The only way to small government.

• I Wear Pants

  dwccrew wrote:

  I Wear Pants wrote: This is one of those things that I wonder why we ever switched it around. Who said "lets call liberals conservative and conservatives liberal from now on"?

  I don't think they changed the names, I think the political parties ideologies switched.

  No, we started calling them different things. Both sides didn't just up and pull a 180.
• dwccrew

  

  I Wear Pants wrote:

  dwccrew wrote:

  I Wear Pants wrote: This is one of those things that I wonder why we ever switched it around. Who said "lets call liberals conservative and conservatives liberal from now on"?

  I don't think they changed the names, I think the political parties ideologies switched.

  No, we started calling them different things. Both sides didn't just up and pull a 180.

  You're right, both sides didn't just pul a 180, they did it over time.
  
  You really think we just decided to start calling liberals, conservatives and call conservatives, liberals? That makes no sense.
  
  But party members can slowly, over time, start to change their line of thinking and ideology. We see it all the time. When they do it on a collective whole, it shifts the party ideology.
• Footwedge

  The expansion of government will never stop unless the globalization problem is resolved.
  
  Private jobs are dwindling. Have been dwindling for decades here in the US.
  
  No political party will allow the masses to to starve. So the government increases the welfare/warfare state in order to keep the real unemployment figures from reaching Depression numbers.
  
  Once fair trade is implemented across the globe, then America would see real economic growth. Since that apparently is not in the best interest of corporate America, then only the expansion of government keeps the masses at bay.
• BCSbunk

  HitsRus wrote: The only thing that I completely disagree with is the way you presented your argument...taking two threads and playing cat and mouse semantics to reveal your actual stance.

  Have to show that R's are just as if not worse than the D's both are pathetic wastes of oxygen that are ruining this country and the worst part?
  
  They both think they are right.
  
  I am here to bust those myths I am a MYTHBUSTER!
  
  /note hyperbole for the sensitive and those that lack intelligence to see it. ARGHH is that more hyperbole? LOL
• BCSbunk

  Footwedge wrote: The expansion of government will never stop unless the globalization problem is resolved.
  
  Private jobs are dwindling. Have been dwindling for decades here in the US.
  
  No political party will allow the masses to to starve. So the government increases the welfare/warfare state in order to keep the real unemployment figures from reaching Depression numbers.
  
  Once fair trade is implemented across the globe, then America would see real economic growth. Since that apparently is not in the best interest of corporate America, then only the expansion of government keeps the masses at bay.

  For the most part you and I agree Footwedge. This is another point I agree with.
  
  The government is not going to get smaller, but I refuse to give up my hopes.
  
  The R's and D's have polarized the very unintelligent public of the USA, and have a lock on nonsense.
• I Wear Pants

  dwccrew wrote:

  I Wear Pants wrote:

  dwccrew wrote:

  I Wear Pants wrote: This is one of those things that I wonder why we ever switched it around. Who said "lets call liberals conservative and conservatives liberal from now on"?

  I don't think they changed the names, I think the political parties ideologies switched.

  No, we started calling them different things. Both sides didn't just up and pull a 180.

  You're right, both sides didn't just pul a 180, they did it over time.
  
  You really think we just decided to start calling liberals, conservatives and call conservatives, liberals? That makes no sense.
  
  But party members can slowly, over time, start to change their line of thinking and ideology. We see it all the time. When they do it on a collective whole, it shifts the party ideology.

  It wasn't a party thing though.
  
  This isn't really a response to you but I found it interesting:

  1. Classical conservatism or institutional conservatism - Opposition to rapid change in governmental and societal institutions. This kind of conservatism is anti-ideological insofar as it emphasizes means (slow change) over ends (any particular form of government). To the classical conservative, whether one arrives at a right- or left-wing government is less important than whether change is effected through rule of law rather than through revolution and sudden innovation. The classic conservative critique of radical excess is Edmund Burke's Reflections on the Revolution in France. 2. Modern conservatism or right conservatism - In contrast to the anti-ideological classical conservatism, right conservatism is ideological. It is typified by two distinct subideologies: social conservatism and fiscal conservatism which often come together in an economic conservatism. Together, these subideologies comprise the conservative ideology in most English-speaking countries: separately, these subideologies are incorporated into other political positions.

• believer

  

  BCSbunk wrote:.....the very unintelligent public of the USA, and have a lock on nonsense.

  Pot meet kettle. :rolleyes: