Conservatism...

[Bullypulpit]

For the past few weeks, I've been examining the writings of some of what might be considered the "Founding Fathers" of madern American conservatism.

In 1959, James Burnham, a philosophy professor at NYU and co-founder of <i>The National Review</i>, enumerated some of the qualities that defined conservatism, such as diffusing the power of government by adherence to the separation of powers and system of checks and balances, as laid out in the Constitution, a rejection of utopian solutions to social ills, the encourage ment of private enterprise, fiscal responsibility and so on. I found myself in agreement with many of the qualities he listed.

Barry Goldwater defined conservatism as "...social, economic and political practices based on the successes of the past...", essentially drawing upon the wisdom of the past rather than its worst excesses. He also described the conscience of the conservative was "...pricked by anyone or any action which debases human dignity...". He also held that "Politics is the art of achieving the maximumamount of freedom for insdividuals that is consistent with social order." Again, I have no disagreement with these definitions of conservatism.

More currently, George Will wrote that "...since the rise of nation-states and parliaments, a preoccupation of Western political thought has been the problem of defining and confining executive power..." In other words preventing of the accumulation of too much power into too few hands. Once again, I have no disagreement.

What I see currently defined as conservatism is little more than authoritarianism. We have Congress controlled by conservative Republicans which excludes input from anyone out side their cabal, as evidenced by the number of closed door committee hearings which exclude Democrats. We have an administration obsessed with secrecy, not so much to fight the "war on terror" as to avoid oversight of its actions. This same administration also seems bent on establishing a unitary executive branch, answerabe to no one. The "conservatives" currently in power have abandoned even the pretense of adhering to any sort of fiscal responsibility and limited government. The politics of fear are played by conservatives daily. Politics which have no place in traditional conservative thought or a democracy. I could go on, but you get the point, I'm sure, by now.

None of the qualities listed were ever a part of the modern conservative movement in America at its inception, after W.W. II. Nor are they consistent with the framework for the Republic laid out in The Declaration of Independence or The Constitution. They are, howerver, consistent with the characteristics of authoritarianism, which is itself just a short step away from despotism.

 

[Annie]

For the past few weeks, I've been examining the writings of some of what might be considered the "Founding Fathers" of madern American conservatism.

In 1959, James Burnham, a philosophy professor at NYU and co-founder of <i>The National Review</i>, enumerated some of the qualities that defined conservatism, such as diffusing the power of government by adherence to the separation of powers and system of checks and balances, as laid out in the Constitution, a rejection of utopian solutions to social ills, the encourage ment of private enterprise, fiscal responsibility and so on. I found myself in agreement with many of the qualities he listed.

Barry Goldwater defined conservatism as "...social, economic and political practices based on the successes of the past...", essentially drawing upon the wisdom of the past rather than its worst excesses. He also described the conscience of the conservative was "...pricked by anyone or any action which debases human dignity...". He also held that "Politics is the art of achieving the maximumamount of freedom for insdividuals that is consistent with social order." Again, I have no disagreement with these definitions of conservatism.

More currently, George Will wrote that "...since the rise of nation-states and parliaments, a preoccupation of Western political thought has been the problem of defining and confining executive power..." In other words preventing of the accumulation of too much power into too few hands. Once again, I have no disagreement.

What I see currently defined as conservatism is little more than authoritarianism. We have Congress controlled by conservative Republicans which excludes input from anyone out side their cabal, as evidenced by the number of closed door committee hearings which exclude Democrats. We have an administration obsessed with secrecy, not so much to fight the "war on terror" as to avoid oversight of its actions. This same administration also seems bent on establishing a unitary executive branch, answerabe to no one. The "conservatives" currently in power have abandoned even the pretense of adhering to any sort of fiscal responsibility and limited government. The politics of fear are played by conservatives daily. Politics which have no place in traditional conservative thought or a democracy. I could go on, but you get the point, I'm sure, by now.

None of the qualities listed were ever a part of the modern conservative movement in America at its inception, after W.W. II. Nor are they consistent with the framework for the Republic laid out in The Declaration of Independence or The Constitution. They are, howerver, consistent with the characteristics of authoritarianism, which is itself just a short step away from despotism.

Bully, spell it out. Give the Bush examples you've 'researched'.

 

[Avatar4321]

tell me. Why should we listen to the losers? Why should we listen to the ideas that have been repeatedly tried and failed while the Democrats were in power?

 

[Mr.Conley]

tell me. Why should we listen to the losers? Why should we listen to the ideas that have been repeatedly tried and failed while the Democrats were in power?

So the only responce you can come up with is that democrats suck? Lame.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Bully, spell it out. Give the Bush examples you've 'researched'.

It should not be neccessary to spell out what you, an individual of wit and perception, already know. You need but look to see it...

 

[Gunny]

tell me. Why should we listen to the losers? Why should we listen to the ideas that have been repeatedly tried and failed while the Democrats were in power?

Well, that's not really being fair, since they were promised, but rarely tried. It's just a general, well-known assumption that if the Dems have their hands on it, it has "Loser" written all over it.

 

[Bullypulpit]

tell me. Why should we listen to the losers? Why should we listen to the ideas that have been repeatedly tried and failed while the Democrats were in power?

You're not paying attention. Neither Burnham nor Goldwater nor Will were, or are Democrats...Republicans and conservatives all. Read the works of the founders of the conservative movment in the 50's and early 60's. Their views have little in common with the bellicose, bloviating, overblown and hysterical rhetoric that passes for conservative thought now.

 

[KarlMarx]

What I see currently defined as conservatism is little more than authoritarianism. We have Congress controlled by conservative Republicans which excludes input from anyone out side their cabal, as evidenced by the number of closed door committee hearings which exclude Democrats. We have an administration obsessed with secrecy, not so much to fight the "war on terror" as to avoid oversight of its actions. This same administration also seems bent on establishing a unitary executive branch, answerabe to no one. The "conservatives" currently in power have abandoned even the pretense of adhering to any sort of fiscal responsibility and limited government. The politics of fear are played by conservatives daily. Politics which have no place in traditional conservative thought or a democracy. I could go on, but you get the point, I'm sure, by now.

First of all Bully, the Democrats didn't allow Republicans much say when they were in power, either. So, I guess what goes around comes around. That's the way it is with government, the party in power isn't going to give power to the other party, especially when the voters have given them a mandate for change.

I have to agree with you on the fiscal responsibility and limited government part. I'm pretty disappointed, too. However, for Democrats to be accusing the Republicans of fiscal irresponsibility and for expanding the role of government is just brazen hypocrisy. The Democrats have done their share of reckless spending and are primarily responsible to a large part for the expansion of government.

Your claim that the Republicans play the politics of fear is something that the Democrats seem to be very guilty of. Every time Republicans in Congress try to reform something, it is the Democrats that are out in the streets with the bullhorns. The Democrats played on the fears of senior citizens to get reform of Social Security defeated. The Patriot Act was passed by both Democrats and Republicans almost unanimously, then the Democrats who voted for it turn around and criticize it. The lack of oversight that you mention is a non sequitur. If you are referring to FISA, the secret wiretapping program, that has been in effect since the Carter Administration. In addition FISA is overseen by the FISA court. There are cases where the executive branch has authority to authorize eavesdropping on agents of foreign powers for the purposes of national defense. Since the executive branch is responsible for the defense of the country, they do not require Congress's permission in this area. If that were the case, the D-Day invasion would have required passage of both houses of Congress before we could invade Europe.

None of the qualities listed were ever a part of the modern conservative movement in America at its inception, after W.W. II. Nor are they consistent with the framework for the Republic laid out in The Declaration of Independence or The Constitution. They are, however, consistent with the characteristics of authoritarianism, which is itself just a short step away from despotism.

I'm sure, Bully, if I got my wish and saw limited government and fiscal responsibility reign in the halls of Washington DC (which will be the same day that Miss USA decides she wants to date me) that the biggest critics will be the very Democratic party you seem to be so fond of. Limited government means dismantling of many federal programs starting with PBS, the NEA, Amtrak and many social programs that were part of the war on poverty from the Johnson days which have had little, to no effect on the problems they were supposed to solve. Fiscal responsibility would mean no funding for a lot of programs, too.

 

[jillian]

First of all Bully, the Democrats didn't allow Republicans much say when they were in power, either. So, I guess what goes around comes around. That's the way it is with government, the party in power isn't going to give power to the other party, especially when the voters have given them a mandate for change.

That's neither fair nor accurate. Some of our greatest achievements as a society were bi-partisan, like the civil rights act of 1965.

I have to agree with you on the fiscal responsibility and limited government part. I'm pretty disappointed, too. However, for Democrats to be accusing the Republicans of fiscal irresponsibility and for expanding the role of government is just brazen hypocrisy. The Democrats have done their share of reckless spending and are primarily responsible to a large part for the expansion of government.

Also untrue. Our government under this current administration has grown. It was reduced in size while Clinton was president. The only difference is that this admin has chosen to grow government so that it interferes in our individual choices and liberties and for the benefit of corporations. At least under democrats government was seen as a means of easing, if not solving, some of our greatest ills.

Your claim that the Republicans play the politics of fear is something that the Democrats seem to be very guilty of.

Again, untrue. If you look at current Republican politics, they attempt to conjure bugaboos like aliens flooding over borders, restriction of civil liberties through cries of "oh no! the gays are going to be married" and "eek, there are terrorists everywhere so you have to vote for us". Seems to me THAT is the politics of fear and hatred.

Every time Republicans in Congress try to reform something, it is the Democrats that are out in the streets with the bullhorns.

And what have they tried to "reform"? Social security? Medicare? No...they haven't tried to reform them, they've tried to destroy them. And yes, people should, and rightfully did, oppose those absurdist policies.

The Democrats played on the fears of senior citizens to get reform of Social Security defeated.

The far right has hated social security since it was passed under Roosevelt. All of us knew that they were just trying to effectuate the goal of its destruction.

The Patriot Act was passed by both Democrats and Republicans almost unanimously, then the Democrats who voted for it turn around and criticize it.

It was intended as a temporary measure. And it became clear that it was nothing but a power grab to get around constitutional means of surveillance. If you recall, the tone after 9/11 was such that, politically, no one could vote against it.... Heck, Karl Rove-boy even morphed Max Kleland's face with Bin Laden's because he voted against it. And Rove isn't fit to lick Kleland's boots.

The lack of oversight that you mention is a non sequitur. If you are referring to FISA, the secret wiretapping program, that has been in effect since the Carter Administration. In addition FISA is overseen by the FISA court.

And? What in that statement gives Bush the right to avoid oversight and the FISA Courts?

There are cases where the executive branch has authority to authorize eavesdropping on agents of foreign powers for the purposes of national defense.

Yes...but not on OUR citizens, which is what Baby Bush did.

Since the executive branch is responsible for the defense of the country, they do not require Congress's permission in this area. If that were the case, the D-Day invasion would have required passage of both houses of Congress before we could invade Europe.

Not a good analogy as the violations of the FISA law have nothing to do with the type of circumstances you raise.

I'm sure, Bully, if I got my wish and saw limited government and fiscal responsibility reign in the halls of Washington DC (which will be the same day that Miss USA decides she wants to date me) that the biggest critics will be the very Democratic party you seem to be so fond of. Limited government means dismantling of many federal programs starting with PBS, the NEA, Amtrak and many social programs that were part of the war on poverty from the Johnson days which have had little, to no effect on the problems they were supposed to solve. Fiscal responsibility would mean no funding for a lot of programs, too.

This government has spent money like a bunch of drunken sailors (Remember the bridge to no where in Alaska? not to mention the trillions being spent on Bush's war of choice in Iraq). There is nothing fiscally responsible about this current crop of republicans.

 

[Mr.Conley]

irst of all Bully, the Democrats didn't allow Republicans much say when they were in power, either. So, I guess what goes around comes around. That's the way it is with government, the party in power isn't going to give power to the other party, especially when the voters have given them a mandate for change.

I have to agree with you on the fiscal responsibility and limited government part. I'm pretty disappointed, too. However, for Democrats to be accusing the Republicans of fiscal irresponsibility and for expanding the role of government is just brazen hypocrisy. The Democrats have done their share of reckless spending and are primarily responsible to a large part for the expansion of government.

Your claim that the Republicans play the politics of fear is something that the Democrats seem to be very guilty of. Every time Republicans in Congress try to reform something, it is the Democrats that are out in the streets with the bullhorns. The Democrats played on the fears of senior citizens to get reform of Social Security defeated. The Patriot Act was passed by both Democrats and Republicans almost unanimously, then the Democrats who voted for it turn around and criticize it. The lack of oversight that you mention is a non sequitur. If you are referring to FISA, the secret wiretapping program, that has been in effect since the Carter Administration. In addition FISA is overseen by the FISA court. There are cases where the executive branch has authority to authorize eavesdropping on agents of foreign powers for the purposes of national defense. Since the executive branch is responsible for the defense of the country, they do not require Congress's permission in this area. If that were the case, the D-Day invasion would have required passage of both houses of Congress before we could invade Europe.

So let me get this straight, you're okay with the Republicans because you hate the Democrats?

 

[KarlMarx]

That's neither fair nor accurate. Some of our greatest achievements as a society were bi-partisan, like the civil rights act of 1965.

That is beside the point. When the Democrats were in control of Congress, they did the same thing. I think the reason they complain is that they want to be in control. Another thing, what about those filibusters?

Also untrue. Our government under this current administration has grown. It was reduced in size while Clinton was president. The only difference is that this admin has chosen to grow government so that it interferes in our individual choices and liberties and for the benefit of corporations. At least under democrats government was seen as a means of easing, if not solving, some of our greatest ills.

Democrats are the ones who expanded government. I can take you back to the days of FDR and his New Deal. I can point out that the Johnson Administration did the same with its Great Society. If government was downsized, I'd say it was during Reagan's Administration, not Clinton's. Actually, if you recall, Clinton and his wife wanted National Health Care, which meant greatly expanding government.

I'd like to know how this government interferes with individual liberties at the expense of corporations?

And just how did Democrats solve our greatest ills?

Again, untrue. If you look at current Republican politics, they attempt to conjure bugaboos like aliens flooding over borders, restriction of civil liberties through cries of "oh no! the gays are going to be married" and "eek, there are terrorists everywhere so you have to vote for us". Seems to me THAT is the politics of fear and hatred.

Illegal aliens have been a problem for years, this administration finally tried to do something about it, but in all the wrong ways. The issue of gay marriage was raised when the Massachusetts Supreme Court made it an issue, not the Bush Administration. And again, gay marriage is not a civil liberty, as is the right to vote, the right to a free press. It is to be decided at the state level per the Constitution.

And what have they tried to "reform"? Social security? Medicare? No...they haven't tried to reform them, they've tried to destroy them. And yes, people should, and rightfully did, oppose those absurdist policies.

Do I have to explain Social Security to you? Social Security is a "pay as you go" program, no money is set aside earning interest. The current beneficiaries are being supported by those who are contributing to the system. This works only if the population continues to increase from generation to generation. But that isn't the case. The baby boomers far out number the following generations. That means, in order to keep the same level of benefits, workers in the future will be required to contribute more and more of the salaries. The reform measures would have set aside part of the revenues to the system in interest earning accounts or in investments. The compounding of interest alone would have amounted to hundreds of billions of dollars.

This is already being done in the private sector. Large corporations, e.g. Lockheed Martin and IBM are moving to a system where the defined benefit pensioni is becoming a thing of the past. Instead the corporations are replacing those pensions with increased matching contributions to employees' 401(k) plans. I should also add that GM's financial woes are due almost entirely to their pension plan. They borrowed money from the pension plan in order to expand the business and now they don't have enough money to pay it back. The government has been doing the same thing with Social Security.

The far right has hated social security since it was passed under Roosevelt. All of us knew that they were just trying to effectuate the goal of its destruction.

Social Security was not a good idea. First of all, it is a tax that you have to pay a income tax on. I thought double taxation was a bad thing. Secondly, it is truly a tax break for the rich. Did you know that Social Security is withheld only on the first $90K of a person's earnings? Talk about a tax break for the rich!

It was intended as a temporary measure. And it became clear that it was nothing but a power grab to get around constitutional means of surveillance. If you recall, the tone after 9/11 was such that, politically, no one could vote against it.... Heck, Karl Rove-boy even morphed Max Kleland's face with Bin Laden's because he voted against it. And Rove isn't fit to lick Kleland's boots.

The Patriot Act served to dismantle the wall erected between domestic law enforcement and our intelligence agencies by the Clinton administration. In fact, the P.A. required warrants just as before, with a judge issuing them and periodic reporting to the judge if the need to continue them arose.

And? What in that statement gives Bush the right to avoid oversight and the FISA Courts?

And... Section II of the Constitution gives the Executive Branch the power to defend the country, not the Congress. These aren't criminals that are being surveilled, but foreign agents. BTW... what's with the power grab by Congress? Would you feel better if Congress had to debate and approve every military operation? Would you feel better if in a combat situation everyone was read their rights beforehand? You have "defending the country" confused with "criminal law", the two are totally different and the Constitution makes that distinction.

Yes...but not on OUR citizens, which is what Baby Bush did.

Yes, the Rosenbergs were OUR citizens too and the Truman Administration was eavesdropping on them without warrants too. Why? Because those two citizens were communicating with agents of the Soviet government. That's the point you totally ignore.

Not a good analogy as the violations of the FISA law have nothing to do with the type of circumstances you raise.

It still falls under the umbrella of defending the country.

This government has spent money like a bunch of drunken sailors (Remember the bridge to no where in Alaska? not to mention the trillions being spent on Bush's war of choice in Iraq). There is nothing fiscally responsible about this current crop of republicans.

Did I claim they were? BTW, we have not spent "trillions" on the war in Iraq. Considering what is now going on in the Middle East, it is actually a good thing that at least Saddam is no longer in power. It would have been almost certain that he would have been involved in the recent problems with Hezzbollah and the Israelis. If you feel that Iraq was a bad idea, you probably should warm up to the idea of paying a lot more for gasoline. Every time tensions increase in the Middle East, the price goes up. Have you noticed that Iraq is not involved in this latest conflict? All the better! Syria and Iraq were both Baathist states, it is a certainty that Saddam would have gotten involved.

 

[red states rule]

Without Pres Bush and the Republican Congress we would not have:

tax cuts

a shrinking deficit

a growing economy

a War on terror where we kill the terrorists instead of filing court papers against them

Supreme Court Justices who interpret law and do not make up law from the bench

 

[Bullypulpit]

Without Pres Bush and the Republican Congress we would not have:

tax cuts

a shrinking deficit

a growing economy

a War on terror where we kill the terrorists instead of filing court papers against them

Supreme Court Justices who interpret law and do not make up law from the bench

Are you cut from the same cloth as Burnham or Goldwater? Are you a conservative by their definition? Or are you simply one who will unquestioningly believe or do whatever a titular authority figure tells you? All evidence, in your case, points to the latter. Examine your views, then decide if you're simply an unquestioning follower willing to shirk the responsibilities living in the Republic demands...Or are one who would uphold the vision of the founding fathers, not only of this nation, but also of the conservative movement you claim to be a part of.

 

[Gunny]

Are you cut from the same cloth as Burnham or Goldwater? Are you a conservative by their definition? Or are you simply one who will unquestioningly believe or do whatever a titular authority figure tells you? All evidence, in your case, points to the latter. Examine your views, then decide if you're simply an unquestioning follower willing to shirk the responsibilities living in the Republic demands...Or are one who would uphold the vision of the founding fathers, not only of this nation, but also of the conservative movement you claim to be a part of.

Are YOU a true liberal in the pre-Jimmy Carter, normal human being mold? I think not. You're a leftist, blindly flailing at anything the right does as wrong. I don't think you give any clear thought to any issue beyond that.

Screw the founding fathers and their vision. They're dead.

 

[Mr.Conley]

Screw the founding fathers and their vision. They're dead.

But I thought we were supposed to interpret the Constitution in stasis, as the Founding Father's intended it to be written (the fact that the Founding Father's held wildly divergent interpretations of the Constitution notwithstanding). Since, according to you, we have to interpret the Constitution only from our understanding of their understanding, don't you find it important to understand them and their vision?

 

[red states rule]

But I thought we were supposed to interpret the Constitution in stasis, as the Founding Father's intended it to be written (the fact that the Founding Father's held wildly divergent interpretations of the Constitution notwithstanding). Since, according to you, we have to interpret the Constitution only from our understanding of their understanding, don't you find it important to understand them and their vision?

I love how the libs "interpret" the US Constitution

Still waiting for any lib to tell me where in the Constitution abortion, and gay marrage are approved as consitutional rights.

The libs say the US Constitution can be shaped and bent to fit todays issues - well so is a pretzel

 

[Gunny]

But I thought we were supposed to interpret the Constitution in stasis, as the Founding Father's intended it to be written (the fact that the Founding Father's held wildly divergent interpretations of the Constitution notwithstanding). Since, according to you, we have to interpret the Constitution only from our understanding of their understanding, don't you find it important to understand them and their vision?

If we interpret the US Constitution based on the mores and evils of the day in which the Founding Fathers lived, the left would be seriously screwed.

Ironically, while it is the left who revere the Founding Fathers in word, they are also the ones to remove all context and/or intent from the law in order to frame new, literal definitions that suit their causes. It's made a mockery of our laws, and includes intent only selectively, or in a skewed version.

And I don't know where this comes from:

Since, according to you, we have to interpret the Constitution only from our understanding of their understanding, don't you find it important to understand them and their vision?

I think reading and comprehending the law, as written, in the context in which it is written is what is important. Selective comprehension of the law and/or intent is a travesty, and it is THAT practice that I responded to. Quoting select Founding Fathers out of context is the basis for several liberal arguments.

 

[Bullypulpit]

First of all Bully, the Democrats didn't allow Republicans much say when they were in power, either. So, I guess what goes around comes around. That's the way it is with government, the party in power isn't going to give power to the other party, especially when the voters have given them a mandate for change.

Indeed, and clearly shows the corrosive and corrupting influence of power held too long by too few. One must bear in mind, however, that the Republicans achived a level of arrogance and heavy-handedness in less than ten years that which exceeds anything the Democrats ever achieved in 40 years of power.

I have to agree with you on the fiscal responsibility and limited government part. I'm pretty disappointed, too. However, for Democrats to be accusing the Republicans of fiscal irresponsibility and for expanding the role of government is just brazen hypocrisy. The Democrats have done their share of reckless spending and are primarily responsible to a large part for the expansion of government.

Lest you forget, under Goatboy's administration, Democrats eliminated the budget deficit and left the nation with a $230 billion budget surplus in fiscal year 2000. For fiscal 2006, America has the fourth largest budget deficit in its history, $296 billion. Deficits are irrelevant to the current crop of Republicans, an abandonment of one of the core planks of a truly conservative platform...Fiscal responsibility.

Your claim that the Republicans play the politics of fear is something that the Democrats seem to be very guilty of. Every time Republicans in Congress try to reform something, it is the Democrats that are out in the streets with the bullhorns. The Democrats played on the fears of senior citizens to get reform of Social Security defeated. The Patriot Act was passed by both Democrats and Republicans almost unanimously, then the Democrats who voted for it turn around and criticize it. The lack of oversight that you mention is a non sequitur. If you are referring to FISA, the secret wiretapping program, that has been in effect since the Carter Administration. In addition FISA is overseen by the FISA court. There are cases where the executive branch has authority to authorize eavesdropping on agents of foreign powers for the purposes of national defense. Since the executive branch is responsible for the defense of the country, they do not require Congress's permission in this area. If that were the case, the D-Day invasion would have required passage of both houses of Congress before we could invade Europe.

If you recall, it was Chimpy playing the fear card on this one, claiming that Social Security would be bankrupt by 2042. The numbers, however, paint a different picture. In 2042, projections show that there will be enough money coming into the social security fund to pay 75-80% of the promised benefits, still providing higgher payments to seniors even in inflation adjusted dollars. Chimpy's plan would benefit only the Wall Street brokerage houses managing the "private accounts".

I'm sure, Bully, if I got my wish and saw limited government and fiscal responsibility reign in the halls of Washington DC (which will be the same day that Miss USA decides she wants to date me) that the biggest critics will be the very Democratic party you seem to be so fond of. Limited government means dismantling of many federal programs starting with PBS, the NEA, Amtrak and many social programs that were part of the war on poverty from the Johnson days which have had little, to no effect on the problems they were supposed to solve. Fiscal responsibility would mean no funding for a lot of programs, too.

And that's what it's really all about, isn't it...The Republicans have never forgiven the Democrats, in the person of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, for the New Deal that lifted America from the Great Depression. They never forgave Lyndon Johnson, treacherous ward-heeler that he was, for his Great Society initiatives. They forgot the progressive principles this nation was founded upon, and will cheerfully do whatever it takes to dismantle these programs, regardless of who or how many are injured in the process. They are willing to sacrifice their own core principles and all of America on the altar of their bitterness.

Let American conservatives hold to those core values enumerated by the founders of their movement, and I would have some common cause with them. As it stands now, though, they have wholly abandoned those virtues, and are unworthy of anything more than contempt.

 

[dilloduck]

Indeed, and clearly shows the corrosive and corrupting influence of power held too long by too few. One must bear in mind, however, that the Republicans achived a level of arrogance and heavy-handedness in less than ten years that which exceeds anything the Democrats ever achieved in 40 years of power.



Lest you forget, under Goatboy's administration, Democrats eliminated the budget deficit and left the nation with a $230 billion budget surplus in fiscal year 2000. For fiscal 2006, America has the fourth largest budget deficit in its history, $296 billion. Deficits are irrelevant to the current crop of Republicans, an abandonment of one of the core planks of a truly conservative platform...Fiscal responsibility.



If you recall, it was Chimpy playing the fear card on this one, claiming that Social Security would be bankrupt by 2042. The numbers, however, paint a different picture. In 2042, projections show that there will be enough money coming into the social security fund to pay 75-80% of the promised benefits, still providing higgher payments to seniors even in inflation adjusted dollars. Chimpy's plan would benefit only the Wall Street brokerage houses managing the "private accounts".




And that's what it's really all about, isn't it...The Republicans have never forgiven the Democrats, in the person of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, for the New Deal that lifted America from the Great Depression. They never forgave Lyndon Johnson, treacherous ward-heeler that he was, for his Great Society initiatives. They forgot the progressive principles this nation was founded upon, and will cheerfully do whatever it takes to dismantle these programs, regardless of who or how many are injured in the process. They are willing to sacrifice their own core principles and all of America on the altar of their bitterness.

Let American conservatives hold to those core values enumerated by the founders of their movement, and I would have some common cause with them. As it stands now, though, they have wholly abandoned those virtues, and are unworthy of anything more than contempt.

I doubt there are any 100% "pure" conservatives out there, Bully so you probably will be bitching for the rest of your life. When we vote we vote for people who are most llkely to do what we want. Not people who do everything we want all the time.

 

[Gunny]

Indeed, and clearly shows the corrosive and corrupting influence of power held too long by too few. One must bear in mind, however, that the Republicans achived a level of arrogance and heavy-handedness in less than ten years that which exceeds anything the Democrats ever achieved in 40 years of power.

Pure partisan bullshit. Nothing but speculation on your part to suit your agenda.

Lest you forget, under Goatboy's administration, Democrats eliminated the budget deficit and left the nation with a $230 billion budget surplus in fiscal year 2000. For fiscal 2006, America has the fourth largest budget deficit in its history, $296 billion. Deficits are irrelevant to the current crop of Republicans, an abandonment of one of the core planks of a truly conservative platform...Fiscal responsibility.

And wasn't that great? I couldn't even afford to go to a movie after he got finished with my income. I merely existed to pay bills. Made me feel a whole lot better he could balance out some numbers on paper.

If you recall, it was Chimpy playing the fear card on this one, claiming that Social Security would be bankrupt by 2042. The numbers, however, paint a different picture. In 2042, projections show that there will be enough money coming into the social security fund to pay 75-80% of the promised benefits, still providing higgher payments to seniors even in inflation adjusted dollars. Chimpy's plan would benefit only the Wall Street brokerage houses managing the "private accounts".

The real problem with you lefties on this is Bush hijacked Social Security reform from you libs, who have been squealing the verysame, "it's going to go broke" for decades.

His plan would have benefitted anyone who is capable of opening a savings account, IRA, or purchasing mutual funds since all of the above earn at a better rate than SS increases.


And that's what it's really all about, isn't it...The Republicans have never forgiven the Democrats, in the person of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, for the New Deal that lifted America from the Great Depression. They never forgave Lyndon Johnson, treacherous ward-heeler that he was, for his Great Society initiatives. They forgot the progressive principles this nation was founded upon, and will cheerfully do whatever it takes to dismantle these programs, regardless of who or how many are injured in the process. They are willing to sacrifice their own core principles and all of America on the altar of their bitterness.

Let American conservatives hold to those core values enumerated by the founders of their movement, and I would have some common cause with them. As it stands now, though, they have wholly abandoned those virtues, and are unworthy of anything more than contempt.

Pleae DO get over yourself. The people of this Nation voted the Dems out of power because they were incompetent, and not living up to their promises. People get tired of the Dem POV that ALL progress must be made by increasing taxes.

When Dems stand for exactly nothing more than being for anything that goes against the Republicans, somebody might actually listen to them.

But you keep on being a typical Dem/liberal. Sitting in your corner lashing blindly out at anything that doesn't agree with you or what you want to do is what we have come to expect.