"Real conservatives" are liberals who claim to be conservative

[Blackrook]

"Real conservatives" are liberals who claim to be conservative so they can have some sort of false credibility when they launch their attacks on conservatives.

I've heard this type call in radio talk shows, and the first thing they say is "I'm a conservative, I voted for Reagan." And then they launch their attack on conservatives.

A conservative is not defined by some sort of minimalist approach that doesn't include major issues, like abortion, same-sex marriage, foreign policy, the war on terror, drug policy, etc.

A conservative doesn't get to take liberal positions on all these issues, and then say he is a "real conservative."

A so called "real conservative" is a liberal who just wants the government to balance the budget. He is not really one of us.

[Common Sense]

Get a little mad at talk radio today?

Are you the one who gets to define conservative?

[WalterSobchak]

"Real conservatives" are liberals who claim to be conservative so they can have some sort of false credibility when they launch their attacks on conservatives.

I've heard this type call in radio talk shows, and the first thing they say is "I'm a conservative, I voted for Reagan." And then they launch their attack on conservatives.

A conservative is not defined by some sort of minimalist approach that doesn't include major issues, like abortion, same-sex marriage, foreign policy, the war on terror, drug policy, etc.

A conservative doesn't get to take liberal positions on all these issues, and then say he is a "real conservative."

A so called "real conservative" is a liberal who just wants the government to balance the budget. He is not really one of us.


When you say you heard them on talk radio shows, are you speaking of the ultra conservative, in their opinion only.... Rush, Hannity & Levin?

[The Xl]

Most of the cons in question are big government tools who deserve to be attacked and criticized.

[Peter1469]

My go to definition for what a conservative is in modern American politics can be made clear with a simple question:

If the answer to your issue / question is a government program or law, you are not a conservative. You are a statist.

[Captain Obvious]

When you say you heard them on talk radio shows, are you speaking of the ultra conservative, in their opinion only.... Rush, Hannity & Levin?

Loaded question alert...

[Captain Obvious]

My go to definition for what a conservative is in modern American politics can be made clear with a simple question:

If the answer to your issue / question is a government program or law, you are not a conservative. You are a statist.

I would take that one step further in that if you subscribe to popular "conservative" propaganda then you're a faux conservative.

[WalterSobchak]

Loaded question alert...

Shhhhhhh! Stop giving them warnings!

[Private Pickle]

"Real conservatives" are liberals who claim to be conservative so they can have some sort of false credibility when they launch their attacks on conservatives.

I've heard this type call in radio talk shows, and the first thing they say is "I'm a conservative, I voted for Reagan." And then they launch their attack on conservatives.

A conservative is not defined by some sort of minimalist approach that doesn't include major issues, like abortion, same-sex marriage, foreign policy, the war on terror, drug policy, etc.

A conservative doesn't get to take liberal positions on all these issues, and then say he is a "real conservative."

A so called "real conservative" is a liberal who just wants the government to balance the budget. He is not really one of us.

What is a "Real Conservative" defined by?

[Blackrook]

What I am talking about is the people who claim to be a "real conservative" but every time I hear that, it is the beginning of a diatribe against conservatives, revealing that the so-called "real conservative" has a very low opinion of the conservative movement on any issue except fiscal discipline and the size of government.

They call themselves "fiscal conservative" but it's a ruse.

Conservativism is not just about balancing the budget or limiting the power of government. Conservativism is about saving our civilization from the forces that are seeking to undermine it.

By this, I mean opposing liberal efforts to weaken the family unit, opposing liberal efforts to degrade the morals of our youth, opposing liberal efforts to delegitimize a man's role in his family as a husband and a father, etc.

There is much more to conservativism than opposition to what the government is doing. Conservativism includes opposition to the entire future that liberals have planned for us, a society where there are no families anymore, a society where sex is merely recreation, a society where the state has power to raise the children and parents are mere visitors.

All of this is being planned in American universities, and all you have to do is pay attention to find out what's going on.

I will provide links to prove it, if you don't believe me.

[Blackrook]

Read Brave New World to understand what kind of society liberals are building towards.

[The Xl]

Read Brave New World to understand what kind of society liberals are building towards.

They're two sides to the same coin. Whatever globalist agenda is being pushed, you cons are right in the thick of it. Look what you guys have done to civil rights in the past 15 years, look how you've torn the country to shreds with your bullshit wars.

[Blackrook]

They're two sides to the same coin. Whatever globalist agenda is being pushed, you cons are right in the thick of it. Look what you guys have done to civil rights in the past 15 years, look how you've torn the country to shreds with your bullshit wars.
Let's stay on topic, the wars can be discussed in another thread. What I'm talking about is a liberal vision of society where the state takes primary role in raising children, and parents are secondary. Liberals see parents as a bad role model for their children, especially fathers. It is not an accident that the family has been destabilized, it was all by design.

[Blackrook]

The state wants no competition. That is why liberals attack the family and the church, since these institutions protect the individual from the all powerful state.

[PolWatch]

Do you ever notice that to enforce your social agenda, you have to increase the size and power of the government. That kinda defeats the small government, economic responsibility thingy.

[del]

Do you ever notice that to enforce your social agenda, you have to increase the size and power of the government. That kinda defeats the small government, economic responsibility thingy.

i wasn't going to bring that up

[Captain Obvious]

i wasn't going to bring that up

Just say "woooosh" and smile.

[Private Pickle]

Do you ever notice that to enforce your social agenda, you have to increase the size and power of the government. That kinda defeats the small government, economic responsibility thingy.

Actually you could decrease the size of government simultaneously working towards a self-reliant America.

[iustitia]

I was messaging someone recently and we were discussing conservatism. I'm just going to repeat what I told them.

Real conservatism seeks to preserve tradition and culture, rejects radical social upheaval in preference for gradual change, and reveres history and seeks to apply its lessons to the present and future. It is not an ideology, but a philosophy. There is no list of political positions or planks to a party platform that one must agree with to qualify as a conservative.

Yeah, when I was like 16 I thought Hannity was doing God's work. And then I woke up. There's actual conservatism and then there's neocon dogshit that talkingheads looking for ratings and book sales push.

Throwing kids into cages over a harmless plant not only makes no rational sense but history teaches that it hasn't helped. Routinely scourging foreign lands in various manners for no reason not only makes no rational sense but history teaches that it hasn't helped. A conservative need not be inclined to lend support to a system which rends all that is righteous and holy, common and decent. The state, regardless of which party is managing it, has been shown by history to be an existential threat to everything a conservative should hold dear. Faith, family, community, peace, markets and home rule are going extinct because people blindly put their trust in an eternally flawed and corrupt system. No amount of "voting conservative" will ever fix the state's flaws nor repair the damage of its machinations.

If you want to save conservatism pray to God that the whole system comes crashing down and decentralized life can start over.

[del]

there was some nutbar *free market* ayn rand wannabe senator on the tv saying he didn't care if restaurant employees washed their hands or not because the market would take care of the problem. (people wouldn't eat there because no one wants to get sick)

he said the requirement that employees wash their hands was an example of overregulation blah blah blah.

leaving aside the idiocy implicit in that statement, he said if owners didn't want their employees to wash their hands it was their right as long as they put up a sign that said they didn't wash their hands.

you can't make this shit up

[Private Pickle]

Read Brave New World to understand what kind of society liberals are building towards.

Yet Conservatives want to control a woman's right to choose an abortion. Conservatives want to control an individual's right to smoke weed. Conservatives want to control scientific research and human advancement in such areas as stem cell properties. Conservatives want to control whether a person can decide on their own whether it's time to humanely end their life. Conservatives want to profile to better identify potential threats.

That sounds pretty Brave New World to me...

[Captain Obvious]

there was some nutbar *free market* ayn rand wannabe senator on the tv saying he didn't care if restaurant employees washed their hands or not because the market would take care of the problem. (people wouldn't eat there because no one wants to get sick)

he said the requirement that employees wash their hands was an example of overregulation blah blah blah.

leaving aside the idiocy implicit in that statement, he said if owners didn't want their employees to wash their hands it was their right as long as they put up a sign that said they didn't wash their hands.

you can't make this shit up

http://cdn.meme.am/instances/500x/58867297.jpg

[PolWatch]

Conservatives proposed & supported the creation of the most intrusive spying law in our history, the Patriot Act. Equal opportunity fact: the liberals were quick to extend and keep this law. Government wants to know what you are doing and maybe what you are thinking.

What's the difference between conservatives or liberals spying on citizens?

[iustitia]

Yet Conservatives want to control a woman's right to choose an abortion. ... That sounds pretty Brave New World to me...

I'm going to stop you right there. Have you ever read Brave New World?

[Polecat]

There is merit in both philosophies as well as dog vomit. The reasonable thing to do is shed the labels and drop shields long enough to figure out a method to cherry pick all the dogmas for the jewels and flush the rest of the crap down the toilet.

I see a lot of hypocrisy on both sides. I also see valid concepts. Same with economic principles. Why do we have to declare a winner between two flawed concepts?

[Private Pickle]

I'm going to stop you right there. Have you ever read Brave New World?

I have.

[Polecat]

Conservatives proposed & supported the creation of the most intrusive spying law in our history, the Patriot Act. Equal opportunity fact: the liberals were quick to extend and keep this law. Government wants to know what you are doing and maybe what you are thinking.

What's the difference between conservatives or liberals spying on citizens?

That was the wake up call that too many of us completely slept through.

[iustitia]

I have.

Then what are you talking about?

[Private Pickle]

Then what are you talking about?

In a Brave New World reproductive technology was introduced to fit specific roles as well as population control. That sounds like control over a woman's right to choose to me.

[Blackrook]

I was messaging someone recently and we were discussing conservatism. I'm just going to repeat what I told them.

Real conservatism seeks to preserve tradition and culture, rejects radical social upheaval in preference for gradual change, and reveres history and seeks to apply its lessons to the present and future. It is not an ideology, but a philosophy. There is no list of political positions or planks to a party platform that one must agree with to qualify as a conservative.

Yeah, when I was like 16 I thought Hannity was doing God's work. And then I woke up. There's actual conservatism and then there's neocon dogshit that talkingheads looking for ratings and book sales push.

Throwing kids into cages over a harmless plant not only makes no rational sense but history teaches that it hasn't helped. Routinely scourging foreign lands in various manners for no reason not only makes no rational sense but history teaches that it hasn't helped. A conservative need not be inclined to lend support to a system which rends all that is righteous and holy, common and decent. The state, regardless of which party is managing it, has been shown by history to be an existential threat to everything a conservative should hold dear. Faith, family, community, peace, markets and home rule are going extinct because people blindly put their trust in an eternally flawed and corrupt system. No amount of "voting conservative" will ever fix the state's flaws nor repair the damage of its machinations.

If you want to save conservatism pray to God that the whole system comes crashing down and decentralized life can start over.
It just sounds like you're giving up. And if you give up, and go live in a compound somewhere and prepare for the end, then you are no longer a force for good in our world. And I would say Alyosha and many others on this forum are doing the same thing. They are giving up.

If you want to change the world, you have to get in there and fight for what you believe in. And it's not good enough to go on an internet forum and preach to the choir.

What that means is you're going to have to get your hands dirty. You are going to have to compromise, to get part of what you want, because you can never get all of what you want. If you sit back and refuse to participate, then the world will go on without you, and you will have no impact on history.

[Peter1469]

Alyosha isn't giving anything up. She has her little part of the world with a community that will survive and thrive if the SHTF.


It just sounds like you're giving up. And if you give up, and go live in a compound somewhere and prepare for the end, then you are no longer a force for good in our world. And I would say @Alyosha (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=863) and many others on this forum are doing the same thing. They are giving up.

If you want to change the world, you have to get in there and fight for what you believe in. And it's not good enough to go on an internet forum and preach to the choir.

What that means is you're going to have to get your hands dirty. You are going to have to compromise, to get part of what you want, because you can never get all of what you want. If you sit back and refuse to participate, then the world will go on without you, and you will have no impact on history.

[iustitia]

In a Brave New World reproductive technology was introduced to fit specific roles as well as population control. That sounds like control over a woman's right to choose to me.

... you...

You're saying... that abortion and population control are opposite?

BNW was balls to the wall pro-abortion, anti-unwanted pregnancy, abortion clinics everywhere, non-state approved pregnancy ostracized, pro-recreational sex...


What in the actual fuck are you talking about? Did you really read BNW?

Everybody claims to have read Brave New World and they're all liars. The same goes for Origin of Species, Wealth of Nations, Mein Kampf, the Communist Manifesto, Atlas Shrugged, et cetera...

Did you really read it? It's ok if you didn't. Most people haven't.

[Mr. Right]

there was some nutbar *free market* ayn rand wannabe senator on the tv saying he didn't care if restaurant employees washed their hands or not because the market would take care of the problem. (people wouldn't eat there because no one wants to get sick)

he said the requirement that employees wash their hands was an example of overregulation blah blah blah.

leaving aside the idiocy implicit in that statement, he said if owners didn't want their employees to wash their hands it was their right as long as they put up a sign that said they didn't wash their hands.

you can't make this $#@! up

del, can we get though one comment about someone with whom you disagree without calling them "nutbar", nutjob, or whatever. It just takes credibility from your arguement when you bash someone with those insults.

[Blackrook]

In a Brave New World reproductive technology was introduced to fit specific roles as well as population control. That sounds like control over a woman's right to choose to me.
Conservatives, especially Catholic conservatives, see all artificial creation of life and genetic engineering as unethical science. In Brave New World, women did not have pregnancies, babies were born in a laboratory run by the state. There is no connection to the abortion issue, not even a little bit.

[Dr. Who]

What I am talking about is the people who claim to be a "real conservative" but every time I hear that, it is the beginning of a diatribe against conservatives, revealing that the so-called "real conservative" has a very low opinion of the conservative movement on any issue except fiscal discipline and the size of government.

They call themselves "fiscal conservative" but it's a ruse.

Conservativism is not just about balancing the budget or limiting the power of government. Conservativism is about saving our civilization from the forces that are seeking to undermine it.

By this, I mean opposing liberal efforts to weaken the family unit, opposing liberal efforts to degrade the morals of our youth, opposing liberal efforts to delegitimize a man's role in his family as a husband and a father, etc.

There is much more to conservativism than opposition to what the government is doing. Conservativism includes opposition to the entire future that liberals have planned for us, a society where there are no families anymore, a society where sex is merely recreation, a society where the state has power to raise the children and parents are mere visitors.

All of this is being planned in American universities, and all you have to do is pay attention to find out what's going on.

I will provide links to prove it, if you don't believe me.
Conservative means exactly what the term implies - to conserve or one who conserves. Politically that means conserving traditional values and institutions and being fiscally cautious. However society simply evolves as do values and mores and government tends to be reactive to the will of the majority. That is the nature of the democratic process. To be proactively conservative as a government, would be to interdict societal change. That by definition would require the use of coercive force and punitive legislation. It would require abandonment of the democratic process. At what point in time do you stop the clock on societal change? Now or 40 years ago, 100 years ago? Whose vision of traditional values do you follow? At the end of the day no democratically elected government could possibly be truly conservative and still represent the majority of the people. Today's version of conservativism is still different than that of the 1950's and different still than that of the turn of the century. Examples of societies that are truly conservative are Iran and Saudi Arabia. They chose a point in time about 2000 years ago to stop the clock on social change.

[The Xl]

Let's stay on topic, the wars can be discussed in another thread. What I'm talking about is a liberal vision of society where the state takes primary role in raising children, and parents are secondary. Liberals see parents as a bad role model for their children, especially fathers. It is not an accident that the family has been destabilized, it was all by design.

That's like a drop in the bucket when compared to the real nefarious shit the state has done and wants to do, cons and libs both.

"Conservatives" seem to have no problem in the state "raising" the profits of special interests, for whatever reason.

[Blackrook]

@Alyosha (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=863) isn't giving anything up. She has her little part of the world with a community that will survive and thrive if the SHTF.
Going to a compound and locking yourself away from the world is giving up.

[iustitia]

It just sounds like you're giving up. And if you give up, and go live in a compound somewhere and prepare for the end, then you are no longer a force for good in our world. And I would say @Alyosha (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=863) and many others on this forum are doing the same thing. They are giving up.

If you want to change the world, you have to get in there and fight for what you believe in. And it's not good enough to go on an internet forum and preach to the choir.

What that means is you're going to have to get your hands dirty. You are going to have to compromise, to get part of what you want, because you can never get all of what you want. If you sit back and refuse to participate, then the world will go on without you, and you will have no impact on history.

Giving up? LOL Giving up on what exactly? An amoral system? LOLLL

What exactly does this system do for conservatism? Nothing. No the only thing I've given up on is trusting liars in suits pretending to care about my struggles in life. The whole system is repugnant and we'll be better off when it crashes. 'Participating' in evil doesn't eliminate evil. It gives it legitimacy.

[The Xl]

Do you ever notice that to enforce your social agenda, you have to increase the size and power of the government. That kinda defeats the small government, economic responsibility thingy.

Boom, headshot.

[Private Pickle]

... you...

You're saying... that abortion and population control are opposite?

BNW was balls to the wall pro-abortion, anti-unwanted pregnancy, abortion clinics everywhere, non-state approved pregnancy ostracized, pro-recreational sex...


What in the actual fuck are you talking about? Did you really read BNW?

Everybody claims to have read Brave New World and they're all liars. The same goes for Origin of Species, Wealth of Nations, Mein Kampf, the Communist Manifesto, Atlas Shrugged, et cetera...

Did you really read it? It's ok if you didn't. Most people haven't.

Can I ask you a question? Was what I said about the book incorrect?

Now while you are backing my assertions up in other posts to other posters you are taking me to task on whether I read an easy half-day read? I must have read the book more than 4 times at least since high school.... But whatever, think what you want...

Can you acknowledge my point which also happens to be yours? That "True Conservatism" isn't based on individual moral based principles but rather a philosophy and as such BNW can be set to either current Liberal tenants or those of Conservatives....

[Private Pickle]

Conservatives, especially Catholic conservatives, see all artificial creation of life and genetic engineering as unethical science. In Brave New World, women did not have pregnancies, babies were born in a laboratory run by the state. There is no connection to the abortion issue, not even a little bit.

They are both control mechanisms.

[Blackrook]

I never said the government should be tackling all these problems. But conservatives do need to undo the damage that liberals have caused with government programs that encourage people to have babies out of wedlock and refrain from marrying.

The government should not be discouraging marriage. Any law, regulation, or policy that burdens marriage is a burden on the institution that brings the next generation into the world.

For example, when a married couple have two incomes and jointly file their taxes, they pay more than if they were two single people.

http://money.usnews.com/money/blogs/my-money/2014/03/11/how-much-the-marriage-tax-penalty-will-cost-you

[del]

del, can we get though one comment about someone with whom you disagree without calling them "nutbar", nutjob, or whatever. It just takes credibility from your arguement when you bash someone with those insults.

i call them as i see them, so if i think someone is a nutbar, nutjob, fuckwit or a toad-spotted clackfish, then that's what i call them

i'll endeavor to persevere knowing that it affects my credibility in the eyes of some people whom i've never met and whose opinions of same are meaningless to me.

[Blackrook]

They are both control mechanisms.
Literally, if cloning and genetic engineering of human beings is permitted, it will be end of the human race as we know it. Some better species of genetically engineered super-human will replace us. The genocide of all us "ordinary" folks will not be pretty.

[Blackrook]

del, can we get though one comment about someone with whom you disagree without calling them "nutbar", nutjob, or whatever. It just takes credibility from your arguement when you bash someone with those insults.
That's why I put del on ignore many weeks ago and I've never regretted my decision. He does not know how to act like a grown-up, and I have very little patience with children who don't know how to behave themselves.

[Safety]

... you...

You're saying... that abortion and population control are opposite?

BNW was balls to the wall pro-abortion, anti-unwanted pregnancy, abortion clinics everywhere, non-state approved pregnancy ostracized, pro-recreational sex...


What in the actual fuck are you talking about? Did you really read BNW?

Everybody claims to have read Brave New World and they're all liars. The same goes for Origin of Species, Wealth of Nations, Mein Kampf, the Communist Manifesto, Atlas Shrugged, et cetera...

Did you really read it? It's ok if you didn't. Most people haven't.


C'mon man, you know that was only what could find on google.... :biglaugh:

[iustitia]

I never said the government should be tackling all these problems. But conservatives do need to undo the damage that liberals have caused with government programs that encourage people to have babies out of wedlock and refrain from marrying.

The government should not be discouraging marriage. Any law, regulation, or policy that burdens marriage is a burden on the institution that brings the next generation into the world.

For example, when a married couple have two incomes and jointly file their taxes, they pay more than if they were two single people.

http://money.usnews.com/money/blogs/my-money/2014/03/11/how-much-the-marriage-tax-penalty-will-cost-you
Yeah but why the fuck should I pay more in taxes because I'm single? That's bullshit too. "Oh you don't have a spouse and kid give us more money asshole!"

And this is problem. The state turns everything into manure. There's no conservative fix. You either need the whole system to collapse and have individuals and communities start over or have a revolution and cut the hands off of everyone in Washington. But voting will never fix the system. Voting perpetuates the system.

[PolWatch]

toad spotted clackfish?

http://ts1.mm.bing.net/th?&id=HN.608011479436233695&w=300&h=300&c=0&pid=1.9&rs=0&p=0

[Mister D]

... you...

You're saying... that abortion and population control are opposite?

BNW was balls to the wall pro-abortion, anti-unwanted pregnancy, abortion clinics everywhere, non-state approved pregnancy ostracized, pro-recreational sex...


What in the actual $#@! are you talking about? Did you really read BNW?

Everybody claims to have read Brave New World and they're all liars. The same goes for Origin of Species, Wealth of Nations, Mein Kampf, the Communist Manifesto, Atlas Shrugged, et cetera...

Did you really read it? It's ok if you didn't. Most people haven't.

I did read Mein Kampf. As I recall, it had some interesting insights amidst a lot of rambling.

[Polecat]

toad spotted clackfish?

http://ts1.mm.bing.net/th?&id=HN.608011479436233695&w=300&h=300&c=0&pid=1.9&rs=0&p=0

That clears up that question, thanks.

[Blackrook]

Yeah but why the fuck should I pay more in taxes because I'm single? That's bullshit too. "Oh you don't have a spouse and kid give us more money asshole!"

And this is problem. The state turns everything into manure. There's no conservative fix. You either need the whole system to collapse and have individuals and communities start over or have a revolution and cut the hands off of everyone in Washington. But voting will never fix the system. Voting perpetuates the system.
The thing is, most revolutions end up with a dictatorship in charge, or some sort of reign of terror, or genocide. If you want a revolution, then don't call yourself a conservative.

[Blackrook]

I read Machiavelli, and the thing I learned from that book was that those in power don't need a justification for being in power, or a reason for having power, or some plan to improve the world. All they need is the desire to have power, and the willingness to do whatever it takes to get power and keep it.

If conservatives bow out and hide somewhere, and refuse to participate, power will be left in the hands of those who desire power only for itself.

[iustitia]

The thing is, most revolutions end up with a dictatorship in charge, or some sort of reign of terror, or genocide. If you want a revolution, then don't call yourself a conservative.

Don't tell me what to call myself. I said those are the two options. Destroy it by force or wait for it to collapse. Reform is only rational to a point. Even the Founding Fathers, who weren't as egalitarian as their French counter-parts, were willing to commit treason and wage an 8 year long war against their brothers for something metaphysical. At some point after all redress fails and the cries and tears of a people go ignored for so long it is said people's right and duty to cast aside their overlords. I suggest you read the Declaration of Independence so you can understand why even patriots must be willing to fight their own.

[Blackrook]

Don't tell me what to call myself. I said those are the two options. Destroy it by force or wait for it to collapse. Reform is only rational to a point. Even the Founding Fathers, who weren't as egalitarian as their French counter-parts, were willing to commit treason and wage an 8 year long war against their brothers for something metaphysical. At some point after all redress fails and the cries and tears of a people go ignored for so long it is said people's right and duty to cast aside their overlords. I suggest you read the Declaration of Independence so you can understand why even patriots must be willing to fight their own.
Bold talk, but where will you be in all this?

Will you be bashing down doors, dragging people in the street, and hanging them from lampposts?

Will you be setting fire to government buildings?

Will you be presiding over a Revolutionary Council that is putting people to death?

[iustitia]

I read Machiavelli, and the thing I learned from that book was that those in power don't need a justification for being in power, or a reason for having power, or some plan to improve the world. All they need is the desire to have power, and the willingness to do whatever it takes to get power and keep it.

If conservatives bow out and hide somewhere, and refuse to participate, power will be left in the hands of those who desire power only for itself.

Dude what even is "participate"? Voting for carbon copies of the other guys? Oh shit, glad we voted for Coke instead of Pepsi. It's completely immoral to leave your principles outside of the voting booth. I shouldn't have to compromise what is right so I can end up with what is slightly less wrong than wrong.

[Blackrook]

You can call yourself a conservative, but that doesn't make you a conservative. What you are is a nihilist. You want to tear down the entire system because it doesn't suit you perfectly.

[iustitia]

Bold talk, but where will you be in all this?

Will you be bashing down doors, dragging people in the street, and hanging them from lampposts?

Will you be setting fire to government buildings?

Will you be presiding over a Revolutionary Council that is putting people to death?

What are you even talking about? Stop being a pig-headed tool and pay attention. I said conservatives should pray to God that the whole thing collapses. I didn't say I want war. I defended the notion that conservatives can be revolutionary. You want to "participate" so you go do those things. The reality though is that the biggest flag-wavers are usually the biggest pussies around and would be shitting their pants if they were expected to do something useful like fight for freedom instead of voting for it.

That said, I don't want a new central government. The anti-federalists right. Strong government is good for nationalists but poisons conservatism.

[Blackrook]

Dude what even is "participate"? Voting for carbon copies of the other guys? Oh shit, glad we voted for Coke instead of Pepsi. It's completely immoral to leave your principles outside of the voting booth. I shouldn't have to compromise what is right so I can end up with what is slightly less wrong than wrong.
Then run for office yourself and you will have a candidate to vote for that perfectly suits you. And if you win, do something to change the evils you hate.

Complaining on the internet accomplishes nothing.

[iustitia]

You can call yourself a conservative, but that doesn't make you a conservative. What you are is a nihilist. You want to tear down the entire system because it doesn't suit you perfectly.

Ah yes, a Bible-thumping nihilist. Bro you're philosophically retarded and suffer from intellectual dwarfism. You call yourself a conservative but you're just another nationalist clinging to something that never existed. You have no freedom to save, your flag represents nothing, and your values are horseshit resting upon the grave of civil society. Get real.

[Blackrook]

What are you even talking about? Stop being a pig-headed tool and pay attention. I said conservatives should pray to God that the whole thing collapses. I didn't say I want war. I defended the notion that conservatives can be revolutionary. You want to "participate" so you go do those things. The reality though is that the biggest flag-wavers are usually the biggest pussies around and would be shitting their pants if they were expected to do something useful like fight for freedom instead of voting for it.

That said, I don't want a new central government. The anti-federalists right. Strong government is good for nationalists but poisons conservatism.
OK, well I'm not going to argue with you anymore. Now that you're attack me personally, instead of debating what I said, I am no longer interested in continuing this discussion.

[iustitia]

Then run for office yourself and you will have a candidate to vote for that perfectly suits you. And if you win, do something to change the evils you hate.

Get Goldman Sachs to loan me a few billion dollars and we'll talk.


Complaining on the internet accomplishes nothing.

Pot, kettle.

[Blackrook]

Ah yes, a Bible-thumping nihilist. Bro you're philosophically retarded and suffer from intellectual dwarfism. You call yourself a conservative but you're just another nationalist clinging to something that never existed. You have no freedom to save, your flag represents nothing, and your values are horseshit resting upon the grave of civil society. Get real.
More insults, which means you know you've lost the argument.

[Blackrook]

iustitia, I thought you were smart so I was trying to give you advise that would encourage you to go out and fix things. Now I realize you don't really want to do anything about the problems you whine about. All you want to do is whine.

[iustitia]

More insults, which means you know you've lost the argument.

LOL, are they insults or observations?

And to lose an argument there needs to be one. All you've done this thread is cry over the word 'conservative' and begging people to "participate" in fake elections.

[protectionist]

My go to definition for what a conservative is in modern American politics can be made clear with a simple question:

If the answer to your issue / question is a government program or law, you are not a conservative. You are a statist.

Nah! Conservatism is the CONSERVING of American traditional values and the conserving of the safety of the American people (AKA National Security). Many laws and govt programs pertain to the military and various law enforcement agencies, all of which are at the height of conservatism.

[Blackrook]

LOL, are they insults or observations?

And to lose an argument there needs to be one. All you've done this thread is cry over the word 'conservative' and begging people to "participate" in fake elections.
I'm officially giving up on you. Your ridiculous determination to be a total ass makes you not worthy of my time.

[iustitia]

iustitia, I thought you were smart so I was trying to give you advise that would encourage you to go out and fix things. Now I realize you don't really want to do anything about the problems you whine about. All you want to do is whine.

LOL This entire topic is you whining that people call themselves a term you don't want them calling themselves. Who's the whiner? I'm being realistic about fairly clear and historical truths that any objective person not blinded by ideology or partisanship can see.

Thanks for the advise [sic], though.

What I want is clear. I want the state to leave me alone to my own devices and stop its onslaught against human decency. I'm going to get that through voting and neither are you.

[protectionist]

They're two sides to the same coin. Whatever globalist agenda is being pushed, you cons are right in the thick of it. Look what you guys have done to civil rights in the past 15 years, look how you've torn the country to shreds with your bull$#@! wars.
Liberals have shredded civil rights with affirmative action discrimination, and if the current anti-jihad wars weren't being fought, there wouldn't be any USA, period. And if Obama doesn't start abandoning his Muslim (including ISIS) ass-kissing, just what will happen.

[iustitia]

I'm officially giving up on you. Your ridiculous determination to be a total ass makes you not worthy of my time.

LOL I've heard that before.


OK, well I'm not going to argue with you anymore. I am no longer interested in continuing this discussion.

[Blackrook]

LOL This entire topic is you whining that people call themselves a term you don't want them calling themselves. Who's the whiner? I'm being realistic about fairly clear and historical truths that any objective person not blinded by ideology or partisanship can see.

Thanks for the advise [sic], though.

What I want is clear. I want the state to leave me alone to my own devices and stop its onslaught against human decency. I'm going to get that through voting and neither are you.
Then go into the mountains and declare your compound an independent country that does not recognize the authority of the federal government.

[Blackrook]

LOL I've heard that before.
I'm sure you have.

[protectionist]

. Routinely scourging foreign lands in various manners for no reason not only makes no rational sense but history teaches that it hasn't helped..

I have already corrected you on this, so, that you still keep posting the same nonsense, at this point, I conclude that you are either lying, or you have a severe learning disability.

[iustitia]

Then go into the mountains and declare your compound an independent country that does not recognize the authority of the federal government.

I'm sure you have.

LOL Couldn't resist, could you?

[iustitia]

I have already corrected you on this, so, that you still keep posting the same nonsense, at this point, I conclude that you are either lying, or you have a severe learning disability.

DURKA DURKA DURKA, MUHAMMED JIHAD SHIRPA SHIRPA DIRK DIRK BELAK.

Jesus Christ.

[Captain Obvious]

DURKA DURKA DURKA, MUHAMMED JIHAD SHIRPA SHIRPA DIRK DIRK BELAK.

Jesus Christ.

POTD nomination Howey

[Polecat]

POTD nomination @Howey (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=387)

I concur.

[del]

the jesus christ was a nice touch

[protectionist]

Ah yes, a Bible-thumping nihilist. Bro you're philosophically retarded and suffer from intellectual dwarfism. You call yourself a conservative but you're just another nationalist clinging to something that never existed. You have no freedom to save, your flag represents nothing, and your values are horse$#@! resting upon the grave of civil society. Get real.

HA HA. America-haters get so emotional, that they give themselves away, every time. Nothing more silly than an irrational, blustering America-hater. So the US Constitution is "horseshit" ? A flag representing 460,000 lives lost in World War II is "nothing". ? The freedom of speech you are enjoying right now, isn't a "freedom to save" ? http://thepoliticsforums.com/images/smilies/newsmilies/geez.gif (javascript:void(0))

I need not insult you. You have more than done that to yourself here.

[Captain Obvious]

the jesus christ was a nice touch

It's the subtle things that make great works of art into masterpieces.

[protectionist]

DURKA DURKA DURKA, MUHAMMED JIHAD SHIRPA SHIRPA DIRK DIRK BELAK.

Jesus Christ.

Qualifies for top 10 most hollow, inept responses of 2015 (even at this early date) http://thepoliticsforums.com/images/smilies/newsmilies/smiley_ROFLMAO.gif (javascript:void(0))

[Blackrook]

iustitia is an assclown, and the proof is that Captain Obvious is braying like a retarded jackal at his posts.

[Captain Obvious]

Qualifies for top 10 most hollow, inept responses of 2015 (even at this early date) http://thepoliticsforums.com/images/smilies/newsmilies/smiley_ROFLMAO.gif (http://javascript<strong></strong>:void(0))

That's a wrap Howey , launch sequence confirmed.

:biglaugh:

[Captain Obvious]

iustitia is an assclown, and the proof is that Captain Obvious is braying like a retarded jackal at his posts.

The world is unforgiving sometimes.

[iustitia]

iustitia is an assclown, and the proof is that Captain Obvious is braying like a retarded jackal at his posts.

Now who's insulting?


That's a wrap @Howey (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=387) , launch sequence confirmed.

:biglaugh:

LOL

http://i.ytimg.com/vi/_NG2yJmv21E/hqdefault.jpg

[protectionist]

That's a wrap @Howey (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=387) , launch sequence confirmed.

:biglaugh:

Another http://thepoliticsforums.com/images/smilies/newsmilies/lame.gif (javascript:void(0)) inept non-response. OK you get the top 10 too. http://thepoliticsforums.com/images/smilies/newsmilies/rolleyes.gif

[Howey]

Qualifies for top 10 most hollow, inept responses of 2015 (even at this early date) http://thepoliticsforums.com/images/smilies/newsmilies/smiley_ROFLMAO.gif (javascript:void(0))
Managed to squeeze it in with yours, huh?

[Howey]

Hell. I should give it to iustitia just for the sig. I had no idea!

[protectionist]

Managed to squeeze it in with yours, huh?

Top 10 worst comebacks. http://thepoliticsforums.com/images/smilies/newsmilies/smiley_ROFLMAO.gif (javascript:void(0))

[iustitia]

Top 10 worst comebacks. http://thepoliticsforums.com/images/smilies/newsmilies/smiley_ROFLMAO.gif (http://javascript<strong></strong>:void(0))

It technically isn't a comeback since it wasn't a reaction to a response you gave to him. It was a reaction to a response you gave to someone else. Your response was a comeback, though, and just a dreadful as always.

[Private Pickle]

Literally, if cloning and genetic engineering of human beings is permitted, it will be end of the human race as we know it. Some better species of genetically engineered super-human will replace us. The genocide of all us "ordinary" folks will not be pretty.

They were mentioned in BNW and kinda seemed pretty happy...

[Peter1469]

Going to a compound and locking yourself away from the world is giving up.

Disagree. And that is a mischaracterization.

[Mr. Right]

i call them as i see them, so if i think someone is a nutbar, nutjob, $#@!wit or a toad-spotted clackfish, then that's what i call them

i'll endeavor to persevere knowing that it affects my credibility in the eyes of some people whom i've never met and whose opinions of same are meaningless to me.

Ok, I suppose calling this person a name validates your opinion of them. But lets delve deeper. The law that says the sign must be posted that "all employees must wash their hands b/f returning to work is my issue. Most states have a sensible law that mandates people wear seatbelts or get a ticket. I wear my seatbelt on the interstate, and nowhere else. It's my choice. I'll get fined if caught, but I'll take it to court and beat it. (every time)
The law that says the sign mandating hand washing is much the same. The employee who is delinquent in cleansing his manos, gets the same treatment that I get when I pass a state trooper with tinted windows and not wearing my seatbelt.
So what is the sense in having a law that can't or won't be enforced? I've also asked this question about illegal immigration.

[Mr. Right]

toad spotted clackfish?

http://ts1.mm.bing.net/th?&id=HN.608011479436233695&w=300&h=300&c=0&pid=1.9&rs=0&p=0

Dang, Pol... you know my MIL?

[Dr. Who]

Ok, I suppose calling this person a name validates your opinion of them. But lets delve deeper. The law that says the sign must be posted that "all employees must wash their hands b/f returning to work is my issue. Most states have a sensible law that mandates people wear seatbelts or get a ticket. I wear my seatbelt on the interstate, and nowhere else. It's my choice. I'll get fined if caught, but I'll take it to court and beat it. (every time)
The law that says the sign mandating hand washing is much the same. The employee who is delinquent in cleansing his manos, gets the same treatment that I get when I pass a state trooper with tinted windows and not wearing my seatbelt.
So what is the sense in having a law that can't or won't be enforced? I've also asked this question about illegal immigration.
When it comes to food prep, you are dealing with licenses to sell prepared food to the public. This is not a matter of ordinary regulation. Non-hand washing could conceivably cause serious illness and even death to people who take for granted that the license that allows the establishment to provide food includes basic sanitary practices. E-coli based contamination can cause permanent kidney damage and a life time of illness for some people. Hep-C has cascading health effects. Sanitary practices are a very small limitation on personal freedom in the food industry. Furthermore, not washing your hands after using the bathroom is just disgusting.

[del]

Ok, I suppose calling this person a name validates your opinion of them. But lets delve deeper. The law that says the sign must be posted that "all employees must wash their hands b/f returning to work is my issue. Most states have a sensible law that mandates people wear seatbelts or get a ticket. I wear my seatbelt on the interstate, and nowhere else. It's my choice. I'll get fined if caught, but I'll take it to court and beat it. (every time)
The law that says the sign mandating hand washing is much the same. The employee who is delinquent in cleansing his manos, gets the same treatment that I get when I pass a state trooper with tinted windows and not wearing my seatbelt.
So what is the sense in having a law that can't or won't be enforced? I've also asked this question about illegal immigration.

why would you attempt to engage someone who has no credibility in your eyes?

and why would i bother answering your questions?

[Mr. Right]

When it comes to food prep, you are dealing with licenses to sell prepared food to the public. This is not a matter of ordinary regulation. Non-hand washing could conceivably cause serious illness and even death to people who take for granted that the license that allows the establishment to provide food includes basic sanitary practices. E-coli based contamination can cause permanent kidney damage and a life time of illness for some people. Hep-C has cascading health effects. Sanitary practices are a very small limitation on personal freedom in the food industry. Furthermore, not washing your hands after using the bathroom is just disgusting.

I'll not argue that not washing your hands is disgusting. What you have on the wall in the RR is a toothless reminder of health concerns.

[Mr. Right]

why would you attempt to engage someone who has no credibility in your eyes?

and why would i bother answering your questions?

Sorry to have bothered you.

[Dr. Who]

I'll not argue that not washing your hands is disgusting. What you have on the wall in the RR is a toothless reminder of health concerns.
You would be surprised at the number of people who DON'T wash their hands after using the facilities. Some people need a reminder to be civilized. On the other hand, depending on the nature of the organization, the rules may not be toothless. Consider plants that package foods. People working those lines caught not washing their hands can be summarily fired, since they could potentially contaminate thousands of products on a line and cost their employer in law suits and loss of reputation, not to mention often the cost of recalling the product. In an auto plant, no so much, other than grossing out their fellow employees and spreading germs unnecessarily, resulting in more time off sick.

[Mr. Right]

You would be surprised at the number of people who DON'T wash their hands after using the facilities. Some people need a reminder to be civilized. On the other hand, depending on the nature of the organization, the rules may not be toothless. Consider plants that package foods. People working those lines caught not washing their hands can be summarily fired, since they could potentially contaminate thousands of products on a line and cost their employer in law suits and loss of reputation, not to mention often the cost of recalling the product. In an auto plant, no so much, other than grossing out their fellow employees and spreading germs unnecessarily, resulting in more time off sick.

No, Doctor.. I DO know how many people don't wash their hands. I'm not at all surprised. I'm of the belief that it should be an internal matter between the owner and the employee. A responsible owner of an eatery will make sure his employees will conduct themselves as mandated by a condition of employment, rather than post a toothless madate/law. Here comes the fastball... does he or the gov. spy on employee? Does the employee get fired? Or does the employee who violated mandate/law go to jail? Where does this B.S. end?

[del]

Sorry to have bothered you.

no bother

[Dr. Who]

No, Doctor.. I DO know how many people don't wash their hands. I'm not at all surprised. I'm of the belief that it should be an internal matter between the owner and the employee. A responsible owner of an eatery will make sure his employees will conduct themselves as mandated by a condition of employment, rather than post a toothless madate/law. Here comes the fastball... does he or the gov. spy on employee? Does the employee get fired? Or does the employee who violated mandate/law go to jail? Where does this B.S. end?
I don't imagine that the sign is law in all places of employment, but please correct me if I am wrong. I haven't researched it. None the less signage is a factor in the law. If there is no sign, people can say they didn't know and often ignorance is a defense.

As an aside, in either the case of restaurant employees or workers in food packaging plants, generally they are self-policed, however government inspection can occur at any time, so it is the absolute nightmare of the owner or plant manager to have an employee caught by an inspector. The government inspector can literally order the closure of the business and decontamination of all the lines as well as requiring all employees checked for something like Hep C.

The only situation where I could see an employee going to jail is one in which the employee knowingly contaminated food i.e. knowing they had Hep C or something similar and still handled food without gloves and a mask, which caused serious illness or death. That would be similar to knowingly having HIV and having unprotected sex with an unsuspecting partner.

[protectionist]

It technically isn't a comeback since it wasn't a reaction to a response you gave to him. It was a reaction to a response you gave to someone else. Your response was a comeback, though, and just a dreadful as always.

Your comeback (to someone else's, or your own, or who cares) is the dreadful, usual pretense of intelligence, while really being nothing more than a front to cover your fear of me, from all the beatings I've given you.

Where ? YOU KNOW. :icon_biggrin:

[Captain Obvious]

Your comeback (to someone else's, or your own, or who cares) is the dreadful, usual pretense of intelligence, while really being nothing more than a front to cover your fear of me, from all the beatings I've given you.

Where ? YOU KNOW. :icon_biggrin:

This guy is in the "all I can do at this point is troll and insult" stage of his tenure here.

Maybe a coup d'gras is in order.

[PolWatch]

sometimes a coup d'gras is more merciful than death by a thousand paper cuts....

[Captain Obvious]

sometimes a coup d'gras is more merciful than death by a thousand paper cuts....

Wiki "death by slicing".

Or not if you horrify easily.

[Alyosha]

Conservative means exactly what the term implies - to conserve or one who conserves. Politically that means conserving traditional values and institutions and being fiscally cautious. However society simply evolves as do values and mores and government tends to be reactive to the will of the majority. That is the nature of the democratic process. To be proactively conservative as a government, would be to interdict societal change. That by definition would require the use of coercive force and punitive legislation. It would require abandonment of the democratic process. At what point in time do you stop the clock on societal change? Now or 40 years ago, 100 years ago? Whose vision of traditional values do you follow? At the end of the day no democratically elected government could possibly be truly conservative and still represent the majority of the people. Today's version of conservativism is still different than that of the 1950's and different still than that of the turn of the century. Examples of societies that are truly conservative are Iran and Saudi Arabia. They chose a point in time about 2000 years ago to stop the clock on social change.


You speak as if we actually have democratically elected governments or that social change is grassroots. Social change has been created by those with money and has been top down for as long as I can remember and before that. All of the "social movements" from the marxists to the fabians were actually funded by the wealthy. Smart people would probably ask why the extreme wealthy would want to patronize a pro-people movement, but that's the stuff of "conspiracy".

Unpleasant things can always be avoided in any discussion by using the word "conspiracy".

We live in a world where people must be controlled. The control passed from religion to government, with people giving up that control for the purpose of safety and to make things more pleasant. Government gives the illusion with elections that the people have any sort of power at all, or that somehow the dictates of government is "by the people". Every social change which you deem positive is purposeful towards the implementation and solidification of the state's power.

Societal change is not organic, it is directed.

[Dr. Who]

You speak as if we actually have democratically elected governments or that social change is grassroots. Social change has been created by those with money and has been top down for as long as I can remember and before that. All of the "social movements" from the marxists to the fabians were actually funded by the wealthy. Smart people would probably ask why the extreme wealthy would want to patronize a pro-people movement, but that's the stuff of "conspiracy".

Unpleasant things can always be avoided in any discussion by using the word "conspiracy".

We live in a world where people must be controlled. The control passed from religion to government, with people giving up that control for the purpose of safety and to make things more pleasant. Government gives the illusion with elections that the people have any sort of power at all, or that somehow the dictates of government is "by the people". Every social change which you deem positive is purposeful towards the implementation and solidification of the state's power.

Societal change is not organic, it is directed.
Even if there are those with money who, through the media, entertainment and the arts, influence the public, it is the public who choose to buy into change. There is also some change that is more organic and usually starts with youth or the disenfranchised and rejection of the status quo and spreads upward into higher economic groups. Think of the evolution of jazz music, combined variously with country, bluegrass, folk and gospel music and the evolution of rock and roll to rock, acid rock, metal music, punk, goth,grunge, hip hop and rap. The attitude and thoughts expressed in therein are spawned from the experiences of young people from varying economic backgrounds and against different political landscapes.

[Alyosha]

Even if there are those with money who, through the media, entertainment and the arts, influence the public, it is the public who choose to buy into change. There is also some change that is more organic and usually starts with youth or the disenfranchised and rejection of the status quo and spreads upward into higher economic groups. Think of the evolution of jazz music, combined variously with country, bluegrass, folk and gospel music and the evolution of rock and roll to rock, acid rock, metal music, punk, goth,grunge, hip hop and rap. The attitude and thoughts expressed in therein are spawned from the experiences of young people from varying economic backgrounds and against different political landscapes.

All of those things began organically and were soon taken over, repackaged, branded and fed back. There is nothing grassroots anymore from the Occupy movement to the Tea Parties.

Think of those moments where the musicians have spoken for themselves and made the mistake of saying something un-PC (a government institution), they were smacked by their publicist and apologized.

The "rock n roll" of the 60's and 70's would not have apologized for any comment because these anti-establishment groups meant to be offensive and to shake people up.

Now we want them shaken just a tiny bit and in the direction we want them to go, which is not ironically more state.

[Dr. Who]

All of those things began organically and were soon taken over, repackaged, branded and fed back. There is nothing grassroots anymore from the Occupy movement to the Tea Parties.

Think of those moments where the musicians have spoken for themselves and made the mistake of saying something un-PC (a government institution), they were smacked by their publicist and apologized.

The "rock n roll" of the 60's and 70's would not have apologized for any comment because these anti-establishment groups meant to be offensive and to shake people up.

Now we want them shaken just a tiny bit and in the direction we want them to go, which is not ironically more state.
Those changes that occurred in the 60's and 70's did not evaporate, they remained with society. The modern version of that phenomenon is found in indie music, which has no censors, publicists or packaging and it is really becoming more popular all the time. There are so few producers of music left anymore, and the latter only produce formulaic music that is guaranteed to sell, that artists have turned to the internet and self-promotion to bring their art and their voice to the masses.

[Mister D]

Those changes that occurred in the 60's and 70's did not evaporate, they remained with society. The modern version of that phenomenon is found in indie music, which has no censors, publicists or packaging and it is really becoming more popular all the time. There are so few producers of music left anymore, and the latter only produce formulaic music that is guaranteed to sell, that artists have turned to the internet and self-promotion to bring their art and their voice to the masses.

Which has resulted in the state being more involved in ever in your life. It's a curious freedom you 60s types espouse.

[Bob]

My go to definition for what a conservative is in modern American politics can be made clear with a simple question:

If the answer to your issue / question is a government program or law, you are not a conservative. You are a statist.

Democrats solution to everything is more laws, more regulations, more removal of freedom.

They are statists.

I admit that it is now more common for republicans to propose the same thing. But bear in mind their audience is we the public.

We the public explain to politicians what they must talk about. We are led by the media. They propose how we are to see issues. I watch this take place daily on all the news programs.

Do we blame ourselves for the government we tell republicans we want?

The third party messages don't reach the typical person. A lot of them think Libertarians are whack jobs.

You have still millions who worship Obama. He persuaded them what to think and how to think it. Republicans can't win unless some of his followers recant. And by recant, I don't mean vote for a third party. Taht only shows a way for democrats to keep winning.

What does the media tell us daily about Hilllary?

Come on. Admit it ....l they claim she will win. She has not declared but the media pronounced her the winner.

They do it to condition the public to accept her as the winner. No other reason.

Watch the media talking. Notice when they are critical, and I mean daily, the critical part always begins with the word republicans. I see that doofus David Brooks on TV and Judy Woodruff loves him running down Republicans. then the straw that breaks the back of the camel is she turns to the Democrats Shields and he attacks republicans.

Judy always acts as if democrats will win in 2016. If a person denies this, prove me wrong.

[Dr. Who]

Which has resulted in the state being more involved in ever in your life. It's a curious freedom you 60s types espouse.
I was not qualifying the influences of those times as being good or bad. I was only distinguishing them as being organic. I believe that organic change is a constant in every generation, however as communications make the world increasingly smaller, and fewer people are isolated, the multiplier effect increases. Organic change is punctuated at times by events that either accelerate or diminish that rate of change. Wars accelerate change. Times of peace and relative prosperity slow it down.