Something about Conservatives bothers me

[Gawain of Orkeny]

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]

Come clean with us brother Gawain... are you really Mike Savage?

[Byzantine Prince]

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 .

[Gawain of Orkeny]

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.

[ICantSpellDawg]

"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]

dont you live in indonesia?

Yes, the paradise for REAL conservatives.....

i guess i'm just a retard

[KafirChobee]

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?

[Pindar]

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.

[Redleg]

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.

[Xiahou]

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]

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).





Just curious.

[PanzerJaeger]

^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..

[KafirChobee]

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?

[Crazed Rabbit]

As has been said, you confuse republicans and conservatives, not to mention your generalities and vaugeness on everything you wrote.

Crazed Rabbit

[Pindar]

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