Small Government Conservatives

[editec]

oh bullshit, Bush isnt authoritarian
LOL
and in the full spectrum, he isnt a liberal
hes a moderate

The POTUS who pushed through the Patriot act, created GITMO, and invaded a nation without just cause is a moderate, huh?

Okay, if that's your impression of what the word moderate means.

I call people who seek to control things through threats and fear mongering and violence authoritarians.

But if you want to call that moderate behavior, I'll make a note of it so that I know what you're talking about the next time you use the word moderate.

 

[Sidestreamer]

Another idiot using the term 'neoconservative' without having a clue as to what it really means... another great addition on this board

Are you going to tell me that a neocon is a Jewish conservative or some 60s liberal who converted? You're going to say that it has nothing to do with the kind of interventionist policy endorsed by PNAC and the Bush Administration? Why don't you enlighten me DimebagDave you self-professed scholar of what neoconservatism is.

 

[Gunny]

His only moderate stances are on border control and his view on AIDS. Foreign policy's fundamentally neoconservative, his social policies in general are Evangelical, and his economic policy is just flat-out reckless in any stripe.

In other words, he doesn't come up conservative on any of the above. However, his border control policy is as leftwing as it gets. There's nothing moderate about it.

 

[Gunny]

Are you going to tell me that a neocon is a Jewish conservative or some 60s liberal who converted? You're going to say that it has nothing to do with the kind of interventionist policy endorsed by PNAC and the Bush Administration? Why don't you enlighten me DimebagDave you self-professed scholar of what neoconservatism is.

Until Reagan, a former Democrat who brought that warhawk baggage with him became President, warhawking was NOT a tenet of conservatism. Wilson got us into WWI, FDR WWII, Truman Korea, and JFK/LBJ Vietnam.

So yeah, neocons ARE former liberals who forgot to keep pushing the line left with their peers. Try google. It works wonders for the uneducated.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Okay, since it is obvious that many self proclaiming conservatives believe that BUSH II is a "liberal", who is, in your opinions a true conservative?

I can give you an example of what I think of a fairly true liberal if that would help...Dennis Kucinich.

Now when I look at somebody like Kuckinich, and compare him to Bush II, I sort of fail to see much similarity.

For example, Kucinich was oppossed to the bail out.

Bush was for it.

Kucinich was against the War that Bush started


I could go on, but I think you all get my drift.

Who IS a TRUE conservative in your opinions?

Oh, yeah, one more thing.

Buch isn't a liberal.

He's a classic authoritarian elitist.

He is about as removed from liberalism as one can get.

That doesn't make him a conservative, because as far as I can tell, true conservatives are as appalled by autoritarianism as most true liberals are.

Well Kucinich isn't a liberal... Kucinich is a Socialist. He isn't 'FOR' the bail-out because it doesn't strip the corporations of their ownership of the means of production. Kucinich, like Maxine Waters, wants the government to OWN the means of production.

Bush is a fascist... meaning he’s a centrist; a moderate… He wants to leave ownership with the corporations; leaving those who are capable of producing wealth in a position to produce such and to strip a large percentage of that wealth from those entities so as to fund the socialist machine... Bush calls that, ‘Compassionate conservatism’… Mussolini as well as Clinton and the so called ‘progressives’ call it ‘The Third Way’… it all sums to the same conclusion.

Both are socialists; Bush a national socialist; Kucinich an international socialist… Both authoritarians, both ready to strip the individual of their God given rights to appease the ‘needs of the collective’… BOTH dismissive of the intrinsic responsibilities of the unalienable rights of the individual; with Bush representing less intrusion on individual rights than Kucinich; as is typical of the Fascist/Socialist paradigm.

Now of the two, which represents a system that is at least plausibly feasible? The guy that wants to strip the system of the means to produce wealth, which can only result in the absence of wealth; rendering the system impoverished... or the guy that sees that to redistribute wealth, wealth must exist?

Now you ask for examples of who is a true conservative? Well of course Ronaldus-magnus was a true conservative... I am a true conservative... Rush Limbaugh... Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, Mark Levin, Ann Coulter, Dr. Thomas Sowell, Dr. Walter E. Williams, David Horowitz... these are all true conservatives and there are millions more lesser known, but just as true, conservatives.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

oh bullshit, Bush isnt authoritarian
LOL
and in the full spectrum, he isnt a liberal
hes a moderate

His only moderate stances are on border control and his view on AIDS. Foreign policy's fundamentally neoconservative, his social policies in general are Evangelical, and his economic policy is just flat-out reckless in any stripe.

Bush is a fascist; which is to say a 'national socialist.' Thus he is socially conservative with a strong sense of national pride, love of country, its traditions with absolutely NO SENSE on matters of economics...

Now if he had little to no sense, he'd be a full blown socialist...

It's not complicated... really.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

DiveCon
oh bullshit, Bush isnt authoritarian
LOL
and in the full spectrum, he isnt a liberal
hes a moderate

The POTUS who pushed through the Patriot act, created GITMO, and invaded a nation without just cause is a moderate, huh?

ROFLMNAO... OH GOD! Now that is precious...

So 'Bush pushed through the USAPA...' This, a law which was voted in both houses of the legislature with nearly UNANIMOUS BI-PARTISAN SUPPORT...

I'd say that if anyone 'pushed the USAPA through' it was International Islamic Terrorists and those in the US Government which appeased those terrorists through the prosecuting of their attacks on the US in criminal court, THEN hamstringing of the US intelligence and law enforcement by prohibiting any potential cooperation with one another; REFUSING TO RECOGNIZE THE OBVIOUS, THAT THOSE PEOPLE WERE MAKING WAR UPON THE UNITED STATES and further FAILING to act towards destroying them where they STOOD, WHEREVER that may BE!

GW Bush, like you, me and everyone else is LOADED with personal faults and his record rests, JUST LIKE YOURS in a heap of personal failure; the distinction is that his are an open book, while yours are resting quietly under your rhetorical bed... BUT with that said... with ALL OF HIS FAULTS... GW Bush took the war to those that were at the root of the problem; he has kicked the living shit out of them... and while you want to sit here and PRETEND that his steadfast position of TAKING THE WAR TO THOSE WHO OWNED IT; THOSE WHO STARTED, SUPPORTED, TRAINED AND MAINTAINED THEM and who CONTINUE TO WAGE IT... that this was somehow ineffective and counter productive... the fact remains that the US has not suffered an attack since 9-11 and there are tens of thousands of dead terrorists rotting all over this planet and as LONG as he is President, the US will kill as many as who would show up; what ever that number is... a number WHICH IS LITERALLY and SOLELY UP TO THEM!

Okay, if that's your impression of what the word moderate means.

The word is not code dumbass... its a concept with a very well reasoned, incontestable meaning and GW Bush is the pure embodiment of a moderate, God bless'im; and it is that which has resulted in what can be described as his failure; and it is that which has given you and his many detractors the means to tear away at him; this despite your chronic and hypocritical cries for moderation...

I call people who seek to control things through threats and fear mongering and violence authoritarians.

That's because you're an imbecile... Again 'authoritarian' has a meaning... and it's not 'people who seek to control things through threats and fear mongering and violence '

of, relating to, or favoring blind submission to authority *had authoritarian parents*
2 : of, relating to, or favoring a concentration of power in a leader or an elite not constitutionally responsible to the people

Bush has never sought to 'rule'... he has not established, nor has he attempted to establish himself as a leader absent constitutional authority. He has ALWAYS, at EVERY TURN in his administration sought the consent of the legislature and where he was denied such, he has changed course to meet the decision of that body.

As is nearly always the case, the left needs to change the meaning of words to make them fit their insipid 'feelings.'

But if you want to call that moderate behavior, I'll make a note of it so that I know what you're talking about the next time you use the word moderate.

ROFL... Super.

And the when you return with your idiotic attempt to revise the meaning of that word, I'll be here to shove it back down your rhetorical throat.

 

[Caligirl]

How in the world do you get McCain as a fiscal conservative?

You go t me - that was the one I was casting around the most on, and finally decided to settle on McCain not because he jumped out as a fiscal conservative but because he ran on cutting 'pork' and not raising taxes.

Anyway, which politicians might fit your standards of small govt? Anyone in the republican side? Just curious ---

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

You go t me - that was the one I was casting around the most on, and finally decided to settle on McCain not because he jumped out as a fiscal conservative but because he ran on cutting 'pork' and not raising taxes.

Anyway, which politicians might fit your standards of small govt? Anyone in the republican side? Just curious ---

Ron Paul.

However, I see the Republicans and Democrats as two sides of the same coin. There's very little difference between the two, especially when it comes to the power of the federal government. Neither one has a problem with the amount of power the government has, so long as they're in control of it. Once the other party takes control, that's when they're suddenly worried about the power.