from a philosophical standpoint, i cannot reason that truth is relative. in a nutshell, for me to say that it is would mean that life would be a meaningless circular argument where everyone is entitled to anything they want, as long as it doesn;t hurt anyone else. i've grown up a catholic, but have basically been "going thru the motions" for most of my life growing up. it wasn't until i went on to college (a liberal arts school) that i began to read some aristotle, aquinas, merton, plato and all sorts of things like that. To keep things fair, i read a little bit of existentialism and such (i don't want to get a one-sided education).

i only mention this so that nobody makes the mistake of associating me with the fundamentalist christian right. i am far from it. i am simply coming to the realization, lately, that much of the liberal agenda is very saturated in moral relativism. the idea of "let me do what i want as long as i don't hurt anyone" seems to be dragging our society to the ground. I don't know what this means for me, i'm scared to death of thinking of myself as a conservative, and still am very liberal in my pro environment, pro peace, pro civil rights type agenda...but that is not enough it seems to sway me in teh big picture.

the funny thing is, i used to use that same argument for my pro-life stance. "i'm pro life, but the dems have more to offer in the big picture"

just for the record, how many conservatives do we have on the board?

P.S. i don't mean to define things in black/white. i realize that nobody is truly right or truly left anything, all i am saying is that i am leaning more to the right these days and am very scared of senator kerry.

Compared to some hippy friends of mine I am pretty conservative but its all relative. You can't vote for George Bush and say you are for social progress, supporting it really isn't at all. MLK wrote in his Birmingham letter that people who "secretly" supported the civil rights movement but weren't active citizens were no different than the people against it, I guess that's my view. Although I think Kerry is another deceitful politicians I have more faith in him because of his stance on issues. The simple fact is, and I've always thought this even as a Republican, that conservatives don't care about social issues, only themselves. It is a selfish philosophy whether they know it or not. Compared to many other views, democrats are conservative, yes, but at least they are the lesser of the two evils, and when it comes down to it I am voting lesser.

great point, and one of the biggest quips i have with conservative politics. though you could argue that liberals have not really done much for civil rights these days either, welfare being the state that it is in. we also still have the basic prejudiced mindset in america. that has never changed, sadly.



yes, i have always thought that as well. capitalism is entirely geared toward self progress, and is one of my biggest "liberal" tendancies to cirticize it. however, most of the alternatives like socialism or communism seriously undermine the dignity of the human person. degrading our works, potential, achievements and accomplishments to simply satisfy and serve the lowest common denominator. the individual is lost...and perhaps psychologically that will hurt the human race.



that is the one argument i can't seem to settle with myself. the lesser of two evils? i'd rather not vote, to be honest...which makes this election so hard. if you don't vote, you inadvertantly support one candidate, and if you do vote...you are supporting something you don't want to see, regardless. this thread could easily turn into a "the two party system must go" thread. that seems like the only option.

aye, i'm so confused!

I'm extremely conservative with taxes/budget etc, but liberal with social policy (not programs). So I'm stuck. I usually end up voting with my heart rather than my wallet though.

that's an odd combination to me. very interesting, eric. i guess i have such a hard time not seeing economic issues in an inverse relationship to social issues...which, admittingly is a flaw of mine. how do you resolve the fact that when taxes are cut or the budget is balanced, somebody (usually the poor, in our current system) get's the short end of the stick?

I love how the Democrats put out the monopoly on "social progress"... List three things Kerry will do for "social progress"... unless you meant "socialism progress", then we'll talk.



That's irrelevant unless I say:

"You're either with the terrorists, or you're against them." - W.

Sounds familiar. Inaction is the same as antagonism to cause. Go ahead, vote Kerry, the guy who referred to terrorism as a nuisance.



The best part about Kerry is that no matter what you disagree with him on, he's shared your opinion once or twice in his life publically to get a vote.



That's a load of shit and you know it.




Sorry... I don't get it.

"If you don't know what you're talking about, there's no shame in not voting."

that post just makes conservatism look so...sunny.

You have to differentiate between social policy and social programs, that's the key. I'm for the elimination of a wide, enormous swath of government based social charities.
What I don't want is the government telling people how to live. Gays should have the same rights as straights, gun owners can own their guns, the Klan can march down main street, the Black Panthers can have one next weekend, women can have abortions...etc. LEAVE US ALONE is what I'm for.
I don't want more government in my life, I want less. The only people that actually want more government in their lives are ones who will live off of a teat.

Politics aren't "sunny". But I get your pun. Har. Har.


Being conservative isn't an argument for or against Bush. Conservatism is ideology. Voting for president is largely based on one's ideology, but political identification in a representative democracy based solely on two parties is more an issue of party affiliation. Since the ideologies are the bases for party politics, then aligning yourself in an election year is a necessity. Whether you vote for Dem or Rep doesn't matter; if you do it because of your perception of conservatism or liberalism is the main issue. These guys are running middle of the road right now to get votes. In a year, they'll be complete opposites, and no matter who wins, someone will be kicking themself for getting suckered into a vote.

see, this is where my dissatisfaction with moral relativism comes into play. as a believer in some sort of truth and order in this world, i cannot simply accept that we can let anyone practice whatever they want. To do so would be, to me, not taking a solid stance on anything, ethically. This is such a hard thing to say, because of the seeming pompous connotation that it has...but hopefully everyone can read between the lines that I don't mean to be imposing my views on anyone, but at the same time i refuse to beleive that a hateful organization like the KKK or the black panthers, weapons that kill people, and the fact that we don't have a solid grasp on where human life begins are all ok things.

pun, no pun intended




i completely agree. i didn't really mean for this thread to turn into a political one at all, but simply a discussion about the ideology as a whole. now that i've finally grown out of that awful rebellious phase of my early college career, i'm a bit more curious about what conservatism has to offer, that's all. when it comes down to it, i don't think it's as important to name what i beleive, but practice it.

with that, inevitably, comes a frustration with american politicians and black/white choices.

You seem like a very intelligent and socially-conscious person. And you don't sound anything like a conservative at all, or someone who is becoming "more conservative". What you sound like is a critical-thinker. You sound like you're trying to examine things from every angle, which is essential for any social analysis.

But I do take issue with a couple things you've said. I'm not trying to slam you or anything, just elaborating on some of your points:



I'm not sure what you're referring to specifically. Are there any specific examples, or scientific/social-scientific data that supports the existence of such trends/harm to society? If so, I'm interested to see it. If not, then this is basically conjecture without any empirical evidence--a favourite pastime of the far-right, and even some of the not-so-far right. Not a trap you want to fall into.



I live in a social democracy. I fail to see how countries such as Norway, or Sweden, or Canada, which have some socialist practices within basically a capitalist framework, are "undermining the dignity of humanity" and contributing to the degradation of "works, potential, and achievement", serving to the "lowest common denominator". If anything I see it as quite the opposite.
I know this is not what you meant but I just wanted to clarify things for my own sake.



People are very aware of where human life begins, including gays.
Homosexuality occurs in many species.



I personally feel that the unbelievable divisiveness and black-and-white thinking that is prevalent in the US is partly a result of your 2-party system. Your either this, or you're that. You're either a liberal terrorist or a conservative fascist, a pinko-communist-traitor or an uneducated-nazi-conservative, etc etc. For instance if I was American and you called me a liberal, fair enough. But, I don't live there--so while I'm left-leaning, but if someone here was to call me a Liberal, I'd laugh, haha. But I've been reading these boards for a while and I'm used to the American dichotomies.

To be honest after reading your posts, I don't understand your fear of Kerry over Bush.

i appreciate the kind words. i've been a long time lurker in news and debate on the original RM, but never, ever posted for fear of things i said being taken out of context or read into. it is very nice of you to notice that about my posts.



of course i wouldn't have it any other way. that is what this thread is; me challenging people to challenge me; thus forming a deeper grasp as to what i persoanlly believe.



i can't bring any kinds of numbers or studies off the top of my head, but basically what i was referring to in that post was how divided american politics are in terms of morality issues. gay marraige, abortion, gun control, freedom of speech, that sort of thing. supreme court rulings in america have for a long time ruled in favor of moral relativism. the easiest example that comes to mind is roe v. wade. "a woman has the right to choose". i make no qualms about saying that i am biased in that i believe a fetus is a life. logically, if people don't share that belief, they will at least understand that people who do believe that would think that abortion is inherently wrong. hence, one example of how i lean right. though my left leaning tendencies have traditional overrulled my right leaning tendencies. this thread is me simply trying to gauge the big picture.



yes. i fully see the distinction you make. i was using broad terms for the sake of argument. full fledged capitalism=bad. full fledged communism=bad.



again, it all comes down to morality and religion for me. as a fellow catholic, kerry scares me with his political theology or lack thereof. end of story.

You see, I qualify Kerry because he's willing to own up to mistakes. I vote for him because I know that he'll be in a more balanced position with the current positioning of government. I look at Bush being re-elected as continuing the lopsided tilt of government to the "right." That's not to say that this is all bad, but I question at what point it will be detrimental to us. I look at the Clinton years as far more balanced and bipartisan than these Bush Jr. years have given us. Again, not everything has been questionable, but some things have, and in general, I think it's time for some new blood. If Kerry doesn't hack it, I'll vote against him in 2008 should he win, but I think I'm going a more progressive, thoughtful route. I would've appreciated a president who would've waited and perhaps adjusted his rationale to go to war with Iraq considerably more than one who stays the course, however inappropriate it might seem.

I never felt that Saddam Hussein should've remained in power after Desert Storm, but my question was how we were going to get him out. The way that this current president went about it has made me lose some faith in his leadership and faith in the abilities and concerns of our people. My vote is a plea for consideration for the people of this nation and the president. This plea will obviously be just that if Kerry loses. Nevertheless, I cannot vote for Bush because I question him more than I question Kerry. With Kerry, I know I'll get votes that look at the facts before and after additional votes are made. With Bush, I'll get promises to legislate and execute ideas, but then I'll see another answer or another excuse for the whole of administration should something go wrong. One is more inappropriate than the other and that's why I've made my decision.

God bless,

Jared

P.S. Voting tomorrow evening hopefully.

You are an ignorant fool, but you are from Texas so I have to have some sympathy. Health care isn't social progress? How about NOT sabotaging the consitution to define marriage? How about your guy Bush not being able to say that homosexuality is a biological issue and NOT a choice? Or say that he wouldn't place justices who would overturn Roe v. Wade. This guy is living in the dark-ages.






The war on terrorism is NOTHING like the civil rights struggle. Not even close and you know that.



Like I said, its mainly a vote against Bush and his sick, twisted, and inhumane ideals.

Bush and Cheney and crew are filthy, rotten liars who've used 9/11 to perpetuate their right-wing agenda and world view. Oh wait but I'm just a whacky liberal, sorry.


Maybe conservatives should try and have a debate on why the U.S. is NOT the greatest society in the history of the world, why our country exploits weak nations for our own personal gain, and why our society is the most violent society in the history of the world, but you ignorant hicks are too damn arrogant, blind, and full of yourselves to have such debate. You, along with everybody in the U.S. is not about to give up their materialistic, bourgeois lifestyle. Bush and his supporters choose to perpuate the world view that the U.S. is a great nation and can do no wrong (what can I say, the man couldn't even admit his own mistakes in a debate). I will have no part.



Lets see, Bush's record:

Environment: no
Civil Rights (blacks, women, homosexuals): no
health care: no
seniors: no
the poor: no (after all its their own fault they are poor )



Like I said, you are from Texas and you were raised on right-wing propaganda since you fell out of your mother's cunt.

No problem. Nothing wrong with a little personal intellectual turmoil now and again. It shows you're struggling with issues and not simply conforming to a preconceived, unchanging ideology and just accepting it as is. However at the same time it seems like your struggle comes from ideas you have about some sort of natural law and/or absolutes that set out the rules for proper social order--but the problem is that these are socially constructed to begin with and are not absolute over time or across various societies/cultures.



I may have misunderstood what you meant. I was thinking along the lines of conservative/religious right-based arguments that make claims about societal trends but with no evidence. "Gay marriage? We're all doomed! Civilization is over!" type of stuff.
My other comments may have also stemmed from CommonWord's "socialism" comment, and that is the type of thing that bothers me.



I grew up catholic and went to catholic school, the whole nine-yards. I no longer care for the institution or organized religion as a whole in almost any capacity, and their stances towards women and gays is archaic. But there are some things I appreciate about it because there are good priests and nuns out there. Priests who give asylum to refugees. Helping people in the 3rd world or war-torn countries. And the church's seemingly pro-life stance, across the board, in all ways. Now I'm pretty much pro-choice, but only barely. I feel we need to eliminate or lessen the reasons why abortions would occur, rather than banning it outright, for a number of reasons, but I don't want to turn this into an abortion debate. I'm not typically bothered by those who feel a fetus is a life to be protected b/c they feel all life is sacred. But the point I'll make here is that while the Catholic church is against abortion, they are also pro-life in other ways--they are against war and they are against the death penalty, big-time. 2 things that certainly don't shine too well on old dubya. Kerry is catholic, but him being pro-choice doesn't mean he's pro-abortion either. Abortion is a complicated issue.

I'm, um, well, I was born in Mississippi, lived there for a month, went to Germany for four years, North Carolina for two, Colorado for two, Australia for two, Italy for six, and currently in Florida for 5+.

So... no Texas.



Didn't Bush just pass the biggest health care reform act in the history of the United States? Or am I missing something?



The constitution defines a number of legalities. And I think the amendment would read something more to the effect of the power of the states' definement of marriage, not the actual parable of union.



So he can't create an amendment for marriage, but he's supposed to define sexuality for the rest of us. Make up your mind.



He says he won't install justices with overt partisanship; i.e. I'm not going to placate interest groups over the outcome of my appointees, but rather, appoint judges based on their record. Finding a judge who would feasibly approach Roe v Wade would be a task anyway. That's like asking a judge to charge the Lemon rule.



Then why did you bring up Martin Luther King, Jr. in the first place?





"VOTE BUSH!!! BOO!"



Whatever, man. I never once said Kerry was "filthy" or "evil"... keep it up. You don't make it any easier for your side when you come off sounding like a little bitch and smelling like you've just messed your diapers because the Big Bad Republican nixed you on the debate floor. Read a goddamn book already.



*Puts on flag jumpsuit, burns Zinn's History, exploits poor country person, kills a puppy, drinks a beer and ties on a blind fold, the whole while masturbating to patriotic country music*



*bourgeoisie*

So I'm middle class? Um. OK.



God how I wish that were true.



I'm not from Texas.

common word - 1
glorified - 0

Bush's idea of "freedom" is a simple, utopian message which can be packaged to the public without any valid reason for common people to question it. But it isn't that simple. Its pretty clear that this is what he is running his campaign on.

Yeah, Utopia sucks.