A question from a conservative to the conservatives

[Shattered]

There are several things that the republicans have done that have caused the “throw the bums out” mentality. This is the reason why the 2006 sweep of the house and senate took place.

First of all the Republicans were trusted to handle this war with Afghanistan, and it eventually turned into Iraq. With the Republican's “lemmings to the sea” mentality, and never questioning Bush, as to the validity of his case to go into Iraq. They could have put up a fight to stop Bush from making this grave mistake, but they didn't. They just went along with the war profit gravy train into Iraq led by a White House marinated in oil. Dwight Eisenhower would have never done such a thing in the first place.

Next, the facts of the intelligence were “fixed around the policy” of the Bush administration, according to the British “Downing Street Memo”. Bush didn't rely on facts of the intelligence. He made stuff up. There was no “Yellow Cake Uranium”. There were no mobile weapons labs. Colin Powell resigned because he felt betrayed by the Bush administration, who in turn made him testify, with a little vile of Anthrax, that the intelligence to go into Iraq was a “knockout” of proof that Iraq was hiding WMD's. When the fact is that we destroyed most if not all of his stockpile of weapons that Ronald Regan probably sold him at the hands of Donald Rumsfeld in the 80's.

Next, the Bush administration has carried on the policy of the Military to deny former servicemen who were Gulf War veterans that “Gulf War Syndrome” exists. Which is probably a medical side effect from being exposed to detonated biological and chemical weapons that Saddam had back in 1991, when we destroyed their stockpile in the first place. I happen to personally know some of these people, who are afflicted with these medical conditions, so I know this isn't just some “liberal crybaby” as some of you would like to believe. This is one in a series of things along with Bush cutting the military medical funding for VA benefits. The Republicans were nowhere to be found shouting from the hills that Bush has cut funding to the military VA hospitals. It took a “liberal” film-maker, to expose the deplorable conditions at Walter Reed Medical Facility. A year before CNN finally broke the story. Bush's “love” for the military, and veterans is remarkable! And the Republicans did nothing to stop Bush. They just kept in line with other Republicans. The Democratic sweep of Congress, has been stalled by Bush's veto power. So Congress has been left “neutered” in their ability to stop Bush. They have been left ineffective to get anything done as a hand of Bush's veto.

Next, the Republicans have been trying to get rid of Social Security ever since FDR drafted the “New Deal”, because it resembles too much of a “socialist” handout. They have been trying to dismantle it ever since. Capitalism has failed us once again.

And the old saying comes to mind. 'Why does Capitalism always survive? Because Socialism will always swoop in to save it.' Unless you are among the wealthiest 1% in the US, you cannot afford to vote for another corporate tool like John McCain. McCain and Bush are beyond satire...

There. That's better.

I think.

 

[greenpartyaz]

You can try to ridicule me all you want, but you haven't addressed anything in the previous post. Now let's here some discussion on the information presented to you!

 

[Alpha1]

There are several things that the republicans have done that have caused the “throw the bums out” mentality. This is the reason why the 2006 sweep of the house and senate took place. First of all the Republicans were trusted to handle this war with Afghanistan, and it eventually turned into Iraq.

Sadly, 9/11 was thrust upon us...not on Democrats or liberals, not on Republicans or Conservatives...but on us, the United States....
No party was "trusted" to handle the war on terrorism...It was the DUTY of whatever party in power to respond to the murder of 3000 Americans on American soil....so even pinheads like you should be able to grasp the issues and events starting in 2001....

With the Republican's “lemmings to the sea” mentality, and never questioning Bush, as to the validity of his case to go into Iraq. They could have put up a fight to stop Bush from making this grave mistake, but they didn't. They just went along with the war profit gravy train into Iraq led by a White House marinated in oil. Dwight Eisenhower would have never done such a thing in the first place.

History will evaluate the Iraq war and if it was sound or faulty policy to oust Saddam....and history will note that Bush asked for and received permission form Congress before he acted...and that the war would not have happened without the co-operation of high-ranking Democrats in the Congress....even if the pinheads ignore the facts, the facts will remain...

Next, the facts of the intelligence were “fixed around the policy” of the Bush administration, according to the British “Downing Street Memo”. Bush didn't rely on facts of the intelligence. He made stuff up. There was no “Yellow Cake Uranium”. There were no mobile weapons labs. Colin Powell resigned because he felt betrayed by the Bush administration, who in turn made him testify, with a little vile of Anthrax, that the intelligence to go into Iraq was a “knockout” of proof that Iraq was hiding WMD's. When the fact is that we destroyed most if not all of his stockpile of weapons that Ronald Regan probably sold him at the hands of Donald Rumsfeld in the 80's.

Intelligence? No doubt the intell from US, British, France, Russia and other various sources were not accurate....that too is a fact....
But this too is a fact....Various high-ranking Democrats were quoted from the Clinton admin. (1994) onward...well into 2003 in fact...WARNING anyone that would stick a mike under their nose, of the dangers of Saddam and his WMD....a constant barrage of warnings...Saddam, WMD, Saddam, WMD, Saddam, WMD....THAT is another fact that is lost on the pinheads....another fact they ignore as they chant, Bush lied....

Next, the Bush administration has carried on the policy of the Military to deny former servicemen who were Gulf War veterans that “Gulf War Syndrome” exists. Which is probably a medical side effect from being exposed to detonated biological and chemical weapons that Saddam had back in 1991, when we destroyed their stockpile in the first place. I happen to personally know some of these people, who are afflicted with these medical conditions, so I know this isn't just some “liberal crybaby” as some of you would like to believe. This is one in a series of things along with Bush cutting the military medical funding for VA benefits. The Republicans were nowhere to be found shouting from the hills that Bush has cut funding to the military VA hospitals. It took a “liberal” film-maker, to expose the deplorable conditions at Walter Reed Medical Facility. A year before CNN finally broke the story. Bush's “love” for the military, and veterans is remarkable! And the Republicans did nothing to stop Bush. They just kept in line with other Republicans. The Democratic sweep of Congress, has been stalled by Bush's veto power. So Congress has been left “neutered” in their ability to stop Bush. They have been left ineffective to get anything done as a hand of Bush's veto.

I won't comment on this rant because I'm not privy to any details on the subject.....except to say first....Clinton and Democrats ruled from 1992 until 2001....I can only ask, wtf do he do about this problem....
and second...look up the VA budget under Clinton and Bush...see which Pres. funded the VA more....another little fact the pinheads ignore...


Next, the Republicans have been trying to get rid of Social Security ever since FDR drafted the “New Deal”, because it resembles too much of a “socialist” handout. They have been trying to dismantle it ever since. Capitalism has failed us once again. And the old saying comes to mind. 'Why does Capitalism always survive? Because Socialism will always swoop in to save it.' Unless you are among the wealthiest 1% in the US, you cannot afford to vote for another corporate tool like John McCain. McCain and Bush are beyond satire...

....Simply, CHANGING how Soc. Sec. works is not getting rid of the program.....
You Dims are voting for 'change in how Washington works' in this election...Obamas change....what is it...."change you can believe in".....are the Dems or Obama trying to get rid of Washington ? No?
Correct pinheads...change in not getting rid of anything....
Its nothing more than Democrats doing what they do best, scare people into believing the lies they tell and their main stream media repeats over and over until the facts are muddied enough that some people believe their crap....

a

 

[Alpha1]

And this is too absurd to even debate...

Capitalism has failed us once again. And the old saying comes to mind. 'Why does Capitalism always survive? Because Socialism will always swoop in to save it.'

As more and more of the world embrace capitalism, the pinheads hallucinate...

Socialism has FAILED EVERYWHERE ITS BEEN TRYED.....

 

[greenpartyaz]

First of all I am not a democrat, I do not subscribe to the two party elected dictatorship of this country. So you can try to put a label on me all you want, but to post such rubbish, labeling me a democrat is just plain foolish. The democrats are the most lame excuse for a party this country has ever seen! And in the scheme of the lesser-of-the-two-evils, the Republicans have the most apologizing to do. You can blame former president Clinton all you want, and tell me how he was such a degenerate, because he liked oral sex. Or you can address the issue of how the Republicans let multinational corporations with no allegiance to the United States dictate this country or abandon it as they see fit, through deregulation in the 80's by former president Regan & Bush. Or how Richard Nixon, driven by the greed of profit let the HMO's dictate our health care, when providing less care to patients. Or how Newt Gingrich bounced 22 checks in the House Banking scandal and never served any jail time. Or how this White House has violated the FISA act, which is a five year jail term under the law. Or how Donald Rumsfeld who had an investment in ABB struck down the Salt II treaty. If you were socially conscious, or aware of your party's actions you might have, a moment of enlightenment. A three party debate would be too educational in nature for most of you to comprehend. So stop hiding behind your gun rights, abortion rights, and gay marriage, because frankly, your posts are devoid of any thought or intellect!

 

[Alpha1]

Well, I don't think I actually called you a Democrat.....just a pinhead....and that label is accurate as near as I can tell....

 

[Alpha1]

First of all I am not a democrat, I do not subscribe to the two party elected dictatorship of this country. So you can try to put a label on me all you want, but to post such rubbish, labeling me a democrat is just plain foolish. The democrats are the most lame excuse for a party this country has ever seen! And in the scheme of the lesser-of-the-two-evils, the Republicans have the most apologizing to do. You can blame former president Clinton all you want, and tell me how he was such a degenerate, because he liked oral sex.

I didn't blame Clinton for anything...I just pointed out the facts about those that warned about Saddam and WMD....its not confined to the Bush gang...there is a history...

Or you can address the issue of how the Republicans let multinational corporations with no allegiance to the United States dictate this country or abandon it as they see fit, through deregulation in the 80's by former president Regan & Bush. Or how Richard Nixon, driven by the greed of profit let the HMO's dictate our health care, when providing less care to patients. Or how Newt Gingrich bounced 22 checks in the House Banking scandal and never served any jail time. Or how this White House has violated the FISA act, which is a five year jail term under the law. Or how Donald Rumsfeld who had an investment in ABB struck down the Salt II treaty. If you were socially conscious, or aware of your party's actions you might have, a moment of enlightenment. A three party debate would be too educational in nature for most of you to comprehend. So stop hiding behind your gun rights, abortion rights, and gay marriage, because frankly, your posts are devoid of any thought or intellect!

And its really, really obvious that you can't be a Democrat....
I can tell by how you spread the blame around for all the worlds problems and all the problems of the United States to those in office....

Yessir...you really give it to everyone..........................................not...

You a fuckin' left wing hack....thats whats obvious....and a pinhead that ignores the truth that conflicts with your far-left rants....

 

[greenpartyaz]

First of all, you associate me with a left-wing hack. I have presented you with a series of issues and all you did was come up with some half points and insults. You haven't mentioned anything about the crumbling infrastructure that is Amtrak. Or how traces of medications are being found in municipal drinking water systems. Or how we are importing dangerous and lethal products from China, because they have no health standards, and pass into the US with no inspection or oversight, in the name of the almighty dollar. Stagnant wages that haven't kept up with the rate of inflation, while half of the population is in the poverty level. Politics has become so distasteful, all of these issues are uniquely American, and to trash me for being a left-wing hack for presenting these issues is ludicrous!

 

[Reality]

"When that happens, let me know" ???

Whats the point in debating someone that will just deny the truth and ignore facts....there is no point....libs feed class war and class envy....that just happens to be a fact now the same as it was a fact 100 years ago....
Its a liberal (Dem) constant....redistribute wealth from the successful to not so successful....

The middle class pay more taxes in the form of gas tax? RE tax? sales tax?

Thats just plain nonsense....

EVERYONE that buys gas, or buys a stereo, or owns a home pays these taxes....what "class" you belong to is irrelevant...
Graduated tax rates are by definition "Marxist"....thats just a plain unarguable fact.... anytime a citizen is treated better or worse than their neighbor is probably wrong....
EQUAL treatment under the law used to be a virtue of the US ..... now its just a meaningless cliche'

Do try to get a grasp on what Marxism actually is before getting on your soapbox.

 

[Foxfyre]

Perhaps we could move past the personal insults and return to the topic here? I haven't read every post on the thread but this is a subject of interest to me.

Basicly for me, on a broad general scale, conservatism for me includes the following:

1) Pride in country and respect for the basic freedoms and traditional values that have made it the country that it is.

2) A defense strong enough to defend those freedoms and traditional values and discourage challenges to them.

3) A government strong enough to protect those freedoms and traditional values possible but small enough to not be a threat to them.

4) Belief in the ingenuity and ability of the private sector to come up with and implement solutions to inevitable problems and continue to devise way to improve the quality of life for all.

5) Fiscal responsibility and accountability both in government and the private sector and appreciation for a society protected by the rule of law.

The Republicans did very well with all these issues in the immediate wake of the 1994 election, but the minority Democrats, aided and abetted by a willing leftwing media, attacked until they could force out the visionary leaders who spearheaded the revolution. Without competent leadership, the GOP then lost its way and has failed in part or wholly in four of the five points listed. They have done pretty well with #2, but the Democrats will no doubt again violate that as they have done in the past.

 

[Reality]

Perhaps we could move past the personal insults and return to the topic here? I haven't read every post on the thread but this is a subject of interest to me.

Basicly for me, on a broad general scale, conservatism for me includes the following:

1) Pride in country and respect for the basic freedoms and traditional values that have made it the country that it is.

I really don't mean this to be offensive. I really don't. But every time I hear about pride in country and traditional values, all I can think is "Germany for Germans" or "Serbia for Serbs." I do very much understand that's not what you mean, and let me stress again that I do not intend to be offensive, but it still creeps me out. Government is not here to provide a value system. Get that from religious institutions or family or whatever. Government is here to enable liberty of the individual and protect the freedom to observe that liberty. We may disagree on how to do that (some of my ideas are leftist) but I don't get any argument that includes drug laws in that.

2) A defense strong enough to defend those freedoms and traditional values and discourage challenges to them.

Well we've gone way overboard on a strong defense. If the star fleet enterprise invaded with a fusion tractor beam we could at least blow up the planet 400 times so they couldn't have it. What in the hell are we going to fight? God?

3) A government strong enough to protect those freedoms and traditional values possible but small enough to not be a threat to them.

I've addressed the "values" part, but the greatest threat to liberty is the overabundance of armed cops and federal law enforcement. This goes to my thoughts on the drug war, which I've addressed a bit in another thread that we've been discussing in.

4) Belief in the ingenuity and ability of the private sector to come up with and implement solutions to inevitable problems and continue to devise way to improve the quality of life for all.

I would give a qualified agreement here. As an example, the one thing the candidate for president who believes in wars of national liberation that do not protect the American people (sorry for the soapboxing) has said that I support (i heard it second hand I haven't seen it reported) is a proposal for a 500m reward to the first org to develop a viable hydrogen engine. Incentives like that, I think, are a very good idea. It is also not at all a strictly capitalistic proposal.

I am also not against social programs by ideology.

5) Fiscal responsibility and accountability both in government and the private sector and appreciation for a society protected by the rule of law.

The problem is the rule of law infringes way too far into personal freedoms. WAY too far.

The Republicans did very well with all these issues in the immediate wake of the 1994 election, but the minority Democrats, aided and abetted by a willing leftwing media, attacked until they could force out the visionary leaders who spearheaded the revolution. Without competent leadership, the GOP then lost its way and has failed in part or wholly in four of the five points listed. They have done pretty well with #2, but the Democrats will no doubt again violate that as they have done in the past.

Blaming the democrats is a boogie man argument. Blaming the "left wing media conspiracy" is a straw man. If there was a left wing media conspiracy, there would be no war in Iraq.

 

[Alpha1]

Do try to get a grasp on what Marxism actually is before getting on your soapbox.

The point was NOT what Marxism is or is not....
I said,
Graduated tax rates are by definition "Marxist"....thats just a plain unarguable fact.... anytime a citizen is treated better or worse than their neighbor is probably wrong....
EQUAL treatment under the law used to be a virtue of the US ..... now its just a meaningless cliche'
==================================
From each according to his ability, to each according to his need (or needs) is a slogan popularized by Karl Marx....

progressive taxes= marxism...

 

[Foxfyre]

I really don't mean this to be offensive. I really don't. But every time I hear about pride in country and traditional values, all I can think is "Germany for Germans" or "Serbia for Serbs." I do very much understand that's not what you mean, and let me stress again that I do not intend to be offensive, but it still creeps me out. Government is not here to provide a value system. Get that from religious institutions or family or whatever. Government is here to enable liberty of the individual and protect the freedom to observe that liberty. We may disagree on how to do that (some of my ideas are leftist) but I don't get any argument that includes drug laws in that.

I agree that government is not here to provide a value system which is why I didn't say that. Good government does reflect the value system of the governed, however and conservatives promote values that allow one to be proud of his/her country. That you read so many issues into my statement that I didn't say in itself pretty well eliminates you as one holding conservative values.

Well we've gone way overboard on a strong defense. If the star fleet enterprise invaded with a fusion tractor beam we could at least blow up the planet 400 times so they couldn't have it. What in the hell are we going to fight? God?

Perhaps you haven't noticed that no country has presumed to directly attack the USA since Japan turned us into a super power by bombing Pearl Harbor? You obviously didn't get the drift of my opinion that the best defense can take care of whatever is thrown at it, but it generally discourages anything being thrown at all. Conservatives understand that. I think Liberals rarely do.

I've addressed the "values" part, but the greatest threat to liberty is the overabundance of armed cops and federal law enforcement. This goes to my thoughts on the drug war, which I've addressed a bit in another thread that we've been discussing in.

Seems to me that virtually every police department as well as the FBI, CIA et all complain constantly that they are underfunded and undermanned. I think it would be very difficult to make a reasoned case for an overabundance of law enforcement in this country. This is one of the reasons that Conservatives generally fight so hard to retain their ability for self defense.

I would give a qualified agreement here. As an example, the one thing the candidate for president who believes in wars of national liberation that do not protect the American people (sorry for the soapboxing) has said that I support (i heard it second hand I haven't seen it reported) is a proposal for a 500m reward to the first org to develop a viable hydrogen engine. Incentives like that, I think, are a very good idea. It is also not at all a strictly capitalistic proposal.

I am also not against social programs by ideology.

Good. I agree that the government can provide incentives for private initiative but it does so best by providing economic incentives (i.e. tax breaks, etc.), removing hindrances (unnecessary regulation, etc.) and just getting out of the way. When the government starts paying companies to develop anything, there is simply too much temptation for graft and corruption via kickbacks, favoritism, etc. Conservatives are opposed to any social programs by ideology and opposed to any government programs period that can be accomplished more effectively and efficiently by the private sector.

The problem is the rule of law infringes way too far into personal freedoms. WAY too far.

The law is the law. Good law, which is the only law Conservatives sanction, should be based on Constitutional principles, should spell out the infraction and the penalty for committing it, and the consequences for breaking the law should be applied even handedly and without prejudice. Once we start doing social engineering by bending the law, we have lost the rule of law and anarchy becomes the norm. This is rarely if ever beneficial to the society as a whole.

Blaming the democrats is a boogie man argument. Blaming the "left wing media conspiracy" is a straw man. If there was a left wing media conspiracy, there would be no war in Iraq.

Which is why I have not blamed the Democrats. I only observe that the Democrats as a group rarely support the Conservative point of view on most or all points and, when in the majority or of sufficient strength to prevent advancement of Conservative principles, they will thwart advancement of Conservative principles. Unfortunately we have too few Republicans these days with sufficient backbone to advocate and stand up for Conservative principles, and this has rendered to GOP too often relatively ineffective. Until we have a Conservative majority again, I hope the Democrats are equally ineffective.

 

[Foxfyre]

Addressing the final two questions in the opening post: I do think President Bush has done well on some things and I think he has not behaved as a Conservative on others. What would I have done differently?

1) I would have fought harder to make the tax cuts permanent and I would have addressed some issues that weren't addressed in the initial tax bill such as Seniors of quite modest means being taxed on part of their Social Security.

2) I would never have pushed through that Prescription Drug bill that almost nobody wanted.

3) I would have pushed for legislation to fix the immigration problem while streamlining the process for an orderly immigration process for those who want to be Americans complete with learning English and assimilating into the American culture, deny amnesty except what would be necessary to allow illegals to go home voluntarily, and forever make coming here illegally both unprofitable and unattractive.

4) I would have pushed for a Constitutional amendment requiring a child to be born to at least one U.S. citizen parent before the child would automatically be a citizen.

5) I would have pushed to phase out all federal funding of one-size-fits-all programs as much as could reasonably be done without causing undue hardship on people, and would as much as possible dissolve any agencies that swallow up bureaucratic funding but provide little of substance that anybody needs.

6) I would restore the concept that there is no Constitutional authority for charitable contributions from the federal treasury, but provide a vehicle to encourage and coordinate contributions for disaster relief, domestic and abroad, that a naturally generous American public would almost certainly provide.

7) If my advisors and Congress, after reviewing all the intelligence, encouraged invasion of Iraq, I would have gone in with overwhelming force and subdued the entire country completely and totally before gradually returning power to the people.

There are several other initiatives I probably would have done, but this would be enough to keep me busy for most of the first year.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Don't completely agree with 4. I think LEGAL immigrant children should be US citizens if born here also. Not tourists or temp visitors OR students though.

I would be sure to make it known NO illegal immigrant could have a child in this country and it be a US citizen unless the other parent was a US Citizen.

 

[Foxfyre]

Don't completely agree with 4. I think LEGAL immigrant children should be US citizens if born here also. Not tourists or temp visitors OR students though.

I would be sure to make it known NO illegal immigrant could have a child in this country and it be a US citizen unless the other parent was a US Citizen.

My rationale for requiring a citizen parent in order for the child to receive automatic citizenship is to pave the way for a workable guest worker program without exacerbating the anchor baby problem. There would be no issue with sending the child home with the parent(s) when the VISA, long term or temporary, expired and no incentive for people to come here simply to have a citizen child that would provide emotional impetus to allow the parent to stay too and thereby circumvent the legal immigration program in effect.

In ANY case a Constitutional amendment will be required to change our jus solis system by which a person born on U.S. soil is automatically a U.S. citizen. I believe we and Canada are the only industrialized countries that do have that provision. I suppose some hardship provision could be allowed in case of a child born to a couple taking citizenship classes but who had not yet taken their oath of citizenship or where very young other children were involved. In that case the judge could allow the parents to swear in the kids too.