Politically, I find most Liberals intolerant of other's viewpoints.

[The T]

LOL...

Yet ANOTHER trotting out of the ethereal reference to the 'true Conservative'... and as is typical, this specter is found stumbling around without the head, otherwise necessary to know who it is...

Tell us Professor... what is a "true Conservative" and correlate your would-be understanding with those who you feel wrongly profess to be such; proving the distinction.

It shouldn't take too long, or require much effort; given the implied understanding which you possess, on which the above assertion rests...

The usual bit:

-Free markets Check
-Proper spending as prescribed by the Constitution Check
-Individual liberty (which means YES, David and Josh can get marriage benefits and sign a marriage contract and a bunch of students in a dorm can smoke pot at a party without worrying about getting in trouble [aka it's illegal]).Ahh, so you're confusing Conservatism with Libertarianism... LOL... Fatal flaw...
-noninterventionist or realpolitik foreign policy, no neo-conism or military industrial complexMore liberatarianism posing as conservatism...
-Upholding the Constitution in general Check

5 points...yet they're so simple in summing it up!

Yeah... Conservatism is fairly simple... but that's a function of Conservatism being founded in immutable principle and such are naturally quite simple.

However, homosexuality is counter productive to a viable, sustainable culture; standing at adds with the natural order; and is to be discouraged for a host of sound reasons...

And there is absolutely NOTHING within the concept of Conservatism which requires the dismantling of necessary cultural standards.

Indeed. Homosexuality is defiant to NATURE. It is what it is. But in the cause of Liberty of us Humans, they may HAVE what they seek, without FOISTING it as NORMAL unto the rest of us or our children for that matter.

Fair Synopsis?

 

[rdean]

Politically, I find most Liberals intolerant of other's viewpoints.

That is so funny.

I usually find conservatives "incoherent".

 

[Care4all]

BTW: This is why I consider the Modern Conservatives to be the worst thing to happen to the GOP in a generation. A shifting definition of Conservative to mean Republican combined with an obsession with the Left at the cost of holding their own side accountable has lead to a negative view of what it means to be Conservative in the voting population as a whole. Mr. Bush was no Conservative, and yet he oftened described himself as such with no challenge from the Right Wing Radio. For True Conservatives, being seen as aligned with Mr. Bush was an unmitigated disaster at the polls.

I know you haven't had a chance to respond to my response to you before you made this post but i have to add in my 2 cents.

Anyone who called Bush a conservative doesn't understand what a conservative is. Bush was financially liberal with spending while forgetting conservatism by increasing spending with tax cuts at the same time....a true conservative would have cut taxes and spending.

True conservatives wouldn't have been for the immigration reform bush tried to push.

True conservatives thought medicare reform was a mistake.


now if I am wrong about that would a true conservative please come in at this point and tell me why im wrong. I would like to know.

wasn't it the Republicans in the majority in the house that pushed tax cuts through while increasing their spending?

I guess that means that none, not one republican in congress that voted yes on the tax cuts and yes on the spending were conservatives either?

then, please tell me, if bush was not a conservative, then none of the republicans in congress who all followed him lock step were conservative either?

then who are the conservatives the republican registered voters PUT IN TO office?

IF conservatism is what the republicans in office have shown us the past 8 years then i don't know what to say other than the word Conservative deserves to be synonymous to the word Hypocrite.....!

please name any republican in office, excluding Ron Paul, that is a conservative....so i can get a handle on what a conservative is...

care

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

OK, perhaps it's not conservatism. However, personal liberty comes into play. What two men or women do is none of my or your business. The Constitution actually speaks of contracts...

Ok... I do not want to hijack the pilgrim's thread... but I'll cover this again; only to the degree which is relevant...

Human rights are unalienable... they're endowed by Nature's God to the individual... they exist on God's authority and no one but God can alter those rights, EXCEPT for the individual themselves; and only where the individual FORFEITS the right, through their overt disregard for the INTRINSIC responsibilities which come with the right...

Now the advocates of Homosexuality are quick to note that homosexuality is a consensual organism... meaning that two individuals willingly consent to each other, the relevant sexual relationship...

Now where that is true... where to individuals are so inclined, in the privacy of wherever, they are entitled to tear away at each others rectums until their bowels are irretrievably compacted, if that is what they want...

But homosexuality does not exist in a vacuum... and where one individual pursues another, who is not inclined; where one seeks to lure another which is not, for whatever reason suffering the same flawed program... where one recruits another who is otherwise not already a pathetic sexual devient... THAT INDIVIDUAL IS DEMONSTRATING A BLATANT DISREGARD FOR THE RESPONSIBILITIES INHERENT IN THEIR INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS; SPECIFICALLY TO NOT EXERCISE ONE'S OWN RIGHTS TO THE DETRIMENT OF ANOTHER...

Homosexuality is abnormal sexuality; practicing homosexuals are demonstrating significant flaws in their character; they are subjecting themselves and their sexual partners to substantial risks to their health and to the overall health of their neighbors; and never MORE SO than where they engage in homosexual coitus with those inclined towards bi-sexuality...

There is NO Right to exercise one's right to engage in sexual intercourse with a consenting, appropriately aged partner, at the expense of the rights of those individuals who will partner down the road.

Again, this is not complex... Unalienable Individual RIGHTS... come with UNALIENABLE INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITIES... and just because one has a need to bleed from their anus... does NOT give one a RIGHT to enage in such activity that PROMOTES THE LIKEIHOOD THAT SUCH WILL RESULT IN THE USURPATION OF ANOTHER PERSONS RIGHTS...

Want to enage in twisted sexual deviency... FINE... Find someone to do it with; keep it to yourself and don't spread the potentially deadly diseases which are common to such to other people.

Now where such is the case... where on demonstrates such a disregard for one's responsibilities, they FORFEIT THEIR RIGHTS...

Any questions?

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

The usual bit:

-Free markets Check
-Proper spending as prescribed by the Constitution Check
-Individual liberty (which means YES, David and Josh can get marriage benefits and sign a marriage contract and a bunch of students in a dorm can smoke pot at a party without worrying about getting in trouble [aka it's illegal]).Ahh, so you're confusing Conservatism with Libertarianism... LOL... Fatal flaw...
-noninterventionist or realpolitik foreign policy, no neo-conism or military industrial complexMore liberatarianism posing as conservatism...
-Upholding the Constitution in general Check

5 points...yet they're so simple in summing it up!

Yeah... Conservatism is fairly simple... but that's a function of Conservatism being founded in immutable principle and such are naturally quite simple.

However, homosexuality is counter productive to a viable, sustainable culture; standing at adds with the natural order; and is to be discouraged for a host of sound reasons...

And there is absolutely NOTHING within the concept of Conservatism which requires the dismantling of necessary cultural standards.

Indeed. Homosexuality is defiant to NATURE. It is what it is. But in the cause of Liberty of us Humans, they may HAVE what they seek, without FOISTING it as NORMAL unto the rest of us or our children for that matter.

Fair Synopsis?

You bet... only adding that they're responsible for their sexual actions and where such results in the transmission of disease; they should be held to account for such; which most decidely would include criminal sanctions; and where such results in serious bodily injury and or death; such should result in capital punishment, just as would any other act wherein the individual should ahve reasonably known that their actions would result in the usurpation of the rights of another.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Politically, I find most Liberals intolerant of other's viewpoints.

That is so funny.

I usually find conservatives "incoherent".

Well that serves reason... as a Leftists, you're likely a humanist... humanist lack a fellowship with the Father; and absent such, there is no potential for such an individual to grasp sound reason.

In other words, your failure to comprehend sound reason is a direct result of your intellecual limitations, born from the noise perpetuated by the evil which is inherent in your soul.

It's extremely common amongst the lost... But there's good news...

Here's a clue: John 3:16... seek him out; he's waiting and therein lies the solution to your problem.

Nitey night kids...

 

[Dr.Traveler]

Quick responses. I spent most of the evening in Bible study and Church council since my last post, and now my 15 month old son is in bed, I need to hit the hay before I teach in the morning. This will be brief.

Well given your examples, I'd say that the problem is that you're ignorant of the individuals you reference, their stated positions and are a victim of a popularly held but erroneous propaganda campaign...

Actually, you'd be wrong. I've read a few of Limbaugh's books, I've read Coulter's articles, I listen to Hannity, Beck, and Limbaugh when I'm in the car at those times. I do actively believe in searching out differing opinions.

However, compare the response to the Scooter Libby perjury trial to the Bill Clinton perjury investigation. Compare the investigation into Kerry's actual time served in Vietnam to the outcry over investigating Bush's time in the national guard. Compare past reactions to Clinton's involvements in the genocide in Europe to the War in Iraq.

The right wing radio personalities very clearly have to different rulers for measuring an action: One for "D" and one for "R". Again, I point you to Limbaugh's quote, which is as straight forward an indictment of his own behavior as any I could offer:

The way I feel is this: I feel liberated, and I'm gonna - I'm just gonna tell you as plainly as I can why. I no longer am going to have to carry the water for people who I don't think deserve having their water carried.

Those are his own words on the topic.

This is patently false... and indicates that you're suffering from the above noted ignorance.

The list of Republican policy which has been blasted by Limbaugh, Beck and Coulter is ENDLESS, from amnesty for illegals to Moderate SCOTUS appointees... Medicare expansion, Federal usurpation of education, bailouts and ON AND ON AND ON...

Funny you mention those topics. Considering the Modern Conservative movement has adopted a policy of "What Would Reagan Do?" considering nearly all of those things happened under Reagan himself.

Nonsense... Socialism is not some encrypted code known only to a few who possess the keys... it is a commonly understood concept which sets aside individual rights and tranfers the responsibilities inherent in the devinely endowed, unalienable human rights at the foundation of Americanism, to "the people"... which is Left-think code for the State...

Notice you used "Left-Think", a nice talking point that's vacuous.

I'd also add that Socialism is being applied to Universal Health Care. In exactly what way does the Government insuring the poor satisfy the condition of "sets aside individual rights and tranfers the responsibilities inherent in the devinely endowed, unalienable human rights at the foundation of Americanism, to "the people"", or is going bankrupt because of a catastrophic illness a "human right?"

Socialism is anathema in every facet of the long discredited ideology to the very concept of America... If you've some specific example of a policy which has been erroneously defined as socialist, but which in reality is in keeping with the immutable principles on which American liberty rests... cite it... otherwise your argument fails a miserable and humiliating death.

I already mentioned Health Care as an erroneously labeled one, using your definition. The government offering loans to private industry is also not inherently socialist. Considering that American strength depends upon private industry, working to keep local private industries viable is definitely a plus.

Again, this is a ridiculous mischaracterization... A liberal is not a difficult thing to identify and being a partisan Democrat is in point of FACT, a first class sign of such.

On your first point, identifying a liberal must be pretty difficult because many in the Right Wing wouldn't recognize a liberal Governor from MA even if he ran for office... many would even welcome him as a Conservative and a potential heir to Reagan.

Party affiliation isn't a sure sign of political philosophy. There are many liberal Republicans just as there are conservative Democrats.

 

[Diuretic]

I have to admit that I wasn't aware of Russell being a supporter of Fascism. My first memories of him were his activities in the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, hardly the actions of a supporter of Fascism I would have thought.

In edit: this is in response to Pub's assertion.

Nothing surprising there; given your complete ignorance of the relevant issues...

But it is hilarious that you own clipped citation speaks to nothing if it doesn't reflect the virtues of Centrism... which by default requires in its intrinsic ingredients, at the least, 50% socialism... which is the foundational core of fascism; 'the middle way... the third way'.

But it's adorable that you feel that passivism stands distinct from fascism... I'd absolutely LOVE to see your math on that one.

I'm keen to know about Russell and Fascism. If you can point me at something I'd appreciate it.

I have the advantage of being able to read the book by Russell from which I took the quotes*. It's always a bit dangerous, as you know from experience, to seek to quote without first framing the context, but sometimes one has to just live dangerously

Russell isn't discussing Centrism.

I've got no idea what you're on about re passivism and Fascism.


*Education and the Social Order 1932.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Quick responses. I spent most of the evening in Bible study and Church council since my last post, and now my 15 month old son is in bed, I need to hit the hay before I teach in the morning. This will be brief.

Well given your examples, I'd say that the problem is that you're ignorant of the individuals you reference, their stated positions and are a victim of a popularly held but erroneous propaganda campaign...

Actually, you'd be wrong. I've read a few of Limbaugh's books, I've read Coulter's articles, I listen to Hannity, Beck, and Limbaugh when I'm in the car at those times. I do actively believe in searching out differing opinions.

However, compare the response to the Scooter Libby perjury trial to the Bill Clinton perjury investigation.


Compare the investigation into Kerry's actual time served in Vietnam to the outcry over investigating Bush's time in the national guard.

Compare past reactions to Clinton's involvements in the genocide in Europe to the War in Iraq.

Compare the fruit of the apple with that of the orange...

Libby, an aid to the Vice President; was questioned on conversations he had years earlier... regarding statements he made in those conversation, which had little to do with his own actions; focusing upon comments he made with regard to and in response from actions of others..; and was charged on the wieght of evidential minutia, from which the prosecutor inferred perjury; and was able to secure a conviction from one of the most ignorant, prejudiced, politcally charged jury pools in the US...

Clinton, the Cheif Executive Officer of the United States, was investigated for, among other things; his statements regarding his own actions; stemming from an ongoing investigation; resulting from similar actions in which he had engaged, wherein he had sought to use the power of his office as Governor of Arkansas to usurp to the rights of a fellow citizen, whom he had molested, sexually.

The investigations of Clinton resulted in 14 felony convictions of Clinton's closest friends and associates; including the sitting Governor of Arkansas; and Clinton's impeachment... what's more there were dozens of individuals who were sought for testimony in those investigations who prior to being deposed, passed from this earth, typically suffering violent and untimely deaths... The Cheif Excutive Officer; The President of the United States...The man RESPONSIBLE for EXECUTING THE LAWS OF THE LAND: LIED DIRECTLY TO EACH INDIVIDUAL AMERICAN; STATING FLAT OUT ON NATIONAL TELEVISION THAT HE IN FACT DID NOT ENAGE IN THE ACTIONS OF WHICH HE HAD BEEN ACCUSSED... and later came and recanted his lie... confessing that he, in fact, very PUBLICLY HAD PERJURED HIMSELF.

The Investigation which ensnared Libby; focused upon who 'outted Valerie Plame;' it had nothing to do with Libby, per se... and despite the prosecutor knowing full well that neither Libby, nor the Bush administration had anything to do with such; he knew WHO ACTUALLY HAD INFORMED THE PRESS OF PLAME'S AFFILIATION WITH THE CIA...; AND WHAT'S MOST RELEVANT: THE PROSECUTOR KNEW THAT PLAME'S AFFILIATION WITH THE CIA WAS NOT SUFFICIENT TO EVEN TRIGGER SUCH AN INVESTIGATION...

Now this is an incontrovertible FACT; and such rests at the basis of the absurd comparison of the two issues... DESPITE KNOWING THAT LIBBY HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE RELEASE OF PLAME'S AFFILIATION WITH THE CIA, THE PROSECUTOR NEVER EVEN CHARGED THE MAN WHICH HE HAD LONG SINCE KNOWN HAD INFORMED THE PRESS OF PLAME'S AFFILIATION WITH THE CIA...


The same inequities apply to Bush's Air National Guard Service and Kerry's dishonorable, treasonous service in the Navy... Bush never sought decoration for minor injuries which he intentionally sustained for such purposes; nor did he meet directly with the enemy of the US while the Americans he served with were on the field fighting that enemy... nor did he return home to undermine the war effort; and promote the interests of that enemy in the wake of that meeting...

And with regard to the Clinton 'Air war' in the Balkins and the comparison to the Campiagn in Iraq within the US Global War on Terror... there is no means to even compare the two... except perhaps, that Clinton's war was in large measure a symbolic defense of Muslims; a segment of the species which would only a few years later, attack the United States and set cause for the US Global War on Terror and the campaign in Iraq, within that war.

The right wing radio personalities very clearly have to different rulers for measuring an action: One for "D" and one for "R". Again, I point you to Limbaugh's quote, which is as straight forward an indictment of his own behavior as any I could offer:

The way I feel is this: I feel liberated, and I'm gonna - I'm just gonna tell you as plainly as I can why. I no longer am going to have to carry the water for people who I don't think deserve having their water carried.

How that citation is relevant to anything is known only to you... If it is some reference to Limbaugh presumably admitting that he had 'carried the political water' for people he otherwise felt didn't deserve it... SO WHAT? What was the option?

Was there another candidate which deserved it more? Who was the guy or gal that would have prevailed over Dole in 96? Alexander? Luger? Buchanon? Granted I would have LOVED to have had the option of ANY of them over Dole... But wth that said; In terms of character, Dole was a worlds superior to Clinton, in every respect... that he was DULL AS UNBUTTERED TOAST... made him an unlikely win against the worlds best used car salesmen...


Same in 2000... Who came forward with superior credentials to GW? Liz Dole? or the retreads from 96? Personally I voted for Keyes... in the primary.

04?

....


08 was the WORST... McCain is a JOKE... you can sit there and claim that Limbaugh carried water for the candidate that eventually made his way to the election... BUT you can't say with any credibility that Limbaugh EVER SUPPORTED MCCAIN IN THE PRIMARIES OR THAT LIMBAUGH DETERMINES WHO THE FINAL CANDIDATE WILL BE... and the sad fact is that there just weren't any Conservative choices in '08... And before you Ron Paul advocates take sail... Paul's position on the US GWOT disqualified him... PERIOD.

It's very simple... if one grows the absolute PERFECTION in the structural embodiment of a ROSE... and that rose smells like HUMAN EXCREMENT... it ain't gonna place at the show. I agree with Paul on MOST things... but pursuing the advocates of Islamic terrorism... is not an issue in which Im prepared to compromise; ever, for any reason.

Now with that said... given the current political realities... I am an advocate for removing US troops from the field and for resuming that fight, THE INSTANT that an American can be seated in the CinC and a majority of Americans seated in the Legislature. I think of it as turning the lights off in a roach infested building... they'll be a LOT easier to spot and kill when we turn the likes back on...

I don't think there's ANYONE on earth that has a greater disdain for John McCain than myself... and to this day, absent Palin coming to the McCain ticket... and even given the alternative of a Muslim MARXIST on the opposing ticket... in the midst of a US war against a fair percentage of Islam... during a time when Marxist policy finally imploding the US Economy... I'm still not sure that I could have voted for McCain... meaning it's possible that I would have.

Given the choice between a shit sandwich and a bowl of shit... the fact remains that despite your certain dislike for both... you're going to eat shit, one way or another.

And this DESPITE Limbaugh's DAILY advocacy for Conservatism and the principles on which it rest.

Funny you mention those topics. Considering the Modern Conservative movement has adopted a policy of "What Would Reagan Do?" considering nearly all of those things happened under Reagan himself.

Well, thats hilarious... but let's take amnesty...

You're right... Reagan did advocate for amnesty in the 1980s... and he stated his reasoning for such... But Reagan did not have two decades of evidence which demonstrated that despite the reasoning he advanced, that such a policy would FAIL.

It's also worht noting that Reagan's position was one which had resulted from a COMPROMISE with the Leftist legislature... As was the appointment of OConnor... and so on. All of which were proven to be mistakes. And why were they mistakes? They were mistakes because the ideological left is a principle-less organism that stands at odds with nature; and as a result, to compromise with the Left is to advance the left; to advance policy which nature will inevitably crush and given that WE are the ones present underneath that policy... to advance policy which will inevitably crush you, is just a bad idea.

Bush had the history of those choices and the results of same to guide him and he chose poory DESPITE that luxury...

Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity, Coulter stood steadfeastly in opposition to all of them...

Notice you used "Left-Think", a nice talking point that's vacuous.

Left-think is as real as the dirt under your home... It is descriptive of the flawed congitive process which derives leftist policy, the emotional sewage which lies at the foundation of the Leftist ideology... and that sir is an incontrovertible fact; Left think lacks sound reasoning, logical validity and rests upon any of a host of fallacious misnomers...

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

I'd also add that Socialism is being applied to Universal Health Care.

Yessir it is.. as they are synonomous.

In exactly what way does the Government insuring the poor satisfy the condition of "sets aside individual rights and tranfers the responsibilities inherent in the devinely endowed, unalienable human rights at the foundation of Americanism, to "the people"", or is going bankrupt because of a catastrophic illness a "human right?"

The 'need' of the ethereal 'poor,' does not constitute an entitlement to the means of those who possess such.

And by giving the government the power to usurp the means of one person to subsidize the existance of another, one is establishing just such an entitlement.

Where one establishes the entitlement of those in need to the means of others; one is IMPLEMENTING MARXISM... a rather distinct facet of Socialism...

In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly—only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability{means}, to each according to his needs!

On your first point, identifying a liberal must be pretty difficult because many in the Right Wing wouldn't recognize a liberal Governor from MA even if he ran for office... many would even welcome him as a Conservative and a potential heir to Reagan.

Well again... you advance this as if Romney were standing in a field amongst viable conservative alternatives... and what's more; you vastly and I believe intentionally overstate the case for Romney by Republicans. and damn sure, by Cconservatives..

Party affiliation isn't a sure sign of political philosophy. There are many liberal Republicans just as there are conservative Democrats.

Yes... Zell Miller is a Conservative Democrat...

Would ya care to remind the board of the Democrats perspective on Zell Miller?

Did the forces of tolerance and compassion, advance compassion for a retiring public servant who had consistantly stood in the ranks of the Democrat party over his working lifetime?

Or did the Democrats castigate, denigrate and belittle Zell Miller; who in his final days came to note the Democrat Party was: "A National Party No More" and note that pearl as representing 'The Conscience of a Conservative Democrat"?

My position is stated unambiguously... where one is a partisan Democrat... one is a Liberal.

The Democrat PARTY represents LEFTISM... it has been completely, utterly, thoroughly, indisputably hijacked by Radicals who's ideas stand completely antithetical to the Immutable Principles on which America rests...

Where a person of Conservative values stands with that subversive herd; they do so to their ideological peril... and in so doing represent the personification of the exception that makes the rule.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Not even an aknowledgement that I responded to you Dr.Traveler?

I was at least hoping for a "thanks for responding" if not a good detailed response.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

Brief replies from combined posts:

Compare the fruit of the apple with that of the orange...

Followed by a lot of blah blah blah where in you excuse Libby, bring in several unproven charges against Clinton that never saw trial, make slanderous accusations against an American Vet and excuse the poor service of someone that (legally) found a way to dodge service in Nam.

Precisely what I'm talking about. Worse is the fact that if I compare your quote to the canned responses I see on forums for Hannity, Levin, etc, the response is practically a word for word repetition. Maybe Right-Think exsists after all?

How that citation is relevant to anything is known only to you... If it is some reference to Limbaugh presumably admitting that he had 'carried the political water' for people he otherwise felt didn't deserve it... SO WHAT? What was the option?

Speak your mind is always a courageous and intellectually honest option.

If your party doesn't represent you, finding another is also a courageous and intellectually honest option.

Limbaugh's quote is self-evident in its meaning and calls into question his honesty as an advocate of public policy. If he'll knuckle under to "carry water" for folks he doesn't feel deserve it, why trust him to speak honestly?

08 was the WORST... McCain is a JOKE... you can sit there and claim that Limbaugh carried water for the candidate that eventually made his way to the election... BUT you can't say with any credibility that Limbaugh EVER SUPPORTED MCCAIN IN THE PRIMARIES OR THAT LIMBAUGH DETERMINES WHO THE FINAL CANDIDATE WILL BE... and the sad fact is that there just weren't any Conservative choices in '08... And before you Ron Paul advocates take sail... Paul's position on the US GWOT disqualified him... PERIOD.

Lets talk a minute about '08. Part of the reason that Limbaugh had no impact on the final candidate is that like Hannity and others, he was scared to death to back a losing horse. The Right Wing Radio folks refused to back ANY candidate until it was far far too late to stop McCain.

Once McCain had won the primary, they all cried their tears and lined up behind him. Limbaugh himself talked about the need to "pull McCain across the finish line". If they'd had any principles or intellectual honesty they'd have recruited a candidate, backed an exsisting one, or left for the third party.

Instead, they advocated for a McCain victory. Had McCain won, Conservatives would have lost out in the GOP for a generation. Now he's lost, there's a chance they can gain ground again.

And this DESPITE Limbaugh's DAILY advocacy for Conservatism and the principles on which it rest.

Except of course when he's carrying water.

Well, thats hilarious...

Followed by a bunch of words in which you excuse Reagan. What is it with the deification of Reagan by Conservatives? Why are you all so willing to toss aside nearly his entire record to build some sort of Conservative myth?

Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity, Coulter stood steadfeastly in opposition to all of them...

Should have addressed this yesterday, but I did listen to Limbaugh, Hannity, and Beck laughably oppose the Mr. Bush. A typical segement consisted of about 5 minutes of opposition to the policy, during which they tried valiantly to mention Mr. Bush by name as little as possible, and then a shift to the attack on Democrats that aligned with the President on these issues.

That is central weakness of the Modern Conservative, and the seeds for it were sown with Buckley. If a Modern Conservative isn't flailing around on the attack against a "D", then he's got nothing.

Left-think is as real as the dirt under your home... It is descriptive of the flawed congitive process which derives leftist policy, the emotional sewage which lies at the foundation of the Leftist ideology... and that sir is an incontrovertible fact; Left think lacks sound reasoning, logical validity and rests upon any of a host of fallacious misnomers...

My experience begs to differ. I've yet to encounter any two "Liberals" who agree on more than a single issue. There is no group think here. I'm willing to bet that because I live and work in the world of Academics I encounter far more "Liberals" than you do.

The 'need' of the ethereal 'poor,' does not constitute an entitlement to the means of those who possess such.

Your argument falls apart right here in a very spectacular moment of flawed reasoning.

The needs of one person A entitle them to the means of person B when the needs of person B depend upon the means of person A.

That's pretty much the fundamental axiom of Capitalism and bartering. Not to mention the social contract formed when humans join together to form communities. It is not socialism.

Right now the current situation in the world of health care is that we who have insurance pay for those that do not through increased medical costs passed along when a person absolutely can not pay.

Insuring the poor is not socialism, its just a wise use of tax dollars to help address the needs of the community as a whole. That is why people since time immortal have paid taxes... to address the needs of the community as a whole.

Yes... Zell Miller is a Conservative Democrat...

Would ya care to remind the board of the Democrats perspective on Zell Miller?

Frankly, Zell Miller brought this on himself. If you pick the most embarrassing and public forum possible to air your griefs with your colleagues, you should expect a cold shoulder from even the most patient and open co-workers.

Believing otherwise is just plain stupidity.

Zell needed to work things out with his colleagues in private, he chose otherwise, and now he's paying. How's Arlen Specter working out for you?

My position is stated unambiguously... where one is a partisan Democrat... one is a Liberal.

And again, you are not correct, just as a partisan Republican is not necessarily a Conservative. Attempting to simplify things to a "D=Lib, R=Con" is why the Conservative Movement has found itself in decline. When you do that, you become a party partisan, not a Conservative.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

Not even an aknowledgement that I responded to you Dr.Traveler?

I was at least hoping for a "thanks for responding" if not a good detailed response.

Sorry, lost in the rush. I have maybe 30 minutes a day to spend on stuff like this and then family, church, and academic responsibilities crush me. It'll probably take me 5 years to reach the post counts of some of the other newer members.

I do not consider Bush a Conservative, any more than I consider Tom DeLay or Frist to be Conservatives. That did not stop them from trying to cloak themselves in the great legend of Reagan... nor did anyone offer meaningful objections to it in the media, Right or Left.

Part of the reason I do not vote Republican (without a very good reason) is that after 2004 it became very clear that the GOP stood for borrow and spend, while the DNC stood for tax and spend. Given the choice, the DNC seemed slightly more responsible fiscally.

I will probably vote for Republican candidates again, and its likely I'll side with the GOP as a whole again, but not until the house is completely cleaned. Till then, I'll go with the DNC. I find them to be more honest publically about their intentions, even if I disagree with some of their stands.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Not even an aknowledgement that I responded to you Dr.Traveler?

I was at least hoping for a "thanks for responding" if not a good detailed response.

Sorry, lost in the rush. I have maybe 30 minutes a day to spend on stuff like this and then family, church, and academic responsibilities crush me. It'll probably take me 5 years to reach the post counts of some of the other newer members.

I do not consider Bush a Conservative, any more than I consider Tom DeLay or Frist to be Conservatives. That did not stop them from trying to cloak themselves in the great legend of Reagan... nor did anyone offer meaningful objections to it in the media, Right or Left.

Part of the reason I do not vote Republican (without a very good reason) is that after 2004 it became very clear that the GOP stood for borrow and spend, while the DNC stood for tax and spend. Given the choice, the DNC seemed slightly more responsible fiscally.

I will probably vote for Republican candidates again, and its likely I'll side with the GOP as a whole again, but not until the house is completely cleaned. Till then, I'll go with the DNC. I find them to be more honest publically about their intentions, even if I disagree with some of their stands.

Totally understandable

I think you and I actually have a similar mindset, thanks for this post.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

I think you and I actually have a similar mindset, thanks for this post.

I wouldn't be surprised. I've found I have more in common with Conservatives that Liberals on any given issue. The problem is that I have absolutely no respect for the partisans, Republican or Democrat. Blind party obedience is only making the current situation worse.

I look forward to the day that the GOP sorts out its issues and GOP candidates as a whole become a palatable choice for me. I'll continue to vote for some GOP candidates on a case by case basis, but for the most part I'll be voting third party or DNC for the time to come.

And that's probably it for the day for me. I'll try to check back in this afternoon but no promises. PubliusInfinitum if you reply, you'll have to wait.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

I think you and I actually have a similar mindset, thanks for this post.

I wouldn't be surprised. I've found I have more in common with Conservatives that Liberals on any given issue. The problem is that I have absolutely no respect for the partisans, Republican or Democrat. Blind party obedience is only making the current situation worse.

I look forward to the day that the GOP sorts out its issues and GOP candidates as a whole become a palatable choice for me. I'll continue to vote for some GOP candidates on a case by case basis, but for the most part I'll be voting third party or DNC for the time to come.

And that's probably it for the day for me. I'll try to check back in this afternoon but no promises. PubliusInfinitum if you reply, you'll have to wait.

I waiting for the viable 3rd party I dont trust the dems or reps anymore

 

[drsmith1072]

You made it very hard to respond with your quote style so i will write in dark red inside the quote

Conservatives and Liberals have very different outlooks on life. In fact liberals have a completely different culture than conservatives. This leads to both sides arguing over subjects as their differing culture leads them to different opinions on the subject.

A big part of the liberal culture is the preaching of tolerance for others. Tolerance and respect for those around the world, tolerance and respect for minorities, tolerance for illegal immigrants, and so on.

The left is hell of a lot more tolerant than the right. LOL

I was never commenting on the tolerance level of conservatives,

And that FACT exposes your bias and basic partisan hypocrisy. The rest of your BS is just that.

if you listen to rush Limbaugh ever you will see many conservatives are just as guilty of the same political intolerance. However one of the republicans main mantras isn't tolerance,

LOL really?? Isn't that part of what christianity preaches and aren't most conservatives supposed to be christian?

so the hypocrisy is not so glaring and annoying to me as it is with the liberals,

Based on your posts you attack the left because they are left of center and that is all the reason that you seem to need. Sure you try to throw in small and vague slams against the right to try and pretend that you are not a staunch righty in a lame attempt to give your opinions credibility but the content of your posts exposes you as a righty.

This bs reminds me of a country music song that I heard a while back, not sure about the performer but the basic gist of it was that he didn't want people telling them how to live his life while he preached his morality at other people and was trying to tell others how to live. This is the same as most other disagreements with righties. They have different standards for themselves than they try to hold others to.


Well how's that for Irony. Think about your statement and how EASILY it could be flipped over. I don't want either side telling me how to live. I can make that decision for myself and I don't need any govt, repub or democrat to demean my opinion of subjects.,

Did you even bother to think about how easily your own comments could be flipped? LOL So what ha the left said or done that will tell you how to live your life?

I'm not asking liberals or conservatives to agree with me, i am asking for the respect of my different opinions and my diversity of thought. I don't want to be told I'm immoral or ignorant by the left if i don't want HR3200 to be the needed health care reform we end up getting

You get what you give and if you don't respect the opinions of those who disagree with you then why do you honestly expect to get something different in return?? Oh and thanks for attacking only the left once again and showing which side of the spectrum you clearly lie on.

of your own party??

I don't have a party. If you had to pick a party based on my voting history i would actually be a democrat. I have voted for democrats roughly 70% of the time in my voting history. Shows how little you understand where I'm coming from, which is my fault for not elaborating.

Funny, but the content of your posts suggests different. Your posts almost always seem to slam only the left specifically where as your minor statements against the right, that are clearly made in attempt to give your opinions credibility, are almost always vague and nonspecific.

I still believe as i always have that dissent is patriotic but that will not stop me from pointing out how many more conservatives their are out there now who have started to claim this since the day they were voted into the minority and a democrat was elected president. Before that the majority of those on the right labeled those who dared to disagree with W as being traitors, un-American and unpatriotic.

I too believe dissent is patriotic and the republicans pissed me off badly when they chastised liberals over their protests due to Iraq. I had issues with the Iraq war, was i unamerican...i think not. HOWEVER, now i have democrats calling me unpatriotic because i don't totally support all of obama's plans. Both sides suck ass on this point, sorry

Sorry but it doesn't change the FACT that the majority on the right didn't feel that way when republicans were in charge. I tend to doubt anyone on the right who claims to espouse these beliefs NOW when so many of them held contradicting beliefs in the past.

WOW do you wants some cheese with that WHINE. LOL You whine like a spoiled child about these things and yet it would seemed that the majority of those you are trying to defend wouldn't hesitate for a second when they felt that they have a chance to attack the left concerning the above issues, among others.

That was the rant part of the post yeah yeah i was whining...you could have posted this instead

Well at least you admit that you were whining and I would rather be specific. That way I don't have to come back a spell anything out later. BTW I find it quite telling that you cut out your whine. lol

You know, it's funny but it seems that you believe that the liberals are better people than the conservatives. That the left should always take the high road no matter how low dishonest, hypocritical and partisan the right becomes. LOL

Wow you did understand where i was coming from. I grew up with liberals, went to liberal college, and i hold a high amount of respect for the open mindedness of true liberals. Hence part of my motivation in making this thread. To see liberals act they way they have over the last several years is saddening to me.

Wow imagine that, a righty holding the left to a different standard than he would hold his own. tsk tsk. Face it your motivation for making this thread was to attack the left and then when peiople started calling you out for your hypocrisy and dishonesty you tried to dishoenstly claim that their comments were proof of your post.

Like I said the left can disagree, but they are very very very disrespectful to people who hold different views than them. This is not being a liberal in my opinion, it is something else. I am used to the right treating me like this when i disagree, but from the left its fairly new and those who do it should really look back at themselves for a minute

So NOW you are talking about the left as a whole. LOL This kind of BS from posers like you is why some on the left have adopted some of the tactics of the right. The left is held to a higher standard by the right and then when the right finds themselves in the same position the left was in they seem to have no qualms going so far beneath the same standard that they held the left to. Then posers like you chime in to try and guilt the left in behaving themselves as they are being browbeaten by the hypocritical right.

hate government involvement?? Funny how that one was left in the ditch when W was president and now that a dem is president it's been brought back out again. LOL Oh well it's nothing but more conservative HYPOCRISY.

Hey i was bitching during bush too. I was at anti spending protests against bush. I went to anti-patriot act protests also. Please try and keep an open mind when dealing with people and don't be so intolerant when someone like me posts and opinion that doesn't fit your viewpoints.

LOL sure you did. And so did every other republican who tried to seperate themselves from the embarassment of bush RIGHT before the election. LOL Oh and i just love the hypocritical jab about intolerance from the HYPOCRITE who posted this "more liberal lies and hypocracy" LOL Maybe you should straighten your own house before you go worrying about someone elses? LOL

Another random thought of mine that i decided to post

LOL Please do try to keep such inane moronic and hypocritical thoughts to yourself in the future. Thanks.

Sorry i can't do that, it seems my random thoughts, while bringing a lot of heat against me, tend to spark lively threads[/quote]

Maybe, just maybe if your posts didn't expose as a dishonest hack who pretends to be a moderate as he lashes out at the left then you might not get so much heat? LOL

You should also go back and read some of my responses....somewhere after the 100th post....a lot of your confusion about me would have been cleared up for you .

I have no confusion about you. You are a poser who pretends to be a moderate in a lame attempt to give some sort of validity to his attacks against the left. LOL Based on all of your posts that I have read, that about sums you up.

 

[drsmith1072]

LOL... Why loosely? That tends towards the implication that you believe the concept of 'Conservative" to mean something distinct from the thinking advanced by those you referenced... If this is the case... what, pray tell is the definition of Conservative that you're working from? And please, be specific...

Sure. I think that if you want to identify yourself as a Conservative you should believe in:
1. The basic freedoms of non-interference and self-determination the country was founded upon. agreed...
2. The rule of law and the necessity of government.Agreed...
3. Sound reasoning.agreed...

The Founders fought for greater independence and self-determination, recognized the need for a strong but limited central government, and championed personal rights. They were the product of an era where the average educated man was actively involved in scientific research and understood the value of critical thinking.

I do not consider the Right-Wing Talk show hosts to represent this at all.

Well given your examples, I'd say that the problem is that you're ignorant of the individuals you reference, their stated positions and are a victim of a popularly held but erroneous propaganda campaign...



This is patently false... and indicates that you're suffering from the above noted ignorance.

The list of Republican policy which has been blasted by Limbaugh, Beck and Coulter is ENDLESS, from amnesty for illegals to Moderate SCOTUS appointees... Medicare expansion, Federal usurpation of education, bailouts and ON AND ON AND ON...

You seem like a bright person... So to test this... Let's you and I see if you're prepared to demonstrate what you clearly see as fatally flawed ideas; ideas which you refer to through the 'talking points' reference...

Nonsense... Socialism is not some encrypted code known only to a few who possess the keys... it is a commonly understood concept which sets aside individual rights and tranfers the responsibilities inherent in the devinely endowed, unalienable human rights at the foundation of Americanism, to "the people"... which is Left-think code for the State...

Socialism is anathema in every facet of the long discredited ideology to the very concept of America... If you've some specific example of a policy which has been erroneously defined as socialist, but which in reality is in keeping with the immutable principles on which American liberty rests... cite it... otherwise your argument fails a miserable and humiliating death.

"Liberal" is another. If a person boasts a "D" following their name, they are automatically Liberal in the eyes of the Right Wing Radio establishment. That is blatantly false as there is a growing "Blue Dog" wing of the Democratic Party.

Again, this is a ridiculous mischaracterization... A liberal is not a difficult thing to identify and being a partisan Democrat is in point of FACT, a first class sign of such.


Sadly, I'm out of time... we'll cover the rest later..

LOL I find it hilarious that you are attacking him claiming he is basing his defintion of a conservative on mischaracterizations and the you do the same when you try to define liberals based on your mischaracterizations. LOL

 

[nodoginnafight]

My experience has been that the radical religious right are among the least tolerant people - they are pretty darn close to the radical islamist jihadists.

 

[drsmith1072]

BTW: This is why I consider the Modern Conservatives to be the worst thing to happen to the GOP in a generation. A shifting definition of Conservative to mean Republican combined with an obsession with the Left at the cost of holding their own side accountable has lead to a negative view of what it means to be Conservative in the voting population as a whole. Mr. Bush was no Conservative, and yet he oftened described himself as such with no challenge from the Right Wing Radio. For True Conservatives, being seen as aligned with Mr. Bush was an unmitigated disaster at the polls.

I know you haven't had a chance to respond to my response to you before you made this post but i have to add in my 2 cents.

Anyone who called Bush a conservative doesn't understand what a conservative is. Bush was financially liberal with spending while forgetting conservatism by increasing spending with tax cuts at the same time....a true conservative would have cut taxes and spending.

True conservatives wouldn't have been for the immigration reform bush tried to push.

True conservatives thought medicare reform was a mistake.


now if I am wrong about that would a true conservative please come in at this point and tell me why im wrong. I would like to know.

LOL So the righties who elected him TWICE claiming he was a conservative were all ignorant and didn't know what a conservative was?? LOL