The schizophrenia that is conservatism

[The T]

It has become apparent that Republicans, Tea Partiers, and Libertarians consider themselves conservatives. Then there are the independants who fall into two catagories, conservative and liberal. So now we have four different types of conservatism, so far.

Conservatism is quickly becoming like christianity, with many denominations which vary ever so slightly from one to the next. Making them hard to pin down or determine what they believe. It also gives them plenty of hiding room as they float from one group to the next. This has become quite popular among conservatives since the GWB presidency.

Conservatism breaks down even further when you start talking about religion and the constitution. The only common denominator among all the conservatives is that they don't like Democrats, or Liberals.

Conservatism is quickly resembling terrorist cells, as they have no definitive leader, and their agenda is widely varried. Depending on who you talk to, the most important thing to conservatives seams to range from moral issues, to financial issues, to foreign affairs issues, and then to what ever issue they decide to champion next. As for the leqdership of these groups no one knows who leads some of them, such as the Tea Partiers and Libertarians. Just what the heck is Sarrah Palin? Tea Party express or Republican VP candidate? Then there is Ron Paul and Dick Armey what position do they hold in what party?

What has also become apparent is their lack of willingness to negotiate, or even talk to the other side of the isle. The degree to which this takes place and which issues this happens over also varies depending on which conservative group you are talking to. The only constant here is the level of anger.

These reasons and observations have led me to believe that if you are going to discuss anything with a conservative you had best find out what type of conservative you are talking to. As with christianity they are all brothers until you point out their shortcomings and then they become as slippery as eels moving from one form of conservatism to the next, until they find one that makes them look good for the issue being debated.

Does this make them bad people? No. Does this make them unamerican? No. Does this make their beliefs wrong? No. What it does do is make them to unpredictable. It is this unpredictability that leads us to doubt and question their motives. If you have to question their motives do you really want them running the country?

As Buc pointed out, that was really not badly written. I always appreciate same.

But it shows both a lack of understanding of conservatives, and a badly conflated attempt at a straw man...

Here is an interesting exposition from a guy on your side, Jeffrey Rosen, New Republic Magazine Legal Affairs Editor.

1. Three strands of judicial conservatism.

a. Tea Party Constitutionalists. Hero is Justice Thomas, a religious conservative, anti-federalist, opposition to elites. The beliefs of this group can be found in “The Five Thousand Year Leap,” by W. Cleon Skousen,… 28 Principles of Freedom our Founding Fathers said must be understood and perpetuated by every people who desire peace, prosperity, and freedom. Learn how adherence to these beliefs during the past 200 years has brought about more progress than was made in the previous 5000 years. These 28 Principles include The Genius of Natural Law, Virtuous and Moral Leaders, Equal Rights--Not Equal Things, and Avoiding the Burden of Debt. This populist conservative group would find itself at odds with the next two.

b. Libertarianism: As represented by the Cato Institute. Pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, supports Roe v. Wade, and supports judicial activism aimed as recognizing gay marriage and healthcare reform, and repeal of the Gun-Free School Zone Act and much of the administrative state. Hero might be Judge Douglas Ginsburg [who called for the ‘resurrection of the Constitution in exile,’ restrictions on federal power]

c. Pro-Business Conservatives: represented by policies of the US Chamber of Commerce, strongly represented on the Roberts’ Court, where they won some 13 of 18 cases in which they filed a brief. Most business cases are unanimous or 7-2 decisions, vs those cases that deal with culture war issues. These conservatives favored TARP, and he use of federal pre-emption (federal law to take precedence over or to displace a state law) for farm subsidies, healthcare cases. Based on this sentiment, a court which has embraced a broad vision of federal power, as found in regulation of medical marijuana, expect the Roberts Court to reject the pro-states rights view that would lead to the invalidation of the healthcare case.


2. And here, the basics of conservatism:

Individualism, private property, and limits on power.

I can break that down for you if need be.

The post was designed to point out the problems of trying to discuss topics with conservatives. When the debate starts out it is you start by talking to a Republican, then the Republican turns into a Teapartier when flaws in the Republican party are pointed out (the spending of GWB). The Libertarian then turns into a Teapartier when (freedom of the individual (gay rights) is discussed). The Teapartier turns into a Republican when it's time to actually vote because they don't have a party to vote for.
* they believe in Individualism as long as gays don't have the right to get married
* They believe in private property unless they property can make more money in the hands of a developer
* They believe in power limits until they are in power

So? Conservatives should BE on the same PAGE? They should NOT be Individuals?

This is essentiallay what you are saying...and they don't go to the places you cite unless they are answering in kind to distractions.

*YOUR MOVE*

 

[PoliticalChic]

It has become apparent that Republicans, Tea Partiers, and Libertarians consider themselves conservatives. Then there are the independants who fall into two catagories, conservative and liberal. So now we have four different types of conservatism, so far.

Conservatism is quickly becoming like christianity, with many denominations which vary ever so slightly from one to the next. Making them hard to pin down or determine what they believe. It also gives them plenty of hiding room as they float from one group to the next. This has become quite popular among conservatives since the GWB presidency.

Conservatism breaks down even further when you start talking about religion and the constitution. The only common denominator among all the conservatives is that they don't like Democrats, or Liberals.

Conservatism is quickly resembling terrorist cells, as they have no definitive leader, and their agenda is widely varried. Depending on who you talk to, the most important thing to conservatives seams to range from moral issues, to financial issues, to foreign affairs issues, and then to what ever issue they decide to champion next. As for the leqdership of these groups no one knows who leads some of them, such as the Tea Partiers and Libertarians. Just what the heck is Sarrah Palin? Tea Party express or Republican VP candidate? Then there is Ron Paul and Dick Armey what position do they hold in what party?

What has also become apparent is their lack of willingness to negotiate, or even talk to the other side of the isle. The degree to which this takes place and which issues this happens over also varies depending on which conservative group you are talking to. The only constant here is the level of anger.

These reasons and observations have led me to believe that if you are going to discuss anything with a conservative you had best find out what type of conservative you are talking to. As with christianity they are all brothers until you point out their shortcomings and then they become as slippery as eels moving from one form of conservatism to the next, until they find one that makes them look good for the issue being debated.

Does this make them bad people? No. Does this make them unamerican? No. Does this make their beliefs wrong? No. What it does do is make them to unpredictable. It is this unpredictability that leads us to doubt and question their motives. If you have to question their motives do you really want them running the country?

As Buc pointed out, that was really not badly written. I always appreciate same.

But it shows both a lack of understanding of conservatives, and a badly conflated attempt at a straw man...

Here is an interesting exposition from a guy on your side, Jeffrey Rosen, New Republic Magazine Legal Affairs Editor.

1. Three strands of judicial conservatism.

a. Tea Party Constitutionalists. Hero is Justice Thomas, a religious conservative, anti-federalist, opposition to elites. The beliefs of this group can be found in “The Five Thousand Year Leap,” by W. Cleon Skousen,… 28 Principles of Freedom our Founding Fathers said must be understood and perpetuated by every people who desire peace, prosperity, and freedom. Learn how adherence to these beliefs during the past 200 years has brought about more progress than was made in the previous 5000 years. These 28 Principles include The Genius of Natural Law, Virtuous and Moral Leaders, Equal Rights--Not Equal Things, and Avoiding the Burden of Debt. This populist conservative group would find itself at odds with the next two.

b. Libertarianism: As represented by the Cato Institute. Pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, supports Roe v. Wade, and supports judicial activism aimed as recognizing gay marriage and healthcare reform, and repeal of the Gun-Free School Zone Act and much of the administrative state. Hero might be Judge Douglas Ginsburg [who called for the ‘resurrection of the Constitution in exile,’ restrictions on federal power]

c. Pro-Business Conservatives: represented by policies of the US Chamber of Commerce, strongly represented on the Roberts’ Court, where they won some 13 of 18 cases in which they filed a brief. Most business cases are unanimous or 7-2 decisions, vs those cases that deal with culture war issues. These conservatives favored TARP, and he use of federal pre-emption (federal law to take precedence over or to displace a state law) for farm subsidies, healthcare cases. Based on this sentiment, a court which has embraced a broad vision of federal power, as found in regulation of medical marijuana, expect the Roberts Court to reject the pro-states rights view that would lead to the invalidation of the healthcare case.


2. And here, the basics of conservatism:

Individualism, private property, and limits on power.

I can break that down for you if need be.

The post was designed to point out the problems of trying to discuss topics with conservatives. When the debate starts out it is you start by talking to a Republican, then the Republican turns into a Teapartier when flaws in the Republican party are pointed out (the spending of GWB). The Libertarian then turns into a Teapartier when (freedom of the individual (gay rights) is discussed). The Teapartier turns into a Republican when it's time to actually vote because they don't have a party to vote for.
* they believe in Individualism as long as gays don't have the right to get married
* They believe in private property unless they property can make more money in the hands of a developer
* They believe in power limits until they are in power

"When the debate starts out it is you start by talking to a Republican,..."
What does that mean?

Then the bullets turn into a bigoted rant:

* they believe in Individualism as long as gays don't have the right to get married
* They believe in private property unless they property can make more money in the hands of a developer
* They believe in power limits until they are in power.

 

[The T]

As Buc pointed out, that was really not badly written. I always appreciate same.

But it shows both a lack of understanding of conservatives, and a badly conflated attempt at a straw man...

Here is an interesting exposition from a guy on your side, Jeffrey Rosen, New Republic Magazine Legal Affairs Editor.

1. Three strands of judicial conservatism.

a. Tea Party Constitutionalists. Hero is Justice Thomas, a religious conservative, anti-federalist, opposition to elites. The beliefs of this group can be found in “The Five Thousand Year Leap,” by W. Cleon Skousen,… 28 Principles of Freedom our Founding Fathers said must be understood and perpetuated by every people who desire peace, prosperity, and freedom. Learn how adherence to these beliefs during the past 200 years has brought about more progress than was made in the previous 5000 years. These 28 Principles include The Genius of Natural Law, Virtuous and Moral Leaders, Equal Rights--Not Equal Things, and Avoiding the Burden of Debt. This populist conservative group would find itself at odds with the next two.

b. Libertarianism: As represented by the Cato Institute. Pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, supports Roe v. Wade, and supports judicial activism aimed as recognizing gay marriage and healthcare reform, and repeal of the Gun-Free School Zone Act and much of the administrative state. Hero might be Judge Douglas Ginsburg [who called for the ‘resurrection of the Constitution in exile,’ restrictions on federal power]

c. Pro-Business Conservatives: represented by policies of the US Chamber of Commerce, strongly represented on the Roberts’ Court, where they won some 13 of 18 cases in which they filed a brief. Most business cases are unanimous or 7-2 decisions, vs those cases that deal with culture war issues. These conservatives favored TARP, and he use of federal pre-emption (federal law to take precedence over or to displace a state law) for farm subsidies, healthcare cases. Based on this sentiment, a court which has embraced a broad vision of federal power, as found in regulation of medical marijuana, expect the Roberts Court to reject the pro-states rights view that would lead to the invalidation of the healthcare case.


2. And here, the basics of conservatism:

Individualism, private property, and limits on power.

I can break that down for you if need be.

The post was designed to point out the problems of trying to discuss topics with conservatives. When the debate starts out it is you start by talking to a Republican, then the Republican turns into a Teapartier when flaws in the Republican party are pointed out (the spending of GWB). The Libertarian then turns into a Teapartier when (freedom of the individual (gay rights) is discussed). The Teapartier turns into a Republican when it's time to actually vote because they don't have a party to vote for.
* they believe in Individualism as long as gays don't have the right to get married
* They believe in private property unless they property can make more money in the hands of a developer
* They believe in power limits until they are in power

"When the debate starts out it is you start by talking to a Republican,..."
What does that mean?

Then the bullets turn into a bigoted rant:

* they believe in Individualism as long as gays don't have the right to get married
* They believe in private property unless they property can make more money in the hands of a developer
* They believe in power limits until they are in power.

*

 

[spectrumc01]

As Buc pointed out, that was really not badly written. I always appreciate same.

But it shows both a lack of understanding of conservatives, and a badly conflated attempt at a straw man...

Here is an interesting exposition from a guy on your side, Jeffrey Rosen, New Republic Magazine Legal Affairs Editor.

1. Three strands of judicial conservatism.

a. Tea Party Constitutionalists. Hero is Justice Thomas, a religious conservative, anti-federalist, opposition to elites. The beliefs of this group can be found in “The Five Thousand Year Leap,” by W. Cleon Skousen,… 28 Principles of Freedom our Founding Fathers said must be understood and perpetuated by every people who desire peace, prosperity, and freedom. Learn how adherence to these beliefs during the past 200 years has brought about more progress than was made in the previous 5000 years. These 28 Principles include The Genius of Natural Law, Virtuous and Moral Leaders, Equal Rights--Not Equal Things, and Avoiding the Burden of Debt. This populist conservative group would find itself at odds with the next two.

b. Libertarianism: As represented by the Cato Institute. Pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, supports Roe v. Wade, and supports judicial activism aimed as recognizing gay marriage and healthcare reform, and repeal of the Gun-Free School Zone Act and much of the administrative state. Hero might be Judge Douglas Ginsburg [who called for the ‘resurrection of the Constitution in exile,’ restrictions on federal power]

c. Pro-Business Conservatives: represented by policies of the US Chamber of Commerce, strongly represented on the Roberts’ Court, where they won some 13 of 18 cases in which they filed a brief. Most business cases are unanimous or 7-2 decisions, vs those cases that deal with culture war issues. These conservatives favored TARP, and he use of federal pre-emption (federal law to take precedence over or to displace a state law) for farm subsidies, healthcare cases. Based on this sentiment, a court which has embraced a broad vision of federal power, as found in regulation of medical marijuana, expect the Roberts Court to reject the pro-states rights view that would lead to the invalidation of the healthcare case.


2. And here, the basics of conservatism:

Individualism, private property, and limits on power.

I can break that down for you if need be.

The post was designed to point out the problems of trying to discuss topics with conservatives. When the debate starts out it is you start by talking to a Republican, then the Republican turns into a Teapartier when flaws in the Republican party are pointed out (the spending of GWB). The Libertarian then turns into a Teapartier when (freedom of the individual (gay rights) is discussed). The Teapartier turns into a Republican when it's time to actually vote because they don't have a party to vote for.
* they believe in Individualism as long as gays don't have the right to get married
* They believe in private property unless they property can make more money in the hands of a developer
* They believe in power limits until they are in power

So? Conservatives should BE on the same PAGE? They should NOT be Individuals?

This is essentiallay what you are saying...and they don't go to the places you cite unless they are answering in kind to distractions.

*YOUR MOVE*

*No not the same page, but at least be consistant in thought and action. Republicans backed and elected GWB, and during the election campaign they pointed out all the things Democrats did that they didn't like i.e. bigger government. Then GWB enlarged the government, Democrats pointed that out to them, and the same self proclaimed Republicans all of sudden were not Republicans anymore, they became conservatives. Convienent.
*They should be individuals, and believe in individualism, and then allow others to be individuals as well. Not everyone is straight, and Christian.
*The world needs both kinds of people in it, workers and owners. It is understood that owners will make more than the workers and I do not begrudge them a profit. What I do begrudge them is the desparity between the two. The backing they give the business community is akin to the opposite of regulation, and that is subsudation.

 

[The T]

The post was designed to point out the problems of trying to discuss topics with conservatives. When the debate starts out it is you start by talking to a Republican, then the Republican turns into a Teapartier when flaws in the Republican party are pointed out (the spending of GWB). The Libertarian then turns into a Teapartier when (freedom of the individual (gay rights) is discussed). The Teapartier turns into a Republican when it's time to actually vote because they don't have a party to vote for.
* they believe in Individualism as long as gays don't have the right to get married
* They believe in private property unless they property can make more money in the hands of a developer
* They believe in power limits until they are in power

So? Conservatives should BE on the same PAGE? They should NOT be Individuals?

This is essentiallay what you are saying...and they don't go to the places you cite unless they are answering in kind to distractions.

*YOUR MOVE*

*No not the same page, but at least be consistant in thought and action. Republicans backed and elected GWB, and during the election campaign they pointed out all the things Democrats did that they didn't like i.e. bigger government. Then GWB enlarged the government, Democrats pointed that out to them, and the same self proclaimed Republicans all of sudden were not Republicans anymore, they became conservatives. Convienent.
*They should be individuals, and believe in individualism, and then allow others to be individuals as well. Not everyone is straight, and Christian.
*The world needs both kinds of people in it, workers and owners. It is understood that owners will make more than the workers and I do not begrudge them a profit. What I do begrudge them is the desparity between the two. The backing they give the business community is akin to the opposite of regulation, and that is subsudation.

They ARE consistant...in their INDIVIDUALITY.

Got it yet ace?

 

[spectrumc01]

So? Conservatives should BE on the same PAGE? They should NOT be Individuals?

This is essentiallay what you are saying...and they don't go to the places you cite unless they are answering in kind to distractions.

*YOUR MOVE*

*No not the same page, but at least be consistant in thought and action. Republicans backed and elected GWB, and during the election campaign they pointed out all the things Democrats did that they didn't like i.e. bigger government. Then GWB enlarged the government, Democrats pointed that out to them, and the same self proclaimed Republicans all of sudden were not Republicans anymore, they became conservatives. Convienent.
*They should be individuals, and believe in individualism, and then allow others to be individuals as well. Not everyone is straight, and Christian.
*The world needs both kinds of people in it, workers and owners. It is understood that owners will make more than the workers and I do not begrudge them a profit. What I do begrudge them is the desparity between the two. The backing they give the business community is akin to the opposite of regulation, and that is subsudation.

They ARE consistant...in their INDIVIDUALITY.

Got it yet ace?

So... what you are saying is that consrvatives are consistantly different? That there are actually two differnt types of people, Liberals and everyone else. Conservatives being everyone else. Do you allow liberals to be individuals?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The post was designed to point out the problems of trying to discuss topics with conservatives. When the debate starts out it is you start by talking to a Republican, then the Republican turns into a Teapartier when flaws in the Republican party are pointed out (the spending of GWB). The Libertarian then turns into a Teapartier when (freedom of the individual (gay rights) is discussed). The Teapartier turns into a Republican when it's time to actually vote because they don't have a party to vote for.
* they believe in Individualism as long as gays don't have the right to get married
* They believe in private property unless they property can make more money in the hands of a developer
* They believe in power limits until they are in power

So? Conservatives should BE on the same PAGE? They should NOT be Individuals?

This is essentiallay what you are saying...and they don't go to the places you cite unless they are answering in kind to distractions.

*YOUR MOVE*

*No not the same page, but at least be consistant in thought and action. Republicans backed and elected GWB, and during the election campaign they pointed out all the things Democrats did that they didn't like i.e. bigger government. Then GWB enlarged the government, Democrats pointed that out to them, and the same self proclaimed Republicans all of sudden were not Republicans anymore, they became conservatives. Convienent.
*They should be individuals, and believe in individualism, and then allow others to be individuals as well. Not everyone is straight, and Christian.
*The world needs both kinds of people in it, workers and owners. It is understood that owners will make more than the workers and I do not begrudge them a profit. What I do begrudge them is the desparity between the two. The backing they give the business community is akin to the opposite of regulation, and that is subsudation.

Should we hold Democrats to the same standards?

They backed Obama because he promised to pull the troops out of Iraq, close Gitmo, stop rendition, and use smart diplomacy. Since then he has kept to Bush's timeline, and even hinted that he will keep troops there longer than the current deadline, kept Gitmo open, continued rendition, and attacked Libya. When we point out the fact that he is doing exactly the opposite of what he promised you suddenly turn around and defend the very things you condemned. you simply insist that Obama is different than than Bush, even if you cannot explain how.

 

[spectrumc01]

So? Conservatives should BE on the same PAGE? They should NOT be Individuals?

This is essentiallay what you are saying...and they don't go to the places you cite unless they are answering in kind to distractions.

*YOUR MOVE*

*No not the same page, but at least be consistant in thought and action. Republicans backed and elected GWB, and during the election campaign they pointed out all the things Democrats did that they didn't like i.e. bigger government. Then GWB enlarged the government, Democrats pointed that out to them, and the same self proclaimed Republicans all of sudden were not Republicans anymore, they became conservatives. Convienent.
*They should be individuals, and believe in individualism, and then allow others to be individuals as well. Not everyone is straight, and Christian.
*The world needs both kinds of people in it, workers and owners. It is understood that owners will make more than the workers and I do not begrudge them a profit. What I do begrudge them is the desparity between the two. The backing they give the business community is akin to the opposite of regulation, and that is subsudation.

Should we hold Democrats to the same standards?

They backed Obama because he promised to pull the troops out of Iraq, close Gitmo, stop rendition, and use smart diplomacy. Since then he has kept to Bush's timeline, and even hinted that he will keep troops there longer than the current deadline, kept Gitmo open, continued rendition, and attacked Libya. When we point out the fact that he is doing exactly the opposite of what he promised you suddenly turn around and defend the very things you condemned. you simply insist that Obama is different than than Bush, even if you cannot explain how.

That is not the arguement. You are right and we have always agreed that the Democrats were not clean. We are not argueing Obamas policies. What we are arguing is why conservatives justify their behavior with the excuse of "they did it to." It is the ideology behind it.
Republicans ran and hid among those calling themselves conservatives when GWB failed. GWB had screwed up so bad that anyone running against the Republicans would have won. The true presidential race was between Hilliray and Obama. So now conservatism has been hijacked by a bunch of hypocrites, and you never know who your talking to anymore.
I despise religion, and believe in conservative econimics, and the fact that the Republicans were both. I believe in freedom and religion is opposite of freedom. The fact that my values of conservatism has been hijacked by a bunch of religious fanatics, really pisses me off. I have very liberal views when it comes to freedom.

 

[RachelMadcow]

Didnt Democrats just bailout Wall St. and give Tax Cuts to Billionaires before they illegally invaded Libya for oil?

 

[Old Rocks]

Give me a list of things that are too big for individuals.

Well here is a partial list because I don't have time to list everything:
1) Fighting a war, having more than one person helps
2) Transcontinental railroad
3) Running any business
4) Any construction project
and so on and so on

1. Collectivism is behind every single war in history. Individuals are smart enough to avoid them. That said, individuals have often won wars when the collective forces them into one.
2. Who needs a transcontinental railroad? Individuals build planes to get things there faster and cheaper.
3. Any business? I hate to break it to you, but I you can drop me anywhere in the world and I will be able to find a business that is entirely operated by one person.
4. Many houses have been built by one person. Some people have actually been known to do everything from chopping down trees to making the planks all by themselves.

So on and so forth.

Windy, you are truly full of oxen compost! This is about as ridicoulous of an example of sophmoric reasoning that I have ever seen.

There is simply no way in modern society, one where the vast majority of us live in an urban environment, whether a town of a few thousand or a few million, that most of us can be completely indepentdent. We depend on others every minute of our life. Even as we post we are dependent on the people the maintain this means of communication. We are dependent on those that maintain the power system that supplies the electricity for the computers and our homes. The people that supply the heating oil or natural gas that many of us heat our homes with. And few in even small towns have their own wells. Most buy most of their food from stores. And one can go on and on with this list.

We, virtually all of us, are dependent on society in ways that only a century ago would have been unimaginable. Yet you and so many others try in every way to deny the obvious reality.

The debate today is not whether we work collectively together, for we all must do that to survive, but what form the structure within which we seek to have a good life will take. And there are a lot of differant forms to choose from. And many work well in one application and very poorly in another. Think everything that we do, from producing the basics, like steel mills, to preserving the best lands of this nation for all citizens enjoyment, the National Park System. I have yet to see one system that will work for every endevour in our present society. Socialism, capitalism, and all their variants are tools, no more to be worshipped than one would worship a crescent wrench.

 

[The T]

*No not the same page, but at least be consistant in thought and action. Republicans backed and elected GWB, and during the election campaign they pointed out all the things Democrats did that they didn't like i.e. bigger government. Then GWB enlarged the government, Democrats pointed that out to them, and the same self proclaimed Republicans all of sudden were not Republicans anymore, they became conservatives. Convienent.
*They should be individuals, and believe in individualism, and then allow others to be individuals as well. Not everyone is straight, and Christian.
*The world needs both kinds of people in it, workers and owners. It is understood that owners will make more than the workers and I do not begrudge them a profit. What I do begrudge them is the desparity between the two. The backing they give the business community is akin to the opposite of regulation, and that is subsudation.

Should we hold Democrats to the same standards?

They backed Obama because he promised to pull the troops out of Iraq, close Gitmo, stop rendition, and use smart diplomacy. Since then he has kept to Bush's timeline, and even hinted that he will keep troops there longer than the current deadline, kept Gitmo open, continued rendition, and attacked Libya. When we point out the fact that he is doing exactly the opposite of what he promised you suddenly turn around and defend the very things you condemned. you simply insist that Obama is different than than Bush, even if you cannot explain how.

That is not the arguement. You are right and we have always agreed that the Democrats were not clean. We are not argueing Obamas policies. What we are arguing is why conservatives justify their behavior with the excuse of "they did it to." It is the ideology behind it.
Republicans ran and hid among those calling themselves conservatives when GWB failed. GWB had screwed up so bad that anyone running against the Republicans would have won. The true presidential race was between Hilliray and Obama. So now conservatism has been hijacked by a bunch of hypocrites, and you never know who your talking to anymore.
I despise religion, and believe in conservative econimics, and the fact that the Republicans were both. I believe in freedom and religion is opposite of freedom. The fact that my values of conservatism has been hijacked by a bunch of religious fanatics, really pisses me off. I have very liberal views when it comes to freedom.

Conservative WILL highlight past behaviourof their detractors...*TRUE*

However if one pays attention? They will state WHY...on an Individual LEVEL.

You portend to state that Conservatives should BE on the same page as Liberal Statists are...and YES you stated it...when the fact is Conservatism understands the INDIVIDUAL, and encourages it, respects it.

Sorry. Yer bubble is now burst. Conservatives ARE individuals...Not sophistry-Minded herders as Statists appear to be.

 

[code1211]

Hmm. Not a bad analysis really.

However, all the types of conservatism are each better than the ideas that:

A) Spending more than you make is a good idea
B) The government should be look upon to solve all problems

Adhering to the idea that both A and B are good ideas is very, very predictable: It leads to the USSR, China, North Korea, Cuba, Burma, Vietnam, Fascist Italy, Imperial Japan, Nazi Germany, modern Russia, Venezuela, and other nations who totalitarian, central authority government took over their people.

I'll take unstable freedom over stable tyranny any day.

I don't believe that Democrats or liberals believe that A & B are good for us either. I haven't heard any Democrat or liberal say it. What I have heard is, whoever is speaking for the Republican party at the time, Fox news, Glen Beck, and Rush Limbaugh say that is what the Democrats and liberals said or meant. As for the ideology of A & B I don't believe that either of the two sides want total A & B and that the arguement comes in when the degree of A & B is debated.

If the speaker does not not endorse both A and B, then that speaker is by definition not a Liberal.

Who, in specific, do you think is a Liberal but does not endorse both A and B?

 

[code1211]

It has become apparent that Republicans, Tea Partiers, and Libertarians consider themselves conservatives. Then there are the independants who fall into two catagories, conservative and liberal. So now we have four different types of conservatism, so far.

Conservatism is quickly becoming like christianity, with many denominations which vary ever so slightly from one to the next. Making them hard to pin down or determine what they believe. It also gives them plenty of hiding room as they float from one group to the next. This has become quite popular among conservatives since the GWB presidency.

Conservatism breaks down even further when you start talking about religion and the constitution. The only common denominator among all the conservatives is that they don't like Democrats, or Liberals.

Conservatism is quickly resembling terrorist cells, as they have no definitive leader, and their agenda is widely varried. Depending on who you talk to, the most important thing to conservatives seams to range from moral issues, to financial issues, to foreign affairs issues, and then to what ever issue they decide to champion next. As for the leqdership of these groups no one knows who leads some of them, such as the Tea Partiers and Libertarians. Just what the heck is Sarrah Palin? Tea Party express or Republican VP candidate? Then there is Ron Paul and Dick Armey what position do they hold in what party?

What has also become apparent is their lack of willingness to negotiate, or even talk to the other side of the isle. The degree to which this takes place and which issues this happens over also varies depending on which conservative group you are talking to. The only constant here is the level of anger.

These reasons and observations have led me to believe that if you are going to discuss anything with a conservative you had best find out what type of conservative you are talking to. As with christianity they are all brothers until you point out their shortcomings and then they become as slippery as eels moving from one form of conservatism to the next, until they find one that makes them look good for the issue being debated.

Does this make them bad people? No. Does this make them unamerican? No. Does this make their beliefs wrong? No. What it does do is make them to unpredictable. It is this unpredictability that leads us to doubt and question their motives. If you have to question their motives do you really want them running the country?

This says far more about the left's drug induced paranoia toward anyone that doesn't walk lock step with them.

They can't understand it. They don't have the intelligence to understand individualism. And like all things that lack intelligence, when they can't understand it, they react with fear, paranoia, and more importantly delusion.

The above reeks of the same.

Read, laugh, repeat!

Who leads the Teaparty? Sarrah Palin, Dick Armey, or Ron Paul? I understand individualism quite well, and I also understand that there can only be one president, not 10 million individuals. At least I have the intelligence to understand that.

First, the TEA Party has no leader.

Second, while we have only one President, it would be nice if that one President was a leader. The clown we have right now is tone deaf and incompetent. As soon as he thinks he knows the best way to rise in the polls, he takes off in the focus group directed tangent of the day.

Pathetic.

 

[The T]

Hmm. Not a bad analysis really.

However, all the types of conservatism are each better than the ideas that:

A) Spending more than you make is a good idea
B) The government should be look upon to solve all problems

Adhering to the idea that both A and B are good ideas is very, very predictable: It leads to the USSR, China, North Korea, Cuba, Burma, Vietnam, Fascist Italy, Imperial Japan, Nazi Germany, modern Russia, Venezuela, and other nations who totalitarian, central authority government took over their people.

I'll take unstable freedom over stable tyranny any day.

I don't believe that Democrats or liberals believe that A & B are good for us either. I haven't heard any Democrat or liberal say it. What I have heard is, whoever is speaking for the Republican party at the time, Fox news, Glen Beck, and Rush Limbaugh say that is what the Democrats and liberals said or meant. As for the ideology of A & B I don't believe that either of the two sides want total A & B and that the arguement comes in when the degree of A & B is debated.

If the speaker does not not endorse both A and B, then that speaker is by definition not a Liberal.

Who, in specific, do you think is a Liberal but does not endorse both A and B?

While denying the existence of C & D?

 

[Wiseacre]

So conservatives are not all of one mind, should anybody be surprised at this? Some are big on certain social issues, others are big on economic/financial issues, to various degrees. The same might be said for the independents and even the liberal progressives.

Lack of willingness to negotiate? Did they not negotiate a budget for the remainder of 2011? Did they not compromise on the level of spending cuts from 61 billion down to 38? From what I heard on the news there was a heck of a lot of talking going on across the aisle.

Level of anger? You didn't see any anger in Wisconsin or Indiana or Ohio?

Unpredictable? To the point of questioning their motives? How so, their motives look pretty consistent to me, less spending, no new taxes. Sure they threw in some social stuff, that's just politics. How are they unpredictable?


When it comes to schizos, do you think the liberals have a lot of room to talk? Never did pass a budget for 2011, when they had complete control of Congress. Took forever to pass ObamaCare, couldn't close down Gitmo, had to make special deals with special interests groups and buy off their own senators with kickbacks and deals that had to be done behind closed doors? And you're pointing fingers at conservatives?

 

[The T]

Principles...One word answer.

 

[The T]

And I would put mine up ANY DAY, Any hour to those of any Statist.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

*No not the same page, but at least be consistant in thought and action. Republicans backed and elected GWB, and during the election campaign they pointed out all the things Democrats did that they didn't like i.e. bigger government. Then GWB enlarged the government, Democrats pointed that out to them, and the same self proclaimed Republicans all of sudden were not Republicans anymore, they became conservatives. Convienent.
*They should be individuals, and believe in individualism, and then allow others to be individuals as well. Not everyone is straight, and Christian.
*The world needs both kinds of people in it, workers and owners. It is understood that owners will make more than the workers and I do not begrudge them a profit. What I do begrudge them is the desparity between the two. The backing they give the business community is akin to the opposite of regulation, and that is subsudation.

Should we hold Democrats to the same standards?

They backed Obama because he promised to pull the troops out of Iraq, close Gitmo, stop rendition, and use smart diplomacy. Since then he has kept to Bush's timeline, and even hinted that he will keep troops there longer than the current deadline, kept Gitmo open, continued rendition, and attacked Libya. When we point out the fact that he is doing exactly the opposite of what he promised you suddenly turn around and defend the very things you condemned. you simply insist that Obama is different than than Bush, even if you cannot explain how.

That is not the arguement. You are right and we have always agreed that the Democrats were not clean. We are not argueing Obamas policies. What we are arguing is why conservatives justify their behavior with the excuse of "they did it to." It is the ideology behind it.
Republicans ran and hid among those calling themselves conservatives when GWB failed. GWB had screwed up so bad that anyone running against the Republicans would have won. The true presidential race was between Hilliray and Obama. So now conservatism has been hijacked by a bunch of hypocrites, and you never know who your talking to anymore.
I despise religion, and believe in conservative econimics, and the fact that the Republicans were both. I believe in freedom and religion is opposite of freedom. The fact that my values of conservatism has been hijacked by a bunch of religious fanatics, really pisses me off. I have very liberal views when it comes to freedom.

You are the one that brought up Bush's policies, and the way you perceived that Republicans reacted to them. I am simply pointing out that your position is that Republicans/conservatives are wrong. That is simply not true.

Everybody lies. I have said this more than once on this board, and will say it again.Politicians are the worst of the lot. Your attempt to hold conservatives up as some sort of exception to the rule, and then pointing out how they actually lie, just makes you look pathetic.

Your values are your values. The only person that can hijack them is you. Whining because someone else does not actually share your values, and wants to stick a label on themselves that you like, is stupid. If you do not like what they are doing with the label of conservative call yourself something else.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Windy, you are truly full of oxen compost! This is about as ridicoulous of an example of sophmoric reasoning that I have ever seen.

Thank you. Coming from a person that is so ready to reject science simply because it conflicts with his philosophy as you are that is the equivalent of winning the a Pulitzer Prize.

There is simply no way in modern society, one where the vast majority of us live in an urban environment, whether a town of a few thousand or a few million, that most of us can be completely indepentdent. We depend on others every minute of our life. Even as we post we are dependent on the people the maintain this means of communication. We are dependent on those that maintain the power system that supplies the electricity for the computers and our homes. The people that supply the heating oil or natural gas that many of us heat our homes with. And few in even small towns have their own wells. Most buy most of their food from stores. And one can go on and on with this list.

The fact that most people are incapable of fending for themselves does not make being an individual impossible. Not everyone lives in a city, and not everyone that lives in the city is completely dependent on the city to live. There are a lot of people that live off the grid, even if you are not aware of it.

We, virtually all of us, are dependent on society in ways that only a century ago would have been unimaginable. Yet you and so many others try in every way to deny the obvious reality.

I do not deny anything. I just know that there are exceptions to every rule.

The debate today is not whether we work collectively together, for we all must do that to survive, but what form the structure within which we seek to have a good life will take. And there are a lot of differant forms to choose from. And many work well in one application and very poorly in another. Think everything that we do, from producing the basics, like steel mills, to preserving the best lands of this nation for all citizens enjoyment, the National Park System. I have yet to see one system that will work for every endevour in our present society. Socialism, capitalism, and all their variants are tools, no more to be worshipped than one would worship a crescent wrench.

Do you have anything of substance to say, or do you just like to see yourself type words on a computer screen?

Cooperation among individuals does not stop them from being individuals, nor does it make them part of a collective. Nor does a person using technology make them dependent on it. There are people that take the stuff that the world has to offer and turn it into stuff they can use. Google came up with Gmail Motion as an April Fool's joke this year, and we soon discovered that someone had already hacked a Kinnect, hooked it up to their computer, and turned the joke back on Google. If you want to live your life as part of a herd you are completely welcome to. Just do not expect everyone to feel, or think, the same way.

 

[rikules]

It has become apparent that Republicans, Tea Partiers, and Libertarians consider themselves conservatives. Then there are the independants who fall into two catagories, conservative and liberal. So now we have four different types of conservatism, so far.

Conservatism is quickly becoming like christianity, with many denominations which vary ever so slightly from one to the next. Making them hard to pin down or determine what they believe. It also gives them plenty of hiding room as they float from one group to the next. This has become quite popular among conservatives since the GWB presidency.

Conservatism breaks down even further when you start talking about religion and the constitution. The only common denominator among all the conservatives is that they don't like Democrats, or Liberals.

Conservatism is quickly resembling terrorist cells, as they have no definitive leader, and their agenda is widely varried. Depending on who you talk to, the most important thing to conservatives seams to range from moral issues, to financial issues, to foreign affairs issues, and then to what ever issue they decide to champion next. As for the leqdership of these groups no one knows who leads some of them, such as the Tea Partiers and Libertarians. Just what the heck is Sarrah Palin? Tea Party express or Republican VP candidate? Then there is Ron Paul and Dick Armey what position do they hold in what party?

What has also become apparent is their lack of willingness to negotiate, or even talk to the other side of the isle. The degree to which this takes place and which issues this happens over also varies depending on which conservative group you are talking to. The only constant here is the level of anger.

These reasons and observations have led me to believe that if you are going to discuss anything with a conservative you had best find out what type of conservative you are talking to. As with christianity they are all brothers until you point out their shortcomings and then they become as slippery as eels moving from one form of conservatism to the next, until they find one that makes them look good for the issue being debated.

Does this make them bad people? No. Does this make them unamerican? No. Does this make their beliefs wrong? No. What it does do is make them to unpredictable. It is this unpredictability that leads us to doubt and question their motives. If you have to question their motives do you really want them running the country?

"The only common denominator among all the conservatives is that they don't like Democrats, or Liberals. "

i have often thought this myself.

some are pro gay
most are not
some are pro pot
most are not
many are god crazy, some are not and some are even atheists
some are pro abstinance until marriage (i guess they enjoy the thrill of cheating on each other)
while some are sexually active
some are pro-womens rights and some think they belong in the kitchen



things they have in common would be; guns, abortion, military, death penalty



when taking into consideration their firm beliefs that;

they are really smart
everyone else is a mindless minion moron
they are patriots and good and right
everyone else is bad, evil, the enemy
they are under attack and being persecuted and their rights are being taken away
as they attack others and want to deny them rights
their lack of respect for others (people and beliefs)
their demand they they and their beliefs be respected
their anger
their incessant discussions of just what type of violence is justified in the war against those evil liberals who want to force their children to be gay and make everyone eat quiche

i have often considered them to be paranoid schizophrenics with delusions of granduer and a persecution complex


they'd be cute if they weren't so dangerous