NationStates Jolt Archive

I believe that at the heart of conservatism there must be a foundation of a strong belief in God, for it is from that basis that many of the beliefs spring fully formed. And so it is that:

1) We do not believe in a woman’s “right to choose”. The opportunity for a right to choose passed when she decided firstly, to have sex, and then later, to have unprotected sex. Once that pregnancy has occurred......
2) Abortion is murder. Period. Is there some part of “Thou shalt not kill”, that is unclear? It is immoral. Likewise any case of retaliation against abortionists is immoral and goes against Christian creed. Just in case you thought I was thinking about being inconsistent here. Likewise profiting from aborted fetuses stem cell research is immoral. It’s like spending stolen money. Any good that may come from it is overcome by the evil deed that spawned it.
3) We believe in a strong national defense. A strong military heads off many problems. An enemy will attack the weak, as a rule. If you are strong militarily, they will simply pass you by for easier pickings, and content themselves with hurling invective at you from the floor of the U.N.
4) We believe in a balanced budget. Both of our major political parties have dropped the ball on this one, granted. You balance a budget by responsible spending. No spending money you don’t have to finace the flavor of the day. And you definitely do not balance the budget by fudging the bookeeping, so that is appears you are making progress, or by raising the taxes again to finance its’ balancing. That only leads to more spending, as the special interest groups then will most assuredly get in line.
5) Marriage is between a man and a woman. Period. I do not begrudge gays the right to have partners or to live in a relationship of their choosing. Far from it. More power to them. I wish them every happiness. But marriage? Out of the question.
6) Retirement and heath care should be privatised. Private groups in a healthy and competitve economy can do a much tighter job of managing the available moneys than can big government, and will do a much better job of addressing the needs of the recipients on an individual basis.
7) Government at the federal level should be minimal. More power and leverage should be granted to the state level as they are more in touch with the constituents in their region.

That’s what it means to me. Excuse me now while I put on my flame retardant asbestos jammies.

Conservativism is enforced tradition, conformity and culture. More or less.

1) We do not believe in a woman’s “right to choose”. The opportunity for a right to choose passed when she decided firstly, to have sex, and then later, to have unprotected sex. Once that pregnancy has occurred......
2) Abortion is murder. Period. Is there some part of “Thou shalt not kill”, that is unclear? It is immoral. Likewise any case of retaliation against abortionists is immoral and goes against Christian creed. Just in case you thought I was thinking about being inconsistent here. Likewise profiting from aborted fetuses stem cell research is immoral. It’s like spending stolen money. Any good that may come from it is overcome by the evil deed that spawned it.
3) We believe in a strong national defense. A strong military heads off many problems. An enemy will attack the weak, as a rule. If you are strong militarily, they will simply pass you by for easier pickings, and content themselves with hurling invective at you from the floor of the U.N.
4) We believe in a balanced budget. Both of our major political parties have dropped the ball on this one, granted. You balance a budget by responsible spending. No spending money you don’t have to finace the flavor of the day. And you definitely do not balance the budget by fudging the bookeeping, so that is appears you are making progress, or by raising the taxes again to finance its’ balancing. That only leads to more spending, as the special interest groups then will most assuredly get in line.
5) Marriage is between a man and a woman. Period. I do not begrudge gays the right to have partners or to live in a relationship of their choosing. Far from it. More power to them. I wish them every happiness. But marriage? Out of the question.
6) Retirement and heath care should be privatised. Private groups in a healthy and competitve economy can do a much tighter job of managing the available moneys than can big government, and will do a much better job of addressing the needs of the recipients on an individual basis.
7) Government at the federal level should be minimal. More power and leverage should be granted to the state level as they are more in touch with the constituents in their region.

For the most part I have to say I agree with you. Personally I place more emphasis on less government spending than on merely having a balanced budget. As to abortion: only in the case of rape and/or the mother's life is in danger.

Conservativism is enforced tradition, conformity and culture. More or less.

Yes, my thoughts exactly. It is about obedience, dogma, and so on.

I got to number two before my "Warning: Morality legislation" alarm went off. (I obviously skipped the introduction to get to two without it going off.)

Conservativism is enforced tradition, conformity and culture. More or less.

what is most annoying is that 'conservatives' always seem to hang on to only the most obviously bad parts of whatever cultural tradition they find themselves in

what is most annoying is that 'conservatives' always seem to hang on to only the most obviously bad parts of whatever cultural tradition they find themselves in

Indeed.

Conservatism, as a political ideology, is, like most other political ideologies, very difficult to pin down to a specific ideal. However, I feel that it can generally be described as:
"A political philosophy or attitude that emphasises respect for traditional institutions, distrust of government activism and opposition to sudden change in the established order."

Some believe that religion is integral with the ideal of conservatism, however religion is not a required component of the ideology.

3) We believe in a strong national defense. A strong military heads off many problems.



Is there some part of “Thou shalt not kill”, that is unclear? It is immoral.

That seems kinda hypocritical.

I believe that at the heart of conservatism there must be a foundation of a strong belief in God, for it is from that basis that many of the beliefs spring fully formed. And so it is that:

1) We do not believe in a woman’s “right to choose”.
2) Abortion is murder. Period.
3) We believe in a strong national defense.
4) We believe in a balanced budget.
5) Marriage is between a man and a woman.
6) Retirement and heath care should be privatised.
7) Government at the federal level should be minimal.
#3, 4, 6, and 7 have nothing at all to do with God and everything to do with your selfishness. (Well, the strong military is a good idea, althought non-religious.)

Why do you say nothing about divorce, adultery, and the death penalty - all of which Jesus strongly opposed?

If you were truly conservtaive, you would support monarchy. The only type of ruler that has legitimacy is the King, appointed and sanctioned by God.

5) Marriage is between a man and a woman. Period. I do not begrudge gays the right to have partners or to live in a relationship of their choosing. Far from it. More power to them. I wish them every happiness. But marriage? Out of the question.

What a bunch of bullshit to make you seem less of a homophobic prick than you really are.

Check out Sdaeriji's signature, for my thoughts on conservatives.

What a bunch of bullshit to make you seem less of a homophobic prick than you really are.
Oddly enough, this is the second time in two weeks I've said this. I agree completely with Fass.

To me personally Conservatism died out when the last monarchs gave up their power in Europe.
Then for a while it used to mean simply social cohesion and tradition.
Today it has changed again to mean libertarian economics, mixed with a healthy bit of pro-Americanisms...and neo-conservative elements.

Not my cup of tea, so much is certain.

That seems kinda hypocritical.
So is six.

Conservatism is an indifference towards the good traditions of the past, and a mindless clingling to the bad traditions of the past.

Conservatism is shooting your neighbour for Jesus.
American Liberalism is shooting your neighbour for the Children.
Socialism is shooting your neighbour for the people.
Communism is shooting your neighbour for the People's Republic.
This post is sacrificing a large part of truth for the purpose of being mocking.

To me personally Conservatism died out when the last monarchs gave up their power in Europe.

in america we have a different sort of conservative, since we chased off our monarchists during the revolution. lacking a king, they made up new ones in the form of 'the founders'.

Conservatism is an indifference towards the good traditions of the past, and a mindless clingling to the bad traditions of the past.

i totally just said that.

what's weird is how cross-cultural that appears to be.

Conservatism is shooting your neighbour for Jesus.
American Liberalism is shooting your neighbour for the Children.
Socialism is shooting your neighbour for the people.
Communism is shooting your neighbour for the People's Republic.
This post is sacrificing a large part of truth for the purpose of being mocking.
If only there we a way to include everything you ever said in my signature, I would have the world's funniest signature.

That seems kinda hypocritical.

"1Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. 2Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. 3For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, 4for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer. 5Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience. 6For the same reason you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing. 7Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed."

Conservatism, as a political ideology, is, like most other political ideologies, very difficult to pin down to a specific ideal. However, I feel that it can generally be described as:
"A political philosophy or attitude that emphasises respect for traditional institutions, distrust of government activism and opposition to sudden change in the established order."

Some believe that religion is integral with the ideal of conservatism, however religion is not a required component of the ideology.

i think that the most important part to American conservatism is the respect of free enterprise and proprietary rights.

IE, what's mine is mine, and the government should not be able to take it away from me to give it to someone else (socialism).

and on the flip side, many who take the American liberal viewpoint counter, "Give me your money, rich asshole!"

hehe

IE, what's mine is mine, and the government should not be able to take it away from me to give it to someone else (socialism).

and on the flip side, many who take the American liberal viewpoint counter, "Give me your money, rich asshole!"

How does any form of socialism (besides welfare) just give your money to someone else? Or do you have no problem with socialism besides welfare? Or is welfare just the most easily open to attack?

In light of your second sentence, I would suspect the latter, since the best you can muster is a basic strawman attack.

I know you support the Iraq war on the grounds that it's helping out the Iraqi people. And a socialist bastard like me agrees with you there. So is it OK for Republicans to take your taxes and essentially give them to Iraqis, but not Democrats?

Or are you going to claim that Americans are not being forced to pay for the Iraq war with tax money?

i think that the most important part to American conservatism is the respect of free enterprise and proprietary rights.

unless the 'free enterprise' is doing something that conservatives don't like. such as selling sex toys, distributing birth control, creating or selling entertainment containing profanity and sex, selling liquor on sundays or after 9 pm, opening dance clubs for teenagers, etc.

i totally just said that.

what's weird is how cross-cultural that appears to be.

Yeah, as long as there are people in a culturally dominant position, there will be people who are threatened by change.

unless the 'free enterprise' is doing something that conservatives don't like. such as selling sex toys, distributing birth control, creating or selling entertainment containing profanity and sex, selling liquor on sundays or after 9 pm, opening dance clubs for teenagers, etc.
I can't believe you didn't mention drugs!

unless the 'free enterprise' is doing something that conservatives don't like. such as selling sex toys, distributing birth control, creating or selling entertainment containing profanity and sex, selling liquor on sundays or after 9 pm, opening dance clubs for teenagers, etc.

Exactly like we said, indifference to good tradition, clinging to bad tradition. Pretty much whatever suits their own vision of a bygone perfect world.

I agree with the economic/spending descriptions, but not with the statements about the moral issues. I don't see conservatism as automatically representing pro-choice and anti-gay stances, although as of late, many people who label themselves "conservative" seem to want those two issues to be the primary focus in traditional politics.

I can't believe you didn't mention drugs!

ha! that one was so obvious that i forgot about it at all.

That seems kinda hypocritical.

Murder =|= War

no hypocrisy there.


Conservatism=keeping the best traditions, discarding the worst, opposing untested "progressive" policies that tend to lead to worse outcomes.

Example=public education in the USA. In the good old days, we learned to think, read (phonics), do math, play instruments, make art, be patriotic and reverent, respectful of our elders, and our national scores were high.

Now, we learn how to put condoms on bananas, why we should hate Bush, disrespect of institutions, anti-patriotism, and the national scores continue to drop with every "progressive" educational idea...:(

And education spending in the USA is at an all-time high. But students from lower-budgeted private schools do better than the students from the very expensive public schools.:(

Now, individual families have to buy "hooked on phonics" to teach their children how to read at home, before sending them to school to have that knowledge ripped from their heads.

Conservative=keep what works, discard what does not
Liberal=keep what fails, discard anything that works if proposed by the other side

we learn how to put condoms on bananas
And you live where? Is this a look inside the delusional mind of those who think if you teach kids abstinence they won't have sex? Not saying you are one, just musing on if that is what they think is going on.

Now, we learn how to put condoms on bananas, why we should hate Bush, disrespect of institutions, anti-patriotism, and the national scores continue to drop with every "progressive" educational idea...:(
Hihihihi...

Conservative=keep what works, discard what does not
Actually, that's Fascism. But that being said, Fascism and Conservatism share their love for some sort of mythical past - political nostalgia if you like.

Liberal=keep what fails, discard anything that works if proposed by the other side
Liberal =/= Left.

Bloody Yankees....:p

Hihihihi...


Actually, that's Fascism. But that being said, Fascism and Conservatism share their love for some sort of mythical past - political nostalgia if you like.


Liberal =/= Left.

Bloody Yankees....:p

As one who lived in that "mythical past" and was educated in it, I do have nostalgia for a time when learning was what public schools were all about.

And I remember that mythical president, John F. Kennedy, saying strange things like "ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country"...

And having a step-daughter who made it through public school in the recent past, in spite of the efforts of the school administration to stop her, I know what is going on now.

Or maybe the schools in New Jersey 40 years ago were just better than schools in California right now?:D

And I remember that mythical president, John F. Kennedy, saying strange things like "ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country"...
Fact is though that people tend to remember the good things about the past, but ignore the bad ones.
That strange vision makes it "mythical", a fairy tale. You can't talk about America before Vietnam and ignore the treatment of black people.
You can't talk about the fifties and ignore McCarthyism.

Conservatives pick and choose, and thus end up being just as much a revolutionary force as the other side.

And besides, you don't think teaching kids about how to use condoms is a good idea?

This is classic.

Conservatism=keeping the best traditions, discarding the worst

Yeah, discarding the worst traditions like....what are you discarding again?

Example=public education in the USA. In the good old days, we learned to think, read (phonics), do math, play instruments, make art, be patriotic and reverent, respectful of our elders, and our national scores were high.

Since I graduated, my high school eliminated the entire subjects of math, reading, art, and music. But you are wrong, they still have the classes America the Beautiful I and II, and Great Grandpa Really is Great.

Now, we learn how to put condoms on bananas, why we should hate Bush, disrespect of institutions, anti-patriotism, and the national scores continue to drop with every "progressive" educational idea...:(

If I could have taken Bush and the Degradation of America instead of Calculus I would have been validictorian. Plus doing well in BDA pays off when applying for a liberal arts college.

Conservative=keep what works, discard what does not
Liberal=keep what fails, discard anything that works if proposed by the other side

Dirty Libs, they exist solely to confound the Republican Party. That and to implement untested policies that have already failed.

And I remember that mythical president, John F. Kennedy, saying strange things like "ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country"...


Ahhh, JFK, that bastion of conservative thought and ideals.

1) We do not believe in a woman’s “right to choose”.

I bet your mama's very proud of you. Have you told her how little you trust women's judgement?

2) Abortion is murder.

A] The US is a secular country, so take your morals and cram 'em.

B] There is no Biblical basis for believing adultery to be murder.


3) We believe in a strong national defense.

Worked out real well for those folks back in September 2001. Good job. Keep up the good work.

4) We believe in a balanced budget.

Unfortunately, belief and reality rarely coincide.

5) Marriage is between a man and a woman.

See #2A.

6) Retirement and heath care should be privatised.

Yes, because I would trust my entire retirement to, oh say, Enron.

7) Government at the federal level should be minimal.

You're probably right, but it's impractical.

Note: None of this was flaming, just perspective.

Example=public education in the USA. In the good old days, we learned to think, read (phonics), do math, play instruments, make art, be patriotic and reverent, respectful of our elders, and our national scores were high.

Irrespective of the U.S. public education system's condition, it would be truly pathetic to rely on it for any of the aforementioned.

What a bunch of bullshit to make you seem less of a homophobic prick than you really are.

Homophobic? Hardly. They don't scare me at all. I was sort of hoping you'd drop in, Fass. Nice of you to join us.

Please note that I did not call you a name.

QUOTE-Keruvalia I bet your mama's very proud of you. Have you told her how little you trust women's judgement?

Nope. I didn't. She died when I was 3 years old of an illegally performed abortion. Next?

The tragic and theocratic authoritarianism that passes itself off as conservatism today is:

"Hey, I think George Orwell and Margaret Atwood hit upon some great ideas!"

For me conservativism boils down to being the opposite of progress. It is the lack of individual, social and collective freedoms. Conservativism is any and all belief structures that are based on fundamentally flawed, dogmatic and consequently hypocritical moral grounds. It ranges from white supremists, and racists to intolerance of homosexuality, and islamic fundamentalism. One common caracteristic of conservativism is the fact that is is usually based in pseudo-science.

Nope. I didn't. She died when I was 3 years old of an illegally performed abortion. Next?
I'm sorry.

Who studied Freudian Psychology? We need a Freudian here! Right now!

Nope. I didn't. She died when I was 3 years old of an illegally performed abortion. Next?
And that didn't cause you to reconsider your stance on illegalizing abortion?

Homophobic? Hardly. They don't scare me at all. I was sort of hoping you'd drop in, Fass. Nice of you to join us.

Please note that I did not call you a name.

See he's not homophobic, he's being nice to you, and its only a little bit patronizing.

Hell, I bet some of his best friends are gay!

Hell, I bet some of his best friends are gay!
That reminds me of the South Park episode where everyone tried to say the word f*g, and only gay people didn't get bleeped...

I'm sorry.

Who studied Freudian Psychology? We need a Freudian here! Right now!
This means he is obsessed with penises. :p

Homophobic? Hardly. They don't scare me at all. I was sort of hoping you'd drop in, Fass. Nice of you to join us.

http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?sourceid=Mozilla-search&va=homophobia

"irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals"

Gee, it's always so predictable how you people never know the definition of this word, but choose to use misunderstood etymology in vain attempts to dismiss it.

Please note that I did not call you a name.

You just chose to act as a homophobe and spew bullshit. Aren't you the accomplished person! :rolleyes:

Most of you amuse me greatly. Keep it coming.

http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?sourceid=Mozilla-search&va=homophobia

"irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals"

Gee, it's always so predictable how you people never know the definition of this word, but choose to use misunderstood etymology in vain attempts to dismiss it.



You just chose to act as a homophobe and spew bullshit. Aren't you the accomplished person! :rolleyes:

If you dig deep enough in most definitions you will find another, lesser known definition for that same word. Why do you feel so threatened, Fass?

If you dig deep enough in most definitions you will find another, lesser known definition for that same word.

Not in this situation. You just have a misunderstanding of what the word means.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Myotisinia
3) We believe in a strong national defense.


Worked out real well for those folks back in September 2001. Good job. Keep up the good work.

And THAT happened only two months into the Bush administration. Blame Clinton for our unpreparedness.

Next.

7) Government at the federal level should be minimal. More power and leverage should be granted to the state level as they are more in touch with the constituents in their region.

Oh, yes, we saw how well that worked quite recently in New Orleans. And wow! Look what a lack of federal oversight did for the Savings and Loan industry in the eighties! And of course who can forget the unforgivable intrusions of the federal government in putting an end to Jim Crow (well, okay, a few Republicans to the left of their party think this wasn't so bad), or funding the early growth of the Internet, or running a reliable postal service, or insuring bank deposits to protect people from bank collapses... all of them, those horrible 'big government' programs that Republicans want to gut.

Meanwhile, the noble, budget-balancing Republicans who control both branches of Congress and the White House must have been making some terribly silly math errors for years and years now, thinking that their pork projects would *decrease* the deficit instead of *increasing* it. Just because there have been more earmarked projects in the last five years than in *all of American history prior to 2000* can't mean that Republicans were lying about being fiscally prudent! And all that silly stuff about Reagan and the two Bushes being responsible for billions of dollars each year going down the debt-servicing drain, why, that's not part of the conservative world - it must be something from that reality-based community they talk about!

You've certainly got a point about marriage, though. The government has no business recognizing the marriage of two men. Or two women. Or a man and a woman. It's a religious ceremony only, and government's only role in the process ought to be keeping track of which people want to voluntarily make a civil commitment to each other in the first place, regardless of how they want to put it together. For smaller government, get government out of the marriage business!

If you dig deep enough in most definitions you will find another, lesser known definition for that same word.

Which is what you were doing.

Why do you feel so threatened, Fass?

I don't feel threatened - people like you are fortunately considered loons where I live. I just call bullshit when I see it, and your upper inter-buccal orifice was full of it.

And THAT happened only two months into the Bush administration. Blame Clinton for our unpreparedness.

Next.
Bush was inagurated in January 20th.

If you think that 9 - 1 = 2, then you are fucking hopeless.

http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?sourceid=Mozilla-search&va=homophobia

"irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals"

Gee, it's always so predictable how you people never know the definition of this word, but choose to use misunderstood etymology in vain attempts to dismiss it.



You just chose to act as a homophobe and spew bullshit. Aren't you the accomplished person! :rolleyes:
I'd point out even a rhetorical question should have a question mark, if not for two reasons. Firstly, it doesn't affect the merit of your arguement. Secondly, I've learnt it is far easier to accept everything your say gods-truth.

I'd point out even a rhetorical question should have a question mark

Of course, but that doesn't change that this wasn't a rhetorical question, but an exclamatory statement.

See he's not homophobic, he's being nice to you, and its only a little bit patronizing.

Hell, I bet some of his best friends are gay!

Um, no. Wrong again. I do not have any homosexual friends at the moment. Acquaintances? Several. But friends? No.
I do not believe in condoning behavior that I do not agree with, so no, I don't party with them, or hang out with them just to "prove" to everyone else just how tolerant of their lifestyle I can be. I could care less what people think of me, in most cases. Neither do I avoid them. I treat them the way they treat me, same as everyone else.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Myotisinia
3) We believe in a strong national defense.


Worked out real well for those folks back in September 2001. Good job. Keep up the good work.

And THAT happened only two months into the Bush administration. Blame Clinton for our unpreparedness.

Next.

Wow, you really are bad at math. Or civics. Or just have a different calendar than the one the US uses. Civics lesson: a new President is inaugurated in January. Calendar lesson: January is the first month. September is the ninth month. Math lesson: Nine minus one does not equal two.

I hope this helps. Feel free to ignore it, though: it's statistically true that getting an education makes you more likely to be liberal. Funny how learning more would have an effect like that.

Of course, but that doesn't change that this wasn't a rhetorical question, but an exclamatory statement.
See, easier to assume you're always right.

Wow, you really are bad at math. Or civics. Or just have a different calendar than the one the US uses. Civics lesson: a new President is inaugurated in January. Calendar lesson: January is the first month. September is the ninth month. Math lesson: Nine minus one does not equal two.

Beat you to it.

Beat you to it.
Yes, but I had panache! Or snark, depending on your perspective.

Wow, you really are bad at math. Or civics. Or just have a different calendar than the one the US uses. Civics lesson: a new President is inaugurated in January. Calendar lesson: January is the first month. September is the ninth month. Math lesson: Nine minus one does not equal two.

I hope this helps. Feel free to ignore it, though: it's statistically true that getting an education makes you more likely to be liberal. Funny how learning more would have an effect like that.

Glad you like math so much. Consider this.

Clinton had 8 years to run the armed forces into a state where we had to take over 6 mos. to prepare for a armed response in Iraq after 9/11. Bush had (sigh, ok, already) 9 mos. to reverse that.

It's never pretty when liberals go rabid, is it. I could have corrected some grammatical errors in some of your posts, but did not, as it is well, sort of a cheap shot.

(I left the question mark off sentence no. 1 deliberately just to give you all more grist for the mill.)

I do not begrudge gays the right to have partners or to live in a relationship of their choosing. Far from it. More power to them. I wish them every happiness.

I do not believe in condoning behavior that I do not agree with

Bullshit I called about the first writing, and bullshit the second proved it even more to be. Is anyone really surprised? I'm not coloured it, at least.

Glad you like math so much. Consider this.

Clinton had 8 years to run the armed forces into a state where we had to take over 6 mos. to prepare for a armed response in Iraq after 9/11. Bush had (sigh, ok, already) 9 mos. to reverse that.

When Clinton was in office, Congress and a whole lot of Republicans including Emperor Cheney were pushing for the downsizing and "slimming down" of the military.

And that didn't cause you to reconsider your stance on illegalizing abortion?

Not at all. If she had carried the child to term, she might still be alive today.

Glad you like math so much. Consider this.

Clinton had 8 years to run the armed forces into a state where we had to take over 6 mos. to prepare for a armed response in Iraq after 9/11. Bush had (sigh,
ok, already) 9 mos. to reverse that.

Ah! So Clinton's military was at a poor state of preparedness. How very interesting. It must have been a complete shambles under Reagan, then, and an absolute demonic pit under W. Please, feel free to provide more than Republican dogma on the topic - one of the wonderful powers of the Internet is the ability to reference your sources (http://www.brookings.edu/views/articles/ohanlon/20031101.pdf) right in the middle of your sentence. Like that one, to a Brookings Institution assessment of American military readiness under Clinton. I'll spoil the ending for you - despite the most fervent wishes of Republicankind, actual military preparedness was high. Morale was low, but not so low that the armed services started badly missing their recruitment goals - remind me which President launched the broadly unpopular war (http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm) that led to that sorry state?

I thank all of you who responded in a civil matter to my thread. Some of you actually disagreed with me in a reasonably civilized manner, though none of you changed my mind, I respect those of you who actually had enough self-control to do so without resorting to name calling. You know who you are. Unfortunately, many did not resist the temptation. Well, you'll get that. Liberals usually resort to those tactics, rather than engage in intelligent debate. Some of you did, however. It does give me hope to know that some of you can actually make a point on a divisive issue without dropping f-bombs like a drunken sailor on shore leave.

Fass performed just like I knew he would. Even better, actually. Congratulations, Pinnochio. Today you are a real boy.

Out.

Fass performed just like I knew he would. Even better, actually. Congratulations, Pinnochio. Today you are a real boy.

Pointing out your bullshit was that easy, yeah.

Bush was inagurated in January 20th.

If you think that 9 - 1 = 2, then you are fucking hopeless.
Richard A. Clarke would totally agree with you.

Murder =|= War

no hypocrisy there.


Conservatism=keeping the best traditions, discarding the worst, opposing untested "progressive" policies that tend to lead to worse outcomes.

Example=public education in the USA. In the good old days, we learned to think, read (phonics), do math, play instruments, make art, be patriotic and reverent, respectful of our elders, and our national scores were high.

Now, we learn how to put condoms on bananas, why we should hate Bush, disrespect of institutions, anti-patriotism, and the national scores continue to drop with every "progressive" educational idea...:(

And education spending in the USA is at an all-time high. But students from lower-budgeted private schools do better than the students from the very expensive public schools.:(

Now, individual families have to buy "hooked on phonics" to teach their children how to read at home, before sending them to school to have that knowledge ripped from their heads.

Conservative=keep what works, discard what does not
Liberal=keep what fails, discard anything that works if proposed by the other side


Jerk! Nevermind that these public schools you rant about have an a number of students that more than doubles (even triples) the number of students at your so called, "lower-budgeted private schools". Show me a family that sends their kids to public school that can sustain themselves on one income. Bet you can't do it. I'll bet you everything you own.

More over, why is it always boiling down to "hating america" with you jerkoffs? How is it that any dissenting opinion is somehow "hating america". did you EVER read anything by Thomas Jefferson? You know, the guy that said "dissent is the highest form of patriotism"?

So, I repeat my unanswered question. Why act like this? Why put yourself out there as a mean-spirited person, bent on controling the behavior of others? Why not just let people be? Why be so stubborn with others? Why not learn to work with each other? Why this "do as I say, not as I do" bullshit attitude? (i.e. Bill Bennett, Jack Ryan, George Bush, etc.).

I'd love an answer to this, but I'm sure that "conservatives" are too cowardly to do it...

When Clinton was in office, Congress and a whole lot of Republicans including Emperor Cheney were pushing for the downsizing and "slimming down" of the military.Not only that but people like Cheney and DeLay voted against crackdown policy on money laundering... part of the anti-terrorism deal that was rejected by republican congress in 95.

All these years later is it seems to make a bit more sense.

Ah! So Clinton's military was at a poor state of preparedness. How very interesting. It must have been a complete shambles under Reagan, then, and an absolute demonic pit under W. Please, feel free to provide more than Republican dogma on the topic - one of the wonderful powers of the Internet is the ability to reference your sources (http://www.brookings.edu/views/articles/ohanlon/20031101.pdf) right in the middle of your sentence. Like that one, to a Brookings Institution assessment of American military readiness under Clinton. I'll spoil the ending for you - despite the most fervent wishes of Republicankind, actual military preparedness was high. Morale was low, but not so low that the armed services started badly missing their recruitment goals - remind me which President launched the broadly unpopular war (http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm) that led to that sorry state?

Somehow I doubt that quoting a Clinton apologist qualifies as a reliable source, Absentia.

O'Hanlon's major articles include “Iraq Without a Plan,” Policy Review (January 2005); "Clinton’s Strong Defense Legacy,” Foreign Affairs, November/December 2003); "A Flawed Masterpiece: Assessing the Afghanistan Campaign," Foreign Affairs (May/June 2002); "Getting Serious About Iraq," Survival (with Philip Gordon and Martin Indyk, Autumn 2002); and "Why China Cannot Conquer Taiwan," International Security (Fall 2000). He is also the senior scholar responsible for Brookings’ Iraq Index, which he has created and compiled with Adriana Lins de Albuquerque.
O’Hanlon has written at least a dozen op-eds in each of the following newspapers: The Washington Post, The New York Times, The Los Angeles Times, The Washington Times, and The Japan Times.

Note the two papers in boldface, for instance. Both highly liberal publications. Neither publish conservative viewpoints. Ever. Just the titles of his major articles give you an idea as to what his political philosophy is. But I shall look them up nonetheless. Thank you for pointing them out.

Liberals usually resort to those tactics, rather than engage in intelligent debate.

Meanwhile, in true conservative fashion, Myotisinia ignores facts that inconveniently contradict his chosen worldview, declines to respond when the inconsistencies of right-wing dogma are exposed, and dives headlong into baseless attacks on those challenging him rather than try to make an actual logical argument - and for bonus points, managed to be blatantly and definitively incorrect in his cowardly abandonment of the field of debate when he can't hold together his little fantasy-based world! (hint: the Republican definition of 'intelligent debate' appears to share similarities with the entire concept of 'intelligent design,' in that neither one is recognized by the world at large. Also, he appears to have trouble with the concept of 'usually.')

Both highly liberal publications. Neither publish conservative viewpoints. Ever.

I call BS on that statment. Just look at who employed Judy Miller if you need any futher nudging. Conservative, AND a liar. Do you need this printed in the Moony Times in order to get your conservative brain around it?

Not ignoring anything, Absentia. Just went to look up one of the articles by that Clinton apologist you quoted from Brookings. And you have exposed nada, so far. Nor proven anything. Quoting someone who is published by three of the most virulent Bush hating papers on the planet, doesn't prove anything except that you know where to find the good dirt.

Not ignoring anything, Absentia. Just went to look up one of the articles by that Clinton apologist you quoted from Brookings. And you have exposed nada, so far. Nor proven anything. Quoting someone who is published by three of the most virulent Bush hating papers on the planet, doesn't prove anything except that you know where to find the good dirt.I like them allready.

Talk about hypocritical, having a group of men together making policy informing women what they can and can't do with there bodies. When you think of it, its almost like the Landowners telling the serfs what to do, pure Fuedal. If 90% of Congress was female, Abortion would be a non-issue.

"Why do people always get labeled? Why can't we pick the best people in office and quit worrying about what side of the isle you set on? I am soo tired of conservatives labeling everyone a liberal if they don't agree with every issue they hold dear and vice versa from the liberals. I like some ideas from both sides, so where do I fit?"

Somehow I doubt that quoting a Clinton apologist qualifies as a reliable source, Absentia.

O'Hanlon's major articles include “Iraq Without a Plan,” Policy Review (January 2005); "Clinton’s Strong Defense Legacy,” Foreign Affairs, November/December 2003); "A Flawed Masterpiece: Assessing the Afghanistan Campaign," Foreign Affairs (May/June 2002); "Getting Serious About Iraq," Survival (with Philip Gordon and Martin Indyk, Autumn 2002); and "Why China Cannot Conquer Taiwan," International Security (Fall 2000). He is also the senior scholar responsible for Brookings’ Iraq Index, which he has created and compiled with Adriana Lins de Albuquerque.
O’Hanlon has written at least a dozen op-eds in each of the following newspapers: The Washington Post, The New York Times, The Los Angeles Times, The Washington Times, and The Japan Times.

Note the two papers in boldface, for instance. Both highly liberal publications. Neither publish conservative viewpoints. Ever. Just the titles of his major articles give you an idea as to what his political philosophy is. But I shall look them up nonetheless. Thank you for pointing them out.

Well done! You managed to attack the author of the paper without ever substantively addressing the points within! And, for that matter, you slipped in another factual error - have you ever heard of William Safire or David Brooks, just to name two New York Times conservative columnists? It took all of one Google search on 'Conservative New York Times' to find them.

Now, just for giggles, try actually reading this next one (look! I even picked the same author so as to save you time on dismissing him!) and rebutting the actual points addressed in the article (http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:YLIEa0NO9JsJ:slate.msn.com/id/82762/+Clinton+high+level+of+military+preparedness&hl=en).

I'm still waiting on why the big-government intervention to end Jim Crow was wrong, by the way, as well as FDIC insurance, how you reconcile government regulation of marriage with the concept of small government, and how running up trillions in debt and unprecedented levels of pork (Alaskan bridges, anyone?) counts as 'fiscal discipline.'

Well done! You managed to attack the author of the paper without ever substantively addressing the points within! And, for that matter, you slipped in another factual error - have you ever heard of William Safire or David Brooks, just to name two New York Times conservative columnists? It took all of one Google search on 'Conservative New York Times' to find them.

Now, just for giggles, try actually reading this next one (look! I even picked the same author so as to save you time on dismissing him!) and rebutting the actual points addressed in the article (http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:YLIEa0NO9JsJ:slate.msn.com/id/82762/+Clinton+high+level+of+military+preparedness&hl=en).

I'm still waiting on why the big-government intervention to end Jim Crow was wrong, by the way, as well as FDIC insurance, how you reconcile government regulation of marriage with the concept of small government, and how running up trillions in debt and unprecedented levels of pork (Alaskan bridges, anyone?) counts as 'fiscal discipline.'


Amazingly well said!

I call BS on that statment. Just look at who employed Judy Miller if you need any futher nudging. Conservative, AND a liar. Do you need this printed in the Moony Times in order to get your conservative brain around it?

Also noted whom she works for now. The New York Times. And imprisoned for her fluffing up certain tidbits of information bolstering the case for WMD's in Iraq. Part of which the Bush administration used as justification for invading Iraq. Noted. Are you actually using her as an example of just how even handed their reporting is? :rolleyes: She perjured herself in court. And served jail time for it.

Hey everybody. I am a conservative. This does not mean I approve of everything Bush has done or is doing in the White House. Are you guys actually trying to say that the New York Times IS NOT a liberal newspaper?

I'm still waiting on why the big-government intervention to end Jim Crow was wrong, by the way, as well as FDIC insurance, how you reconcile government regulation of marriage with the concept of small government, and how running up trillions in debt and unprecedented levels of pork (Alaskan bridges, anyone?) counts as 'fiscal discipline.'

Re-read the original post. I oppose federal regulation of marriage. Which you would know if you actually took the time to read it.

I know all about pork barrel projects, They exist in many states. Many of the proponents of such are Democrats too. I-69. Indiana. Look it up. Started by our then Democrat governor, Frank O'Bannon. A 1 billion dollar pork barrel highway project, very close and dear to my heart. And totally unnecessary, not to mention environmentally damaging.

Clean up your own side of the street first before you criticize mine..

Not ignoring anything, Absentia. Just went to look up one of the articles by that Clinton apologist you quoted from Brookings. And you have exposed nada, so far. Nor proven anything. Quoting someone who is published by three of the most virulent Bush hating papers on the planet, doesn't prove anything except that you know where to find the good dirt.

Ah, yes. How terribly rude of me. I have a secret weapon. I should let you use it too. It's at http://www.google.com. Ask nicely and they might let you try it out, too. Speaking of which, you made the initial claim: that Clinton was responsible for poor military preparedness. If you would like to try to prove your point, please feel free to provide documentary evidence supporting its validity. As for Bush-hating papers, you yet *again* attack the arguer rather than the argument itself. I'll tell you what. You go ahead and post a link to some rant by Rush Limbaugh or Jerry Falwell or someone else who supports your position, and I'll address the argument rather than dismissing it as coming from a biased source, so you can see how it works.

Liberal=keep what fails, discard anything that works if proposed by the other side

Actually right there you described both major partys right there. The only difference being is who supplies their campaign fund. The problem with this country right now is we have political leaders basing their stances on who provides the bigger kickbacks etc.

Maeel

Also noted whom she works for now.

Wrong again! She's actually been fired for, of all things, lieing! Something that conservatives in power are supposed to be opposed to, right? I mean what about "restoring integrity to the White House,"? The banner of the Bush 2000 campaign. How does Libby, or DeLay, or Frist, or PlameGate fit into any of that?

Amazingly well said!

Considering he really did not do much of anything but preach to the choir without producing any substantive evidence that HE is correct either, I am still rather unimpressed.

Wrong again! She's actually been fired for, of all things, lieing! Something that conservatives in power are supposed to be opposed to, right? I mean what about "restoring integrity to the White House,"? The banner of the Bush 2000 campaign. How does Libby, or DeLay, or Frist, or PlameGate fit into any of that?
I think 'they' only care if and when people lie about their personal sex lives.

What is conservatism to me?

Another tribe people organize themselves so that there is someone else to target.

Conservative and liberal, democrat and republican, labour and conversatives, christianity and islam and judaism, and all the other things -- They all revert back to the human need to seperate themselves.

About Patriotism: "Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it." -George Bernard Shaw

About Religion in war: "You're basically fighting over who has the better imaginary friend." -Yassar Arafat

About Religion in nationalism: The US is not God's country. You have your beliefs, and they should be respected. Just as I will not persecute you for your beliefs, do not persecute me. If God does not exist to me, then the laws he passes down to you don't exist to me either. So take your dogma out of my public life.

About Tradition: This whole country was based on breaking out of the mold. The next one will be too. If you can't grow up, then stay behind.

About the Current Wars: Some people are getting up in arms about people "using their freedom of speech to badmouth the people who are protecting it!" They make a good point. As soon as any one of that lot can tell me how invading a country barely out of the fucking stone age is protecting my freedom of speech, I might just stop badmouthing them. But I don't seem to recall having any trouble speaking before this war. You can't protect yourself from someone you attacked. "A lock on the door is protection. A bulletproof vest is protection. A fucking condom is protection. Running across town and smashing some guy in the head with a brick to steal his wallet is NOT FUCKING PROTECTION!" -2, Ranting Gryphon. If you're going to have a war, then fucking be honest about why you're doing it, and then maybe I won't be so pissed off.

I'd keep writing, but I'm already tired of it.

My point is, keep thinking of the rest of the human race as fragmented and evil, and you're not doing any good for anyone.

Wrong again! She's actually been fired for, of all things, lieing! Something that conservatives in power are supposed to be opposed to, right? I mean what about "restoring integrity to the White House,"? The banner of the Bush 2000 campaign. How does Libby, or DeLay, or Frist, or PlameGate fit into any of that?

Individual people commit individual crimes. Tarring everyone with a brush that may only apply to a few individuals is wrong.

Does the term innocent until proven guilty have any meaning for you any more?

My point is, keep thinking of the rest of the human race as fragmented and evil, and you're not doing any good for anyone.
That's one of the beauties I find in social liberalism. The belief that men are not fundamentally evil.

Ah, yes. How terribly rude of me. I have a secret weapon. I should let you use it too. It's at http://www.google.com. Ask nicely and they might let you try it out, too. Speaking of which, you made the initial claim: that Clinton was responsible for poor military preparedness. If you would like to try to prove your point, please feel free to provide documentary evidence supporting its validity. As for Bush-hating papers, you yet *again* attack the arguer rather than the argument itself. I'll tell you what. You go ahead and post a link to some rant by Rush Limbaugh or Jerry Falwell or someone else who supports your position, and I'll address the argument rather than dismissing it as coming from a biased source, so you can see how it works.

I decided not to hide behind a link, as you did.

IT’S MORNING IN AMERICA!
October 26, 2005



Since Harriet Miers withdrew her nomination to the Supreme Court, Democratic senators like Barbara Boxer, Dianne Feinstein, Chuck Schumer and Dick Durbin — i.e., all the people who had absolutely nothing to do with Miers' withdrawal — have been blanketing the airwaves demanding that Bush now accede to their demands. So it's good to see Democrats are still working on getting in touch with reality.

The Democrats didn't utter a note of disagreement with the Miers nomination. But now they say her withdrawal is their victory, which Bush must be forced to acknowledge by nominating a candidate to their liking. I believe that's what got Bush in trouble in the first place: listening to Democratic Sen. Harry Reid, who recommended Miers for the Supreme Court.

Although the circumstances were unfortunate — we prefer fighting liberals to fighting our president — the Miers withdrawal is an unparalleled victory for conservatives. Liberals were never able to do this to Clinton when he hosed them. It will be a long time before the White House thinks it can use and abuse conservatives again.

Until Miers withdrew, the Bush White House was turning into the Nixon White House — complete with Harriet Miers as its Rosemary Woods, with an 18-year gap in her credentials.

As president, Nixon imposed wage and price controls, created the Environmental Protection Agency, initiated race-based hiring schemes, signed SALT I with the Soviets and instituted rapprochement with the Red Chinese. All of this resulted in liberals ... despising him even more!

After five years of Nixon's ignoring conservatives — where else would they go? — when liberals came after him for Watergate, conservatives ignored Nixon. (As the details of Nixon's "dirty tricks" came out, conservative columnist Stan Evans reportedly told Pat Buchanan: "I want to apologize for all my attacks upon your administration. I would never have done that if I had known you were into all that good stuff we've been hearing about lately.")

For five years, Bush has initiated massive spending programs, obstinately refused to protect the borders and signed restrictions on political speech into law. His veto pen remains unopened and unused in its original shrink-wrapped case. Bush treats conservatives like the Democrats treat blacks (which is to say, pretty badly).

Conservatives were unhappy, but we were confident Bush would never let us down on the two issues that mattered more than anything else: the war on terrorism and the Supreme Court. Although Bush has been bold and strong against the terrorists, with the Miers nomination it was beyond question that he had betrayed conservative hopes for the Supreme Court.

The way Bush had been attacking his base lately, he had to count on liberals starting to love him because there weren't going to be a lot of conservatives left to defend him if someone in the White House got indicted or something.

When conservatives erupted in pain and rage that the president had thrown away a Supreme Court seat on his personal lawyer — because she's a girl and Laura wanted a girl — administration flacks snippily informed right-wing activists that they didn't get a vote. Only senators vote on judicial nominees (that is, whenever Democrats allow it).

Next, the Bush White House accused conservatives of elitism and sexism for opposing the former Texas Lottery commissioner for the Supreme Court.

Then it seemed that the White House actually believed everything liberals say about conservative Christians — that we are "uneducated" and "easily led." After administration officials snookered a few evangelical leaders into supporting Miers, they sat back and congratulated themselves on a job well done. But evangelicals are, at best, split down the middle on Miers. Apparently, Christians aren't so easily led. (That's what you get for believing The Washington Post!)

Next, the White House began threatening Republican senators who were thinking of voting against the former lottery commissioner. To deliver this message, Bush chose Tom Rath, a Republican functionary in New Hampshire who brags on his Web page that he "actively assisted in the U.S. Senate process that confirmed David Souter as Supreme Court justice."

At least Bush found a man with impeccable credentials to promote the Miers nomination. Note to the promotions department: You can stop printing up those "Trust Me!" T-shirts. I don't think we're going to need them!

Finally, to throw us totally off balance, Bush did something weird and scary this week: He nominated Ben Bernanke for Fed chairman — A MAN WHO'S TOTALLY QUALIFIED FOR THE JOB. The White House has yet to explain how this happened.

Politicians and Fox News analysts afraid of upsetting the White House kept saying we needed to wait for the hearings to see if Miers is qualified. In fact, the only two people who would have derived any benefit from the hearings are Joe Biden, who would finally look like a constitutional scholar, and Harriet Miers, who might have learned something about the Constitution from him.

Far from opposing Miers, Democrats were delighted with the mess Bush had stepped in by nominating her. They didn't dare help Bush by opposing her. The NARAL ladies were told to take a back seat to Democrat dreams of an impotent George Bush. Yeah, maybe Miers would have voted to overturn Roe, but that still wouldn't have created a majority to overturn it.

But if Miers got on the court, Democrats could have had their way with Bush. His armies would be gone. This isn't a game of kick the can, where Republicans fight for any idiot with an "R" on his shirt. We support Bush because he is a Republican, not whether or not he is a Republican.

With Miers' withdrawal, Bush has us back on the team, ready to cheer for him unreservedly. All we ask is that you please not listen to Harry Reid next time.

Ann Coulter


Don't you find it ironic that she didn't like Miers either?

Bush did.

Individual people commit individual crimes. Tarring everyone with a brush that may only apply to a few individuals is wrong.

Does the term innocent until proven guilty have any meaning for you any more?


Ahh, now you're trying to play the victim. Not gonna work, sonny. This is a bigger problem than you are willing to admit.

Just face it. Conservatives DO NOT UNDERSTAND HOW TO GOVERN. They are stuck in an ideal past that never existed. One where abortions never happened, noone paid taxes, and gas cost $.05 a gallon. A wold where everyone had a pool in their back yard, and barbecues on saturday. And, no black people broke into their houses, because guns were free!

Why choose to live in this fabrication? Tell me...

Re-read the original post. I oppose federal regulation of marriage. Which you would know if you actually took the time to read it.

I know all about pork barrel projects, They exist in many states. Many of the proponents of such are Democrats too. I-69. Indiana. Look it up. Started by our then Democrat governor, Frank O'Bannon. A 1 billion dollar pork barrel highway project, very close and dear to my heart. And totally unnecessary, not to mention environmentally damaging.

Clean up your own side of the street first before you criticize mine..

You have an amazingly limited set of debate tactics, don't you? Yet *again* you turn away from defending your point and go for attacks on your opponent, rather than the issue. You know about pork projects, and that they exist - good, we have a starting point. But then you drop the defense of Republican fiscal conservatism entirely in favor of a rather whiny "They do it too!" attack. I quite willingly concede that when the pork is out, all the politicians are liable to come running. The points you avoid are that under Republican control of Washington, pork has grown in unprecedented fashion and that under the Republican presidents of the last twenty-five years, the American national debt has skyrocketed absurdly, leading to annually incurred debt simply to service the existing balance.

And don't even bother trying to blame Clinton on this one, okay? He's the only President in the last several decades to actually pay down some of the debt, and the total increase over his entire eight years was less than the increase in Bush's first two, or the first Bush's four.

Ahh, now you're trying to play the victim. Not gonna work, sonny. This is a bigger problem than you are willing to admit.

Just face it. Conservatives DO NOT UNDERSTAND HOW TO GOVERN. They are stuck in an ideal past that never existed. One where abortions never happened, noone paid taxes, and gas cost $.05 a gallon. A wold where everyone had a pool in their back yard, and barbecues on saturday. And, no black people broke into their houses, because guns were free!

Why choose to live in this fabrication? Tell me...

Because, 1) I do not consider it a fabrication. and, 2) The alternative would be far worse.

I'm beginning to feel that Bush's on-going 8 year disaster, might just be the national catalyst that shifts America definitely to the left for good.

Keep in mind that when one mentions Left in the US it's more centre-right and centre than genuine left.

I don't suppose you've noticed, but when you are being attacked by three or so people simulataneously with mutiple points, all of whom want THEIR needle in the haystack responded to NOW, !there is no way you can adequately address them all. Especially not as fast as I type. So I pick out a point here and a point there. So sue me.

You have an amazingly limited set of debate tactics, don't you? Yet *again* you turn away from defending your point and go for attacks on your opponent, rather than the issue. You know about pork projects, and that they exist - good, we have a starting point. But then you drop the defense of Republican fiscal conservatism entirely in favor of a rather whiny "They do it too!" attack. I quite willingly concede that when the pork is out, all the politicians are liable to come running. The points you avoid are that under Republican control of Washington, pork has grown in unprecedented fashion and that under the Republican presidents of the last twenty-five years, the American national debt has skyrocketed absurdly, leading to annually incurred debt simply to service the existing balance.

And don't even bother trying to blame Clinton on this one, okay? He's the only President in the last several decades to actually pay down some of the debt, and the total increase over his entire eight years was less than the increase in Bush's first two, or the first Bush's four.

And finally.... a point I am willing to acknowlege. The deficit has grown horribly under Bush. You are right on the money there. My point was that pork is pork and not necessarily the sole distinguishing characteristic of the conservatives, as you imply. Both parties are gulity as hell of it. And both are wrong.

I'm beginning to feel that Bush's on-going 8 year disaster, might just be the national catalyst that shifts America definitely to the left for good.

Keep in mind that when one mentions Left in the US it's more centre-right and centre than genuine left.

I think you're correct. But, it may be the start of a trend toward the light side. Lies, fearmongering, and bullying can only get a party so far before the people push back, realizing that they've been bamboozled.

#3, 4, 6, and 7 have nothing at all to do with God and everything to do with your selfishness. (Well, the strong military is a good idea, although non-religious.)

Right, umm, I agree and don't think it is selfish at all. Corporations looking to make a profit are constantly seeking to squeeze out that extra little efficiency, for instance, radio tracking of shipments by UPS and Fed Ex, something they have been doing for years, and the Army is implementing this to increase efficiency in logistics.

Why do you say nothing about divorce, adultery, and the death penalty - all of which Jesus strongly opposed?

Divorce has been around since the very beginnings of the Church. As you may recall the Anglican Church was founded because the Pope refused to grant a divorce to the queen of England when his wife had failed to produce a son, something that was common place in that time, but the Pope refused because the queen's brother was the Holy Roman Emperor or some bullshit like that. (All those Monarchs were somehow related, look at the King of England, Kaiser, and Czar during WWII, all cousins.) Adultery is illegal in many states and adultery is considered a legal basis for divorce in the US, meaning that if the wife is an adulterer the husband can basically set the terms for the divorce, kids, house, dog, everything. The death penalty? Well, I just think some people deserve to die slow, painful deaths, like Hitler, unfortunately Justice doesn't always work the way we like.

If you were truly conservative, you would support monarchy. The only type of ruler that has legitimacy is the King, appointed and sanctioned by God.

Not American conservatism, the United States of America never had a King, George Washington could have been king, and nobody would have questioned him if he had chosen to wear the crown after defeating the British, but he instead set a precedent that was followed for the next 160 years before being shattered by a democrat. (Don't get me wrong though, I don't care what FDR’s political affiliations were, he is one of the three greatest presidents of all time, along with Washington and Lincoln.)

I decided not to hide behind a link, as you did.

...
Ann Coulter


Don't you find it ironic that she didn't like Miers either?

Hide what behind a link? (You are aware, I hope, of the federal copyright violation you just committed by reprinting that entire article without prior permission, not to mention without citing the source? That's one of the reasons to use hyperlinks instead. If it was explicitly placed in the public domain, of course, this would not apply) I really don't see anything in that article about Miers that comments on the topic we had been discussing - Clinton's military preparedness levels.

I fail to see what I'm supposed to disagree with in that article, anyhow. There are matters of perspective, certainly - Coulter takes the view that frightening Bush into clinging desperately to his base is a victory, whereas the opposite view is that Bush is solidifying and energizing the Democratic base and driving Independents towards the Democratic Party in droves (see, for example, http://www.surveyusa.com/50State2005/50StatePOTUS1005SortedbyState.htm).

She's right on target with "Far from opposing Miers, Democrats were delighted with the mess Bush had stepped in by nominating her." Bush's only substantial support right now comes from the wingnuts. By nominating someone who wouldn't expose Republican extremism, he alienated the Republican extremists he depends on. Democrats were happy to let his right flank hammer him. And now he has indeed capitulated to them and nominated a far-right judge suited perfectly to exposing the unpleasant truth of the Republican platform to the world.

So, do you get it now? Did you notice that I addressed the points in her article, rather than waving my hand and saying "Oh, Ann Coulter, she's a Bush supporter and so I don't believe a word she says?"

And as much as I enjoy being passed around like a cheap whore at a drunken frat party, I think I am going to take a shower and wash some of this venom off before I go to bed.

Once again, I thank those who tried to debate intelligently. The rest of you can go to hell.

Nighty night.

You have an amazingly limited set of debate tactics, don't you? Yet *again* you turn away from defending your point and go for attacks on your opponent, rather than the issue. You know about pork projects, and that they exist - good, we have a starting point. But then you drop the defense of Republican fiscal conservatism entirely in favor of a rather whiny "They do it too!" attack. I quite willingly concede that when the pork is out, all the politicians are liable to come running. The points you avoid are that under Republican control of Washington, pork has grown in unprecedented fashion and that under the Republican presidents of the last twenty-five years, the American national debt has skyrocketed absurdly, leading to annually incurred debt simply to service the existing balance.

And don't even bother trying to blame Clinton on this one, okay? He's the only President in the last several decades to actually pay down some of the debt, and the total increase over his entire eight years was less than the increase in Bush's first two, or the first Bush's four.

Say what you want about Republican spending, just don't forget to mention that the Soviet Union collapsed during the presidency of a Republican and Reagan's defense spending certainly helped.

Hide what behind a link? (You are aware, I hope, of the federal copyright violation you just committed by reprinting that entire article without prior permission, not to mention without citing the source? That's one of the reasons to use hyperlinks instead. If it was explicitly placed in the public domain, of course, this would not apply) I really don't see anything in that article about Miers that comments on the topic we had been discussing - Clinton's military preparedness levels.

I fail to see what I'm supposed to disagree with in that article, anyhow. There are matters of perspective, certainly - Coulter takes the view that frightening Bush into clinging desperately to his base is a victory, whereas the opposite view is that Bush is solidifying and energizing the Democratic base and driving Independents towards the Democratic Party in droves (see, for example, http://www.surveyusa.com/50State2005/50StatePOTUS1005SortedbyState.htm).


She's right on target with "Far from opposing Miers, Democrats were delighted with the mess Bush had stepped in by nominating her." Bush's only substantial support right now comes from the wingnuts. By nominating someone who wouldn't expose Republican extremism, he alienated the Republican extremists he depends on. Democrats were happy to let his right flank hammer him. And now he has indeed capitulated to them and nominated a far-right judge suited perfectly to exposing the unpleasant truth of the Republican platform to the world.

So, do you get it now? Did you notice that I addressed the points in her article, rather than waving my hand and saying "Oh, Ann Coulter, she's a Bush supporter and so I don't believe a word she says?"

I gave her credit and did not try to pawn it off as my own. And I picked that in particular just so you would have precious little to rant about.

Again, let's try it again sometime when I am not having to defend myself against several of you.

Oddly enough, I find I somewhat liked you. You were one of the few who tried to debate intelligently, and rarely resorted to overly purple prose and invective. Thank you.

Also noted whom she works for now. The New York Times. And imprisoned for her fluffing up certain tidbits of information bolstering the case for WMD's in Iraq. Part of which the Bush administration used as justification for invading Iraq. Noted. Are you actually using her as an example of just how even handed their reporting is? :rolleyes: She perjured herself in court. And served jail time for it.

Hey everybody. I am a conservative. This does not mean I approve of everything Bush has done or is doing in the White House. Are you guys actually trying to say that the New York Times IS NOT a liberal newspaper?

Are you trying to say that a reporter that was on the short list to recieve an intelligence leak from this administration which was to be used to get revenge on one of their critics AND would lie to a court and GO TO JAIL in order to protect the source of the leak is in any way a Liberal?

You do know she was an avid fan of the bullshit case for going to war against Iraq, right?

Miller = not a Liberal

P.S. Your ignorance astonishes everyone in this thread. You haven't noticed that it was the illegalization of abortion that killed your mother. Your supporting the policy that will create more motherless kids like you were. You make it a certainty that women desperate enough to get abortions will go to questionable, unregulated and likely unsanitary places to get the job done, therefore increasing the likelihood of death.

Mom would be proud.

TO THE OTHERS:

I would also like to add this definition to what I think conservatism is:

Conservative policies create the conditions they claim to hate the most. Theirs is a ideology of sadism mixed with some masochism that, in the end helps no one and offers no effective solutions.

Conservatives bitch about immigrants a lot. Guess what? Use the military to destabilize a region of the world or support a dictatorship for your own political/economic desires and many more will come to your shores seeking asylum from oppression and poverty back home.

Hate criminals and love executions? Take away welfare and cut social programs to help people with low sociographic status become better than they are and many of them will turn to crime to support themselves (like selling drugs to suburban white kids. Gotta feed that demand ya know). It's not like they can get a job without a High School Diploma and its not like major businesses are attracted to ghettos. Now, if the government kills someone's Dad (nevermind if he is actually guilty of a crime or not) and you create another generation of criminals. Not only do they not trust authority but would have likely lost the only breadwinner of the household.

I wonder how many revolutionaries were created this way...

Animes like 'Battle Angel Alita/Gunnm', 'Final Fantasy VII' (yeah I know its a game, moving on...), 'Metropolis' and 'Appleseed' all had "The elites on top and the poor on the bottom cities and they all had to live off what was cast down to them as junk from the top (Trickle-Down Economics anyone?). The slums on the ground level were very cutthroat and were known to breed terrorists and revolutionaries. This is the result of conservatism. Clearly a fascist ideology. And they'll all be first up against the wall when the day of reckoning comes.

BTW does anyone know who came up with the original city metaphor of the class war?

In the conservative world you are either the elite or a convict. Eat or be eaten. It's the most basic, vicious, emotionless, selfish and regressive possibilities of human society rolled into one philosophy and it is equated to gospel by its followers. It's always good to know you can have wealth, power AND an entire group of people to look down on for that sense of superiority. Satan would be proud.


Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."
- Jesus, from Matthew 19:24

Say what you want about Republican spending, just don't forget to mention that the Soviet Union collapsed during the presidency of a Republican and Reagan's defense spending certainly helped.

Whee! An attempt to change the topic when in an indefensible position! Just remember this, too: the Soviet Union collapsed under a Communist leadership and Mikhael Gorbachev's attempts at reform. In fact, Gorbachev could have sparked a horrific and potientially nuclear Russian civil war by militarily trying to prevent the breakup of the Soviet Union, so he must have been an even greater hero than Reagan, right?
But, hey, sure, let's just give Reagan the benefit of the doubt and say that the debt he incurred was singlehandedly responsible for bringing down the Soviet Union, not the USSR's internal mismanagement and botched attempts at reform. In the intervening fifteen years since he last darkened the door of the White House, the Republican Party has undeniably spent like a drunken sailor without that convenient excuse.

Whee! An attempt to change the topic when in an indefensible position! Just remember this, too: the Soviet Union collapsed under a Communist leadership and Mikhael Gorbachev's attempts at reform. In fact, Gorbachev could have sparked a horrific and potientially nuclear Russian civil war by militarily trying to prevent the breakup of the Soviet Union, so he must have been an even greater hero than Reagan, right?
But, hey, sure, let's just give Reagan the benefit of the doubt and say that the debt he incurred was singlehandedly responsible for bringing down the Soviet Union, not the USSR's internal mismanagement and botched attempts at reform. In the intervening fifteen years since he last darkened the door of the White House, the Republican Party has undeniably spent like a drunken sailor without that convenient excuse.

Did I say that Reagan single handedly caused the downfall of the Soviet Union? I really don't think so. But you do make a good point, the Soviet Union was suffering from massive internal problems and trying to keep up with American defense spending or risking falling behind in the arms was the straw that broke the camel's back. Gorbachev could not do anything to stop the collapse, he did however prolong it and make room for a peaceful transition to a democracy of sorts.

I gave her credit and did not try to pawn it off as my own. And I picked that in particular just so you would have precious little to rant about.

Again, let's try it again sometime when I am not having to defend myself against several of you.

Oddly enough, I find I somewhat liked you. You were one of the few who tried to debate intelligently, and rarely resorted to overly purple prose and invective. Thank you.

Giving her credit is a good idea, but seriously - reprinting articles wholesale is a copyright violation, and you could potentially get both yourself and the NationStates forums in trouble. Giving me an unobjectionable article by a conservative commentator is a strange tactic, though, given that one of the points I was making was that a disagreeable source doesn't mean you can dismiss the data.
I'd be happy to debate again sometime. I'm not being (only) snarky when I say, though, that your debating style is weak. A text-based forum lends itself exceedingly well to in-line references of supporting documentation and dissection of unsupported statements, and it's easy to counter digressions and dodges by firmly staying on the topic of your choice.
Take the Clinton military thing - a more effective counter in this medium would have been to find a hard source of your own providing specific ways in which the military's level of preparedness dropped under Clinton. We would then have probably been in a position to debate which information was most relevant, rather than me getting several chances to chide you and deliver another point supporting my position. In a TV debate, dodges and talking points are easy to employ; a written debate (well, a well-done one that doesn't devolve into a flame war, anyhow) is much closer in nature to an academic dispute.
You're free to disagree with my analysis, but it's all just opinion anyhow. Remember, though, that if I'm suggesting a highly factual and objectively-disputable argument, then I probably have a high degree of confidence that I have the facts on my side. As a certain famous individual said, "You can be certain and be wrong," but it's still worth consideration.

DOGPILE!

I believe that at the heart of conservatism there must be a foundation of a strong belief in God, for it is from that basis that many of the beliefs spring fully formed.

Well, there goes any support you may have gotten for the roughly 25% of non-Christians in the US, not to mention a big chunk of Christians who don't think that religion is the basis for government policy.

1) We do not believe in a woman’s “right to choose”. The opportunity for a right to choose passed when she decided firstly, to have sex, and then later, to have unprotected sex.

Aye, because women are never raped, condoms never break, and no one ever makes mistakes. Why ruin the life of both mother and child due to one mistake, one accident, or one victimization?

Oh wait, of course. Rape is the exception. Of course, the law will examine every element of your life to make sure you really were raped, you little slu- I mean, you precious little victim. Aye, truly the ideal solution.

2) Abortion is murder. Period. Is there some part of “Thou shalt not kill”, that is unclear? It is immoral. Likewise any case of retaliation against abortionists is immoral and goes against Christian creed. Just in case you thought I was thinking about being inconsistent here. Likewise profiting from aborted fetuses stem cell research is immoral. It’s like spending stolen money. Any good that may come from it is overcome by the evil deed that spawned it.

Personally, I happen to think that it isn't murder- that a body without a mind has about as much inherent value as a head of cabbage (except that eating humans is generally frowned upon, and rather unhealthy). And of course, if a fetus is a 'potential life,' and ending potential life is murder, then would not menstruation- releasing an egg without becoming pregnant- be half murder? After all, that egg is half of a potential life! And, of course, if abortion is murder, then logically, miscarriage and stillbirth and the like must be manslaughter!

If you feel abortion is wrong, don't get an abortion. Don't force the moral decision upon others.

Side note: Your mother died in an illegal abortion? Truly sad, aye. However, to point out something you may not have realized, had she gotten a legal abortion, she would have been under proper care, in a real hospital that could take care of any complications. Abortions will occur, regardless of whether they're legal or not; I'd much rather that the woman so driven to not have a child be given proper care in the hospital, rather than go for the coathanger. *shudder*

3) We believe in a strong national defense. A strong military heads off many problems. An enemy will attack the weak, as a rule. If you are strong militarily, they will simply pass you by for easier pickings, and content themselves with hurling invective at you from the floor of the U.N

The nice thing about American geography is that we have two great big moats on both sides of us, and both of our neighbors are friendly with us. Therefore, the only military we need is enough to garrison the coasts, plus an air force and navy capable of protecting those coasts. It's a system that has worked well for England for the last 934 years. Further, a nation the size of the US is capable of using a core group of regular officers and such that can train rapidly drafted troops if a situation calling for a draft occurs; as such, the American military could potential swell incredibly if necessary. Plus, we have a few thousand nukes stored away for a day when we feel like eliminating the entire human race.

None of this requires a huge army, bases located throughout the world, invasion of nations that did nothing to attack us, and so on. The defense budget could easily be cut, freeing billions of dollars, while leaving the defensibility of US soil largely unaffected (or improved, with all those troops coming home from Germany, Japan, and so on).

4) We believe in a balanced budget. Both of our major political parties have dropped the ball on this one, granted. You balance a budget by responsible spending. No spending money you don’t have to finace the flavor of the day. And you definitely do not balance the budget by fudging the bookeeping, so that is appears you are making progress, or by raising the taxes again to finance its’ balancing. That only leads to more spending, as the special interest groups then will most assuredly get in line.

Uh-huh. Apparently, some conservatives don't agree with you on this, but what the heck. Rebalancing th budget is simple- reinstate the taxes on the wealthy Bush cut, pull our troops out of the rest of the world, and severely cut back teh defense budget. While I don't have the numbers in front of me, I think that this has to be accomplished before we start cutting welfare and such. Clinton balanced the budget (only the last 3 conservative presidents); what was different then?

5) Marriage is between a man and a woman. Period. I do not begrudge gays the right to have partners or to live in a relationship of their choosing. Far from it. More power to them. I wish them every happiness. But marriage? Out of the question.

Why is it out of the question?

Ideally, 'marriage' would be a purely religious institution, and all the government involvement would be for civil unions- which would be the same across the board, no matter what the gender or number of participants (so long as everyone is a willing adult, why not?). Failing that, at least grant homosexuals the same rights, privileges, and responsibilities as everyone else- preferably through the simple process of 'marriage now includes gays,' rather than creating a whole new seperate-but-equal classification.

6) Retirement and heath care should be privatised. Private groups in a healthy and competitve economy can do a much tighter job of managing the available moneys than can big government, and will do a much better job of addressing the needs of the recipients on an individual basis.

The problem for the former is that some people make mistakes, are unlucky, or are lied to about their retirement plan. As for the latter, a lot of people can't afford health insurance, or require more coverage than they can afford. Hospitals will generally still take care of these people (AFAIK), but they are then left in crippling debt for who-knows-how-long, possibly for the rest of their lives.

In addition, people without health care or with minimum health care may not go to a doctor for a minor illness because they can't afford it; this minor illness may then develop into a larger illness, which could cause them to miss out on far more work than they would have had they just gone to the doctor; this, I think, winds up causing more harm and loss of productivity than nationalized health care would.

7) Government at the federal level should be minimal. More power and leverage should be granted to the state level as they are more in touch with the constituents in their region.

A very fine sentiment, but often not practicable. The states are not independent entities; they often cannot take care of all that needs to be done within their borders on their resources alone; for example, the costs of maintaining infrastructure within and between states is often too great for the seperate states to deal with individually, and can require a supervising body to make sure everthing matches up- that interstate roads line up, and so on.

In times of crisis, a stronger central government is necessary to coordinate everything. There is no way the United States could have survived the Civil War (an example of strong sectionalism and unfailing support for states' rights gone wrong), the Great Depression, or World War II without a strong central authority to coordinate the efforts of the Union and to keep the states from rebelling (to prevent situations like the support for the British by New England in the War of 1812).

Further, the intervention of the federal government is often necessary to ensure that the states follow the laws of the land, such as the Constitution; the Civil Rights Movement is the paramount example of this.

I believe that at the heart of conservatism there must be a foundation of a strong belief in God, for it is from that basis that many of the beliefs spring fully formed. And so it is that:
If you truly believe that, then there are lots of hipocritical conservatives in this world.

1) We do not believe in a woman’s “right to choose”. The opportunity for a right to choose passed when she decided firstly, to have sex, and then later, to have unprotected sex. Once that pregnancy has occurred......
As a liberal with a "strong belief in God", I believe that the decision for abortion rests with the potential mother, her doctor and her God. God gave us all free will, and your opinion or mine means squat on this matter.

BTW, how many of you conservative types are willing to adopt all those unwanted children?

2) Abortion is murder. Period. Is there some part of “Thou shalt not kill”, that is unclear? It is immoral. Likewise any case of retaliation against abortionists is immoral and goes against Christian creed. Just in case you thought I was thinking about being inconsistent here. Likewise profiting from aborted fetuses stem cell research is immoral. It’s like spending stolen money. Any good that may come from it is overcome by the evil deed that spawned it.
Did God tell you that abortion is murder, or is that just your moralistic views? I will get back to you on the murder thingy further down.

3) We believe in a strong national defense. A strong military heads off many problems. An enemy will attack the weak, as a rule. If you are strong militarily, they will simply pass you by for easier pickings, and content themselves with hurling invective at you from the floor of the U.N.
To quote your own words:

"Is there some part of “Thou shalt not kill”, that is unclear? It is immoral."

How many conservatives also support the death penalty?

How many conservatives own a gun and have no problem taking a life if it prevents a person from committing rape or stealing your material possessions?

Yup, “Thou shalt not kill”, is pretty clear to this Christian.

4) We believe in a balanced budget. Both of our major political parties have dropped the ball on this one, granted. You balance a budget by responsible spending. No spending money you don’t have to finace the flavor of the day. And you definitely do not balance the budget by fudging the bookeeping, so that is appears you are making progress, or by raising the taxes again to finance its’ balancing. That only leads to more spending, as the special interest groups then will most assuredly get in line.
It is extremely difficult to balance the budget if your country is spending more on military than all the rest of the countries in the world combined? Just think how many of your poor, homeless, and sick could benefit from those ill begotten funds that end up destroying other peoples lives in far away lands.

5) Marriage is between a man and a woman. Period. I do not begrudge gays the right to have partners or to live in a relationship of their choosing. Far from it. More power to them. I wish them every happiness. But marriage? Out of the question.
If they don't ask for the benefit of clergy, why the hell should you give a damn what they do?

6) Retirement and heath care should be privatised. Private groups in a healthy and competitve economy can do a much tighter job of managing the available moneys than can big government, and will do a much better job of addressing the needs of the recipients on an individual basis.
So you are not your brothers keeper? Conservatives don't believe in any form of socialism due to one of the seven deadly sins....GREED.

Rich man/eye of needle.....you know that kind of reasoning.

7) Government at the federal level should be minimal. More power and leverage should be granted to the state level as they are more in touch with the constituents in their region.
Meanwhile, large military = large government. The giving and taking of lives is big business. I am sure God approves :rolleyes:

I think many conservatives are God "fearing" for a reason.

Did I say that Reagan single handedly caused the downfall of the Soviet Union? I really don't think so. But you do make a good point, the Soviet Union was suffering from massive internal problems and trying to keep up with American defense spending or risking falling behind in the arms was the straw that broke the camel's back. Gorbachev could not do anything to stop the collapse, he did however prolong it and make room for a peaceful transition to a democracy of sorts.
No, you didn't say Reagan did it alone - but you did imply that the fall of the Soviet Union during Reagan's term should mitigate the huge deficits he ran. I was hyperbolical about that to make the countering point that the implication that Reagan and Republicans should be forgiven their budgetary failings for their role in the downfall of the USSR would also mean that Gorbachev and the Communists should be given similar credit (under the theory that praising Communists is anathema to conservatives).
Anyhow, Myotisinia had a good idea. Specifically, going to bed. It's quite late here. G'night, folks!

Oh, and before I go, I'm going to have to disagree with the preceding couple of posts about the military, at least in some respects. Isolationism is a very poor solution. The US has wide oceans and friendly borders, freeing the US to develop a military with a uniquely long reach. Most other nations in the world either lack the wealth base to support such a military or have more local concerns to handle. The US can project power to a simply unmatched degree, because we can put a lot more resources into it and need spend relatively little on actual territorial defense.
And the US and the world actually benefit from the US having that unique capacity. Because any region in the world knows that major overt evil stands a chance of drawing retaliation from a power that is effectively beyond reach of counterattack, states have greater incentive to, if not conduct their affairs peaceably, at least not permit the horrors that might draw attention. Other good systems might exist - but even if the US was not the biggest kid in every neighborhood around the world, having the US as a big kd in every neighborhood would still have this palliative effect.
It takes effort to project power, though, and that's the shield the rest of the world has - the US isn't inclined to go rampaging wantonly, but needs a cause. It's possible to dupe people into doing it wrongly, as the Bush White House did on Iraq, but ultimately the American people don't want to go throwing lives and treasure over the seas without a compelling reason. And now I'm rambling and tired and goodnight.

Oh, and before I go, I'm going to have to disagree with the preceding couple of posts about the military, at least in some respects. Isolationism is a very poor solution. The US has wide oceans and friendly borders, freeing the US to develop a military with a uniquely long reach. Most other nations in the world either lack the wealth base to support such a military or have more local concerns to handle. The US can project power to a simply unmatched degree, because we can put a lot more resources into it and need spend relatively little on actual territorial defense.
And the US and the world actually benefit from the US having that unique capacity. Because any region in the world knows that major overt evil stands a chance of drawing retaliation from a power that is effectively beyond reach of counterattack, states have greater incentive to, if not conduct their affairs peaceably, at least not permit the horrors that might draw attention. Other good systems might exist - but even if the US was not the biggest kid in every neighborhood around the world, having the US as a big kd in every neighborhood would still have this palliative effect.
It takes effort to project power, though, and that's the shield the rest of the world has - the US isn't inclined to go rampaging wantonly, but needs a cause. It's possible to dupe people into doing it wrongly, as the Bush White House did on Iraq, but ultimately the American people don't want to go throwing lives and treasure over the seas without a compelling reason. And now I'm rambling and tired and goodnight.

Eh, possibly. However, there is indeed little keeping the US from rampaging, and as the Bush administration has shown, the American people are easy to bamboozle. In addition, the US has a history of taking down leaders (democratically elected or not) and placing US-friendly dictators in their place. To me, the US military seems to be more of a school bully than a defensive paladin.

And the US and the world actually benefit from the US having that unique capacity. Because any region in the world knows that major overt evil stands a chance of drawing retaliation from a power that is effectively beyond reach of counterattack, states have greater incentive to, if not conduct their affairs peaceably, at least not permit the horrors that might draw attention.


Except for Africa, nobody cares about Africa. (Part movie quote, part truth)

Nope. I didn't. She died when I was 3 years old of an illegally performed abortion. Next?
And yet you want to increase illegal abortions? If she had sought a legal abortion she would still live. Are you so hateful that you want women to die?

Fass performed just like I knew he would. Even better, actually. Congratulations, Pinnochio. Today you are a real boy.

Hate brings forth hate.

Quoting someone who is published by three of the most virulent Bush hating papers on the planet, doesn't prove anything except that you know where to find the good dirt.
That's a stretch. The New York Times supported the Iraq War. Did you?

Re-read the original post. I oppose federal regulation of marriage. Which you would know if you actually took the time to read it.
Except when it comes to banning it.

Clean up your own side of the street first before you criticize mine..
That's a bullshit concept. If Hitler told you that genocide was wrong, would the fact that he committed it mean that genocide was not, in fact, wrong?

Does the term innocent until proven guilty have any meaning for you any more?
I may ask you the same regarding Guantanamo Bay.

Divorce has been around since the very beginnings of the Church. As you may recall the Anglican Church was founded because the Pope refused to grant a divorce to the queen of England when his wife had failed to produce a son, something that was common place in that time, but the Pope refused because the queen's brother was the Holy Roman Emperor or some bullshit like that. (All those Monarchs were somehow related, look at the King of England, Kaiser, and Czar during WWII, all cousins.) Adultery is illegal in many states and adultery is considered a legal basis for divorce in the US, meaning that if the wife is an adulterer the husband can basically set the terms for the divorce, kids, house, dog, everything. The death penalty? Well, I just think some people deserve to die slow, painful deaths, like Hitler, unfortunately Justice doesn't always work the way we like.
1517 is not the beginning of the Church. The Roman Catholic Church existed for 1,500 years before that. It has always opposed divorce, adultery and the death penalty. As do most Christian groups in the world.

Not American conservatism, the United States of America never had a King, George Washington could have been king, and nobody would have questioned him if he had chosen to wear the crown after defeating the British, but he instead set a precedent that was followed for the next 160 years before being shattered by a democrat. (Don't get me wrong though, I don't care what FDR’s political affiliations were, he is one of the three greatest presidents of all time, along with Washington and Lincoln.)
FDR never crowned himself King.

I mean, if this guy is going to set up God as the foundation for his beliefs, then monarchy is a natural extension. God is not the foundation of American conservatism.

Conservatisim is keeping things correct.

Conservatisim is keeping things correct.
Then why do conservatives almost never care about conserving the environment?

If I was to label my view of what conservatism should be, and how I view the Left, I could sum it up:

If you want the government to take care of your every need, and make all your decisions, and do all of your thinking for you, and be responsible for all your training, and your job, etc., and that makes you happy knowing that you're basically living in a society where "Mom" still makes your bed, you're trending left.

If you want the government to leave you alone, and you feel you can take care of your own needs, and you don't want government nannies telling you how to live and how to think and how to breathe, you're trending right.

Republicans in the US (and Democrats) are notoriously contradictory in this area.

Republicans want to restrict things like porn, abortion, atheism, etc. - matters that really should be left up to the individual if they want to be consistent.

Democrats want more social welfare, want to ban guns, stifle religious expression, and if they were consistent, they would be banning porn, abortion, etc.

Now, go back to your regularly scheduled argument.

Democrats want more social welfare, want to ban guns, stifle religious expression, and if they were consistent, they would be banning porn, abortion, etc.


Heh ... interesting veiwpoint, but a little off ...

Democrats do not want to ban guns or stifle religious expression.

Democratic Party Platform:

http://www.democrats.org/pdfs/2004platform.pdf

Nothing in there about banning guns or religiouus expression.

Incidently, removing the 10 Commandments from public/federal buildings is not stifling religious expression. It's adhering to the non-establishment clause of the 1st Amendment.

Heh ... interesting veiwpoint, but a little off ...

Democrats do not want to ban guns or stifle religious expression.

Democratic Party Platform:

http://www.democrats.org/pdfs/2004platform.pdf

Nothing in there about banning guns or religiouus expression.

Incidently, removing the 10 Commandments from public/federal buildings is not stifling religious expression. It's adhering to the non-establishment clause of the 1st Amendment.

Making a special prayer room for group prayer by Muslims in a school room and banning any vocal or group prayer by anyone else is stifling religious expression.

And every gun ban or gun control measure has been authored by Democrats. And they are quite consistent on saying they want to ban or get rid of them.

They don't put it in the platform because it loses votes. The main reason that a majority of union members no longer vote Democrat comes from the anti-gun stance of so many Democratic candidates.

Making a special prayer room for group prayer by Muslims in a school room and banning any vocal or group prayer by anyone else is stifling religious expression.

Not really. Muslims are no more allowed to use the PA system or disrupt classroom activities any more than anyone else. Christians may offer *silent* prayers in class with no problems. The problem is that Christians want to use the PA system and public school events to make everyone pray. They're not allowed to do that.

And every gun ban or gun control measure has been authored by Democrats. And they are quite consistent on saying they want to ban or get rid of them.

Brady was a Republican.

They don't put it in the platform because it loses votes. The main reason that a majority of union members no longer vote Democrat comes from the anti-gun stance of so many Democratic candidates.

Ummm ... the platform is voted on by the delegates to the National Convention. It's submitted by the delegates to the State Conventions. It's something that's voted in during the parts of the Convention you don't see on TV. Those votes happen during the Caucases. Believe me ... if the Democratic Party wanted to ban guns, we would have put it in the Platform.

Sometimes it gets tried. No less than 5 amendments to the Platform were put on the table at the 2004 Convention. They were nearly unanimously voted down. Democrats do not want to ban guns.

1517 is not the beginning of the Church. The Roman Catholic Church existed for 1,500 years before that. It has always opposed divorce, adultery and the death penalty. As do most Christian groups in the world.

Right on the money, I am glad we both agree then that the Anglican Church broke off from the Roman Catholic Church because the Pope refused to grant the King of England a divorce.


FDR never crowned himself King.


Once again you are correct, FDR never did crown himself King, where that came from I do not know.

Not really. Muslims are no more allowed to use the PA system or disrupt classroom activities any more than anyone else. Christians may offer *silent* prayers in class with no problems. The problem is that Christians want to use the PA system and public school events to make everyone pray. They're not allowed to do that.

The Muslims in my child's school get a call to prayer over the loudspeaker. And they go to a special room where a teacher supervises. Try again.

Brady was a Republican. He didn't author the bill - he didn't have enough of a forebrain left to do anything.

It's Democrats that want to ban guns. They keep silent on it, especially if they are candidate in Southern states or rural areas. Because it's a third rail.

You really should look at their voting records. They are more telling than their platform.

The heavy emphasis on making sure that women and non-heterosexuals are not treated equally turns a lot of people off that might otherwise be happy to call themselves conservative.

I'm socially quite liberal but my views on government and fiscal matters are conservative. Conservative, NOT Republican, since they've merely become representatives of the extreme right.

Ultimately, it sickens me to have someone else's religious beliefs shoved upon me. Which is why it looks like I'll be fighting against Republicans for the rest of my days.

Signed,
No, I'm not a Democrat or a Libertarian

Is is just me, or are people confusing conservatism with Republicanism?

Is is just me, or are people confusing conservatism with Republicanism?

Yes, that much is obvious.

Is is just me, or are people confusing conservatism with Republicanism?
Is someone confusing the activities of the US Republican party with the ideology of Republicanism?

The Muslims in my child's school get a call to prayer over the loudspeaker. And they go to a special room where a teacher supervises. Try again.

Then you need to do something about that ... or did you forget that School Districts fall under State rule and have nothing to do with the Constitution?

If you want something different, then contact your local school board.

As far as I know, however, Christian children do not have a 5 time daily call to prayer. They just have a "meet me at the flagpole" thing as Christ oirdained ...... *coff*

Wait ... you mean "meet me at the flagpole" is not in the Christian Bible?

Well guess what .... the 5 time prayer *is* in Qura'n.

*snips whole damn post*Oh how the long cold winter nights must just fly by.

Note to self: screw Disneyworld, I'm never going back. Not with people like this skulking about.

Then why do conservatives almost never care about conserving the environment?
I care about the Environment i can't help it if others don't.
However if you help me become World Dictator The Environment shall be a high priority.

Today the Corner Diary, Tomorrow the World!

Is is just me, or are people confusing conservatism with Republicanism?

Oh yes. Most definitely. Without a doubt.

I would call conservatives redistributionist democrats of the right. They favour democratic government, and they favour some redistribution of wealth. What distinguishes them from redistributionist democrats of the left is that RD of the right redistribute in favour of defence, law enforcement, social conservatism, and (to greatly differing extents) corporate welfare. (RD of the left redistribute in favour of welfare in the conventional sense, state-run health care, and state-run education, etc)

The statement that conservatives don't care about the environment is false, they merely don't use it to further state power to the extent that leftoids do.

When Clinton was in office, Congress and a whole lot of Republicans including Emperor Cheney were pushing for the downsizing and "slimming down" of the military.

Then add to that fact that Iraq never needed invading, the justification is moot; the fact of the matter, Afghanistan was a high priority, and I supported that decision, but what the US should have done was concerntrate all its energy on getting that corrected BEFORE moving onto the next problem.

Complete one job properly, then move onto the next task.

That's one of the beauties I find in social liberalism. The belief that men are not fundamentally evil.

People aren't inheriently evil, what they are, however, is very selfish and only think about number one - the fact is, people may sit around and talk about how bloody wonderful it would be to pay 30% tax and help all the down trodden, but we all know, when push comes to shove, the reality is, they would much rather have more cash in the hand on pay day than pay for some 'bludger sitting on the benefit, sucking money out of the government coffers".

So no, humans aren't evil, just greedy.

So no, humans aren't evil, just greedy.

Bollocks. Wanting to keep your property isn't greed. Wanting to take the property of others to give to people you favour is greed.

Wanting to take the property of others to give to people you favour is greed.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=greed
greed

n 1: excessive desire to acquire or possess more (especially more material wealth) than one needs or deserves 2: reprehensible acquisitiveness; insatiable desire for wealth (personified as one of the deadly sins) [syn: avarice, covetousness, rapacity, avaritia]
Don't become ideological, just stick to the meaning of the word. A desire to acquire or possess more than one needs or deserves is probably a universal human trait, often only mildly supressed by moral rules and social understandings.
So his comment is probably right.

Conservatism is as dead as Liberalism.

It's just been hijacked by the Republican Party just as Liberalism came to mean anything to the left of the Republicans (ie, most of the rest of the Western world).

Agreed on the definition. However, it renders his statement meaningless. That he judges others greedy has no real meaning because there is no agreed, universal determination of what one deserves, or needs (beyond the satifaction of basic biological needs determined by scientific study of humans).

The closest we could ever get to a definition of what one deserves is the marginal revenue productivity theory of wages (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marginal_revenue_productivity_theory_of_wages ), of course that's not universal.

The closest we could ever get to a definition of what one deserves is the marginal revenue productivity theory of wages (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marginal_revenue_productivity_theory_of_wages ), of course that's not universal.
Tell me about it. Marginal Product is neither known nor constant. The actual productivity of the worker is equal to the wage in exactly zero percent of cases.
The standard classical model neglects power differences (employer > employee as well as employee > unemployed), imperfect information and the variability of human labour productivity.

Marginal Product is neither known nor constant.

That's why I said "the closest we could get", though it is known to the extent that an employer would only pay you so much.

The actual productivity of the worker is equal to the wage in exactly zero percent of cases.

Prove it. If it isn't, all it proves is that like anyone, an employer will purchase goods and services as the lowest possible rate, why that is right and good if its some dude buying petrol, and totally wrong when it is an employer buying someone's services is a mystery (except insofar as people use it to gain influence)

Here's an article: http://www.mises.org/fullstory.aspx?control=1602

Agreed on the definition. However, it renders his statement meaningless. That he judges others greedy has no real meaning because there is no agreed, universal determination of what one deserves, or needs (beyond the satifaction of basic biological needs determined by scientific study of humans).

The closest we could ever get to a definition of what one deserves is the marginal revenue productivity theory of wages (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marginal_revenue_productivity_theory_of_wages ), of course that's not universal.

Please; I myself am a greedy individual, when the elections rolled along, my main propriority was chasing the idea of tax cuts - I want more money in my pocket rather than the money being 're-allocated' to those who the government, in turn, society, thinks need that extra boost in their income.

Without greed and desire, the economy would cease to function; it is the desire for products and services that drives us to work harder than necessary so that we can acquire more goods and services than what we need.

For me, I don't need to have a desktop and a laptop; but I choose to want those things; in the most pure definition, that is greed; same goes for individuals; as individuals we look out for number one; when the voting comes along every 3/4 years, we ask ourselves, 'whats in it for me' - sure, there are those who may take other considerations into account, but the underlying fact of the matter is, tax cuts will always win ahead of a politician preaching fiscal prudence - GWB election is proof of just that.

What a bunch of bullshit to make you seem less of a homophobic prick than you really are.
Agreed its one of those “not to be a jerk but ...” type of statements

Nonsense, given the definition of greed, it is simply not possible to say someone else is greedy because you've no right to say what he needs, or deserves.

You may accuse yourself of greed since you can determine what you need.

the government, in turn, society

You've based your point on a false premise, namely that the government is synonomous with society. There is no such thing as society, only individuals, each with his own interest, and it is more than likely that their interest lies with sticking their hands in your pockets. That they get the state to do it for them doesn't make it right, nor does the collectivity of the decision making.

underlying fact of the matter is, tax cuts will always win ahead of a politician preaching fiscal prudence - GWB election is proof of just that.

Yet another falsehood, that tax cuts are not an example of fiscal prudence. When the budget is in deficit, you don't raise taxes, you cut spending. In any case, cutting taxes tends to increase revenue, while keeping them steady, or raising them will tend to reduce revenue.

You've based your point on a false premise, namely that the government is synonomous with society. There is no such thing as society, only individuals, each with his own interest, and it is more than likely that their interest lies with sticking their hands in your pockets. That they get the state to do it for them doesn't make it right, nor does the collectivity of the decision making.

The government is the collective interests of the society as a whole; for obvious reasons we as individuals can't vote for everything ourselves, so we choose representatives who represent what we consider out main interests; there for, the government does actually represent our society.

Society is a group of people; with different interests; many interests that cross, some that are different, hence the reason why we have different political parties, to represent the differing views of people in society.

Are you some how claiming that there is only a society if everyone agrees with everything on every matter?

Yet another falsehood, that tax cuts are not an example of fiscal prudence. When the budget is in deficit, you don't raise taxes, you cut spending. In any case, cutting taxes tends to increase revenue, while keeping them steady, or raising them will tend to reduce revenue.

Oi! learn how to READ; I said AHEAD, meaning there are TWO politicians, ONE advocating fiscal prudence the OTHER preaching tax cuts.

GWB made a HUGE tax cut based on a TEN YEAR fiscal forcast! I don't know about you, but 10 years of fiscal guessing is paramount to heading off to the local fortune teller and getting your palm read.

He should have done SMALL reforms; how about getting rid of payroll tax; that alone would lower the costs of business, the lower the business tax. Gradually roll the tax back so that in the end there are only three core tax streams; PAYE/Income Tax, GST and business tax.