What Divides the Conservatives

[Oddball]

The conservatives of today are quite an interesting topic. Today the conservative aspect of the country is represented strongly by the huge corporate powers who are interested only in attaining as much wealth as possible. They have a hatred for those who work hard just to make ends meet and believe in stripping them of any assistance whatsoever. Hence they would love to see SS and medicare and medicaid stopped.

Wow...Where'd you get all that straw?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The one thing that unifies conservatives:

Obama being black.

actually, it's more like "Obama being incompetant".

No, it’s because he’s a democrat.

What Divides the Conservatives

Rove v. Palin/Bachmann/Perry

Rove is kind of the ‘Old Guard,’ as it were – or perhaps the ‘new’ Old Guard. He’d rather win elections with a knife in you back than a bible in your face.

Rove/Palin feud spills onto Fox - On Media - POLITICO.com

 

[Avorysuds]

Whiat divides the conservaives? Faith/idealism vs reality.

Same with Democrats, in fact I think the Dems have never in 200 years put up a non Christian President.

 

[Avorysuds]

The one thing that unifies conservatives:

Obama being black.

actually, it's more like "Obama being incompetant".

No, it’s because he’s a democrat.

What Divides the Conservatives

Rove v. Palin/Bachmann/Perry

Rove is kind of the ‘Old Guard,’ as it were – or perhaps the ‘new’ Old Guard. He’d rather win elections with a knife in you back than a bible in your face.

Rove/Palin feud spills onto Fox - On Media - POLITICO.com

Or it's because Obama failed to meet any meaningful promises he set during his campaign... Are you that fucking far gone that you really believe the only reason conservatives don’t like Obama is because he is a Democrat? Tell us all why Obama's own base is almost to the point of no return and rabidly attacking him now?

You need to get a fuckin clue bro. Most conservatives came around to the fact that Bush sucked, (28% approval rating) and it's your turn to take Obama's cock out of your mouth because all we are hearing is this sucking noise when you relentlessly defend him for failing.

 

[Oddball]

Rove is kind of the ‘Old Guard,’ as it were – or perhaps the ‘new’ Old Guard. He’d rather win elections with a knife in you back than a bible in your face.

Rove/Palin feud spills onto Fox - On Media - POLITICO.com

IOW: District of Criminals country-clubber neocon insiders vs. flyover country upstart hayseeds.

Fuck Rove....Let the little weasel go sell shoes.

 

[Lakhota]

Tell us all why Obama's own base is almost to the point of no return and rabidly attacking him now?

Maybe because he isn't fulfilling his Liberal campaign promises - including his betrayal of labor...

Liberal disgust of Obama is mostly different from Conservative disgust of him, so don't make the mistake of lumping them together.

 

[uscitizen]

Whiat divides the conservaives? Faith/idealism vs reality.

Same with Democrats, in fact I think the Dems have never in 200 years put up a non Christian President.

Faith in political ideology not religious faith. Although with republicans there is not much difference.

 

[Oddball]

Tell us all why Obama's own base is almost to the point of no return and rabidly attacking him now?

Maybe because he isn't fulfilling his Liberal campaign promises - including his betrayal of labor...

Liberal disgust of Obama is mostly different from Conservative disgust of him, so don't make the mistake of lumping them together.

That a blind ideologue like Barry Obolshevik isn't leftist enough enough for the leftloon ideologues populating the DNC and labor unions bodes nothing but well for the nation.

 

[Lakhota]

That a blind ideologue like Barry Obolshevik isn't leftist enough enough for the leftloon ideologues populating the DNC and labor unions bodes nothing but well for the nation.

Yeah, the nation is doing so well...

 

[rdean]

The one thing that unifies conservatives:

Obama being black.

If we could only go to back to the '90's when conservatives were so unified behind President Clinton because, you know, he was a white male.

While it's true that Republicans have become a very dirty party which spent more than 40 million in taxpayer money to try to take down Clinton, still, they did work with him, a little. With Obama, it's different. He's black. This not only has angered Republicans, it has enraged them. Look at "recess appointments". Just one indicator. In fact, Republicans have left a half dozen congressmen behind during recess so they can convene congress everyday for 20 or 30 SECONDS just to block Obama.

Since Republicans want to end Medicare, Social Security and raise taxes on the Middle Class (see payroll tax), it's clear their leadership is NOT supporting the majority of Americans. The Republican base accepts this because Obama is black. They want the country to fail to keep a black president from succeeding. Only honest Republicans will admit that, but we all know it to be true.

Presidential Recess Records

From George Washington forward, the other 43 presidents have used recess appointment authority to keep federal offices filled. Ronald Reagan recess commissioned 240 federal officials, George H.W. Bush (one term) 74, Bill Clinton 139 (including one judge), and George W. Bush 171 (including two judges). Obama has thus far has recess commissioned only 28.


House Blocks Obama Appointments Through 2012

 

[JoeB131]

The one thing that unifies conservatives:

Obama being black.

If we could only go to back to the '90's when conservatives were so unified behind President Clinton because, you know, he was a white male.

While it's true that Republicans have become a very dirty party which spent more than 40 million in taxpayer money to try to take down Clinton, still, they did work with him, a little. With Obama, it's different. He's black. This not only has angered Republicans, it has enraged them. Look at "recess appointments". Just one indicator. In fact, Republicans have left a half dozen congressmen behind during recess so they can convene congress everyday for 20 or 30 SECONDS just to block Obama.

Since Republicans want to end Medicare, Social Security and raise taxes on the Middle Class (see payroll tax), it's clear their leadership is NOT supporting the majority of Americans. The Republican base accepts this because Obama is black. They want the country to fail to keep a black president from succeeding. Only honest Republicans will admit that, but we all know it to be true.

Presidential Recess Records

From George Washington forward, the other 43 presidents have used recess appointment authority to keep federal offices filled. Ronald Reagan recess commissioned 240 federal officials, George H.W. Bush (one term) 74, Bill Clinton 139 (including one judge), and George W. Bush 171 (including two judges). Obama has thus far has recess commissioned only 28.


House Blocks Obama Appointments Through 2012

You guys screamed bloody murder when Bush made recess appointments..

Now you are for them because Obama wants to make them.

We have a process, it should be followed. If Obama wants his guys to get appointed, he should appoint people the Senate can vote for.

Someone figured out a way to legally stop the abuse. Good for them.

 

[Gadawg73]

the one thing that unifies conservatives:

Obama being black.

bs.

 

[dblack]

I think you give too much credit to "Libertarians" as a major factor within the GOP. I doubt they are more than 10% of the GOP electorate, and it's not like they have anywhere else to go.

That sounds about right, maybe even a little less. But they do have other places to go - and they will. They're an idealistic lot and not as likely to be swayed by the lesser-of-two-evils con-game.

I didn't say there weren't differences, even significant ones. But we have more in common than we realize. The thing is, we're not going to get anything that progressives or libertarians want as long as authoritarians and corporatists are running things.

Progressives are authoritarians and corporatists....That's how they roll.

It depends on the progressives I suppose. Many of them line up with libertarians on a long list of issues: the Federal Reserve, foreign policy, domestic surveillance and the police state (the PATRIOT Act), the idiocy of the drug war, civil liberties (freedom of speech, equal protection, etc ...). ... the areas of agreement are much broader than you'd think at first glance. These are all issues that established Democrats and Republicans have no interest in addressing.

I think this kind of coalition is necessary to make any real progress for freedom in this country. Look at what Ron Paul has accomplished working with arch-progressives like Bernie Sanders and Ralph Nadar. The unfortunate fact is, neither the Democrats nor the Republicans have any genuine interest in changing the status quo. They want power above all else and will only appease progressives and libertarians, respectively, to win elections.

 

[Too Tall]

The one thing that unifies conservatives:

Obama being black.

With a few exceptions, it is you liberal weenies that play the race card on a rather frequent basis.

 

[rdean]

If we could only go to back to the '90's when conservatives were so unified behind President Clinton because, you know, he was a white male.

While it's true that Republicans have become a very dirty party which spent more than 40 million in taxpayer money to try to take down Clinton, still, they did work with him, a little. With Obama, it's different. He's black. This not only has angered Republicans, it has enraged them. Look at "recess appointments". Just one indicator. In fact, Republicans have left a half dozen congressmen behind during recess so they can convene congress everyday for 20 or 30 SECONDS just to block Obama.

Since Republicans want to end Medicare, Social Security and raise taxes on the Middle Class (see payroll tax), it's clear their leadership is NOT supporting the majority of Americans. The Republican base accepts this because Obama is black. They want the country to fail to keep a black president from succeeding. Only honest Republicans will admit that, but we all know it to be true.

Presidential Recess Records

From George Washington forward, the other 43 presidents have used recess appointment authority to keep federal offices filled. Ronald Reagan recess commissioned 240 federal officials, George H.W. Bush (one term) 74, Bill Clinton 139 (including one judge), and George W. Bush 171 (including two judges). Obama has thus far has recess commissioned only 28.


House Blocks Obama Appointments Through 2012

You guys screamed bloody murder when Bush made recess appointments..

Now you are for them because Obama wants to make them.

We have a process, it should be followed. If Obama wants his guys to get appointed, he should appoint people the Senate can vote for.

Someone figured out a way to legally stop the abuse. Good for them.

Bush made a hundred and seventy one, Obama has made 28. What the fuck are you crying about?

 

[MarcATL]

If RepubliCON$ aren't crying about something, they don't feel good.

 

[Sundial]

I'd like to see it too. I'm not sure what progressives and status quo liberals are, though.

I guess we could go with dictionary definitions. What do they mean to you? Do you see any difference between people like Dennis Kucinich and Ralph Nadar, and mainstream Democrats like Clinton and Obama, for example?

I'd like to agree with you. I really would. But I can't. :sad face:

From my point of view the fundamental animating principle of libertarianism is that each person is an isolated individual, and that each person should be allowed to stand or fall on his own. (And that there's a free market that can exist without government - but that's another story.)

I suggest you read up on libertarian ideology. Nothing you're saying here is accurate. Libertarians don't want to be 'isolated' any more than anyone else. And while we believe fervently that people should be allowed to make their own way, none of us question the value of community and mutual support. The question is whether compulsive government is the right vehicle for such cooperation.

You're also making the usual equivocation between laissez faire economic policies and anarchy - which is frankly stupid. You can't have a free market without property laws at a bare minimum, and trade would be virtually impossible without laws against fraud. I don't know any prominent libertarians who dispute this.

The animating principle of liberalism, from my point of view, is that life is fundamentally unfair, and that we (as a people) should should try to do something about it. We may not always agree about what should be done, but we do agree that we don't just leave someone behind.

Right. And it used to be about freedom and equal rights. What happened?

I don't know much about Kucinich and Nader, other than they're fringe figures who aren't relevant. Nader, supposedly, used to be relevant, before he went off the farm and cost us the Gore/Bush election. I guess that makes me a "mainstream" Democrat, because I'm a fan of both Clinton and Obama, and I know next to nothing about the other two.

Some years ago I spent some time talking to people who called themselves "anarcho-capitalists". I understand they're the extremists in the libertarian spectrum, but it left a very bad taste in my mouth. So maybe I'm a little prejudiced.

In any event, the idea that we should take care of people, but it should be entirely up to private charities, strikes me as wishful thinking. I don't think it worked that way in the past, and I don't think it'd work that way in the future, if we abolished Social Security, Medicaid, disability, unemployment, etc. These programs have made this country a much better place, and if libertarians are for tearing them down, then I'm against that.

The anarcho-capitalists that I mentioned before do dispute the idea that you need government in order to run the marketplace. Like I said, though, I recognize they're the fringe of the fringe.

If you do need the government to run the marketplace, though, that doesn't resolve the question of what the rules should be. Minimum wage? Copyright protections? Public roads? Anti-discrimination legislation?

From my point of view - and tell me if I'm wrong about this - libertarians seem to consistently come down on the side of owners when it comes deciding what the rules of the game should be. And, frustratingly, they don't seem to recognize that they're doing it. Minimum wage? "Government intrusion." Copyright? Part of the natural order of things. Laissez faire, in other words, seems to have a lot to say about the rights of property owners, but leaves workers to fend for themselves.

You're right about freedom and equal rights, of course. Those are battles we've pretty much won, though. Not may people are still arguing blacks shouldn't be allowed to go to school with whites, or women shouldn't be able to vote.

 

[Sundial]

Conservatives are unified, more or less, because of Obama. But in fact there are deep divisions among conservatives that require only time to play themselves out:

• The Military. The libertarian wing views the military as little more than another branch of the government: bloated, inefficient, and largely unnecessary. Given the opportunity, they'd substantially reduce its size and its funding. The traditional wing of the movement believes the military is the bulwark of our freedom. Without it, our other freedoms would be impossible to sustain. The military is not part of the government; or at least, not the part of the government that conservatives complain about when they complain about the government. Military spending can't be cut without endangering the freedom of the country.
  
• Abortion/Gay Rights/Pornography. Libertarians believe what people do in private is their own business, not the government's. Traditionalists believe the government has a role in preventing liberals from destroying the fabric of American society, as well as protecting the rights of the unborn.
  
• Social Security. Libertarians view it as a Ponzi scheme which is unsustainable and should be dismantled. Older conservatives see it as a retirement account they've paid into, and are therefore entitled to receive. (I realize "older conservatives" is not the same as "traditionalists" but there's quite a bit of overlap, so I'll leave it in.)
  
• Religion. Libertarians view religion as a private choice, which should not be imposed on anyone. Traditionalists believe that the US is a Christian country, founded on Christian principles, and that departure from those principles will lead - ultimately - to the destruction of the country.
  
• States Rights/Secession. Libertarians believe that the states have the right to secede. Traditionalists (at least those not from the South) believe that talk of secession is little better than treason (or at least crazy-talk), and that the states have no right to secede.

I think you give too much credit to "Libertarians" as a major factor within the GOP. I doubt they are more than 10% of the GOP electorate, and it's not like they have anywhere else to go.

The REAL divide I see is between the establishment of the millionaires and billionaires who care about trade policy and tax policy and regulation, and the grass roots who care about moral and security issues. There's some overlap in these groups, but they don't have the same priorities.

I guess you could break it down more.

There's the "big business" types, who want lower taxes for corporations and the rich, were 100% pro-bailout, and generally want what's good for business (a stable, well-run government). Democrats tend to see them as the responsible, or reasonable Republicans. Mitt Romney. Boehner.

There's anti-government people, who basically want to roll grenades down the aisles of the Congress building (I tend to see these people as libertarians. Perhaps unfairly.) They share with business Republicans a hatred for taxes, but not much else. Ron Paul, of course. Rick Perry (but he's only pretending).

And then there's religious wing, for whom abortion and homosexuals are a really big deal. Michelle Bachmann.

 

[candycorn]

Conservatives are unified, more or less, because of Obama. But in fact there are deep divisions among conservatives that require only time to play themselves out:

• The Military. The libertarian wing views the military as little more than another branch of the government: bloated, inefficient, and largely unnecessary. Given the opportunity, they'd substantially reduce its size and its funding. The traditional wing of the movement believes the military is the bulwark of our freedom. Without it, our other freedoms would be impossible to sustain. The military is not part of the government; or at least, not the part of the government that conservatives complain about when they complain about the government. Military spending can't be cut without endangering the freedom of the country.
  
• Abortion/Gay Rights/Pornography. Libertarians believe what people do in private is their own business, not the government's. Traditionalists believe the government has a role in preventing liberals from destroying the fabric of American society, as well as protecting the rights of the unborn.
  
• Social Security. Libertarians view it as a Ponzi scheme which is unsustainable and should be dismantled. Older conservatives see it as a retirement account they've paid into, and are therefore entitled to receive. (I realize "older conservatives" is not the same as "traditionalists" but there's quite a bit of overlap, so I'll leave it in.)
  
• Religion. Libertarians view religion as a private choice, which should not be imposed on anyone. Traditionalists believe that the US is a Christian country, founded on Christian principles, and that departure from those principles will lead - ultimately - to the destruction of the country.
  
• States Rights/Secession. Libertarians believe that the states have the right to secede. Traditionalists (at least those not from the South) believe that talk of secession is little better than treason (or at least crazy-talk), and that the states have no right to secede.

The largest problem Cons have is themselves more than the formidable DNC. LOL.

 

[Immanuel]

Conservatives are unified, more or less, because of Obama. But in fact there are deep divisions among conservatives that require only time to play themselves out:

• The Military. The libertarian wing views the military as little more than another branch of the government: bloated, inefficient, and largely unnecessary. Given the opportunity, they'd substantially reduce its size and its funding. The traditional wing of the movement believes the military is the bulwark of our freedom. Without it, our other freedoms would be impossible to sustain. The military is not part of the government; or at least, not the part of the government that conservatives complain about when they complain about the government. Military spending can't be cut without endangering the freedom of the country.
  
• Abortion/Gay Rights/Pornography. Libertarians believe what people do in private is their own business, not the government's. Traditionalists believe the government has a role in preventing liberals from destroying the fabric of American society, as well as protecting the rights of the unborn.
  
• Social Security. Libertarians view it as a Ponzi scheme which is unsustainable and should be dismantled. Older conservatives see it as a retirement account they've paid into, and are therefore entitled to receive. (I realize "older conservatives" is not the same as "traditionalists" but there's quite a bit of overlap, so I'll leave it in.)
  
• Religion. Libertarians view religion as a private choice, which should not be imposed on anyone. Traditionalists believe that the US is a Christian country, founded on Christian principles, and that departure from those principles will lead - ultimately - to the destruction of the country.
  
• States Rights/Secession. Libertarians believe that the states have the right to secede. Traditionalists (at least those not from the South) believe that talk of secession is little better than treason (or at least crazy-talk), and that the states have no right to secede.

So, what happens when someone fits in different categories (or neither) in each of these issues as I suspect most people do?

For instance me.

Military: I think I fall closest to the "traditionalist" in your example but not completely as I think we can cut military spending with other spending and not reduce our ability to defend ourselves.

Abortion/Gay Rights/Pornography: on Gay Rights and Pornography I would consider myself closest to the libertarian point of view. I believe in civil unions for all and marriage in the church for everyone but the two ideas should be separated. As for abortion, I would be more traditionalist because I believe the most important duty of a government is to protect life.

Social Security: Good idea bad management and time for a change. I believe it should be privatized but slowly as we have promised the retired and nearly retired their benefits. We can't tell them now... "tough shit you should have planned for this".

Religion: I would be closer to the traditionalist in this case, but I don't believe we are a "Christian Country". I believe we are founded on Judeo-Christian principles. I also believe we will destroy ourselves before your doomsday scenario has time to take effect.

States Rights/Secession: Well, the moment I heard that Rick Perry was for secession I decided he definitely would not be getting my vote. Whether or not the states have a right to secession is not the question here, but I will not vote for a man who apparently despises this nation for President of the United States.

So, I think I kind of fit in different categories differently than you suggest. How does that change things. Also, I think you will find that most conservatives cannot be put into the box that you set up here. We, like liberals, all view things differently from each other.

Immie

PS I'm just about out of gas so if you reply and I don't... I'll catch you later.