Image is courtesy of wikimedia with its free use as long as the image is not being profited from.
... The statue of Liberty if written by conservatives today...
"Give me your idiotic, your moronic, your anti-intellectuals.. yearning to cause baseless chaos in order to turn our attention away from the issues. Give me your sheeple, your conspiracies and your extremist views... to battle, and destroy the liberal and democratic strong hold. To make equality synonymous with communism, to make justice synonymous with fascism, to make socialism synonymous with totalitarianism. Give me your rich, your wealthy and your land barons wishing to not be held accountable to the same rights and liberties of their fellow man.... but to be granted those special rights granted to them by the lobbyists they hire to grease the pockets of those elected to share your views yet who are elected to suppress your views for their own greed.
Give me your poor, your lower class and your have nots, so I may smear them as American hating and useless. Give me your intellectuals who dare show the flaws in our system, so I can smear them as elitist and out of touch. Give me your first amendment that would dare speak for anything that I am against.
Give me your mind, your body and your blind obedience to cure the rights of man by taking the rights from man"
This picture is more so speaking of the neo-conservatives, I would gladly vote for an Eisenhower or Goldwater conservative any day of the week.... Though this is not speaking of any particular party - neo-cons can be Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, or even perhaps having no party.
I believe if you look in my gallery you will get an understanding of what it is I believe in as far as policies go.
^in this stamps someone asked me what is the difference between libertarian socialism and democratic socialism, check my comment in the stamp linked above
Pure socialism vs. democratic socialism: atheosemanon.deviantart.com/ar…
..the simplest explanation I could think of when asked the difference between the two.
Credits and Additions:
Other pieces to check out:
Not fiscally conservative, fiscally pragmatic atheosemanon.deviantart.com/ar…
This is America - Love it or Change it: atheosemanon.deviantart.com/ar…
Leftist Pragmatism vs. Rightist Idealism atheosemanon.deviantart.com/ar…
My political ideologies: atheosemanon.deviantart.com/ar…
Liberals and gun ownership: atheosemanon.deviantart.com/ar…
Why socialism? atheosemanon.deviantart.com/ar…
Pure socialism vs democratic socialism atheosemanon.deviantart.com/ar…
Gay rights in America I: atheosemanon.deviantart.com/ar…
Gay rights in America II: atheosemanon.deviantart.com/ar…
Debate with an “ex gay” Christian convert: atheosemanon.deviantart.com/ar…
Influence map: atheosemanon.deviantart.com/ar…
An atheist on theism & atheism: atheosemanon.deviantart.com/ar…
Declaration of truth: atheosemanon.deviantart.com/ar…
What it means to be an atheist: atheosemanon.deviantart.com/ar…
Atheist leftist answers your questions...:
An atheist debates an atheist on theism: atheosemanon.deviantart.com/ar…
[main piece] Abortion: atheosemanon.deviantart.com/ar…
Abortion stamp 1: atheosemanon.deviantart.com/ar…
Abortion stamp 2: atheosemanon.deviantart.com/ar…
Check my gallery for other pieces.
As always comrades,
Let knowledge be that truth, which portrays humanity, condemns malevolence; that respects the differences in others while abandoning the hatred and misconceptions of the past.
so the questions begs to be asked, sir, if I mentioned no party in the writing of the piece, if I purposely said in the "Artist Comments" that this is not towards any particular party - - it is rather interesting that I speak to an ideological view - and say this is not about any particular party - -and yet you reply with "... party beliefs completely, absolutely backwards."
Can one get the party beliefs absolutely backwards, while not speaking of a particular party?
Yet, this piece, as the artist comment states speaks of Neocons .. not paleocons or your run of the mill conservatives.. can it be "completely backwards" when you even have certain what I would deem credible, and very great minded conservatives that says the same thing of these neocons?
Happy, eh content I guess so.
I believe the grammar, and the previous statement is rather clear.
Actually I spoke nothing of what you are – I spoke of the artist comments stating that this particular piece speaks of neocons. I did not, nor will I lay a label on you that you have not yet defined yourself. Nowhere in any premise yet stated, spoke of your personal ideological view.
No, what I am trying to speak of are neoconservatives, the kind that seem to have never met a war they did not want America to get involved in, the kind that says we need to intertwine our civil laws with biblical laws etc..
“rest of us” well if you consider yourself a run of the mill or paleoconservative, then, as the “Artist Comments” plainly states and I shall quote the text in the Artist comment
“This picture is more so speaking of the neo-conservatives, I would gladly vote for an Eisenhower or Goldwater conservative any day of the week.... Though this is not speaking of any particular party - neo-cons can be Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, or even perhaps having no party.”
Nowhere did I state that most of you were what the image describes, if I thought it was a mass generalization that encompassed all conservatives I would have saw no need to specify that this piece was referring to neocons.
So it would seem, sir, that you read the conservative colossus and thought it was referring to anyone who thinks themselves conservative - -perhaps you did not read the artist comments where I state that it is only or more-so referring to neocons.
It would seem, sir, a simple misunderstanding and that is of course fine.
Is there more in which, sir, that needs to be discussed with respect to this particular image or..?
I did read your description, however the title itself is still a bit misleading. Perhaps you should change it to "The NEOconservative Colossus" to avoid further confusion; it wouldn't suggest such a blanket term encompassing ALL conservatives, because, as we both seem to understand rather clearly, not all conservatives support the same fundamentalist viewpoints. Misunderstanding indeed.
I agree, the original Iraq war was pointless … going after Saddam for something he did during the 1980s… which I believe was simply a cover for their oil reserves. Since if America was truly bothered by Saddam and his actions during the Halabja incident then we would have gone into Iraq in 1988.
I do not believe the title is misleading, these people are conservative – perhaps I expect too much of people and do expect people to read the artist comments to gather a better grasp of the image – but I am not responsible for what others may or may not do – or what others may or may not feel with respect or rather regarding the works in which I upload.
No thanks, if one cannot be bothered to read the Artist comments, I see no need, nor desire to rename the piece. But thanks for airing your concerns.
It would seem, with greatest respect, sir, of the two years of my having uploaded this, you were, only 1 of 2 that thought it was regarding all conservatives..
If one cannot read the Artist comments to see it does not mean ALL conservatives, then that is on them, good sir.
That is just it, sir, not all conservatives think the same.. there are people that consider themselves paleoconservative that have very similar views to neocons.. thus the piece, while mainly focusing on neoconservatives, it holds to those that have the views expressed within the piece itself.
I am unsure, sir, if there is more that needs to be discussed with respect to this particular piece? If there is I of course will address it when I see it as I am online for the 20-30 mins and shall address it immediately - - - if after that time I shall address it tomorrow.
If we are done here, I of course wish you a great day… evening.. or night depending on your location and/or perhaps the time you just happen to check this comment.
This ploy of appealing to social malcontents is inspired,divide and conquer from within,brilliant!
By the time they realize they'll be thrown under the bus it'll be to late,I hope they enjoy living in the slums with the worthless street trash they've fought for.
I am glad you have hope..
No,from observing and interacting with the homeless community in the town I found him in,and others.
You should go see a doctor for that STD.
"In the mid-1970s, the top 1 percent earned about 8 percent of all income. In the 1980s, that figure jumped to 14 percent. In the late 1990s, that 1 percent earned about 19 percent.....in the year 2007, the top 1 percent of all income earners in the United States made 23.5 percent of all income,"
Which politifact rated as true.. completely true, not "mostly true" as if there is some falsehood in it.. it is completely true.
As we have moved away from the system the rich get richer... they take more and more of the pie and leave the rest of the 99% of people to fight over smaller and smaller shares of the pie... then they, the wealthy, smear these people as lazy because they are not making as much... they are the reason we have 50M people who live below the poverty level... I shall stop before I rant...
I would disagree that they spend all day fighting against what the other side says… in action that is fighting against the other side’s views, as such staking your own claims and view.
Can you show me a consensus of liberals that say America is not founded on freedom? A freedom to be gay, Hispanic, Muslim or Christian? … I find that a bit odd since most liberals in America … are Christian. As I am sure you know you can find “some” people” on either side to be for or against this but that does not make it a trait of liberalism.
Well as stated, Liberal and conservative are not political parties … I shall assume you mean Democrat and Republican with respect to America and parties.
I am not a member of either party, I am more of a policy man than a party man. IF you read my piece you will see that neither Republican or Democrat party was mentioned, because this piece are about, what I see, the policies of neo-conservatives… not parties since I have people I respect in both parties.
Thank you for your comment, good day to you.
Still, there are flaws in the dual party system. What is supposed to work like a balancing act often turns to a hate-fest, and it is sad that this is so. I suppose it's simply the way we are. I just try to stay as objective as possible in these situations.
Well hatred is not exclusive to a side. I know some liberals and conservatives in which have policies that I feel are hm unequal or support one thing if it benefits one race and not something else that benefits another. Partially the thing I wrote about my support of "whites only scholarships" in my gallery.
I, as the piece stated, tend not to be a party man, I am a policy man, with respect to political party, I am an independent, but with respect to my political ideology, I am a liberal, progressive, democratic socialist and a national conservative.
For me party is secondary to party, if you.. let us say, give me a Republican like Eisenhower or Teddy Roosevelt running against Obama, they would easily get my vote... if you give me a Franklin Roosevelt, JFK or Johnson type of Democrat running against Obama or Romney then they would get my vote because.. especially with Teddy and Franklin Roosevelt who I consider some of my favorite policy man... I tend to vote more for what a politician has done or tell me they will do rather than what I consider the "dumb fuckery" of just voting straight ticket. Or just voting for a party no matter what.
I did not think you were in a bad mood, or seemed to be, just had a difference of views.
Well we only have a duel party "system" .. not because we have two parties because we don't, we have literally hundreds of parties, but only 5 or 6 key ones that get on the ballots in most or all states.. but the reason we really have modern polarization... is because of the Commission on Presidential Debates .. which was founded by Democrats and Republicans to ensure that only the candidate of the Democrat and Republican party get to debate.. while I oppose such an organization and believe that the candidates from the Republican, Democrat, Independent, Green, Libertarian, Constitution Party which have federal recognized parties in a minimum of 37 states... I believe they should all be allowed to debate and allow the people to either make a vote for either of them....
While I know my next idea would never happen, would you support a "second place" vote?
Such as..you vote for 3 people in a 1st, 2nd and third .. ballot and if your first choice does not win then your vote goes towards your second choice and if they do not win your third choice...
So let us say you support Romney, Gary Johnson . and then Jill Stein. if Romney loses then your votes go to Johnson and then Stein.. while I know this would never happen given to the complicated nature of such a new system..
something realistic I would ask your view on, do you think, as I do, that the electoral college has outlived its usefulness and that whomever gets the most votes should be the president? Or should we stick with the electoral college?
I understand the arguments for them.. but my whole thing has been, they made sense when it took weeks for representatives to get the Washington but in this day and age when we know in milliseconds, I see no use for them; then my other argument is every vote should count.
If you are a Democrat in Texas.. I do not find it fair that no matter who you vote for your state's electoral votes will go for the Republican, and if you are a Republican in New York or California.. no matter who you vote for, your state's electoral votes will just go to the Democrat.. I feel every vote should count . it will not disrupt the system at all since before they send in the votes they count them anyway..
The second vote thing sounds nice, but seems far to complicated, when you pick a candidate you really should stick with them. I really do wish official debates weren't limited to the two primary parties, libertarians and greens need to be heard too, even if they aren't popular new ideas are always beneficial.
So yes, I do agree with what you say, the system needs a bit of a tune up. Once you know all the cheats you can get away with the game is broken right?
Still I think the idea of a candidate being solely marked as belonging to a party is just stupid, it promotes blind voting. When it's easier to just see "Democrat" and vote for it people will be lazy, and in a democracy all the citizens need to be involved in the system, or at least not complain that they aren't represented.
I forget who said it, but one of my favorite quotes is "Capitalism is the worst form of government, except for all the rest." I just thought that rang true for the human condition in general.
Yes, I figured that is why it would never happen because it is too complicated but I would not oppose such a thing if congress ever tried to implement it.
I think if people heard libertarians, independents, green party etc speak .. even if they would still vote for their Democrat or Republican choice they may hold their candidate feet to the fire a bit more to adopt some of the third party platforms as their own.
I would imagine so, though I do not particularly take the view of a generalized view of cheats but I know they are there. My favorite senator, Bernie Sanders, is not running but I would vote for him over Obama any day of the week.. if he had a real chance of winning being that he is not a Democrat or Republican.
I would agree, but.. most .. well to be safe I will say many since I know of no scientific study to prove my "most" claim. Many Americans just vote for the Republican or the Democrat.. they care very little of the platform of that party or that person but just because they agree with what they think that party stands for they just vote for them.. While as stated many a times, I plan to vote for Obama because I agree with his views more than I do Romney... but if someone wants to vote for Romney..sure, no skin off my knuckles.
While I am against a Direct Democracy, I do believe we need a greater Participatory democracy to pair with our Representative Democracy but as it stands, many people just vote and think that that is all they have to do.. um. no.
I know that Winston Churchill said "capitalism is surely the worst economic system, except for all the others that have been tried." ... while he said it in the context of speaking of democracy, I know no one that said capitalism is the worst form of government since capitalism is not a form of government, it is an economic system not a political one per se.
Just as I laugh when some people say socialism is a political way ... not really, socialism is an economic system, as a Democratic socialist I often laugh when some say I am anti-American for being a Democratic socialist yet cannot show anything I have said or ever espoused to back up their claim but.. I am rambling now and will end the comment here.
I think that we do need to strike a balance of representation and direct voting. Just like you said.
The most important part of a democracy is that everyone can be involved, so it is very important to make sure everyone has all the knowledge they need to make the right decision. Lack of knowledge leads to stereotyping, like people thinking that communism is evil, it's just flawed. Or when people always just assume the worst of the opposite parties, because they differ on one thing. Most people agree on most things, so I try to treat everyone, no matter how misguided, like a person. It's hard to hate anyone once you know them. Being a Christian probably helps though. Even though people think we're judgmental jerks a true Christian should be the opposite. Stereotypes and generalization are bad for everyone.
Yeah, I figured that was the quote you were speaking of since itw as all that popped in my head when I read your quote.
I agree, but many people do not take an active role in their politics and it is them, regardless of if they are liberal or conservative, Democrat or Republican... the way the country has become falls solely on their legs.
I would also agree with everyone getting involved, yet I am unsure if you would agree with what I fight for with respect to ex-cons. I do not think you should EVER lose your right to vote.. I believe okay if you are in prison that is one thing but once you are out, I do not think being an ex-con should mean you give up your constitutional right to vote once you have paid your debt to society. ..some of course do not agree with that.. As well as agreeing that making sure people have the available knowledge, yet they of course have to take initiative and seek that knowledge out... many are not willing to do that and .. are left with straight party ticket voters.
I agree, while I oppose communism in general because I am not down with the whole collective idea... it is why I am a Democratic socialist, and not a libertarian socialist. Many people think there is only one communism, and only one socialism and they all mean the same thing... .that, as I am sure you know, is not further from the truth. Democratic socialism does not call for collectivism yet libertarian socialism does. Christian Socialism.. the man who wrote our pledge was a Christian socialist, which generally just means that Christianity is at the focal point of it all... but as an atheist, I much prefer a secular society to which I believe secular society is the true free society. Allows you to practice whatever you wish but not be governed by a particular faith.
As I have stated before, I believe Liberals, Conservatives and even libertarians for the most part want the same things.. we all want a strong yet not overbearing government, we want a strong military, with no waste.. we want great schools, we want sensible energy policy [at least I hope they do not just want to stick solely on gas when there is wind, solar, electric, heat etc forms of renewable energy sources that because they are locally implemented and maintained would be impossible to outsource] we all want prison and crime reform, to address economic inequality etc etc etc we merely have different ways to go about getting to it... I have written a piece called Why socialism in my gallery that speaks to my view of how to get there and someone else might have a different view. .. it was a bit odd and yet fun when a conservative agreed with my piece called why socialism.
I tend not to get into a "true" Christian, because, with due respect, I find the bible and religious text in general to be the ultimate conundrum.. it has quotes that could be used for unspeakable crimes yet quotes that would allow for the greatest of goods... it all depend show the person chooses to use them.
As I used the Gandhi quote often:
I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.
... so it is not the concept of Christ I have an issue with.. it is how those who may be against gays use his message, how those beat on people who are poor as lazy and worthless when their text says to help them.. etc etc etc
Other then that this is awesome
Neo-cons is who this is reflecting, and I do not believe they all are in the tea party.
I welcome any "new ideas" rather than this usual nonsense.
If that will be all? Good day to you.
BTW,did you have a good Weekend?
I do not know who said that, but here are a few of my favorite quotes regarding conservatives
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.
- John Kenneth Galbraith
“Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservative. “
John Stuart Mill
Most liberals never lost sight of the potential for evil in big government. They have consistently opposed government power in matters of personal and political belief. Liberals are not unconcerned with economic liberty, but they have come to believe that the common good requires that social justice be given a higher priority than absolute economic freedom. Conservatives are — and always have been — on the other side of both questions. They are much more prone than liberals to limiting personal and political liberties, but they place the freedom of an individual to do as he pleases in the economic realm at the top of their concerns. Social justice has held a lower priority for conservatives, from the days of Alexander Hamilton when they favored strong government as a means of protecting their economic privileges to the days of Ronald Reagan when they see government as an instrument of social justice and therefore a threat to their economic position.
-Robert S. McElvaine