conservative.  All democrats are not liberal.  There are conservative democrats. 

We can not be the world police.  We also can not sit idly by when injustices are done throughout the world.  It's a fine line to walk.  We haven't been perfect.  I believe we have done a good job. 

On the judicial side we need to stop narrowing the nominees for the Supreme Court to judges.  Judges aren't the only ones who are qualified to be on the Supreme Court.  Look at how we select Supreme Court justices.  The president nominates someone.  The president is not required to be a judge.  The Senate confirms the nomination.  Senators aren't required to be a judge.  Yet, they believe only judges should be nominated.  If you find someone with sound judgment, that is fair minded, and will be able to decide cases on the merits.  Not on a political ideology. 

The executive has to always show strength.  Take the current president.  He has consistently signed the order to kill the No. 2 Al Qaeda person.  He took out Bin Laden with intel from 2007.  We don't need a perceived pushover in the Oval Office.  We also don't need a bully either. 



These are very interesting statements Y, and for the most part fundamentally sound.

I do think the Supreme court might be a rather weak point. The justices, from what I gather of them, are there to be the fundamental voice of the United States legally. One can only get there by going to the best schools the US has to offer legally, and having the best teachers. These people are, for the most part, functionally the voice of our society. They should come from the best law schools, and they all do.

I do think lifetime appointments should be done away with though. Many become out of touch with the actual people they represent, which is also why I feel term limits should be put in place for the house. This would also help do away with the partisan side because there would less time for people to be there.

I think, to save itself, conservatism in the United States would do well enough in distancing themselves from the republican party and creating a new party which stands and supports it's ideals. I personally can never see a Mitt Romney or Rick Perry type ever winning a major election, but I can see a Jon Huntsman or Chris Christie winning and being marketable.

I dont necessarily believe Conservatism HAS to be synonymous with the bigotry and jingoism the republican party has devolved to....would you agree?


To Kill a Mockingbird

Offline y04185

  • Assistant GM
  • *****
  • Posts: 71,258
  • Karma: +84/-1127
  • Assistant GM
    • View Profile
Re: Y,Oldsport,Uchi. A discussion on conservatism
« Reply #6 on: July 31, 2013, 01:06:11 PM »
Neymar, going to the 'best' schools has nothing to do with being on the Supreme Court.  That is an elitist position to believe that.  There were non-judges that decided the Brown vs The Board of Education.  It is less likely to predict how the court will decide when you have non-judges.  For most of the cases you can pretty much predict how they will decide.  Mainly because the judges will not vary in their positions. 

One more thing on the government.  The U.S. Government has to stop the racist immigration practices.  In the 1800s when the Europeans came over in droves the government built processing centers.  The most famous being Ellis Island.  They were processed and they entered the country.

When brown skinned immigrants come to this country today the government puts up a fence.  The country needs to build processing centers similar to the Ellis Islands and have the immigrants go there.  They will be processed and allowed to enter the country.  Somebody needs to tell those people who want a fence the amount of people the Great Wall of China kept out.
Fayetteville State by choice. Bronco by the Grace of GOD.

Offline uchighlander

  • Assistant GM
  • *****
  • Posts: 6,308
  • Karma: +0/-1
    • View Profile
Re: Y,Oldsport,Uchi. A discussion on conservatism
« Reply #7 on: July 31, 2013, 02:03:36 PM »
I'm basically on board with Y and OS. I think educational standards should be set at the local level....the feds should never be involved unless a fed law is broken. People at the local level know what's needed in their schools a lot more than DC does.....that's why we have school boards. GO VIKINGS!!!

Offline oldsport

  • Assistant GM
  • *****
  • Posts: 33,838
  • Karma: +38/-686
    • View Profile
Re: Y,Oldsport,Uchi. A discussion on conservatism
« Reply #8 on: July 31, 2013, 02:06:38 PM »
I'm basically on board with Y and OS. I think educational standards should be set at the local level....the feds should never be involved unless a fed law is broken. People at the local level know what's needed in their schools a lot more than DC does.....that's why we have school boards. GO VIKINGS!!!

 :nod: :nod: :nod: :nod: :nod: :nod:

Offline y04185

  • Assistant GM
  • *****
  • Posts: 71,258
  • Karma: +84/-1127
  • Assistant GM
    • View Profile
Re: Y,Oldsport,Uchi. A discussion on conservatism
« Reply #9 on: July 31, 2013, 07:03:59 PM »
I'm basically on board with Y and OS. I think educational standards should be set at the local level....the feds should never be involved unless a fed law is broken. People at the local level know what's needed in their schools a lot more than DC does.....that's why we have school boards. GO VIKINGS!!!

 :clap: :clap: :clap:
Fayetteville State by choice. Bronco by the Grace of GOD.

Offline Bison66

  • Assistant GM
  • *****
  • Posts: 24,647
  • Karma: +122/-77
  • What I discovered about my Ancestor was AMAZING!
    • View Profile
    • CLANDESTINE - The Book
Re: Y,Oldsport,Uchi. A discussion on conservatism
« Reply #10 on: July 31, 2013, 10:52:24 PM »
I think the broader questions that Neymar raised are more interesting, but....

Quote
....the feds should never be involved unless a fed law is broken.

I gather that No Child Left Behind would be such a fed law? ? ?
O0

Offline oldsport

  • Assistant GM
  • *****
  • Posts: 33,838
  • Karma: +38/-686
    • View Profile
Re: Y,Oldsport,Uchi. A discussion on conservatism
« Reply #11 on: August 01, 2013, 09:09:19 AM »
I think the broader questions that Neymar raised are more interesting, but....

Quote
....the feds should never be involved unless a fed law is broken.

I gather that No Child Left Behind would be such a fed law? ? ?
O0

I was not a supporter of No Child Left Behind.

Offline y04185

  • Assistant GM
  • *****
  • Posts: 71,258
  • Karma: +84/-1127
  • Assistant GM
    • View Profile
Re: Y,Oldsport,Uchi. A discussion on conservatism
« Reply #12 on: August 01, 2013, 10:00:14 AM »
No Child Left Behind wasn't even good on paper.
Fayetteville State by choice. Bronco by the Grace of GOD.

Offline uchighlander

  • Assistant GM
  • *****
  • Posts: 6,308
  • Karma: +0/-1
    • View Profile
Re: Y,Oldsport,Uchi. A discussion on conservatism
« Reply #13 on: August 01, 2013, 10:19:09 AM »
No Child Left Behind wasn't even good on paper.
Kinda like Obamacare. :lmao: GO VIKINGS!!!

Offline Neymar

  • Assistant GM
  • *****
  • Posts: 12,398
  • Karma: +106/-1390
  • Forum Administrator
    • View Profile
Re: Y,Oldsport,Uchi. A discussion on conservatism
« Reply #14 on: August 01, 2013, 10:49:03 AM »
Wouldnt letting states set up the education requirement promote inequality?

Surely more educated states would have higher standards, thus they would become more advanced.

This has already happened though, so I guess keeping the federal government out of schooling would be a rather fair concession.

What about other federal  agencies? Like TSA?


To Kill a Mockingbird

 

 

2019 Onnidan HBCU Composite Football Schedule

 

Powered by EzPortal