How do I discovered conspiracy

American "Liberalism" we know well and neo-conservatism(aka Bushism) took shape at about same time and now these two faux ideologies are establishing foothold over their real counterparts. I find this disturbing. Infact VERY disturbing, since two parties are for big goverment and share views on many issues that are needed to establish police state. Only real differences are on economical(but not so much and they don't matter in creation of police state) and on moral issues which are insignificant to goverment. Is this conspiracy? Was Neo-conservatism and American "liberalism" created to lure both right and left voters to advance some greater hidden agenda?

>>1
Well, to Bush's credit, he appointed Bolton (anti-U.N., pro-gun guy as ambassador to the U.N.), though I agree, there is definitely something in the air. 

No matter who got elected in 04, freedom would lose out.  We lose essential liberty either way.  With Bush in office, we might stand a better chance of keeping our guns (absolutely ESSENTIAL right that is non-negotiable), but we also get the patriot act with it.   

Unfortunately, voting for the main two parties (dem or repub) is like a value meal.  You get a little of what you want, and your candidate is likely to get elected, but there's more than likely something (or several somethings) you won't like in the bag as well. 

I disagree with you on economic liberty.  Economic liberty is essential in the preservation of individuality and freedom, and in the deterrance of a police state.  It is because people didn't have rights to the products of their own work that Stalin was able to starve entire bodies of people for speaking out or resisting his oppressive rule (ex. the Ukraine famine).  Keep in mind, in a Capitalist system with full private property rights, this could never have happened, all those millions would still live today, and Stalin would never have had the right to confiscate their property and violate their right to property in the name of the state. 

However, I see a divergence in conservatives today.  Some seem to truly favor property rights (in a philosophical, principled manner) while others seem to be just corporate whores.  In other words, I see a big difference between your average "pro-business" republican, and your average "pro-property rights" libertarian or constitutionalist.  Yeah, if you have property rights, business will naturally follow, but it seems like Republicans today tend to support the business aspect, but neglect the philosophical importance of real property rights, individual liberty, and an INDIVIDUAL'S RIGHT to property.

Keep in mind why property rights are so important.  With property rights, all other rights follow.  If you have no right to private property, you obviously can't _PRIVATELY OWN_ a firearm.  If you have no right to property, you don't own your own body, the state does (this means they can regulate things like abortion, or assisted suicide, since the state owns your body, not you.  Important note:  it also means the state can send you to war against your wishes... the draft.)  See where this is going? Essentially, property rights are at the core of  all individualism, and to violate them invites a whole host of other violations of individualism.  Laws that restrict private property rights and private ownership in general are detrimental to liberty.  This applies to drugs too.  The drug war is essentially the state telling you what can, and what can't be legal property, just like the state telling you you can own this firearm, but not that one, or this semi auto, but not that auto.  It all stems from the same thing - lack of respect for property rights. 

Think of property rights as the base of the structure known as human rights.  If it is rotting, the whole structure will lose integrity, and eventually come falling down. 

>>1
WOW THAT'S AN ENTIRELY NEW IDEA

HI2U!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treehouse_of_Horror_VII

>>2
Yeah, ofcourse I support private property rights and know that free society can't exist with them, but it's not only liberals who are socializing property. It's neo-con republicans too. Not too long ago bill was passed that goverment could steal your land to build their stuff on it. That wasn't by liberals to my knowledge.

>>1
The jist of the idea is to look for ways toget people to ignore the truth and yes, the human mind is that malleable.
Extremists first take a seemingly honourable cause, anything, but they tend to shy away from causes which are inherantly pro-free speech and pro-criticism due to their inherant truth-loving nature. Then they just go around whipping up people who are emotional about something into a paranoid frenzy, most notably racism.

Extremists will at this point immediately claim I am secretly racist and trying to justify racism, I oppose racism, but I also oppose 'positive' discrimination and it's broad heavy handed attempts to upgrade unrelated demographics at the expense of other demographics and meritocracy. You get rid of racism by getting rid of discrimination, not with a witch hunt.

At this point the other side of the specturm will show up and irrationally support my argumkent, then add something of their own which is blatantly racist. They are essentially applying that same method again, it's the first thing they do because they are well practiced at it. Take something good and true and mix it up with stupid bullshit and call anyone who disagree with the stupid bullshit and opponent of the good and true. Well I oppose racism and I oppose 'positive' discrimination and I can distinguish between the 2 because I am intelligent and no amount of threatenning or paranoia will get me to change my mind. If you pull a gun to my head I will say what you want, but you can't get me to chagne my mind. You're only chance is to kill all the intelligent people like Pol Pot did.

"At this point the other side of the specturm will show up and irrationally support my argumkent"
By this I meant that they support it with an irrational level of vigour. So they will be all like OMG SO TRUE LOLZ U R SO SMART OMG U R MY GOD NOW I LOVE YOU OMG

Not that my argument is irrational..

lol...

>>5 Not to mention all the government forfeiture of potsmoker property. Fuck conservatism. Fuck the socialists too. I may be on the left when it comes to Europe but when it comes to the US (and maybe CA) I am not so sure. I mean, Lay off Wal-Mart and Israel you passive-aggresive pacifist fucktards! You allowed a sub-idiotic evangelical and his cohorts to steal the country from the HALF of it that still likes you and you still fuss over Medicare (unsustainable) while you dare to AGREE with those creeps when they lambast Soc. Sec. (perfectly sustainable, but the neo-cons try to act like it's a time-bomb, while denying global warming). How a bunch of homophobes can actually be a political factor in the "freest country on earth" is beyond me.

>>8
Something in US gone terribly wrong after WW2. I wonder what the hell happened. Thinking about it makes me think conspiracy like OP. I mean how can country that's based on classical liberal values suddenly shift so much? I don't see it occuring really before WW2.

>>8
Why "fuck conservatism"? While I do not agree with everything said on the conservative side of things, I am certainly happy that conservatives are there to defend many things I like from the onslaught of the democrats, such as the 2nd amendment. 

The democrats favor drug control policies as well.  I do not know why you keep attributing this solely to the right.  The libertarians could be seen as right wing, and conservative, and they support legalization. 

Stop bashing Republicans over the drug issue.  The democrats are largely no better, not to mention all the Republican-libertarians with a more or less libertarian outlook on things, that are really more pro-legalization than your average democrat anyway.

>>5
You are talking about "eminent domain", right? If so, yes, I agree, it is disgusting.  However, more Republicans are opposed to these violations than democrats, and libertarians in general are opposed to them. 

This just exemplifies what I said earlier that Republicans, while they support the business aspect of property rights, neglect its philosophical side. 

>>9
Military-industrial-complex.

>>10
When Xel speaks about conservatives he means neo-cons not traditional American conservatives.

>>11
So in the end core problem are cities as I guessed. When country is just composed of towns and countryside things run fine, but when big cities and industry comes into play it gets fucked up. I'm not anti-technology by any means, but lately I have been becoming quite anti-industrial and anti-city. I mean things run better without that crap. Now there is problem that you can't make them go away. Small workshops eventually become industries, small shops become Wal-Marts and small towns evolve into cities. Trying to stop process is more harmful than allowing it to continue and in the end stopping it is impossible. That isn't core of proble, but what that process does to people is. Living in apartment is downright unhealthy mentally IMO and poverty is always badder problem when there's more people. I wonder will it be ever fixed. Maybe sometime.

>>12
Then he should say "fuck neo-conservatives", not "fuck conservatives". 

>>14 Yes I should. Have. I don't like the ideological basis of the conservatives either, and consider them to be on par with socialists.

>>15
Real conservatives are far better than Socialists.  I'd be more than happy to see one of the variety I have in mind (such as those from the Constitution Party) get elected in 08. 

>>16
Spoiler: your job would still go to China.

>>17
Depends on the conservative.

>>18
Otherwise you'd have a hard time competing with those who do ship their jobs there.

>>19
http://www.constitutionparty.com/party_platform.php#Tariffs%20and%20Trade

You would have your job. 

>>17
Regardless of who you vote your job will go to china. We need "nuke china" party.

>>20
Tarrifs will make you uncompetetive. They'll only hurt in the long run. It has been tried before and didn't work.

Also, from that page:

"The Constitution Party gratefully acknowledges the blessing of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ as Creator, Preserver and Ruler of the Universe and of these United States."

Uhh... okay.

>>22
Founders of US were Christian believe it or not. They thought freedom and liberty described in our constitution were god given rights and shouldn't be infringed. Ban-crazy Christians are quite new thing actually.

>>23
>Founders of US were Christian believe it or not.

People believed that Earth was flat once believe it or not.

>They thought freedom and liberty described in our constitution were god given rights and shouldn't be infringed.

Because it's important that they're god given and we can't just say we defend those rights because they make sense.

>>22
You know, you are right, because it's more important to keep Christians out of the white house (even if they have sound policy) than it is to have a sound economy, a decent job, food for your family, the right to protect yourself, your home, your family, and your property, right?

In other words, forget that their ideas could actually help us, they are Christians, so we had better not vote for them..

>>25
I'm afraid they'll have many other funny Christian ideas in their backpack besides their medieval economic policy.

>>26
They did something right, or there would be no America. Whether they're relevant now, however is a different issue. Point is they sometimes have good ideas.

>>26
They don't. Wonder why they're called CONSTITUTION party? They support constitution as WHOLE. Something that only Libertarian party besides them does to my knowledge(there maybe some minor parties who support it).

>>26
I see.  So the notion that humans have individual rights, such as the right to property is 'medieval'.

One way to start is to go to spp.gov and see where it starts.  At the top, from our president on down.

P.S.  Security and Prosperity Partnership = spp.gov

.gov is an official government website, so it is produced by the goverment.  So if this states corruption, that is the government stating its govermnet is corrupt.

>>28
Just following the constitution still leaves you with a lot of freedom to run the country as you want. Also, the constitution has to be interpreted sometimes. See Roe v. Wade. Think the Xtians would object?

>>27
America's existence doesn't have anything to do with Christianity. (if anything, Christians objected to America's existence because the Earth is flat LOL)

>>29
What does that have to do with Christianity?

>>31

"What does that have to do with Christianity?"

Why does it have to relate to Christianity? Some poster had critisized a more or less conservative economic policy, and I had simply made a sarcastic remark to show that I disagreed..

>>32
No, he criticized the Christian orientation of that political party.

Remember how many God Bless America signs/cakes there were after 9/11?

>>33
And he also critisized their economic policy, which is why I made the comment. 

>>31
Wrong, it leaves people with freedom to govern their own lives, not the government. Leave your liberal "THE GOVENRMENT MUST DO EVERYTHING FOR PEOPLE OR THEY WILL BE MEAN TO EACH OTHER" mentality deep inside your rectum where you found it.

>>36
I really can't make sense of your post. What part of it were you replying to?

>>37
The first sentence.

Stupid liberals.  Even the liberals usually don't like what the government is doing.  Why then would they want to increase it's funding and expand it's power?

>>1
All the more reason to support the libertarian party. 

>>40
What if I really want to vote libertarian, but decide to vote for the nazi party?

>>41
Your choice.  Oh well.

>>42
But why would I vote for the communist party if I want to vote libertarian?

>>43
I never said you did, or would.

>>44
I know, I said I did, so why would I vote for the green party if I want to vote libertarian?

bc ur a fagget