Truthmatters
Diamond Member
- May 10, 2007
- 80,182
- 2,272
- 1,283
- Banned
- #41
There you have it.
He is an enemy of democracy.
He is an enemy of democracy.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
And they are?
Limited Federal Government
Living within our means
Providing individuals with freedom to succeed or fail without government interference
Following the Constitution of the United States
Federalism and the Separation of powers
Simple concepts.
Very simple, thanks for the reply, now tell me a 'conservative' president who has followed these so called core tenets? And while I don't want to reply till I hear of that conservative, they are a bit too vague for use in the real world as each depends on lots of other facts, including what limits we are willing to set. Or even tell me a time in America when these were followed?
So that would portend that what the Founders gave us (a Republic), is a stop-gap go between the two examples you cite? (Just an off the cuff question).And you have said twice that I have seen that you want to return to a monarchy.
you HATE democracy
Monarchy is preferable to democracy, hands down. Under monarchy government took about 5% of GDP. Under democracy, government takes 50%. Crime, drug use, prostitution and illegitimacy were all much lower under monarchy. GDP growth was much higher.
However, that being said, I prefer what some call "natural order." That involves eliminating government entirely from human affairs.
And you have said twice that I have seen that you want to return to a monarchy.
you HATE democracy
Monarchy is preferable to democracy, hands down. Under monarchy government took about 5% of GDP. Under democracy, government takes 50%. Crime, drug use, prostitution and illegitimacy were all much lower under monarchy. GDP growth was much higher.
However, that being said, I prefer what some call "natural order." That involves eliminating government entirely from human affairs.
Indeed. Republican does not or has never suggested Conservative. There are quite a few Repubican Statists out there masquerading as Conservatives.Limited Federal Government
Living within our means
Providing individuals with freedom to succeed or fail without government interference
Following the Constitution of the United States
Federalism and the Separation of powers
Simple concepts.
Very simple, thanks for the reply, now tell me a 'conservative' president who has followed these so called core tenets? And while I don't want to reply till I hear of that conservative, they are a bit too vague for use in the real world as each depends on lots of other facts, including what limits we are willing to set. Or even tell me a time in America when these were followed?
Grover Cleveland has been dead a long time. A few before, none since.
It seems you are using the faulty device of using Conservative and Republican interchangeably.
Monarchy is preferable to democracy, hands down. Under monarchy government took about 5% of GDP. Under democracy, government takes 50%. Crime, drug use, prostitution and illegitimacy were all much lower under monarchy. GDP growth was much higher.
However, that being said, I prefer what some call "natural order." That involves eliminating government entirely from human affairs.
Kinda depends on the monarch doesn't it?
Victoria or Longshanks
Henry Tudor or Henry III
There you have it.
He is an enemy of democracy.
Not really. They were all better than the current reign of the boobosie. However, they got progressively better threw time. Democracy is rule by the bottom 51%. The results of that were predictable.
So that would portend that what the Founders gave us (a Republic), is a stop-gap go between the two examples you cite? (Just an off the cuff question).Monarchy is preferable to democracy, hands down. Under monarchy government took about 5% of GDP. Under democracy, government takes 50%. Crime, drug use, prostitution and illegitimacy were all much lower under monarchy. GDP growth was much higher.
However, that being said, I prefer what some call "natural order." That involves eliminating government entirely from human affairs.
This is of course typical of reactionaries - indeed, they not only long for the past but for a past that never existed.It is this 'lost' utopia that haunts the conservative today and galvanizes their opposition to any and all change. It is this dream world, that never was, that motivates the apostles of an imaginary past. Conservatives are like children longing for the comfort of some fairy tale world.
So is putting Japanese people in concentration camps is a liberal "core tenet?"
No and neither is Gitmo.
True, liberals would rather have terrorists bent on murdering millions of American running loose on the street.
I think the founders tried to implement what some call rule by a "natural aristocracy." That is, an aristocracy of merit. They didn't want to extend the franchise to every one who could manage to get himself born. They had no illusions about the ability of the common man to govern himself.
It worked quite well until Lincoln the tyrant abolished it and killed 700,000 Americans in the process.
Another in a series of Midcan's insights into contemporary America.
I have always been fascinated by the modern day American conservative. When I grew up the word had none of the meaning it has today. The reactionary nature of conservative thought and activity is a given, but I am still amazed that an ideology that has no consistent core ideas can have such influence and also hold together so odd an assortment of apostles. It seemed to me for a long time that its only power lay in its oppositional force to change. Without liberalism conservatism would have to stand on its own legs, what would those legs consist of? George W. Bush was a conservative until he became president, then by some conservative magic he ceased to be what he claimed to be. Could it be he was just what he was, and then given power the legs just weren't up to the task? I'm sure he's still a conservative even as his revision goes on in the world of contemporary spin. Soon he will be canonized.
I was listening to Herman Cain at CPAC, and I have to admit seeing a Black man prattle on so vehemently about what we have lost or are in fear of losing just bewilders me. I'm old enough to remember separate facilities and the sixties riots. He didn't look like a spring chicken, but I guess he missed something I failed to miss like extreme prejudice and privilege. Most still miss this one. When 'Dreams' are under attack we're all in trouble. Whose dreams, I wonder? Dreams are hazy things, the CPAC crowd cheered this hazy observation. Picture in your mind that bucolic past we have lost. I'm sure most prefer the modern day. Corey Robin writes, "Onstage, the conservative waxes Byronic, moodily surveying the sum of his losses before an audience of the lovelorn and the starstruck. Offstage, and out of sight, his managers quietly compile the sum of their gains." It is this 'lost' utopia that haunts the conservative today and galvanizes their opposition to any and all change. It is this dream world, that never was, that motivates the apostles of an imaginary past. Conservatives are like children longing for the comfort of some fairy tale world.
"A consideration of this deeper strain of conservatism [a lost world] gives us a clearer sense of what conservatism is about. While conservatism is an ideology of reaction originally against the French Revolution, more recently against the liberation movements of the sixties and seventies the nature and dynamics of that reaction have not been well understood." When losing a democratic election brings such great cries of loss, doesn't anyone ever wonder what was lost? Or is loss just a trope?
Corey Robin quotations from: http://leiterreports.typepad.com/files/raritan-essay.pdf
Albert Hirschamn also covered this topic in his brilliant analysis of conservative reactionary politcs. The Rhetoric of Reaction - Albert O. Hirschman - Harvard University Press
"You start out in 1954 by saying, ******, ******, ******. By 1968 you cant say ****** that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states rights and all that stuff. Youre getting so abstract now youre talking about cutting taxes, and all these things youre talking about are totally economic things and a by-product of them is blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. Im not saying that. But Im saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me because obviously sitting around saying, We want to cut this, is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than ******, ******. Lee Atwater, Republican strategist Quoted in article above. And see my: http://www.usmessageboard.com/race-relations-racism/61091-life-in-a-parallel-universe.html
but I am still amazed that an ideology that has no consistent core ideas can have such influence and also hold together so odd an assortment of apostles.
No and neither is Gitmo.
True, liberals would rather have terrorists bent on murdering millions of American running loose on the street.
Umm they at least deserve a trial.
It is the way of the USA.
No and neither is Gitmo.
True, liberals would rather have terrorists bent on murdering millions of American running loose on the street.
Umm they at least deserve a trial.
It is the way of the USA.
This is of course typical of reactionaries - indeed, they not only long for the past but for a past that never existed.It is this 'lost' utopia that haunts the conservative today and galvanizes their opposition to any and all change. It is this dream world, that never was, that motivates the apostles of an imaginary past. Conservatives are like children longing for the comfort of some fairy tale world.
And however interesting it may be to study the phenomenon of conservatism, we must also realize that a significant number of our Nation’s leaders adhere to its failed and dangerous dogma, to the peril of future generations.
So in effect? Lincoln effectively killed the 9th and 10th Amendments? to preserve the Federal Union?So that would portend that what the Founders gave us (a Republic), is a stop-gap go between the two examples you cite? (Just an off the cuff question).Monarchy is preferable to democracy, hands down. Under monarchy government took about 5% of GDP. Under democracy, government takes 50%. Crime, drug use, prostitution and illegitimacy were all much lower under monarchy. GDP growth was much higher.
However, that being said, I prefer what some call "natural order." That involves eliminating government entirely from human affairs.
I think the founders tried to implement what some call rule by a "natural aristocracy." That is, an aristocracy of merit. They didn't want to extend the franchise to every one who could manage to get himself born. They had no illusions about the ability of the common man to govern himself.
It worked quite well until Lincoln the tyrant abolished it and killed 700,000 Americans in the process.
Another in a series of Midcan's insights into contemporary America.
I have always been fascinated by the modern day American conservative. When I grew up the word had none of the meaning it has today. The reactionary nature of conservative thought and activity is a given, but I am still amazed that an ideology that has no consistent core ideas can have such influence and also hold together so odd an assortment of apostles. It seemed to me for a long time that its only power lay in its oppositional force to change. Without liberalism conservatism would have to stand on its own legs, what would those legs consist of? George W. Bush was a conservative until he became president, then by some conservative magic he ceased to be what he claimed to be. Could it be he was just what he was, and then given power the legs just weren't up to the task? I'm sure he's still a conservative even as his revision goes on in the world of contemporary spin. Soon he will be canonized.
I was listening to Herman Cain at CPAC, and I have to admit seeing a Black man prattle on so vehemently about what we have lost or are in fear of losing just bewilders me. I'm old enough to remember separate facilities and the sixties riots. He didn't look like a spring chicken, but I guess he missed something I failed to miss like extreme prejudice and privilege. Most still miss this one. When 'Dreams' are under attack we're all in trouble. Whose dreams, I wonder? Dreams are hazy things, the CPAC crowd cheered this hazy observation. Picture in your mind that bucolic past we have lost. I'm sure most prefer the modern day. Corey Robin writes, "Onstage, the conservative waxes Byronic, moodily surveying the sum of his losses before an audience of the lovelorn and the starstruck. Offstage, and out of sight, his managers quietly compile the sum of their gains." It is this 'lost' utopia that haunts the conservative today and galvanizes their opposition to any and all change. It is this dream world, that never was, that motivates the apostles of an imaginary past. Conservatives are like children longing for the comfort of some fairy tale world.
"A consideration of this deeper strain of conservatism [a lost world] gives us a clearer sense of what conservatism is about. While conservatism is an ideology of reaction originally against the French Revolution, more recently against the liberation movements of the sixties and seventies the nature and dynamics of that reaction have not been well understood." When losing a democratic election brings such great cries of loss, doesn't anyone ever wonder what was lost? Or is loss just a trope?
Corey Robin quotations from: http://leiterreports.typepad.com/files/raritan-essay.pdf
Albert Hirschamn also covered this topic in his brilliant analysis of conservative reactionary politcs. The Rhetoric of Reaction - Albert O. Hirschman - Harvard University Press
"You start out in 1954 by saying, ******, ******, ******. By 1968 you cant say ****** that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states rights and all that stuff. Youre getting so abstract now youre talking about cutting taxes, and all these things youre talking about are totally economic things and a by-product of them is blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. Im not saying that. But Im saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me because obviously sitting around saying, We want to cut this, is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than ******, ******. Lee Atwater, Republican strategist Quoted in article above. And see my: http://www.usmessageboard.com/race-relations-racism/61091-life-in-a-parallel-universe.html
So in effect? Lincoln effectively killed the 9th and 10th Amendments? to preserve the Federal Union?So that would portend that what the Founders gave us (a Republic), is a stop-gap go between the two examples you cite? (Just an off the cuff question).
I think the founders tried to implement what some call rule by a "natural aristocracy." That is, an aristocracy of merit. They didn't want to extend the franchise to every one who could manage to get himself born. They had no illusions about the ability of the common man to govern himself.
It worked quite well until Lincoln the tyrant abolished it and killed 700,000 Americans in the process.