Where have all the Conservatives Gone?

[Oddball]

You're going to have to work on your stupidity if you have any hopes of matching your "Bush was a liberal" remark

ALL neoconnie turds (and I don't throw my universal qualifiers around lightly) are domestic welfare statist leftists, who happen to like their interventionist foreign wars.

If you look at the records objectively --something I'm certain that you'll fail to do-- the Shrub's record isn't too much different than the "liberal" dirtball LBJ.

I just wanted to thank you for returning to the "Bush was a liberal" rant.

Very entertaining

Yeah...Interventionist foreign wars, bloated farm and highway bills, Ted Kennedy's education bill, the prescription drug handout, campaign finance deform, auto bailouts, airline bailouts, bank bailouts, nationalizing airport security and creating a whole new cabinet-level bureaucracy are sooooooooooooooo "conservative" (whatever the hell that's supposed to mean anymore).

Like I said, you're too blinded by your petty party loyalty to objectively see people for who and what they are.

 

[Sheldon]

You're going to have to work on your stupidity if you have any hopes of matching your "Bush was a liberal" remark

After 9/11 the Bush administration became neo-conservative.

Neo-conservatives and modern liberals have different ends, but their means are the same, which is what makes them similar. Bush was like a modern liberal to the extent that he and his administration wanted to use government to implement policy goals.

So, in your delusional world, conservative don't want the govt to implement policy goals like banning abortion and teaching creationism in science class

Conservatives have no ideas, no character, and no moral center. That's why they can lie with such ease

You're conflating conservatism with neo-conservatism, again, and are trying to stuff them into the same box. There are differences between the two terms, and I think you're offended that BushII could be equated with the word "liberal", a term that is near and dear to your sensibilities. It's funny, watching you post on these boards, because it's like watching Helen Keller do gymnastics.

 

[blu]

Indeed, where have all the conservatives gone, gone to fringes everywhere, on single issues - guns, gays, abortions, god and off the edge.
The Republican Party is now a fringe partry, as are the Libertarian, Peace and Freedom, American Independent, and dozens more.
Moderate and conservative Republicans have been cast adrift by ideologues who hold this truth self-evident - it's all about me.
If a new party is to form, replacing the old R party, I can imagine a split in the Democrats, whereby fiscal conservative Democrats split from liberal Democrats into a redux of the original party of Jefferson.
As a moderate Democrat I want to put an end to generational entitlements, but support Social Security and universal national preventative health care and comprehenisve health care for all children up to age 21.
I support pay as you go and the line-item veto, with the Congress able to override the veto on specific matters as the Constitution permits;
I support the Federal Income tax in it's progressive form, and reject any effort to change the process to benefit the wealthy at the expense of the nation;
I support the Constitution and support the concept that it is a living document, able to be seen in the light of today withing the framwork of history;
I support one man, one vote and reject any form of 'democracy' which values the vote of one more than the vote of another;
I believe we have a duty to protect the earth, and that environmental laws protecting the planet are necessary, for the greed of man is a given as can be seen in the Gulf today;
And, I believe comprehensive campaign finance reform is necessary and that The US Supreme Court which struck down a major portion of a 2002 campaign-finance reform law, saying it violates the free-speech right of corporations to engage in public debate of political issues, is a blow to democratic principles. Corporations are not people, notwithstanding Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company, 118 U.S. 394 (1886) - wherein a clerk made law and the clerk established precedent.

i usually like reading your posts, but please you enter next time. walls of text are really hard to read

 

[blu]

You're going to have to work on your stupidity if you have any hopes of matching your "Bush was a liberal" remark

After 9/11 the Bush administration became neo-conservative.

Neo-conservatives and modern liberals have different ends, but their means are the same, which is what makes them similar. Bush was like a modern liberal to the extent that he and his administration wanted to use government to implement policy goals.

So, in your delusional world, conservative don't want the govt to implement policy goals like banning abortion and teaching creationism in science class

Conservatives have no ideas, no character, and no moral center. That's why they can lie with such ease

conservatism is independent of religion

 

[PoliticalChic]

I support the Constitution and support the concept that it is a living document, able to be seen in the light of today withing the framwork of history;

Then you don't support the Constitution.

The concept of "living rules" means in fact that there are NO rules....Anarchy.

Of course you are correct.

Our friend Wry, while well meaning, supports a paradoxical concept he little understands.
His statement is akin to 'Vegetarians for Meat.'

“Proponents of a “21st century constitution” or “living constitution” aim to transform our nation’s supreme law beyond recognition—and with a minimum of public attention and debate. Indeed, if there is an overarching theme to what they wish to achieve, it is the diminishment of the democratic and representative processes of American government. It is the replacement of a system of republican government, in which the constitution is largely focused upon the architecture of government in order to minimize the likelihood of abuse of power, with a system of judicial government, in which substantive policy outcomes are increasingly determined by federal judges. Rather than merely defining broad rules of the game for the legislative and executive branches of government, the new constitution would compel specific outcomes.”
https://www.hillsdale.edu/news/impri...=2010&month=04

Either government is limited, or it is unlimited.

Progressives saw the Constitution as a roadblock to their vision of perfect government and perfect people: utopia. Progressives of the late 19th and early 20th centuries saw this older, limited understanding of government stood in the way of the policy aims they believed the state ought to pursue in a world that had undergone significant evolution since the time of the Founding.

They believed that the role of government, contrary to the perceived historical notion of Founding-era liberalism, ought to adjust continually to meet the new demands of new ages without accessing the amendment process.

As Woodrow Wilson wrote in 'The State', "Government does now whatever experience permits or the times demand."

Thus, a 'living Constitution.'

 

[uscitizen]

bush was elected by the GOP which is currently liberal

Back to my other post which says there never were really any conservatives in any noticible numbers in the first place.

they were highly disenfranchised due to bush's 180 once he was elected in 2000. They are back now though and have already knocked some people out of office and november isn't even here yet

don't believe everything you hear and read.

 

[Wry Catcher]

I support the Constitution and support the concept that it is a living document, able to be seen in the light of today withing the framwork of history;

Then you don't support the Constitution.

The concept of "living rules" means in fact that there are NO rules....Anarchy.

Dude, with doo-doo respect, you don't know shit.

 

[Wry Catcher]

I support the Constitution and support the concept that it is a living document, able to be seen in the light of today withing the framwork of history;

Then you don't support the Constitution.

The concept of "living rules" means in fact that there are NO rules....Anarchy.

Of course you are correct.

Our friend Wry, while well meaning, supports a paradoxical concept he little understands.
His statement is akin to 'Vegetarians for Meat.'

“Proponents of a “21st century constitution” or “living constitution” aim to transform our nation’s supreme law beyond recognition—and with a minimum of public attention and debate. Indeed, if there is an overarching theme to what they wish to achieve, it is the diminishment of the democratic and representative processes of American government. It is the replacement of a system of republican government, in which the constitution is largely focused upon the architecture of government in order to minimize the likelihood of abuse of power, with a system of judicial government, in which substantive policy outcomes are increasingly determined by federal judges. Rather than merely defining broad rules of the game for the legislative and executive branches of government, the new constitution would compel specific outcomes.”
https://www.hillsdale.edu/news/impri...=2010&month=04

Either government is limited, or it is unlimited.

Progressives saw the Constitution as a roadblock to their vision of perfect government and perfect people: utopia. Progressives of the late 19th and early 20th centuries saw this older, limited understanding of government stood in the way of the policy aims they believed the state ought to pursue in a world that had undergone significant evolution since the time of the Founding.

They believed that the role of government, contrary to the perceived historical notion of Founding-era liberalism, ought to adjust continually to meet the new demands of new ages without accessing the amendment process.

As Woodrow Wilson wrote in 'The State', "Government does now whatever experience permits or the times demand."

Thus, a 'living Constitution.'

Please explain to the audience where in the Constitution is the authority of the Supreme Court to decide the Constitionality of a law.
Or, do you believe the actions of the SC in deciding the constitionality of a law is an example of big government overrreaching?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I support the Constitution and support the concept that it is a living document, able to be seen in the light of today withing the framwork of history;

Then you don't support the Constitution.

The concept of "living rules" means in fact that there are NO rules....Anarchy.

Of course you are correct.

Our friend Wry, while well meaning, supports a paradoxical concept he little understands.
His statement is akin to 'Vegetarians for Meat.'

“Proponents of a “21st century constitution” or “living constitution” aim to transform our nation’s supreme law beyond recognition—and with a minimum of public attention and debate. Indeed, if there is an overarching theme to what they wish to achieve, it is the diminishment of the democratic and representative processes of American government. It is the replacement of a system of republican government, in which the constitution is largely focused upon the architecture of government in order to minimize the likelihood of abuse of power, with a system of judicial government, in which substantive policy outcomes are increasingly determined by federal judges. Rather than merely defining broad rules of the game for the legislative and executive branches of government, the new constitution would compel specific outcomes.”
https://www.hillsdale.edu/news/impri...=2010&month=04

Either government is limited, or it is unlimited.

Progressives saw the Constitution as a roadblock to their vision of perfect government and perfect people: utopia. Progressives of the late 19th and early 20th centuries saw this older, limited understanding of government stood in the way of the policy aims they believed the state ought to pursue in a world that had undergone significant evolution since the time of the Founding.

They believed that the role of government, contrary to the perceived historical notion of Founding-era liberalism, ought to adjust continually to meet the new demands of new ages without accessing the amendment process.

As Woodrow Wilson wrote in 'The State', "Government does now whatever experience permits or the times demand."

Thus, a 'living Constitution.'

Well said! Nice one!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Then you don't support the Constitution.

The concept of "living rules" means in fact that there are NO rules....Anarchy.

Of course you are correct.

Our friend Wry, while well meaning, supports a paradoxical concept he little understands.
His statement is akin to 'Vegetarians for Meat.'

“Proponents of a “21st century constitution” or “living constitution” aim to transform our nation’s supreme law beyond recognition—and with a minimum of public attention and debate. Indeed, if there is an overarching theme to what they wish to achieve, it is the diminishment of the democratic and representative processes of American government. It is the replacement of a system of republican government, in which the constitution is largely focused upon the architecture of government in order to minimize the likelihood of abuse of power, with a system of judicial government, in which substantive policy outcomes are increasingly determined by federal judges. Rather than merely defining broad rules of the game for the legislative and executive branches of government, the new constitution would compel specific outcomes.”
https://www.hillsdale.edu/news/impri...=2010&month=04

Either government is limited, or it is unlimited.

Progressives saw the Constitution as a roadblock to their vision of perfect government and perfect people: utopia. Progressives of the late 19th and early 20th centuries saw this older, limited understanding of government stood in the way of the policy aims they believed the state ought to pursue in a world that had undergone significant evolution since the time of the Founding.

They believed that the role of government, contrary to the perceived historical notion of Founding-era liberalism, ought to adjust continually to meet the new demands of new ages without accessing the amendment process.

As Woodrow Wilson wrote in 'The State', "Government does now whatever experience permits or the times demand."

Thus, a 'living Constitution.'

Please explain to the audience where in the Constitution is the authority of the Supreme Court to decide the Constitionality of a law.
Or, do you believe the actions of the SC in deciding the constitionality of a law is an example of big government overrreaching?

If you bothered to take the time to read what you replied to, or have a grown up read it to you, you would have your answer

 

[antagon]

abolish the Fed!

return to the gold standard!

should we check teh value of the dollar before and after 1913? what about before nixon dropped us completely and after? Ending the federal reserve would be the smartest thing this country could do. Would automatically stop the social program advocates and war hawks in their tracks.

should we check the prominence of the US in the world before and after 1913?

there is nothing smart about dropping the fed or the gold standard, whatsoever. take your 'value of the dollar' as an example of nothing smart. would you prefer a 100-year deflationary trend? what do you think the implications of that would be?

 

[CMike]

I'm right here

 

[NYcarbineer]

Seems our "Drill, baby, Drill" conservatives are AWOL at the moment. Or, like the Alaska Loon, trying to blame environmentalists for being correct about the oil companies priorities.

if environment nuts hadn't pushed oil so far shore then any possible spill would be a couple hundred feet deep and capped the first day

This is the funniest rightwing spin that's come out of all this, i.e., that conservatives never wanted the oil companies to drill in deep water, but the liberals forced them to.

What's fascinating is that this is exactly the same formula the right used to try to blame the banking crisis on liberals. Look at these:

The oil spill happened because liberals forced BP to drill where they shouldn't have been drilling.

The banking crisis happened because liberals forced the banks to make bad loans they shouldn't have been making.

See that? It's the same exact formula, with only the details changed to match each event. This is how rightwing propaganda works. It's formulaic, elegant in its simplicity, relentless in its consistency.

Whatever the event, the right formulates an it's-the-left's-fault equation.

 

[Cuyo]

THAT is a lapse in your perception. Democrats are as moderate as ever. HCR is dead center. Any other perception of socialism is a reverberation of something some liar put in your ear.

forcing people to buy something they do not want with the threat of jail is "dead center"?

First of all, with single payer on the left and laissez faire free-market on the right, yes the bill is absolutely dead center.

Second, there is a tax penalty for failing to maintain health insurance; I'm not aware of any provision to "Send people to jail" outside of the realm of tax evasion for failing to pay your taxes due, which yes would be increased if you fail to maintain the minimum insurance requirements -- Same way my tax would be higher than someone who has children and makes the same as me.

Third, don't be sooooooooo dramatic.

 

[Oddball]

abolish the Fed!

return to the gold standard!

should we check teh value of the dollar before and after 1913? what about before nixon dropped us completely and after? Ending the federal reserve would be the smartest thing this country could do. Would automatically stop the social program advocates and war hawks in their tracks.

should we check the prominence of the US in the world before and after 1913?

there is nothing smart about dropping the fed or the gold standard, whatsoever. take your 'value of the dollar' as an example of nothing smart. would you prefer a 100-year deflationary trend? what do you think the implications of that would be?

"Prominence of the US in the world" as in the federal gubmint butting its military nose into everyone else's business?

I could live without that.

 

[Foxfyre]

I and others like me never went anywhere....Just most of us shun the term "conservative" (whatever the hell that's supposed to mean anymore) since the leftist neocon turds hijacked the handle.

Next silly question?

Since you're just as ignorant as any conservative (ie "neo-cons" are not liberals, they are rightwingers. Cheney is a neo-con. Rumsfeld is a neo-con. You are a moron) why shouldn't we consider you a conservative?

Wrong again dumb ass....neo-cons are in fact liberals....look it up.

Well they used to be. There are so many different defnitions for 'neo-conservative' that the term has little coherent meaning anymore.

In my opinion, neo-cons are mostly liberals who became frustrated with liberalism's wishy washy approach to international government and politics and shifted to the right side in order to have more clout and in order to be more pro-active in those areas. Basically they remain moderately liberal on almost all other fronts including expansion of goverment and government authority, expanded social welfare programs, and government meddling into socioeconomic issues. They are generally more right of center on fiscal accountability and responsibility though they often don't allow that to get in the way of what they see as more important goals.

This is an interesting analysis and the site includes several other definitions:
. . . the Neo-Conservatives generally being former Democrats, usually of Jewish decent, who are pundits and try to influence American foreign policy. Left-leaning pundits then mistakenly call everyone who supports the War on Terror a Neo-Conservative. Plus the term is "becoming overused and lacking any coherent definition", and "many of the prominent people labeled as Neo conservatives are actually registered Democrats" according to Wikipedia.

David Horowitz explains that "there is no 'neo-conservative' movement in the United States". Plus there is a change in the definition because of world political climate change. Horowitz feels the media say it "identifies those who believe in an aggressive policy against radical Islam and the global terrorists."

And during the election year 2004, it's nothing more than a negative term used in mud-slinging by finger-pointing pundits.
What's A Neo-Conservative?

 

[Oddball]

Since you're just as ignorant as any conservative (ie "neo-cons" are not liberals, they are rightwingers. Cheney is a neo-con. Rumsfeld is a neo-con. You are a moron) why shouldn't we consider you a conservative?

Wrong again dumb ass....neo-cons are in fact liberals....look it up.

Well they used to be. There are so many different defnitions for 'neo-conservative' that the term has little coherent meaning anymore.

In my opinion, neo-cons are mostly liberals who became frustrated with liberalism's wishy washy approach to international government and politics and shifted to the right side in order to have more clout and in order to be more pro-active in those areas. Basically they remain moderately liberal on almost all other fronts including expansion of goverment and government authority, expanded social welfare programs, and government meddling into socioeconomic issues. They are generally more right of center on fiscal accountability and responsibility though they often don't allow that to get in the way of what they see as more important goals.

This is an interesting analysis and the site includes several other definitions:
. . . the Neo-Conservatives generally being former Democrats, usually of Jewish decent, who are pundits and try to influence American foreign policy. Left-leaning pundits then mistakenly call everyone who supports the War on Terror a Neo-Conservative. Plus the term is "becoming overused and lacking any coherent definition", and "many of the prominent people labeled as Neo conservatives are actually registered Democrats" according to Wikipedia.

David Horowitz explains that "there is no 'neo-conservative' movement in the United States". Plus there is a change in the definition because of world political climate change. Horowitz feels the media say it "identifies those who believe in an aggressive policy against radical Islam and the global terrorists."

And during the election year 2004, it's nothing more than a negative term used in mud-slinging by finger-pointing pundits.
What's A Neo-Conservative?

Of course the neocon Horowitz would deny that there's any such thing as neocons...That's kinda like John Gotti denying there's a mafia.

I tend to refer to Dr. Ron Paul's rather accurate description of the neocons:

More important than the names of people affiliated with neo-conservatism are the views they adhere to. Here is a brief summary of the general understanding of what neocons believe:

1. They agree with Trotsky on permanent revolution, violent as well as intellectual.
2. They are for redrawing the map of the Middle East and are willing to use force to do so.
3. They believe in preemptive war to achieve desired ends.
4. They accept the notion that the ends justify the means – that hard-ball politics is a moral necessity.
5. They express no opposition to the welfare state.
6. They are not bashful about an American empire; instead they strongly endorse it.
7. They believe lying is necessary for the state to survive.
8. They believe a powerful federal government is a benefit.
9. They believe pertinent facts about how a society should be run should be held by the elite and withheld from those who do not have the courage to deal with it.
10. They believe neutrality in foreign affairs is ill-advised.
11. They hold Leo Strauss in high esteem.
12. They believe imperialism, if progressive in nature, is appropriate.
13. Using American might to force American ideals on others is acceptable. Force should not be limited to the defense of our country.
14. 9-11 resulted from the lack of foreign entanglements, not from too many.
15. They dislike and despise libertarians (therefore, the same applies to all strict constitutionalists).
16. They endorse attacks on civil liberties, such as those found in the Patriot Act, as being necessary.
17. They unconditionally support Israel and have a close alliance with the Likud Party.

We've Been Neo-Conned by Rep. Ron Paul

His floor speech on the subject HERE.

 

[Foxfyre]

Wrong again dumb ass....neo-cons are in fact liberals....look it up.

Well they used to be. There are so many different defnitions for 'neo-conservative' that the term has little coherent meaning anymore.

In my opinion, neo-cons are mostly liberals who became frustrated with liberalism's wishy washy approach to international government and politics and shifted to the right side in order to have more clout and in order to be more pro-active in those areas. Basically they remain moderately liberal on almost all other fronts including expansion of goverment and government authority, expanded social welfare programs, and government meddling into socioeconomic issues. They are generally more right of center on fiscal accountability and responsibility though they often don't allow that to get in the way of what they see as more important goals.

Of course the neocon Horowitz would deny that there's any such thing as neocons...That's kinda like John Gotti denying there's a mafia.

I tend to refer to Dr. Ron Paul's rather accurate description of the neocons:

More important than the names of people affiliated with neo-conservatism are the views they adhere to. Here is a brief summary of the general understanding of what neocons believe:

1. They agree with Trotsky on permanent revolution, violent as well as intellectual.
2. They are for redrawing the map of the Middle East and are willing to use force to do so.
3. They believe in preemptive war to achieve desired ends.
4. They accept the notion that the ends justify the means – that hard-ball politics is a moral necessity.
5. They express no opposition to the welfare state.
6. They are not bashful about an American empire; instead they strongly endorse it.
7. They believe lying is necessary for the state to survive.
8. They believe a powerful federal government is a benefit.
9. They believe pertinent facts about how a society should be run should be held by the elite and withheld from those who do not have the courage to deal with it.
10. They believe neutrality in foreign affairs is ill-advised.
11. They hold Leo Strauss in high esteem.
12. They believe imperialism, if progressive in nature, is appropriate.
13. Using American might to force American ideals on others is acceptable. Force should not be limited to the defense of our country.
14. 9-11 resulted from the lack of foreign entanglements, not from too many.
15. They dislike and despise libertarians (therefore, the same applies to all strict constitutionalists).
16. They endorse attacks on civil liberties, such as those found in the Patriot Act, as being necessary.
17. They unconditionally support Israel and have a close alliance with the Likud Party.

We've Been Neo-Conned by Rep. Ron Paul

His floor speech on the subject HERE.

There is much that I admire about Congressman Paul and many of his views I can agree with. And there are some of his views that I disagree with. While I think there is some validity to relate some of his points to what a 'neo con' is, I also think his list reflects some of his prejudices or convictions with which I cannot agree.

I like my definition of neo-con better than his.

(P.S. Horowitz didn't say there was no such thing as a neo con. He said there is no 'neo con movement in the USA at this time.' I think he's right.)

 

[Oddball]

Since Horowitz is in fact part of that movement, his denial of such rings awfully hollow.

 

[Foxfyre]

Since Horowitz is in fact part of that movement, his denial of such rings awfully hollow.

But honestly Dude, I'm pretty darn politically active including actively supporting candidates, etc. etc. etc. If there is any 'neo con movement' out there, I sure as heck am unaware of it. I'm not seeing anything--even within the active Republican Party these days--that translates to pushing neo-con ideas in any significant way. The Tea Partiers sure as heck aren't neo-cons, nor are the conservative libertarians.

So who else is in this 'movement' with Horowitz?

He may be a neo con. I hadn't thought about it. But a person being a neo con and a movement are two separate things don't you think?