Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tejek who wrote (141828)	1/17/2002 6:42:16 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 1585119

Tim, its bad by your standards not by mine. Bad by the relatively objective standards that it is too simplistic to adequately describe a huge category or complex and widely varying ideas. Hitler, who most likely shared the same values as an early twentieth century Gingrich and started from the same base as that conservative, had those values stretched and distorted by his psychosis. But his initial philosphy came from conservative roots and not liberal. No the values themselves are different and in a number of cases diametrically opposed. n a sense, but only because his aims became distorted and taken to an extreme. For an example, he wanted the German population to return to its ethnic purity. The American conservative of that time shared to some degree that same view...whites should marry whites, Jews should marry Jews etc. The idea itself was not conservative by your definition. What was conservative was the idea that we should not change this way of living (marrying people who are of a similar ethnic group) without good reason. There is nothing inherently conservative about such limitations on who you would marry. Only the resistance to change the norm. (and even that only be one definition of conservative). Hitler did not take the idea of resistance to change a bit further he imposed massive change instead. It was at the time of Hitler.........American conservatives may not have used the term genetic but they meant the same thing. In the past Americans in general where more racist. There was nothing specifically conservative about it. In the various examples we have talked about conservatism can be defined as resistace to change (which would not make it a coherent political philosophy at all, and would mean that many liberals are conservatives), or it can be taken to mean the main stream thoughts of either the Republican Party today (perhaps with emphasis on what separates them from the Democrats) in which case you again have no connection to Hitler. Or it can mean the actions of those who at any time and in any place called considered themselves to be conservative in which case you have an even less coherent meaning then by defining conservatives as those who respect tradition and resist change. Or you could try to come up with another definition if you want. I am comparing the 1930's American conservative with Hitler. Can you expand on the idea of "the 1930's American conservative"? I don't think most new dealers would have supported the idea of mixed race marriages so it can't be anything about race or where they conservative too (in which case who wasn't?). Maybe it could be defined as being against the expansion of the federal government by FDRs new deal programs. In this case conservatives would be a minority at the time, overwhelmed by the power of FDRs supporters but then Hitler also believe in centralizing power. Liberalism moves us forward while conservatism keeps us safe and in the money. A real simplistic way of showing how I view the two philosophies. If you define conservatism as respect for tradition and gradual change and liberalism as the willingness to do things in completely new ways then I agree, however many of the new ways some people would like to try are usually called conservative. Welfare reform is called a conservative idea. School choice is also considered conservative. By your definition of conservative and liberal the Republican party is frequently liberal while the Democrats are frequently conservative. The conservative tradition of people like Goldwater, Buckley and Reagan is not just a respect for tradition buy a whole developed set of ideas some of which seek to change things ("move us forward") while others seek to slow or stop change ("keep us safe and in the money"). If we are to define conservatism and liberalism by how much they accept change then I can not be considered a conservative or a liberal. I consider myself a conservative because I want smaller government particularly less control by the general government and lower taxes. I could and sometimes do call myself a libertarian because my main concern here is freedom, but I also am against legalized abortion and for a strong defense. If you say "I am for lower taxes and school choice, against gun control and legalized abortion, and for a strong military" then people will say you are a conservative, but these ideas have nothing to do with either Hitler or the definition of conservative that you gave - "a disposition in politics to preserve what is established; a philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions and preferring gradual development to abrupt change." (and Hitler himself is not strongly connected to that definition) If you manage to define conservative in such a way that it includes Hitler then it isn't a useful term because Goldwater, Buckley, Reagan, Rush Limbaugh, and the Wall Street Journal editorial staff would not be conservative. You would be talking about a small group of people who have no power in today's society. Tim

To: tejek who wrote (141828)	1/18/2002 4:11:46 AM
From: Joe NYC	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1585119

Ted, No, I think there are common personality/character traits that provide a basis or foundation for a person's views. If that person stays within normal parameters, his/her views will develop along normal lines and he/she will express his/her philosophies in a relatively normal way. Gingrich........although I don't know him at all, I will use as an example since it seems you guys think he is a fairly typical conservative. Hitler, who most likely shared the same values as an early twentieth century Gingrich and started from the same base as that conservative, had those values stretched and distorted by his psychosis. But his initial views/philosphy came from conservative roots and not liberal. I am going to stop reading right here since your post is turning completely absurd, and by now, you probably regret posting it, and hope nobody read it. Joe