View Full Version : Something about Conservatives bothers me
KafirChobee
05-04-2005, 07:40
One set of my Grandparents were Republicans, though I never heard either of them classify themselves a conservatives - I did hear them call themselves liberal thinkers (as in could think for themselves). They both voted the solid Republican ticket (remember the "I Like Ike" buttons), always - 'til 1972 (after my Granddads death) my GrandMa voted for the loser, McGovern (other wise it was Republicans). Why one might ask after 40+ years did a sweet old lady vote against her masters? Simply, she smelled something, and rather than deny it .. she accepted it and went where Jesus (as she told me) told her to go.
Now, what bothers me about the new "supposed" conservatives is that they have given up all their ideals, (State rights, individual rights, tax freedom for the poor and the church, feedom of religion, seperation of church and state) for the present premise that what is good for the very wealthy is good for all of us. That it is good to seperate the little people from their money and give it to the wealthiest. That it is an American ideal to better the wealthy and deprive the poor. That it is in the constitution that might makes right and it is the damnedable judges keeping us from achieving this goal of the forfounders.
That putting the Middle class indebt to save the wealthy from paying their fair share is somehow a good thing - OK, were I a part of that society I might root it on (then again, I have a conscience).
What I wonder, is why do conservatives fall for a "one" issue idiomitri? Why, believe that things are totally right or wrong? Where is the grey? Where is the philosophy beyond the proclamation of "Jesus"? Or, the thought that there are two sides to the same circle - idea.
Ignoring an idea, does not make it disappear/
What bothers me? Conservative, means trying to uphold the past - maintain. Believing that balances exist in economics, politics, humanism (social accords), religion and (vs) government (you see, religion is suppose to challenge government, not become a part of it .... not in the USA that is). The conservatives were the group that meant to maintain how things were; States' rights, freedom of the indiviidual over governmental control, the freedom of choice was a conservative idea. State's rights was the center of the Republican platform ... er, 'til they took power.
So? What happened? How did Conservative come to mean "going backwards"? Versus, just standing still? Or, that the rights of congress over rides the rights of all? Or, that .....
What does "conservative" really mean today?
I suspect, nothing. It means a justification for any meat head to devulge some abstract and absurd concept that congealed in their prejudicial brain to be expounded and to be use as an excuse or justification for anything the Republican party does - or, that they do. After all, it is a wonderful thing to deny over time, extend work hours, lower the working age (back t0 1900's). and eliminate OSHA. Wondeful, for the corporations that paid for the election.
Still, I am asking a question. What happened? When did conservatives become issue related versus concerned for their nation above the simple issue of this, that or another thing? Can a conservatives buttons be pushed that easily? Aborsion - push the right buttom to live, push the left button for the mother to have a choice. Is it that simple?
Put simply, those that hide behind being a "Conservative" have no idea what a conservative really is, means, or can justify their indulgence in its usage.
Personally, aside from maybe Redleg and a few (well none actually), I haven't seen any true conservatives here. Otherwise, they would be screaming their bloody heads off about Bushy dumping us in debt after the anti-Christ Billy left him with a surplus. Not, what do I know about you new conservative?
So, I ask: What the F' is a new conservative?
I imagine the "rapture" being theie future plan. Their ideal of the future. Please, show me I am ............. in question.
Or, that one of you can present a reasonable arguement.
Aside from pointing out the faults of the accuser. Still, it would be what I expect.
:balloon2:
bmolsson
05-04-2005, 08:50
The US Republicans are not very conservative this days.....
Al Khalifah
05-04-2005, 09:34
I think the difference between the new Conservatives and the old Conservatives is that the new breed are multi-nationalists and the old breed were nationalist. By this I don't mean that new Conservatives are more interested in the other countries welfare, because that wouldn't be true.
The new Conservatives seem to hold the same traditional values on many moral issues as the old. They are pro-life - despite being pro-gun, anti-gay marriage and so on. They also seem to share the opinion that creating a system where those who can create multitudes of wealth for themselves and their family should be allowed to do so free from interference or excesive taxation. The theory being this will inspire everyone to try hard to work towards the same goal - 'The American Dream.'
From what I can observe though, the new Conservatives seem to care even less about what effect this charge to wealth has on those who fail to make it, who can't achieve the American Dream - which is only really possible for a small minority by the very nature of the Dream itself. The old Conservatives seemed to have an interest in the strength of America as a nation however and would retain some interest in the good of its ordinary people, because their continual compliance is required for the maintainance of the stature of the wealthy. The new Conservatives recognise that in today's world where the concept of the nation state is dying out, they need to care less and less about the interests of the ordinary American people, because automation and cheaper foreign labour can maintain the status-quo just as easily as the working class. Hence, much less concern about social iniatives such as health care, schools and tackling poverty.
From my perspective, the New Conservatives are not concerned with the American people because they believe that the idea of the nation state is dying and that there is no point in paying more to tie their means of production to a nation that is less efficient. In other words, "sorry ordinary American Joe, but you're just too expensive a pet to keep for Billy Millionaire."
Now this is humorous.
and a copy of what Gawain did. Copying is the best form of flattery that anyone can do. I guess Kafir actually worships Gawain from afar.
LOL
Gawain of Orkeny
05-04-2005, 16:32
Now this is humorous.
and a copy of what Gawain did. Copying is the best form of flattery that anyone can do. I guess Kafir actually worships Gawain from afar.
LOL.
Well almost copying. You will notice liberals only confuse me where as we actually bother him. ~D Nice to know we get under your skin mate ~:) . Does this suggest a basic difference between the way conservatives and liberals look at each other? If so who is more tolerant? ~D
Al Khalifah
05-04-2005, 17:07
Does this suggest a basic difference between the way conservatives and liberals look at each other?
Conservatives and Liberals ? I thought we were all part of an autonomous collective. :confused:
Now, what bothers me about the new "supposed" conservatives is that they have given up all their ideals, (State rights, individual rights, tax freedom for the poor and the church, feedom of religion, seperation of church and state) for the present premise that what is good for the very wealthy is good for all of us. That it is good to seperate the little people from their money and give it to the wealthiest. That it is an American ideal to better the wealthy and deprive the poor. That it is in the constitution that might makes right and it is the damnedable judges keeping us from achieving this goal of the forfounders.
That putting the Middle class indebt to save the wealthy from paying their fair share is somehow a good thing - OK, were I a part of that society I might root it on (then again, I have a conscience).
:
I don't think you understand Conservativism.
PanzerJaeger
05-04-2005, 18:34
The only thing in this week's rant that held any bearing for me was the big government factor.
I dont like what Bush is doing with excessive spending and government but i for sure will support him with all i can do to keep the left wing nutjobs out of power. They, in the form of the modern democratic party, threaten the very essense of what America stands for at home and in the world.
Mabey if the democrats werent so ultra liberal.. so week.. so amoral.. and actually had a platform i might consider their candidate, but i doubt it. Bush is a good man.. and a hell of a lot better than anything the leftists could produce.
It truly bothered me how close the last election was.. with American security at stake 48% of americans were still convinced to vote pussy. Kudos Miky Moore and Mr. Soros. :embarassed:
Devastatin Dave
05-04-2005, 23:59
Now this is humorous.
and a copy of what Gawain did. Copying is the best form of flattery that anyone can do. I guess Kafir actually worships Gawain from afar.
LOL
LOL, so true...
You know what bothers me about liberals, is that they are so ashamed of being liberal they have to copy conservatives to make any sense of their arguements!!! LOL ~D
KafirChobee
05-08-2005, 21:08
I don't think you understand Conservativism.
I don't understand Conservatism in todays society, is what I said.
However, as I noted at the end of my "rant?', I didn't expect any one to seriously address the issue, but instead to take the time to either be hauty about liberals - or to take jabs at me. It is the new Republican method of arguement, versus answering a question.
It is easier to dismiss an arguement because it is a "liberal" concept, than to actually address the issue.
Accepting that the bills be passed in favor of the wealthy, for corporations, to limit freedoms and restrict the judicial process are good things? Or a budget that slashes social programs in favor of military projects (+$560 billion directly to the pentagon, +60billion indirectly, over 50% of the national budget), or the proposal to stymie the growth of social security. That the Conservatives cry out, "We must protect the Middle-class", while passing laws that would hinder them from protecting their property from hostile take over (the new bankruptcy laws, amongst others), increase their taxes, limit their growth, allow for their jobs to shipped overseas (without their being compensated with similar paying jobs), decrease their ability to sue for compensation when injured at the work place, and on ... and on and on.
So I ask again - WTF is this New Compassionate Conservativism?
I feel sorry for folks in the top tax bracket! It must be really tough on them."
"Poor corporations! If it's not insider trading, it's pollution."
"Why do people pick on Ann Coulter? She can't help the what she is!"
(from a cartoon titled, "Bleeding-heart Conservative")
:balloon2:
I've always wondered the same things Kafir .
To me it seems that since the Reagan days there has been a concerted attempt to polarize the country while simultaneously distract us.
The so-called conservatives are actually promoting a radical social agenda and using divisive and destructive techniques to achieve thier goals.
I hear my office mates listen to Rush in the background on their radios all day, then listen to them as the angrily repeat his rhetoric - almost like they have been programmed subliminally. The radical right uses the term liberal as a pejorative and questions the loyalty, intelligence, and motives of anyone who doesn't agree in lockstep with them. They attack and attack then cry 'foul' if anybody says anything that they don't like.
Many on the left have stooped to similar tactics, but the new right has perfected the art form.
This cannot be good for us, this vicious form of dialogue where we mock and bitterly cotnest each word from the 'other' side.
America should be a land of tolerance, a place open to the ideas of all reasonable men. Yet these attacks by the extremes have the effect of reducing even further the limited interest in politics and civil issues.
Then the media comes along and distracts us. 'Wag the Dog'.
When N Korea launched a missile into the Sea of Japan it got 1/10 the attention of that poor girl who freaked out and ran away to Albuquerque. Corporate scandals, the wasting of our Federal budget, the gutting of environmental and social protections, outrageous health care costs, none of this gets nearly the focus as Micheal Jacksons pedophilia.
One of things I find the most interesting are the crass insults, like 'liberals are so stupid they have to copy conservatives' or 'half of Americans are pussies since they didn't vote for Bush'.
It's a sad thing to see, the loss of something so important and yet so intangible, the loss of a sense being a free American, whose ideas were as important as anyone elses.
Now its Join Us or Else, like we've gone back to the worst days of the Vietnam War.
I opposed many of the most extreme socialist policies of the left, but there is a new 'Political Correctness' and a new socialism, disguised as conservatism.
IMHO its really a shell game. designed to keep us busy while bad things are done in secret. Next time you get gouged at the gas pump due to market manipulation, or the rolling blackouts come as a result of price-fixing, or laws are passed restricting your rights, or your money goes flushing down the toilet to some well-connected contractor, remember ot bitch about the liberals, or whoever it is that you're programmed to hate.
ichi :bow:
ICantSpellDawg
05-08-2005, 22:40
Then the media comes along and distracts us. 'Wag the Dog'.
When N Korea launched a missile into the Sea of Japan it got 1/10 the attention of that poor girl who freaked out and ran away to Albuquerque. Corporate scandals, the wasting of our Federal budget, the gutting of environmental and social protections, outrageous health care costs, none of this gets nearly the focus as Micheal Jacksons pedophilia.
what the hell are you talking about?
"the media" is an arm of the conservative government?
I opposed many of the most extreme socialist policies of the left, but there is a new 'Political Correctness' and a new socialism, disguised as conservatism.
please explain where the logic is in this. conservatives are new socialists?
are you talking only about the war when you refer to the new "political correctness"?
also - was it you who said that conservatives are pushing a "radical agenda"?
PanzerJaeger
05-09-2005, 01:23
One of things I find the most interesting are the crass insults, like 'liberals are so stupid they have to copy conservatives' or 'half of Americans are pussies since they didn't vote for Bush'.
LOL - Youre actually upset about conservative jokes about liberals!
The continued charactor assasination of our president was so much more angry and propagandistic..
www.moveon.org
Tinted glasses anyone?
Al Khalifah
05-09-2005, 09:22
Next time you get gouged at the gas pump due to market manipulation
The day Americans start complaining about the price of petrol at the pump with justification is the day hell freezes over.
The day Americans start complaining about the price of petrol at the pump with justification is the day hell freezes over.
LOL, exactely...
The day Americans start complaining about the price of petrol at the pump with justification is the day hell freezes over.
Hell I dont complain about the price of gas - because I understand how its done.
Price of oil
Price of distilling the oil into gasoline and Diesel
Federal Tax
State Tax
County Tax
City Tax
The price of a barrell of oil is a product of supply and demand - futhermore moderated and controled by OPEC. The distilling cost and methods are pretty much universal across the globe - the reason you Europeans pay more is not because of the Price of a barrel of oil or the distilling cost - but because your own governments placing a higher tax then what is done in the United States.
Don Corleone
05-09-2005, 13:36
Well, to be fair, with the exception of Norway and the UK, their price of oil is higher as well, because they don't have their own reserves to draw upon.
Well, to be fair, with the exception of Norway and the UK, their price of oil is higher as well, because they don't have their own reserves to draw upon.
They must rely upon important oil - the price of oil that is set by OPEC is deemed the market value of a barrell of oil by the world - but you might be right there is most likely an import tax implaced on the oil by many nations - but that is just another form of a Federal or national tax.
Ser Clegane
05-09-2005, 13:41
Well, to be fair, with the exception of Norway and the UK, their price of oil is higher as well, because they don't have their own reserves to draw upon.
No quite - AFAIK the price for oil is global (also the major oil companies are globally active).
Al Khalifah
05-09-2005, 13:56
but because your own governments placing a higher tax then what is done in the United States.
And it helps discourage people in Europe from driving big-inefficient engined cars everyehere. I'd wager the average European probably spends a lot nearer the amount on petrol each year as an American than they might think - due to the big difference in engine efficiencies.
This is one of the issues that have my mind in a contradictory state.
The Norwegian in me shrieks at the inequality of petrol prices across the Atlantic.
Here we are producing 3.270.000 barrels a day and using about 200.000 barrels ourselves. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever that our petrol prices should compete with the highest in the world.
As Redleg said the cost of buying oil and refine it to petrol is pretty much the same all over the world.
In a nation that have more money than they can spend (no debt), why on earth should they tax something that they sucked out of the seabed and refined on own account.
Unless they want to be THE PIONEER in world environmental issues. Be the good guy that everyone looks up to, so to speak.
On the other hand I am glad the US consumes 20.000.000 barrels a day and only produces 8.840.000 (2nd on world ranking producers) of them themselves because that keeps the oil price up and money in my pocket.
However low oil prices do create a need for new technology and more work for me.
It does create a strange emotion in this patron... insanity? :dizzy2:
"the media" is an arm of the conservative government?
The media is increasingly controlled by a few large corporations, which also seem to have an unreasonably large influence on government. It's no coincidence that The Congress recently allowed even more consolidation of media ownership.
My point remains, important news stories that affect us are pushed off the front page by trivia. Our President holds staged shows that the media portrays as town meetings. Nobody has thrown W a hardball question this term.
please explain where the logic is in this. conservatives are new socialists?
are you talking only about the war when you refer to the new "political correctness"?
The USA under the neo-cons (heck, actually the entire world) will be split into the Party Members and the Prols. Masquerading as capitalism is a complex system that favors large corporations by redistributing low and middle class wealth through taxes and credits to the largest and richest.
If that ain't Socialism (dressed up as Capitialism) then what is?
. . . and no, there is a new political correctness. It's just as bad as anything that gays or minorities or feminists or environmentalists are promoted.
The so-called conservatives liberally use government to suppress speech and acts they deem incorrect. What's really funny to me is how after crying foul for so many years the neo-cons went straight for the same sins - doing exactly what they complained about.
ichi :bow:
ICantSpellDawg
05-09-2005, 17:36
The USA under the neo-cons (heck, actually the entire world) will be split into the Party Members and the Prols. Masquerading as capitalism is a complex system that favors large corporations by redistributing low and middle class wealth through taxes and credits to the largest and richest.
If that ain't Socialism (dressed up as Capitialism) then what is?
socialism: 1)a political theory advocating state ownership of industry 2: an economic system based on state ownership of capital
2)Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
3)The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.
what you have stated is exactly what socialism is not
if you are going to come out and say conservatives are "the bad guys", why not at least have some idea of what bad guys they resemble instead of just calling them the first word that represents bad that comes to mind
why not just call them fat, ugly, murderous, prussian, new jersey, dung beetle, poop, communist, dinosaur, catholic, sasquatch's
those "bad" things have as much to do with modern conservatism as socialism (as far as socialism as a bad thing goes)
if you were going to make an arguement that industries are begining to control the government and centralize their authority over the market - that would be more convincing - but as it goes - that would be close to the OPPOSITE of socialism
and i still dont buy it
***moderators should be moderate in backroom discussions or at least know what they are talking about***
I don't understand Conservatism in todays society, is what I said.
However, as I noted at the end of my "rant?', I didn't expect any one to seriously address the issue, but instead to take the time to either be hauty about liberals - or to take jabs at me. It is the new Republican method of arguement, versus answering a question.
It is easier to dismiss an arguement because it is a "liberal" concept, than to actually address the issue.
From this reply I take it your post is supposed to be taken as a sincere attempt to engage. Now I would like you to note the above quote with a piece from your initial post:
What does "conservative" really mean today?
I suspect, nothing. It means a justification for any meat head to devulge some abstract and absurd concept that congealed in their prejudicial brain to be expounded and to be use as an excuse or justification for anything the Republican party does - or, that they do.
Now is this an example of sober reflection?
Assuming this is a real attempt to understand: I'm not sure I understand your reference to 'new' vs. 'old' Conservatism. Typically the Conservative movement is seen in terms of the Reagan Revolution starting with his unsuccessful bid for the party nomination in 1976 though the basis of Reagan's policy can be traced to the Goldwater Campaign in 1964. This means the movement is decades old. You did ask about 'Compassionate Conservatism" here:
So I ask again - WTF is this New Compassionate Conservativism?
This is something new. It is a Bush notion of having private social programs and movements (including religious groups) take up more of the burden of tackling social ills than the government proper. This is a fairly narrow focus, so Compassionate Conservatism does not refer to other issues like foreign policy, the Judiciary etc.
Now if you have a question you really want a Conservative to "address the issue" on, put it forward and I'll give you my take. I read you post(s) and the bulk of it seemed, shall we say, rhetorical rather than an actual attempt to engage your opposition as it were.
Gawain of Orkeny
05-09-2005, 17:55
I have one question for you Ichi. How in the world do you claim to be a Libertarian? ~:confused:
bmolsson
05-10-2005, 03:29
"Conservative" and "Liberal" is only other names for "Republicans" and "Democrats" in US. The difference between "Republicans" and "Democrats" are more based on geographical location and favorite baseball team. There are neither any conservatives or liberals in todays US politics. It's only a big gray mish-mash of social democrats. Very similar to what Sweden have after the WWII. Geez, guy's just wait, the worst is still ahead of you..... ~;)
what you have stated is exactly what socialism is not
if you are going to come out and say conservatives are "the bad guys", why not at least have some idea of what bad guys they resemble instead of just calling them the first word that represents bad that comes to mind
why not just call them fat, ugly, murderous, prussian, new jersey, dung beetle, poop, communist, dinosaur, catholic, sasquatch's
those "bad" things have as much to do with modern conservatism as socialism (as far as socialism as a bad thing goes)
Please don't put words in my mouth. Had I wanted to say that conservatives are bad, I would have said it. What I did say was that today's breed of neo-cons aren't really conservatives, they're right-wing activists. And yes, some of the things they do worry me.
Second, please don't limit my thought process with your cumbersome mental constraints. To you socialism may connote state-ownership, but that is simply one version - specifically Soviet-style Socialism or Communism. There are many varieties of Socialism, which is better defined as I have done than by thinking in terms of state ownership of resources.
Wikipedia: Socialism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism)
specifically: Note also that while many would say that socialism is defined by state ownership and state planning of the means of production and economic life, a certain degree of such state ownership and planning is common in economies that would almost universally be considered capitalist. In Canada, Crown Corporations are responsible for various sectors of the economy deemed to be of strategic importance to the people (for example power generation). In the U.S., a semi-private central bank with close ties to the federal government, the Federal Reserve, regulates lending rates, serving as a "bank of banks." Also, governments in capitalist nations typically run the post office, libraries, national parks, highways, and (in the case of the US) NASA. Interestingly, though, the federal government's monopoly on space travel from U.S. take-off sites is itself a thing of the past -- as of 2004 (see Ansari X Prize) private capital is entering even that field.
if you were going to make an arguement that industries are begining to control the government and centralize their authority over the market - that would be more convincing - but as it goes - that would be close to the OPPOSITE of socialism
I did make a good argument for this, but that's really easy. Ipso locutor, anybody with eyes can see what's going on. and what I described is a hybrid form of Socialism masquerading as Capitalism where big government uses its authority to keep big business in power.
Didn't you read my post?
and i still dont buy it
***moderators should be moderate in backroom discussions or at least know what they are talking about***
I don't really mind that you don't buy it, but you seem to be really angry that I don't see things your way.
and to be precise, I am an Assistant Moderator, in the Console Forum. Here I am simply another patron, and I try excruciatingly hard to not embarass Tosa or Gregoshi or Barocca or any other authority figures - they've been too kind to me over the years for me to repay them with additional workload.
This rule of yours about being moderate is simply that - a rule of yours. But IMHO I have been moderate, or at least civil, but now you seem to be venturing into the ad hominem zone and talking about me and not the issue.
I respectfully request that you stop focusing on me and how stoopid you think I am and discuss the issue, not me.
Finally, I do know what I'm talking about, the fact that you disagree with me means not that I am ignorant, but that we disagree.
I enjoy our Backroom dialogues, but I'd rather avoid the place than start a fight, so please . . .
ichi :bow:
ps @Gawain I believe in minimal government and maximum freedom, most of what the Libertarian Party espouses. My one major difference with most libertarians is that I support a strong government presence in protecting the environment. Its a social cost/benefit thing.
Now lay off ichi and focus on the issue!
PanzerJaeger
05-10-2005, 03:35
How is that console game looking Ichi, or should i stop by the console forum to see? ~;)
"Conservative" and "Liberal" is only other names for "Republicans" and "Democrats" in US. The difference between "Republicans" and "Democrats" are more based on geographical location and favorite baseball team. There are neither any conservatives or liberals in todays US politics. It's only a big gray mish-mash of social democrats. Very similar to what Sweden have after the WWII. Geez, guy's just wait, the worst is still ahead of you..... ~;)
Very Very True
How is that console game looking Ichi, or should i stop by the console forum to see? ~;)
E3 is coming up soon and hopefully more info then. I think it may be interesting, but probably not for everybody who has been palying the PC version.
I'm interested in the longterm effects of the devs spreading out into other realms, and Kukri has promised to teach me the finer points of being a postman
ichi :bow:
Gawain of Orkeny
05-10-2005, 03:46
The difference between "Republicans" and "Democrats" are more based on geographical location and favorite baseball team. There are neither any conservatives or liberals in todays US politics. It's only a big gray mish-mash of social democrats
I say you couldnt be more wrong. Man I hate Democrats and Liberals. Not personally only their ideas and I live in a liberal cesspool called New York.
Don Corleone
05-10-2005, 03:51
Come clean with us brother Gawain... are you really Mike Savage?
Byzantine Prince
05-10-2005, 03:51
Yeah but dude, there's liberal republicans and there's conservative democrats. For example Arnold is a Republican who supports abortions and gay rights mainly because he's from California which is an ulatr liberal place. Then you have that democrat in Texas who was trying to ban provocative school uniforms :dizzy2: .
Gawain of Orkeny
05-10-2005, 04:08
For example Arnold is a Republican who supports abortions and gay rights mainly because he's from California which is an ulatr liberal place.
Hes a liberal who by Californians warped standards is a conservative ~:) Its what we conservatives call a RINO. I doubt you would ever see him get a nod as the repblican candidate for res or Guiliani either for the same reason. As far as the Democrats go all you have to be is pro life and you cant even speak at their convention. Certainly the South and Mid West are more conservative then the coasts but true liberals and conservatives have never been further apart IMO.
Come clean with us brother Gawain... are you really Mike Savage?
Actually I get that more from RUSH. Whenever someone acxccuses him of being partisan he says I never denied it. Im not here to make friends with liberals but to destroy their silly ideas and ideals. ~D
ICantSpellDawg
05-10-2005, 04:21
"Conservative" and "Liberal" is only other names for "Republicans" and "Democrats" in US. The difference between "Republicans" and "Democrats" are more based on geographical location and favorite baseball team. There are neither any conservatives or liberals in todays US politics. It's only a big gray mish-mash of social democrats. Very similar to what Sweden have after the WWII. Geez, guy's just wait, the worst is still ahead of you..... ~;)
dont you live in indonesia?
and Ichi: the idea of socialism that you have (or had explained in your posts just before) is the antithesis os socialism. saying that i have "cumbersome mental constraints" does not change the fact that the word "socialism" was misplaced in your arguement
can anyone either agree or disagree with me here, or am i just so dumb that i thought privatization and taking the wealth away from the middle to lower classes in favor of the affluent classes was the antithesis of any definition of socialism?
i guess i'm just a retard
bmolsson
05-10-2005, 04:41
dont you live in indonesia?
Yes, the paradise for REAL conservatives..... ~;)
i guess i'm just a retard
~:grouphug:
KafirChobee
05-10-2005, 09:19
Some Conservatives almost, as in nearly admitted, that they have a problem with the "new" deffinition of conservativism. Almost.
Ichi's rendition (forgive me mate) of the new socialism for the corporate and wealthy was one of the best definitions of the Bush economic policy I have yet read - put very simply, exact and demonstrates the reality of the Bushy peoples' policies vs the rhetoric they exibit (the propoganda they send out to their minions - like, Rush-nevergoingtobeaccusedorprocecuteddruglord, and others). It is like if you got money, join us and get home free - - - gee, wonder if that will work for Michael? Not, wrong color.
Still, I await an honest answer by the compassionate-conservatives to define what they expect from their government?
Is a curiosity that when conservatives are cornered to define their hopes, desires for the nation they always fall back on attacking those that have hopes for it. It is beyond belief that anyone in todays universe would put themselves, their party, their wealth, even their political beliefs above the continuation of our system of government. That anyone declaring themselves a patriot, would also declare that only one party understand what that term means.
Of course, maybe that is the new conservativism? Only they are right?
Somehow, that rings off alarm bells. Not sure why. Make a guess.
Still, I await an honest answer. Not an attack on those that point out your faults, but a justification for your support of the present "compassionate-conservative-give-it-all-to-the-most-wealthy-(of which "W" is one), justification for your continuance to support people that know longer support the possition that true conservatives hold dear.
So, what is a conservative, today? Dissavowing a balanced budget must be amongst them. [Imagine, a dummy from the Ozarks balanced the budget (with a hostile congress) and left "W" a surplus that would (could) have .... let all kids willing to go to college, secured social security, created a national health plan, allowed for national daycare centers, paid off our national debt in 10 years (like 2 years after W left office), increased our defense system - and increased the wages of our "real" military (enlisted men ... btw, the officer corp's wages increase by congress, and it does not reflect expitiously over the men in uniform - for every 10% the officers increase is, the NCO' receive an aveage of 3%, the enlisted? about 1-1/2% - gee, just like the real world ----- not, CEO wages have increased upto 1000% since 1980, or when Reagon took office - not that that had an infuence. Yeah, sure.)
From what I have seen so far, conservatives (those that accept the "W" plan) accept that it is a good thing to destroy all the good things done by his predicessors (including his Dad). That, somehow, improving the lot of the wealthy versus aiding the poor is a good thing. That, after all that is their lot - and we are America, if people are born destitute, keepp them that way. It is after all a time honored tradition and belief ... of conservatives.
Or. am I wrong?
What happened to the Republican party? Did they become like George Wallace? After his first run (and loss) for the Alabama Governship, he was quoted as saying, "I'll never be out niggered again." Meaning, he was perceived as being to "liberal", wanting to let colored kids go to white schools (imagine the audacity to think that nigers should sit next to a white kid? Gah!) The image is so disgusting, the idea that we are all equal, the concept that all people are squeezed out of a c__t and should begin as equals, versus kings-queens or peons, what was he possibly thinking? One thing about "that" George - he appologized, for his earlier indiscretions. He finally came to terms about using the prejudice issue as a political tool - he acknowleged his sins. Of course, he did so in wheel chair - and after allowing hundreds of lynching (still, what a guy).
Today? Seems, some conservataives yearn for the good old days. They don't remember the great depression, want to pretend it can't happen (didn't) again, (at $8trillion in debt, and the dollar worth less than Bangeladesh's currency). All things are possible. [Let the "deregulations" begin - with furvor!]
IMO, Bushy is pushing for a centralization of power and currency. All the actions of his administration demonstrate a direction for total control of power in as few hands as possible. Look at what a person actually does, versus what is coming out of their mouth. Like hearing the term freedom thrown about, while people are being held without personal rights (as terrorists - without proof, or reason)? Oh, well - we live in a new age. Yeah, take a big blue pill and forget reality. Like, justice of and for the individual over the will of the STATE, or the determination of men in government. Once upon a time, in America, individual rights were believed to be the supreme right of all men and women on earth. The USA, would honor that belief, regardless of ones race, creed, or political affliction. My, what a difference 9/11 was allowed to make in our political theatre. It pains me to see peeps that would be willing to crucify Clinton, justifying Bush fir deeds that Bill would never have perpetrated. Still, I am old enough that little suprises me. (saw a Korean soldier kill a whore, the translator explained - "He had to be sure." - of what I don't know, but I'm sure it was important. Much, like Iraq).
Still, in business (those that have been there know) one deals with people they do not like, trust, find disagreable, unattractive, smarter than them (ergo, hate immediately), are obnoxious, attrusive, etc. However, in business the object is to find a compromise that allows two diverse groups ... to make a profit.
In politics, it use to be the same. My favorite politician (of all time) is Everett Dirksen (Sen., Ill., Rep.). He may have been one of the last true political minds of the 20th century. He gave a crap about what one called a thing, he cared about his constituants, his state, and his nation. His party was secondary to those ideals. And, no one can accuse Everett of being liberal - neither can they accuse him of being blinded by the ideals of a president. Of course, in some ways he had more power than most of the Presidents he served, but he never abused it (unlike some today). Everett, understood America - and he loved it (he loved himself also, but he never abused his influence of power to change the ideas he believed in - America). I voted for him, first time I could.
As someone once said, "power corrupts as those in power allow it or desire it."
Address the question? Impossible. Just not how it is done today in the new right. How is it done? By twisting things around to make the person asking the question to seem demented (not that I am not, but only my Ex's have accused me of it - j/k, lots of friends have too), unworthy of an answer, or that the question explains itself. Huh? Yeah, by asking a conservative to explain their possition, or how they reached it - the Conserf answers with a preprogrammed answer or a question as to the validity of the patriotism of the questioner. How dare some one challenge the belief of the newest political godly .... WHAT?
Curious, is it not? That not one supposed Conservative has addressed the question? WHAT IS A CONSERVATIVE? Exactly, what is a compassionate conservative - and,or what benefits can America expect ... soon? Having given up a $500billion surplus a year (that benefitted all) and now being $400billion a year in debt (that benefits the wealthy, decreases the middle class, and encourages the poor to stay where they are - or revolt).
WHAT DOES COMPASSIONATE CONSERVATISM mean? (Obviously not about aiding the poor, so it must be about securing the wealth of the rich).
Why have people of reason aligned themselves with "conservative" motto's? Why do they think they are being served by an administration that has broken every (previous) conservative rule? Why do they persist in calling themselves conservatives? Versus, serving the wealthy for the common good - the good of course being for the wealthy
+++++
So, what is a conservative? I use to understand the premise of keeping the USA conservatively safe, as meaning safe for the world - and from the elements that meant harm to it (USSR - long dead btw).
When did being conservative mean saving the rich from the poor, allowing groups to claim "church" status while preaching politics, allow that one party is always right and the other always wrong (especially since they preach socialism - ergo, the equality of all over the rule of few).
Still, my mind wonders (as it has a tendency to do - when dealing with fools, oafs, dunderds, or robotons). Explain to me the new wonderful life under our new conservative conceptions. PLEASE!
Still, bet again, I get a rant right back rather than trying to define the reasons that the "conservatives" left the "REAGON" path of 'balanced budget' (was a $trillion when he entered, $4trillion when he exited). Why the conservative voters like the "word", over actual action.
To me? It's like the old joke:
What's a recession? When your neighbors out of work.
What's a depression? When you are out of work.
Sending our jobs overseas? Is a good economic plan for America. The new economical flat planet theory .... OK, so is that like screw the blues and give it all to the reds? If they didn't vot for us, lets punish them - somehow, seems unAmerican, but we are in a new concept of America now. So, who am I to say.
Again. the new conservatism?
Sending our boys to die for oil, is plaucibly an explainable thing - if we use the word "freedom" often enough (many of the dummys will grab on to it, and those that lose loved ones will accept it, because they won't want to believe they died for nothing - like those of us in the Vietnam era that wanted to believe that those we loved died for a cause - reason - were patriots. The men on the wall are, the greatest generation that ever lived - they [most] died without believing in a "cause", they died for their nation, knowing it was wrong. What could possibly be more noble?).
Of course for the new conserves:
Making sure the wealthy payless than they have ever done before (gee, is the Bush family wealthy? has he pushed any bills that would benefit him?his family?), assure that those that paid your bills get their pay back (is time honored from all politicians) - but, evading, ignoring, and suppressing laws that once assured these things shouldnot be appart of our (USA) political process? Well, must have something to do with the new conservativism.
So? What is it? That allows ministers, pastors, preists, druids to politicize, and yet maintain non-tax status (it is a law btw that a religious minister may not become political - tell his congregation how to vote, or proclaim that God likes one candidate ,.. or another). [Not that, that could ever occur ...... well, till now that is]
What is the new conservatism?
I know it has nothing to do with my Grandfather's, or my Mother's concepts of the term or the Republican party. They beleived national debt was a bad thing. They believed that assisting the poor was good, but it had to be done in such a way as to benefit them ... get them out of poverty, assuring family farms was a necessity - er, ..... 'til Reagan. They believed in a limitation of wealth, a distribution of equality of opportunity and the division of church-and-state. The ideal of a two party, with the equal ability for the weaker party to disrupt the dominance of the lesser. And, the idea that everyone could get a fair shot at grabbing the brass ring .... without others making sure no cream could rise to the top.
But, they were conservatives. They understood what they stood for. And, they realized when their party "dissed" them.
So? Please. And, I mean this. Without the attack mode. Explain, what does "conservative" (American) stand for?
Me thinks, you knows ... but, are afraid to give up your heart. The heart, hates betrayal, admitting that one was deceived? Well, wouldn't that just break it?
Still, when one can no longer justify the actions of those they voted for and endowed with their trust? When those people betray, deceive, lie, and pass on their failures as those of others? Don't you think they may take another look? Or, is the propaganda that good!
Me thinks? Challenge your beliefs atleast once a day. If at any time they are not for mankind - then disregard them. If at any time you believe that your race is superior to another - go to the barn and put a bullet in your brain (breed an idiot, die as one). Believe being a patriot is going blindly into any war your government deems worthy? Label yourself a Nazi, but deffinately not a patriot (unless of course you are a nazi, in which case label yourself a selfabsorbing ignorant f__k).
Still, I do sincerely ask .... what is, a conservative? And, why do they deny themselves (their nature) by accepting the present policies?
Just a question. Don't take offense. Just wondering how are you being sucked into the idea that somehow "by the wealthy gaining entire control" we (USA) will benefit?
:balloon2:
That was a long post.
Still, I await an honest answer by the compassionate-conservatives to define what they expect from their government?
I think the standard reply would be non-interference.
So, what is a conservative, today?
There are two answers.
1) Social conservatism: one who believes that the traditions of the nation are basically correct and that any revision to those traditions has the burden of proof.
2) Economic conservatism: a basic belief in free enterprise and that the government's role should be restricted to a few basic categories.
Dissavowing a balanced budget must be amongst them.
As far as Party platforms or policy is concerned balancing the budget has traditionally been a Republican mantra. It has not been an absolute however. Such is trumped by national security. Two examples: the Reagan military build up and cases of war.
I would make some comments - but last time I responded to anything Kafir stated - it turns into an ugly arguement with my ancestors accused of things that they never stood for.
So I will just let this conservation go for now expect for this comment.
Still, I await an honest answer. Not an attack on those that point out your faults, but a justification for your support of the present "compassionate-conservative-give-it-all-to-the-most-wealthy-(of which "W" is one), justification for your continuance to support people that know longer support the possition that true conservatives hold dear.
I supported Bush in the last election because in my opinion he was better then what Kerry was offering with his policies and issues. If the Democratic Party got its act together and did not pander to the extreme left of this country they would of recieved my vote - in fact there was two democratic candidates that would of gotten my vote over Bush if either one would of been selected as the Presidential Nominee because they were moderates.
I did make a good argument for this, but that's really easy. Ipso locutor, anybody with eyes can see what's going on. and what I described is a hybrid form of Socialism masquerading as Capitalism where big government uses its authority to keep big business in power.You keep making the claim, but where is your evidence of this 'new Socialism'? Every libs favorite example of supposed corporate crony-ism, Enron, fell flat on its face... hadly big government keeping big business in power. Sure, they removed some rules on media ownershop, but that is a conservative pillar- minimizing government interference in business.
As to a balanced budget, I think it's not accurate to cast it as a conservative value. Conservatives are opposed to a bloated federal beauocracy and expensive, ineffective federal programs, true- but I don't beleive that a balanced budget is a necessity. In fact, although I was still fairly young at the time, I was opposed to the Balanced Budget ammendment. The federal government should be free to run a deficit when necessary.
KafirChobee
05-13-2005, 06:20
So, A balanced nudget is just an ideal .... never was a Republican issue, concept, or value. Just something for them to bring up from time to time when a Democrat is President? Me, thinks.
Eisenhower, once said (something to the effect) that a National debt allowed outside influences upon our political process, and its decissions making in the International arena. The more a nation owes to another, the more influence the debtor nation owes to the ones' holding the paper. Debt is a bad thing for a nation. Excessive debt can destroy it, by creating a lack of confidence for it (the debtor nation) with its allies and the world community.
Oh, well. I suppose the USA could always file for bankruptcy, or ignore the debt (when it reaches $10Trillion, in 8 years).
So, we got the economic conservativism out of the way. Debt is OK for our government and Corporations. Bad for the common folk. Who'ld a think it? Balanced budgets are only a concern when it is in vogue to talk about it, but ignore it - unless a Democrat is in the hot seat. In which case, make it your party's national platform. Disgard it, when a Republican is back in the WhiteHouse.
Sounds good to me.
Now, States Rights vs Centralization of Government. The Republican Party has always been the bastion for protecting states rights - you know, so that States could be allowed to pass their own prejudicial laws without Big government interference. What happened there?
Is it as simple as, some states are still BLUE, and may not be quite ready to step back to 1890?
[I use 1890, because that was the circa for the Spokes trial - you know - the monkey trial? Amongst other things, Big business rules then too. 'Til Teddy passed some reforms.]
Or, is it just easier that now that conservatives hold all three branches of the federal government they realize how dumb state legislators are? How much easier it can be to impose the conservative will, values (say anything, but make sure it's good for your real supporters - business) and the standards established by -Oil, big lumber, corporations, "nuclure" power, the military-industrial-complex (goes for both partys there), and others (AMA)?
The Federal Bureaucracy has gone wild since Bush took office too. What happened there? Oh, well. Tell them anything, then do as you please. Do what your contributors paid you to do. (and, yeah that can be said of some legislators in either party, but seems it applys m to more Republicans than Democrats).
:balloon2:
Just curious.
PanzerJaeger
05-13-2005, 07:12
^Its like reading Jonathan Alter without the sense of humor to save the piece from its own depressing addiction to sarcasm. This stuff would make even the NYTimes editors throw up.. :help:
KafirChobee
05-14-2005, 03:51
As I said before, about Conservatives, rather than answer or question attack the one presenting it. Rather than deny wrong doing, attack those that find you out. Attack! Never conceed guilt, never be direct about anything relevent (change the subject to Right for Life, when ever possible), and if everything else fails ignore it - maybe it will just quietly go away.
'Nuff said. I can see there are no real answers from the Conservative dogma beleivers that justifies their moving away from their prior politicial, economic and rights possitions. Except to move further to the right.
All is well - just ignore your past beliefs and change them to the new-improved right-wing dogma.
How much easier could it be?
:balloon2:
Crazed Rabbit
05-14-2005, 07:00
As has been said, you confuse republicans and conservatives, not to mention your generalities and vaugeness on everything you wrote.
Crazed Rabbit
As I said before, about Conservatives, rather than answer or question attack the one presenting it.:
I think I gave basic answers to your earlier post none of which involved any assault on yourself. I have a hard time following what you write, but it would seem a fair amount of your post(s) is doing the very thing you are accusing your opposition of: ad hominus attack.
Just a note: the Skopes Trial was in 1925
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.