Now is the time for a true conservative to emerge as a Presidential candidate

[Psychoblues]

George Bush has proven his ignorance and distain for true conservatism. He is so overwhelmed with the idea of WAR, national deficits, public education, social security entitlements, etc. that he either has forgotten or never believed in any of the tenements of TRUE "Conservatism". I could go on but for the purpose of this discussion I'll leave only the aforementioned as examples of his failures.

Conservatives are never, until now, supportive of WAR. Even Richard Nixon won in 1968 due at least partly to his promise to "get us out of Viet Nam". Hubert Humphrey, the Dem candidate, promised the same but Americans were also desirous of a more fiscally responsible president and they elected the one that promised it, Richard M. Nixon.

I've never known of a Republican President that embraces or even desires national deficits more than Georgie the Shrub. His "trifecta" is something to only amaze us. His handling of it amazes me even more. Pitiful is about the only adjective I can think of. I love my children and grandchildren. Leaving a debt for them to repay in war or taxes is not my idea of responsible government or TRUE conservatism.

Social Security is a program developed and perfected in the '30's by an extraordinally intelligent Democratic President. Even now it produces surpluses, as it was designed to do, and without interference guarantees subsistence for our retired, disabled and otherwise destitute peoples and has done so satisfactorily for over 7 decades now. Radicals like to ridicle it. Us Democrats with long memories recognise it's value and success. Even TRUE conservatives benefit and vote for it's preservation. Even UNTRUE conservatives benefit as well and shortsightedly vote against thier own advantages. Feel the pity?

It was recognised a few hundred years ago that the American access to education would be our key to success and possibly our dominance in the worldwide marketplace. It sure as hell worked for a good hundred years or so. I guess Georgie forgot. His "No Child Left Behind" program is a mockery, in my opinion, of truly publically available education and entices only the truly profitteers of the industry. Ted Kennedy is ashamed of it's implementation and has renounced his original support. True conservatives have done the same.

I realize fully that we have a few "TRUE CONSERVATIVES" that frequent this board. I'd like to hear from a few, at least, of you.

 

[OCA]

Psycho my friend! Hey what brand are we drinking tonight? I'm drinking ouzo 12.

 

[Psychoblues]

Don't misspell my name again, sir Evil. I'll castrate you for much less an infraction of our friendship. It's quite simply "Psycho" or even the expanded "Psychoblues". "Psyco" is just too abreviated for me to dig, are you getting my drift?

Haw, haw, good to see you again, Sir Evil. It's a jamm and I'm glad to see you participate. But other than the accolades I failed to see any discussion? What gives?

 

[mattskramer]

Don't do a Republican Nader and help the Democrats win by pulling votes from Bush and splitting the Republican ticket. There are many things that I don't like about Bush but I'd rather have him win than Kerry.

 

[Psychoblues]

Maybe you're a TRUE conservative and maybe you're not, matt. I won't make that call but I will say that any support of GWB leaves me in great doubt as to your patriotism and knowledge of American values and political manipulation. Tell OCA that I'm drinkin' Busch. Thanks in advance.

 

[Avatar4321]

Funny, I take liberal advice on being a conservative about as much as i take midol. I dont. Haha

This is about as bad as those guy rights groups that have been advertising on the radio how its wrong to ammend the constitution to protect the institution of marriage because its not conservative. When in the heck did you people become experts on being conservatives? Its the libs who want to change the Constitution and they try to change it through the courts. we do it the constitutional way.

 

[mattskramer]

Originally posted by Psychoblues
Maybe you're a TRUE conservative and maybe you're not, matt. I won't make that call but I will say that any support of GWB leaves me in great doubt as to your patriotism and knowledge of American values and political manipulation. Tell OCA that I'm drinkin' Busch. Thanks in advance.

I'm not a "true conservative". I'm a moderate libertarian. In local elections, when I can, I vote in favor of libertarian policies, but in major candidate elections I vote Republican. It may be a compromise and it may be pragmatic. Yet, do you want Kerry to win?

 

[Psychoblues]

No REAL prob with me, Sir Evil, but I disagree to a very large extent. Bush advertised himself as what many would recognise as a "true conservative". His actions prove differently. My point is only to point that out and I think his actions are important, historical and very much meaningful towards worldwide opinion towards the USA. I speak as a patriot and nothing further. Maybe we can get political later on in this conversation, OK?

 

[OCA]

Hey Psycho lets talk Social Security which you brought up. Do you think the mere pittance that you get from Social Security will be enough to survive on in my generation?(i'm 37) At its current rate of growth which usually ranges between .5% to 1% no one without some sort of personal pension or personal savings will be able to survive on that what with the curren raises in prices on everyday neccessities across the board.

Why not let me make the decision to take the money out of my paycheck and put it into an account of my own choosing that would earn a significantly higher tax rate. What could be wrong with that?

I'll answer for ya, because politicians on both sides of the aisle want that money to continue to flow into S.S. so they can use it as sort of a slush fund for whatever pet project they can't find money for. "Oh we can just borrow from S.S. and then pay it back", well it never gets paid back. Let me choose what I want to do with the money that I earn, not the government. And if I fuck up and don't put any aside well i'll have nobody to blame but myself.

 

[Psychoblues]

OK, matt. You're an Ayn Rand type with little care or knowledge of reality or history. Good for you. Vote for whomever you wish, it's your right.

 

[Bern80]

Originally posted by Psychoblues
George Bush has proven his ignorance and distain for true conservatism. He is so overwhelmed with the idea of WAR, national deficits, public education, social security entitlements, etc. that he either has forgotten or never believed in any of the tenements of TRUE "Conservatism". I could go on but for the purpose of this discussion I'll leave only the aforementioned as examples of his failures.

ignorance? uhmm maybe. Disdain? I think not. I would say he is overwhelmed with a war, not the idea of it. If the last sentence is what mean about Bush on these issues then overwhelmed probably isn't the right word.

I've never known of a Republican President that embraces or even desires national deficits more than Georgie the Shrub. His "trifecta" is something to only amaze us. His handling of it amazes me even more. Pitiful is about the only adjective I can think of. I love my children and grandchildren. Leaving a debt for them to repay in war or taxes is not my idea of responsible government or TRUE conservatism.

Unless you know something about what goes on in Bush's head that I don't, I doubt he "desires" a defeicit. The economy and national deficit are a trade off. Because of 9/11 it was more important to stimulate the economy then worry about the defecit. If you fix the defecit by raising taxes, which is a 100% garuntee with Kerry, the economy will suffer. The opposite side is that if you focus on fixing the economy at least by lowering taxes the deficit will grow (duh). I think it is more important to work on the economy at this time.

Social Security is a program developed and perfected in the '30's by an extraordinally intelligent Democratic President. Even now it produces surpluses, as it was designed to do, and without interference guarantees subsistence for our retired, disabled and otherwise destitute peoples and has done so satisfactorily for over 7 decades now. Radicals like to ridicle it. Us Democrats with long memories recognise it's value and success. Even TRUE conservatives benefit and vote for it's preservation. Even UNTRUE conservatives benefit as well and shortsightedly vote against thier own advantages. Feel the pity?

I would never use SS and mastered in the same sentence. It is not prodocing surplusses. I would love to know where you got that tidbit of info. It used to be like 30 workers paid for 1 retiree, nows it 2 to 1. The social security fund will run out sometime in the 2040's. Those are the facts. I don't know how old you are, but I am in my early 20's. if something drastic is not done there will wont be anything there when i retire.

Here are some crazier ideas: Pay for your own damn retirement or don't retire at all.

It was recognised a few hundred years ago that the American access to education would be our key to success and possibly our dominance in the worldwide marketplace. It sure as hell worked for a good hundred years or so. I guess Georgie forgot. His "No Child Left Behind" program is a mockery, in my opinion, of truly publically available education and entices only the truly profitteers of the industry. Ted Kennedy is ashamed of it's implementation and has renounced his original support. True conservatives have done the same.

short of it:Good idea, poor implementation

 

[William Joyce]

I agree.

Bush is an absolute embarassment to conservatism.

Problem is, none of the men currently in office who are true conservatives are running for president.

 

[Psychoblues]

In your case, OCA, I'd say put your cash in your pocket and hold on for dear life, can you dig it?

 

[OCA]

Originally posted by Psychoblues
In your case, OCA, I'd say put your cash in your pocket and hold on for dear life, can you dig it?

Nah Psycho I didn't dig that. Can you expound on that statement for me a little bit bro?

 

[mattskramer]

Originally posted by Psychoblues
OK, matt. You're an Ayn Rand type with little care or knowledge of reality or history. Good for you. Vote for whomever you wish, it's your right.

Your presumptive comment aside, how about answering my straight question? Do you want Kerry to win?

 

[OCA]

Originally posted by William Joyce
I agree.

Bush is an absolute embarassment to conservatism.

Problem is, none of the men currently in office who are true conservatives are running for president.

Willie whats your definition of a true conservative?

 

[Psychoblues]

Who the heck is willy?

 

[Bern80]

yo psycho, i did what you asked, let the debate commence.

long p.s.
ideologically there are few rep or dems that are either true lib or true conserv. They just aren't at the same pts on the spectrum.

 

[Psychoblues]

matt, considering that Kerry is a DLC Democrat and the DLC is an organization that promotes industrial/residential cooperation and tends to embrace the proper reconciliation of each of their grievances and that the shrub domonstrates no interest at all between them, why yes, I do support Kerry. Any other questions?

 

[mattskramer]

Originally posted by Psychoblues
matt, considering that Kerry is a DLC Democrat and the DLC is an organization that promotes industrial/residential cooperation and tends to embrace the proper reconciliation of each of their grievances and that the shrub domonstrates no interest at all between them, why yes, I do support Kerry. Any other questions?

The Democrats also support raising minimum wage and nanny-state policies to a greater degree than do Republicans. I disagree with your view that the DLC Democrats promote industrial/residential cooperation and tend to embrace the proper reconciliation of each of their grievances. All things considered, I prefer Republicans over Democrats. Anyway, thanks for giving me a straight answer. We agree to disagree.