Why Conservatives Can't Govern

[Oddball]

Faulty premise: Gubmint is there to solve our problems.

That's a pretext for paternalistic authoritarian rule, not de jure governance.

That's exactly the point of government. If ungoverned anarchic societies didn't have unsolvable problems, they wouldn't form governments.

I am not now, nor have ever been, for anarchy.

Dickless.

 

[Oddball]

Faulty premise: Gubmint is there to solve our problems.

That's a pretext for paternalistic authoritarian rule, not de jure governance.

How freaking ridiculous.

One of the first governments was formed when Grog the caveman figured out there was no way he was taking down a wooly mammoth on his own.

Speaking of ridiculous.

 

[Sallow]

That is such TOTAL bullshit!

What about the cozy relationship between BigAg and guys like Tom Harkin, for ETOH handouts?

What about the cozy relationship (read: GRAFT) between Dianne Frankenstein and the defense contractor, of which her husband was a high ranking officer?

Faulty premises, within faulty premises, within faulty premises......

You are addressing my point. He wasn't. You can see that, can't you?

I'm addressing the point that the author in the OP is a totally blind partisan hack.

Playing to the stereotype that republicans have a monopoly, or even run in the lead over democrats, on playing footsie with BigBiz is as fraudulent a premise as you can begin with.

Figures, though, seeing as the author in question was a Clintoon flack.

Really now.

The OP wasn't about "Republicans" Vs. "Democrats" per se..it was about Conservatives vs. Liberal. It is somewhat flawed. Conservative CAN govern. The types of governments started or supported by Conservatives are Theocracies, Monarchies, Aristocracies, Dictatorships and Fascist ones. The ones started by Liberals are generally Democratic Republics.

 

[Oddball]

Faulty premise: Gubmint is there to solve our problems.

That's a pretext for paternalistic authoritarian rule, not de jure governance.

How freaking ridiculous.

One of the first governments was formed when Grog the caveman figured out there was no way he was taking down a wooly mammoth on his own.

There, you see? All it takes is another liberal to set it straight.

Thank you very much, Sallow.

All it took was another liberoidal to make a completely ridiculous assertion and you to jump up and down like Grog the caveman.

 

[Ragnar]

Business abandons GOP for Democrats - Jeanne Cummings - POLITICO.com

All 10 of the top-giving industries tracked by the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan money and politics watchdog group, are now donating more cash to Democrats than Republicans. A year ago, Republicans had the edge in six of the 10 sectors.

Financial powerhouse Goldman Sachs has sent 71 percent of its cash this year to Democrats while JPMorgan delivered 68 percent of its checks to the new majority.

Citigroup Inc. followed close behind, with 63 percent of its cash deposited in the accounts of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her colleagues. Even the big drug companies are trying to warm up to their adversaries; that sector is giving at a rate of 50-50.

There are also the collective super Wal-Mart's of the lending world... (that is about as big as big get)

The Federal National Mortgage Association, nicknamed Fannie Mae, and the Federal Home Mortgage Corporation, nicknamed Freddie Mac, have operated since 1968 as government sponsored enterprises (GSEs). This means that, although the two companies are privately owned and operated by shareholders, they are protected financially by the support of the Federal Government

There are also the big Hollywood studios, always seeking and getting tax breaks, pumping left leaning garbage into the culture (sometimes even doing so at a loss) and using money and celebrity to push and fund democrats.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Faulty premise: Gubmint is there to solve our problems.

That's a pretext for paternalistic authoritarian rule, not de jure governance.

That's exactly the point of government. If ungoverned anarchic societies didn't have unsolvable problems, they wouldn't form governments.

I am not now, nor have ever been, for anarchy.

Dickless.

Your penile condition is for another forum.

What you are for, exactly, is arguing against the strawman of those mythical people you invent who supposedly think the government is the answer to every problem.

 

[Oddball]

You are addressing my point. He wasn't. You can see that, can't you?

I'm addressing the point that the author in the OP is a totally blind partisan hack.

Playing to the stereotype that republicans have a monopoly, or even run in the lead over democrats, on playing footsie with BigBiz is as fraudulent a premise as you can begin with.

Figures, though, seeing as the author in question was a Clintoon flack.

Really now.

The OP wasn't about "Republicans" Vs. "Democrats" per se..it was about Conservatives vs. Liberal. It is somewhat flawed. Conservative CAN govern. The types of governments started or supported by Conservatives are Theocracies, Monarchies, Aristocracies, Dictatorships and Fascist ones. The ones started by Liberals are generally Democratic Republics.

So-called "liberals" are just as in the pockets of BigBiz as alleged "conservatives" and you damned well know it.

You chumps really do need to come up with some new stereotypes.

 

[Sallow]

Faulty premise: Gubmint is there to solve our problems.

That's a pretext for paternalistic authoritarian rule, not de jure governance.

How freaking ridiculous.

One of the first governments was formed when Grog the caveman figured out there was no way he was taking down a wooly mammoth on his own.

Speaking of ridiculous.

Well go on then..oh defender of the Ayn Rand school of Narcissim. Please, oh Corporate Quisling..answer this riddle..

What country was started by Business?

We await your sage answer.

 

[Oddball]

That's exactly the point of government. If ungoverned anarchic societies didn't have unsolvable problems, they wouldn't form governments.

I am not now, nor have ever been, for anarchy.

Dickless.

Your penile condition is for another forum.

What you are for, exactly, is arguing against the strawman of those mythical people you invent who supposedly think the government is the answer to every problem.

The strawman of "anarchy" was invoked by you, dickless.

You may now return to licking the window.

 

[Sallow]

I'm addressing the point that the author in the OP is a totally blind partisan hack.

Playing to the stereotype that republicans have a monopoly, or even run in the lead over democrats, on playing footsie with BigBiz is as fraudulent a premise as you can begin with.

Figures, though, seeing as the author in question was a Clintoon flack.

Really now.

The OP wasn't about "Republicans" Vs. "Democrats" per se..it was about Conservatives vs. Liberal. It is somewhat flawed. Conservative CAN govern. The types of governments started or supported by Conservatives are Theocracies, Monarchies, Aristocracies, Dictatorships and Fascist ones. The ones started by Liberals are generally Democratic Republics.

So-called "liberals" are just as in the pockets of BigBiz as alleged "conservatives" and you damned well know it.

You chumps really do need to come up with some new stereotypes.

Sure are..but in a much different way. For Conservatives..government exists to fill the needs of business. For Liberals business exists to fill the needs of government.

 

[Oddball]

How freaking ridiculous.

One of the first governments was formed when Grog the caveman figured out there was no way he was taking down a wooly mammoth on his own.

Speaking of ridiculous.

Well go on then..oh defender of the Ayn Rand school of Narcissim. Please, oh Corporate Quisling..answer this riddle..

What country was started by Business?

We await your sage answer.

You got the Magna Grog-a in your pocket?

Until then, you don't even have a piece of mammoth foreskin to chew on.

 

[midcan5]

The piece is one of my favorites, and there is no counter argument to it as since Coolidge/Hoover, and more recently Reagan and the Bushs proved they cannot govern. No conservative can or could ever govern as life and politics are too complicated for their empty reactionary politics. If anyone wants to understand political conservatism, I suggest Albert O. Hirschman's brilliant 'The Rhetoric of Reaction.' "He argues that a triplet of 'rhetorical' criticisms--perversity, futility, and jeopardy--'has been unfailingly leveled' by 'reactionaries' at each major progressive reform of the past 300 years--those T. H. Marshall identified with the advancement of civil, political and social rights of citizenship...Charmingly written, this book can benefit a diverse readership." The Rhetoric of Reaction - Albert O. Hirschman - Harvard University Press.

What Is Conservatism and What Is Wrong with It?

The Regressive Antidote - If Conservatism Is The Ideology of Freedom, I'm The Queen of England

 

[Sallow]

Speaking of ridiculous.

Well go on then..oh defender of the Ayn Rand school of Narcissim. Please, oh Corporate Quisling..answer this riddle..

What country was started by Business?

We await your sage answer.

You got the Magna Grog-a in your pocket?

Until then, you don't even have a piece of mammoth foreskin to chew on.

I'll take this as you don't have a fucking clue.

Because that has NEVER happened.

 

[Ragnar]

Sure are..but in a much different way. For Conservatives..government exists to fill the needs of business. (Or, government serves the people) For Liberals business exists to fill the needs of government. (Or, the people serve the government)

Or, business rules by the dollar, government rules by the gun. I choose the dollar myself.

 

[Charles_Main]

Here we go again....You lose the argument at the federal level, which the author of the piece was clearly speaking about, you evade the point and chunk it down to local fire and police departments.

There again, though, their role isn't to "solve problems" per se, but provide a public service which are equally available to all.

There's a vast gulf between the local FD showing up to protect my property, when the neighbor's house is ablaze and federal bureaucrats telling me what kinds of light bulbs are "appropriate" for me to use....But you already knew that, didn't you?

Just more proof that libs see no difference between the Fed, the States and Local Government. For all they care you could do away with local governments and states and just let the all power fed control everything.

 

[Sallow]

Sure are..but in a much different way. For Conservatives..government exists to fill the needs of business. (Or, government serves the people) For Liberals business exists to fill the needs of government. (Or, the people serve the government)

Or, business rules by the dollar, government rules by the gun. I choose the dollar myself.

A conservative government rules by the gun.

A liberal government rules by the vote.

 

[skookerasbil]

In 2007, political scientist, author and professor of political science at the Boisi Center for Religion and American Public Life at Boston College, Alan Wolfe, wrote an article for Washington Monthly, titled "Why Conservatives Can't Govern." In that article, he stated:

"Liberals, while enjoying the perquisites of office, also want to be in a position to use government to solve problems. But conservatives have different motives for wanting power. One is to prevent liberals from doing so; if government cannot be made to disappear, at least it can be prevented from doing any good. The other is to build a political machine in which business and the Republican Party can exchange mutual favors; business will lavish cash on politicians (called campaign comtributions) while politicians will throw the money back at business (called public policy). Conservatism will always attract its share of young idealists. And young idealists will always be disillusioned by the sheer amount of corruption that people like Gingrich and DeLay generate. If yesterday's conservative was a liberal mugged by reality, today's is a free-marketer fattened by pork."

Strong words - and obviously written by one with a liberal agenda. But how close to truth are these words? Few can deny the love affair that has been going on between Big Business and the Republican Party lo these many decades. Few can deny the way in which the Republican Party has attempted to strangle Democratic attempts to do, well, just about anything. You may differ, but I have not seen anything close to approaching that coming from the left toward the right.

No corruption here, you say. Hmmm . . . now just exactly what is it that Tom DeLay is doing these days . . . . . ?

Strong words. Words for discussion, seems to me. Anyone want to step up?

meh..........politics..........what happened to the hundreds of billions that went to unions with the 2009 Stimulus Bill???

Special interests s0n.......every party has them......except in the world of the k00ks.

 

[Ragnar]

Sure are..but in a much different way. For Conservatives..government exists to fill the needs of business. (Or, government serves the people) For Liberals business exists to fill the needs of government. (Or, the people serve the government)

Or, business rules by the dollar, government rules by the gun. I choose the dollar myself.

A conservative government rules by the gun.

A liberal government rules by the vote.

Then there is the real world wherein there exist such things as old Soviet Russia, Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea, China and socialist post-colonial Africa and on and on and on.

There are also successful countries. We call them capitalist. (to various degrees of successful implementation) Those are the countries with big business.

 

[Trajan]

Sure are..but in a much different way. For Conservatives..government exists to fill the needs of business. (Or, government serves the people) For Liberals business exists to fill the needs of government. (Or, the people serve the government)

Or, business rules by the dollar, government rules by the gun. I choose the dollar myself.

A conservative government rules by the gun.

A liberal government rules by the vote.

links please? ....

 

[del]

In 2007, political scientist, author and professor of political science at the Boisi Center for Religion and American Public Life at Boston College, Alan Wolfe, wrote an article for Washington Monthly, titled "Why Conservatives Can't Govern." In that article, he stated:



Strong words - and obviously written by one with a liberal agenda. But how close to truth are these words? Few can deny the love affair that has been going on between Big Business and the Republican Party lo these many decades. Few can deny the way in which the Republican Party has attempted to strangle Democratic attempts to do, well, just about anything. You may differ, but I have not seen anything close to approaching that coming from the left toward the right.

No corruption here, you say. Hmmm . . . now just exactly what is it that Tom DeLay is doing these days . . . . . ?

Strong words. Words for discussion, seems to me. Anyone want to step up?

you can flip flop lib for con and rep for dem, dem for rep in almost every instance there and not miss a beat and if that gentleman cannot see it from what appears to be his end of the number line, hes blind drunk or so intellectually dishonest he should be in an asylum somewhere doodling on a wall with a crayon.

Wrong.

awesome rebuttal.