Liberal / Conservative

moreluck

golden ticket member
Explanation!


I have often wondered why it is that the conservatives are called the “right” and the liberals are called the “left.”

By chance I stumbled upon this verse in the Bible:

Ecclesiastes 10:2 (NIV)

The heart of the wise inclines to the right,
but the heart of the fool to the left.”

Yep, that’s it!
 

klein

Für Meno :)
Consertavtives are only in America.

They don't extist in Conservatives Governments like Canada or Germany.
Not even in Iraq or Iran.

Only in America.
God bless America !
 

MrFedEx

Engorged Member
Explanation!


I have often wondered why it is that the conservatives are called the “right” and the liberals are called the “left.”

By chance I stumbled upon this verse in the Bible:

Ecclesiastes 10:2 (NIV)

The heart of the wise inclines to the right,
but the heart of the fool to the left.”

Yep, that’s it!

Sigh.I have often wondered why many top conservative pundits never finished college. I'd say that "The mind of the fool inclines to the right, and the heart of the wise to the left", but that would be bucking the irrefutable nature of the Bible, wouldn't it?
 
Sigh.I have often wondered why many top conservative pundits never finished college. I'd say that "The mind of the fool inclines to the right, and the heart of the wise to the left", but that would be bucking the irrefutable nature of the Bible, wouldn't it?
You could say that, but you could be wrong. I would give way to the bible long before to you.
 

wkmac

Well-Known Member
1971' NY Times op-ed: A Split in the Right Wing

When William Buckley and the National Review crowd injected evangelical anticommunism into right-wing circles, the conservatives found themselves split into two broad camps: the libertarians who were very anarchistic on domestic issues and military isolationists in foreign policy, and the Russell Kirk and William Buckley traditionalists who saw the existence of atheistic communism as a threat to the religious and cultural inheritance of the Western world. Many libertarians went their own way, but others embraced the new fusionism which sought to draw a bridge between advocates of individual freedom on the one hand, and those who wanted to rid the world of Communism at any cost on the other.
It was inevitable that this internal schizophrenia would lead to a major eruption, and this occurred in 1968 when Karl Hess, Goldwater's former speechwriter, threw off his anticommunism for total anarchism at the urging of free-market economist Murray Rothbard.
Now William Buckley is in a quandary. The hysteria he has been displaying in recent issues of National Review and in his syndicated column of January 14, 1971 is totally out of character for him. He is upset, it seems, because the New York Times Magazine carried articles on December 6 and January 10 dealing with the libertarian movement in the United States, and publicized the split occurring on the Right between conservative and anarcholibertarian factions. This is a development Buckley hoped to keep under cover — referring to it, whenever he did, as a family squabble rather than the permanent breach it has become.

Another point from this 40 year old piece that I found of interest was this:

And as far as that issue is concerned, there has been far more talk of decentralization and local control of institutions and public money on the Left than in the pages of National Review in recent years. Even left-liberals have begun to recognize the follies of corporate-liberalism and to call for reforms, so Buckley is whipping a dead horse when he attempts to raise the specter of laissez-faire "lunacies" on the libertarian Right.

My thanks to the Mises Institute for republishing this op-ed.
:peaceful:
 

klein

Für Meno :)
I often wonder why the conservatives in the US are red and the liberals blue.
Totally backwards from the rest of the world.

It's definitly odd.
 

wkmac

Well-Known Member
As I have tried to reveal in several articles this month, the "fiscal conservative" philosophy to which Republicans, and many Democrats, claim to adhere is a complete fabrication. Over the last 140 years, no politician or political party has ever actually reduced the size of government spending relative to the overall size of the economy in any significant, long-term way. During this entire period, excepting for the end of the two world wars, government spending has consistently increased relative to the overall size of the economy. It has happened to such a degree that even fiscal conservative icons such as Ronald Reagan, Newt Gingrich, and Tom DeLay advocated for a much larger government than either FDR or LBJ. To phrase this historic trend in the current lingo of conservatives, Ronald Reagan was far more "socialist" than FDR.

Reagan More Socialist Than FDR
 
I'm real. The Bible is a fairy tale. It's kind of like Trump's hair. Man-made, as in artificial.

The bible is real, I can see it, touch it, and read it. On the other hand I don't know for a fact that you even exist. You could be someone else masquerading as MrFedEx, an actor, a charlatan I say...a fraud, a fake, an instigator.
You choose not to believe what is written in the bible, that is your right. However you can not prove that the bible is a fairy tail, you can't disprove anything written in the bible. So really it is just your opinion, not a fact.
 

bbsam

Moderator
Staff member
I'm real. The Bible is a fairy tale. It's kind of like Trump's hair. Man-made, as in artificial.

I tried hard not to post on this tangent, but as usual, I've failed. I am not trying to be critical as I myself believed the same about the Bible, but now years later I can't even begin to remember what logical, arguement I had against it. Do you imply that all organized religion is a fairy tale? If so, of what import is religion at all? If it is a fairy tale, does that negate the moral lessons entailed or put them on the level of the Brother's Grimm? Is morality an issue at all, or is that man made as well? And if it is man made, then why should Fred S do anything but maximize all profit to the detriment of all else? Maybe "Atlas Shrugged" because there is no such thing as morality and the world is just the way it is. What is fairness and justice and compassion if it is all just fairy tale, and why should anyone care about any of them except in the way it affects them individually? Ever wonder how there could be a God with all the suffering in the world? Most people have. Ever consider that without a God we would have destroyed ourselves in selfish pursuits long ago? Probably not.
 

MrFedEx

Engorged Member
The bible is real, I can see it, touch it, and read it. On the other hand I don't know for a fact that you even exist. You could be someone else masquerading as MrFedEx, an actor, a charlatan I say...a fraud, a fake, an instigator.
You choose not to believe what is written in the bible, that is your right. However you can not prove that the bible is a fairy tail, you can't disprove anything written in the bible. So really it is just your opinion, not a fact.

It's just my opinion. I never stated it as a fact. I actually hope that I am wrong, but I see little evidence of God's hand at work in this world. Satan seems to be in charge judging from the events I've seen lately.
 

MrFedEx

Engorged Member
I tried hard not to post on this tangent, but as usual, I've failed. I am not trying to be critical as I myself believed the same about the Bible, but now years later I can't even begin to remember what logical, arguement I had against it. Do you imply that all organized religion is a fairy tale? If so, of what import is religion at all? If it is a fairy tale, does that negate the moral lessons entailed or put them on the level of the Brother's Grimm? Is morality an issue at all, or is that man made as well? And if it is man made, then why should Fred S do anything but maximize all profit to the detriment of all else? Maybe "Atlas Shrugged" because there is no such thing as morality and the world is just the way it is. What is fairness and justice and compassion if it is all just fairy tale, and why should anyone care about any of them except in the way it affects them individually? Ever wonder how there could be a God with all the suffering in the world? Most people have. Ever consider that without a God we would have destroyed ourselves in selfish pursuits long ago? Probably not.

Thosuands of people die needlessly every day, there are wars, horrible diseases, and mass calamities and disasters regularly here on Earth. I just don't see much evidence of God at work. I'd love to be proven wrong, and as I stated earlier, it's my opinion, and nothing more.
 

bbsam

Moderator
Staff member
Thosuands of people die needlessly every day, there are wars, horrible diseases, and mass calamities and disasters regularly here on Earth. I just don't see much evidence of God at work. I'd love to be proven wrong, and as I stated earlier, it's my opinion, and nothing more.

There is a difference between seeing the evidence and understanding the evidence for what it is. That is not an attack, merely a suggestion.
 
Thosuands of people die needlessly every day, there are wars, horrible diseases, and mass calamities and disasters regularly here on Earth. I just don't see much evidence of God at work. I'd love to be proven wrong, and as I stated earlier, it's my opinion, and nothing more.
I and I'm sure many others on here could offer an answer for some of what you mentioned, however without that grain of faith the words would be wasted. You still wouldn't buy it. That is all OK with me, however your comments can't go unchallenged for the appearance of agreement. Plus you wouldn't accept my reference guide.
 

klein

Für Meno :)
From my stand point, Noah's Ark is just impossible ! It's against all logic !

Probably why every child knows about it, because it, not only sounds like a great fairytale !
 
Top