'Conservatism Understood' Another in a series of Midcan's insights into contemporary

[Liability]

There you have it.

He is an enemy of democracy.

Our Founders were enemies of Democracy too. That's why they established a Republic. Something you still cant seem to tell the difference between.

A REPUBLIC is a Democracy.

your fight is not with me but with every dictionary and encyclopedia in the world

A Republic is a FORM of Democracy, but that does not make it A Democracy.

It is impressive how determined you remain to avoid opening your eyes to the truth.

 

[AmericanFirst]

What bothers me the most is not that the OP is a total asshole, but that he's a total asshole who gets to cancel my vote.

I side with bigreb...there will be those that will canel the vote that canceled yours. (That is unless they find more dead people, illegals, or felons to vote).

You cant prove any of those problems effect elections.

I can prove your party cheats and has so done for decades

If you were honest you would admit your party is bigger cheaters and immoral pos.

 

[freedombecki]

There you have it.

He is an enemy of democracy.

Our Founders were enemies of Democracy too. That's why they established a Republic. Something you still cant seem to tell the difference between.

A REPUBLIC is a Democracy.

your fight is not with me but with every dictionary and encyclopedia in the world

Here, truthmatters, is the Miriam-Webster Dictionary definition of "republic:"

Definition of REPUBLIC

1
a (1) : a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president (2) : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government b (1) : a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law (2) : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government

I did not see the word "democracy" in the m-w.com definition of republic. I know it seems to be the same, but a republic is differing considerably. We do seem to be, though, a democratic republic, but we are not and never were a pure democracy.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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 is a fascinating topic.

The intrinsic reactionary nature of conservatism of course was relatively harmless during the 50s and 60s and the right at least understood the importance of good, responsible governance. Conservatives during that era put country first and worked with that goal in mind.

Today, unfortunately, conservatives have become hyper-partisan, hateful, and irresponsible with regard to their governing duties.

Much if this is due to the bane of social conservatism, which as noted has polluted conservative economic dogma where ‘less taxes’ and ‘less government’ amount to meaningless rhetoric. Indeed, it discounts the very need for taxes and government to ensure our ongoing economic success.

Conservatives will pointlessly and irrelevantly respond, of course, that ‘liberals’ are just as bad, just as hyper-partisan, and the like – but as usual they miss the point.

It’s incumbent upon conservatives to get their own house in order, particularly if they presume to tell others how to run the country.

 

[Truthmatters]

How i wish they would put country first again

 

[Liability]

How i wish they would put country first again

I wish you would, someday, for the first time in your useless life.

 

[The T]

How i wish they would put country first again

Regale us with the tale of how the Statists led by Obama have done that exactly?

 

[Liability]

How i wish they would put country first again

Regale us with the tale of how the Statists led by Obama have done that exactly?

I know. I know.

The syllogism is clear and impervious to criticism on the basis of logic. It goes like this:

The Democrat Parody gives and gives and gives to the PEOPLE and ESPECIALLY to "THE CHILDREN" ® (albeit with other people's money).

Liberals love their Party (i.e., the Democrat Parody).
___________________________________________________________________________
∴ The Democratics love their country more than life itself! Praise Gaia!​

 

[Avatar4321]

How i wish they would put country first again

Why don't you for a change?

Why not be a leader and do what you want others to do?

Start by telling yourself the truth.

 

[The T]

How i wish they would put country first again

Regale us with the tale of how the Statists led by Obama have done that exactly?

I know. I know.

The syllogism is clear and impervious to criticism on the basis of logic. It goes like this:

<B>

The Democrat Parody gives and gives and gives to the PEOPLE and ESPECIALLY to "THE CHILDREN" ® (albeit with other people's money).
​

</B>

Liberals love their Party (i.e., the Democrat Parody).
___________________________________________________________________________
&#8756; The Democratics love their country more than life itself! Praise Gaia!
​

Kinda like All A is C, all B is A; therefore all B is C.

I think because I am Human, I am mortal, therefore I am.

 

[Disenchanted61]

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 can’t say “******” — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states’ rights and all that stuff. You’re getting so abstract now you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re 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. I’m not saying that. But I’m 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

And more disturbing is that conservatives are anything but conservationist's in any
endeavor.

 

[Liability]

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 &#8212; originally against the French Revolution, more recently against the liberation movements of the sixties and seventies &#8212; 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, &#8220;******, ******, ******.&#8221; By 1968 you can&#8217;t say &#8220;******&#8221; &#8212; that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states&#8217; rights and all that stuff. You&#8217;re getting so abstract now you&#8217;re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you&#8217;re 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. I&#8217;m not saying that. But I&#8217;m 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 &#8212; because obviously sitting around saying, &#8220;We want to cut this,&#8221; is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than &#8220;******, ******.&#8221; 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

And more disturbing is that conservatives are anything but conservationist's in any
endeavor.

A simplistic and bombastic assertion devoid of support or rationality.

What's REALLY disturbing is the way so many of you libs speak solely through the use of such overly-broad, cartoonish, stereotype-based, but factually baseless hyperbole.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

If that is the case why debate at all? Why even comment? I think maybe you are being dishonest with yourself. Fooling oneself is too easy for some.

I debate because I believe my ideas are worth defending. That has nothing to do with any politician, nor does it score me points with friends. Politicians are all full of shit, but that does not tarnish the ideas I have, Only idiots confuse people with ideas.

No president could ever, for good or for bad, follow their core beliefs, recall we have a system of checks and balances and some checks are good, some bad. Our system is purposely setup that way in case you didn't know.

Remember that the next time you try to hod Bush up as some paragon of the right. You are so stupid you do not even realize when you prove yourself wrong.

What I personally find frustrating about engaging in any discussion with the right wing ideologues is they know no history, except some slogan word, given to them by another ideologue confirming in some way their position. It doesn't matter if the point is relevant or not.

That is pretty funny since the last time I replied to one of your post that invoked history at all you ended up admitting you never studied it. If you find it frustrating that other people do not know history, how do you deal with your own ignorance?

One has to consider the Japanese internment in terms of history, consider our illegal invasion of Iraq in terms of fear, or the McCarthy witch hunts in terms of fear of communism. Wingnuts are unable to see beyond their nose.

What historical context should we use to justify the Japanese internment? What were we afraid of when we invaded Iraq? McCarthy was an idiot, and was far from afraid of communism. He used it as a means to get power, not to keep us safe from the threat of communism. Why should I look at an abuse of power as being about fear? Is this another example of how I do not understand history that actually proves you have no idea what you are talking about?

You might be able to see past your nose if you did not have it so far up your own ass.

Solyndra will replace Fannie in the minds of the easily impressible. Can any American company seriously compete with Chinese investments in technology and Chinese labor costs? America today does not support innovation, it is contrary to republican ideology - China does and will eventually surpass us in innovative ideas. Eisenhower's interstate highway system may be the last big government job's initiative.

How does the fact that China subsidizes its green tech industry justify anyone giving a bad loan to a company without a solid business plan, no real prospects for a profit, and a product that is completely stupid in the first place?

By the way, China will never out innovate us as long as they have the government they do. Russia spent billions on R&D over the years, and never got within 10 years of us in the tech race. It takes more than money to spark real genius.

In case you missed it, Coolidge's policiies lead directly to the great depression. When Hoover consulted with him, he got the same marlarky one hears from the republican party today. Big business has controlled republicans so well they are the least free politicians ever in our history. They follow the text or are booed out of the party.

You want to blame the recession on Coolidge's policies? Are you sure? You might want to study history first, because Coolidge's policies were the exact same things that Obama is currently using to get the economy going again, and you support them when they come from him.

Hell, you just argued for more government support of industry in the paragraph right before this one. And you think I do not know history because I am a right wing nut.

And I know I am stirring the pot when the negative reps flow from the wingnuts. Thanks all.

If pointing out you have no idea what you are talking about is a negative reply from the wingnuts then consider the pot stirred.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

This is of course typical of reactionaries - indeed, they not only long for the past but for a past that never existed.

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.

I would rather long for a past that never existed than run from one that never was.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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 can’t say “******” — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states’ rights and all that stuff. You’re getting so abstract now you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re 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. I’m not saying that. But I’m 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

And more disturbing is that conservatives are anything but conservationist's in any
endeavor.

It's rather hard to argue with an idiot that has a satanic symbol as an avatar. But tell me what good has modern liberalism done for America?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

There you have it.

He is an enemy of democracy.

Our Founders were enemies of Democracy too. That's why they established a Republic. Something you still cant seem to tell the difference between.

A REPUBLIC is a Democracy.

your fight is not with me but with every dictionary and encyclopedia in the world

Wrong.

Republic | Define Republic at Dictionary.com

1. a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them.

2. any body of persons viewed as a commonwealth.

3. a state in which the head of government is not a monarch or other hereditary head of state.

4. ( initial capital letter

) any of the five periods of republican government in France. Compare First Republic, Second Republic, Third Republic, Fourth Republic, Fifth Republic.

5. ( initial capital letter, italics

) a philosophical dialogue (4th century b.c.) by Plato dealing with the composition and structure of the ideal state.

Democracy | Define Democracy at Dictionary.com

1. government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.

2. a state having such a form of government: The United States and Canada are democracies.

3. a state of society characterized by formal equality of rights and privileges.

4. political or social equality; democratic spirit.

5. the common people of a community as distinguished from any privileged class; the common people with respect to their political power.




Look at that, in a republic only some people are allowed to vote, and they elect people to make decisions. In a democracy everyone gets to vote, and elections are optional.

 

[The T]

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 can’t say “******” — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states’ rights and all that stuff. You’re getting so abstract now you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re 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. I’m not saying that. But I’m 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

And more disturbing is that conservatives are anything but conservationist's in any
endeavor.

It's rather hard to argue with an idiot that has a satanic symbol as an avatar. But tell me what good has modern liberalism done for America?

Moved it closer to EU style socialism...closer to the cliff of collapse?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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 is a fascinating topic.

The intrinsic reactionary nature of conservatism of course was relatively harmless during the 50s and 60s and the right at least understood the importance of good, responsible governance. Conservatives during that era put country first and worked with that goal in mind.

Today, unfortunately, conservatives have become hyper-partisan, hateful, and irresponsible with regard to their governing duties.

Much if this is due to the bane of social conservatism, which as noted has polluted conservative economic dogma where ‘less taxes’ and ‘less government’ amount to meaningless rhetoric. Indeed, it discounts the very need for taxes and government to ensure our ongoing economic success.

Conservatives will pointlessly and irrelevantly respond, of course, that ‘liberals’ are just as bad, just as hyper-partisan, and the like – but as usual they miss the point.

It’s incumbent upon conservatives to get their own house in order, particularly if they presume to tell others how to run the country.

If, as you claim, conservatives have become hyper-partisan there must be a reason. What do you think it is?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

And more disturbing is that conservatives are anything but conservationist's in any
endeavor.

It's rather hard to argue with an idiot that has a satanic symbol as an avatar. But tell me what good has modern liberalism done for America?

Moved it closer to EU style socialism...closer to the cliff of collapse?

I asked what good has modern liberalism done for America nothing you mention has been good

 

[The T]

It's rather hard to argue with an idiot that has a satanic symbol as an avatar. But tell me what good has modern liberalism done for America?

Moved it closer to EU style socialism...closer to the cliff of collapse?

I asked what good has modern liberalism done for America nothing you mention has been good

For Socialists? Sure...why not? Gotta give 'em kudos even though thier ideology is totally wrong as history has proven. I am an equal oppritunity offender.