Serious political questions

[drsmith1072]

Global warming is a hoax, and I hope that your recall championing it when the late night hosts are making you the butt of their jokes.

Feeling over data - you have made my point.

The idea that conservatives are anymore "data-driven" than liberals is just hyper-partisan nonsense. You just confirmed it. Not a single piece of peer-reviewed science (the data) rejects the influence of humans on our climate. You try to rebut with "feelings." You made my point.

Au contraire.

The global warming hoax is revealed as such more each day.

Of course I can post exposes of the silly subject.

But it is telling that you did not want to engage on the gun control issue, as it underscores how libs defy reams of studies that prove beyond doubt that the conservative argument is correct.

Sort of like how it is telling that you did not want to engage in the climate change issue??


Fact is that you presented a feeling based argument on climate change and he called you out for it and you are still avoiding it. Imagine that.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

It appears that those who identify as conservatives are now divided. Some remain as members of the Republican Party, others identify as Libertarians or conservatives and many simply state they are independent.
As a registered Democrat, moderate on some, liberal on other issues, I understand one party is not the be all end all for most of us. Democrats are used to in-fighting, and the joke that getting Democrats to agree is akin to herding cats is spot on.
Hence, my questions:
1) On what do all conservatives agree?
2) What issues differentiate a Republican from an independent or a Libertarian?

1) All conservatives agree on the constitution limiting the power and scope of the federal government. Conservatives also agree that smaller government and less government involvement in personal decisions is a good thing. Conservatives agree on running the government with a balanced budget (hence why you see many conservatives angry at their liberal republican representatives).

2) Republicans are basically liberals who are against abortion. The majority of elected republicans are not conservatives in the way that citizens who identify as conservatives view conservatism. Independants may fall on either side of an issue where conservatives tend to fall on the....well...conservative side. Libertarians and conservatives share similar view points on financial matters but they may diverge on social matters.

Well stated, thank you.
As to point number 1)
I suspect most liberals, progressives and Libertarians would agree with H.D. Thoreau ("The government that governs best, governs least") Yet, conservatives are generally opposed to a women's right to choose and many want the congress to put forth a constitutional amendment to overturn Roe; and, some liberals object to Marijauna being classified as a schedule I drug, denying the states the right to legalize, decriminalize, outlaw or dispense MJ as their citizens see fit. In these two examples, it would seem the conservative view is for more government intervention, and the liberal/progressive less.
As to point number 2)
I see the Republican Party, today, as a party of one tent with several rooms. In one room those traditional, some would say moderate Republicans who believe in small government, low taxes (not no taxes) and labor and capital as partners in an economic system where exploitaton is rare and comporise benefits both; a party which abhors war and involvement in nation building or entangeling alliances.
In the second, third and fourth rooms are the new Republicans, the neo-conservatives, social conservatives and self described independents; then there is the idiot fringe. Those who are both fiscally & socially conservative, extremely nationalistic, regionalistic, imperialistic and unwilling to compormise. They prefer Brinkmanship instead of diplomacy, believe zero sum games as strong, win-win efforts as weak, and a world where are foes are always against us and our allies always support us - and if they don't they are foes (hence calling anyone who disagrees with them is a RINO or worse).
I believe a two party system has served our nation well, the issues which divided the Federalists and the Democratic Republicans are still issues which we argue today.
In that regard I'm sorry to see the GOP stagger, maybe rooms one, two, three and four can begin to work together and banish the idiot fringe from their ranks.

1) I'm more libertarian than conservative. Abortion, for example, i dont like it but i dont feel i have the right to tell a woman she cant get one. I am also for the legalization of possession of marijuana like we have here in my state (you can carry up to 28 grams without incurring a criminal penalty)

2) The republican party, IMO, Died under bush's watch. They sold out on their values and are now suffering the consequences. Some of those consequences are the "Several rooms" idea you just floated. Me personally i've never registered as an R but they USED to appeal to me back in the 80's (until i saw how debt happy they were) about as much as clinton appealed to me in the 90's (i have a huge amount of repsect for clinton because he tackled one of the issues i find most important and that is controlling the defecit).

As far as the idiot fringe, in both the democrat and republican parties, they will never go away. They are the ones on both sides who make the most noise and get all the media attention (since they help increase ratings). Unfortunately americans have let the fringes define both parties which only serves to divide us.


This is a much better conversation

 

[amrchaos]

1) Nothing.
2) Republicans are either registered members of the Republican Party or vote consistently Republican, more or less.

There is no lockstep agreement. Instead there is a general sense that government intrudes too much into people's lives and takes too money in taxes. When you get into specific issues agreement tends to deteriorate.

That pretty much sums up the rather obvious.

I wonder what is next from the OP.

Then what does someone have to do to become a "RINO" or a Republican who is not a "real" conservative?

To become a Rhino you must Not agree or support these issues

1)Cutting Taxes
2)Pro-Life
3)Family Values/No Homosexual marriages.
4)No Homosexuals in the military
5)Iraq War
6)Deregulate the markets

To become an American libertarian, you only need to agree with 1) and 6) and you are somewhat free to oppose the rest.

To be a Conservative--you must agree with all 6.

 

[CurveLight]

It appears that those who identify as conservatives are now divided. Some remain as members of the Republican Party, others identify as Libertarians or conservatives and many simply state they are independent.
As a registered Democrat, moderate on some, liberal on other issues, I understand one party is not the be all end all for most of us. Democrats are used to in-fighting, and the joke that getting Democrats to agree is akin to herding cats is spot on.
Hence, my questions:
1) On what do all conservatives agree?
2) What issues differentiate a Republican from an independent or a Libertarian?

There are 3 dominate groups in my Party:

1. Christian Right: They are social conservatives which usually puts their Policies in the realm of Domestic Hawks making their polices akin to a Liberalism that differs from the Liberals who support Obama and/or vote Democratic. Ie. Gay marriage and Abortion.

2. Neocons
: Seekers of seizing our moment in history when no other superpower has the ability to help keep our international policies in check. This is the first time in all of human history when any one nation has the opportunity to truly be the global king. They are generally pro-choice and don't care about gay marriage nearly as much as their CR allies.

3. Political Conservatives: We are the Republicans striving to hold onto Conservative values. No colonialism, secure borders, a military serving the sole purpose of Defense, keep the government as far out of our personal lives as possible, and recognizing the Constitution is a work in progress that can be measured as successful only in the terms of opportunities for the least of us.

The first two groups are made up of mostly Nationalists and it is in this bond we find the bridge that closes the gap between their differing and often head-butting positions on domestic issues. Many in the CR camps support the Neocon's foreign policies but not for the same reasons. Neither group cares.

Those who leave to self identify as Libertarian or simply Conservative usually do so to avoid the stigmas often associated with the Elephant of today.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Feeling over data - you have made my point.

The idea that conservatives are anymore "data-driven" than liberals is just hyper-partisan nonsense. You just confirmed it. Not a single piece of peer-reviewed science (the data) rejects the influence of humans on our climate. You try to rebut with "feelings." You made my point.

Au contraire.

The global warming hoax is revealed as such more each day.

Of course I can post exposes of the silly subject.

But it is telling that you did not want to engage on the gun control issue, as it underscores how libs defy reams of studies that prove beyond doubt that the conservative argument is correct.

Sort of like how it is telling that you did not want to engage in the climate change issue??


Fact is that you presented a feeling based argument on climate change and he called you out for it and you are still avoiding it. Imagine that.

Oh, how boring.

Only the schemers and hucksters still champion 'globall warming.'

But here's one for you:

Mr. Obama took another shot at his predecessors in April, vowing that "the days of science taking a backseat to ideology are over."
when it comes to Mr. Carlin, a senior analyst in the EPA's National Center for Environmental Economics and a 35-year veteran of the agency. In March, the Obama EPA prepared to engage the global-warming debate in an astounding new way, by issuing an "endangerment" finding on carbon. It establishes that carbon is a pollutant, and thereby gives the EPA the authority to regulate it -- even if Congress doesn't act.
Around this time, Mr. Carlin and a colleague presented a 98-page analysis arguing the agency should take another look, as the science behind man-made global warming is inconclusive at best. The analysis noted that global temperatures were on a downward trend. It pointed out problems with climate models. It highlighted new research that contradicts apocalyptic scenarios. "We believe our concerns and reservations are sufficiently important to warrant a serious review of the science by EPA," the report read.
Around this time, Mr. Carlin and a colleague presented a 98-page analysis arguing the agency should take another look, as the science behind man-made global warming is inconclusive at best. The analysis noted that global temperatures were on a downward trend. It pointed out problems with climate models. It highlighted new research that contradicts apocalyptic scenarios. "We believe our concerns and reservations are sufficiently important to warrant a serious review of the science by EPA," the report read.
The EPA Silences a Climate Skeptic - WSJ.com


Now, let's see the lib response to gun control.

Feel 'called out' enough Hiroo?

 

[drsmith1072]

Au contraire.

The global warming hoax is revealed as such more each day.

Of course I can post exposes of the silly subject.

But it is telling that you did not want to engage on the gun control issue, as it underscores how libs defy reams of studies that prove beyond doubt that the conservative argument is correct.

Sort of like how it is telling that you did not want to engage in the climate change issue??


Fact is that you presented a feeling based argument on climate change and he called you out for it and you are still avoiding it. Imagine that.

Oh, how boring.

Only the schemers and hucksters still champion 'globall warming.'

But here's one for you:

Mr. Obama took another shot at his predecessors in April, vowing that "the days of science taking a backseat to ideology are over."
when it comes to Mr. Carlin, a senior analyst in the EPA's National Center for Environmental Economics and a 35-year veteran of the agency. In March, the Obama EPA prepared to engage the global-warming debate in an astounding new way, by issuing an "endangerment" finding on carbon. It establishes that carbon is a pollutant, and thereby gives the EPA the authority to regulate it -- even if Congress doesn't act.
Around this time, Mr. Carlin and a colleague presented a 98-page analysis arguing the agency should take another look, as the science behind man-made global warming is inconclusive at best. The analysis noted that global temperatures were on a downward trend. It pointed out problems with climate models. It highlighted new research that contradicts apocalyptic scenarios. "We believe our concerns and reservations are sufficiently important to warrant a serious review of the science by EPA," the report read.
Around this time, Mr. Carlin and a colleague presented a 98-page analysis arguing the agency should take another look, as the science behind man-made global warming is inconclusive at best. The analysis noted that global temperatures were on a downward trend. It pointed out problems with climate models. It highlighted new research that contradicts apocalyptic scenarios. "We believe our concerns and reservations are sufficiently important to warrant a serious review of the science by EPA," the report read.
The EPA Silences a Climate Skeptic - WSJ.com


Now, let's see the lib response to gun control.

Feel 'called out' enough Hiroo?

Is that the best you've got?? You still haven't offered proof to support your position other than your previous feeling based opinions.

I do think it's funny that you cling to this op-ed article about 2 people in a huge department disagreeing with the findings saying that they should take another look at "it" and that it somehow validates your opinions that climate change is a hoax when it does NOTHING OF THE SORT. Thanks for the spin though. LOL

 

[Wry Catcher]

It appears that those who identify as conservatives are now divided. Some remain as members of the Republican Party, others identify as Libertarians or conservatives and many simply state they are independent.
As a registered Democrat, moderate on some, liberal on other issues, I understand one party is not the be all end all for most of us. Democrats are used to in-fighting, and the joke that getting Democrats to agree is akin to herding cats is spot on.
Hence, my questions:
1) On what do all conservatives agree?
2) What issues differentiate a Republican from an independent or a Libertarian?

There are 3 dominate groups in my Party:

1. Christian Right: They are social conservatives which usually puts their Policies in the realm of Domestic Hawks making their polices akin to a Liberalism that differs from the Liberals who support Obama and/or vote Democratic. Ie. Gay marriage and Abortion.

2. Neocons
: Seekers of seizing our moment in history when no other superpower has the ability to help keep our international policies in check. This is the first time in all of human history when any one nation has the opportunity to truly be the global king. They are generally pro-choice and don't care about gay marriage nearly as much as their CR allies.

3. Political Conservatives: We are the Republicans striving to hold onto Conservative values. No colonialism, secure borders, a military serving the sole purpose of Defense, keep the government as far out of our personal lives as possible, and recognizing the Constitution is a work in progress that can be measured as successful only in the terms of opportunities for the least of us.

The first two groups are made up of mostly Nationalists and it is in this bond we find the bridge that closes the gap between their differing and often head-butting positions on domestic issues. Many in the CR camps support the Neocon's foreign policies but not for the same reasons. Neither group cares.

Those who leave to self identify as Libertarian or simply Conservative usually do so to avoid the stigmas often associated with the Elephant of today.

By definition #3, I'm a conservative (conservative Democrat, that is); I still support labor over capital. There is dignity in work and I will never vote for or support a candidate who believes capital gains ought to be taxes at a lower rate than wages.

 

[CurveLight]

Sort of like how it is telling that you did not want to engage in the climate change issue??


Fact is that you presented a feeling based argument on climate change and he called you out for it and you are still avoiding it. Imagine that.

Oh, how boring.

Only the schemers and hucksters still champion 'globall warming.'

But here's one for you:

Mr. Obama took another shot at his predecessors in April, vowing that "the days of science taking a backseat to ideology are over."
when it comes to Mr. Carlin, a senior analyst in the EPA's National Center for Environmental Economics and a 35-year veteran of the agency. In March, the Obama EPA prepared to engage the global-warming debate in an astounding new way, by issuing an "endangerment" finding on carbon. It establishes that carbon is a pollutant, and thereby gives the EPA the authority to regulate it -- even if Congress doesn't act.
Around this time, Mr. Carlin and a colleague presented a 98-page analysis arguing the agency should take another look, as the science behind man-made global warming is inconclusive at best. The analysis noted that global temperatures were on a downward trend. It pointed out problems with climate models. It highlighted new research that contradicts apocalyptic scenarios. "We believe our concerns and reservations are sufficiently important to warrant a serious review of the science by EPA," the report read.
Around this time, Mr. Carlin and a colleague presented a 98-page analysis arguing the agency should take another look, as the science behind man-made global warming is inconclusive at best. The analysis noted that global temperatures were on a downward trend. It pointed out problems with climate models. It highlighted new research that contradicts apocalyptic scenarios. "We believe our concerns and reservations are sufficiently important to warrant a serious review of the science by EPA," the report read.
The EPA Silences a Climate Skeptic - WSJ.com


Now, let's see the lib response to gun control.

Feel 'called out' enough Hiroo?

Is that the best you've got?? You still haven't offered proof to support your position other than your previous feeling based opinions.

I do think it's funny that you cling to this op-ed article about 2 people in a huge department disagreeing with the findings saying that they should take another look at "it" and that it somehow validates your opinions that climate change is a hoax when it does NOTHING OF THE SORT. Thanks for the spin though. LOL

This is why I absolutely hate the CC issue and stay away because even trying to do homework on it is a pain in the ass. By the time I've done the leg work necessary to feel comfortable reading info from authors I'm usually too tired to remember what I was doing in the first place. Generally speaking, common sense does tell us the earth does not stay stagnate and with over 6 billion foreigners on board our anti-earth activity is bound to have an effect. What that is and to what depth.....who the fuck knows?

 

[Wry Catcher]

Au contraire.

The global warming hoax is revealed as such more each day.

Of course I can post exposes of the silly subject.

But it is telling that you did not want to engage on the gun control issue, as it underscores how libs defy reams of studies that prove beyond doubt that the conservative argument is correct.

Sort of like how it is telling that you did not want to engage in the climate change issue??


Fact is that you presented a feeling based argument on climate change and he called you out for it and you are still avoiding it. Imagine that.

Oh, how boring.

Only the schemers and hucksters still champion 'globall warming.'

But here's one for you:

Mr. Obama took another shot at his predecessors in April, vowing that "the days of science taking a backseat to ideology are over."
when it comes to Mr. Carlin, a senior analyst in the EPA's National Center for Environmental Economics and a 35-year veteran of the agency. In March, the Obama EPA prepared to engage the global-warming debate in an astounding new way, by issuing an "endangerment" finding on carbon. It establishes that carbon is a pollutant, and thereby gives the EPA the authority to regulate it -- even if Congress doesn't act.
Around this time, Mr. Carlin and a colleague presented a 98-page analysis arguing the agency should take another look, as the science behind man-made global warming is inconclusive at best. The analysis noted that global temperatures were on a downward trend. It pointed out problems with climate models. It highlighted new research that contradicts apocalyptic scenarios. "We believe our concerns and reservations are sufficiently important to warrant a serious review of the science by EPA," the report read.
Around this time, Mr. Carlin and a colleague presented a 98-page analysis arguing the agency should take another look, as the science behind man-made global warming is inconclusive at best. The analysis noted that global temperatures were on a downward trend. It pointed out problems with climate models. It highlighted new research that contradicts apocalyptic scenarios. "We believe our concerns and reservations are sufficiently important to warrant a serious review of the science by EPA," the report read.
The EPA Silences a Climate Skeptic - WSJ.com


Now, let's see the lib response to gun control.

Feel 'called out' enough Hiroo?

As I said before, there are liars, damn liars and statistics. I'm not calling you a liar chic, I am suggesting that stats can prove anything, and sometimes graphic anecdotal (or in your face events) trump stats. See Fort Hood for today's example.

 

[CurveLight]

It appears that those who identify as conservatives are now divided. Some remain as members of the Republican Party, others identify as Libertarians or conservatives and many simply state they are independent.
As a registered Democrat, moderate on some, liberal on other issues, I understand one party is not the be all end all for most of us. Democrats are used to in-fighting, and the joke that getting Democrats to agree is akin to herding cats is spot on.
Hence, my questions:
1) On what do all conservatives agree?
2) What issues differentiate a Republican from an independent or a Libertarian?

There are 3 dominate groups in my Party:

1. Christian Right: They are social conservatives which usually puts their Policies in the realm of Domestic Hawks making their polices akin to a Liberalism that differs from the Liberals who support Obama and/or vote Democratic. Ie. Gay marriage and Abortion.

2. Neocons
: Seekers of seizing our moment in history when no other superpower has the ability to help keep our international policies in check. This is the first time in all of human history when any one nation has the opportunity to truly be the global king. They are generally pro-choice and don't care about gay marriage nearly as much as their CR allies.

3. Political Conservatives: We are the Republicans striving to hold onto Conservative values. No colonialism, secure borders, a military serving the sole purpose of Defense, keep the government as far out of our personal lives as possible, and recognizing the Constitution is a work in progress that can be measured as successful only in the terms of opportunities for the least of us.

The first two groups are made up of mostly Nationalists and it is in this bond we find the bridge that closes the gap between their differing and often head-butting positions on domestic issues. Many in the CR camps support the Neocon's foreign policies but not for the same reasons. Neither group cares.

Those who leave to self identify as Libertarian or simply Conservative usually do so to avoid the stigmas often associated with the Elephant of today.

By definition #3, I'm a conservative (conservative Democrat, that is); I still support labor over capital. There is dignity in work and I will never vote for or support a candidate who believes capital gains ought to be taxes at a lower rate than wages.

Labor is greatly under appreciated and I'm always jibungled by how people like landscapers are looked down upon and paid horrible wages but if they all went on strike for a month we wouldn't recognize a single neighborhood. Iam not an economist but something is terribly wrong when citizens work 40-60 hours per week and struggle to eat and pay rent or mortgage.

What is it on the D Platform that keeps you in that register?

 

[Wry Catcher]

That pretty much sums up the rather obvious.

I wonder what is next from the OP.

Then what does someone have to do to become a "RINO" or a Republican who is not a "real" conservative?

To become a Rhino you must Not agree or support these issues

1)Cutting Taxes
2)Pro-Life
3)Family Values/No Homosexual marriages.
4)No Homosexuals in the military
5)Iraq War
6)Deregulate the markets

To become an American libertarian, you only need to agree with 1) and 6) and you are somewhat free to oppose the rest.

To be a Conservative--you must agree with all 6.

OOOPs, I posted too soon. Clearly I'm not a conservative.
I believe:
1) Make taxes fair
2) Gov't has no right to control a women's right to choose
3) Many gay and lesbian couples make up a family
4) Anyone who defends our nation has my respect (chicken hawks have my disdain)
5) A war of choice, the first time in our nations history - shame on Bush&Co.
6) lol, That worked real well.

 

[Wry Catcher]

There are 3 dominate groups in my Party:

1. Christian Right: They are social conservatives which usually puts their Policies in the realm of Domestic Hawks making their polices akin to a Liberalism that differs from the Liberals who support Obama and/or vote Democratic. Ie. Gay marriage and Abortion.

2. Neocons
: Seekers of seizing our moment in history when no other superpower has the ability to help keep our international policies in check. This is the first time in all of human history when any one nation has the opportunity to truly be the global king. They are generally pro-choice and don't care about gay marriage nearly as much as their CR allies.

3. Political Conservatives: We are the Republicans striving to hold onto Conservative values. No colonialism, secure borders, a military serving the sole purpose of Defense, keep the government as far out of our personal lives as possible, and recognizing the Constitution is a work in progress that can be measured as successful only in the terms of opportunities for the least of us.

The first two groups are made up of mostly Nationalists and it is in this bond we find the bridge that closes the gap between their differing and often head-butting positions on domestic issues. Many in the CR camps support the Neocon's foreign policies but not for the same reasons. Neither group cares.

Those who leave to self identify as Libertarian or simply Conservative usually do so to avoid the stigmas often associated with the Elephant of today.

By definition #3, I'm a conservative (conservative Democrat, that is); I still support labor over capital. There is dignity in work and I will never vote for or support a candidate who believes capital gains ought to be taxes at a lower rate than wages.

Labor is greatly under appreciated and I'm always jibungled by how people like landscapers are looked down upon and paid horrible wages but if they all went on strike for a month we wouldn't recognize a single neighborhood. Iam not an economist but something is terribly wrong when citizens work 40-60 hours per week and struggle to eat and pay rent or mortgage.

What is it on the D Platform that keeps you in that register?

All politics are local. I know and have served on committees with elected officials of both stripes and their aides. The D's values are my values. I'm not suggesting that the R's values are much different, they're not, but their priorities are.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Sort of like how it is telling that you did not want to engage in the climate change issue??


Fact is that you presented a feeling based argument on climate change and he called you out for it and you are still avoiding it. Imagine that.

Oh, how boring.

Only the schemers and hucksters still champion 'globall warming.'

But here's one for you:

Mr. Obama took another shot at his predecessors in April, vowing that "the days of science taking a backseat to ideology are over."
when it comes to Mr. Carlin, a senior analyst in the EPA's National Center for Environmental Economics and a 35-year veteran of the agency. In March, the Obama EPA prepared to engage the global-warming debate in an astounding new way, by issuing an "endangerment" finding on carbon. It establishes that carbon is a pollutant, and thereby gives the EPA the authority to regulate it -- even if Congress doesn't act.
Around this time, Mr. Carlin and a colleague presented a 98-page analysis arguing the agency should take another look, as the science behind man-made global warming is inconclusive at best. The analysis noted that global temperatures were on a downward trend. It pointed out problems with climate models. It highlighted new research that contradicts apocalyptic scenarios. "We believe our concerns and reservations are sufficiently important to warrant a serious review of the science by EPA," the report read.
Around this time, Mr. Carlin and a colleague presented a 98-page analysis arguing the agency should take another look, as the science behind man-made global warming is inconclusive at best. The analysis noted that global temperatures were on a downward trend. It pointed out problems with climate models. It highlighted new research that contradicts apocalyptic scenarios. "We believe our concerns and reservations are sufficiently important to warrant a serious review of the science by EPA," the report read.
The EPA Silences a Climate Skeptic - WSJ.com


Now, let's see the lib response to gun control.

Feel 'called out' enough Hiroo?

As I said before, there are liars, damn liars and statistics. I'm not calling you a liar chic, I am suggesting that stats can prove anything, and sometimes graphic anecdotal (or in your face events) trump stats. See Fort Hood for today's example.

1. In the 1970's science was predictiong 'global cooling' and a little ice age

2. Mars has some observable warming, and their ain't too many SUV's

3. Gore, who failed out of was it two or three colleges, is no great mind.

4. They had to change the name from Global Warming to Climate Change because it was clear there was no permanent warming.

5. It's pretty clear the whole thing is a solar cycle, and being use to perpetuate global governance.

For Fort Hood, our prayers go out to them. We have military in the family. Armored Cav.

 

[ThePickledPunk]

There are 3 dominate groups in my Party:

1. Christian Right: They are social conservatives which usually puts their Policies in the realm of Domestic Hawks making their polices akin to a Liberalism that differs from the Liberals who support Obama and/or vote Democratic. Ie. Gay marriage and Abortion.

2. Neocons
: Seekers of seizing our moment in history when no other superpower has the ability to help keep our international policies in check. This is the first time in all of human history when any one nation has the opportunity to truly be the global king. They are generally pro-choice and don't care about gay marriage nearly as much as their CR allies.

3. Political Conservatives: We are the Republicans striving to hold onto Conservative values. No colonialism, secure borders, a military serving the sole purpose of Defense, keep the government as far out of our personal lives as possible, and recognizing the Constitution is a work in progress that can be measured as successful only in the terms of opportunities for the least of us.

The first two groups are made up of mostly Nationalists and it is in this bond we find the bridge that closes the gap between their differing and often head-butting positions on domestic issues. Many in the CR camps support the Neocon's foreign policies but not for the same reasons. Neither group cares.

Those who leave to self identify as Libertarian or simply Conservative usually do so to avoid the stigmas often associated with the Elephant of today.

By definition #3, I'm a conservative (conservative Democrat, that is); I still support labor over capital. There is dignity in work and I will never vote for or support a candidate who believes capital gains ought to be taxes at a lower rate than wages.

Labor is greatly under appreciated and I'm always jibungled by how people like landscapers are looked down upon and paid horrible wages but if they all went on strike for a month we wouldn't recognize a single neighborhood. Iam not an economist but something is terribly wrong when citizens work 40-60 hours per week and struggle to eat and pay rent or mortgage.

What is it on the D Platform that keeps you in that register?

If landscapers went on strike for a month yard work would be done by homeowners. Thats why they dont get paid well. Anyone can do such work.

My wife's uncle just died, having started a very succesful landscaping company 25 years ago. His kids are now worth millions.

 

[Oddball]

5) A war of choice, the first time in our nations history - shame on Bush&Co.

Utter bullshit.

America's involvement in WWI, Korea and Vietnam were also wars of choice.

 

[CurveLight]

By definition #3, I'm a conservative (conservative Democrat, that is); I still support labor over capital. There is dignity in work and I will never vote for or support a candidate who believes capital gains ought to be taxes at a lower rate than wages.

Labor is greatly under appreciated and I'm always jibungled by how people like landscapers are looked down upon and paid horrible wages but if they all went on strike for a month we wouldn't recognize a single neighborhood. Iam not an economist but something is terribly wrong when citizens work 40-60 hours per week and struggle to eat and pay rent or mortgage.

What is it on the D Platform that keeps you in that register?

If landscapers went on strike for a month yard work would be done by homeowners. Thats why they dont get paid well. Anyone can do such work.

My wife's uncle just died, having started a very succesful landscaping company 25 years ago. His kids are now worth millions.

Who would do the landscaping at businesses, parks, roadways, and homes where the owners are not physically capable? I'm not sure what your in
Laws being worth millions have to do with the discussion?

 

[alan1]

A 12 year old on a little league team shot and killed himself with a handgun his father kept for the families protection. He did so because he got a "D" and his father said he would need to quit baseball if he got any "D's". He died holding his baseball uniform in the family livingroom.
Mark Twain wrote: There are liars, damn liars and statistics..

Was the 12 year old a conservative or a liberal?
Oh wait, that doesn't fucking matter, does it?
So much for your "serious political question". Citing an isolated tragic event is not a valid argument either way.

It may or not be isolated, for me it was very personal. I've thought of several ways to respond to your post mountainman and none seem sufficient. I think you're an asshole, and I guess that says it all.

The fact that a 12 year shot and killed himself has absolutely nothing to do with politics.
It was a tragic event that occurred completely outside of the realm of somebodies political persuasion.
If you think I'm an asshole for pointing that out, tough shit, I don't care.

 

[CurveLight]

By definition #3, I'm a conservative (conservative Democrat, that is); I still support labor over capital. There is dignity in work and I will never vote for or support a candidate who believes capital gains ought to be taxes at a lower rate than wages.

Labor is greatly under appreciated and I'm always jibungled by how people like landscapers are looked down upon and paid horrible wages but if they all went on strike for a month we wouldn't recognize a single neighborhood. Iam not an economist but something is terribly wrong when citizens work 40-60 hours per week and struggle to eat and pay rent or mortgage.

What is it on the D Platform that keeps you in that register?

All politics are local. I know and have served on committees with elected officials of both stripes and their aides. The D's values are my values. I'm not suggesting that the R's values are much different, they're not, but their priorities are.

I think terms like "values" are a distraction. Methods determine the worth of any value and priorities are ordered by our actions. I've never been a D fan because there is an indescribable collective transference where it appears too many are in a contradictory contest to be the most socially aware but quietly tapping the bank. Ie. Housing Projects. Those were presented as a way of helping people but really all they have been are prisons with individually selected curtains.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Oh, how boring.

Only the schemers and hucksters still champion 'globall warming.'

But here's one for you:

Mr. Obama took another shot at his predecessors in April, vowing that "the days of science taking a backseat to ideology are over."
when it comes to Mr. Carlin, a senior analyst in the EPA's National Center for Environmental Economics and a 35-year veteran of the agency. In March, the Obama EPA prepared to engage the global-warming debate in an astounding new way, by issuing an "endangerment" finding on carbon. It establishes that carbon is a pollutant, and thereby gives the EPA the authority to regulate it -- even if Congress doesn't act.
Around this time, Mr. Carlin and a colleague presented a 98-page analysis arguing the agency should take another look, as the science behind man-made global warming is inconclusive at best. The analysis noted that global temperatures were on a downward trend. It pointed out problems with climate models. It highlighted new research that contradicts apocalyptic scenarios. "We believe our concerns and reservations are sufficiently important to warrant a serious review of the science by EPA," the report read.
Around this time, Mr. Carlin and a colleague presented a 98-page analysis arguing the agency should take another look, as the science behind man-made global warming is inconclusive at best. The analysis noted that global temperatures were on a downward trend. It pointed out problems with climate models. It highlighted new research that contradicts apocalyptic scenarios. "We believe our concerns and reservations are sufficiently important to warrant a serious review of the science by EPA," the report read.
The EPA Silences a Climate Skeptic - WSJ.com


Now, let's see the lib response to gun control.

Feel 'called out' enough Hiroo?

As I said before, there are liars, damn liars and statistics. I'm not calling you a liar chic, I am suggesting that stats can prove anything, and sometimes graphic anecdotal (or in your face events) trump stats. See Fort Hood for today's example.

1. In the 1970's science was predictiong 'global cooling' and a little ice age

2. Mars has some observable warming, and their ain't too many SUV's

3. Gore, who failed out of was it two or three colleges, is no great mind.

4. They had to change the name from Global Warming to Climate Change because it was clear there was no permanent warming.

5. It's pretty clear the whole thing is a solar cycle, and being use to perpetuate global governance.

For Fort Hood, our prayers go out to them. We have military in the family. Armored Cav.

As do I; our nephew is in Iraq at this moment.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Was the 12 year old a conservative or a liberal?
Oh wait, that doesn't fucking matter, does it?
So much for your "serious political question". Citing an isolated tragic event is not a valid argument either way.

It may or not be isolated, for me it was very personal. I've thought of several ways to respond to your post mountainman and none seem sufficient. I think you're an asshole, and I guess that says it all.

The fact that a 12 year shot and killed himself has absolutely nothing to do with politics.
It was a tragic event that occurred completely outside of the realm of somebodies political persuasion.
If you think I'm an asshole for pointing that out, tough shit, I don't care.

I do believe you're an asshole, and I don't give a shit that you don't care.