Why Conservatives Can't Govern

[Sallow]

ORLY?

I thought it was you "open minded" Fabian socialist/progressive types who looked at the world in all sorts of varying shades of gray, rather than pedantic Hegelian black-and-white polarities.

Well, guess I learn something new everyday.

If you do, why are you still so stupid?

Not stupid.

A Corporate Quisling. That would make him delusional. Just like Ayn Rand.

 

[Oddball]

ORLY?

I thought it was you "open minded" Fabian socialist/progressive types who looked at the world in all sorts of varying shades of gray, rather than pedantic Hegelian black-and-white polarities.

Well, guess I learn something new everyday.

If you do, why are you still so stupid?

I'm not the dope who combined strawman, stereotype and non sequitur, to come with the brain dead "conservatives = hate people" equation.

Please, grace us with more of your idiot savant-ness.

 

[Synthaholic]

Faulty premise: Gubmint is there to solve our problems.

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

Oh, I don't know. I would view my house on fire as a problem, as I am sure you would if yours was on fire. And who comes to put it out? And who pays the paychecks of those firemen?

Similarly, I would view a burglar in my house as a problem. I would view being unable to drive from Los Angeles to, well, anywhere, on a paved road as a problem. I would view an invasion by a foreign enemy as a problem. And who is it that solves all of our problems like that?

I think you get the idea here.

Government is most certainly there to solve our problems. What are you thinking about here?

The issue may be that conservatives and liberals have a different view of what constitutes a 'problem'. I see law enforcement and essential provisions as a 'service' to be provided by government through taxation. I'll pay for the provision of essential services. I won't pay for you getting yourself into the shit and expecting someone to bail you out.

Yet, that's exactly what Republicans did with TARP.

Maybe you can explain why there hasn't been a consistent, unwavering call from Conservatives to prosecute the bankers who caused the financial meltdown.

Any thoughts?

 

[Synthaholic]

Faulty premise: Gubmint is there to solve our problems.

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

Oh, I don't know. I would view my house on fire as a problem, as I am sure you would if yours was on fire. And who comes to put it out? And who pays the paychecks of those firemen?

Similarly, I would view a burglar in my house as a problem. I would view being unable to drive from Los Angeles to, well, anywhere, on a paved road as a problem. I would view an invasion by a foreign enemy as a problem. And who is it that solves all of our problems like that?

I think you get the idea.

Government is most certainly here to solve our problems.

the federal government controls fire departments? Really? And roads are in the constitution as an enumerated power. Next.

Where, specifically and exactly? Thanks in advance.

 

[Sallow]

Oh, I don't know. I would view my house on fire as a problem, as I am sure you would if yours was on fire. And who comes to put it out? And who pays the paychecks of those firemen?

Similarly, I would view a burglar in my house as a problem. I would view being unable to drive from Los Angeles to, well, anywhere, on a paved road as a problem. I would view an invasion by a foreign enemy as a problem. And who is it that solves all of our problems like that?

I think you get the idea.

Government is most certainly here to solve our problems.

the federal government controls fire departments? Really? And roads are in the constitution as an enumerated power. Next.

Where, specifically and exactly? Thanks in advance.

Under the powers of congress:

Section 8 - Powers of Congress

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

 

[Synthaholic]

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.

HEY GEORGE!!!!!! What is your view on GE being in Obama's pocket and being permitted NOT to pay their taxes this year?

Re-phrase your question, only this time with honesty.

 

[Big Fitz]

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?

There's a United States Fire Department???

Who knew?

 

[Synthaholic]

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.

It's telling how quickly you resort to ad hominem attacks when you can no longer defend your position.

I eagerly await the barrage of "libturd"/"Socialist"/"Commie" that is certain to blurt from your fingers.

 

[Synthaholic]

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.

Well, that didn't take long!

 

[Synthaholic]

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.

Prove that.

 

[Synthaholic]

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?

You cannot govern well if you hate government. And since government is we the people and Republicans hate we the people, this is pretty much a no brainer.

They only seem to hate government when the Democrats are running it. They have no problem with government when they are able to use it to enrich themselves and their friends.

 

[Two Thumbs]

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?

I can easily swap con for lib and lib for con. swap big biz with unions or welfare. swap shrink gov that helps to grow gov that doesn't (that's not it's job, this guy has a slave mentality)

In the end, you either support something you cannot get rid of [governemnt] or support something you can [biz]

Always always always remember;
If you don't want to deal with a corupt company, don't buy thier product.
If you don't want to deal with a corrupt government, your fucked, unless you want to move.


"You can't beat City Hall" is a very old saying for a reason

 

[Synthaholic]

You cannot govern well if you hate government. And since government is we the people and Republicans hate we the people, this is pretty much a no brainer.

Nice of someone with no brain to come in and make that all nice and black-and-white for us all.

Another one!

You really have nothing substantial to counter with, do you?

 

[Skull Pilot]

Conservatives can't govern and liberals don't govern they mandate.

HMMM decisions decisions.

 

[Two Thumbs]

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 cannot govern well if you hate government. And since government is we the people and Republicans hate we the people, this is pretty much a no brainer.

They only seem to hate government when the Democrats are running it. They have no problem with government when they are able to use it to enrich themselves and their friends.

The both of you are very uninformed, and lack critical thinking to the point you would rather we have crushing government that is the greatest burden upon us, keep growing until it breaks the country.

 

[Synthaholic]

ORLY?

I thought it was you "open minded" Fabian socialist/progressive types who looked at the world in all sorts of varying shades of gray, rather than pedantic Hegelian black-and-white polarities.

Well, guess I learn something new everyday.

I've seen no evidence. Let's try it out: did you learn that there has never been a country formed by business? Or have you come up with an example that proves it false?

 

[Synthaholic]

the federal government controls fire departments? Really? And roads are in the constitution as an enumerated power. Next.

Where, specifically and exactly? Thanks in advance.

Under the powers of congress:

Section 8 - Powers of Congress

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

OK - what is the definition of a "post road"?

 

[Oddball]

ORLY?

I thought it was you "open minded" Fabian socialist/progressive types who looked at the world in all sorts of varying shades of gray, rather than pedantic Hegelian black-and-white polarities.

Well, guess I learn something new everyday.

I've seen no evidence. Let's try it out: did you learn that there has never been a country formed by business? Or have you come up with an example that proves it false?

Sorry, but I don't consider the terms "nation/country" and "gubmint" interchangeable.

That semantic failure is your problem, not mine.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Government is most certainly here to solve our problems.

No. Government is here to protect your rights.

 

[Oddball]

You cannot govern well if you hate government. And since government is we the people and Republicans hate we the people, this is pretty much a no brainer.

Nice of someone with no brain to come in and make that all nice and black-and-white for us all.

Another one!

You really have nothing substantial to counter with, do you?

I have plenty...But you need to give me something of substance to work with in the first place....Which would likely leave you our of the hunt as well.