Sarah is just wacky. No really Palin is still giving her campaign speech (what a nut)

I wasn't referring to the media, but maybe someone who can actually confirm it, or an actual video of her saying it.

This, from the liberals beloved NY Times seems to say otherwise.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/13/arts/television/13hoax.html

 

LMAO at the hypocrisy of Danr. Anything that anybody brings up has to be severely scrutinized for facts and sources yet he's the quickest to post anything he finds from anywhere and state it as fact.

The moderates are in fear of Palin! I don't like Palin all that much but if we can get rid of the moderates, I will support her. By moderates I mean the republicrats within the party. Time to clean house. Get them out. Re-learn what conservatism actually means and an election will be winnable again.

We don't need half-wit children coming up with "imaginary characters" to spread their lies and rumors for them like poison within the party. They need to get back over to where they belong.

 

You are my hero Vess

 

Britannica Concise Encyclopedia: conservatism
Home > Library > Miscellaneous > Britannica Concise Encyclopedia

Political attitude or ideology denoting a preference for institutions and practices that have evolved historically and are thus manifestations of continuity and stability. It was first expressed in the modern era through the works of Edmund Burke in reaction to the French Revolution, which Burke believed tarnished its ideals through its excesses. Conservatives believe that the implementation of change should be minimal and gradual; they appreciate history and are more realistic than idealistic. Well-known conservative parties include the British Conservative Party, the German Christian Democratic Union, the U.S. Republican Party, and the Japanese Liberal-Democratic Party.

 

Political Dictionary: conservatism
Home > Library > History, Politics & Society > Political Dictionary

In general terms, a political philosophy which aspires to the preservation of what is thought to be the best in established society, and opposes radical change. However, it is much easier to locate the historical context in which conservatism evolved than it is to specify what it is that conservatives believe. Modern European conservatism evolved in the period between 1750 and 1850 as a response to the rapid series of changes and prospects for change which convulsed European societies; these included the ideas of the Enlightenment, the French Revolution, industrialization (especially in England), and the demands for an extended or universal, generally male, suffrage. The name ‘Conservative’ for the English political party which had previously been called the Tory Party became established during the debate about electoral reform which led to the Reform Act of 1832.

The nature of conservative reactions to change has varied considerably. Sometimes it has been outright opposition, based on an existing model of society that is considered right for all time. It can take a ‘reactionary’ form, harking back to, and attempting to reconstruct, forms of society which existed in an earlier period. Other forms of conservatism acknowledge no perpetually preferable form of society but are principally concerned with the nature of change, insisting that it can only be gradual in pace and evolutionary in style. Perhaps the most unifying feature of conservatism has been an opposition to certain kinds of justification for change, particularly those which are idealistic, justified by ‘abstract’ ideas, and not a development of existing practices.

It is clear that, ideologically, conservatism can take many different forms. Liberal individualists, as well as clerical monarchists, nostalgic reactionaries, and unprincipled realists, have all been called ‘conservatives’, regarded themselves as conservative, and demonstrated the typically conservative responses to projects for change. Particular conservative writers have founded their conservatism on individualism as often as on collectivism, on atheism as much as on religious belief, and on the idealistic philosophy of Hegel as well as on profound scepticism or vulgar materialism. Furthermore conservatism has been primarily a political reaction, and only secondarily a body of ideas: those who are defending their interests against projects for change often have little interest in philosophical ideas or treat them on the basis of ‘any port in a storm’.

A further complication is that many people might be properly described as conservatives who would not describe themselves as such. A principal reason for this is that the image of conservatism in much of continental Europe became tainted, during the first half of the twentieth century, first by association with a defunct clerical-monarchist outlook and later by alliance with fascist and National Socialist movements. Thus, although the word ‘conservatism’ exists in French, German, and Italian, the number of prominent intellectuals and politicians who have described themselves as ‘conservative’ since 1945 is extremely small. When a ‘Conservative’ group existed in the European Parliament between 1989 and 1992, it had only English and Danish members. In some respects, other political movements, especially Christian Democracy, have become forms of conservatism ‘that durst not speak its name’, but even Christian Democracy is quite distinct from conservatism in its origins and principles.

Burke's Reflections on the Revolution in France has been taken as definitive and formative of modern conservatism, with its opposition to radical reform based on abstract principles and its pleas for the virtues, often hidden, of established, evolved institutions. But Burke himself was not a conservative. Not only did his literary and political careers precede the existence of conservatism, but he was a Whig with reformist and protoliberal views on the principal issues of the day, including India, Ireland, America, and Parliament. Until the 1920s he was claimed and cited as often by Liberals as by Conservatives. There is every reason to suppose he would have opposed ‘Conservatism’ when it emerged in 1832.

Much theoretical commentary on conservatism has contributed to the inherent confusion of the subject by starting with false assumptions. Often, the commentators are not merely hostile, but contemptuous, in the tradition of J. S. Mill's comment that the Conservative Party was, ‘by the law of their existence the stupidest party’. The assumption has been that conservative ideas are essentially flawed as well as being chosen for their political utility rather than their theoretical coherence. Alternatively, a spurious theoretical unity is attributed to conservatism, so that all conservatives are thought to believe in psychological pessimism, or the organic nature of society, or the importance of national traditions. Nor have many of the taxonomies of conservatism—for example, between ‘high’ and ‘low’, ‘wet’ and ‘dry’, ‘true’ and ‘neo’, ‘old’ and ‘new’, Tory and Conservative—afforded much insight, the distinctions having been made in too many different and contradictory ways without any one version establishing itself. A further source of unclarity is the common resort to a confused notion of a political ‘spectrum’ or ‘continuum’ which suggests that to be deeply conservative is to be on the ‘extreme right’, along with (mysteriously) divine right monarchists, libertarian anarchists, and National Socialists.

Mannheim, faced with the considerable differences between Continental and English traditions of conservatism, concluded that the drive behind conservatism was a ‘universal psychic inclination’ towards traditionalism, the doctrinal form that expressed this inclination differing between contexts. But he does detect a common negative strand to all conservatism, a critical response to ‘natural law thinking’. Conservative ideas are, thus, more genuine and profound than many critics suggest, but such unity as they have is purely negative, definable only by its opposition and rejection of abstract, universal, and ideal principles and the projects which follow from them.

This analysis of conservatism, as having only a negative doctrinal unity that allows for a vast range of positive doctrines, would seem to be the least misleading picture of what conservatism is as a general political phenomenon. It generates an intellectual method that can be described as a sceptical reductionism, which demands, of grand proposals and principles, ‘Is it really a good idea, given local conditions?’ This kind of questioning is common to Edmund Burke, Benjamin Disraeli, Lord Salisbury, Michael Oakeshott, and Margaret Thatcher; it may well be all that they have in common as conservatives.

Thus conservative reformism is quite central to the conservative tradition, rather than aberrant or peripheral. The idea of radical conservatism is less easy to accept. In so far as radicalism is interpreted according to its original meaning, which suggests that radicals propose a systematic replacement of institutions and practices, from the roots up, then radical conservatism is a contradiction in terms. It is more acceptable at a less literal level as meaning a belief, in a particular context, that drastic, immediate change is required to preserve the underlying virtues of the system. For example, the belief that a severe combination of reductions in public expenditure, the privatization of services, and high unemployment was necessary to preserve the underlying vitality of the capitalist system, might fall into this category. However, an extreme belief in ‘free’ markets and a minimal state of a kind which has never existed, or existed only in the distant past, could not properly be called conservatism at all.

In the nineteenth century conservatism was preoccupied with what might reasonably be called the liberal agenda of extended rights. To different degrees in different contexts it won or lost these struggles or simply took over what had been its opponents' policies in earlier periods. Nineteenth-century conservatism appears more successful when judged as a procedural doctrine preoccupied with the nature of change, than as a substantive doctrine concerned with the value of particular social forms. In the twentieth century conservatism has been so preoccupied with the struggle against forms of socialism that many people have made the mistake of identifying conservatism purely with anti-socialism. If this perception were correct then the demise of socialism would also be the demise of conservatism. But in fact there is never any shortage of the kind of belief to which conservatism is inherently opposed. We can be assured that forms of feminism, ecologism, radical democratic theory, and human rights doctrines will, inter alia, continue to provide the kind of political projects which serve as both opposition and stimulus to conservatism.

 

The Highlighted text I found rather amusing considering that you have a go at Librals LOL

 

Interesting read. Thanks for posting. It's uncommon to read something of educational value in this forum.

"Conservatives believe that the implementation of change should be minimal and gradual; they appreciate history and are more realistic than idealistic."

If that's what somebody wants to accuse me of, then go right ahead. I'd appreciate it.
Let's also add the idea of wanting less government,( programs, intervention, taxes, etc.) Also, responsible spending and the idea that people are responsible for themselves and can achieve what they want on their own, and those who work hard get rewarded. Those who don't, will not be rewarded. Seems reasonable enough to me.

Now, lets explore why somebody might want to hold these views. From the beginning.
"Implementation of change should be minimal and gradual" : Why? To me, this goes back to the old adage, "If it aint broke, don't fix it." Most ideas of change that are foisted upon us are inevitable failure. Usually costly ($$) failure that seeks nothing more than to restrict rights or they attempt to achieve mathematically impossible goals. At the expense of tax dollars.

... appreciate history....: Yes, yes! Because history is a lesson that can be learned from, in order to avoid future mistakes.

..and are more realistic than idealistic.: Because when you think about things realistically, that is your likely result. Idealistic thinking does nothing but waste our time and money!
Idealistically, we should be able to ban all guns and all the millions of them on Earth would disappear forever and nobody would want to kill anyone anymore!

Idealistically, we should be able to pass gun laws that criminals will obey!

Idealistically, there should be no criminals if we just give everybody a fair chance!
Idealistically, when you give hurricane survivors a cheap trailer to live in, they would take a minimum wage job and move out within the next 3 years!

As you can see, all this idealist thinking does absolutely nothing for us. It's nothing but pipe dreams. We could list an unending number of examples.

Less government: Because government has a history of being corrupt, inept, and of functioning poorly. As a result, they should not be put in charge of more complicated, technical, private sector issues and/or given more responsibility of anything.
Also, in the fact that the congress is always trying to come up with more, new laws under the idea that it's in our best interest or for our own safety. After 200+ years of law making, at some point, you would think the bases have for the most part been covered.

...the idea that people are responsible for themselves and can achieve what they want on their own: Because it isn't the government's place to run social expiraments and see what works or doesn't work with people's lives. This can (and has) turn into a form of *reliance* and historically, governments have shown that they do not always have the best interest of the people in mind.

..and those who work hard get rewarded. Those who don't, will not be rewarded. Self explanatory. You either have high expectations for all, or you don't. Hard work *produces*. The opposite does not. The opposite leads to reliance, which I have already explained. Very simple. Do we want to push people to work hard, or reward them for reliance? I understand unemployment, and welfare to an extent. We shouldn't let people starve. But at some point, you have to draw a line or you end up with the infamous lifers. A welfare state. If you fix things, lifers can't survive or exist. Everybody is capable of doing something and it's all important.

Yes. I'm quite comfortable being on my side. Thanks for the upbeat story.

 

Just want to raise one point Vess you mention more laws been passed and ' After 200+ years of law making, at some point, you would think the bases have for the most part been covered' Unfortunatly in that 200 years things have progressed and laws need to be changed to meet the challanges of today. What I find amusing is the laws that have not beeen repeeled as out of date LOL I am fairly sure that most US states still have laws on the books going back to the inception of the state I know that we have quite a few over here in the UK

 

I think these 2 points sum up the conservative vs liberal argument for me.
You can either work hard & benefit from what you have achieved or sit back, rely on the government & benefit from the hard work of others.