Where have all the Conservatives Gone?

[Oddball]

I know about you. Now, if you ruled the world (and had for the last few years), who'd be cleaning up this spill, or, would it have been prevented in your world, through the magic of less regulation?

Once again this post is indicative of your inherent inability to comprehend Murphy's Law. Anything that can possibly go wrong...will. In your haste to defend the President against the onslaught of the entire country for his inability to act in the face of a national crisis you have failed to realize that it doesn't matter what he did or didn't do....it's all about perception and politics....just like the politics you ass clowns played with Katrina....now SUCK IT UP....it isn't going to stop until after 2012...when we have a new President.

The question you didn't answer wasn't directed at you, but feel free to answer it.

I answered it...Where'd you scamper off to?

 

[antagon]

Oh, I don't mean just people who call themselves conservatives; I mean the people who call themselves the real conservatives, the proudly hardcore

small government conservatives, the ones

1. who think the EPA, and FEMA, and the Department of Energy (for starters) are unconstitutional.

2. who think that if the Constitution doesn't say the government can do it, then the government can't do it.

3. who think the states can take of themselves.

4. who think the federal government over-regulates corporations.

Where did these folks disappear to? Is there an undisclosed location that all the small government laissez-faire states rightsers flee to when real life makes their agenda look ridiculous?

Seems the only so-called conservatives around for the moment are ones who blame the federal government for not doing enough with the oil spill, who blame the federal government for not sufficiently regulating the oil industry, who are attacking the president for not using the power and money of big central government to take care of the states affected.

Seems the only conservatives around for the moment are the ones that the self-proclaimed 'real' conservatives used to hold up as examples of what is wrong with the GOP and the right...

...although some of them bear a striking similarity to the 'real' conservatives. Sometimes it appears as if they are actually the same persons, in disguise. Could that be possible??

Come out come out wherever you are.

i was raised in a home with politically conservative values. none of what you've mentioned really characterize the type of conservatism my mother and father subscribed to. i think campaign finance reforms and the democrats success with taking a new angle on liberal politics have hurt the republicans, forcing them to buy into a new popular value set, and take what they can get from such political side-show acts as the libertarians.

what you describe is the outcome: a group claiming conservative without the education and understanding of how the country works, endeared to the never-neverland BS the libertarians are high on. you've left out some other funny neo-conservatisms:

abolish the Fed!

return to the gold standard!

teach creationism in science class!

bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb iran!

drill, baby drill!

and all of our founders agreed with thomas jefferson and james madison.

there's probably more...

 

[blu]

abolish the Fed!

return to the gold standard!

should we check teh value of the dollar before and after 1913? what about before nixon dropped us completely and after? Ending the federal reserve would be the smartest thing this country could do. Would automatically stop the social program advocates and war hawks in their tracks.

 

[skookerasbil]

Seems our "Drill, baby, Drill" conservatives are AWOL at the moment. Or, like the Alaska Loon, trying to blame environmentalists for being correct about the oil companies priorities.

what a dummy....................

We'd have this spill under control weeks ago except the k00ks insisted on drilling deep!!!


fcukking genius'!!!!!!!

 

[sangha]

the whole thing is a joke. if true conservative values were enforced, one of the main ones being property rights, BP would currently being paying each and every person who lost their job their normal wages, and would be paying the owners of any land affected by the spill for cleanup as well as lost revenue due to the flood. Its too bad the government thinks it should be the god of all land and strips owners of their right to protect their own land and punish those who ruin it.

Its the same idea as companies who polutte the air all day and pay a whopping dollar or two a day to the government to do it through lax laws and lobbying. If the government would give land rights back to people and owners these business would be gone already or be forced to use clean techonologies

you don't need wackos blowing up SUVs and slashing tires to get enviromental safety, the proper and most effective way to do it is already built into the foundation of the country

Environmental safety is built into the foundation of the country? WTF??? Are you high?

STRICT property rights, rights of the property OWNER, were built into this country. Before the overbearing government decided it could make environmental regulations, land owners had full control of their property and full ability to punish and sue the person(s)/business that negatively affected their land. In the case of BP this would mean not only would BP be paying everyone business's employee who depends on the gulf for seafood and the rest, but they would also be paying each person who owned a piece of land affected by the spill. This payment would have started day 1 after teh spill and would not cease until BP had completely cleared its mess and fully restitued every person affected. the federal government would do its main and constitutional job which is protect its citizens , meaning in this case, ensuring that BP paid and paid properly, and if they didn't jail everyone from the top of BP down until they caught up with the payments.

Meanwhile, the republicans in congress are fighting to keep a cap on liabilities for oil companies so that BP doesn't have to pay for the damage they caused

Yep, conservatives love their welfare

 

[blu]

Environmental safety is built into the foundation of the country? WTF??? Are you high?

STRICT property rights, rights of the property OWNER, were built into this country. Before the overbearing government decided it could make environmental regulations, land owners had full control of their property and full ability to punish and sue the person(s)/business that negatively affected their land. In the case of BP this would mean not only would BP be paying everyone business's employee who depends on the gulf for seafood and the rest, but they would also be paying each person who owned a piece of land affected by the spill. This payment would have started day 1 after teh spill and would not cease until BP had completely cleared its mess and fully restitued every person affected. the federal government would do its main and constitutional job which is protect its citizens , meaning in this case, ensuring that BP paid and paid properly, and if they didn't jail everyone from the top of BP down until they caught up with the payments.

Meanwhile, the republicans in congress are fighting to keep a cap on liabilities for oil companies so that BP doesn't have to pay for the damage they caused

Yep, conservatives love their welfare

republican != conservative

do you ever address the post?

 

[Oddball]

Meanwhile, the republicans in congress are fighting to keep a cap on liabilities for oil companies so that BP doesn't have to pay for the damage they caused

Yep, conservatives love their welfare

Why not?

Leftist moonbat do-gooders never ever have to pay the price for the unintended consequences of their do-goodery...Like the fact that BP more or less had to drill a mile below the surface of the sea in international waters, to get at oil it would've been easier to obtain in, saaaayyyyy, ANWR.

 

[WillowTree]

I and others like me never went anywhere....Just most of us shun the term "conservative" (whatever the hell that's supposed to mean anymore) since the leftist neocon turds hijacked the handle.

Next silly question?

Since you're just as ignorant as any conservative (ie "neo-cons" are not liberals, they are rightwingers. Cheney is a neo-con. Rumsfeld is a neo-con. You are a moron) why shouldn't we consider you a conservative?

and you are a moron..

 

[nraforlife]

If righties can't even admit they were wrong when they said Drill Baby Drill, ..........................

they weren't wrong. At the end of the day it will turn out that this spill was another black op by the permanent government. We need to drill for oil. End of Story.

 

[PoliticalChic]

This cartoon answers the OP's question

Actually, the govenment has never claimed the ability to clean up the mess, merely to order the cleanup.

 

[PoliticalChic]

If Neo's are in fact liberals then why was Bush elected twice by "conservatives"?

PRINCETON, NJ -- Thus far in 2009, 40% of Americans interviewed in national Gallup Poll surveys describe their political views as conservative, 35% as moderate, and 21% as liberal. This represents a slight increase for conservatism in the U.S. since 2008, returning it to a level last seen in 2004. The 21% calling themselves liberal is in line with findings throughout this decade, but is up from the 1990s.
?Conservatives? Are Single-Largest Ideological Group

If conservatives make up only 40% of the electorate, "then [how] was Bush elected twice by "conservatives"?

 

[Wry Catcher]

Indeed, where have all the conservatives gone, gone to fringes everywhere, on single issues - guns, gays, abortions, god and off the edge.
The Republican Party is now a fringe partry, as are the Libertarian, Peace and Freedom, American Independent, and dozens more.
Moderate and conservative Republicans have been cast adrift by ideologues who hold this truth self-evident - it's all about me.
If a new party is to form, replacing the old R party, I can imagine a split in the Democrats, whereby fiscal conservative Democrats split from liberal Democrats into a redux of the original party of Jefferson.
As a moderate Democrat I want to put an end to generational entitlements, but support Social Security and universal national preventative health care and comprehenisve health care for all children up to age 21.
I support pay as you go and the line-item veto, with the Congress able to override the veto on specific matters as the Constitution permits;
I support the Federal Income tax in it's progressive form, and reject any effort to change the process to benefit the wealthy at the expense of the nation;
I support the Constitution and support the concept that it is a living document, able to be seen in the light of today withing the framwork of history;
I support one man, one vote and reject any form of 'democracy' which values the vote of one more than the vote of another;
I believe we have a duty to protect the earth, and that environmental laws protecting the planet are necessary, for the greed of man is a given as can be seen in the Gulf today;
And, I believe comprehensive campaign finance reform is necessary and that The US Supreme Court which struck down a major portion of a 2002 campaign-finance reform law, saying it violates the free-speech right of corporations to engage in public debate of political issues, is a blow to democratic principles. Corporations are not people, notwithstanding Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company, 118 U.S. 394 (1886) - wherein a clerk made law and the clerk established precedent.

 

[Oddball]

I support the Constitution and support the concept that it is a living document, able to be seen in the light of today withing the framwork of history;

Then you don't support the Constitution.

The concept of "living rules" means in fact that there are NO rules....Anarchy.

 

[sangha]

I support the Constitution and support the concept that it is a living document, able to be seen in the light of today withing the framwork of history;

Then you don't support the Constitution.

The concept of "living rules" means in fact that there are NO rules....Anarchy.

You're going to have to work on your stupidity if you have any hopes of matching your "Bush was a liberal" remark

 

[Sheldon]

I support the Constitution and support the concept that it is a living document, able to be seen in the light of today withing the framwork of history;

Then you don't support the Constitution.

The concept of "living rules" means in fact that there are NO rules....Anarchy.

You're going to have to work on your stupidity if you have any hopes of matching your "Bush was a liberal" remark

After 9/11 the Bush administration became neo-conservative.

Neo-conservatives and modern liberals have different ends, but their means are the same, which is what makes them similar. Bush was like a modern liberal to the extent that he and his administration wanted to use government to implement policy goals.

 

[Oddball]

I support the Constitution and support the concept that it is a living document, able to be seen in the light of today withing the framwork of history;

Then you don't support the Constitution.

The concept of "living rules" means in fact that there are NO rules....Anarchy.

You're going to have to work on your stupidity if you have any hopes of matching your "Bush was a liberal" remark

ALL neoconnie turds (and I don't throw my universal qualifiers around lightly) are domestic welfare statist leftists, who happen to like their interventionist foreign wars.

If you look at the records objectively --something I'm certain that you'll fail to do-- the Shrub's record isn't too much different than the "liberal" dirtball LBJ.

 

[sangha]

Then you don't support the Constitution.

The concept of "living rules" means in fact that there are NO rules....Anarchy.

You're going to have to work on your stupidity if you have any hopes of matching your "Bush was a liberal" remark

After 9/11 the Bush administration became neo-conservative.

Neo-conservatives and modern liberals have different ends, but their means are the same, which is what makes them similar. Bush was like a modern liberal to the extent that he and his administration wanted to use government to implement policy goals.

So, in your delusional world, conservative don't want the govt to implement policy goals like banning abortion and teaching creationism in science class

Conservatives have no ideas, no character, and no moral center. That's why they can lie with such ease

 

[sangha]

Then you don't support the Constitution.

The concept of "living rules" means in fact that there are NO rules....Anarchy.

You're going to have to work on your stupidity if you have any hopes of matching your "Bush was a liberal" remark

ALL neoconnie turds (and I don't throw my universal qualifiers around lightly) are domestic welfare statist leftists, who happen to like their interventionist foreign wars.

If you look at the records objectively --something I'm certain that you'll fail to do-- the Shrub's record isn't too much different than the "liberal" dirtball LBJ.

I just wanted to thank you for returning to the "Bush was a liberal" rant.

Very entertaining

 

[elvis]

I support the Constitution and support the concept that it is a living document, able to be seen in the light of today withing the framwork of history;

Then you don't support the Constitution.

The concept of "living rules" means in fact that there are NO rules....Anarchy.

You're going to have to work on your stupidity if you have any hopes of matching your "Bush was a liberal" remark

ever hear of bush's farm subsidies? sounds like government hand-outs to me.

 

[sangha]

Then you don't support the Constitution.

The concept of "living rules" means in fact that there are NO rules....Anarchy.

You're going to have to work on your stupidity if you have any hopes of matching your "Bush was a liberal" remark

ever hear of bush's farm subsidies? sounds like government hand-outs to me.

Sounds consistent to me. Conservatives are dependent on govt welfare. They always have been