# What would happen to the United States if Conservatives left?



## Wyatt earp

I put this topic here because I want honest answers and no flaming. As a right leaning guy I love the left and wouldnt want to see them go. But why does the left hate Republicans so bad? Their history is after all the Anti-Slave party. p.s. sorry about any typo's I wrote this on the fly because I am so curious what would you think happen to the US if cons left


----------



## Sactowndog

What type of conservatives?  Social conservatives? Fiscal Conservatives? Libertarians?


----------



## AmazonTania

Sactowndog said:


> What type of conservatives?  Social conservatives? Fiscal Conservatives? Libertarians?



Libertarians and Conservatives are not the same.


----------



## AmazonTania

bear513 said:


> I put this topic here because I want honest answers and no flaming. As a right leaning guy I love the left and wouldnt want to see them go. But why does the left hate Republicans so bad? Their history is after all the Anti-Slave party. p.s. sorry about any typo's I wrote this on the fly because I am so curious what would you think happen to the US if cons left



A US state would succeed, followed the US economy tanking.


----------



## BlueGin

The Dems would start turning on each other.  They always have to have someone to hate and blame.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

What would happen to the United States if Conservatives left?

Detroit


----------



## Oddball

CrusaderFrank said:


> What would happen to the United States if Conservatives left?
> 
> Detroit


Moscow.


----------



## Sherry

There wouldn't be anyone left to support their Welfare State.


----------



## skye

It would be - Welcome to the United Socialists  States! -


----------



## Connery

That would leave a gaping hole in the fabric of US politics. There would be many who would be more than willing to fill that gap, as money is to be made and power to be garnered, at which point we would get a whole new crew of those who would be considered conservative.


----------



## TheOldSchool

This would happen everywhere:








Well maybe...


----------



## Oddball

Sherry said:


> There wouldn't be anyone left to support their Welfare State.


Nobody left to pay the bureaucrats.


----------



## Pop23

Just watch the movie Zombieland.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

bear513 said:


> I put this topic here because I want honest answers and no flaming. As a right leaning guy I love the left and wouldnt want to see them go. But why does the left hate Republicans so bad? Their history is after all the Anti-Slave party. p.s. sorry about any typo's I wrote this on the fly because I am so curious what would you think happen to the US if cons left



The left doesnt hate anyone, republicans in particular. 

In fact, theyd love to have conservatives back to participate in responsible governance again. 

Unfortunately, at least at this time, social conservatives, rightwing fiscal extremists, and Christian fundamentalists have a stranglehold on the GOP.


----------



## midcan5

What is a conservative anyway? Conservatism as a political force in America didn't even start till the thirties or even later. Abraham Lincoln was not a conservative for he wanted and fought for change. Can one imagine an American conservative today fighting for justice and fairness as Lincoln did? 

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...es-of-midcans-insights-into-contemporary.html
http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/88682-a-conservative-wakes-up.html
http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/50727-who-should-rule-test.html

Many Americans today fail to realize we did not arrive at this place in time without a lot of turmoil and change, revolution, civil war, Laissez-faire capitalism, great depression, unions, new deal, civil rights, great society, riots, and on and on. This fictional dichotomy (liberal v conservative) has existed in the minds of many since the New Deal, corporate America has since tattooed it into our minds. Makes everything easy to categorize. For those interested in its story check out the book below. 

"The rise of conservative politics in postwar America is one of the great puzzles of American political history. For much of the period that followed the end of World War II, conservative ideas about the primacy of the free market, and the dangers of too-powerful labor unions, government regulation, and an activist, interventionist state seemed to have been thoroughly rejected by most intellectual and political elites. Scholars and politicians alike dismissed those who adhered to such faiths as a "radical right," for whom to quote the Columbia University historian Richard Hofstadter politics "becomes an arena into which the wildest fancies are projected, the most paranoid suspicions, the most absurd superstitions, the most bizarre apocalyptic fantasies." How, then, did such ideas move from their marginal position in the middle years of the twentieth century to become the reigning politics of the country by the century's end?

Historians and social critics often explain the successes of conservative politics by pointing to the backlash against the victories of the social movements of the 1960s, the cultural reaction against the radicals who fought for civil rights, feminism, and gay and lesbian rights and who protested against the Vietnam War. The 1970s defection of white working class people alienated and frightened by the liberal program shifted the politics of the country far to the right. The argument is that in the days before the onset of the culture wars, a "liberal consensus" dominated American politics, especially around economics." Kim Phillips-Fein ('Invisible Hands')


----------



## Sallow

AmazonTania said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I put this topic here because I want honest answers and no flaming. As a right leaning guy I love the left and wouldnt want to see them go. But why does the left hate Republicans so bad? Their history is after all the Anti-Slave party. p.s. sorry about any typo's I wrote this on the fly because I am so curious what would you think happen to the US if cons left
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A US state would succeed, followed the US economy tanking.
Click to expand...


Well no.


----------



## PratchettFan

bear513 said:


> I put this topic here because I want honest answers and no flaming. As a right leaning guy I love the left and wouldnt want to see them go. But why does the left hate Republicans so bad? Their history is after all the Anti-Slave party. p.s. sorry about any typo's I wrote this on the fly because I am so curious what would you think happen to the US if cons left



What makes you think the left hates Republicans?  Certainly there are people on the left who do, just as there are people on the right who hate Democrats.  But that is not the case with the majority of people.  I think you are painting with a very large brush here.

I would also ask what you mean by conservative.  I am a conservative.  I think government should be as small as possible while still being able to serve its purpose.  It should not be in the business of telling me how to live - but a lot of people who say they are conservative think that is the primary job of government.  Which "cons" are you talking about?


----------



## PratchettFan

BlueGin said:


> The Dems would start turning on each other.  They always have to have someone to hate and blame.



Now that is irony.


----------



## PaulS1950

Conservatives are not against change. They tend to want change for the support of individual rights and freedoms but not change away from our republican form of government. Liberals on the otherhand want to change away from the republic toward democracy that always leads to either oligachy or anarchy which then leads to oligarchy.
The only way to protect individual rights and allow a majority rule of a nation is through a republic.
If we shed the constitution then we shread the USA.


----------



## Wyatt earp

midcan5 said:


> What is a conservative anyway? Conservatism as a political force in America didn't even start till the thirties or even later. Abraham Lincoln was not a conservative for he wanted and fought for change. Can one imagine an American conservative today fighting for justice and fairness as Lincoln did?
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...es-of-midcans-insights-into-contemporary.html
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/88682-a-conservative-wakes-up.html
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/50727-who-should-rule-test.html
> 
> Many Americans today fail to realize we did not arrive at this place in time without a lot of turmoil and change, revolution, civil war, Laissez-faire capitalism, great depression, unions, new deal, civil rights, great society, riots, and on and on. This fictional dichotomy (liberal v conservative) has existed in the minds of many since the New Deal, corporate America has since tattooed it into our minds. Makes everything easy to categorize. For those interested in its story check out the book below.
> 
> "The rise of conservative politics in postwar America is one of the great puzzles of American political history. For much of the period that followed the end of World War II, conservative ideas about the primacy of the free market, and the dangers of too-powerful labor unions, government regulation, and an activist, interventionist state seemed to have been thoroughly rejected by most intellectual and political elites. Scholars and politicians alike dismissed those who adhered to such faiths as a "radical right," for whom to quote the Columbia University historian Richard Hofstadter politics "becomes an arena into which the wildest fancies are projected, the most paranoid suspicions, the most absurd superstitions, the most bizarre apocalyptic fantasies." How, then, did such ideas move from their marginal position in the middle years of the twentieth century to become the reigning politics of the country by the century's end?
> 
> Historians and social critics often explain the successes of conservative politics by pointing to the backlash against the victories of the social movements of the 1960s, the cultural reaction against the radicals who fought for civil rights, feminism, and gay and lesbian rights and who protested against the Vietnam War. The 1970s defection of white working class people alienated and frightened by the liberal program shifted the politics of the country far to the right. The argument is that in the days before the onset of the culture wars, a "liberal consensus" dominated American politics, especially around economics." Kim Phillips-Fein ('Invisible Hands')



Intersting post, A book I should read. But what would you classify laura ingalls wilder [spl? I think] books "little house on the prairie. Were they Liberals or conservative?  or even my child hood favorite "the rifle man" t.v. show was chuck conners charcter ( fyi he used to be a ptcher for the Chicago cubbies) was he a a liberal or a con? just bringing this up because you said conservatives didnt exist till the 1940's..


----------



## Wyatt earp

And I dont think Lincoln fought for change, he was fighting for the way he read the U.S. constituion.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Who would be Left?

Jake and his Liberal brothers

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## JWBooth

Dunno....

maybe we could get each one to take a liberal with them when they go.


----------



## AmazonTania

Sallow said:


> Well no.



So if a state like Texas, which is  8.92% of national GDP, were to sucede that would have no impact on the Economy whatsoever?

Yep, I can see how that would make sense.


----------



## midcan5

bear513 said:


> Intersting post, A book I should read. But what would you classify laura ingalls wilder [spl? I think] books "little house on the prairie. Were they Liberals or conservative?  or even my child hood favorite "the rifle man" t.v. show was chuck conners charcter ( fyi he used to be a ptcher for the Chicago cubbies) was he a a liberal or a con? just bringing this up because you said conservatives didnt exist till the 1940's..



Conservatives have always existed, I noted American conservatism, I should have been clearer.  The American conservative movement is something different than our usual conservative tendencies, it has / had a purpose and a founding and a reason.  And I think a particular American ideological stance.

I have been on this board so long I probably have a thread or post that covers most questions - at least from my humble pov. Here a diatribe for your enjoyment. 

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/50859-conservative-beliefs.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/88682-a-conservative-wakes-up.html


----------



## arKangel

AmazonTania said:


> Sactowndog said:
> 
> 
> 
> What type of conservatives?  Social conservatives? Fiscal Conservatives? Libertarians?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Libertarians and Conservatives are not the same.
Click to expand...


Agree.
Libertarians, at least the ones who aren't whacked out on dope, are not "conservatives".





AmazonTania said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I put this topic here because I want honest answers and no flaming. As a right leaning guy I love the left and wouldnt want to see them go. But why does the left hate Republicans so bad? Their history is after all the Anti-Slave party. p.s. sorry about any typo's I wrote this on the fly because I am so curious what would you think happen to the US if cons left
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A US state would succeed, followed the US economy tanking.
Click to expand...



Sorta Disagree.
As stupid as conned'servatives are, they do have outstanding moral principles. 
Due to some cosmic misfortune for this country, they are just stupid enough to swallow anything that faux news, israel, and glen beck serves up as some sort of gospel truth.

And the pinko controls the credit system the damned fools put all their faith in?
They now own the conned'servantives.  Conservative is another word for slave.

It's a matter of time.

Those idiot conned'servantives/zio-nutters, who are targeted for extinction by the pinkos...
...are the only thing buying time for the independent civilized man.


----------



## Mertex

It's funny to read the comments by some conservatives who seem to think that Liberals are all on welfare and hippy-like.  They are obviously still living in the past, or just want to feel superior.  I don't need for conservatives to leave, but it would be nice if they weren't so uptight.  Many of my friends are Republican and very conservative, but we still have some things in common.

A casual observer of national politics would expect to find that the wealthiest Americans are Conservative Republicans. After all, it's the Republicans who promise to lower taxes, shrink government and reduce regulations. *Yet the opposite appears to be the case with many of the wealthiest people in the country being outspoken liberals.*

*Of the 20 wealthiest Americans, 12 identify as Democrats and 8 as republicans.* If you control for families (combine the Koch brothers and the Waltons), the ratio is 4 Republicans to 12 Democrats. *The Democrats in the top 20 have a combined net worth of $263 billion, while the Republicans have a net worth of $144 billion - that's almost two to one.*
Why are the Wealthy Liberals?


That was then. A sizeable slice of the upper class has since swung into the liberal camp, changing the balance of power in American politics. *The Forbes 400 is now heavily populated by a new breed of billionaire: high-tech entrepreneurs, financial whizzes, and communications moguls. Today's super rich are also far more educated, a trait that correlates with liberal values like tolerance.* In 1982, roughly 50 members of the Forbes 400 had college degrees. By 2006, 244 of those on the list had finished college, and at least 132 -- or nearly a third of U.S. billionaires -- had graduate degrees.
The Real Liberal Elite


----------



## The Rabbi

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I put this topic here because I want honest answers and no flaming. As a right leaning guy I love the left and wouldnt want to see them go. But why does the left hate Republicans so bad? Their history is after all the Anti-Slave party. p.s. sorry about any typo's I wrote this on the fly because I am so curious what would you think happen to the US if cons left
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The left doesnt hate anyone, republicans in particular.
> 
> In fact, theyd love to have conservatives back to participate in responsible governance again.
> 
> Unfortunately, at least at this time, social conservatives, rightwing fiscal extremists, and Christian fundamentalists have a stranglehold on the GOP.
Click to expand...


Of course the left doesnt hate anyone.
Why I Hate George W. Bush | New Republic

Top 10 Reasons to Hate Sarah Palin | NewsReal Blog


----------



## Politico

No one would be left to pay the bills. Kinda like Kalifornia.


----------



## Bfgrn

Oddball said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> What would happen to the United States if Conservatives left?
> 
> Detroit
> 
> 
> 
> Moscow.
Click to expand...


Really? Why would American liberals want to become Russia, an even MORE conservative country? 

"Conservatism is the dominant intellectual legacy of Russia"
Richard Pipes

Conservative Russia






People simply do not realize that Russia is a deeply conservative country.

Fiscal policy is buttressed on a low, flat rate of income tax (13%), and there is virtually no social safety net, with spending on unemployment security, medical provision, disability aid, infrastructure, the environment, and urban regeneration far lower, in both absolute terms and as a percentage of GDP, than its G8 contemporaries.

Similarly, military spending is high in comparison  and growing  medical care is available free in theory, but requires private insurance or additional cash payment in practice, and businesses are in reality pretty un-regulated.

If that doesnt sound to you like a set of policies Newt Gingrich or William F Buckley would support, then you dont know your dyed in the wool conservatives from your woolly jumper wearing liberals.


----------



## Bfgrn

Why I am Not a Conservative 
By Nobel laureate F. A. Hayek










"In general, it can probably be said that the conservative does not object to coercion or arbitrary power so long as it is used for what he regards as the right purposes. He believes that if government is in the hands of decent men, it ought not to be too much restricted by rigid rules. Since he is essentially opportunist and lacks principles, his main hope must be that the wise and the good will rule - not merely by example, as we all must wish, but by authority given to them and enforced by them. 

When I say that the conservative lacks principles, I do not mean to suggest that he lacks moral conviction. The typical conservative is indeed usually a man of very strong moral convictions. What I mean is that he has no political principles which enable him to work with people whose moral values differ from his own for a political order in which both can obey their convictions. It is the recognition of such principles that permits the coexistence of different sets of values that makes it possible to build a peaceful society with a minimum of force. The acceptance of such principles means that we agree to tolerate much that we dislike. 

To live and work successfully with others requires more than faithfulness to one's concrete aims. It requires an intellectual commitment to a type of order in which, even on issues which to one are fundamental, others are allowed to pursue different ends.

It is for this reason that to the liberal neither moral nor religious ideals are proper objects of coercion, while both conservatives and socialists recognize no such limits. 

In the last resort, the conservative position rests on the belief that in any society there are recognizably superior persons whose inherited standards and values and position ought to be protected and who should have a greater influence on public affairs than others. The liberal, of course, does not deny that there are some superior people - he is not an egalitarian - but he denies that anyone has authority to decide who these superior people are. While the conservative inclines to defend a particular established hierarchy and wishes authority to protect the status of those whom he values, the liberal feels that no respect for established values can justify the resort to privilege or monopoly or any other coercive power of the state in order to shelter such people against the forces of economic change. Though he is fully aware of the important role that cultural and intellectual elites have played in the evolution of civilization, he also believes that these elites have to prove themselves by their capacity to maintain their position under the same rules that apply to all others.

Closely connected with this is the usual attitude of the conservative to democracy. I have made it clear earlier that I do not regard majority rule as an end but merely as a means, or perhaps even as the least evil of those forms of government from which we have to choose. But I believe that the conservatives deceive themselves when they blame the evils of our time on democracy. The chief evil is unlimited government, and nobody is qualified to wield unlimited power. The powers which modern democracy possesses would be even more intolerable in the hands of some small elite."

http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/articles/hayek-why-i-am-not-conservative.pdf


----------



## The Rabbi

Milton Friedman called himself a Liberal.  Do you agree with Milton's Friedman's view about the economy and policy?


----------



## JWBooth

Friedman said many things.
In practice he was a monetarist and a statist.


----------



## The Rabbi

JWBooth said:


> Friedman said many things.
> In practice he was a monetarist and a statist.



A statist?  No wonder I have you on ignore.


----------



## Bfgrn

The Rabbi said:


> Milton Friedman called himself a Liberal.  Do you agree with Milton's Friedman's view about the economy and policy?



Hitler called himself a Christian. What is your point?


----------



## AmazonTania

Bfgrn said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Milton Friedman called himself a Liberal.  Do you agree with Milton's Friedman's view about the economy and policy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hitler called himself a Christian. What is your point?
Click to expand...


No, no he didn't.


----------



## The Rabbi

AmazonTania said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Milton Friedman called himself a Liberal.  Do you agree with Milton's Friedman's view about the economy and policy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hitler called himself a Christian. What is your point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, no he didn't.
Click to expand...


Doesn't matter as facts to Bigfreakingnumbnuts are like pork to Muslims.


----------



## Bfgrn

AmazonTania said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Milton Friedman called himself a Liberal.  Do you agree with Milton's Friedman's view about the economy and policy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hitler called himself a Christian. What is your point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, no he didn't.
Click to expand...


Sure he did. His first dream was to become a Priest. 






"The national government... will maintain and defend the foundations on which the power of our nation rests. It will offer strong protection to Christianity as the very basis of our collective morality."

"Today Christians... stand at the head of our country. I pledge that I will never tie myself to parties who want to destroy Christianity... We want to fill our culture again with the Christian spirit.... We want to burn out all the recent immoral developments in literature, in the theatre, and in the press - in short, we want to burn out the poison of immorality which has entered into our whole life and culture as a result of liberal excess during the past... few years." 

Adolf Hitler
The Speeches of Adolph Hitler, 1922-1939, Vol. 1 (London, Oxford University Press, 1942), pg. 871-872.


----------



## Bfgrn

The Rabbi said:


> AmazonTania said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hitler called himself a Christian. What is your point?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, no he didn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Doesn't matter as facts to Bigfreakingnumbnuts are like pork to Muslims.
Click to expand...


LOL...words from the author of this gem:

"People are not on unemployment for 2 years because there are no jobs.  There are no jobs because people are on unemployment for 2 years."
The Rabbi


----------



## Trakar

bear513 said:


> I put this topic here because I want honest answers and no flaming. As a right leaning guy I love the left and wouldnt want to see them go. But why does the left hate Republicans so bad? Their history is after all the Anti-Slave party. p.s. sorry about any typo's I wrote this on the fly because I am so curious what would you think happen to the US if cons left


 
First of all, Republican &#8800; Conservative, though today there are far more conservative Republicans than Republicans of other persuasions. I, for instance am a Progressive Republican in the tradition of Teddy Roosevelt, Lincoln, Eisenhower, and to an extent, a substantial portion of the Republican party until near the end of the last century.

The problem is more about the extremism rather than the difference of opinion and approach.


----------



## The Rabbi

Bfgrn said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AmazonTania said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, no he didn't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't matter as facts to Bigfreakingnumbnuts are like pork to Muslims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL...words from the author of this gem:
> 
> "People are not on unemployment for 2 years because there are no jobs.  There are no jobs because people are on unemployment for 2 years."
> The Rabbi
Click to expand...


And the fact that you think it is absurd shows what an under-educated moron you are.  The kind of guy who would call liberals conservatives and vice versa because he doesnt understand those terms in their context.


----------



## JWBooth

The Rabbi said:


> JWBooth said:
> 
> 
> 
> Friedman said many things.
> In practice he was a monetarist and a statist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A statist?  No wonder I have you on ignore.
Click to expand...


----------



## Circe

The Rabbi said:


> JWBooth said:
> 
> 
> 
> Friedman said many things.
> In practice he was a monetarist and a statist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A statist?  No wonder I have you on ignore.
Click to expand...



There is something wrong with this post..........................

What could it be, what could it be??


----------



## Katzndogz

Liberals at least owe it to themselves to try a nation of all liberals.  Split the country up and give them that chance.


----------



## Circe

The Rabbi said:


> And the fact that you think it is absurd shows what an under-educated moron you are.  The kind of guy who would call liberals conservatives and vice versa because he doesnt understand those terms in their context.



Words mean what they mean, not what they say.

Crucial linguistic issue.

Nothing is more boring than the Internet fools who try to pretend they are something fancy because they stick to an antique British definition of "liberal" and "conservative" instead of the way everyone means those words now.

Migod, people have been trying on that sort of pretentiousness for DECADES. I don't suppose it fools anyone anymore, but some of the duller types still hope to impress somebody.


----------



## AmazonTania

Bfgrn said:


> Sure he did. His first dream was to become a Priest.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The national government... will maintain and defend the foundations on which the power of our nation rests. It will offer strong protection to Christianity as the very basis of our collective morality."
> 
> "Today Christians... stand at the head of our country. I pledge that I will never tie myself to parties who want to destroy Christianity... We want to fill our culture again with the Christian spirit.... We want to burn out all the recent immoral developments in literature, in the theatre, and in the press - in short, we want to burn out the poison of immorality which has entered into our whole life and culture as a result of liberal excess during the past... few years."
> 
> Adolf Hitler
> The Speeches of Adolph Hitler, 1922-1939, Vol. 1 (London, Oxford University Press, 1942), pg. 871-872.



You've taken quotes out of context, which is not surprising.

No where does it say that he called himself a Christian. Hitler replaced conventional Christianity, with New Germany Christianity. All he did was replace Christianity with aspects he disapproved and renewed it with aspects he did approve. If you've read Mein Kampf (which most people have not), you would have learned why he rejected Christianity. Hitler was also a Darwinist. He felt the ideas of Christianity protected the weak and feeble-minded. He felt the Christian idea of mercy and forgiveness was 'un-German.' Hitler was against the idea of helping the weak and the ill, which are other Christian ideals. Sure, he did a lot of things which protected the rights of the church in signing the Concordat, but these protections didn't last very long.


----------



## Circe

AmazonTania said:


> [Hitler replaced conventional Christianity, with New Germany Christianity. Hitler was also a Darwinist. All he did was replace Christianity with aspects he disapproved and renewed it with aspects he did approve. If you've read Mein Kampf (which most people have not), you would have learned why he rejected Christianity.




I tried, but it's pretty awful. Can you summarize why Hitler rejected Christianity in Mein Kampf? 

Or at least why he said he did; people assume that he didn't want a separate power base since he was running a totalitarian society.  The independent church is always a problem for totalitarian governments: Henry VIII had exactly the same issue Hitler did. The church is a way for people to slip out from under the total life control of totalitarianism. That's why Stalin killed religion, too.


----------



## AmazonTania

Circe said:


> Or at least why he said he did; people assume that he didn't want a separate power base since he was running a totalitarian society.  The independent church is always a problem for totalitarian governments: Henry VIII had exactly the same issue Hitler did. The church is a way for people to slip out from under the total life control of totalitarianism. That's why Stalin killed religion, too.



Briefly explained in the edited post.


----------



## Circe

AmazonTania said:


> Circe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Or at least why he said he did; people assume that he didn't want a separate power base since he was running a totalitarian society.  The independent church is always a problem for totalitarian governments: Henry VIII had exactly the same issue Hitler did. The church is a way for people to slip out from under the total life control of totalitarianism. That's why Stalin killed religion, too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Briefly explained in the edited post.
Click to expand...



Excellent, thanks much.




> He felt the ideas of Christianity protected the weak and feeble-minded. He felt the Christian idea of mercy and forgiveness was 'un-German.' Hitler was against the idea of helping the weak and the ill, which are other Christian ideals. Sure, he did a lot of things which protected the rights of the church in signing the Concordat, but these protections didn't last very long.


----------



## hoosier88

bear513 said:


> midcan5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is a conservative anyway? Conservatism as a political force in America didn't even start till the thirties or even later. Abraham Lincoln was not a conservative for he wanted and fought for change. Can one imagine an American conservative today fighting for justice and fairness as Lincoln did?
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...es-of-midcans-insights-into-contemporary.html
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/88682-a-conservative-wakes-up.html
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/50727-who-should-rule-test.html
> 
> Many Americans today fail to realize we did not arrive at this place in time without a lot of turmoil and change, revolution, civil war, Laissez-faire capitalism, great depression, unions, new deal, civil rights, great society, riots, and on and on. This fictional dichotomy (liberal v conservative) has existed in the minds of many since the New Deal, corporate America has since tattooed it into our minds. Makes everything easy to categorize. For those interested in its story check out the book below.
> 
> "The rise of conservative politics in postwar America is one of the great puzzles of American political history. For much of the period that followed the end of World War II, conservative ideas about the primacy of the free market, and the dangers of too-powerful labor unions, government regulation, and an activist, interventionist state seemed to have been thoroughly rejected by most intellectual and political elites. Scholars and politicians alike dismissed those who adhered to such faiths as a "radical right," for whom to quote the Columbia University historian Richard Hofstadter politics "becomes an arena into which the wildest fancies are projected, the most paranoid suspicions, the most absurd superstitions, the most bizarre apocalyptic fantasies." How, then, did such ideas move from their marginal position in the middle years of the twentieth century to become the reigning politics of the country by the century's end?
> 
> Historians and social critics often explain the successes of conservative politics by pointing to the backlash against the victories of the social movements of the 1960s, the cultural reaction against the radicals who fought for civil rights, feminism, and gay and lesbian rights and who protested against the Vietnam War. The 1970s defection of white working class people alienated and frightened by the liberal program shifted the politics of the country far to the right. The argument is that in the days before the onset of the culture wars, a "liberal consensus" dominated American politics, especially around economics." Kim Phillips-Fein ('Invisible Hands')
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Intersting post, A book I should read. But what would you classify* laura ingalls wilder [spl? I think] books "little house on the prairie. Were they Liberals or conservative?  *or even my child hood favorite "the rifle man" t.v. show was chuck conners charcter ( fyi he used to be a ptcher for the Chicago cubbies) was he a a liberal or a con? just bringing this up because you said conservatives didnt exist till the 1940's..
Click to expand...


(My bold)

*The Little House on the Prairie* were more-or-less autobiographical accounts/stories by the author.  The stuff on TV was a niece? some female descendant of Wilder, who appropriated Wilder's work & tried to sell it for movie scripts, etc.  (During the Depression?)  Hollywood turned her down, not "commercial" enough.  

So she rewrote the lot, downplayed the everyday nature of life on the prairie, the communal activities - barnraising, getting in the crops, firefighting, schooling, religion, etc.  Then she sensationalized the sorry result.  Which made it all v. interesting to the moguls @ TV.  That's what you remember, & it's mostly a pack of lies.  Your public library probably has copies of the original stories - ignore anything with Little Joe Cartwright's pix on the cover, & any novelizations of the TV show - look for ms. with a copyright in the 1840s? 

But check on Wikipedia for the copyright date, I'm doing this from memory.  Best of luck, & pay no attention to the screaming little box in your livingroom.  How to tell when it lies:  It's on.


----------



## editec

bear513 said:


> I put this topic here because I want honest answers and no flaming. As a right leaning guy I love the left and wouldnt want to see them go. But why does the left hate Republicans so bad? Their history is after all the Anti-Slave party. p.s. sorry about any typo's I wrote this on the fly because I am so curious what would you think happen to the US if cons left



What would happen to this nation if any group comprising 25% of the population left?

The economy would collapse, of course.

Then it would begin to recover as it adapted to the massive change in circumstance.

I know that you wanted a more partisan response, but that is what would happen if the a huge percentage of the population disappeared _regardless of who it was_


----------



## Wyatt earp

hoosier88 said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> midcan5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is a conservative anyway? Conservatism as a political force in America didn't even start till the thirties or even later. Abraham Lincoln was not a conservative for he wanted and fought for change. Can one imagine an American conservative today fighting for justice and fairness as Lincoln did?
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...es-of-midcans-insights-into-contemporary.html
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/88682-a-conservative-wakes-up.html
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/50727-who-should-rule-test.html
> 
> Many Americans today fail to realize we did not arrive at this place in time without a lot of turmoil and change, revolution, civil war, Laissez-faire capitalism, great depression, unions, new deal, civil rights, great society, riots, and on and on. This fictional dichotomy (liberal v conservative) has existed in the minds of many since the New Deal, corporate America has since tattooed it into our minds. Makes everything easy to categorize. For those interested in its story check out the book below.
> 
> "The rise of conservative politics in postwar America is one of the great puzzles of American political history. For much of the period that followed the end of World War II, conservative ideas about the primacy of the free market, and the dangers of too-powerful labor unions, government regulation, and an activist, interventionist state seemed to have been thoroughly rejected by most intellectual and political elites. Scholars and politicians alike dismissed those who adhered to such faiths as a "radical right," for whom to quote the Columbia University historian Richard Hofstadter politics "becomes an arena into which the wildest fancies are projected, the most paranoid suspicions, the most absurd superstitions, the most bizarre apocalyptic fantasies." How, then, did such ideas move from their marginal position in the middle years of the twentieth century to become the reigning politics of the country by the century's end?
> 
> Historians and social critics often explain the successes of conservative politics by pointing to the backlash against the victories of the social movements of the 1960s, the cultural reaction against the radicals who fought for civil rights, feminism, and gay and lesbian rights and who protested against the Vietnam War. The 1970s defection of white working class people alienated and frightened by the liberal program shifted the politics of the country far to the right. The argument is that in the days before the onset of the culture wars, a "liberal consensus" dominated American politics, especially around economics." Kim Phillips-Fein ('Invisible Hands')
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Intersting post, A book I should read. But what would you classify* laura ingalls wilder [spl? I think] books "little house on the prairie. Were they Liberals or conservative?  *or even my child hood favorite "the rifle man" t.v. show was chuck conners charcter ( fyi he used to be a ptcher for the Chicago cubbies) was he a a liberal or a con? just bringing this up because you said conservatives didnt exist till the 1940's..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> (My bold)
> 
> *The Little House on the Prairie* were more-or-less autobiogrpahical accounts/stories by the author.  The stuff on TV was a niece? some female descendant of Wilder, who appropriated Wilder's work & tried to sell it for movie scripts, etc.  (During the Depression?)  Hollywood turned her down, not "commercial" enough.
> 
> So she rewrote the lot, downplayed the everyday nature of life on the prairie, the communal activities - barnraising, getting in the crops, firefighting, schooling, religion, etc.  Then she sensationalized the sorry result.  Which made it all v. interesting to the moguls @ TV.  That's what you remember, & it's mostly a pack of lies.  Your public library probably has copies of the original stories - ignore anything with Little Joe Cartwright's pix on the cover, & any novelizations of the TV show - look for ms. with a copyright in the 1840s?
> 
> But check on Wikipedia for the copyright date, I'm doing this from memory.  Best of luck, & pay no attention to the screaming little box in your livingroom.  How to tell when it lies:  It's on.
Click to expand...


I read the books, so my question remains the same.


----------



## Avorysuds

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I put this topic here because I want honest answers and no flaming. As a right leaning guy I love the left and wouldnt want to see them go. But why does the left hate Republicans so bad? Their history is after all the Anti-Slave party. p.s. sorry about any typo's I wrote this on the fly because I am so curious what would you think happen to the US if cons left
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The left doesnt hate anyone, republicans in particular.
> 
> In fact, theyd love to have conservatives back to participate in responsible governance again.
> 
> Unfortunately, at least at this time, social conservatives, rightwing fiscal extremists, and Christian fundamentalists have a stranglehold on the GOP.
Click to expand...



But you hate Ron and Rand Paul.... They are the definition of holding the Government responsible, hence their reason of wanting to keep it small... They are the fiscal conservative who upholds the constitution who at no point uses their religion for political gain... like Obama has. Or did you mean responsible to mean vote for programs like Obamacare and anything else Dems put up? 


The worst thing that could happen to Dems or Reps is that a real conservative gets elected.


----------



## Avorysuds

Ok, whats the deal with this thread... It's in the "clean debate zone" and it's like any other trolled out flame thread.


----------



## beagle9

TheOldSchool said:


> This would happen everywhere:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well maybe...


Hey there all heading to a job interview right ? Or is it to the nearest college campus where they are with great welcome, in order to inject their ideology on the young and ignorant because their parents aren't there ? Or are they heading to wall street for their final offensive ? Or are they just riding around in a bus smoking pot and doing every other kind of escape the world type drug, until it runs out of gas, and then what ? Or is it halloween, where everytime the bus stops, one of them has to go beg for something ? Or are they heading in total dress up hippie style to the biggest musical festival in the land at the time ((Woodstock)) ?


----------



## edthecynic

AmazonTania said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure he did. His first dream was to become a Priest.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The national government... will maintain and defend the foundations on which the power of our nation rests. It will offer strong protection to Christianity as the very basis of our collective morality."
> 
> "Today Christians... stand at the head of our country. I pledge that I will never tie myself to parties who want to destroy Christianity... We want to fill our culture again with the Christian spirit.... We want to burn out all the recent immoral developments in literature, in the theatre, and in the press - in short, we want to burn out the poison of immorality which has entered into our whole life and culture as a result of liberal excess during the past... few years."
> 
> Adolf Hitler
> The Speeches of Adolph Hitler, 1922-1939, Vol. 1 (London, Oxford University Press, 1942), pg. 871-872.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've taken quotes out of context, which is not surprising.
> 
> No where does it say that he called himself a Christian. Hitler replaced conventional Christianity, with New Germany Christianity. All he did was replace Christianity with aspects he disapproved and renewed it with aspects he did approve. If you've read Mein Kampf (which most people have not), you would have learned why he rejected Christianity. Hitler was also a Darwinist. He felt the ideas of Christianity protected the weak and feeble-minded. He felt the Christian idea of mercy and forgiveness was 'un-German.' Hitler was against the idea of helping the weak and the ill, which are other Christian ideals. Sure, he did a lot of things which protected the rights of the church in signing the Concordat, but these protections didn't last very long.
Click to expand...

My feelings *as a Christian *points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. 
In boundless love *as a Christian* and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. 
To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before in the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. 
*As a Christian* I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice.... And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. 
For *as a Christian* I have also a duty to my own people.... When I go out in the morning and see these men standing in their queues and look into their pinched faces, then I believe 
I would be no Christian, but a very devil if I felt no pity for them, if I did not, as did our Lord two thousand years ago, turn against those by whom to-day this poor people is plundered and exploited. 

-Adolf Hitler, in his speech in Munich on 12 April 1922


----------



## AmazonTania

edthecynic said:


> My feelings *as a Christian *points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter.
> In boundless love *as a Christian* and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison.
> To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before in the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross.
> *As a Christian* I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice.... And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows.
> For *as a Christian* I have also a duty to my own people.... When I go out in the morning and see these men standing in their queues and look into their pinched faces, then I believe
> I would be no Christian, but a very devil if I felt no pity for them, if I did not, as did our Lord two thousand years ago, turn against those by whom to-day this poor people is plundered and exploited.
> 
> -Adolf Hitler, in his speech in Munich on 12 April 1922



That's nice. I've seen those quotes many times, although I never see the speech in it's entirety. Unless I can see that, I can only assume those were taken out of context as well (or cherry picked to say the least). Seeing as Mein Kampf was dictated about a year after that speech was given and published several years later, Hitler was very explicit about the weaknesses of the Christian religion and his evolutionary ideals he had in his vision for Germany.

Change of heart, possibly?


----------



## Wyatt earp

Avorysuds said:


> Ok, whats the deal with this thread... It's in the "clean debate zone" and it's like any other trolled out flame thread.



From what I read, no its not. I just want to know why the ultra left thinks conservatives are dying out. Beacuse thats what I have been reading on forums


----------



## hoosier88

bear513 said:


> hoosier88 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Intersting post, A book I should read. But what would you classify* laura ingalls wilder [spl? I think] books "little house on the prairie. Were they Liberals or conservative?  *or even my child hood favorite "the rifle man" t.v. show was chuck conners charcter ( fyi he used to be a ptcher for the Chicago cubbies) was he a a liberal or a con? just bringing this up because you said conservatives didnt exist till the 1940's..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (My bold)
> 
> *The Little House on the Prairie* were more-or-less autobiogrpahical accounts/stories by the author.  The stuff on TV was a niece? some female descendant of Wilder, who appropriated Wilder's work & tried to sell it for movie scripts, etc.  (During the Depression?)  Hollywood turned her down, not "commercial" enough.
> 
> So she rewrote the lot, downplayed the everyday nature of life on the prairie, the communal activities - barnraising, getting in the crops, firefighting, schooling, religion, etc.  Then she sensationalized the sorry result.  Which made it all v. interesting to the moguls @ TV.  That's what you remember, & it's mostly a pack of lies.  Your public library probably has copies of the original stories - ignore anything with Little Joe Cartwright's pix on the cover, & any novelizations of the TV show - look for ms. with a copyright in the 1840s?
> 
> But check on Wikipedia for the copyright date, I'm doing this from memory.  Best of luck, & pay no attention to the screaming little box in your livingroom.  How to tell when it lies:  It's on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I read the books, so my question remains the same.
Click to expand...


As I recall, she stressed the communitarian aspect of life on the frontier.  Everyone pitched in to build houses, barns, get in crops, fight fires, etc.  She didn't talk about gunfights, & hardly mentioned fighting off Native Peoples.  It was fairly dull, which is why her relative had to rewrite the material to try to make it salable.  I don't remember if the relative ever did make the sale.  

I assume she did, the stuff on TV apparently bears only a slgiht resemblance to the real thing - kinda "inspired by stories with more-or-less the same cast of characters, locales, etc."


----------



## OohPooPahDoo

bear513 said:


> Their history is after all the Anti-Slave party


So how come hardly any blacks vote for them?


----------



## AmazonTania

OohPooPahDoo said:


> So how come hardly any blacks vote for them?



Physical slavery is easy to overcome these days. Can't help anyone who chooses to become a mental slave, on the other hand.


----------



## The Rabbi

OohPooPahDoo said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Their history is after all the Anti-Slave party
> 
> 
> 
> So how come hardly any blacks vote for them?
Click to expand...

They did until the 1940s. Until then you couldn't find a black Democrat.  Then FDR figured out that handing out free government cheese was the secret to votes.  Blacks have reliably voted Democrat, gotten their free cheese, and seen their economic status go to hell.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo

The Rabbi said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Their history is after all the Anti-Slave party
> 
> 
> 
> So how come hardly any blacks vote for them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They did until the 1940s. Until then you couldn't find a black Democrat.  Then FDR figured out that handing out free government cheese was the secret to votes.  Blacks have reliably voted Democrat, gotten their free cheese, and seen their economic status go to hell.
Click to expand...

FDR's social welfare programs benefited people of all races. So your explanation does little to explain why blacks are ~90% Democratic today.


----------



## bodecea

bear513 said:


> I put this topic here because I want honest answers and no flaming. As a right leaning guy I love the left and wouldnt want to see them go. But why does the left hate Republicans so bad? Their history is after all the Anti-Slave party. p.s. sorry about any typo's I wrote this on the fly because I am so curious what would you think happen to the US if cons left



This isn't flaming, I'm just curious....where would they go?


----------



## Wyatt earp

bodecea said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I put this topic here because I want honest answers and no flaming. As a right leaning guy I love the left and wouldnt want to see them go. But why does the left hate Republicans so bad? Their history is after all the Anti-Slave party. p.s. sorry about any typo's I wrote this on the fly because I am so curious what would you think happen to the US if cons left
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This isn't flaming, I'm just curious....where would they go?
Click to expand...


Idk, thats what I am trying to ask you? do you think they would just bow down and acccept it? And say what the heck we are with you?


----------



## Wyatt earp

The Rabbi said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Their history is after all the Anti-Slave party
> 
> 
> 
> So how come hardly any blacks vote for them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They did until the 1940s. Until then you couldn't find a black Democrat.  Then FDR figured out that handing out free government cheese was the secret to votes.  Blacks have reliably voted Democrat, gotten their free cheese, and seen their economic status go to hell.
Click to expand...


I think my quote here was out of context.... just a thought.


----------



## bodecea

AmazonTania said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Milton Friedman called himself a Liberal.  Do you agree with Milton's Friedman's view about the economy and policy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hitler called himself a Christian. What is your point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, no he didn't.
Click to expand...


He most certainly did.


----------



## Circe

Where would they go?  

They'd go far beyond the Northern Sea.


_Reuben, Reuben,
I've been thinking,
What a grand thing it would be,
If the boys were all transported
Far beyond the Northern Sea!_


----------



## Desperado

The US would then be Obama's version of Robert Mugabe's  Zimbabwe


----------



## Bfgrn

Katzndogz said:


> Liberals at least owe it to themselves to try a nation of all liberals.  Split the country up and give them that chance.



We already have. 

Red States Are Welfare Queens

As it turns out, it is red states that are overwhelmingly the Welfare Queen States. Yes, that's right. Red States  the ones governed by folks who think government is too big and spending needs to be cut  are a net drain on the economy, taking in more federal spending than they pay out in federal taxes. They talk a good game, but stick Blue States with the bill.

Take a look at the difference between federal spending on any given state and the federal taxes received from that state. We measure the difference as a dollar amount: Federal Spending per Dollar of Federal Taxes. A figure of $1.00 means that particular state received as much as it paid in to the federal government. Anything over a dollar means the state received more than it paid; anything less than $1.00 means the state paid more in taxes than it received in services. The higher the figure, the more a given state is a welfare queen.

Of the twenty worst states, 16 are either Republican dominated or conservative states. Let's go through the top twenty.

    New Mexico: $2.03
    Mississippi: $2.02
    Alaska: $1.84
    Louisiana: $1.78
    West Virginia: $1.76
    North Dakota: $1.68
    Alabama: $1.66
    South Dakota: $1.53
    Kentucky: $1.51
    Virginia: $1.51
    Montana: $1.47
    Hawaii: $1.44
    Maine: $1.41
    Arkansas: $1.41
    Oklahoma: $1.36
    South Carolina: $1.35
    Missouri: $1.32
    Maryland: $1.30
    Tennessee: $1.27
    Idaho: $1.21

Does anyone else notice the overwhelming presence of northern "rugged individualist" states, like Alaska, the Dakotas and Montana, along with most of the South? Why it's almost like there's a pattern here or something.

Where can we find liberal bastions California, New York, and Massachusetts? California is 43rd, getting back only $0.78 for every dollar it sends to Washington. New York is 42nd, and one penny better off, at $0.79 per dollar. Massachusetts is 40th, receiving $0.82 for every dollar it sends to DC.

Read more: Red States Are Welfare Queens - Business Insider


----------



## The Rabbi

OohPooPahDoo said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> So how come hardly any blacks vote for them?
> 
> 
> 
> They did until the 1940s. Until then you couldn't find a black Democrat.  Then FDR figured out that handing out free government cheese was the secret to votes.  Blacks have reliably voted Democrat, gotten their free cheese, and seen their economic status go to hell.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> FDR's social welfare programs benefited people of all races. So your explanation does little to explain why blacks are ~90% Democratic today.
Click to expand...


Well, no actually is was deleterious to all Americans.  ANd FDR refused to push anti lynching legislation because he didnt want to offend Southern Dems.

But I answered your queston already: Dems figured out dishing out gov't cheese to blacks was the way to buy their vote.


----------



## peach174

If conservatives left there would be no food.
Conservatives are the majority of farmers and Ranchers of this nation.


----------



## Circe

peach174 said:


> If conservatives left there would be no food.
> Conservatives are the majority of farmers and Ranchers of this nation.



Details, details.

You dems could get the blacks to do the farming. They're just hanging out in the ghettos anyway, right? Why couldn't they do the farming?

Yeah, that'd really work.


----------



## PMZ

IMO, the real difference between conservatives and liberals is how they view the world and it's people. 

Conservatives view the world from the perspective of scarcity. Everything is in short supply so one must defend his/her stash or risk losing it. 

Liberals view the world from the perspective of plenty. We can create more than enough to go around so the future is as bright as we want to make it. 

I think that this worldview is pervasive. Applies to everything. Business, religion, politics, family and culture, relationships, entertainment, past, present and future. 

Of course in any given situation one or the other is probably closer to reality. Civilization needs both perspectives but at different times and places and situations. 

If either one disappeared completely we'd be short of a valuable set of possibilities and perspectives and alternatives.

That having been said though I'd much rather live in a world based on a worldview of plenty rather than scarcity, if I had to choose one over the other. In fact I believe that we used to be there.


----------



## PMZ

The Rabbi said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> They did until the 1940s. Until then you couldn't find a black Democrat.  Then FDR figured out that handing out free government cheese was the secret to votes.  Blacks have reliably voted Democrat, gotten their free cheese, and seen their economic status go to hell.
> 
> 
> 
> FDR's social welfare programs benefited people of all races. So your explanation does little to explain why blacks are ~90% Democratic today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, no actually is was deleterious to all Americans.  ANd FDR refused to push anti lynching legislation because he didnt want to offend Southern Dems.
> 
> But I answered your queston already: Dems figured out dishing out gov't cheese to blacks was the way to buy their vote.
Click to expand...


How about Repubs dishing out wealth redistribution to the wealthy? Isn't that buying votes and financial support? 

Let's see. "A" offers me cheese when I am starving. "B" offers me wealth without work. 

Tough choice????


----------



## Circe

PMZ said:


> IMO, the real difference between conservatives and liberals is how they view the world and it's people.
> 
> Conservatives view the world from the perspective of scarcity. Everything is in short supply so one must defend his/her stash or risk losing it.
> 
> Liberals view the world from the perspective of plenty. We can create more than enough to go around so the future is as bright as we want to make it.
> 
> I think that this worldview is pervasive. Applies to everything. Business, religion, politics, family and culture, relationships, entertainment, past, present and future.
> 
> Of course in any given situation one or the other is probably closer to reality. Civilization needs both perspectives but at different times and places and situations.
> 
> If either one disappeared completely we'd be short of a valuable set of possibilities and perspectives and alternatives.
> 
> That having been said though I'd much rather live in a world based on a worldview of plenty rather than scarcity, if I had to choose one over the other. In fact I believe that we used to be there.




Wonderful analysis.

My own idea of the difference is that conservatives don't want change, they want stability; and liberals do want change, they welcome and promote change. 

However, I really like your thinking and want to process that some more. A perspective of scarcity can affect life on a personal level, too.


----------



## Caroljo

Mertex said:


> It's funny to read the comments by some conservatives who seem to think that Liberals are all on welfare and hippy-like.  They are obviously still living in the past, or just want to feel superior.  I don't need for conservatives to leave, but it would be nice if they weren't so uptight.  Many of my friends are Republican and very conservative, but we still have some things in common.
> 
> A casual observer of national politics would expect to find that the wealthiest Americans are Conservative Republicans. After all, it's the Republicans who promise to lower taxes, shrink government and reduce regulations. *Yet the opposite appears to be the case with many of the wealthiest people in the country being outspoken liberals.*
> 
> *Of the 20 wealthiest Americans, 12 identify as Democrats and 8 as republicans.* If you control for families (combine the Koch brothers and the Waltons), the ratio is 4 Republicans to 12 Democrats. *The Democrats in the top 20 have a combined net worth of $263 billion, while the Republicans have a net worth of $144 billion - that's almost two to one.*
> Why are the Wealthy Liberals?
> 
> 
> That was then. A sizeable slice of the upper class has since swung into the liberal camp, changing the balance of power in American politics. *The Forbes 400 is now heavily populated by a new breed of billionaire: high-tech entrepreneurs, financial whizzes, and communications moguls. Today's super rich are also far more educated, a trait that correlates with liberal values like tolerance.* In 1982, roughly 50 members of the Forbes 400 had college degrees. By 2006, 244 of those on the list had finished college, and at least 132 -- or nearly a third of U.S. billionaires -- had graduate degrees.
> The Real Liberal Elite



I'm very conservative, but i don't believe i'm "up tight"....I love beer, and the occasional "smoke"


----------



## PMZ

A lot of history being rewritten here. In the Civil war the Republican party emerged in the north most from Abolisionists who lived there. The Democrat Party was well established in the south. In fact the south was often referred to as the Dixiecrats. 

When Kennedy and LBJ launched the campaign for equal civil rights for every one, the Dixiecrats were appalled and became Republicans. The blacks tasted freedom and became dedicated Democrat supporters. The Dixiecrats dragged the Republican Party into religion and conservatism. 

That's where we are today.


----------



## hoosier88

The Rabbi said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> They did until the 1940s. Until then you couldn't find a black Democrat.  Then FDR figured out that handing out free government cheese was the secret to votes.  Blacks have reliably voted Democrat, gotten their free cheese, and seen their economic status go to hell.
> 
> 
> 
> FDR's social welfare programs benefited people of all races. So your explanation does little to explain why blacks are ~90% Democratic today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, no actually is was deleterious to all Americans.  ANd FDR refused to push anti lynching legislation because he didnt want to offend Southern Dems.
> 
> But I answered your queston already: *Dems figured out dishing out gov't cheese to blacks was the way to buy their vote.*
Click to expand...


(My bold)

Ugly in so many ways!

But let's cut to the chase:  When can all those prospective Black GOP party members expect to see a Black GOP presidential candidate with an actual possibility of winning the GOP presidential nomination?  

Does the Food Stamp program actually go back to FDR?  Good for him, if so.  Of course, the main point of that effort was to prop up farm prices, to save farmers & their crops - it was originally called the Food Commodities Program, as I recall.  Fed gov was a middleman, buying crops @ a base price, processing, canning & then distributing goods on a sliding income scale?  (That may have come later - @ first, I believe it was to help families keep body & soul together.  I don't recall what the first distribution criteria were.)


----------



## PMZ

Circe said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> IMO, the real difference between conservatives and liberals is how they view the world and it's people.
> 
> Conservatives view the world from the perspective of scarcity. Everything is in short supply so one must defend his/her stash or risk losing it.
> 
> Liberals view the world from the perspective of plenty. We can create more than enough to go around so the future is as bright as we want to make it.
> 
> I think that this worldview is pervasive. Applies to everything. Business, religion, politics, family and culture, relationships, entertainment, past, present and future.
> 
> Of course in any given situation one or the other is probably closer to reality. Civilization needs both perspectives but at different times and places and situations.
> 
> If either one disappeared completely we'd be short of a valuable set of possibilities and perspectives and alternatives.
> 
> That having been said though I'd much rather live in a world based on a worldview of plenty rather than scarcity, if I had to choose one over the other. In fact I believe that we used to be there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wonderful analysis.
> 
> My own idea of the difference is that conservatives don't want change, they want stability; and liberals do want change, they welcome and promote change.
> 
> However, I really like your thinking and want to process that some more. A perspective of scarcity can affect life on a personal level, too.
Click to expand...


Certainly, in a world of scarcity, change is seen as a risk of losing what one has. In a world of plenty change as seen as a chance for everyone to have more.


----------



## The Rabbi

hoosier88 said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> FDR's social welfare programs benefited people of all races. So your explanation does little to explain why blacks are ~90% Democratic today.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, no actually is was deleterious to all Americans.  ANd FDR refused to push anti lynching legislation because he didnt want to offend Southern Dems.
> 
> But I answered your queston already: *Dems figured out dishing out gov't cheese to blacks was the way to buy their vote.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> (My bold)
> 
> Ugly in so many ways!
> 
> But let's cut to the chase:  When can all those prospective Black GOP party members expect to see a Black GOP presidential candidate with an actual possibility of winning the GOP presidential nomination?
> 
> Does the Food Stamp program actually go back to FDR?  Good for him, if so.  Of course, the main point of that effort was to prop up farm prices, to save farmers & their crops - it was originally called the Food Commodities Program, as I recall.  Fed gov was a middleman, buying crops @ a base price, processing, canning & then distributing goods on a sliding income scale?  (That may have come later - @ first, I believe it was to help families keep body & soul together.  I don't recall what the first distribution criteria were.)
Click to expand...


We've already seen a black GOP candidate.  He was harassed to death and called all sorts of things by the open minded liberal white establishment.

The real question is, When can Democrats field a successful black candidate?


----------



## beagle9

Bfgrn said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberals at least owe it to themselves to try a nation of all liberals.  Split the country up and give them that chance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We already have.
> 
> Red States Are Welfare Queens
> 
> As it turns out, it is red states that are overwhelmingly the Welfare Queen States. Yes, that's right. Red States &#8212; the ones governed by folks who think government is too big and spending needs to be cut &#8212; are a net drain on the economy, taking in more federal spending than they pay out in federal taxes. They talk a good game, but stick Blue States with the bill.
> 
> Take a look at the difference between federal spending on any given state and the federal taxes received from that state. We measure the difference as a dollar amount: Federal Spending per Dollar of Federal Taxes. A figure of $1.00 means that particular state received as much as it paid in to the federal government. Anything over a dollar means the state received more than it paid; anything less than $1.00 means the state paid more in taxes than it received in services. The higher the figure, the more a given state is a welfare queen.
> 
> Of the twenty worst states, 16 are either Republican dominated or conservative states. Let's go through the top twenty.
> 
> New Mexico: $2.03
> Mississippi: $2.02
> Alaska: $1.84
> Louisiana: $1.78
> West Virginia: $1.76
> North Dakota: $1.68
> Alabama: $1.66
> South Dakota: $1.53
> Kentucky: $1.51
> Virginia: $1.51
> Montana: $1.47
> Hawaii: $1.44
> Maine: $1.41
> Arkansas: $1.41
> Oklahoma: $1.36
> South Carolina: $1.35
> Missouri: $1.32
> Maryland: $1.30
> Tennessee: $1.27
> Idaho: $1.21
> 
> Does anyone else notice the overwhelming presence of northern "rugged individualist" states, like Alaska, the Dakotas and Montana, along with most of the South? Why it's almost like there's a pattern here or something.
> 
> Where can we find liberal bastions California, New York, and Massachusetts? California is 43rd, getting back only $0.78 for every dollar it sends to Washington. New York is 42nd, and one penny better off, at $0.79 per dollar. Massachusetts is 40th, receiving $0.82 for every dollar it sends to DC.
> 
> Read more: Red States Are Welfare Queens - Business Insider
Click to expand...


  The states you listed are still in a huge struggle coming out of the past, but are they getting better or getting worse is the question, and if they are getting worse, then why are they getting worse with so much more help than the other states have had, do get or produce ? Am I understanding this right ? If Not I am doing the best I can in comprehending this I guess. So the liberal bastions are profiting the nation instead of running in the red is what this is saying ? Otherwise they (the lib bastions) aren't costing Washington as much, when the others are eating it up and going over board ? Yes, but I think we have to look back to the entire history of the entire situation, where as that is the only way to truthfully look at it right ? What is the entire make up between all of these comparrisons, and what has the leadership been over the years or who has the leadership been over the years ? Is this suggesting that Conservatives who may lead in some of these states, are mis-managing them, where as if Dem's/libs had them it would be like the other lib bastions you cited here ?


----------



## tjvh

Why is this in the CDZ and not the rubber room?


----------



## Wyatt earp

tjvh said:


> Why is this in the CDZ and not the rubber room?



because its an honest debat, something I want to read about, so far their has been no personal attacks or flaming by posters on my thread. it has been so polite and open, thanks guys and girls...


----------



## 007

bear513 said:


> I put this topic here because I want honest answers and no flaming. As a right leaning guy I love the left and wouldnt want to see them go. But why does the left hate Republicans so bad? Their history is after all the Anti-Slave party. p.s. sorry about any typo's I wrote this on the fly because I am so curious what would you think happen to the US if cons left



Mexico would annex America, and the libroids would welcome it with open arms.


----------



## Wyatt earp

Bfgrn said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberals at least owe it to themselves to try a nation of all liberals.  Split the country up and give them that chance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We already have.
> 
> Red States Are Welfare Queens
> 
> As it turns out, it is red states that are overwhelmingly the Welfare Queen States. Yes, that's right. Red States  the ones governed by folks who think government is too big and spending needs to be cut  are a net drain on the economy, taking in more federal spending than they pay out in federal taxes. They talk a good game, but stick Blue States with the bill.
> 
> Take a look at the difference between federal spending on any given state and the federal taxes received from that state. We measure the difference as a dollar amount: Federal Spending per Dollar of Federal Taxes. A figure of $1.00 means that particular state received as much as it paid in to the federal government. Anything over a dollar means the state received more than it paid; anything less than $1.00 means the state paid more in taxes than it received in services. The higher the figure, the more a given state is a welfare queen.
> 
> Of the twenty worst states, 16 are either Republican dominated or conservative states. Let's go through the top twenty.
> 
> New Mexico: $2.03
> Mississippi: $2.02
> Alaska: $1.84
> Louisiana: $1.78
> West Virginia: $1.76
> North Dakota: $1.68
> Alabama: $1.66
> South Dakota: $1.53
> Kentucky: $1.51
> Virginia: $1.51
> Montana: $1.47
> Hawaii: $1.44
> Maine: $1.41
> Arkansas: $1.41
> Oklahoma: $1.36
> South Carolina: $1.35
> Missouri: $1.32
> Maryland: $1.30
> Tennessee: $1.27
> Idaho: $1.21
> 
> Does anyone else notice the overwhelming presence of northern "rugged individualist" states, like Alaska, the Dakotas and Montana, along with most of the South? Why it's almost like there's a pattern here or something.
> 
> Where can we find liberal bastions California, New York, and Massachusetts? California is 43rd, getting back only $0.78 for every dollar it sends to Washington. New York is 42nd, and one penny better off, at $0.79 per dollar. Massachusetts is 40th, receiving $0.82 for every dollar it sends to DC.
> 
> Read more: Red States Are Welfare Queens - Business Insider
Click to expand...


but you do know you  never bothered to think to put in the equation they were not the industrial states  what were they history wise? and what Bill? did Clinton sign to destroy  the southern textile industry? I inow do you?  see the thilg is the south was never industrial but the north was and they blew it.


----------



## auditor0007

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I put this topic here because I want honest answers and no flaming. As a right leaning guy I love the left and wouldnt want to see them go. But why does the left hate Republicans so bad? Their history is after all the Anti-Slave party. p.s. sorry about any typo's I wrote this on the fly because I am so curious what would you think happen to the US if cons left
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The left doesnt hate anyone, republicans in particular.
> 
> In fact, theyd love to have conservatives back to participate in responsible governance again.
> 
> Unfortunately, at least at this time, social conservatives, rightwing fiscal extremists, and Christian fundamentalists have a stranglehold on the GOP.
Click to expand...


The nutters have taken over the asylum and everyone else left.


----------



## asterism

CrusaderFrank said:


> What would happen to the United States if Conservatives left?
> 
> Detroit



Mogadishu


----------



## editec

People are not responding to the question asked of us here.


----------



## Dugdale_Jukes

editec said:


> People are not responding to the question asked of us here.



How can they?

"Conservative" isn't clearly defined. 

With no foundation, one cannot build a legitimate response.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

PMZ said:


> A lot of history being rewritten here. In the Civil war the Republican party emerged in the north most from Abolisionists who lived there. The Democrat Party was well established in the south. In fact the south was often referred to as the Dixiecrats.
> 
> When Kennedy and LBJ launched the campaign for equal civil rights for every one, the Dixiecrats were appalled and became Republicans. The blacks tasted freedom and became dedicated Democrat supporters. The Dixiecrats dragged the Republican Party into religion and conservatism.
> 
> That's where we are today.



LJB Launched Civil Rights?

Was that after he spent 7 years in the Senate stomping on Ike's Civil Right Bill?


----------



## Circe

editec said:


> People are not responding to the question asked of us here.



It's hard to answer the question because I don't know where conservatives would go! I mean, it's probably some 160 million people, or more.

I think there is something underneath the question. What do you think the question is really asking? bear? Anyone?


----------



## Circe

PMZ said:


> Certainly, in a world of scarcity, change is seen as a risk of losing what one has. In a world of plenty change as seen as a chance for everyone to have more.



I brought up these analyses with my husband last night and his take is that conservatives believe in individual responsibility for self and liberals believe in collective responsibility for self.

That works with the scarcity vs. plenty dichotomy --- someone who feels his own self-preservation is up to him or her can be pretty worried s/he won't have enough resources. 

Someone who feels his survival and prosperity is linked to collective resources may feel there is plenty in the aggregate, and he just has to make sure to get his share.


----------



## Dugdale_Jukes

JWBooth said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JWBooth said:
> 
> 
> 
> Friedman said many things.
> In practice he was a monetarist and a statist.[/quote
> 
> 
> A statist?  No wonder I have you on ignore.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh my. The filter must have failed.
> 
> But I digress...
> 
> New Dealer Reagan and statist Friedman were best magic act in America  for eight years. One preached fiscal conservatism while the other waved the magic wand of free markets; as the public listened to words they wanted to hear and watched the wand promising work, FriedmaNUT and ReagaNUT disciples looted the United States Treasury and opened US borders to cheap labor.
> 
> A quarter century after the players left the stage their Keynesian legacy poisons United States economic policy. Here is a great line from Milton Friedman Unraveled by Murray N. Rothbard[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]*In                  common with their Keynesian colleagues, the Friedmanites* wish                  to give to the central government absolute control over these                  macro areas, in order to manipulate the economy for social ends,                  while maintaining that the micro world can still remain free.                  In short, Friedmanites as well as Keynesians concede the vital                  macro sphere to *statism* as the supposedly necessary framework                  for the micro-freedom of the free market.[/FONT]​
Click to expand...


----------



## theHawk

CrusaderFrank said:


> What would happen to the United States if Conservatives left?
> 
> Detroit



I bet at some point there will be a "white flight" out of the US.  Minorities will just keep increasing their numbers, and along wiith white liberals they will vote away the rights of conservatives, whites, and Christians---the "unholy trinity" in the eyes of liberals.  Hell, we're already getting a sneak preview of that with the Hussein in power, just look at how much corruption and targeting of political groups he has done as a lame duck President.

Once they do leave, the nation would collapse just like Detroit.  No rich people to pay for their handouts.  Continue to print money to appease the poor, which leads to total economic collapse.


----------



## Meathead

Detroit/Third World best answer.


----------



## PMZ

I believe that what we are witnessing now is the extinction of the Dixiecrats. Well earned by the way. Extinction occurs when species cannot adapt to the changing environment. In the case of thinking species, I suppose that means that they expect the environment to change to what they are adapted to, but the environment really doesn't care what they want. 

The extinction will be loud and dramatic as they wail the unfairness of it all, but will end as all extinctions do, with quiet.


----------



## Circe

theHawk said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> What would happen to the United States if Conservatives left?
> 
> Detroit
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I bet at some point there will be a "white flight" out of the US.
Click to expand...



There's nowhere else to go. Better make our stand here and fight for the country.


----------



## Two Thumbs

If all types of conservatives left;

Abortion limits would be raised to a week
The Constitution would be replaced.
Corporations would pay nothing, since they would get either loop holes or left out, like with obamacare
Welfare rolls would initially expand, due to heavy taxation and the death of the dollar via borrowing and printing. I don't know how they would resolve the issue, since none could afford to get jobs.
Unions would rebound, pay would go up, but the costs of items would rocket.
Natural fuels would be outlawed, well, drilling and mining would die, creating the same result.

Eventually food resources would run dry, as the few liberals that lived in the country side wised up and joined the conservatives.  There will be riots and eventually utter collapse.


----------



## beagle9

theHawk said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> What would happen to the United States if Conservatives left?
> 
> Detroit
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I bet at some point there will be a "white flight" out of the US.  Minorities will just keep increasing their numbers, and along wiith white liberals they will vote away the rights of conservatives, whites, and Christians---the "unholy trinity" in the eyes of liberals.  Hell, we're already getting a sneak preview of that with the Hussein in power, just look at how much corruption and targeting of political groups he has done as a lame duck President.
> 
> Once they do leave, the nation would collapse just like Detroit.  No rich people to pay for their handouts.  Continue to print money to appease the poor, which leads to total economic collapse.
Click to expand...

You know, different governances like we see in China and other places in the world, might suit those nations whom want to sustain huge populations of people like they do, so they almost have to have the types of governance in which they have in order to do so, but here we haven't been a nation that wants to sustain gazillions upon gazillions of people in effect, and especially not for slaves as workers, and/or as soldiers, so we have always had the type of governance in balance of, in which has a little bit of this and a little bit of that, and a huge amount of land and resources to sustain us all, while others (China etc.) are busting at the seams in many cases.  Now we have pocket population explosions going on within this nation, and in these populations comes those whom want to grow their population quickly now under a type of governance in which is leading this charge for them, and they are transforming government in order to accommodate their numbers, but where does this leave the nation be it in governance style or in management style in the coming future ? 

Will this nation turn into a banana republic, a communist regime, a socialist police state or what in the coming years or decades ? Is there a quest by some to hopefully diminish or eradicate the Christians and Conservatives in this nation, and this because they are in the way of fundamental change where there are certain ideologies now flourishing, whom want to flood the nation first with those whom have hatred for those in which the OP is speaking on if they were to leave now or because of, then what would happen here if they do leave ?  

Isn't their like a bad population explosion that had taken place in these other nations, in which determined afterwards the types of government that was needed in order to control such huge populations ? Is this where we are heading ?

 I just don't think we need to change our nation or governance, unless we are heading right down the same paths, and would need to change in order to manage populations like we see in China and around the world. I hope this isn't where America is heading, but depending on what the reasons are for growing into such a huge population, and by whom or why it is being done, well it will tell us exactly what is going on in this nation when it is all apparent to the many in this nation in which will see themselves as being duped by it all finally..


----------



## beagle9

Size is one thing, but mismanagement is another, so what needs to go on more often (imho), is more and more firings of government employee's who aren't doing their jobs, instead of them thinking they got it made no matter what they do when doing their job's, as if it is a lifetime position or something. I cringe to think what has taken place in the welfare offices, housing offices, unemployment offices and/or the Medicare and Medicaid offices over the years. I cringe to think about what kind of incentives were given to increase the size of the impoverished over the years in this nation, and all for a long reaching agenda when it was all being done.


----------



## PMZ

It's funny how conservatives believe in free markets, though none have ever existed, but don't believe in the free market of democracy. 

They believe that every product from every supplier is fully revealed and known, and each consumer makes a fully informed decision to buy this, or that, offering. 

Democracy creates what most of we, the people expect. 

Our borders in the outgoing direction are fully open. There is at least one of every kind of government you can imagine, out there someplace. 

If you can't live with the choices made by we, the people, it would seem essential, to me, to move on.

What am I missing?


----------



## Bfgrn

beagle9 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Circe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nice phrase.
> 
> Liberals want a constitution that grows like an acorn. Into a huge oak that takes over everything and sucks up all the water and nourishment from the yard and shades out every other plant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've never known a liberal who isn't satisfied with the Constitution that we have as it has been continuously improved over time.
> 
> Our government is of, by, and for the people. We are those people. We have control as a people because of our democracy.* It is the size that it is *because that's what we voted for in terms of our expectations of it.
> 
> It may well be the wrong size for you personally but you can vote with your feet instead of accepting our democratic decisions. What you can't do is take what we, the people, voted in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Size is one thing, but mismanagement is another, so what needs to go on more often (imho), is more and more firings of government employee's who aren't doing their jobs, instead of them thinking they got it made no matter what they do when doing their job's, as if it is a lifetime position or something.
Click to expand...


----------



## Circe

PMZ said:


> If you can't live with the choices made by we, the people, it would seem essential, to me, to move on.
> 
> What am I missing?




You are missing that what you have gotten voted in, may well be voted out again. A lot of people are working on that.

Or, as so many predict now, democracy and America as one country may fall.

Time passes, things change.


----------



## beagle9

Bfgrn said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've never known a liberal who isn't satisfied with the Constitution that we have as it has been continuously improved over time.
> 
> Our government is of, by, and for the people. We are those people. We have control as a people because of our democracy.* It is the size that it is *because that's what we voted for in terms of our expectations of it.
> 
> It may well be the wrong size for you personally but you can vote with your feet instead of accepting our democratic decisions. What you can't do is take what we, the people, voted in.
> 
> 
> 
> Size is one thing, but mismanagement is another, so what needs to go on more often (imho), is more and more firings of government employee's who aren't doing their jobs, instead of them thinking they got it made no matter what they do when doing their job's, as if it is a lifetime position or something.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

In this graph, did Bush appoint people whom did a good job in their positions, thus causing the line to rise due to it being a good thing or did they mismanage their positions thus seeing this line as being bloated ? 

With the blue line is this Obama getting rid of Bush appointee's (targets on their backs, I mean hey the IRS can do it right ?), until he can refill the positions with his own, and isn't there a lot of resistance to whom Obama wants to put into office because of their credentials or radical associations etc. ? Just might explain your graph well in these respects...(grin)


----------



## PMZ

beagle9 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Circe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nice phrase.
> 
> Liberals want a constitution that grows like an acorn. Into a huge oak that takes over everything and sucks up all the water and nourishment from the yard and shades out every other plant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've never known a liberal who isn't satisfied with the Constitution that we have as it has been continuously improved over time.
> 
> Our government is of, by, and for the people. We are those people. We have control as a people because of our democracy.* It is the size that it is *because that's what we voted for in terms of our expectations of it.
> 
> It may well be the wrong size for you personally but you can vote with your feet instead of accepting our democratic decisions. What you can't do is take what we, the people, voted in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Size is one thing, but mismanagement is another, so what needs to go on more often (imho), is more and more firings of government employee's who aren't doing their jobs, instead of them thinking they got it made no matter what they do when doing their job's, as if it is a lifetime position or something.
Click to expand...


Everything done by man is imperfect. Every organization with purpose strives for continuous improvement. It's an endless task. 

Corporations are modeled after the military, organizationally. Each individual, within limits, has to please one "boss". 

Democratic government, at the management level, is diametrically different. Each individual contributer has to please a plurality of his/her constituents to remain employed. Generally that means maintaining a few percent difference between those who like what you're doing and those that don't. 

So, somewhere near slightly less than half of the time, we, individually, will be dissatisfied with any elected official. And that colors our evaluation of all government employees.

Democracy is not designed to be organizationally efficient. It's designed to be of, for, and by, we the people. 

My biggest complaint about today is that we've let into our living rooms, media that sells partisanship rather than real, well analyzed performance among our elected officials. That is, by definition, extremism. What they are selling is always right, anything else is always wrong. 

That conflicts with the very precept of democracy.


----------



## PMZ

Circe said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you can't live with the choices made by we, the people, it would seem essential, to me, to move on.
> 
> What am I missing?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are missing that what you have gotten voted in, may well be voted out again. A lot of people are working on that.
> 
> Or, as so many predict now, democracy and America as one country may fall.
> 
> Time passes, things change.
Click to expand...


Can you elaborate on "Or, as so many predict now, democracy and America as one country may fall."?

BTW, I agree with you that democracy is dynamic.


----------



## Circe

PMZ said:


> Democracy is not designed to be organizationally efficient. It's designed to be of, for, and by, we the people.




Ha! I see what the problem is. You keep writing as if democracy is a consensus system of government! You say "we the people" as if that's everybody. And the rest of us don't count.

But democracy is not about "we, the people." Democracy is designed to be of, for, and by only a small fraction of a percentage above 50%. 

Leaving a whole lot of angry and unhappy losers. Who will take down that result just as soon as they can.


----------



## Circe

PMZ said:


> Can you elaborate on "Or, as so many predict now, democracy and America as one country may fall."?
> 
> BTW, I agree with you that democracy is dynamic.




There's a long thread on the breakup of America so many are predicting these days that just got moved to the Conspiracy Theories forum. Nice speculations.

Historically, we're WAY overdue. Amazing that this nation has so long endured, when other nations so conceived and so dedicated have long since split up, had revolutions, changed radically, etc. It can't last forever. The land mass is way too big, for one thing. Not since the incredible disunity after 9/11/2001 and most people no longer identifying as patriotic Americans.


----------



## PMZ

Circe said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Democracy is not designed to be organizationally efficient. It's designed to be of, for, and by, we the people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ha! I see what the problem is. You keep writing as if democracy is a consensus system of government! You say "we the people" as if that's everybody. And the rest of us don't count.
> 
> But democracy is not about "we, the people." Democracy is designed to be of, for, and by only a small fraction of a percentage above 50%.
> 
> Leaving a whole lot of angry and unhappy losers. Who will take down that result just as soon as they can.
Click to expand...


Living in a democracy is a choice based on freedom. It's the only way that citizens can be as free as possible. Under more tyrannical forms of government the ruling classic is very happy, all others are, in reality, enslaved. 

As free as possible doesn't mean that everybody is perfectly satisfied with government at any time. That only comes with anarchy. But the absence of government is chaos, and the ruling class defaults to the guy with the biggest club.


----------



## PMZ

Circe said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you elaborate on "Or, as so many predict now, democracy and America as one country may fall."?
> 
> BTW, I agree with you that democracy is dynamic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's a long thread on the breakup of America so many are predicting these days that just got moved to the Conspiracy Theories forum. Nice speculations.
> 
> Historically, we're WAY overdue. Amazing that this nation has so long endured, when other nations so conceived and so dedicated have long since split up, had revolutions, changed radically, etc. It can't last forever. The land mass is way too big, for one thing. Not since the incredible disunity after 9/11/2001 and most people no longer identifying as patriotic Americans.
Click to expand...


If it comes to that, and I don't think that it will, what would you personally replace what we have, with?

The reason that I think that it won't come to that is environmental. The people talking about it just haven't adapted to today's world. They will go extinct. 

The corner has already been turned and those that haven't kept up will just be less and less influential and relevent. 

In fact it is the progression of that process that has them so worked up. I'll bet that the dinosauers were just as worked up as the world changed around them.


----------



## PMZ

"You keep writing as if democracy is a consensus system of government!"

It is.


----------



## Circe

PMZ said:


> "You keep writing as if democracy is a consensus system of government!"
> 
> It is.




No, indeed. Consensus government is when _everyone agrees._ I know this because Quakers use this system, and I was talking with one about it once -- he said that it takes a long time to get to agreement, and sometimes ----------

"Sometimes someone just has to die."

He meant of old age, of course.  [



Democracy is majority rules: you must know that. The Republican form of government is supposed to take some of the tyranny off the majority, keep it from being plain mob rule as in the French Revolution, whoever controlled the passions of the crowd for the day controlled the government.


----------



## Foxfyre

Connery said:


> That would leave a gaping hole in the fabric of US politics. There would be many who would be more than willing to fill that gap, as money is to be made and power to be garnered, at which point we would get a whole new crew of those who would be considered conservative.



Well now that is an interesting twist on it isn't it?  You are quite right that something always rushes in to fill a vacuum.  Those of the radical left are currently insulated from the worst consequences of their intolerance, hatred, racism, political correctness, one-world-government,  and socialist/Marxist economic theories.

When no longer insulated from those worst consequences, I wonder how many would be instant converts to modern day American conservatism?


----------



## Circe

PMZ said:


> If it comes to that, and I don't think that it will, what would you personally replace what we have, with?
> 
> The reason that I think that it won't come to that is environmental. The people talking about it just haven't adapted to today's world. They will go extinct.
> 
> The corner has already been turned and those that haven't kept up will just be less and less influential and relevent.
> 
> In fact it is the progression of that process that has them so worked up. I'll bet that the dinosauers were just as worked up as the world changed around them.




Well, maybe.........that's not what normally happens, though. Usually there are pretty frequent huge, giant, disruptive political changes. Left, right, left, right, big swings via revolution. I can't think of an area of the world that just.........environmentally adapted via the objectors going extinct? Can you suggest one that has?

As for what system I'd like, I hate to go against Winston Churchill ("Democracy is the worst political system there is, except for all the others.") but I guess I'd prefer an enlightened dictatorship at this point, moderate conservative and libertarian philosophy held by Diktor.

However, what everybody always gets after revolution or civil war is a dictator who runs it all for himself and what he likes. I'm trying to think of an exception to that ---- Henry VII (not VIII) was an enlightened dictator who came in via Big Change. Very nice man. That would work. He's the only one I can think of right now, however. Nice dictators don't lie thick on the ground.


----------



## Dugdale_Jukes

Bfgrn said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've never known a liberal who isn't satisfied with the Constitution that we have as it has been continuously improved over time.
> 
> Our government is of, by, and for the people. We are those people. We have control as a people because of our democracy.* It is the size that it is *because that's what we voted for in terms of our expectations of it.
> 
> It may well be the wrong size for you personally but you can vote with your feet instead of accepting our democratic decisions. What you can't do is take what we, the people, voted in.
> 
> 
> 
> Size is one thing, but mismanagement is another, so what needs to go on more often (imho), is more and more firings of government employee's who aren't doing their jobs, instead of them thinking they got it made no matter what they do when doing their job's, as if it is a lifetime position or something.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


If CR shows a chart for Reagan the most interesting measure would be spending on government employees. My memory is that Reagan increased federal head counts more than any peacetime president before him, but the truly appalling number was the increase in spending. Here is a wider spectrum version of the chart above showing how ALL nutball presidents follow Keynesian theory to increase federal headcounts during recession, while the tightfisted Democratic Party president cuts back...






Recall that Reagan signed those incredibly malfeasant federal "pay parity" bills (upping federal pay and benefits with less thought to pension consequences than shit house rats give to the price of gold) that states/local govs aped - and that are now bankrupting some and causing stress in many. The only public union that suffered under Reagan was some air controller union that must have made too much noise to hide giving them everything they wanted and more like he did ALL OF the rest of the government unions. The man was a wide open New Dealer in what he signed, and it still amuses me how completely the legions of nutballs bought the words and the martial music on stage, while behind the curtain the Bobbleheaded One handed the keys to the US Treasury to corporations and government unions.


----------



## Esmeralda

bear513 said:


> I put this topic here because I want honest answers and no flaming. As a right leaning guy I love the left and wouldnt want to see them go. But why does the left hate Republicans so bad? Their history is after all the Anti-Slave party. p.s. sorry about any typo's I wrote this on the fly because I am so curious what would you think happen to the US if cons left



I don't think the 'Left' hates normal, reasonable, thinking conservatives; I think they hate the crazies, and in recent times, it seems the crazies are taking over the GOP.  American politics has become so deeply partisan, it is amazing the country manages to function. The hate goes both ways.  We need more than 2 viable parties.


----------



## PMZ

Circe said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> If it comes to that, and I don't think that it will, what would you personally replace what we have, with?
> 
> The reason that I think that it won't come to that is environmental. The people talking about it just haven't adapted to today's world. They will go extinct.
> 
> The corner has already been turned and those that haven't kept up will just be less and less influential and relevent.
> 
> In fact it is the progression of that process that has them so worked up. I'll bet that the dinosauers were just as worked up as the world changed around them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, maybe.........that's not what normally happens, though. Usually there are pretty frequent huge, giant, disruptive political changes. Left, right, left, right, big swings via revolution. I can't think of an area of the world that just.........environmentally adapted via the objectors going extinct? Can you suggest one that has?
> 
> As for what system I'd like, I hate to go against Winston Churchill ("Democracy is the worst political system there is, except for all the others.") but I guess I'd prefer an enlightened dictatorship at this point, moderate conservative and libertarian philosophy held by Diktor.
> 
> However, what everybody always gets after revolution or civil war is a dictator who runs it all for himself and what he likes. I'm trying to think of an exception to that ---- Henry VII (not VIII) was an enlightened dictator who came in via Big Change. Very nice man. That would work. He's the only one I can think of right now, however. Nice dictators don't lie thick on the ground.
Click to expand...


I think that the PRC and USSR are good examples of evolutionary change. 

I'm way too far into freedom to ever trust a ruling class.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Democracy needs to be understood in the context of the rule of law and a Constitutional Republic. 

Many things are not subject to consensus, inalienable rights primary among them.


----------



## PMZ

Esmeralda said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I put this topic here because I want honest answers and no flaming. As a right leaning guy I love the left and wouldnt want to see them go. But why does the left hate Republicans so bad? Their history is after all the Anti-Slave party. p.s. sorry about any typo's I wrote this on the fly because I am so curious what would you think happen to the US if cons left
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think the 'Left' hates normal, reasonable, thinking conservatives; I think they hate the crazies, and in recent times, it seems the crazies are taking over the GOP.  American politics has become so deeply partisan, it is amazing the country manages to function. The hate goes both ways.  We need more than 2 viable parties.
Click to expand...


The problem has never been conservatism, but extremism. Unfortunately Rush and Rupert et al and the NRA and the Dixiecrats have made them indistinguishable.


----------



## Circe

PMZ said:


> I think that the PRC and USSR are good examples of evolutionary change.
> 
> I'm way too far into freedom to ever trust a ruling class.




Oh, I see. You are a communist or a socialist.    [:-(   Oh, well.

Both the PRC and the USSR have had big revolutionary changes with much terrible bloodshed since the U.S. was founded, so they are hardly examples of evolutionary change. Right-left-right for the PRC and left-right for the Russians. 

I don't think there are any examples of evolutionary change. It's not the human condition.

Well, maybe Shangri-La, but we can't find it.


----------



## PMZ

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Democracy needs to be understood in the context of the rule of law and a Constitutional Republic.
> 
> Many things are not subject to consensus, inalienable rights primary among them.



I never agreed with the term "inalienable rights" because there are so many global examples of rights upheld or taken away by government. 

I like your quote's definition better. They are what the bylaws for our governments forbids legislation over.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Foxfyre said:


> Connery said:
> 
> 
> 
> That would leave a gaping hole in the fabric of US politics. There would be many who would be more than willing to fill that gap, as money is to be made and power to be garnered, at which point we would get a whole new crew of those who would be considered conservative.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well now that is an interesting twist on it isn't it?  You are quite right that something always rushes in to fill a vacuum.  Those of the radical left are currently insulated from the worst consequences of their intolerance, hatred, racism, political correctness, one-world-government,  and socialist/Marxist economic theories.
> 
> When no longer insulated from those worst consequences, I wonder how many would be instant converts to modern day American conservatism?
Click to expand...


And of course those of the radical right are just as insulated from the worst consequences of their intolerance, hatred, racism, political correctness, reactionaryism, and fascist/Nazi social theories.

When no longer insulated from those worst consequences, how many would be instant converts to modern day American liberalism?


----------



## PMZ

Circe said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think that the PRC and USSR are good examples of evolutionary change.
> 
> I'm way too far into freedom to ever trust a ruling class.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I see. You are a communist or a socialist.    [:-(   Oh, well.
> 
> Both the PRC and the USSR have had big revolutionary changes with much terrible bloodshed since the U.S. was founded, so they are hardly examples of evolutionary change. Right-left-right for the PRC and left-right for the Russians.
> 
> I don't think there are any examples of evolutionary change. It's not the human condition.
> 
> Well, maybe Shangri-La, but we can't find it.
Click to expand...


I believe in socialism and so do you and so does virtually every government in the world today. Same with capitalism. Both are nearly universal today. It's not either or any more than hammers and screwdrivers are either or. 

Consider the changes in PRC and USSR in the last 50 years. How can you not call that evolutionary?


----------



## Circe

PMZ said:


> I believe in socialism and so do you and so does virtually every government in the world today. Same with capitalism. Both are nearly universal today. It's not either or any more than hammers and screwdrivers are either or.
> 
> Consider the changes in PRC and USSR in the last 50 years. How can you not call that evolutionary?




I don't call it evolutionary because it was violently revolutionary. 

I'm done; I'm not going down the communism road. I thought you were, you know, a normal American. 

Anon.


----------



## Foxfyre

Esmeralda said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I put this topic here because I want honest answers and no flaming. As a right leaning guy I love the left and wouldnt want to see them go. But why does the left hate Republicans so bad? Their history is after all the Anti-Slave party. p.s. sorry about any typo's I wrote this on the fly because I am so curious what would you think happen to the US if cons left
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think the 'Left' hates normal, reasonable, thinking conservatives; I think they hate the crazies, and in recent times, it seems the crazies are taking over the GOP.  American politics has become so deeply partisan, it is amazing the country manages to function. The hate goes both ways.  We need more than 2 viable parties.
Click to expand...


As there are a LOT of leftists among my friends, family, neighbors, and associates I agree.  Almost nobody would confuse me with a leftist.  But we manage to love each other despite political or ideological differences.

But the fact is, it is an extremely rare leftist who can even define or articulate a  clearly conservative point of view in a charitable, accurate, and/or complete manner.  Or their own for that matter.  Most conservatives can do both fairly competently.

If all liberals/leftists/progressive left, Conservatives would step up to fill any vacuums that would exist and otherwise would not do anything much differently than they do now.  They might have a better shot at restoring the government the Founders intended us to have, and would certainly change a lot of things like the media and education, and healthcare that are currently controlled mostly by leftists.  But  for the most part, it would be pretty much business as usual for them.  They certainly would not become leftists.

And I think leftists, without the conservatives to stabilize things, could likely realize what an unsustainable house of cards their philosophy is and would likely start adopting conservative concepts really quickly.  The danger would be that things would have spiraled completely out of control and would  be irreversible by the time they figured out how to do that.

Anyway, it is an interesting perspective.  Might  be a vehicle for a profound literary work along the lines of Rand or Orwell.


----------



## Meathead

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> And of course those of the radical right are just as insulated from the worst consequences of their intolerance, hatred, racism, political correctness, reactionaryism, and fascist/Nazi social theories.
> 
> When no longer insulated from those worst consequences, how many would be instant converts to modern day American liberalism?


The problem with American liberalism is that it is intolerant and paranoid. Your post says as much. Obviously, the pendulum is swinging back largely because of that and the ineptness of of liberal leadership.


----------



## PMZ

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Democracy needs to be understood in the context of the rule of law and a Constitutional Republic.
> 
> Many things are not subject to consensus, inalienable rights primary among them.



"Democracy needs to be understood in the context of the rule of law and a Constitutional Republic. "

"Democracy" is a way to make decisions either directly or indirectly.

"Rule of law" are the decisions made by authorities.

"Contitutional Republic" means that the terms under which citizens concent to be governed is specified in writing rather than granted by a monarch.


----------



## PMZ

Circe said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe in socialism and so do you and so does virtually every government in the world today. Same with capitalism. Both are nearly universal today. It's not either or any more than hammers and screwdrivers are either or.
> 
> Consider the changes in PRC and USSR in the last 50 years. How can you not call that evolutionary?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't call it evolutionary because it was violently revolutionary.
> 
> I'm done; I'm not going down the communism road. I thought you were, you know, a normal American.
> 
> Anon.
Click to expand...


There wasn't any violence reported by the news in the last 50 years. At lest no more than in the US.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

PMZ said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Democracy needs to be understood in the context of the rule of law and a Constitutional Republic.
> 
> Many things are not subject to consensus, inalienable rights primary among them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never agreed with the term "inalienable rights" because there are so many global examples of rights upheld or taken away by government.
> 
> I like your quote's definition better. They are what the bylaws for our governments forbids legislation over.
Click to expand...


"Inalienable rights" only in the context of the American Constitutional Republic, where there exists a core of rights that although not absolute, are nonetheless not subject to being taken nor bestowed by any government, constitution, or man. 

All acts of government are presumed Constitutional until a court rules otherwise. Over the decades and centuries, however, there manifests a body of acknowledged and settled case law (judicial consensus) which clearly sets the boundaries of what acts are and are not Constitutional.  

It is incumbent upon lawmaking entities, therefore, to recognize and respect those boundaries, and to enact measures in good faith that conform to Constitutional case law. 

In recent years, unfortunately, with regard to a significant number of conservative lawmakers, that has not been the case. And these conservative lawmakers, as well as those who agree with them, have grown increasingly frustrated as the clearly un-Constitutional measures and policies they advocate are appropriately invalidated by the courts. The illegal racial profiling policy by the Maricopa County Sheriffs Department in Arizona is yet another example.


----------



## Bfgrn

beagle9 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Size is one thing, but mismanagement is another, so what needs to go on more often (imho), is more and more firings of government employee's who aren't doing their jobs, instead of them thinking they got it made no matter what they do when doing their job's, as if it is a lifetime position or something.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In this graph, did Bush appoint people whom did a good job in their positions, thus causing the line to rise due to it being a good thing or did they mismanage their positions thus seeing this line as being bloated ?
> 
> With the blue line is this Obama getting rid of Bush appointee's (targets on their backs, I mean hey the IRS can do it right ?), until he can refill the positions with his own, and isn't there a lot of resistance to whom Obama wants to put into office because of their credentials or radical associations etc. ? Just might explain your graph well in these respects...(grin)
Click to expand...


They're payroll jobs, not appointees.


----------



## Dugdale_Jukes

Circe said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> My experience is that conservatives love constitutions, just not ours. They'd prefer one that shrinks government to *the size that they could take home and drown in the bathtub. *And one that gives the interpretation and enforcement of the constitutions to them instead of SCOTUS. And one that requires a state religion. And one that specifies daily listening to Rush and Rupert in order to rid the country of dangerous independent thinking.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice phrase.
> 
> Liberals want a constitution that grows like an acorn. Into a huge oak that takes over everything and sucks up all the water and nourishment from the yard and shades out every other plant.
Click to expand...


After nearly sixty years reading, just above is my first reading of a US political statement in which the oak is not the symbol of strength and cover. 

Maybe now Old Ironsides can be sold to some corporate titan (on a no-bid arrangement) to make beams and flooring for a vacation home?


----------



## Foxfyre

And in my opinion, anybody who doesn't believe that there are concepts, values, and principles that are superior to other concepts, values, and principles--and most especially those who are unable to articulate concepts, values, and principles without belittling, ridiculing, insulting, or putting somebody down--are leftists by defintiion.


----------



## Two Thumbs

Bfgrn said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In this graph, did Bush appoint people whom did a good job in their positions, thus causing the line to rise due to it being a good thing or did they mismanage their positions thus seeing this line as being bloated ?
> 
> With the blue line is this Obama getting rid of Bush appointee's (targets on their backs, I mean hey the IRS can do it right ?), until he can refill the positions with his own, and isn't there a lot of resistance to whom Obama wants to put into office because of their credentials or radical associations etc. ? Just might explain your graph well in these respects...(grin)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They're payroll jobs, not appointees.
Click to expand...


does this include the military?

hate going so far off topic, just interested


----------



## Connery

Foxfyre said:


> Connery said:
> 
> 
> 
> That would leave a gaping hole in the fabric of US politics. There would be many who would be more than willing to fill that gap, as money is to be made and power to be garnered, at which point we would get a whole new crew of those who would be considered conservative.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well now that is an interesting twist on it isn't it?  You are quite right that something always rushes in to fill a vacuum.  Those of the radical left are currently insulated from the worst consequences of their intolerance, hatred, racism, political correctness, one-world-government,  and socialist/Marxist economic theories.
> 
> When no longer insulated from those worst consequences, I wonder how many would be instant converts to modern day American conservatism?
Click to expand...


I believe many, the heavy lifting in a  democracy is done are those  willing to fight on a battle field to preserve the freedoms and privileges before enjoying those freedoms and privileges in a safe, controlled environment such as a  university or a courtroom.


----------



## Foxfyre

Connery said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Connery said:
> 
> 
> 
> That would leave a gaping hole in the fabric of US politics. There would be many who would be more than willing to fill that gap, as money is to be made and power to be garnered, at which point we would get a whole new crew of those who would be considered conservative.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well now that is an interesting twist on it isn't it?  You are quite right that something always rushes in to fill a vacuum.  Those of the radical left are currently insulated from the worst consequences of their intolerance, hatred, racism, political correctness, one-world-government,  and socialist/Marxist economic theories.
> 
> When no longer insulated from those worst consequences, I wonder how many would be instant converts to modern day American conservatism?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I believe many, the heavy lifting in a  democracy is done are those  willing to fight on a battle field to preserve the freedoms and privileges before enjoying those freedoms and privileges in a safe, controlled environment such as a  university or a courtroom.
Click to expand...


And those not privileged to actually do battle for their country can at least do the heavy lifting necessary to make better choices, educate ourselves, learn a trade, and be willing to start at the bottom and work our way to prosperity.   The conservative doesn't want anything from others apart from having his unalienable rights recognized and secured and then to be unhindered in living his life, contributing what he can, accomplishing what he can accomplish.   And we all can contribute via self sufficiency, personal responsbility and integrity, and lead by personal example.

Those who grow up with a sense of entitlement that what is theirs is theirs and some of everybody else's should also be theirs are the ones who would be the most shell shocked if they were thrown in with people who are all like them.  And when they realize that government serves mostly government, is not a reliable mommy for all the people who want to be provided for, and those people start preying on each other for available resources, I think we would see a whole new generation of staunch conservatives born really quickly.


----------



## PMZ

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Democracy needs to be understood in the context of the rule of law and a Constitutional Republic.
> 
> Many things are not subject to consensus, inalienable rights primary among them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never agreed with the term "inalienable rights" because there are so many global examples of rights upheld or taken away by government.
> 
> I like your quote's definition better. They are what the bylaws for our governments forbids legislation over.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Inalienable rights" only in the context of the American Constitutional Republic, where there exists a core of rights that although not absolute, are nonetheless not subject to being taken nor bestowed by any government, constitution, or man.
> 
> All acts of government are presumed Constitutional until a court rules otherwise. Over the decades and centuries, however, there manifests a body of acknowledged and settled case law (judicial consensus) which clearly sets the boundaries of what acts are and are not Constitutional.
> 
> It is incumbent upon lawmaking entities, therefore, to recognize and respect those boundaries, and to enact measures in good faith that conform to Constitutional case law.
> 
> In recent years, unfortunately, with regard to a significant number of conservative lawmakers, that has not been the case. And these conservative lawmakers, as well as those who agree with them, have grown increasingly frustrated as the clearly un-Constitutional measures and policies they advocate are appropriately invalidated by the courts. The illegal racial profiling policy by the Maricopa County Sheriffs Department in Arizona is yet another example.
Click to expand...


I'm a strict Constitutionalist. The government that I consent to accept governance from is specified by the Constitution. I may not be in agreement with any particular democratic decision or any SCOTUS judgement, but as long as the Constitution has been followed I'm willing to accept the results. 

This expectation that freedom is always getting your way is completely foreign to my culture and up bringing.


----------



## Wyatt earp

Connery said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Connery said:
> 
> 
> 
> That would leave a gaping hole in the fabric of US politics. There would be many who would be more than willing to fill that gap, as money is to be made and power to be garnered, at which point we would get a whole new crew of those who would be considered conservative.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well now that is an interesting twist on it isn't it?  You are quite right that something always rushes in to fill a vacuum.  Those of the radical left are currently insulated from the worst consequences of their intolerance, hatred, racism, political correctness, one-world-government,  and socialist/Marxist economic theories.
> 
> When no longer insulated from those worst consequences, I wonder how many would be instant converts to modern day American conservatism?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I believe many, the heavy lifting in a  democracy is done are those  willing to fight on a battle field to preserve the freedoms and privileges before enjoying those freedoms and privileges in a safe, controlled environment such as a  university or a courtroom.
Click to expand...


Interesting, (note I didnt read the book or ever reaserched him) but seen  the over hyped movie of WW1 sargent York a few times. Are you saying liberals wont fight for America?


----------



## Wyatt earp

my life experiences tell me poor woman/ singles mother middle class liberal girls work.... liberal guys in those classes not so much.. either in jail, or just quit trying. just saying..........


----------



## Wyatt earp

you have to help me to try to figure this out? why do poor liberal girls work compared to poor liberal guys?  I guess its the mother instint gene in them to wake up every day and try to provide for their child that came out of thier womb. Do poor liberal guys get so mad that their girl makes more money then them? that they just quit? interesting.......


----------



## Foxfyre

PMZ said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Connery said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe many, the heavy lifting in a  democracy is done are those  willing to fight on a battle field to preserve the freedoms and privileges before enjoying those freedoms and privileges in a safe, controlled environment such as a  university or a courtroom.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And those not privileged to actually do battle for their country can at least do the heavy lifting necessary to make better choices, educate ourselves, learn a trade, and be willing to start at the bottom and work our way to prosperity.   The conservative doesn't want anything from others apart from having his unalienable rights recognized and secured and then to be unhindered in living his life, contributing what he can, accomplishing what he can accomplish.   And we all can contribute via self sufficiency, personal responsbility and integrity, and lead by personal example.
> 
> Those who grow up with a sense of entitlement that what is theirs is theirs and some of everybody else's should also be theirs are the ones who would be the most shell shocked if they were thrown in with people who are all like them.  And when they realize that government serves mostly government, is not a reliable mommy for all the people who want to be provided for, and those people start preying on each other for available resources, I think we would see a whole new generation of staunch conservatives born really quickly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is called circular reasoning.
> 
> Conservatives are nothing but good because that's what I am.
> 
> I am a conservative because they are nothing but good.
> 
> My question is, if they're nothing but good, how can we explain the worst President in our history and the overwhelming damage caused during his administration?
> 
> Your problem is not your conservatism, it is your extremism.
Click to expand...


And you still seem to have a serious reading dysfunction PMZ when you manage to read so much into a post that isn't there even when we disregard the non sequiturs, red herrings, and straw men.

So I am extremist because I believe in conservative values.  Does it logically follow that you who has already applauded socialist values is the unextreme one?  I'll leave you to answer that.


----------



## Bfgrn

Foxfyre said:


> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I put this topic here because I want honest answers and no flaming. As a right leaning guy I love the left and wouldnt want to see them go. But why does the left hate Republicans so bad? Their history is after all the Anti-Slave party. p.s. sorry about any typo's I wrote this on the fly because I am so curious what would you think happen to the US if cons left
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think the 'Left' hates normal, reasonable, thinking conservatives; I think they hate the crazies, and in recent times, it seems the crazies are taking over the GOP.  American politics has become so deeply partisan, it is amazing the country manages to function. The hate goes both ways.  We need more than 2 viable parties.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As there are a LOT of leftists among my friends, family, neighbors, and associates I agree.  Almost nobody would confuse me with a leftist.  But we manage to love each other despite political or ideological differences.
> 
> But the fact is, it is an extremely rare leftist who can even define or articulate a  clearly conservative point of view in a charitable, accurate, and/or complete manner.  Or their own for that matter.  Most conservatives can do both fairly competently.
> 
> If all liberals/leftists/progressive left, Conservatives would step up to fill any vacuums that would exist and otherwise would not do anything much differently than they do now.  They might have a better shot at restoring the government the Founders intended us to have, and would certainly change a lot of things like the media and education, and healthcare that are currently controlled mostly by leftists.  But  for the most part, it would be pretty much business as usual for them.  They certainly would not become leftists.
> 
> And I think leftists, without the conservatives to stabilize things, could likely realize what an unsustainable house of cards their philosophy is and would likely start adopting conservative concepts really quickly.  The danger would be that things would have spiraled completely out of control and would  be irreversible by the time they figured out how to do that.
> 
> Anyway, it is an interesting perspective.  Might  be a vehicle for a profound literary work along the lines of Rand or Orwell.
Click to expand...

*
XXXXXXX*

From FDR's New Deal through LBJ's Great Society America was dominated by liberals rule. From Nixon, then Reagan on, America has been dominated by conservative rule. The results have been catastrophic. Under ANY measure, criteria or comparison.

Conservatives have built the biggest Debtor State and Nanny State in world history. 









"The debt explosion has resulted not from big spending by the Democrats, but instead the Republican Party's embrace, about three decades ago, of the insidious doctrine that deficits don't matter if they result from tax cuts."
David Stockman - Director of the Office of Management and Budget for U.S. President Ronald Reagan


----------



## Dugdale_Jukes

Foxfyre said:


> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I put this topic here because I want honest answers and no flaming. As a right leaning guy I love the left and wouldnt want to see them go. But why does the left hate Republicans so bad? Their history is after all the Anti-Slave party. p.s. sorry about any typo's I wrote this on the fly because I am so curious what would you think happen to the US if cons left
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think the 'Left' hates normal, reasonable, thinking conservatives; I think they hate the crazies, and in recent times, it seems the crazies are taking over the GOP.  American politics has become so deeply partisan, it is amazing the country manages to function. The hate goes both ways.  We need more than 2 viable parties.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> [snip]
> 
> ...the fact is, it is an extremely rare leftist who can even define or articulate a  clearly conservative point of view in a charitable, accurate, and/or complete manner.  Or their own for that matter.  Most conservatives can do both fairly competently.
> 
> [snip]
> 
> Anyway, it is an interesting perspective.  Might  be a vehicle for a profound literary work along the lines of Rand or Orwell.
Click to expand...


A. In my opinion Rand was far from profound; was more of a carnival act not to dissimilar from Reagan, another second tier figure able to get Republicans to eat out of his hand. Rand is in my opinion about as close to Orwell as an economic or political theorist as Larry Fine was to Machiavelli as a court manipulator. 

B. "Most"? Seems a little vague.


----------



## Intense

*This is the CDZ. Civil Discourse applies. No Name Calling, No Put Downs, No Flaming,  Other Posters. *


----------



## Dugdale_Jukes

So what got your attention, mod, Foxfyre insulting  liberals as unable to articulate their positions while praising the articulateness and budgetary canniness of the Glen Beck set, or bfgrn's chart proving beyond a shadow of a doubt the scurrilousness of claims Republicans are canny budget meisters? I don't want to get outside the lines here myself.


----------



## Foxfyre

Dugdale_Jukes said:


> So what got your attention, mod, Foxfyre insulting  liberals as unable to articulate their positions while praising the articulateness and budgetary canniness of the Glen Beck set, or bfgrn's chart proving beyond a shadow of a doubt the scurrilousness of claims Republicans are canny budget meisters? I don't want to get outside the lines here myself.



Sorry if I was offensive, but the topic of the thread is what happens if conservatives leave.  And it is simply impossible to discuss that without ruffling the feathers of liberals when we hold heartfelt convictions that modern day American conservatism, which coincidentally is pretty close the Founders classical liberalism, is far superior to modern day American liberalism.

I have not called liberals evil or bad, but if I cannot make the argument of the likely consequences of liberalism should that be all that was left in America, it is pretty difficult to address the topic at all.


----------



## Foxfyre

And in follow up, what does America, with no conservatives at all, look like to you liberals?   What would be different than it is now?


----------



## Mertex

Foxfyre said:


> And in my opinion, anybody who doesn't believe that there are concepts, values, and principles that are superior to other concepts, values, and principles--and most especially *those who are unable to articulate concepts, values, and principles without belittling, ridiculing, insulting, or putting somebody down--are leftists by defintiion.*



Then there are a lot of "leftists" in this Forum posing as "conservatives".


----------



## PaulS1950

How does that list of federal spending correspond to the number of "welfare" recipients?
The federal government spends money on infrastructure, that it mandates, as well as to support people who are retired, handicapped, and disabled. Find out how much of the states income is for programs like food stamps and subsidized housing.

A wise man once said; "statistics don't lie but liars use statistics."


----------



## JWBooth

Foxfyre said:


> And in my opinion, anybody who doesn't believe that *there are concepts, values, and principles that are superior to other concepts, values, and principles*--and most especially those who are unable to articulate concepts, values, and principles without belittling, ridiculing, insulting, or putting somebody down--are leftists by defintiion.




Matthew 7:12 - All things therefore whatsoever you would that men should do to you, do you also to them. For this is the law and the prophets.


----------



## PMZ

Foxfyre said:


> And in follow up, what does America, with no conservatives at all, look like to you liberals?   What would be different than it is now?



I think that politically we'd look like the 80s or so. Economically, without the damage of the Bush Administration (and therefore I would assume Gore/Lieberman) we would have continued Clintonomics and paid off the national debt as the CBO predicted in 2001. We also would not have engaged in Bush's holy wars and would be, more or less, at peace with Islam. With the national debt paid off, and Gore as President, we'd be much farther along on mankind's largest project ever, the conversion to sustainable energy.


----------



## PMZ

PaulS1950 said:


> How does that list of federal spending correspond to the number of "welfare" recipients?
> The federal government spends money on infrastructure, that it mandates, as well as to support people who are retired, handicapped, and disabled. Find out how much of the states income is for programs like food stamps and subsidized housing.
> 
> A wise man once said; "statistics don't lie but liars use statistics."



I am retired and living on my own resources including what I contributed to SS and Medicare and what my employers contributed as part of my compensation.


----------



## beagle9

PMZ said:


> Circe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you elaborate on "Or, as so many predict now, democracy and America as one country may fall."?
> 
> BTW, I agree with you that democracy is dynamic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's a long thread on the breakup of America so many are predicting these days that just got moved to the Conspiracy Theories forum. Nice speculations.
> 
> Historically, we're WAY overdue. Amazing that this nation has so long endured, when other nations so conceived and so dedicated have long since split up, had revolutions, changed radically, etc. It can't last forever. The land mass is way too big, for one thing. Not since the incredible disunity after 9/11/2001 and most people no longer identifying as patriotic Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If it comes to that, and I don't think that it will, what would you personally replace what we have, with?
> 
> The reason that I think that it won't come to that is environmental. The people talking about it just haven't adapted to today's world. They will go extinct.
> 
> The corner has already been turned and those that haven't kept up will just be less and less influential and relevent.
> 
> In fact it is the progression of that process that has them so worked up. I'll bet that the dinosauers were just as worked up as the world changed around them.
Click to expand...

Sad thing is, is that the work up was by design against the peoples will, and not by nature or natural occurrences in which the people had no control over.  What we have had here is a systematic purposeful change that has occurred, where as their are those whom want this nation to be a Godless one, so they have waged a campaign from early on in order to work to achieve this, then they want it to be an immoral one, where their is no righteous judgment of another, and this no matter how immoral it gets, then they want hardcore socialism, along with the control of the children as much as possible, and this in order to finally transform this nation completely into what they want it to be. I think a huge resistance of these things is coming, and it will prevail I think, but I just wonder how long it will take to wake the nation up finally? Hitler I bet thought the corner had been turned as well, but with the people he had placed in control like Himmler and his ilk, it was inevitable that the huge push back was coming, and it did with a powerful wind that Hitler could not stop in the end. Are we appointing now leaders such as the likes of Himmler today in America ? Couldn't keep up eh ? Did you know how modernized Hitler and Germany were in the 30's ? There are certain universal truths, where as we can either add to them, and even take away from them in order to make things or change things as we know them to a degree, but we can never rid ourselves of these truths, so modernizations is a timeless thing, in which no one holds the Patten upon, and certainly not America, so before you get to arrogant in your thinking just think about this what I say.


----------



## Connery

Foxfyre said:


> Connery said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well now that is an interesting twist on it isn't it?  You are quite right that something always rushes in to fill a vacuum.  Those of the radical left are currently insulated from the worst consequences of their intolerance, hatred, racism, political correctness, one-world-government,  and socialist/Marxist economic theories.
> 
> When no longer insulated from those worst consequences, I wonder how many would be instant converts to modern day American conservatism?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe many, the heavy lifting in a  democracy is done are those  willing to fight on a battle field to preserve the freedoms and privileges before enjoying those freedoms and privileges in a safe, controlled environment such as a  university or a courtroom.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And those not privileged to actually do battle for their country can at least do the heavy lifting necessary to make better choices, educate ourselves, learn a trade, and be willing to start at the bottom and work our way to prosperity.   The conservative doesn't want anything from others apart from having his unalienable rights recognized and secured and then to be unhindered in living his life, contributing what he can, accomplishing what he can accomplish.   And we all can contribute via self sufficiency, personal responsbility and integrity, and lead by personal example.
> 
> Those who grow up with a sense of entitlement that what is theirs is theirs and some of everybody else's should also be theirs are the ones who would be the most shell shocked if they were thrown in with people who are all like them.  And when they realize that government serves mostly government, is not a reliable mommy for all the people who want to be provided for, and those people start preying on each other for available resources, I think we would see a whole new generation of staunch conservatives born really quickly.
Click to expand...


Nice post!!!!

I agree we each have a responsibility as it relates to our own best efforts and abilities. Such an attitude can only make us stronger as individuals and a society.


----------



## Bfgrn

Foxfyre said:


> And in follow up, what does America, with no conservatives at all, look like to you liberals?   What would be different than it is now?



"The debt explosion has resulted not from big spending by the Democrats, but instead the Republican Party's embrace, about three decades ago, of the insidious doctrine that deficits don't matter if they result from tax cuts."
David Stockman - Director of the Office of Management and Budget for U.S. President Ronald Reagan

What would be different now? Let's start with debt. Ronald Reagan switched the federal government from what he critically called, a &#8220;tax and spend&#8221; policy, to a &#8220;borrow and spend&#8221; policy, where the government continued its heavy spending, but used borrowed money instead of tax revenue to pay the bills. The results were catastrophic. Although it had taken the United States more than 200 years to accumulate the first $1 trillion of national debt, it took only five years under Reagan to add the second one trillion dollars to the debt. By the end of the 12 years of the Reagan-Bush administrations, the national debt had quadrupled to $4 trillion!






In 1981, the supply-siders commandeered the Reagan Presidency and employed their Voodoo economics, as Bush senior had called it in 1980. He was saying that tax cuts would not increase government revenues. As you can see on the graph above, the Voodoo failed just as Bush predicted, and the supply-siders turned a 32-year winning streak into a debt disaster that continues to this day. For 20 years, under Reagan and the Bushes, the national debt increased compared to GDP every single year.


----------



## Bfgrn

Foxfyre said:


> Connery said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well now that is an interesting twist on it isn't it?  You are quite right that something always rushes in to fill a vacuum.  Those of the radical left are currently insulated from the worst consequences of their intolerance, hatred, racism, political correctness, one-world-government,  and socialist/Marxist economic theories.
> 
> When no longer insulated from those worst consequences, I wonder how many would be instant converts to modern day American conservatism?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe many, the heavy lifting in a  democracy is done are those  willing to fight on a battle field to preserve the freedoms and privileges before enjoying those freedoms and privileges in a safe, controlled environment such as a  university or a courtroom.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And those not privileged to actually do battle for their country can at least do the heavy lifting necessary to make better choices, educate ourselves, learn a trade, and be willing to start at the bottom and work our way to prosperity.   The conservative doesn't want anything from others apart from having his unalienable rights recognized and secured and then to be unhindered in living his life, contributing what he can, accomplishing what he can accomplish.   And we all can contribute via self sufficiency, personal responsbility and integrity, and lead by personal example.
> 
> Those who grow up with a sense of entitlement that what is theirs is theirs and some of everybody else's should also be theirs are the ones who would be the most shell shocked if they were thrown in with people who are all like them.  And when they realize that government serves mostly government, is not a reliable mommy for all the people who want to be provided for, and those people start preying on each other for available resources, I think we would see a whole new generation of staunch conservatives born really quickly.
Click to expand...


I've been around since Harry Truman was in the White House. I have met a lot of people.  All kinds of people, from all kinds of backgrounds and demographics.

The only "entitled" people I've ever met have been rich, and/or in a position of power (i.e. police) and the sons and daughters of rich people.  

Entitled to possess anything they want
Entitled to do whatever they want
Entitled to say whatever they want
Entitled to the deference and obedience of everyone around them

I've never met a single one of these entitled poor people I keep hearing about.


----------



## beagle9

Bfgrn said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Connery said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe many, the heavy lifting in a  democracy is done are those  willing to fight on a battle field to preserve the freedoms and privileges before enjoying those freedoms and privileges in a safe, controlled environment such as a  university or a courtroom.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And those not privileged to actually do battle for their country can at least do the heavy lifting necessary to make better choices, educate ourselves, learn a trade, and be willing to start at the bottom and work our way to prosperity.   The conservative doesn't want anything from others apart from having his unalienable rights recognized and secured and then to be unhindered in living his life, contributing what he can, accomplishing what he can accomplish.   And we all can contribute via self sufficiency, personal responsbility and integrity, and lead by personal example.
> 
> Those who grow up with a sense of entitlement that what is theirs is theirs and some of everybody else's should also be theirs are the ones who would be the most shell shocked if they were thrown in with people who are all like them.  And when they realize that government serves mostly government, is not a reliable mommy for all the people who want to be provided for, and those people start preying on each other for available resources, I think we would see a whole new generation of staunch conservatives born really quickly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've been around since Harry Truman was in the White House. I have met a lot of people.  All kinds of people, from all kinds of backgrounds and demographics.
> 
> The only "entitled" people I've ever met have been rich, and/or in a position of power (i.e. police) and the sons and daughters of rich people.
> 
> Entitled to possess anything they want
> Entitled to do whatever they want
> Entitled to say whatever they want
> Entitled to the deference and obedience of everyone around them
> 
> I've never met a single one of these entitled poor people I keep hearing about.
Click to expand...

Well then you need to get out more, because they are out there now, and the feds are directly to blame.


----------



## Bfgrn

beagle9 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> And those not privileged to actually do battle for their country can at least do the heavy lifting necessary to make better choices, educate ourselves, learn a trade, and be willing to start at the bottom and work our way to prosperity.   The conservative doesn't want anything from others apart from having his unalienable rights recognized and secured and then to be unhindered in living his life, contributing what he can, accomplishing what he can accomplish.   And we all can contribute via self sufficiency, personal responsbility and integrity, and lead by personal example.
> 
> Those who grow up with a sense of entitlement that what is theirs is theirs and some of everybody else's should also be theirs are the ones who would be the most shell shocked if they were thrown in with people who are all like them.  And when they realize that government serves mostly government, is not a reliable mommy for all the people who want to be provided for, and those people start preying on each other for available resources, I think we would see a whole new generation of staunch conservatives born really quickly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've been around since Harry Truman was in the White House. I have met a lot of people.  All kinds of people, from all kinds of backgrounds and demographics.
> 
> The only "entitled" people I've ever met have been rich, and/or in a position of power (i.e. police) and the sons and daughters of rich people.
> 
> Entitled to possess anything they want
> Entitled to do whatever they want
> Entitled to say whatever they want
> Entitled to the deference and obedience of everyone around them
> 
> I've never met a single one of these entitled poor people I keep hearing about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well then you need to get out more, because they are out there now, and the feds are directly to blame.
Click to expand...


You are more that welcome to defend conservatism, but I have yet to meet anyone that can do it without diminishing others or requiring some group of human beings to evaporate. It is a negative form of thought that is incompatible with a free and open society. It is anti-democratic in nature and builds nothing, it can only tear things down. The last 30 years are a shining example of conservatism.

Conservatism throughout human history has always created a aristocracy, plutocracy, or some form of oppressive society where there is a ruling class or hierarchy. Today's aristocrats and hierarchy are the CEO's, corporations, free marketeers, and the business elite. Conservatives will defend to the death McDonalds right to slowly poison our children, but they never defend our children's health and well being.

I've lived to see the total failure of two revolutions of extreme ideology. The Bolshevik revolution and the Reagan revolution. Unfettered communism and unfettered capitalism creates the same end...failure.

Conservatism has no investment in human capital. It believes everyone is basically evil, so it treats people accordingly and it always creates a fear of 'others', some group of people that must be excluded or ostracized. Liberalism is faith in human beings and a trust that the human spirit can solve all man-made problems.

So you are more than welcome to defend conservatism, but what you profess is not conservatism, it's narcissism.

Liberalism is trust of the people, tempered by prudence; conservatism, distrust of people, tempered by fear.
William E. Gladstone


----------



## beagle9

Bfgrn said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> And in follow up, what does America, with no conservatives at all, look like to you liberals?   What would be different than it is now?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The debt explosion has resulted not from big spending by the Democrats, but instead the Republican Party's embrace, about three decades ago, of the insidious doctrine that deficits don't matter if they result from tax cuts."
> David Stockman - Director of the Office of Management and Budget for U.S. President Ronald Reagan
> 
> What would be different now? Let's start with debt. Ronald Reagan switched the federal government from what he critically called, a &#8220;tax and spend&#8221; policy, to a &#8220;borrow and spend&#8221; policy, where the government continued its heavy spending, but used borrowed money instead of tax revenue to pay the bills. The results were catastrophic. Although it had taken the United States more than 200 years to accumulate the first $1 trillion of national debt, it took only five years under Reagan to add the second one trillion dollars to the debt. By the end of the 12 years of the Reagan-Bush administrations, the national debt had quadrupled to $4 trillion!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In 1981, the supply-siders commandeered the Reagan Presidency and employed their Voodoo economics, as Bush senior had called it in 1980. He was saying that tax cuts would not increase government revenues. As you can see on the graph above, the Voodoo failed just as Bush predicted, and the supply-siders turned a 32-year winning streak into a debt disaster that continues to this day. For 20 years, under Reagan and the Bushes, the national debt increased compared to GDP every single year.
Click to expand...

All these graphs or charts don't mean much or matter much anymore right now, because it has all now led or gone to a social agenda that trumps all, and it is also an attempt at a total take over that is taking advantage of it all as well as this place, or rather it's a full on revolution that is taking place now, so far as deficits and budgets go, I think will now take a back seat to these things or will be dealt with somehow within them, but not as a priority as we have seen.


----------



## beagle9

Bfgrn said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've been around since Harry Truman was in the White House. I have met a lot of people.  All kinds of people, from all kinds of backgrounds and demographics.
> 
> The only "entitled" people I've ever met have been rich, and/or in a position of power (i.e. police) and the sons and daughters of rich people.
> 
> Entitled to possess anything they want
> Entitled to do whatever they want
> Entitled to say whatever they want
> Entitled to the deference and obedience of everyone around them
> 
> I've never met a single one of these entitled poor people I keep hearing about.
> 
> 
> 
> Well then you need to get out more, because they are out there now, and the feds are directly to blame.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are more that welcome to defend conservatism, but I have yet to meet anyone that can do it without diminishing others or requiring some group of human beings to evaporate. It is a negative form of thought that is incompatible with a free and open society. It is anti-democratic in nature and builds nothing, it can only tear things down. The last 30 years are a shining example of conservatism.
> 
> Conservatism throughout human history has always created a aristocracy, plutocracy, or some form of oppressive society where there is a ruling class or hierarchy. Today's aristocrats and hierarchy are the CEO's, corporations, free marketeers, and the business elite. Conservatives will defend to the death McDonalds right to slowly poison our children, but they never defend our children's health and well being.
> 
> I've lived to see the total failure of two revolutions of extreme ideology. The Bolshevik revolution and the Reagan revolution. Unfettered communism and unfettered capitalism creates the same end...failure.
> 
> Conservatism has no investment in human capital. It believes everyone is basically evil, so it treats people accordingly and it always creates a fear of 'others', some group of people that must be excluded or ostracized. Liberalism is faith in human beings and a trust that the human spirit can solve all man-made problems.
> 
> So you are more than welcome to defend conservatism, but what you profess is not conservatism, it's narcissism.
> 
> Liberalism is trust of the people, tempered by prudence; conservatism, distrust of people, tempered by fear.
> William E. Gladstone
Click to expand...

Corporations and bad banksters are the reason we have broken the balance, and your man Clinton with his signing of Nafta has plunged this nation into the hole that it is in right now, so it's not just conservatism that is a problem here and there, but the whole of government and it's mismanaging of our nation over the years that has been a huge problem and let down.


----------



## Foxfyre

Mertex said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> And in my opinion, anybody who doesn't believe that there are concepts, values, and principles that are superior to other concepts, values, and principles--and most especially *those who are unable to articulate concepts, values, and principles without belittling, ridiculing, insulting, or putting somebody down--are leftists by defintiion.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then there are a lot of "leftists" in this Forum posing as "conservatives".
Click to expand...


Don't misunderstand me.  Most liberals really aren't hateful, insulting people.  Nor are most conservatives.  But either can be that way on a message board with the anonymity it allows.  But that isn't what I'm talking about.

What I am talking about is I don't think most liberals could describe an America that was all liberal--devoid of conservatives--without continuing to bash conservatism and point to conservatives they hate.   And so far none of them have.    That is what I mean about most liberals not being able to articulate, define, express, and defend a liberal principle or concept.  Liberals seem to be mostly people who operate on a sense of superiority, righteousness, and just being 'better people' that is based on feelings rather than any concrete concepts.   And that is why I think liberals would be shocked at how inefficient and unworkable those concept would be if they were given free rein to implement them.

I think most conservatives can easily articulate conservative values and principles and can describe a conservative America without referring to a single liberal or putting down anybody.  And I think conservatives would enjoy running the country based on conservative values and principles and it would feel quite natural and normal to them to do so.

And nevertheless, both the liberal and the conservative can be exemplary members of their communities, moral, upstanding, likable, personable people.


----------



## Bfgrn

beagle9 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well then you need to get out more, because they are out there now, and the feds are directly to blame.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are more that welcome to defend conservatism, but I have yet to meet anyone that can do it without diminishing others or requiring some group of human beings to evaporate. It is a negative form of thought that is incompatible with a free and open society. It is anti-democratic in nature and builds nothing, it can only tear things down. The last 30 years are a shining example of conservatism.
> 
> Conservatism throughout human history has always created a aristocracy, plutocracy, or some form of oppressive society where there is a ruling class or hierarchy. Today's aristocrats and hierarchy are the CEO's, corporations, free marketeers, and the business elite. Conservatives will defend to the death McDonalds right to slowly poison our children, but they never defend our children's health and well being.
> 
> I've lived to see the total failure of two revolutions of extreme ideology. The Bolshevik revolution and the Reagan revolution. Unfettered communism and unfettered capitalism creates the same end...failure.
> 
> Conservatism has no investment in human capital. It believes everyone is basically evil, so it treats people accordingly and it always creates a fear of 'others', some group of people that must be excluded or ostracized. Liberalism is faith in human beings and a trust that the human spirit can solve all man-made problems.
> 
> So you are more than welcome to defend conservatism, but what you profess is not conservatism, it's narcissism.
> 
> Liberalism is trust of the people, tempered by prudence; conservatism, distrust of people, tempered by fear.
> William E. Gladstone
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Corporations and bad banksters are the reason we have broken the balance, and your man Clinton with his signing of Nafta has plunged this nation into the hole that it is in right now, so it's not just conservatism that is a problem here and there, but the whole of government and it's mismanaging of our nation over the years that has been a huge problem and let down.
Click to expand...


NAFTA? 

U.S. employment increased over the period of 1993-2007 from 110.8 million people to 137.6 million people. Specifically within NAFTA's first five years of existence, 709,988 jobs (140,000 annually), were created domestically. The mid to late nineties was a period of strong economic growth in the United States. Classical macroeconomic theory suggests that when a country is experiencing economic growth (i.e. GDP is increasing), then there will also be an increase in the participation of the labor force. Thus, because trade liberalization can sometimes contribute to increases in GDP, it can help to bring the rate of unemployment down in a country. The U.S. experienced a 48% increase in real GDP from 1993-2005. The unemployment rate over this period was an average of only 5.1%, compared to 7.1% from 1982-1993, before NAFTA was implemented. wiki


----------



## Meathead

Without conservatives, I see a nation of a "people of color" majority and a white minority that would look like the OWS crowd. I am sure some would embrace such a country, I would not.


----------



## Bfgrn

Foxfyre said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> And in my opinion, anybody who doesn't believe that there are concepts, values, and principles that are superior to other concepts, values, and principles--and most especially *those who are unable to articulate concepts, values, and principles without belittling, ridiculing, insulting, or putting somebody down--are leftists by defintiion.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then there are a lot of "leftists" in this Forum posing as "conservatives".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't misunderstand me.  Most liberals really aren't hateful, insulting people.  Nor are most conservatives.  But either can be that way on a message board with the anonymity it allows.  But that isn't what I'm talking about.
> 
> What I am talking about is I don't think most liberals could describe an America that was all liberal--devoid of conservatives--without continuing to bash conservatism and point to conservatives they hate.   And so far none of them have.    That is what I mean about most liberals not being able to articulate, define, express, and defend a liberal principle or concept.  Liberals seem to be mostly people who operate on a sense of superiority, righteousness, and just being 'better people' that is based on feelings rather than any concrete concepts.   And that is why I think liberals would be shocked at how inefficient and unworkable those concept would be if they were given free rein to implement them.
> 
> I think most conservatives can easily articulate conservative values and principles and can describe a conservative America without referring to a single liberal or putting down anybody.  And I think conservatives would enjoy running the country based on conservative values and principles and it would feel quite natural and normal to them to do so.
> 
> And nevertheless, both the liberal and the conservative can be exemplary members of their communities, moral, upstanding, likable, personable people.
Click to expand...


My GOD, that is SO far outside the realm of reality, it is mindbogglingly. Conservatism IS liberal bashing and hating. It is the glue that holds conservatism together. Take a day and listen to Rush Limbaugh or any of the conservative radio hate mongers. Then take a day and listen to Thom Hartmann.

UN-believable. Conservatism is the epitome of a sense of superiority, righteousness, and just being 'better people'


----------



## Foxfyre

Bfgrn said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then there are a lot of "leftists" in this Forum posing as "conservatives".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't misunderstand me.  Most liberals really aren't hateful, insulting people.  Nor are most conservatives.  But either can be that way on a message board with the anonymity it allows.  But that isn't what I'm talking about.
> 
> What I am talking about is I don't think most liberals could describe an America that was all liberal--devoid of conservatives--without continuing to bash conservatism and point to conservatives they hate.   And so far none of them have.    That is what I mean about most liberals not being able to articulate, define, express, and defend a liberal principle or concept.  Liberals seem to be mostly people who operate on a sense of superiority, righteousness, and just being 'better people' that is based on feelings rather than any concrete concepts.   And that is why I think liberals would be shocked at how inefficient and unworkable those concept would be if they were given free rein to implement them.
> 
> I think most conservatives can easily articulate conservative values and principles and can describe a conservative America without referring to a single liberal or putting down anybody.  And I think conservatives would enjoy running the country based on conservative values and principles and it would feel quite natural and normal to them to do so.
> 
> And nevertheless, both the liberal and the conservative can be exemplary members of their communities, moral, upstanding, likable, personable people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My GOD, that is SO far outside the realm of reality, it is mindbogglingly. Conservatism IS liberal bashing and hating. It is the glue that holds conservatism together. Take a day and listen to Rush Limbaugh or any of the conservative radio hate mongers. Then take a day and listen to Thom Hartmann.
> 
> UN-believable. You are the epitome of a sense of superiority, righteousness, and just being 'better people'
Click to expand...


See what I mean folks?


----------



## Foxfyre

I should probably clarify though that I don't necessarily see the individual liberal as being self righteous, superior, or 'better people', but I think that is how they see liberalism in general.

Conservatives I think are more pragmatic and put it into more pragmatic terms.  We embrace conservatism because of our heartfelt convictions that it works.  On average, for the long term, conservative concepts are more efficient, effective, compassionate, productive, and successful because they are based on individual initiative and freedom.   Liberal concepts are well intended but too often result in unintended negative consequences.


----------



## Bfgrn

Foxfyre said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't misunderstand me.  Most liberals really aren't hateful, insulting people.  Nor are most conservatives.  But either can be that way on a message board with the anonymity it allows.  But that isn't what I'm talking about.
> 
> What I am talking about is I don't think most liberals could describe an America that was all liberal--devoid of conservatives--without continuing to bash conservatism and point to conservatives they hate.   And so far none of them have.    That is what I mean about most liberals not being able to articulate, define, express, and defend a liberal principle or concept.  Liberals seem to be mostly people who operate on a sense of superiority, righteousness, and just being 'better people' that is based on feelings rather than any concrete concepts.   And that is why I think liberals would be shocked at how inefficient and unworkable those concept would be if they were given free rein to implement them.
> 
> I think most conservatives can easily articulate conservative values and principles and can describe a conservative America without referring to a single liberal or putting down anybody.  And I think conservatives would enjoy running the country based on conservative values and principles and it would feel quite natural and normal to them to do so.
> 
> And nevertheless, both the liberal and the conservative can be exemplary members of their communities, moral, upstanding, likable, personable people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My GOD, that is SO far outside the realm of reality, it is mindbogglingly. Conservatism IS liberal bashing and hating. It is the glue that holds conservatism together. Take a day and listen to Rush Limbaugh or any of the conservative radio hate mongers. Then take a day and listen to Thom Hartmann.
> 
> UN-believable. Conservatism is the epitome of a sense of superiority, righteousness, and just being 'better people'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See what I mean folks?
Click to expand...


You have avoided the issue, and decided to grandstand. Pretty low.


----------



## Meathead

Bfgrn said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> My GOD, that is SO far outside the realm of reality, it is mindbogglingly. Conservatism IS liberal bashing and hating. It is the glue that holds conservatism together. Take a day and listen to Rush Limbaugh or any of the conservative radio hate mongers. Then take a day and listen to Thom Hartmann.
> 
> UN-believable. Conservatism is the epitome of a sense of superiority, righteousness, and just being 'better people'
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See what I mean folks?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have avoided the issue, and decided to grandstand. Pretty low.
Click to expand...

A disjointed and paranoid rant/opinion is not an issue. Pretty stupid.


----------



## Bfgrn

Foxfyre said:


> I should probably clarify though that I don't necessarily see the individual liberal as being self righteous, superior, or 'better people', but I think that is how they see liberalism in general.
> 
> Conservatives I think are more pragmatic and put it into more pragmatic terms.  We embrace conservatism because of our heartfelt convictions that it works.  On average, for the long term, conservative concepts are more efficient, effective, compassionate, productive, and successful because they are based on individual initiative and freedom.   Liberal concepts are well intended but too often result in unintended negative consequences.



Conservatives really want to change the basis of American life, to make America run according to the conservative moral worldview in all areas of life.

In the 2008 campaign, candidate Obama accurately described the basis of American democracy: Empathy -- citizens caring for each other, both social and personal responsibility -- acting on that care, and an ethic of excellence. From these, our freedoms and our way of life follow, as does the role of government: to protect and empower everyone equally. Protection includes safety, health, the environment, pensions and empowerment starts with education and infrastructure. No one can be free without these, and without a commitment to care and act on that care by one's fellow citizens.

The conservative worldview rejects all of that.

Conservatives believe in individual responsibility alone, not social responsibility. They don't think government should help its citizens. That is, they don't think citizens should help each other. The part of government they want to cut is not the military (we have 174 bases around the world), not government subsidies to corporations, not the aspect of government that fits their worldview. They want to cut the part that helps people. Why? Because that violates individual responsibility.

But where does that view of individual responsibility alone come from?

The way to understand the conservative moral system is to consider a strict father family. The father is The Decider, the ultimate moral authority in the family. His authority must not be challenged. His job is to protect the family, to support the family (by winning competitions in the marketplace), and to teach his kids right from wrong by disciplining them physically when they do wrong. The use of force is necessary and required. Only then will children develop the internal discipline to become moral beings. And only with such discipline will they be able to prosper. And what of people who are not prosperous? They don't have discipline, and without discipline they cannot be moral, so they deserve their poverty. The good people are hence the prosperous people. Helping others takes away their discipline, and hence makes them both unable to prosper on their own and function morally. 

more


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

> What would happen to the United States if Conservatives left?



Of course, this would bring up the question of where would they go  and more importantly, who would have them? 

Even among other conservatives in the UK, Canada, or Australia, for example, theyd be correctly perceived as bizarre reactionary anachronisms and pariahs.


----------



## Foxfyre

Bfgrn said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> I should probably clarify though that I don't necessarily see the individual liberal as being self righteous, superior, or 'better people', but I think that is how they see liberalism in general.
> 
> Conservatives I think are more pragmatic and put it into more pragmatic terms.  We embrace conservatism because of our heartfelt convictions that it works.  On average, for the long term, conservative concepts are more efficient, effective, compassionate, productive, and successful because they are based on individual initiative and freedom.   Liberal concepts are well intended but too often result in unintended negative consequences.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatives really want to change the basis of American life, to make America run according to the conservative moral worldview in all areas of life.
> 
> In the 2008 campaign, candidate Obama accurately described the basis of American democracy: Empathy -- citizens caring for each other, both social and personal responsibility -- acting on that care, and an ethic of excellence. From these, our freedoms and our way of life follow, as does the role of government: to protect and empower everyone equally. Protection includes safety, health, the environment, pensions and empowerment starts with education and infrastructure. No one can be free without these, and without a commitment to care and act on that care by one's fellow citizens.
> 
> The conservative worldview rejects all of that.
> 
> Conservatives believe in individual responsibility alone, not social responsibility. They don't think government should help its citizens. That is, they don't think citizens should help each other. The part of government they want to cut is not the military (we have 174 bases around the world), not government subsidies to corporations, not the aspect of government that fits their worldview. They want to cut the part that helps people. Why? Because that violates individual responsibility.
> 
> But where does that view of individual responsibility alone come from?
> 
> The way to understand the conservative moral system is to consider a strict father family. The father is The Decider, the ultimate moral authority in the family. His authority must not be challenged. His job is to protect the family, to support the family (by winning competitions in the marketplace), and to teach his kids right from wrong by disciplining them physically when they do wrong. The use of force is necessary and required. Only then will children develop the internal discipline to become moral beings. And only with such discipline will they be able to prosper. And what of people who are not prosperous? They don't have discipline, and without discipline they cannot be moral, so they deserve their poverty. The good people are hence the prosperous people. Helping others takes away their discipline, and hence makes them both unable to prosper on their own and function morally.
> 
> more
Click to expand...


And you didn't believe me when I said liberals couldn't articulate a concept without bashing specific conservatives or conservatives in general.


----------



## Bfgrn

Meathead said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> See what I mean folks?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have avoided the issue, and decided to grandstand. Pretty low.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A disjointed and paranoid rant/opinion is not an issue. Pretty stupid.
Click to expand...


Seriously, the amount of liberal bashing that goes on in this country is sickening. 

Conservatives thirst for it. Limbaugh, the liberal hatemonger is a perfect example. Or Fox, Beck, Hannity, Malkin, Breitbart...the list goes on and on.


----------



## Bfgrn

Foxfyre said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> I should probably clarify though that I don't necessarily see the individual liberal as being self righteous, superior, or 'better people', but I think that is how they see liberalism in general.
> 
> Conservatives I think are more pragmatic and put it into more pragmatic terms.  We embrace conservatism because of our heartfelt convictions that it works.  On average, for the long term, conservative concepts are more efficient, effective, compassionate, productive, and successful because they are based on individual initiative and freedom.   Liberal concepts are well intended but too often result in unintended negative consequences.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatives really want to change the basis of American life, to make America run according to the conservative moral worldview in all areas of life.
> 
> In the 2008 campaign, candidate Obama accurately described the basis of American democracy: Empathy -- citizens caring for each other, both social and personal responsibility -- acting on that care, and an ethic of excellence. From these, our freedoms and our way of life follow, as does the role of government: to protect and empower everyone equally. Protection includes safety, health, the environment, pensions and empowerment starts with education and infrastructure. No one can be free without these, and without a commitment to care and act on that care by one's fellow citizens.
> 
> The conservative worldview rejects all of that.
> 
> Conservatives believe in individual responsibility alone, not social responsibility. They don't think government should help its citizens. That is, they don't think citizens should help each other. The part of government they want to cut is not the military (we have 174 bases around the world), not government subsidies to corporations, not the aspect of government that fits their worldview. They want to cut the part that helps people. Why? Because that violates individual responsibility.
> 
> But where does that view of individual responsibility alone come from?
> 
> The way to understand the conservative moral system is to consider a strict father family. The father is The Decider, the ultimate moral authority in the family. His authority must not be challenged. His job is to protect the family, to support the family (by winning competitions in the marketplace), and to teach his kids right from wrong by disciplining them physically when they do wrong. The use of force is necessary and required. Only then will children develop the internal discipline to become moral beings. And only with such discipline will they be able to prosper. And what of people who are not prosperous? They don't have discipline, and without discipline they cannot be moral, so they deserve their poverty. The good people are hence the prosperous people. Helping others takes away their discipline, and hence makes them both unable to prosper on their own and function morally.
> 
> more
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you didn't believe me when I said liberals couldn't articulate a concept without bashing specific conservatives or conservatives in general.
Click to expand...


Liberalism is about people. Period. It may not be _pragmatic_ to help a senior citizen pay her heating bill. It may not be _pragmatic_ to help a poor child with the cost of college. It may not be _pragmatic_ to be a liberal, but it is HUMAN.

When the Son of God walked this earth, He was not _pragmatic_ either.

Luke 16:13-15 

13 No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and mammon (money).

14 The Pharisees, who loved money, heard all this and were sneering at Jesus. 

15 He said to them, You are the ones who justify yourselves in the eyes of man, but God knows your hearts. What is highly valuable in the eyes of man is detestable in Gods sight.


----------



## JohnL.Burke

Circe said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> IMO, the real difference between conservatives and liberals is how they view the world and it's people.
> 
> Conservatives view the world from the perspective of scarcity. Everything is in short supply so one must defend his/her stash or risk losing it.
> 
> Liberals view the world from the perspective of plenty. We can create more than enough to go around so the future is as bright as we want to make it.
> 
> I think that this worldview is pervasive. Applies to everything. Business, religion, politics, family and culture, relationships, entertainment, past, present and future.
> 
> Of course in any given situation one or the other is probably closer to reality. Civilization needs both perspectives but at different times and places and situations.
> 
> If either one disappeared completely we'd be short of a valuable set of possibilities and perspectives and alternatives.
> 
> That having been said though I'd much rather live in a world based on a worldview of plenty rather than scarcity, if I had to choose one over the other. In fact I believe that we used to be there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wonderful analysis.
> 
> My own idea of the difference is that conservatives don't want change, they want stability; and liberals do want change, they welcome and promote change.
> 
> However, I really like your thinking and want to process that some more. A perspective of scarcity can affect life on a personal level, too.
Click to expand...


 Conservatives don't want change? They don't want to change the tax code? They don't want to change the IRS? They don't want to change the amount of security on the border? They don't want to fundamentally change the size and scope of government? Conservatives don't want to give more power to the states? I know one may not agree with the changes conservatives want to make but that's not the same thing as accusing the conservatives of not wanting to change.


----------



## JohnL.Burke

Bfgrn said:


> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have avoided the issue, and decided to grandstand. Pretty low.
> 
> 
> 
> A disjointed and paranoid rant/opinion is not an issue. Pretty stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seriously, the amount of liberal bashing that goes on in this country is sickening.
> 
> Conservatives thirst for it. Limbaugh, the liberal hatemonger is a perfect example. Or Fox, Beck, Hannity, Malkin, Breitbart...the list goes on and on.
Click to expand...


 Seriously, the amount of conservative bashing that goes on in this country is sickening.

  Liberals thirst for it. President Obama, the conservative hatemonger is a perfect example. Or MSNBC, Mathews, O'donnell, Media Matters... the list goes on and on.


----------



## Meathead

JohnL.Burke said:


> Conservatives don't want change? They don't want to change the tax code? They don't want to change the IRS? They don't want to change the amount of security on the border? They don't want to fundamentally change the size and scope of government? Conservatives don't want to give more power to the states? I know one may not agree with the changes conservatives want to make but that's not the same thing as accusing the conservatives of not wanting to change.


The change liberals refer to is Obama's Hope & Change mantra.To them, that is the only "change" acceptable.  In truth it was a non-starter from the start.


----------



## Bfgrn

What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label "Liberal?" If by "Liberal" they mean, as they want people to believe, someone who is soft in his policies abroad, who is against local government, and who is unconcerned with the taxpayer's dollar, then the record of this party and its members demonstrate that we are not that kind of "Liberal." But if by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people -- their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties -- someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal."

This is my political credo:

I believe in human dignity as the source of national purpose, in human liberty as the source of national action, in the human heart as the source of national compassion, and in the human mind as the source of our invention and our ideas. It is, I believe, the faith in our fellow citizens as individuals and as people that lies at the heart of the liberal faith. For liberalism is not so much a party creed or set of fixed platform promises as it is an attitude of mind and heart, a faith in man's ability through the experiences of his reason and judgment to increase for himself and his fellow men the amount of justice and freedom and brotherhood which all human life deserves.

 I believe also in the United States of America, in the promise that it contains and has contained throughout our history of producing a society so abundant and creative and so free and responsible that it cannot only fulfill the aspirations of its citizens, but serve equally well as a beacon for all mankind. I do not believe in a superstate. I see no magic in tax dollars which are sent to Washington and then returned. I abhor the waste and incompetence of large-scale federal bureaucracies in this administration as well as in others. I do not favor state compulsion when voluntary individual effort can do the job and do it well. But I believe in a government which acts, which exercises its full powers and full responsibilities. Government is an art and a precious obligation; and when it has a job to do, I believe it should do it. And this requires not only great ends but that we propose concrete means of achieving them.

Our responsibility is not discharged by announcement of virtuous ends. Our responsibility is to achieve these objectives with social invention, with political skill, and executive vigor. I believe for these reasons that liberalism is our best and only hope in the world today. For the liberal society is a free society, and it is at the same time and for that reason a strong society. Its strength is drawn from the will of free people committed to great ends and peacefully striving to meet them. Only liberalism, in short, can repair our national power, restore our national purpose, and liberate our national energies. 

John F. Kennedy


----------



## JohnL.Burke

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Connery said:
> 
> 
> 
> That would leave a gaping hole in the fabric of US politics. There would be many who would be more than willing to fill that gap, as money is to be made and power to be garnered, at which point we would get a whole new crew of those who would be considered conservative.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well now that is an interesting twist on it isn't it?  You are quite right that something always rushes in to fill a vacuum.  Those of the radical left are currently insulated from the worst consequences of their intolerance, hatred, racism, political correctness, one-world-government,  and socialist/Marxist economic theories.
> 
> When no longer insulated from those worst consequences, I wonder how many would be instant converts to modern day American conservatism?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And of course those of the radical right are just as insulated from the worst consequences of their intolerance, hatred, racism, political correctness, reactionaryism, and fascist/Nazi social theories.
> 
> When no longer insulated from those worst consequences, how many would be instant converts to modern day American liberalism?
Click to expand...


 Actually, fascist/Nazi social theories were pretty liberal so your rebuttal doesn't make much sense.


----------



## Bfgrn

JohnL.Burke said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well now that is an interesting twist on it isn't it?  You are quite right that something always rushes in to fill a vacuum.  Those of the radical left are currently insulated from the worst consequences of their intolerance, hatred, racism, political correctness, one-world-government,  and socialist/Marxist economic theories.
> 
> When no longer insulated from those worst consequences, I wonder how many would be instant converts to modern day American conservatism?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And of course those of the radical right are just as insulated from the worst consequences of their intolerance, hatred, racism, political correctness, reactionaryism, and fascist/Nazi social theories.
> 
> When no longer insulated from those worst consequences, how many would be instant converts to modern day American liberalism?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, fascist/Nazi social theories were pretty liberal so your rebuttal doesn't make much sense.
Click to expand...


Fascist/Nazi social theories were the antithesis of liberalism. As a matter of fact, liberal bashing in Europe in the 1920's was the precursor to fascism.

The Hard Road to Fascism

*Todays antiliberal revolt looks a lot like 1920s Europe. *

Traditional conservatives have persistently criticized modern liberalism for its alleged softness. After the First World War right-wing German and Italian critics abused the governments of Weimar Germany and pre-Mussolini Italy for their commitment to social welfare, which their critics linked to an unwillingness to use force in international relations. To use Robert Kagans expression, the Weimar Republic could only do the dishes, not prepare the feast.

German and Italian critics of liberalismwriters such as Ernst Jünger and Giovanni Gentilelonged for the military spirit that allegedly typified the front-fighter generation that had lived through the horrors of trench warfare during World War I. The experience of war, they said, could redeem the anti-national Weimar Republic and the spineless decadence of Italian liberalism by reintroducing them to the necessity of using forcewhich would mean a much more ready resort to military power and a reorientation of government to promote its use. Both men and nations could thereby reestablish their virility.

Extreme right-wing theoreticiansfor example, German jurist and political philosopher Carl Schmittbelieved that the European states in general had to choose between defending the interests of their national communitiesat the end of the day by forceand sustaining a debilitating commitment to popular welfare, which more and more absorbed the energies of a weak-kneed liberalism that precariously clung to power in many European states. Schmitt believed that the state existed exclusively to oppose the enemies of the national community and ensure domestic order. Politics, he famously said, is founded on the friend-enemy polarity. Liberals had embarked on a fruitless crusade to escape inevitable political conflict within their societies by expanding the welfare function of the modern state to appease the demands of the masses, and thereby weakening its executive function.

The proximate causes of this revulsion against liberalism in Italy, Germany, and elsewhere are not far to seek. And the underlying anti-liberal logic was more cultural than political-economic. After defeat in World War I neither Germany nor Italy was able to advance its interests effectively in Europe. The Italians were widely regarded as pathetic soldiers. The Italians, Bismarck said, have such large appetites and such poor teeth. Giovanni Gentile, subsequently a Fascist minister for Mussolini, lamented the dolce far niente (sweet do nothing) that he found characterized the Italians as a nation. As for the Germans, they had of course lost the war, but they were encouraged to believe that their armies and fighting men had not been defeated on the battlefield but had been betrayed by an unpatriotic cabal of Jews, Francophiles, liberals, and socialists.

So for these men and like-minded others, there was a necessary connection between reviving militarism and imperialism and curtailing the states commitment to popular welfare. Only a new political elitebattle-hardened, ruthless, and devoted to authoritarian governmentcould achieve the reforms needed to restore these states to the ranks of the European powerful. The new governments would not be parliamentary: talk shops never get anything done. In Italy the Fascist elite developed an imperial ideology focusing on Rome; in Germany, too, there was an imperial elementthe Thousand Year Empirealthough we correctly understand the racism of the National Socialists to have been their most memorable contribution to the horrors of the 20th century. 

more


----------



## Bfgrn

What is conservatism? In my opinion, it is respect for the past and the wisdom of our ancestors. Their lives were built on their ancestors and so it goes, from one generation to the next. You ultimately respect their lives and toil not by paying lip service to it or using empty rhetoric like 'family values'. You do it by embracing those values. You do it by making their hard earned lessons your easy learned lessons. You do it by respecting and fighting for the policies and programs they crafted that increased the benefits and lessened the losses to our communities and our society.

How did our ancestors craft these policies and programs, were they based on some ideology? I believe they were based on common decency, respect for your neighbors, common sense, experience, trial and error and a strong sense of community.

I was raised in the 1950's. My dad was the sole provider, and my mom was a housewife and mother. We didn't call it 'family values', we called it family. When I came home from school, no matter what kind of day I had, it became brighter as soon as I walked in the door to a 'hi honey' from my mom. It not only brightened my day, it built self worth and a positive self image. All my friends and school mates had a similar story...a father that worked and a mother that stayed home to raise and nurture their children. None of us kids ever knew or even cared what anyone else's father did for a living. None of us had to go without; food, clothing, pets, bikes, baseball gloves, doctor care (our doctor used to come to the house), a quality public education with all the extras; sports, arts, school run ice rink, summer swimming and sports programs etc. But none of us were pampered or spoiled either.

THAT is exactly what I want for my kids and for my grand-kids.

So...In a very real way I AM truly a conservative.

So, what is conservatism? I don't hear people that call themselves conservatives talk that way or think that way. I don't hear talk of building, I hear talk of tearing down. I don't hear talk of a helping hand, I hear talk of letting them fail. I don't hear talk of the public good, I hear talk about me and mine. I don't hear compassion for fellow citizens, I hear disdain. I never hear them talk about human capital, just mammon. These so called conservatives are ideologues that want to dismantle any shred of community and replace it with SELF interest.

That is not 'conservatism', that is called narcissism.

"You shall rise in the presence of grey hairs, give honor to the aged, and fear God, I am the Lord"
Leviticus 19:32


----------



## JohnL.Burke

Bfgrn said:


> JohnL.Burke said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> And of course those of the radical right are just as insulated from the worst consequences of their intolerance, hatred, racism, political correctness, reactionaryism, and fascist/Nazi social theories.
> 
> When no longer insulated from those worst consequences, how many would be instant converts to modern day American liberalism?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, fascist/Nazi social theories were pretty liberal so your rebuttal doesn't make much sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fascist/Nazi social theories were the antithesis of liberalism. As a matter of fact, liberal bashing in Europe in the 1920's was the precursor to fascism.
> 
> The Hard Road to Fascism
> 
> *Today&#8217;s antiliberal revolt looks a lot like 1920s Europe. *
> 
> Traditional conservatives have persistently criticized modern liberalism for its alleged &#8220;softness.&#8221; After the First World War right-wing German and Italian critics abused the governments of Weimar Germany and pre-Mussolini Italy for their commitment to social welfare, which their critics linked to an unwillingness to use force in international relations. To use Robert Kagan&#8217;s expression, the Weimar Republic could only do the dishes, not prepare the feast.
> 
> German and Italian critics of liberalism&#8212;writers such as Ernst Jünger and Giovanni Gentile&#8212;longed for the military spirit that allegedly typified the &#8220;front-fighter&#8221; generation that had lived through the horrors of trench warfare during World War I. The experience of war, they said, could redeem the anti-national Weimar Republic and the spineless decadence of Italian liberalism by reintroducing them to the necessity of using force&#8212;which would mean a much more ready resort to military power and a reorientation of government to promote its use. Both men and nations could thereby reestablish their virility.
> 
> Extreme right-wing theoreticians&#8212;for example, German jurist and political philosopher Carl Schmitt&#8212;believed that the European states in general had to choose between defending the interests of their national communities&#8212;at the end of the day by force&#8212;and sustaining a debilitating commitment to popular welfare, which more and more absorbed the energies of a weak-kneed liberalism that precariously clung to power in many European states. Schmitt believed that the state existed exclusively to oppose the enemies of the national community and ensure domestic order. Politics, he famously said, is founded on the friend-enemy polarity. Liberals had embarked on a fruitless crusade to escape inevitable political conflict within their societies by expanding the welfare function of the modern state to appease the demands of the masses, and thereby weakening its &#8220;executive function.&#8221;
> 
> The proximate causes of this revulsion against liberalism in Italy, Germany, and elsewhere are not far to seek. And the underlying anti-liberal logic was more cultural than political-economic. After defeat in World War I neither Germany nor Italy was able to advance its interests effectively in Europe. The Italians were widely regarded as pathetic soldiers. &#8220;The Italians,&#8221; Bismarck said, &#8220;have such large appetites and such poor teeth.&#8221; Giovanni Gentile, subsequently a Fascist minister for Mussolini, lamented the dolce far niente (&#8220;sweet do nothing&#8221 that he found characterized the Italians as a nation. As for the Germans, they had of course lost the war, but they were encouraged to believe that their armies and fighting men had not been defeated on the battlefield but had been betrayed by an unpatriotic cabal of Jews, Francophiles, liberals, and socialists.
> 
> So for these men and like-minded others, there was a necessary connection between reviving militarism and imperialism and curtailing the state&#8217;s commitment to popular welfare. Only a new political elite&#8212;battle-hardened, ruthless, and devoted to authoritarian government&#8212;could achieve the reforms needed to restore these states to the ranks of the European powerful. The new governments would not be parliamentary: talk shops never get anything done. In Italy the Fascist elite developed an imperial ideology focusing on Rome; in Germany, too, there was an imperial element&#8212;the &#8220;Thousand Year Empire&#8221;&#8212;although we correctly understand the racism of the National Socialists to have been their most memorable contribution to the horrors of the 20th century.
> 
> more
Click to expand...


 The word "nazi" of course is an abbreviation for "national socialist" referring to the NATIONAL SOCIALIST GERMAN WORKERS PARTY (nazi). Mussolini, of course, was a self professed socialist. He started the Fascist Party. Mussolini's economic policy was socialist  just as Hitler's was. It's hard to think of a modern dictatorship that wasn't socialist. Even Mugabe in Africa has a socialist economic agenda. After all, if you run the economy then what doesn't the government own? Socialism and conservatism are diametrically opposed to each other. Conservatives don't hate big government because they don't want to help the poor. Conservatives want less government because the poor become poorer when the government gets larger. The middle class also gets poorer. It gets harder to strive towards a better existence when the government needs more of your money so it may incur more power (more bureaucrats, more IRS agents, more laws... i.e. police state).  Conservatism is about teaching a man to fish as opposed to the government giving him a fish by apprehending the neighbors fish. Keep in mind though, 90 percent of this metaphorical neighbors fish goes to the government. Conservatives don't think apprehending more money can always cure a problem.  Our failed school system is one example. Our ghettos and trailer parks are another example. It may seem that I wandered a bit but since I  was here I thought I might as well respond to your posts 179 and 180 at the same time. They kind of dovetail into each other anyway.


----------



## editec

John I really have no complaints about any of the above.

Now let me ask you this...are today's conservatives (those in power, not the rank and file) really CONSERVATIVES as you define the word?


----------



## beagle9

Bfgrn said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are more that welcome to defend conservatism, but I have yet to meet anyone that can do it without diminishing others or requiring some group of human beings to evaporate. It is a negative form of thought that is incompatible with a free and open society. It is anti-democratic in nature and builds nothing, it can only tear things down. The last 30 years are a shining example of conservatism.
> 
> Conservatism throughout human history has always created a aristocracy, plutocracy, or some form of oppressive society where there is a ruling class or hierarchy. Today's aristocrats and hierarchy are the CEO's, corporations, free marketeers, and the business elite. Conservatives will defend to the death McDonalds right to slowly poison our children, but they never defend our children's health and well being.
> 
> I've lived to see the total failure of two revolutions of extreme ideology. The Bolshevik revolution and the Reagan revolution. Unfettered communism and unfettered capitalism creates the same end...failure.
> 
> Conservatism has no investment in human capital. It believes everyone is basically evil, so it treats people accordingly and it always creates a fear of 'others', some group of people that must be excluded or ostracized. Liberalism is faith in human beings and a trust that the human spirit can solve all man-made problems.
> 
> So you are more than welcome to defend conservatism, but what you profess is not conservatism, it's narcissism.
> 
> Liberalism is trust of the people, tempered by prudence; conservatism, distrust of people, tempered by fear.
> William E. Gladstone
> 
> 
> 
> Corporations and bad banksters are the reason we have broken the balance, and your man Clinton with his signing of Nafta has plunged this nation into the hole that it is in right now, so it's not just conservatism that is a problem here and there, but the whole of government and it's mismanaging of our nation over the years that has been a huge problem and let down.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> NAFTA?
> 
> U.S. employment increased over the period of 1993-2007 from 110.8 million people to 137.6 million people. Specifically within NAFTA's first five years of existence, 709,988 jobs (140,000 annually), were created domestically. The mid to late nineties was a period of strong economic growth in the United States. Classical macroeconomic theory suggests that when a country is experiencing economic growth (i.e. GDP is increasing), then there will also be an increase in the participation of the labor force. Thus, because trade liberalization can sometimes contribute to increases in GDP, it can help to bring the rate of unemployment down in a country. The U.S. experienced a 48% increase in real GDP from 1993-2005. The unemployment rate over this period was an average of only 5.1%, compared to 7.1% from 1982-1993, before NAFTA was implemented. wiki
Click to expand...

NAFTA was only the beginning of the long term problem coming, and it came, and it went, and it is still a major problem, because we are dealing in countries that compromised our values badly, and we even have had to go to war over much of this stuff indirectly speaking in many ways. The details are many, and much is hidden while some are right out in the open for us to see with our naked eye, and so it was like riding a wave, then the wave crashed us into the sea wall.   I know collateral damage was expected right, so as soon as we get the generation whom don't have these values and morals left within them, well then it will all be A-OK right ?


----------



## PMZ

Bfgrn said:


> What is conservatism? In my opinion, it is respect for the past and the wisdom of our ancestors. Their lives were built on their ancestors and so it goes, from one generation to the next. You ultimately respect their lives and toil not by paying lip service to it or using empty rhetoric like 'family values'. You do it by embracing those values. You do it by making their hard earned lessons your easy learned lessons. You do it by respecting and fighting for the policies and programs they crafted that increased the benefits and lessened the losses to our communities and our society.
> 
> How did our ancestors craft these policies and programs, were they based on some ideology? I believe they were based on common decency, respect for your neighbors, common sense, experience, trial and error and a strong sense of community.
> 
> I was raised in the 1950's. My dad was the sole provider, and my mom was a housewife and mother. We didn't call it 'family values', we called it family. When I came home from school, no matter what kind of day I had, it became brighter as soon as I walked in the door to a 'hi honey' from my mom. It not only brightened my day, it built self worth and a positive self image. All my friends and school mates had a similar story...a father that worked and a mother that stayed home to raise and nurture their children. None of us kids ever knew or even cared what anyone else's father did for a living. None of us had to go without; food, clothing, pets, bikes, baseball gloves, doctor care (our doctor used to come to the house), a quality public education with all the extras; sports, arts, school run ice rink, summer swimming and sports programs etc. But none of us were pampered or spoiled either.
> 
> THAT is exactly what I want for my kids and for my grand-kids.
> 
> So...In a very real way I AM truly a conservative.
> 
> So, what is conservatism? I don't hear people that call themselves conservatives talk that way or think that way. I don't hear talk of building, I hear talk of tearing down. I don't hear talk of a helping hand, I hear talk of letting them fail. I don't hear talk of the public good, I hear talk about me and mine. I don't hear compassion for fellow citizens, I hear disdain. I never hear them talk about human capital, just mammon. These so called conservatives are ideologues that want to dismantle any shred of community and replace it with SELF interest.
> 
> That is not 'conservatism', that is called narcissism.
> 
> "You shall rise in the presence of grey hairs, give honor to the aged, and fear God, I am the Lord"
> Leviticus 19:32



IMO, the problems of today stem from the discovery, by Rush I suppose, of the amount of money to be made by keeping conservatives angry. Of course the model that he followed was pretty ancient and had been the basis for Hitler and Mousillini's quest for power. Rush didn't want power but money. 

Rupert followed suit, plus a pretty significant bunch of wannabes, plus the NRA, plus TV evangelists, and an industry was born. 

Their product came at a time when the GOP was struggling, and they took full advantage of it. 

That product, of course, isn't conservatism but extremism. Anger. One size fits all. Simple black and white solutions to complex problems. The evil government, and Democrats, and liberals, and unions, and environmentalists and other races and religions, and intellectuals, and foreigners, and taxes and regulations. Government too big. That's what to hate and hate and hate. Exactly the same shtic as the Taliban. 

Everything delivered to maintain the brand is an inseparable mix of news and opinion. Delivered by Hollywood class actresses and angry men. 

Fortunately, like all entertainment, it's a fad with a predictable life span. The fad is on the way out, but the GOP has no alternatives. No platform or candidates or solutions. 

Will they recover? Stay tuned.


----------



## PMZ

Foxfyre said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> I should probably clarify though that I don't necessarily see the individual liberal as being self righteous, superior, or 'better people', but I think that is how they see liberalism in general.
> 
> Conservatives I think are more pragmatic and put it into more pragmatic terms.  We embrace conservatism because of our heartfelt convictions that it works.  On average, for the long term, conservative concepts are more efficient, effective, compassionate, productive, and successful because they are based on individual initiative and freedom.   Liberal concepts are well intended but too often result in unintended negative consequences.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatives really want to change the basis of American life, to make America run according to the conservative moral worldview in all areas of life.
> 
> In the 2008 campaign, candidate Obama accurately described the basis of American democracy: Empathy -- citizens caring for each other, both social and personal responsibility -- acting on that care, and an ethic of excellence. From these, our freedoms and our way of life follow, as does the role of government: to protect and empower everyone equally. Protection includes safety, health, the environment, pensions and empowerment starts with education and infrastructure. No one can be free without these, and without a commitment to care and act on that care by one's fellow citizens.
> 
> The conservative worldview rejects all of that.
> 
> Conservatives believe in individual responsibility alone, not social responsibility. They don't think government should help its citizens. That is, they don't think citizens should help each other. The part of government they want to cut is not the military (we have 174 bases around the world), not government subsidies to corporations, not the aspect of government that fits their worldview. They want to cut the part that helps people. Why? Because that violates individual responsibility.
> 
> But where does that view of individual responsibility alone come from?
> 
> The way to understand the conservative moral system is to consider a strict father family. The father is The Decider, the ultimate moral authority in the family. His authority must not be challenged. His job is to protect the family, to support the family (by winning competitions in the marketplace), and to teach his kids right from wrong by disciplining them physically when they do wrong. The use of force is necessary and required. Only then will children develop the internal discipline to become moral beings. And only with such discipline will they be able to prosper. And what of people who are not prosperous? They don't have discipline, and without discipline they cannot be moral, so they deserve their poverty. The good people are hence the prosperous people. Helping others takes away their discipline, and hence makes them both unable to prosper on their own and function morally.
> 
> more
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you didn't believe me when I said liberals couldn't articulate a concept without bashing specific conservatives or conservatives in general.
Click to expand...


The problem is not conservatism, which sometimes offers a useful perspective and productive solutions. It's extremism, which is anger directed at everyone different, the belief that every problem stems from the absence of it, and the pretense that every solution comes from it. 

Today's world, which extremists are trained to deny vehemently, is not between good and evil, which are undefinable, but is the battle between centrism and extremism, and it's worldwide.


----------



## Foxfyre

PMZ said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatives really want to change the basis of American life, to make America run according to the conservative moral worldview in all areas of life.
> 
> In the 2008 campaign, candidate Obama accurately described the basis of American democracy: Empathy -- citizens caring for each other, both social and personal responsibility -- acting on that care, and an ethic of excellence. From these, our freedoms and our way of life follow, as does the role of government: to protect and empower everyone equally. Protection includes safety, health, the environment, pensions and empowerment starts with education and infrastructure. No one can be free without these, and without a commitment to care and act on that care by one's fellow citizens.
> 
> The conservative worldview rejects all of that.
> 
> Conservatives believe in individual responsibility alone, not social responsibility. They don't think government should help its citizens. That is, they don't think citizens should help each other. The part of government they want to cut is not the military (we have 174 bases around the world), not government subsidies to corporations, not the aspect of government that fits their worldview. They want to cut the part that helps people. Why? Because that violates individual responsibility.
> 
> But where does that view of individual responsibility alone come from?
> 
> The way to understand the conservative moral system is to consider a strict father family. The father is The Decider, the ultimate moral authority in the family. His authority must not be challenged. His job is to protect the family, to support the family (by winning competitions in the marketplace), and to teach his kids right from wrong by disciplining them physically when they do wrong. The use of force is necessary and required. Only then will children develop the internal discipline to become moral beings. And only with such discipline will they be able to prosper. And what of people who are not prosperous? They don't have discipline, and without discipline they cannot be moral, so they deserve their poverty. The good people are hence the prosperous people. Helping others takes away their discipline, and hence makes them both unable to prosper on their own and function morally.
> 
> more
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you didn't believe me when I said liberals couldn't articulate a concept without bashing specific conservatives or conservatives in general.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem is not conservatism, which sometimes offers a useful perspective and productive solutions. It's extremism, which is anger directed at everyone different, the belief that every problem stems from the absence of it, and the pretense that every solution comes from it.
> 
> Today's world, which extremists are trained to deny vehemently, is not between good and evil, which are undefinable, but is the battle between centrism and extremism, and it's worldwide.
Click to expand...


So define 'extremism' if you can WITHOUT mentioning specific events, conservatives, political parties, ideology, or Rush Limbaugh or any other personality.


----------



## PMZ

beagle9 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Corporations and bad banksters are the reason we have broken the balance, and your man Clinton with his signing of Nafta has plunged this nation into the hole that it is in right now, so it's not just conservatism that is a problem here and there, but the whole of government and it's mismanaging of our nation over the years that has been a huge problem and let down.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NAFTA?
> 
> U.S. employment increased over the period of 1993-2007 from 110.8 million people to 137.6 million people. Specifically within NAFTA's first five years of existence, 709,988 jobs (140,000 annually), were created domestically. The mid to late nineties was a period of strong economic growth in the United States. Classical macroeconomic theory suggests that when a country is experiencing economic growth (i.e. GDP is increasing), then there will also be an increase in the participation of the labor force. Thus, because trade liberalization can sometimes contribute to increases in GDP, it can help to bring the rate of unemployment down in a country. The U.S. experienced a 48% increase in real GDP from 1993-2005. The unemployment rate over this period was an average of only 5.1%, compared to 7.1% from 1982-1993, before NAFTA was implemented. wiki
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> NAFTA was only the beginning of the long term problem coming, and it came, and it went, and it is still a major problem, because we are dealing in countries that compromised our values badly, and we even have had to go to war over much of this stuff indirectly speaking in many ways. The details are many, and much is hidden while some are right out in the open for us to see with our naked eye, and so it was like riding a wave, then the wave crashed us into the sea wall.   I know collateral damage was expected right, so as soon as we get the generation whom don't have these values and morals left within them, well then it will all be A-OK right ?
Click to expand...


Free trade and morality are, somehow, connected?


----------



## PMZ

Foxfyre said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you didn't believe me when I said liberals couldn't articulate a concept without bashing specific conservatives or conservatives in general.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is not conservatism, which sometimes offers a useful perspective and productive solutions. It's extremism, which is anger directed at everyone different, the belief that every problem stems from the absence of it, and the pretense that every solution comes from it.
> 
> Today's world, which extremists are trained to deny vehemently, is not between good and evil, which are undefinable, but is the battle between centrism and extremism, and it's worldwide.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So define 'extremism' if you can WITHOUT mentioning specific events, conservatives, political parties, ideology, or Rush Limbaugh or any other personality.
Click to expand...


Extremism is the belief in the preponderance of a specific philosophy or world view. That it is the source of most/all solutions and the absence of it the source of most/all problems. 

For instance the Taliban believe that of their brand of Islam.


----------



## Foxfyre

PMZ said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is not conservatism, which sometimes offers a useful perspective and productive solutions. It's extremism, which is anger directed at everyone different, the belief that every problem stems from the absence of it, and the pretense that every solution comes from it.
> 
> Today's world, which extremists are trained to deny vehemently, is not between good and evil, which are undefinable, but is the battle between centrism and extremism, and it's worldwide.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So define 'extremism' if you can WITHOUT mentioning specific events, conservatives, political parties, ideology, or Rush Limbaugh or any other personality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Extremism is the belief in the preponderance of a specific philosophy or world view. That it is the source of most/all solutions and the absence of it the source of most/all problems.
> 
> For instance the Taliban believe that of their brand of Islam.
Click to expand...


Expand please.  Is there no belief that you consider to be a universal truth?  There is no philosophy worth embracing or holding?   All who believe in universal truths or who embrace a specific philosophy are extremists?  Is that what you are saying?


----------



## PMZ

JohnL.Burke said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JohnL.Burke said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, fascist/Nazi social theories were pretty liberal so your rebuttal doesn't make much sense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fascist/Nazi social theories were the antithesis of liberalism. As a matter of fact, liberal bashing in Europe in the 1920's was the precursor to fascism.
> 
> The Hard Road to Fascism
> 
> *Todays antiliberal revolt looks a lot like 1920s Europe. *
> 
> Traditional conservatives have persistently criticized modern liberalism for its alleged softness. After the First World War right-wing German and Italian critics abused the governments of Weimar Germany and pre-Mussolini Italy for their commitment to social welfare, which their critics linked to an unwillingness to use force in international relations. To use Robert Kagans expression, the Weimar Republic could only do the dishes, not prepare the feast.
> 
> German and Italian critics of liberalismwriters such as Ernst Jünger and Giovanni Gentilelonged for the military spirit that allegedly typified the front-fighter generation that had lived through the horrors of trench warfare during World War I. The experience of war, they said, could redeem the anti-national Weimar Republic and the spineless decadence of Italian liberalism by reintroducing them to the necessity of using forcewhich would mean a much more ready resort to military power and a reorientation of government to promote its use. Both men and nations could thereby reestablish their virility.
> 
> Extreme right-wing theoreticiansfor example, German jurist and political philosopher Carl Schmittbelieved that the European states in general had to choose between defending the interests of their national communitiesat the end of the day by forceand sustaining a debilitating commitment to popular welfare, which more and more absorbed the energies of a weak-kneed liberalism that precariously clung to power in many European states. Schmitt believed that the state existed exclusively to oppose the enemies of the national community and ensure domestic order. Politics, he famously said, is founded on the friend-enemy polarity. Liberals had embarked on a fruitless crusade to escape inevitable political conflict within their societies by expanding the welfare function of the modern state to appease the demands of the masses, and thereby weakening its executive function.
> 
> The proximate causes of this revulsion against liberalism in Italy, Germany, and elsewhere are not far to seek. And the underlying anti-liberal logic was more cultural than political-economic. After defeat in World War I neither Germany nor Italy was able to advance its interests effectively in Europe. The Italians were widely regarded as pathetic soldiers. The Italians, Bismarck said, have such large appetites and such poor teeth. Giovanni Gentile, subsequently a Fascist minister for Mussolini, lamented the dolce far niente (sweet do nothing) that he found characterized the Italians as a nation. As for the Germans, they had of course lost the war, but they were encouraged to believe that their armies and fighting men had not been defeated on the battlefield but had been betrayed by an unpatriotic cabal of Jews, Francophiles, liberals, and socialists.
> 
> So for these men and like-minded others, there was a necessary connection between reviving militarism and imperialism and curtailing the states commitment to popular welfare. Only a new political elitebattle-hardened, ruthless, and devoted to authoritarian governmentcould achieve the reforms needed to restore these states to the ranks of the European powerful. The new governments would not be parliamentary: talk shops never get anything done. In Italy the Fascist elite developed an imperial ideology focusing on Rome; in Germany, too, there was an imperial elementthe Thousand Year Empirealthough we correctly understand the racism of the National Socialists to have been their most memorable contribution to the horrors of the 20th century.
> 
> more
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The word "nazi" of course is an abbreviation for "national socialist" referring to the NATIONAL SOCIALIST GERMAN WORKERS PARTY (nazi). Mussolini, of course, was a self professed socialist. He started the Fascist Party. Mussolini's economic policy was socialist  just as Hitler's was. It's hard to think of a modern dictatorship that wasn't socialist. Even Mugabe in Africa has a socialist economic agenda. After all, if you run the economy then what doesn't the government own? Socialism and conservatism are diametrically opposed to each other. Conservatives don't hate big government because they don't want to help the poor. Conservatives want less government because the poor become poorer when the government gets larger. The middle class also gets poorer. It gets harder to strive towards a better existence when the government needs more of your money so it may incur more power (more bureaucrats, more IRS agents, more laws... i.e. police state).  Conservatism is about teaching a man to fish as opposed to the government giving him a fish by apprehending the neighbors fish. Keep in mind though, 90 percent of this metaphorical neighbors fish goes to the government. Conservatives don't think apprehending more money can always cure a problem.  Our failed school system is one example. Our ghettos and trailer parks are another example. It may seem that I wandered a bit but since I  was here I thought I might as well respond to your posts 179 and 180 at the same time. They kind of dovetail into each other anyway.
Click to expand...


"Socialism and conservatism are diametrically opposed to each other."

What??

Socialism is an economic system defined by the ownership of the means of production of specific goods and services by all citizens. Our military is a good example.  As compared to capitalism where the ownership of the means of production is by some citizens, or at the extreme, a citizen.

Virtually all countries in the world today employ both systems, depending on which goods and services.

Conservatism is not an economic system at all but a philosophy or worldview based on the presumption of scarcity, as compared to liberalism which is the presumption of plenty.


----------



## PMZ

Foxfyre said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> So define 'extremism' if you can WITHOUT mentioning specific events, conservatives, political parties, ideology, or Rush Limbaugh or any other personality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Extremism is the belief in the preponderance of a specific philosophy or world view. That it is the source of most/all solutions and the absence of it the source of most/all problems.
> 
> For instance the Taliban believe that of their brand of Islam.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Expand please.  Is there no belief that you consider to be a universal truth?  There is no philosophy worth embracing or holding?   All who believe in universal truths or who embrace a specific philosophy are extremists?  Is that what you are saying?
Click to expand...


I don't believe that all problems nor all solutions stem from a single worldview. 

I believe that all problems must be viewed within their context, and all solutions considered from all perspectives to uncover the most effective one. 

In other words, extremism to me is a gross oversimplification of a complex world getting more so daily.


----------



## Foxfyre

PMZ said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Extremism is the belief in the preponderance of a specific philosophy or world view. That it is the source of most/all solutions and the absence of it the source of most/all problems.
> 
> For instance the Taliban believe that of their brand of Islam.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Expand please.  Is there no belief that you consider to be a universal truth?  There is no philosophy worth embracing or holding?   All who believe in universal truths or who embrace a specific philosophy are extremists?  Is that what you are saying?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't believe that all problems nor all solutions stem from a single worldview.
> 
> I believe that all problems must be viewed within their context, and all solutions considered from all perspectives to uncover the most effective one.
> 
> In other words, extremism to me is a gross oversimplification of a complex world getting more so daily.
Click to expand...


Give me an example of what a gross oversimplication would be please.  And please do so without referencing any group, person, entity, ideology, political party, etc.


----------



## Bfgrn

JohnL.Burke said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JohnL.Burke said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, fascist/Nazi social theories were pretty liberal so your rebuttal doesn't make much sense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fascist/Nazi social theories were the antithesis of liberalism. As a matter of fact, liberal bashing in Europe in the 1920's was the precursor to fascism.
> 
> The Hard Road to Fascism
> 
> *Todays antiliberal revolt looks a lot like 1920s Europe. *
> 
> Traditional conservatives have persistently criticized modern liberalism for its alleged softness. After the First World War right-wing German and Italian critics abused the governments of Weimar Germany and pre-Mussolini Italy for their commitment to social welfare, which their critics linked to an unwillingness to use force in international relations. To use Robert Kagans expression, the Weimar Republic could only do the dishes, not prepare the feast.
> 
> German and Italian critics of liberalismwriters such as Ernst Jünger and Giovanni Gentilelonged for the military spirit that allegedly typified the front-fighter generation that had lived through the horrors of trench warfare during World War I. The experience of war, they said, could redeem the anti-national Weimar Republic and the spineless decadence of Italian liberalism by reintroducing them to the necessity of using forcewhich would mean a much more ready resort to military power and a reorientation of government to promote its use. Both men and nations could thereby reestablish their virility.
> 
> Extreme right-wing theoreticiansfor example, German jurist and political philosopher Carl Schmittbelieved that the European states in general had to choose between defending the interests of their national communitiesat the end of the day by forceand sustaining a debilitating commitment to popular welfare, which more and more absorbed the energies of a weak-kneed liberalism that precariously clung to power in many European states. Schmitt believed that the state existed exclusively to oppose the enemies of the national community and ensure domestic order. Politics, he famously said, is founded on the friend-enemy polarity. Liberals had embarked on a fruitless crusade to escape inevitable political conflict within their societies by expanding the welfare function of the modern state to appease the demands of the masses, and thereby weakening its executive function.
> 
> The proximate causes of this revulsion against liberalism in Italy, Germany, and elsewhere are not far to seek. And the underlying anti-liberal logic was more cultural than political-economic. After defeat in World War I neither Germany nor Italy was able to advance its interests effectively in Europe. The Italians were widely regarded as pathetic soldiers. The Italians, Bismarck said, have such large appetites and such poor teeth. Giovanni Gentile, subsequently a Fascist minister for Mussolini, lamented the dolce far niente (sweet do nothing) that he found characterized the Italians as a nation. As for the Germans, they had of course lost the war, but they were encouraged to believe that their armies and fighting men had not been defeated on the battlefield but had been betrayed by an unpatriotic cabal of Jews, Francophiles, liberals, and socialists.
> 
> So for these men and like-minded others, there was a necessary connection between reviving militarism and imperialism and curtailing the states commitment to popular welfare. Only a new political elitebattle-hardened, ruthless, and devoted to authoritarian governmentcould achieve the reforms needed to restore these states to the ranks of the European powerful. The new governments would not be parliamentary: talk shops never get anything done. In Italy the Fascist elite developed an imperial ideology focusing on Rome; in Germany, too, there was an imperial elementthe Thousand Year Empirealthough we correctly understand the racism of the National Socialists to have been their most memorable contribution to the horrors of the 20th century.
> 
> more
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The word "nazi" of course is an abbreviation for "national socialist" referring to the NATIONAL SOCIALIST GERMAN WORKERS PARTY (nazi). Mussolini, of course, was a self professed socialist. He started the Fascist Party. Mussolini's economic policy was socialist  just as Hitler's was. It's hard to think of a modern dictatorship that wasn't socialist. Even Mugabe in Africa has a socialist economic agenda. After all, if you run the economy then what doesn't the government own? Socialism and conservatism are diametrically opposed to each other. Conservatives don't hate big government because they don't want to help the poor. Conservatives want less government because the poor become poorer when the government gets larger. The middle class also gets poorer. It gets harder to strive towards a better existence when the government needs more of your money so it may incur more power (more bureaucrats, more IRS agents, more laws... i.e. police state).  Conservatism is about teaching a man to fish as opposed to the government giving him a fish by apprehending the neighbors fish. Keep in mind though, 90 percent of this metaphorical neighbors fish goes to the government. Conservatives don't think apprehending more money can always cure a problem.  Our failed school system is one example. Our ghettos and trailer parks are another example. It may seem that I wandered a bit but since I  was here I thought I might as well respond to your posts 179 and 180 at the same time. They kind of dovetail into each other anyway.
Click to expand...


Holy COW. The WHOLE world revolves around YOUR parochial indoctrination and YOUR definition of conservatism...WOW! Tell me Burke, would a conservative in Russia want to 'conserve' capitalism? The US Constitution?? The beliefs of Madison, Jefferson, Hamilton???

And here is your other problem...conservatives have NEVER given us less government. When in power, they have GROWN government. MORE than liberals and Democrats.


----------



## Bfgrn

Foxfyre said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't misunderstand me.  Most liberals really aren't hateful, insulting people.  Nor are most conservatives.  But either can be that way on a message board with the anonymity it allows.  But that isn't what I'm talking about.
> 
> What I am talking about is I don't think most liberals could describe an America that was all liberal--devoid of conservatives--without continuing to bash conservatism and point to conservatives they hate.   And so far none of them have.    That is what I mean about most liberals not being able to articulate, define, express, and defend a liberal principle or concept.  *Liberals seem to be mostly people who operate on a sense of superiority, righteousness, and just being 'better people'* that is based on feelings rather than any concrete concepts.   And that is why I think liberals would be shocked at how inefficient and unworkable those concept would be if they were given free rein to implement them.
> 
> I think most conservatives can easily articulate conservative values and principles and can describe a conservative America without referring to a single liberal or putting down anybody.  And I think conservatives would enjoy running the country based on conservative values and principles and it would feel quite natural and normal to them to do so.
> 
> And nevertheless, both the liberal and the conservative can be exemplary members of their communities, moral, upstanding, likable, personable people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My GOD, that is SO far outside the realm of reality, it is mindbogglingly. Conservatism IS liberal bashing and hating. It is the glue that holds conservatism together. Take a day and listen to Rush Limbaugh or any of the conservative radio hate mongers. Then take a day and listen to Thom Hartmann.
> 
> UN-believable. Conservatives are the epitome of *a sense of superiority, righteousness, and just being 'better people'*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See what I mean folks?
Click to expand...


Those were *YOUR* words, not mine.

Unbelievable FF. Talk about being righteous and BLIND.


----------



## JohnL.Burke

editec said:


> John I really have no complaints about any of the above.
> 
> Now let me ask you this...are today's conservatives (those in power, not the rank and file) really CONSERVATIVES as you define the word?



 Some are, some aren't. I believe conservatives have their idiots, morons and extremists. I'm sure some on this site would would consider me one of these nouns. I tend to roll my eyes though at people who target the conservative morons but blithely pretend Liberal morons don't exist. Every group has its idiots. It's as if I said all hippies are murderers because just look at Charles Manson. It's the broad brush strokes intended to define an entire people for political purposes I detest. To be fair though, I've done the same thing. LOL!


----------



## JohnL.Burke

PMZ said:


> JohnL.Burke said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fascist/Nazi social theories were the antithesis of liberalism. As a matter of fact, liberal bashing in Europe in the 1920's was the precursor to fascism.
> 
> The Hard Road to Fascism
> 
> *Today&#8217;s antiliberal revolt looks a lot like 1920s Europe. *
> 
> Traditional conservatives have persistently criticized modern liberalism for its alleged &#8220;softness.&#8221; After the First World War right-wing German and Italian critics abused the governments of Weimar Germany and pre-Mussolini Italy for their commitment to social welfare, which their critics linked to an unwillingness to use force in international relations. To use Robert Kagan&#8217;s expression, the Weimar Republic could only do the dishes, not prepare the feast.
> 
> German and Italian critics of liberalism&#8212;writers such as Ernst Jünger and Giovanni Gentile&#8212;longed for the military spirit that allegedly typified the &#8220;front-fighter&#8221; generation that had lived through the horrors of trench warfare during World War I. The experience of war, they said, could redeem the anti-national Weimar Republic and the spineless decadence of Italian liberalism by reintroducing them to the necessity of using force&#8212;which would mean a much more ready resort to military power and a reorientation of government to promote its use. Both men and nations could thereby reestablish their virility.
> 
> Extreme right-wing theoreticians&#8212;for example, German jurist and political philosopher Carl Schmitt&#8212;believed that the European states in general had to choose between defending the interests of their national communities&#8212;at the end of the day by force&#8212;and sustaining a debilitating commitment to popular welfare, which more and more absorbed the energies of a weak-kneed liberalism that precariously clung to power in many European states. Schmitt believed that the state existed exclusively to oppose the enemies of the national community and ensure domestic order. Politics, he famously said, is founded on the friend-enemy polarity. Liberals had embarked on a fruitless crusade to escape inevitable political conflict within their societies by expanding the welfare function of the modern state to appease the demands of the masses, and thereby weakening its &#8220;executive function.&#8221;
> 
> The proximate causes of this revulsion against liberalism in Italy, Germany, and elsewhere are not far to seek. And the underlying anti-liberal logic was more cultural than political-economic. After defeat in World War I neither Germany nor Italy was able to advance its interests effectively in Europe. The Italians were widely regarded as pathetic soldiers. &#8220;The Italians,&#8221; Bismarck said, &#8220;have such large appetites and such poor teeth.&#8221; Giovanni Gentile, subsequently a Fascist minister for Mussolini, lamented the dolce far niente (&#8220;sweet do nothing&#8221 that he found characterized the Italians as a nation. As for the Germans, they had of course lost the war, but they were encouraged to believe that their armies and fighting men had not been defeated on the battlefield but had been betrayed by an unpatriotic cabal of Jews, Francophiles, liberals, and socialists.
> 
> So for these men and like-minded others, there was a necessary connection between reviving militarism and imperialism and curtailing the state&#8217;s commitment to popular welfare. Only a new political elite&#8212;battle-hardened, ruthless, and devoted to authoritarian government&#8212;could achieve the reforms needed to restore these states to the ranks of the European powerful. The new governments would not be parliamentary: talk shops never get anything done. In Italy the Fascist elite developed an imperial ideology focusing on Rome; in Germany, too, there was an imperial element&#8212;the &#8220;Thousand Year Empire&#8221;&#8212;although we correctly understand the racism of the National Socialists to have been their most memorable contribution to the horrors of the 20th century.
> 
> more
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The word "nazi" of course is an abbreviation for "national socialist" referring to the NATIONAL SOCIALIST GERMAN WORKERS PARTY (nazi). Mussolini, of course, was a self professed socialist. He started the Fascist Party. Mussolini's economic policy was socialist  just as Hitler's was. It's hard to think of a modern dictatorship that wasn't socialist. Even Mugabe in Africa has a socialist economic agenda. After all, if you run the economy then what doesn't the government own? Socialism and conservatism are diametrically opposed to each other. Conservatives don't hate big government because they don't want to help the poor. Conservatives want less government because the poor become poorer when the government gets larger. The middle class also gets poorer. It gets harder to strive towards a better existence when the government needs more of your money so it may incur more power (more bureaucrats, more IRS agents, more laws... i.e. police state).  Conservatism is about teaching a man to fish as opposed to the government giving him a fish by apprehending the neighbors fish. Keep in mind though, 90 percent of this metaphorical neighbors fish goes to the government. Conservatives don't think apprehending more money can always cure a problem.  Our failed school system is one example. Our ghettos and trailer parks are another example. It may seem that I wandered a bit but since I  was here I thought I might as well respond to your posts 179 and 180 at the same time. They kind of dovetail into each other anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Socialism and conservatism are diametrically opposed to each other."
> 
> What??
> 
> Socialism is an economic system defined by the ownership of the means of production of specific goods and services by all citizens. Our military is a good example.  As compared to capitalism where the ownership of the means of production is by some citizens, or at the extreme, a citizen.
> 
> Virtually all countries in the world today employ both systems, depending on which goods and services.
> 
> Conservatism is not an economic system at all but a philosophy or worldview based on the presumption of scarcity, as compared to liberalism which is the presumption of plenty.
Click to expand...


  I don't really agree with your definition of conservatives and liberals so we are already on different pages. I find it's the liberals who always caution of an apocalypse around the corner every time an oil platform goes up .  We don't have enough oil and gas. Liberals always want to ration everything or we'll run out of it. The liberal left has played on people's fears for over a century. The ice age is coming, Global warming (I think it's called Climate Change now). Remember the whole Soylent Green scenario in the 70's when overpopulation was going to deplete all our resources? The liberal left even thought that SPACE was going to be scarce on this planet. Of course the cure for all these "apocalyptic tragedies" around the corner was (and is) always the same. Big government.


----------



## Foxfyre

JohnL.Burke said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> John I really have no complaints about any of the above.
> 
> Now let me ask you this...are today's conservatives (those in power, not the rank and file) really CONSERVATIVES as you define the word?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some are, some aren't. I believe conservatives have their idiots, morons and extremists. I'm sure some on this site would would consider me one of these nouns. I tend to roll my eyes though at people who target the conservative morons but blithely pretend Liberal morons don't exist. Every group has its idiots. It's as if I said all hippies are murderers because just look at Charles Manson. It's the broad brush strokes intended to define an entire people for political purposes I detest. To be fair though, I've done the same thing. LOL!
Click to expand...


And there are those who call themselves 'conservative' or 'libertarian' or 'progressive' or whatever who have completely different definitions of that than I and many other conservatives do.   And those definitions generally involve their perception, positive or negative, of a person, entity, political party or whatever along with the assigned message board terms assigned to those same people or groups.

This is why I am urging members to define their terms WITHOUT using people, entities, organizations, political parties, ideologies, etc. in lieu of a clear, well thought out, concept of what that definition means.

It is my opinion that some of our conservative friends and almost all of our progressive friends here cannot do that.  That is because their world view is based on who or what they admire or who or what they despise rather than on any clear principle that forms their point of view.


----------



## PMZ

Foxfyre said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Expand please.  Is there no belief that you consider to be a universal truth?  There is no philosophy worth embracing or holding?   All who believe in universal truths or who embrace a specific philosophy are extremists?  Is that what you are saying?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe that all problems nor all solutions stem from a single worldview.
> 
> I believe that all problems must be viewed within their context, and all solutions considered from all perspectives to uncover the most effective one.
> 
> In other words, extremism to me is a gross oversimplification of a complex world getting more so daily.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Give me an example of what a gross oversimplication would be please.  And please do so without referencing any group, person, entity, ideology, political party, etc.
Click to expand...


That government is too big. To me, that's like the corporate idiosy that says that all departments must cut by 5%.


----------



## Foxfyre

PMZ said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe that all problems nor all solutions stem from a single worldview.
> 
> I believe that all problems must be viewed within their context, and all solutions considered from all perspectives to uncover the most effective one.
> 
> In other words, extremism to me is a gross oversimplification of a complex world getting more so daily.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Give me an example of what a gross oversimplication would be please.  And please do so without referencing any group, person, entity, ideology, political party, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That government is too big. To me, that's like the corporate idiosy that says that all departments must cut by 5%.
Click to expand...


So those of us who think the government is too big are extremists?  Really?  That is your definition of extremism?

For me to say the government is too big and/or costs too much saves a lot of time of not having to write half a page explaining that I see the federal government as bloated, out of control, engaged in functions never intended by the Constitution, excessively expensive, ineffective, inefficient, self serving, and excessively powerful to the extent that our unalienable rights are threatened or already compromised and the economy is drained of much of its vitality and ability to expand.

And from that, I can go point by point to explain the problems I see which would require a sizable manuscript to hold it all.

It saves a whole lot of time saying the government is too big.

But if saying 'the government is too big' is extremist to you, how would you word it to express a government that has overreached or has overflowed its intended boundaries?


----------



## Bfgrn

JohnL.Burke said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JohnL.Burke said:
> 
> 
> 
> The word "nazi" of course is an abbreviation for "national socialist" referring to the NATIONAL SOCIALIST GERMAN WORKERS PARTY (nazi). Mussolini, of course, was a self professed socialist. He started the Fascist Party. Mussolini's economic policy was socialist  just as Hitler's was. It's hard to think of a modern dictatorship that wasn't socialist. Even Mugabe in Africa has a socialist economic agenda. After all, if you run the economy then what doesn't the government own? Socialism and conservatism are diametrically opposed to each other. Conservatives don't hate big government because they don't want to help the poor. Conservatives want less government because the poor become poorer when the government gets larger. The middle class also gets poorer. It gets harder to strive towards a better existence when the government needs more of your money so it may incur more power (more bureaucrats, more IRS agents, more laws... i.e. police state).  Conservatism is about teaching a man to fish as opposed to the government giving him a fish by apprehending the neighbors fish. Keep in mind though, 90 percent of this metaphorical neighbors fish goes to the government. Conservatives don't think apprehending more money can always cure a problem.  Our failed school system is one example. Our ghettos and trailer parks are another example. It may seem that I wandered a bit but since I  was here I thought I might as well respond to your posts 179 and 180 at the same time. They kind of dovetail into each other anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Socialism and conservatism are diametrically opposed to each other."
> 
> What??
> 
> Socialism is an economic system defined by the ownership of the means of production of specific goods and services by all citizens. Our military is a good example.  As compared to capitalism where the ownership of the means of production is by some citizens, or at the extreme, a citizen.
> 
> Virtually all countries in the world today employ both systems, depending on which goods and services.
> 
> Conservatism is not an economic system at all but a philosophy or worldview based on the presumption of scarcity, as compared to liberalism which is the presumption of plenty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't really agree with your definition of conservatives and liberals so we are already on different pages. I find it's the liberals who always caution of an apocalypse around the corner every time an oil platform goes up .  We don't have enough oil and gas. Liberals always want to ration everything or we'll run out of it. The liberal left has played on people's fears for over a century. The ice age is coming, Global warming (I think it's called Climate Change now). Remember the whole Soylent Green scenario in the 70's when overpopulation was going to deplete all our resources? The liberal left even thought that SPACE was going to be scarce on this planet. Of course the cure for all these "apocalyptic tragedies" around the corner was (and is) always the same. Big government.
Click to expand...


Well conserve-a-tives certainly don't believe in conservation. I have often joked: "If God created trees, shouldn't liberals be the ones calling CONSERVE-atives tree huggers?"

And I find conservatives not only dismiss climate change, they don't even believe pollution, poisons and carcinogens are harmful to human, fish and foul. Listen to the rants of socialism and the end of capitalism when the EPA forces coal burning power plants to comply to clean air standards 20 YEARS after the law was written. Conservatives have no curiosity or question that the very same think tanks and 'scientists' that deny climate change are the very same think tanks and 'scientists' that denied cigarettes cause cancer, AND they are funded by the biggest polluters on the planet. 

And when a Democrat proposes cap and trade, conservative forget it was a conservative created market based solution to address environmental problems instead of prescriptive "command and control" regulation.

I mentioned Russia earlier. What many Americans don't know or understand is Russia is a very conservative country. More conservative that America. And when you look at the environmental policies of the communists, and the severe environmental damage left behind and their nuclear policies that has created a global cataclysmic ticking time bomb, the environmental views, policies and philosophies of the communists and conservatives in America are identical.


----------



## The Rabbi

Liberals dont believe in liberalism.  Friedman called himself a liberal, and for his time he was right.  Conservative has nothing to do with conservation.  Although I'll point out that hunters, overwhelmingly conservative, are among the biggest advocates of preserving forests and wildlife.  And also the biggest financial contributors to those projects.


----------



## Foxfyre

The Rabbi said:


> Liberals dont believe in liberalism.  Friedman called himself a liberal, and for his time he was right.  Conservative has nothing to do with conservation.  Although I'll point out that hunters, overwhelmingly conservative, are among the biggest advocates of preserving forests and wildlife.  And also the biggest financial contributors to those projects.



The fact is, whether liberal or conservative, the poor may or may not care about the environment and/or conservation, but their first priority is to put food on the table, have access to shelter from the elements, and enjoy some quality of life.  Everything else will take a back seat to that.

But whether liberal or conservative, the affluent will demand clean water, clean air, uncontaminated soil, and will have the leisure and wherewithal to care about plants, animals, and aesthetic beauty.

It seems the American liberal concept of conservation is more and more government mandates, regulation, and control.  They trust government to have everybody's best interests at heart more than they trust the people, and they trust government to utilize resources more efficiently and effectively than the people will manage them outside of government.

And the American conservatives concept of conservation is to increase affluence so more people will care and provide incentives to  improve their environment and preserve the best that the planet can offer.  There is no better managers of the rangelands and forests than those whose livelihood depend upon them.  And the landowner is likely to be thrilled at the presence of a rare bird, critter, or plant on his property and is likely to nurture it.  But if the government is given power to take away that landowner's propety rights because of the presence of a rare something, that is a powerful incentive to get rid of it quickly before some government authority discovers it is there.

The Founders put the faith in the people, with their rights secured, to govern themselves more effectively and efficiently than a central a government ever could.   That is conservatism in a nutshell.

Take away the conservatives and you return the USA to a monarchy or other authoritarian government that assigns the rights to the people and issues them whatever privileges or possessions they will be allowed to have.


----------



## PMZ

Foxfyre said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Give me an example of what a gross oversimplication would be please.  And please do so without referencing any group, person, entity, ideology, political party, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That government is too big. To me, that's like the corporate idiosy that says that all departments must cut by 5%.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So those of us who think the government is too big are extremists?  Really?  That is your definition of extremism?
> 
> For me to say the government is too big and/or costs too much saves a lot of time of not having to write half a page explaining that I see the federal government as bloated, out of control, engaged in functions never intended by the Constitution, excessively expensive, ineffective, inefficient, self serving, and excessively powerful to the extent that our unalienable rights are threatened or already compromised and the economy is drained of much of its vitality and ability to expand.
> 
> And from that, I can go point by point to explain the problems I see which would require a sizable manuscript to hold it all.
> 
> It saves a whole lot of time saying the government is too big.
> 
> But if saying 'the government is too big' is extremist to you, how would you word it to express a government that has overreached or has overflowed its intended boundaries?
Click to expand...


What is the evidence that the governmentis too big? Is General Motors too big? Apple? Walmart?


----------



## Bfgrn

Foxfyre said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberals dont believe in liberalism.  Friedman called himself a liberal, and for his time he was right.  Conservative has nothing to do with conservation.  Although I'll point out that hunters, overwhelmingly conservative, are among the biggest advocates of preserving forests and wildlife.  And also the biggest financial contributors to those projects.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fact is, whether liberal or conservative, the poor may or may not care about the environment and/or conservation, but their first priority is to put food on the table, have access to shelter from the elements, and enjoy some quality of life.  Everything else will take a back seat to that.
> 
> But whether liberal or conservative, the affluent will demand clean water, clean air, uncontaminated soil, and will have the leisure and wherewithal to care about plants, animals, and aesthetic beauty.
> 
> It seems the American liberal concept of conservation is more and more government mandates, regulation, and control.  They trust government to have everybody's best interests at heart more than they trust the people, and they trust government to utilize resources more efficiently and effectively than the people will manage them outside of government.
> 
> And the American conservatives concept of conservation is to increase affluence so more people will care and provide incentives to  improve their environment and preserve the best that the planet can offer.  There is no better managers of the rangelands and forests than those whose livelihood depend upon them.  And the landowner is likely to be thrilled at the presence of a rare bird, critter, or plant on his property and is likely to nurture it.  But if the government is given power to take away that landowner's propety rights because of the presence of a rare something, that is a powerful incentive to get rid of it quickly before some government authority discovers it is there.
> 
> The Founders put the faith in the people, with their rights secured, to govern themselves more effectively and efficiently than a central a government ever could.   That is conservatism in a nutshell.
> 
> Take away the conservatives and you return the USA to a monarchy or other authoritarian government that assigns the rights to the people and issues them whatever privileges or possessions they will be allowed to have.
Click to expand...


It's ironic that liberals believe people are basically good, and conservatives tend to be believe that people are basically evil, yet conservatives are willing to 'trust' major polluters to be conscientious stewards of our environment. When they have proven for centuries they will pilfer and destroy the environment if it adds to the bottom line.

"We didn't inherit this land from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children." 
Lakota Sioux Proverb


----------



## PMZ

The Rabbi said:


> Liberals dont believe in liberalism.  Friedman called himself a liberal, and for his time he was right.  Conservative has nothing to do with conservation.  Although I'll point out that hunters, overwhelmingly conservative, are among the biggest advocates of preserving forests and wildlife.  And also the biggest financial contributors to those projects.



Do overwhelmingly conservative hunters believe that denying AGW is the most expensive alternative open to the entire world, especially our country?


----------



## Foxfyre

PMZ said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> That government is too big. To me, that's like the corporate idiosy that says that all departments must cut by 5%.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So those of us who think the government is too big are extremists?  Really?  That is your definition of extremism?
> 
> For me to say the government is too big and/or costs too much saves a lot of time of not having to write half a page explaining that I see the federal government as bloated, out of control, engaged in functions never intended by the Constitution, excessively expensive, ineffective, inefficient, self serving, and excessively powerful to the extent that our unalienable rights are threatened or already compromised and the economy is drained of much of its vitality and ability to expand.
> 
> And from that, I can go point by point to explain the problems I see which would require a sizable manuscript to hold it all.
> 
> It saves a whole lot of time saying the government is too big.
> 
> But if saying 'the government is too big' is extremist to you, how would you word it to express a government that has overreached or has overflowed its intended boundaries?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is the evidence that the governmentis too big? Is General Motors too big? Apple? Walmart?
Click to expand...


The evidence is in its increasing cost and in the steadily diminishing returns to the people.  The evidence is in its inefficiency, ineffectiveness, and destructiveness, and the drain on what would otherwise be a vital, thriving economy.  The evidence is in the erosion of all of our liberties, options, opportunities, and choices while those in high levels of government are greatly enriching themselves at our expense.  The evidence is in our inability to get answers to the simplest questions because of the enormity and complexity of the bureaucracies that are controlling more and more of our lives.


----------



## JohnL.Burke

Bfgrn said:


> JohnL.Burke said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Socialism and conservatism are diametrically opposed to each other."
> 
> What??
> 
> Socialism is an economic system defined by the ownership of the means of production of specific goods and services by all citizens. Our military is a good example.  As compared to capitalism where the ownership of the means of production is by some citizens, or at the extreme, a citizen.
> 
> Virtually all countries in the world today employ both systems, depending on which goods and services.
> 
> Conservatism is not an economic system at all but a philosophy or worldview based on the presumption of scarcity, as compared to liberalism which is the presumption of plenty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't really agree with your definition of conservatives and liberals so we are already on different pages. I find it's the liberals who always caution of an apocalypse around the corner every time an oil platform goes up .  We don't have enough oil and gas. Liberals always want to ration everything or we'll run out of it. The liberal left has played on people's fears for over a century. The ice age is coming, Global warming (I think it's called Climate Change now). Remember the whole Soylent Green scenario in the 70's when overpopulation was going to deplete all our resources? The liberal left even thought that SPACE was going to be scarce on this planet. Of course the cure for all these "apocalyptic tragedies" around the corner was (and is) always the same. Big government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well conserve-a-tives certainly don't believe in conservation. I have often joked: "If God created trees, shouldn't liberals be the ones calling CONSERVE-atives tree huggers?"
> 
> And I find conservatives not only dismiss climate change, they don't even believe pollution, poisons and carcinogens are harmful to human, fish and foul. Listen to the rants of socialism and the end of capitalism when the EPA forces coal burning power plants to comply to clean air standards 20 YEARS after the law was written. Conservatives have no curiosity or question that the very same think tanks and 'scientists' that deny climate change are the very same think tanks and 'scientists' that denied cigarettes cause cancer, AND they are funded by the biggest polluters on the planet.
> 
> And when a Democrat proposes cap and trade, conservative forget it was a conservative created market based solution to address environmental problems instead of prescriptive "command and control" regulation.
> 
> I mentioned Russia earlier. What many Americans don't know or understand is Russia is a very conservative country. More conservative that America. And when you look at the environmental policies of the communists, and the severe environmental damage left behind and their nuclear policies that has created a global cataclysmic ticking time bomb, the environmental views, policies and philosophies of the communists and conservatives in America are identical.
Click to expand...


  Conservatives don't believe pollution, poisons and carsinogens are harmful to human, fish and foul? Conservatives have no curiosity?  American Conservatives and communist environmental views, policies and philosophies are identical? Conservatives don't believe in conservation?  Wow! Uhmm... OK.  You left out the conservative cabal against unicorns and rainbows. Sheesh!


----------



## Foxfyre

JohnL.Burke said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JohnL.Burke said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't really agree with your definition of conservatives and liberals so we are already on different pages. I find it's the liberals who always caution of an apocalypse around the corner every time an oil platform goes up .  We don't have enough oil and gas. Liberals always want to ration everything or we'll run out of it. The liberal left has played on people's fears for over a century. The ice age is coming, Global warming (I think it's called Climate Change now). Remember the whole Soylent Green scenario in the 70's when overpopulation was going to deplete all our resources? The liberal left even thought that SPACE was going to be scarce on this planet. Of course the cure for all these "apocalyptic tragedies" around the corner was (and is) always the same. Big government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well conserve-a-tives certainly don't believe in conservation. I have often joked: "If God created trees, shouldn't liberals be the ones calling CONSERVE-atives tree huggers?"
> 
> And I find conservatives not only dismiss climate change, they don't even believe pollution, poisons and carcinogens are harmful to human, fish and foul. Listen to the rants of socialism and the end of capitalism when the EPA forces coal burning power plants to comply to clean air standards 20 YEARS after the law was written. Conservatives have no curiosity or question that the very same think tanks and 'scientists' that deny climate change are the very same think tanks and 'scientists' that denied cigarettes cause cancer, AND they are funded by the biggest polluters on the planet.
> 
> And when a Democrat proposes cap and trade, conservative forget it was a conservative created market based solution to address environmental problems instead of prescriptive "command and control" regulation.
> 
> I mentioned Russia earlier. What many Americans don't know or understand is Russia is a very conservative country. More conservative that America. And when you look at the environmental policies of the communists, and the severe environmental damage left behind and their nuclear policies that has created a global cataclysmic ticking time bomb, the environmental views, policies and philosophies of the communists and conservatives in America are identical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Conservatives don't believe pollution, poisons and carsinogens are harmful to human, fish and foul? Conservatives have no curiosity?  American Conservatives and communist environmental views, policies and philosophies are identical? Conservatives don't believe in conservation?  Wow! Uhmm... OK.  You left out the conservative cabal against unicorns and rainbows. Sheesh!
Click to expand...


And you left out that conservatives drown puppies and push senior citizens in their wheelchairs off the cliff.


----------



## The Rabbi

Bfgrn said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberals dont believe in liberalism.  Friedman called himself a liberal, and for his time he was right.  Conservative has nothing to do with conservation.  Although I'll point out that hunters, overwhelmingly conservative, are among the biggest advocates of preserving forests and wildlife.  And also the biggest financial contributors to those projects.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fact is, whether liberal or conservative, the poor may or may not care about the environment and/or conservation, but their first priority is to put food on the table, have access to shelter from the elements, and enjoy some quality of life.  Everything else will take a back seat to that.
> 
> But whether liberal or conservative, the affluent will demand clean water, clean air, uncontaminated soil, and will have the leisure and wherewithal to care about plants, animals, and aesthetic beauty.
> 
> It seems the American liberal concept of conservation is more and more government mandates, regulation, and control.  They trust government to have everybody's best interests at heart more than they trust the people, and they trust government to utilize resources more efficiently and effectively than the people will manage them outside of government.
> 
> And the American conservatives concept of conservation is to increase affluence so more people will care and provide incentives to  improve their environment and preserve the best that the planet can offer.  There is no better managers of the rangelands and forests than those whose livelihood depend upon them.  And the landowner is likely to be thrilled at the presence of a rare bird, critter, or plant on his property and is likely to nurture it.  But if the government is given power to take away that landowner's propety rights because of the presence of a rare something, that is a powerful incentive to get rid of it quickly before some government authority discovers it is there.
> 
> The Founders put the faith in the people, with their rights secured, to govern themselves more effectively and efficiently than a central a government ever could.   That is conservatism in a nutshell.
> 
> Take away the conservatives and you return the USA to a monarchy or other authoritarian government that assigns the rights to the people and issues them whatever privileges or possessions they will be allowed to have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's ironic that liberals believe people are basically good, and conservatives tend to be believe that people are basically evil, yet conservatives are willing to 'trust' major polluters to be conscientious stewards of our environment. When they have proven for centuries they will pilfer and destroy the environment if it adds to the bottom line.
> 
> "We didn't inherit this land from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children."
> Lakota Sioux Proverb
Click to expand...


Actual liberals believe people are basically bad and incompetent.  They need regulations to govern what they eat, how they work, what they smoke, what kind of insurance they can have, what kinds of games their children can play, what their children must be taught, what attitudes they must have, etc etc etc.  The result is the creeping nanny state.

Conservatives largely, but not wholly believe in letting people make their own decisions.  If they fail, then there are communitiies and charities to help them that are less intrusive than gov't.

The biggest protector of the enivronment is private land rights, something liberals have been eroding for years.  Heck, libs don't even understand the concept.


----------



## Bfgrn

JohnL.Burke said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JohnL.Burke said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't really agree with your definition of conservatives and liberals so we are already on different pages. I find it's the liberals who always caution of an apocalypse around the corner every time an oil platform goes up .  We don't have enough oil and gas. Liberals always want to ration everything or we'll run out of it. The liberal left has played on people's fears for over a century. The ice age is coming, Global warming (I think it's called Climate Change now). Remember the whole Soylent Green scenario in the 70's when overpopulation was going to deplete all our resources? The liberal left even thought that SPACE was going to be scarce on this planet. Of course the cure for all these "apocalyptic tragedies" around the corner was (and is) always the same. Big government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well conserve-a-tives certainly don't believe in conservation. I have often joked: "If God created trees, shouldn't liberals be the ones calling CONSERVE-atives tree huggers?"
> 
> And I find conservatives not only dismiss climate change, they don't even believe pollution, poisons and carcinogens are harmful to human, fish and foul. Listen to the rants of socialism and the end of capitalism when the EPA forces coal burning power plants to comply to clean air standards 20 YEARS after the law was written. Conservatives have no curiosity or question that the very same think tanks and 'scientists' that deny climate change are the very same think tanks and 'scientists' that denied cigarettes cause cancer, AND they are funded by the biggest polluters on the planet.
> 
> And when a Democrat proposes cap and trade, conservative forget it was a conservative created market based solution to address environmental problems instead of prescriptive "command and control" regulation.
> 
> I mentioned Russia earlier. What many Americans don't know or understand is Russia is a very conservative country. More conservative that America. And when you look at the environmental policies of the communists, and the severe environmental damage left behind and their nuclear policies that has created a global cataclysmic ticking time bomb, the environmental views, policies and philosophies of the communists and conservatives in America are identical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Conservatives don't believe pollution, poisons and carsinogens are harmful to human, fish and foul? Conservatives have no curiosity?  American Conservatives and communist environmental views, policies and philosophies are identical? Conservatives don't believe in conservation?  Wow! Uhmm... OK.  You left out the conservative cabal against unicorns and rainbows. Sheesh!
Click to expand...


I can't help but think of a great line Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said: "Eighty percent of Republicans are just Democrats that don't know what's going on" 

If conservatives do believe pollution, poisons and carcinogens are harmful to human, fish and foul, their actions don't match.






The Most Anti-Environment House In History
15 Dec 2011






House Republican leaders have pushed through an astonishing *191* votes to weaken environmental protections.

"The House Republican assault on the environment has been reckless and relentless, in bill after bill, for one industry after another, the House has been voting to roll back environmental laws and endanger public health.  The Republican anti-environment agenda is completely out-of-touch with what the American public wants."

The House of Representatives averaged more than one anti-environmental vote for every day the House was in session in 2011, according to the report. More than one in five of the legislative roll call votes taken in 2011  22%  were votes to undermine environmental protections.

League Of Conservation Voters


----------



## Oddball

RFK juniorette...How droll. 

Anti-environmentalist whackaloon isn't anti-environment, dude.


----------



## Bfgrn

The Rabbi said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact is, whether liberal or conservative, the poor may or may not care about the environment and/or conservation, but their first priority is to put food on the table, have access to shelter from the elements, and enjoy some quality of life.  Everything else will take a back seat to that.
> 
> But whether liberal or conservative, the affluent will demand clean water, clean air, uncontaminated soil, and will have the leisure and wherewithal to care about plants, animals, and aesthetic beauty.
> 
> It seems the American liberal concept of conservation is more and more government mandates, regulation, and control.  They trust government to have everybody's best interests at heart more than they trust the people, and they trust government to utilize resources more efficiently and effectively than the people will manage them outside of government.
> 
> And the American conservatives concept of conservation is to increase affluence so more people will care and provide incentives to  improve their environment and preserve the best that the planet can offer.  There is no better managers of the rangelands and forests than those whose livelihood depend upon them.  And the landowner is likely to be thrilled at the presence of a rare bird, critter, or plant on his property and is likely to nurture it.  But if the government is given power to take away that landowner's propety rights because of the presence of a rare something, that is a powerful incentive to get rid of it quickly before some government authority discovers it is there.
> 
> The Founders put the faith in the people, with their rights secured, to govern themselves more effectively and efficiently than a central a government ever could.   That is conservatism in a nutshell.
> 
> Take away the conservatives and you return the USA to a monarchy or other authoritarian government that assigns the rights to the people and issues them whatever privileges or possessions they will be allowed to have.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's ironic that liberals believe people are basically good, and conservatives tend to be believe that people are basically evil, yet conservatives are willing to 'trust' major polluters to be conscientious stewards of our environment. When they have proven for centuries they will pilfer and destroy the environment if it adds to the bottom line.
> 
> "We didn't inherit this land from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children."
> Lakota Sioux Proverb
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actual liberals believe people are basically bad and incompetent.  They need regulations to govern what they eat, how they work, what they smoke, what kind of insurance they can have, what kinds of games their children can play, what their children must be taught, what attitudes they must have, etc etc etc.  The result is the creeping nanny state.
> 
> Conservatives largely, but not wholly believe in letting people make their own decisions.  If they fail, then there are communitiies and charities to help them that are less intrusive than gov't.
> 
> The biggest protector of the enivronment is private land rights, something liberals have been eroding for years.  Heck, libs don't even understand the concept.
Click to expand...


The fatal flaw in your argument is absenteeism. You folks on the right don't live in reality, or understand that the 'invisible hand' is too often a fist. 

I, like most liberals, believe in a free market, but that doesn't mean that there should be no rules or regulations. The whole concept of a free market depends on everyone being a mutual stakeholder. That means, if you have to drink the water, you won't pollute it. These big polluters are absentee owners, they live in gated communities. They don't live where they pollute, they don't have to drink the water they pollute, they don't suffer the health hazards of their pollution, they don't suffer the plummeting property values living near their waste incurs.


----------



## Bfgrn

Oddball said:


> RFK juniorette...How droll.
> 
> Anti-environmentalist whackaloon isn't anti-environment, dude.



Thanks for adding your usual. Hey DUDe, will you ever progress to speaking English instead of ebonics, and being able to structure paragraphs?

Nothing turns out to be so oppressive and unjust as a feeble government.
Edmund Burke


----------



## The Rabbi

Bfgrn said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's ironic that liberals believe people are basically good, and conservatives tend to be believe that people are basically evil, yet conservatives are willing to 'trust' major polluters to be conscientious stewards of our environment. When they have proven for centuries they will pilfer and destroy the environment if it adds to the bottom line.
> 
> "We didn't inherit this land from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children."
> Lakota Sioux Proverb
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actual liberals believe people are basically bad and incompetent.  They need regulations to govern what they eat, how they work, what they smoke, what kind of insurance they can have, what kinds of games their children can play, what their children must be taught, what attitudes they must have, etc etc etc.  The result is the creeping nanny state.
> 
> Conservatives largely, but not wholly believe in letting people make their own decisions.  If they fail, then there are communitiies and charities to help them that are less intrusive than gov't.
> 
> The biggest protector of the enivronment is private land rights, something liberals have been eroding for years.  Heck, libs don't even understand the concept.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fatal flaw in your argument is absenteeism. You folks on the right don't live in reality, or understand that the 'invisible hand' is too often a fist.
> 
> I, like most liberals, believe in a free market, but that doesn't mean that there should be no rules or regulations. The whole concept of a free market depends on everyone being a mutual stakeholder. That means, if you have to drink the water, you won't pollute it. These big polluters are absentee owners, they live in gated communities. They don't live where they pollute, they don't have to drink the water they pollute, they don't suffer the health hazards of their pollution, they don't suffer the plummeting property values living near their waste incurs.
Click to expand...

The usual flaw is that libs believe that if you dont think we need intrusive gov't then you are against all gov't.  It is a black and white, us vs them, mentality that marks most libs as having inferior intelligence.

Absentee owners are still owners and still have an interest in the value of their property.


----------



## Foxfyre

Now if the question had been what would America look like if all the liberals left?. . . .

Well we would definitely have to scramble to find people to make movies and repopulate most of the news media and universities, but I imagine we would accomplish that and would have better movies and a much more competent media and a much much better and more affordable public school system.

The welfare rolls would drop dramatically to a level our local private charities could easily manage even with some reduction in funding as even liberals, or some of them, do give some money to charities.

There would be a significant shuffling of the economy due to massive reductions in public employment--most public employees would leave with the liberals but some are conservatives who would need private sector employment.  But with Obamacare and other inappropriate federal programs closed down, there would be many private sector opportunities opened up to replace essential services and I'm pretty sure we could assimilate everybody with a little work.

Most of the illegals, stripped of all the government services here, would go home.  Those who are conservative would be welcome to stay and would be needed to repopulate California and a lot of New England that would have only a shell of their former populations.

The oppressive and unnecessary federal regulations would be rescinded and the regulations left would be those necessary to secure our rights, allow the individual states to function effectively as one nation, and prevent us from doing physical, environmental, and/or economic violence to each other.

The budget would be balanced, the economy would be booming, and everybody would pay the same percentage of taxes that would be just enough to cover the Constitutionally mandated responsibilities of the federal government.  All other public services and functions would go to the states to manage.  Because there would be no way to profit themselves, the federal government would again be staffed with public servants rather than career politicians and that would stop a lot of domestic and foreign nonsense that goes on purely for power and profit.

It would be up the individual states to decide what they wanted to do about abortion, gay marriage, and all other social issues.

We would miss Ben and Jerry's and Flying Star but I'm sure we would be able to cope with that.


----------



## Trakar

bear513 said:


> I put this topic here because I want honest answers and no flaming. As a right leaning guy I love the left and wouldnt want to see them go. But why does the left hate Republicans so bad? Their history is after all the Anti-Slave party. p.s. sorry about any typo's I wrote this on the fly because I am so curious what would you think happen to the US if cons left


 
"Hate Republicans?"

I've been a registered Republican for nearly 50 years, I've never experienced "hate" for my political beliefs from anyone except a few fringe extremist Republicans throughout that time.   

If every conservative left America, I don't think anyone would much notice, they seem to be an isolated segment of the population that only listens to, or really interacts with, other conservatives, and if they are all gone there really wouldn't be anyone left to miss them. As for the rest of the population, it is not like the Conservative minded people in this nation have ever accomplished any great things or left any lasting positive impact upon the American society. The very nature of conservatism means that it does not inspire or develop new ideas, progress and adapt to the changes that are inherent in a dynamic society, or engage in the big social and public policy revolutions that have pushed society forward over the last 10,000 years.


----------



## Meister

Without the liberals, or the conservatives this country wouldn't or couldn't exist as a great nation, it would end up as just another also ran.


----------



## Foxfyre

Meister said:


> Without the liberals, or the conservatives this country wouldn't or couldn't exist as a great nation, it would end up as just another also ran.



I dunno Meister.  We did really well as a nation before government decided it would become more authoritarian and do a lot of meddling.  And the more the federal government has meddled, the worse it has gotten.  And that was not because of conservatives aka classical liberals.


----------



## Meister

Foxfyre said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> Without the liberals, or the conservatives this country wouldn't or couldn't exist as a great nation, it would end up as just another also ran.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I dunno Meister.  We did really well as a nation before government decided it would become more authoritarian and do a lot of meddling.  And the more the federal government has meddled, the worse it has gotten.  And that was not because of conservatives aka classical liberals.
Click to expand...


You need both, Foxfyre.  Liberals have brought some good things to the table, as has conservatives.  But, take away either one and the other runs amok.  What it does come down to is human nature dealing with the greed they desire.


----------



## JohnL.Burke

Bfgrn said:


> JohnL.Burke said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well conserve-a-tives certainly don't believe in conservation. I have often joked: "If God created trees, shouldn't liberals be the ones calling CONSERVE-atives tree huggers?"
> 
> And I find conservatives not only dismiss climate change, they don't even believe pollution, poisons and carcinogens are harmful to human, fish and foul. Listen to the rants of socialism and the end of capitalism when the EPA forces coal burning power plants to comply to clean air standards 20 YEARS after the law was written. Conservatives have no curiosity or question that the very same think tanks and 'scientists' that deny climate change are the very same think tanks and 'scientists' that denied cigarettes cause cancer, AND they are funded by the biggest polluters on the planet.
> 
> And when a Democrat proposes cap and trade, conservative forget it was a conservative created market based solution to address environmental problems instead of prescriptive "command and control" regulation.
> 
> I mentioned Russia earlier. What many Americans don't know or understand is Russia is a very conservative country. More conservative that America. And when you look at the environmental policies of the communists, and the severe environmental damage left behind and their nuclear policies that has created a global cataclysmic ticking time bomb, the environmental views, policies and philosophies of the communists and conservatives in America are identical.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatives don't believe pollution, poisons and carsinogens are harmful to human, fish and foul? Conservatives have no curiosity?  American Conservatives and communist environmental views, policies and philosophies are identical? Conservatives don't believe in conservation?  Wow! Uhmm... OK.  You left out the conservative cabal against unicorns and rainbows. Sheesh!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can't help but think of a great line Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said: "Eighty percent of Republicans are just Democrats that don't know what's going on"
> 
> If conservatives do believe pollution, poisons and carcinogens are harmful to human, fish and foul, their actions don't match.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Most Anti-Environment House In History
> 15 Dec 2011
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> House Republican leaders have pushed through an astonishing *191* votes to weaken environmental protections.
> 
> "The House Republican assault on the environment has been reckless and relentless, in bill after bill, for one industry after another, the House has been voting to roll back environmental laws and endanger public health.  The Republican anti-environment agenda is completely out-of-touch with what the American public wants."
> 
> The House of Representatives averaged more than one anti-environmental vote for every day the House was in session in 2011, according to the report. More than one in five of the legislative roll call votes taken in 2011  22%  were votes to undermine environmental protections.
> 
> League Of Conservation Voters
Click to expand...


 First off, Kennedy's quote is certainly ironic seeing how he would be running as a republican today. Cutting taxes, strong military, hell, he would be considered a Tea Party type by the usual progressive types.
  Just saying 22% of the House of Representatives votes were to undermine environmental protections doesn't mean anything unless you think all environmental protections are the same. Were any of these "protections" simply pork projects to pay off lobbyists? What were the other laws that were connected to these "environmental protections"? You get the point.


----------



## Foxfyre

Meister said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> Without the liberals, or the conservatives this country wouldn't or couldn't exist as a great nation, it would end up as just another also ran.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I dunno Meister.  We did really well as a nation before government decided it would become more authoritarian and do a lot of meddling.  And the more the federal government has meddled, the worse it has gotten.  And that was not because of conservatives aka classical liberals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You need both, Foxfyre.  Liberals have brought some good things to the table, as has conservatives.  But, take away either one and the other runs amok.  What it does come down to is human nature dealing with the greed they desire.
Click to expand...


I agree that there are liberals who have enriched our lives through prose and poetry and artistry and wit and wisdom.   That I would very much miss if the liberals were suddenly zapped off to some other country or planet.

I don't agree that we need liberalism to manage a country however, and I believe liberal concepts have been shown to fail universally wherever they have been tried.  It doesn't happen all at once, but the liberal mindset introduces automatic decay into what could otherwise be selfsustaining and increasingly productive.

The Founding Fathers were not conservative as the dictionary defines conservative.  They were liberals but as that was defined in the 18th century.  Visionary.  Progressive in their willingness to learn and adapt and move forward and improve and be better.   They were wise enough not to force their vision of moralty on anybody else, but rather held to the concept that liberty must allow people to choose their own destiny and requires that they own the consequences of what they choose.

Modern Day American liberalism is much closer to the dictionary definition of conservatism than is modern day American conservatism.  It is a philosophy based on the concept of kings--government that must be given authority to choose for us rather than allow people to have that responsibility themselves.  Charity that depends on confiscation of property from others rather than any personal sacrifice.  Government that shrugs off the concept of unalienable God given rights and assumes the authority to assign us the rights, choices, options, and opportunities that we will be allowed to have.

It is well intended and means well and believes it is superior.  But it is not.


----------



## Oddball

Bfgrn said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> RFK juniorette...How droll.
> 
> Anti-environmentalist whackaloon isn't anti-environment, dude.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for adding your usual. Hey DUDe, will you ever progress to speaking English instead of ebonics, and being able to structure paragraphs?
> 
> Nothing turns out to be so oppressive and unjust as a feeble government.
> Edmund Burke
Click to expand...

Thanks for being so thick that you cannot do so much as refute a single sentence...So much so that you felt the need to include an entirely irrelevant quote, from someone whose world view is diametrically opposed from yours.

Way ta go.


----------



## PMZ

Foxfyre said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> So those of us who think the government is too big are extremists?  Really?  That is your definition of extremism?
> 
> For me to say the government is too big and/or costs too much saves a lot of time of not having to write half a page explaining that I see the federal government as bloated, out of control, engaged in functions never intended by the Constitution, excessively expensive, ineffective, inefficient, self serving, and excessively powerful to the extent that our unalienable rights are threatened or already compromised and the economy is drained of much of its vitality and ability to expand.
> 
> And from that, I can go point by point to explain the problems I see which would require a sizable manuscript to hold it all.
> 
> It saves a whole lot of time saying the government is too big.
> 
> But if saying 'the government is too big' is extremist to you, how would you word it to express a government that has overreached or has overflowed its intended boundaries?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is the evidence that the governmentis too big? Is General Motors too big? Apple? Walmart?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The evidence is in its increasing cost and in the steadily diminishing returns to the people.  The evidence is in its inefficiency, ineffectiveness, and destructiveness, and the drain on what would otherwise be a vital, thriving economy.  The evidence is in the erosion of all of our liberties, options, opportunities, and choices while those in high levels of government are greatly enriching themselves at our expense.  The evidence is in our inability to get answers to the simplest questions because of the enormity and complexity of the bureaucracies that are controlling more and more of our lives.
Click to expand...


You realize, I suppose, that you presented no evidence at all. Not surprising as there is none. It's a completely subjective thing. 

Of course, one way to make it objective would be to see what direction it's going. But, it's shrunk under liberal government, from it's peak under conservative government. 

Also you forgot to answer my other questions. Is General Motors too big? Also a completely subjective thing.


----------



## PMZ

Foxfyre said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberals dont believe in liberalism.  Friedman called himself a liberal, and for his time he was right.  Conservative has nothing to do with conservation.  Although I'll point out that hunters, overwhelmingly conservative, are among the biggest advocates of preserving forests and wildlife.  And also the biggest financial contributors to those projects.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fact is, whether liberal or conservative, the poor may or may not care about the environment and/or conservation, but their first priority is to put food on the table, have access to shelter from the elements, and enjoy some quality of life.  Everything else will take a back seat to that.
> 
> But whether liberal or conservative, the affluent will demand clean water, clean air, uncontaminated soil, and will have the leisure and wherewithal to care about plants, animals, and aesthetic beauty.
> 
> It seems the American liberal concept of conservation is more and more government mandates, regulation, and control.  They trust government to have everybody's best interests at heart more than they trust the people, and they trust government to utilize resources more efficiently and effectively than the people will manage them outside of government.
> 
> And the American conservatives concept of conservation is to increase affluence so more people will care and provide incentives to  improve their environment and preserve the best that the planet can offer.  There is no better managers of the rangelands and forests than those whose livelihood depend upon them.  And the landowner is likely to be thrilled at the presence of a rare bird, critter, or plant on his property and is likely to nurture it.  But if the government is given power to take away that landowner's propety rights because of the presence of a rare something, that is a powerful incentive to get rid of it quickly before some government authority discovers it is there.
> 
> The Founders put the faith in the people, with their rights secured, to govern themselves more effectively and efficiently than a central a government ever could.   That is conservatism in a nutshell.
> 
> Take away the conservatives and you return the USA to a monarchy or other authoritarian government that assigns the rights to the people and issues them whatever privileges or possessions they will be allowed to have.
Click to expand...


"But whether liberal or conservative, the affluent will demand clean water, clean air, uncontaminated soil, and will have the leisure and wherewithal to care about plants, animals, and aesthetic beauty."

In my experience the affluent will follow the one rule of business. Make more money regardless of the cost to others.

The people who guard the environment are the middle class. Those who pay for disregarding the environment without the corporate or personal enrichment from that disregard.


----------



## PMZ

Foxfyre said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberals dont believe in liberalism.  Friedman called himself a liberal, and for his time he was right.  Conservative has nothing to do with conservation.  Although I'll point out that hunters, overwhelmingly conservative, are among the biggest advocates of preserving forests and wildlife.  And also the biggest financial contributors to those projects.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fact is, whether liberal or conservative, the poor may or may not care about the environment and/or conservation, but their first priority is to put food on the table, have access to shelter from the elements, and enjoy some quality of life.  Everything else will take a back seat to that.
> 
> But whether liberal or conservative, the affluent will demand clean water, clean air, uncontaminated soil, and will have the leisure and wherewithal to care about plants, animals, and aesthetic beauty.
> 
> It seems the American liberal concept of conservation is more and more government mandates, regulation, and control.  They trust government to have everybody's best interests at heart more than they trust the people, and they trust government to utilize resources more efficiently and effectively than the people will manage them outside of government.
> 
> And the American conservatives concept of conservation is to increase affluence so more people will care and provide incentives to  improve their environment and preserve the best that the planet can offer.  There is no better managers of the rangelands and forests than those whose livelihood depend upon them.  And the landowner is likely to be thrilled at the presence of a rare bird, critter, or plant on his property and is likely to nurture it.  But if the government is given power to take away that landowner's propety rights because of the presence of a rare something, that is a powerful incentive to get rid of it quickly before some government authority discovers it is there.
> 
> The Founders put the faith in the people, with their rights secured, to govern themselves more effectively and efficiently than a central a government ever could.   That is conservatism in a nutshell.
> 
> Take away the conservatives and you return the USA to a monarchy or other authoritarian government that assigns the rights to the people and issues them whatever privileges or possessions they will be allowed to have.
Click to expand...


"The Founders put the faith in the people, with their rights secured, to govern themselves more effectively and efficiently than a central a government ever could. That is conservatism in a nutshell."

Wrong. The anti Federalists want strong state or colony government modeled after Europe. The Federalists wanted strong federal government. Nobody wanted weak government. BTW, when push came to shove, the Federalists won.


----------



## PMZ

The Rabbi said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact is, whether liberal or conservative, the poor may or may not care about the environment and/or conservation, but their first priority is to put food on the table, have access to shelter from the elements, and enjoy some quality of life.  Everything else will take a back seat to that.
> 
> But whether liberal or conservative, the affluent will demand clean water, clean air, uncontaminated soil, and will have the leisure and wherewithal to care about plants, animals, and aesthetic beauty.
> 
> It seems the American liberal concept of conservation is more and more government mandates, regulation, and control.  They trust government to have everybody's best interests at heart more than they trust the people, and they trust government to utilize resources more efficiently and effectively than the people will manage them outside of government.
> 
> And the American conservatives concept of conservation is to increase affluence so more people will care and provide incentives to  improve their environment and preserve the best that the planet can offer.  There is no better managers of the rangelands and forests than those whose livelihood depend upon them.  And the landowner is likely to be thrilled at the presence of a rare bird, critter, or plant on his property and is likely to nurture it.  But if the government is given power to take away that landowner's propety rights because of the presence of a rare something, that is a powerful incentive to get rid of it quickly before some government authority discovers it is there.
> 
> The Founders put the faith in the people, with their rights secured, to govern themselves more effectively and efficiently than a central a government ever could.   That is conservatism in a nutshell.
> 
> Take away the conservatives and you return the USA to a monarchy or other authoritarian government that assigns the rights to the people and issues them whatever privileges or possessions they will be allowed to have.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's ironic that liberals believe people are basically good, and conservatives tend to be believe that people are basically evil, yet conservatives are willing to 'trust' major polluters to be conscientious stewards of our environment. When they have proven for centuries they will pilfer and destroy the environment if it adds to the bottom line.
> 
> "We didn't inherit this land from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children."
> Lakota Sioux Proverb
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actual liberals believe people are basically bad and incompetent.  They need regulations to govern what they eat, how they work, what they smoke, what kind of insurance they can have, what kinds of games their children can play, what their children must be taught, what attitudes they must have, etc etc etc.  The result is the creeping nanny state.
> 
> Conservatives largely, but not wholly believe in letting people make their own decisions.  If they fail, then there are communitiies and charities to help them that are less intrusive than gov't.
> 
> The biggest protector of the enivronment is private land rights, something liberals have been eroding for years.  Heck, libs don't even understand the concept.
Click to expand...


Liberals believe in what has taken us from the caves to civilization. Conservatives believe that we should go back to the caves and everyone for themselves. Take more resources regardless of the cost to others. Like future generations for instance.


----------



## The Rabbi

PMZ said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberals dont believe in liberalism.  Friedman called himself a liberal, and for his time he was right.  Conservative has nothing to do with conservation.  Although I'll point out that hunters, overwhelmingly conservative, are among the biggest advocates of preserving forests and wildlife.  And also the biggest financial contributors to those projects.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fact is, whether liberal or conservative, the poor may or may not care about the environment and/or conservation, but their first priority is to put food on the table, have access to shelter from the elements, and enjoy some quality of life.  Everything else will take a back seat to that.
> 
> But whether liberal or conservative, the affluent will demand clean water, clean air, uncontaminated soil, and will have the leisure and wherewithal to care about plants, animals, and aesthetic beauty.
> 
> It seems the American liberal concept of conservation is more and more government mandates, regulation, and control.  They trust government to have everybody's best interests at heart more than they trust the people, and they trust government to utilize resources more efficiently and effectively than the people will manage them outside of government.
> 
> And the American conservatives concept of conservation is to increase affluence so more people will care and provide incentives to  improve their environment and preserve the best that the planet can offer.  There is no better managers of the rangelands and forests than those whose livelihood depend upon them.  And the landowner is likely to be thrilled at the presence of a rare bird, critter, or plant on his property and is likely to nurture it.  But if the government is given power to take away that landowner's propety rights because of the presence of a rare something, that is a powerful incentive to get rid of it quickly before some government authority discovers it is there.
> 
> The Founders put the faith in the people, with their rights secured, to govern themselves more effectively and efficiently than a central a government ever could.   That is conservatism in a nutshell.
> 
> Take away the conservatives and you return the USA to a monarchy or other authoritarian government that assigns the rights to the people and issues them whatever privileges or possessions they will be allowed to have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "But whether liberal or conservative, the affluent will demand clean water, clean air, uncontaminated soil, and will have the leisure and wherewithal to care about plants, animals, and aesthetic beauty."
> 
> In my experience the affluent will follow the one rule of business. Make more money regardless of the cost to others.
> 
> The people who guard the environment are the middle class. Those who pay for disregarding the environment without the corporate or personal enrichment from that disregard.
Click to expand...

How does the middle class, with no ownership in the environment and no economic power, guard the environment?  That's nonsense.


----------



## JohnL.Burke

PMZ said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberals dont believe in liberalism.  Friedman called himself a liberal, and for his time he was right.  Conservative has nothing to do with conservation.  Although I'll point out that hunters, overwhelmingly conservative, are among the biggest advocates of preserving forests and wildlife.  And also the biggest financial contributors to those projects.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fact is, whether liberal or conservative, the poor may or may not care about the environment and/or conservation, but their first priority is to put food on the table, have access to shelter from the elements, and enjoy some quality of life.  Everything else will take a back seat to that.
> 
> But whether liberal or conservative, the affluent will demand clean water, clean air, uncontaminated soil, and will have the leisure and wherewithal to care about plants, animals, and aesthetic beauty.
> 
> It seems the American liberal concept of conservation is more and more government mandates, regulation, and control.  They trust government to have everybody's best interests at heart more than they trust the people, and they trust government to utilize resources more efficiently and effectively than the people will manage them outside of government.
> 
> And the American conservatives concept of conservation is to increase affluence so more people will care and provide incentives to  improve their environment and preserve the best that the planet can offer.  There is no better managers of the rangelands and forests than those whose livelihood depend upon them.  And the landowner is likely to be thrilled at the presence of a rare bird, critter, or plant on his property and is likely to nurture it.  But if the government is given power to take away that landowner's propety rights because of the presence of a rare something, that is a powerful incentive to get rid of it quickly before some government authority discovers it is there.
> 
> The Founders put the faith in the people, with their rights secured, to govern themselves more effectively and efficiently than a central a government ever could.   That is conservatism in a nutshell.
> 
> Take away the conservatives and you return the USA to a monarchy or other authoritarian government that assigns the rights to the people and issues them whatever privileges or possessions they will be allowed to have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "The Founders put the faith in the people, with their rights secured, to govern themselves more effectively and efficiently than a central a government ever could. That is conservatism in a nutshell."
> 
> Wrong. The anti Federalists want strong state or colony government modeled after Europe. The Federalists wanted strong federal government. Nobody wanted weak government. BTW, when push came to shove, the Federalists won.
Click to expand...


 The Federalists wanted a strong federal government but with very limited scope. Strong enough to provide for the national defense, domestic security and judiciary. They did not want the federal government encroaching on those responsibilities that could be left up to the states.


----------



## PMZ

Bfgrn said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's ironic that liberals believe people are basically good, and conservatives tend to be believe that people are basically evil, yet conservatives are willing to 'trust' major polluters to be conscientious stewards of our environment. When they have proven for centuries they will pilfer and destroy the environment if it adds to the bottom line.
> 
> "We didn't inherit this land from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children."
> Lakota Sioux Proverb
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actual liberals believe people are basically bad and incompetent.  They need regulations to govern what they eat, how they work, what they smoke, what kind of insurance they can have, what kinds of games their children can play, what their children must be taught, what attitudes they must have, etc etc etc.  The result is the creeping nanny state.
> 
> Conservatives largely, but not wholly believe in letting people make their own decisions.  If they fail, then there are communitiies and charities to help them that are less intrusive than gov't.
> 
> The biggest protector of the enivronment is private land rights, something liberals have been eroding for years.  Heck, libs don't even understand the concept.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fatal flaw in your argument is absenteeism. You folks on the right don't live in reality, or understand that the 'invisible hand' is too often a fist.
> 
> I, like most liberals, believe in a free market, but that doesn't mean that there should be no rules or regulations. The whole concept of a free market depends on everyone being a mutual stakeholder. That means, if you have to drink the water, you won't pollute it. These big polluters are absentee owners, they live in gated communities. They don't live where they pollute, they don't have to drink the water they pollute, they don't suffer the health hazards of their pollution, they don't suffer the plummeting property values living near their waste incurs.
Click to expand...


Most business regulation is to avoid actions in restraint of free trade. Anybody who believes that free markets are created by the lack of regulation has zero understanding of the dynamics of capitalism. The one thing that Marks and Engles were correct about is that unregulated capitalism leads only to extreme wealth inequity which leads to unstable society which leads to Communism.


----------



## PMZ

The Rabbi said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actual liberals believe people are basically bad and incompetent.  They need regulations to govern what they eat, how they work, what they smoke, what kind of insurance they can have, what kinds of games their children can play, what their children must be taught, what attitudes they must have, etc etc etc.  The result is the creeping nanny state.
> 
> Conservatives largely, but not wholly believe in letting people make their own decisions.  If they fail, then there are communitiies and charities to help them that are less intrusive than gov't.
> 
> The biggest protector of the enivronment is private land rights, something liberals have been eroding for years.  Heck, libs don't even understand the concept.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fatal flaw in your argument is absenteeism. You folks on the right don't live in reality, or understand that the 'invisible hand' is too often a fist.
> 
> I, like most liberals, believe in a free market, but that doesn't mean that there should be no rules or regulations. The whole concept of a free market depends on everyone being a mutual stakeholder. That means, if you have to drink the water, you won't pollute it. These big polluters are absentee owners, they live in gated communities. They don't live where they pollute, they don't have to drink the water they pollute, they don't suffer the health hazards of their pollution, they don't suffer the plummeting property values living near their waste incurs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The usual flaw is that libs believe that if you dont think we need intrusive gov't then you are against all gov't.  It is a black and white, us vs them, mentality that marks most libs as having inferior intelligence.
> 
> Absentee owners are still owners and still have an interest in the value of their property.
Click to expand...


What the heck is intrusive goverment and even more interesting, what the heck  is unintrusive government? Government without laws? Government without the power to enforce laws? Government with voluntary compliance to laws?


----------



## PMZ

Foxfyre said:


> Now if the question had been what would America look like if all the liberals left?. . . .
> 
> Well we would definitely have to scramble to find people to make movies and repopulate most of the news media and universities, but I imagine we would accomplish that and would have better movies and a much more competent media and a much much better and more affordable public school system.
> 
> The welfare rolls would drop dramatically to a level our local private charities could easily manage even with some reduction in funding as even liberals, or some of them, do give some money to charities.
> 
> There would be a significant shuffling of the economy due to massive reductions in public employment--most public employees would leave with the liberals but some are conservatives who would need private sector employment.  But with Obamacare and other inappropriate federal programs closed down, there would be many private sector opportunities opened up to replace essential services and I'm pretty sure we could assimilate everybody with a little work.
> 
> Most of the illegals, stripped of all the government services here, would go home.  Those who are conservative would be welcome to stay and would be needed to repopulate California and a lot of New England that would have only a shell of their former populations.
> 
> The oppressive and unnecessary federal regulations would be rescinded and the regulations left would be those necessary to secure our rights, allow the individual states to function effectively as one nation, and prevent us from doing physical, environmental, and/or economic violence to each other.
> 
> The budget would be balanced, the economy would be booming, and everybody would pay the same percentage of taxes that would be just enough to cover the Constitutionally mandated responsibilities of the federal government.  All other public services and functions would go to the states to manage.  Because there would be no way to profit themselves, the federal government would again be staffed with public servants rather than career politicians and that would stop a lot of domestic and foreign nonsense that goes on purely for power and profit.
> 
> It would be up the individual states to decide what they wanted to do about abortion, gay marriage, and all other social issues.
> 
> We would miss Ben and Jerry's and Flying Star but I'm sure we would be able to cope with that.



Compare this that you wish was true to what actually happened under conservative government from 2001 to 2009.


----------



## PMZ

Trakar said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I put this topic here because I want honest answers and no flaming. As a right leaning guy I love the left and wouldnt want to see them go. But why does the left hate Republicans so bad? Their history is after all the Anti-Slave party. p.s. sorry about any typo's I wrote this on the fly because I am so curious what would you think happen to the US if cons left
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Hate Republicans?"
> 
> I've been a registered Republican for nearly 50 years, I've never experienced "hate" for my political beliefs from anyone except a few fringe extremist Republicans throughout that time.
> 
> If every conservative left America, I don't think anyone would much notice, they seem to be an isolated segment of the population that only listens to, or really interacts with, other conservatives, and if they are all gone there really wouldn't be anyone left to miss them. As for the rest of the population, it is not like the Conservative minded people in this nation have ever accomplished any great things or left any lasting positive impact upon the American society. The very nature of conservatism means that it does not inspire or develop new ideas, progress and adapt to the changes that are inherent in a dynamic society, or engage in the big social and public policy revolutions that have pushed society forward over the last 10,000 years.
Click to expand...


I think that there are conservatives that would be missed, but no extremists. The first benefit of the extremists going away would be the return to a functional Congress.


----------



## PMZ

Foxfyre said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> I dunno Meister.  We did really well as a nation before government decided it would become more authoritarian and do a lot of meddling.  And the more the federal government has meddled, the worse it has gotten.  And that was not because of conservatives aka classical liberals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You need both, Foxfyre.  Liberals have brought some good things to the table, as has conservatives.  But, take away either one and the other runs amok.  What it does come down to is human nature dealing with the greed they desire.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree that there are liberals who have enriched our loves through prose and poetry and artistry and wit and wisdom.   That I would very much miss if the liberals were suddenly zapped off to some other country or planet.
> 
> I don't agree that we need liberalism to manage a country however, and I believe liberal concepts have been shown to fail universally wherever they have been tried.  It doesn't happen all at once, but the liberal mindset introduces automatic decay into what could otherwise be selfsustaining and increasingly productive.
> 
> The Founding Fathers were not conservative as the dictionary defines conservative.  They were liberals but as that was defined in the 18th century.  Visionary.  Progressive in their willingness to learn and adapt and move forward and improve and be better.   They were wise enough not to force their vision of moralty on anybody else, but rather held to the concept that liberty must allow people to choose their own destiny and requires that they own the consequences of what they choose.
> 
> Modern Day American liberalism is much closer to the dictionary definition of conservatism than is modern day American conservatism.  It is a philosophy based on the concept of kings--government that must be given authority to choose for us rather than allow people to have that responsibility themselves.  Charity that depends on confiscation of property from others rather than any personal sacrifice.  Government that shrugs off the concept of unalienable God given rights and assumes the authority to assign us the rights, choices, options, and opportunities that we will be allowed to have.
> 
> It is well intended and means well and believes it is superior.  But it is not.
Click to expand...


Again, consider the trajectory of our nation under the conservative administration from 2001 to 2009.


----------



## Votto

bear513 said:


> I put this topic here because I want honest answers and no flaming. As a right leaning guy I love the left and wouldnt want to see them go. But why does the left hate Republicans so bad? Their history is after all the Anti-Slave party. p.s. sorry about any typo's I wrote this on the fly because I am so curious what would you think happen to the US if cons left





and/or


----------



## PMZ

The Rabbi said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact is, whether liberal or conservative, the poor may or may not care about the environment and/or conservation, but their first priority is to put food on the table, have access to shelter from the elements, and enjoy some quality of life.  Everything else will take a back seat to that.
> 
> But whether liberal or conservative, the affluent will demand clean water, clean air, uncontaminated soil, and will have the leisure and wherewithal to care about plants, animals, and aesthetic beauty.
> 
> It seems the American liberal concept of conservation is more and more government mandates, regulation, and control.  They trust government to have everybody's best interests at heart more than they trust the people, and they trust government to utilize resources more efficiently and effectively than the people will manage them outside of government.
> 
> And the American conservatives concept of conservation is to increase affluence so more people will care and provide incentives to  improve their environment and preserve the best that the planet can offer.  There is no better managers of the rangelands and forests than those whose livelihood depend upon them.  And the landowner is likely to be thrilled at the presence of a rare bird, critter, or plant on his property and is likely to nurture it.  But if the government is given power to take away that landowner's propety rights because of the presence of a rare something, that is a powerful incentive to get rid of it quickly before some government authority discovers it is there.
> 
> The Founders put the faith in the people, with their rights secured, to govern themselves more effectively and efficiently than a central a government ever could.   That is conservatism in a nutshell.
> 
> Take away the conservatives and you return the USA to a monarchy or other authoritarian government that assigns the rights to the people and issues them whatever privileges or possessions they will be allowed to have.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "But whether liberal or conservative, the affluent will demand clean water, clean air, uncontaminated soil, and will have the leisure and wherewithal to care about plants, animals, and aesthetic beauty."
> 
> In my experience the affluent will follow the one rule of business. Make more money regardless of the cost to others.
> 
> The people who guard the environment are the middle class. Those who pay for disregarding the environment without the corporate or personal enrichment from that disregard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How does the middle class, with no ownership in the environment and no economic power, guard the environment?  That's nonsense.
Click to expand...


We have the political power given us by democracy. Government of, by and for the people. Remember now?


----------



## PMZ

JohnL.Burke said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact is, whether liberal or conservative, the poor may or may not care about the environment and/or conservation, but their first priority is to put food on the table, have access to shelter from the elements, and enjoy some quality of life.  Everything else will take a back seat to that.
> 
> But whether liberal or conservative, the affluent will demand clean water, clean air, uncontaminated soil, and will have the leisure and wherewithal to care about plants, animals, and aesthetic beauty.
> 
> It seems the American liberal concept of conservation is more and more government mandates, regulation, and control.  They trust government to have everybody's best interests at heart more than they trust the people, and they trust government to utilize resources more efficiently and effectively than the people will manage them outside of government.
> 
> And the American conservatives concept of conservation is to increase affluence so more people will care and provide incentives to  improve their environment and preserve the best that the planet can offer.  There is no better managers of the rangelands and forests than those whose livelihood depend upon them.  And the landowner is likely to be thrilled at the presence of a rare bird, critter, or plant on his property and is likely to nurture it.  But if the government is given power to take away that landowner's propety rights because of the presence of a rare something, that is a powerful incentive to get rid of it quickly before some government authority discovers it is there.
> 
> The Founders put the faith in the people, with their rights secured, to govern themselves more effectively and efficiently than a central a government ever could.   That is conservatism in a nutshell.
> 
> Take away the conservatives and you return the USA to a monarchy or other authoritarian government that assigns the rights to the people and issues them whatever privileges or possessions they will be allowed to have.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The Founders put the faith in the people, with their rights secured, to govern themselves more effectively and efficiently than a central a government ever could. That is conservatism in a nutshell."
> 
> Wrong. The anti Federalists want strong state or colony government modeled after Europe. The Federalists wanted strong federal government. Nobody wanted weak government. BTW, when push came to shove, the Federalists won.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Federalists wanted a strong federal government but with very limited scope. Strong enough to provide for the national defense, domestic security and judiciary. They did not want the federal government encroaching on those responsibilities that could be left up to the states.
Click to expand...


The federalist wanted effective central government in all areas except those excluded from legislation by the Bill of Rights. They assumed that we, the people would determine the details.


----------



## Foxfyre

PMZ said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> You need both, Foxfyre.  Liberals have brought some good things to the table, as has conservatives.  But, take away either one and the other runs amok.  What it does come down to is human nature dealing with the greed they desire.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree that there are liberals who have enriched our loves through prose and poetry and artistry and wit and wisdom.   That I would very much miss if the liberals were suddenly zapped off to some other country or planet.
> 
> I don't agree that we need liberalism to manage a country however, and I believe liberal concepts have been shown to fail universally wherever they have been tried.  It doesn't happen all at once, but the liberal mindset introduces automatic decay into what could otherwise be selfsustaining and increasingly productive.
> 
> The Founding Fathers were not conservative as the dictionary defines conservative.  They were liberals but as that was defined in the 18th century.  Visionary.  Progressive in their willingness to learn and adapt and move forward and improve and be better.   They were wise enough not to force their vision of moralty on anybody else, but rather held to the concept that liberty must allow people to choose their own destiny and requires that they own the consequences of what they choose.
> 
> Modern Day American liberalism is much closer to the dictionary definition of conservatism than is modern day American conservatism.  It is a philosophy based on the concept of kings--government that must be given authority to choose for us rather than allow people to have that responsibility themselves.  Charity that depends on confiscation of property from others rather than any personal sacrifice.  Government that shrugs off the concept of unalienable God given rights and assumes the authority to assign us the rights, choices, options, and opportunities that we will be allowed to have.
> 
> It is well intended and means well and believes it is superior.  But it is not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, consider the trajectory of our nation under the conservative administration from 2001 to 2009.
Click to expand...


The nation didn't have a conservative administration from 2001 to 2009.


----------



## PMZ

Foxfyre said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree that there are liberals who have enriched our loves through prose and poetry and artistry and wit and wisdom.   That I would very much miss if the liberals were suddenly zapped off to some other country or planet.
> 
> I don't agree that we need liberalism to manage a country however, and I believe liberal concepts have been shown to fail universally wherever they have been tried.  It doesn't happen all at once, but the liberal mindset introduces automatic decay into what could otherwise be selfsustaining and increasingly productive.
> 
> The Founding Fathers were not conservative as the dictionary defines conservative.  They were liberals but as that was defined in the 18th century.  Visionary.  Progressive in their willingness to learn and adapt and move forward and improve and be better.   They were wise enough not to force their vision of moralty on anybody else, but rather held to the concept that liberty must allow people to choose their own destiny and requires that they own the consequences of what they choose.
> 
> Modern Day American liberalism is much closer to the dictionary definition of conservatism than is modern day American conservatism.  It is a philosophy based on the concept of kings--government that must be given authority to choose for us rather than allow people to have that responsibility themselves.  Charity that depends on confiscation of property from others rather than any personal sacrifice.  Government that shrugs off the concept of unalienable God given rights and assumes the authority to assign us the rights, choices, options, and opportunities that we will be allowed to have.
> 
> It is well intended and means well and believes it is superior.  But it is not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, consider the trajectory of our nation under the conservative administration from 2001 to 2009.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The nation didn't have a conservative administration from 2001 to 2009.
Click to expand...


If you consider Dick Cheney, defacto President from 2001 to 2009, a liberal, I have no idea what you are thinking.


----------



## PMZ

This has been an interesting thread or topic. It shows that the real issue between the parties is whether we should salute democracy, the concept of government of, by, and for the people, or celebrate weak ineffective government. 

For me, the concept of weak government is appalling. I want to be part of a strongly united nation that gives me, a citizen, the power to contribute to our destiny. I want to know that we have strong leaders actively engaged in solving problems and creating the future we, the people demand. I want to be assured that we elect strong, visionary leaders, and not weak synchophants. I want to replace those shown as weak with those that I am confident are strong, well informed and anxious to keep their jobs by satisfying their constituents. 

I want the equal of our founders elected every year. 

I don't fear a government beholden to us Americans. I choose a country like I would choose an employer. The best. The brightest. The most innovative. The most confident in the future. 

That's why I'm a liberal. I don't believe in limitations. I believe in achievement. The more who share in that the better. The ultimate being success for everyone. 

My strength is in democracy.


----------



## Wyatt earp

The Rabbi said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact is, whether liberal or conservative, the poor may or may not care about the environment and/or conservation, but their first priority is to put food on the table, have access to shelter from the elements, and enjoy some quality of life.  Everything else will take a back seat to that.
> 
> But whether liberal or conservative, the affluent will demand clean water, clean air, uncontaminated soil, and will have the leisure and wherewithal to care about plants, animals, and aesthetic beauty.
> 
> It seems the American liberal concept of conservation is more and more government mandates, regulation, and control.  They trust government to have everybody's best interests at heart more than they trust the people, and they trust government to utilize resources more efficiently and effectively than the people will manage them outside of government.
> 
> And the American conservatives concept of conservation is to increase affluence so more people will care and provide incentives to  improve their environment and preserve the best that the planet can offer.  There is no better managers of the rangelands and forests than those whose livelihood depend upon them.  And the landowner is likely to be thrilled at the presence of a rare bird, critter, or plant on his property and is likely to nurture it.  But if the government is given power to take away that landowner's propety rights because of the presence of a rare something, that is a powerful incentive to get rid of it quickly before some government authority discovers it is there.
> 
> The Founders put the faith in the people, with their rights secured, to govern themselves more effectively and efficiently than a central a government ever could.   That is conservatism in a nutshell.
> 
> Take away the conservatives and you return the USA to a monarchy or other authoritarian government that assigns the rights to the people and issues them whatever privileges or possessions they will be allowed to have.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "But whether liberal or conservative, the affluent will demand clean water, clean air, uncontaminated soil, and will have the leisure and wherewithal to care about plants, animals, and aesthetic beauty."
> 
> In my experience the affluent will follow the one rule of business. Make more money regardless of the cost to others.
> 
> The people who guard the environment are the middle class. Those who pay for disregarding the environment without the corporate or personal enrichment from that disregard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How does the middle class, with no ownership in the environment and no economic power, guard the environment?  That's nonsense.
Click to expand...


Idk, just a guess its called voting.....


----------



## JohnL.Burke

PMZ said:


> This has been an interesting thread or topic. It shows that the real issue between the parties is whether we should salute democracy, the concept of government of, by, and for the people, or celebrate weak ineffective government.
> 
> For me, the concept of weak government is appalling. I want to be part of a strongly united nation that gives me, a citizen, the power to contribute to our destiny. I want to know that we have strong leaders actively engaged in solving problems and creating the future we, the people demand. I want to be assured that we elect strong, visionary leaders, and not weak synchophants. I want to replace those shown as weak with those that I am confident are strong, well informed and anxious to keep their jobs by satisfying their constituents.
> 
> I want the equal of our founders elected every year.
> 
> I don't fear a government beholden to us Americans. I choose a country like I would choose an employer. The best. The brightest. The most innovative. The most confident in the future.
> 
> That's why I'm a liberal. I don't believe in limitations. I believe in achievement. The more who share in that the better. The ultimate being success for everyone.
> 
> My strength is in democracy.



  For me, the concept of an overreaching all intrusive government is appalling. I want to be an individual who is able to choose my own destiny without the chains of government limiting my abilities and freedoms. I also want to be assured that we elect strong visionary leaders. Yet, I know assurances are often broken and some leaders will fall short of expectations. I am a conservative because I know "absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely". I know that a large government becomes a large bureaucracy answerable to no one. I know large governments are not synonymous with moral integrity. 
  I believe our government should be beholden to us. Not the other way around. I want a government I can trust but I am not so naive that I will assume the government has my best interest in mind.  I believe a rebellious spirit and skeptical attitude has done more to free men from poverty and slavery than any other human attribute known. A large government despises these very attributes for fear of being overthrown or weakened.  The smaller the government, the more power the individual has. This by no means suggests that I am against government. I am simply against inefficient and corrupt government. The larger the government, the smaller the voices of its citizenry. With a weakened citizenry, corruption spreads. When corruption spreads, we pay more to get less and life becomes harder as aspirations and dreams are snubbed like a candle flame by bureaucratic red tape and fat politicians hoarding other people's money.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Foxfyre said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberals dont believe in liberalism.  Friedman called himself a liberal, and for his time he was right.  Conservative has nothing to do with conservation.  Although I'll point out that hunters, overwhelmingly conservative, are among the biggest advocates of preserving forests and wildlife.  And also the biggest financial contributors to those projects.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fact is, whether liberal or conservative, the poor may or may not care about the environment and/or conservation, but their first priority is to put food on the table, have access to shelter from the elements, and enjoy some quality of life.  Everything else will take a back seat to that.
> 
> But whether liberal or conservative, the affluent will demand clean water, clean air, uncontaminated soil, and will have the leisure and wherewithal to care about plants, animals, and aesthetic beauty.
> 
> It seems the American liberal concept of conservation is more and more government mandates, regulation, and control.  They trust government to have everybody's best interests at heart more than they trust the people, and they trust government to utilize resources more efficiently and effectively than the people will manage them outside of government.
> 
> And the American conservatives concept of conservation is to increase affluence so more people will care and provide incentives to  improve their environment and preserve the best that the planet can offer.  There is no better managers of the rangelands and forests than those whose livelihood depend upon them.  And the landowner is likely to be thrilled at the presence of a rare bird, critter, or plant on his property and is likely to nurture it.  But if the government is given power to take away that landowner's propety rights because of the presence of a rare something, that is a powerful incentive to get rid of it quickly before some government authority discovers it is there.
> 
> *The Founders put the faith in the people, with their rights secured, to govern themselves more effectively and efficiently than a central a government ever could.   That is conservatism in a nutshell.*
> 
> Take away the conservatives and you return the USA to a monarchy or other authoritarian government that assigns the rights to the people and issues them whatever privileges or possessions they will be allowed to have.
Click to expand...


The Founders did not speak with one voice, nor were they of one mind. 

The Hamiltonian model was just as legitimate, just as much part of the Framers original intent as the Jeffersonian.     

The Hamiltonian model that eventually prevailed is therefore consistent with the founding principles of the Republic. 

As Justice Kennedy noted in _US Term Limits_: 



> The political identity of the entire people of the Union is reinforced by the proposition, which I take to be beyond dispute, that, though limited as to its objects, the National Government is and must be controlled by the people without collateral interference by the States. _McCulloch_ affirmed this proposition as well, when the Court rejected the suggestion that States could interfere with federal powers.* "This was not intended by the American people. They did not design to make their government dependent on the States."* Id., at 432. The States have no power, reserved or otherwise, over the exercise of federal authority within its proper sphere.
> 
> There can be no doubt, if we are to respect the republican origins of the Nation and preserve its federal character, that there exists a federal right of citizenship, a relationship between the people of the Nation and their National Government, with which the States may not interfere.
> 
> U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779 (1995).


We are therefore one Nation, not 50; we are a people, citizens of a Constitutional Republic, where the Constitution derives its authority from all the people, not the states, nor counties, nor communities, but all the people of the American Nation. 

Whatever tedious and pointless idiocy one wishes to wallow in concerning liberal or democrat, republican or conservative, this fundamental fact of our National character is immutable: that the Federal government is paramount, per the original intent of the Founders and the people.


----------



## Bfgrn

Foxfyre said:


> Now if the question had been what would America look like if all the liberals left?. . . .
> 
> Well we would definitely have to scramble to find people to make movies and repopulate most of the news media and universities, but I imagine we would accomplish that and would have better movies and a much more competent media and a much much better and more affordable public school system.
> 
> The welfare rolls would drop dramatically to a level our local private charities could easily manage even with some reduction in funding as even liberals, or some of them, do give some money to charities.
> 
> There would be a significant shuffling of the economy due to massive reductions in public employment--most public employees would leave with the liberals but some are conservatives who would need private sector employment.  But with Obamacare and other inappropriate federal programs closed down, there would be many private sector opportunities opened up to replace essential services and I'm pretty sure we could assimilate everybody with a little work.
> 
> Most of the illegals, stripped of all the government services here, would go home.  Those who are conservative would be welcome to stay and would be needed to repopulate California and a lot of New England that would have only a shell of their former populations.
> 
> The oppressive and unnecessary federal regulations would be rescinded and the regulations left would be those necessary to secure our rights, allow the individual states to function effectively as one nation, and prevent us from doing physical, environmental, and/or economic violence to each other.
> 
> The budget would be balanced, the economy would be booming, and everybody would pay the same percentage of taxes that would be just enough to cover the Constitutionally mandated responsibilities of the federal government.  All other public services and functions would go to the states to manage.  Because there would be no way to profit themselves, the federal government would again be staffed with public servants rather than career politicians and that would stop a lot of domestic and foreign nonsense that goes on purely for power and profit.
> 
> It would be up the individual states to decide what they wanted to do about abortion, gay marriage, and all other social issues.
> 
> We would miss Ben and Jerry's and Flying Star but I'm sure we would be able to cope with that.



And they call liberals Utopians...LOL 

In one post, you have verified everything I had though about you.

You know what's really ironic? There is a country that has followed your design exactly. And for the same reasons. You folks have a place to go!

Oh, where you ask? 

Conservative Russia

People simply do not realize that Russia is a deeply conservative country.

Fiscal policy is buttressed on a low, flat rate of income tax (13%), and there is virtually no social safety net, with spending on unemployment security, medical provision, disability aid, infrastructure, the environment, and urban regeneration far lower, in both absolute terms and as a percentage of GDP, than its G8 contemporaries.

Similarly, military spending is high in comparison  and growing  medical care is available free in theory, but requires private insurance or additional cash payment in practice, and businesses are in reality pretty UN-regulated.

If that doesnt sound to you like a set of policies Newt Gingrich or William F Buckley would support, then you dont know your dyed in the wool conservatives from your woolly jumper wearing liberals.

The Parallax Brief believes, however, that these government policies are generally matched by the views of Ivan Six-Pack. Now, the Parallax Brief had been led to believe by his pinko sociology teachers in college that communism taught progressive views on gender, race, immigration and class, so it therefore came as a shock to find when he moved here that after 80 years of Marxist indoctrination, young ladies in Russia often reject feminism, men ooze with unrepentant machismo, and the population appears to generally support a penal code that could have been based on Dostoyevskys work.

The Parallax Brief passes no judgment on Russias conservatism (beyond finding it ironic that those who criticize Russia the most would like similar policies implemented in their countries (Im thinking of you Charles Krauthammer, Ed Lucas, Anne Applebaum and the Republican Party)), but does view it as the foundation from which Russia can be better understood, and its news and policies better analyzed.


----------



## Bfgrn

JohnL.Burke said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JohnL.Burke said:
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatives don't believe pollution, poisons and carsinogens are harmful to human, fish and foul? Conservatives have no curiosity?  American Conservatives and communist environmental views, policies and philosophies are identical? Conservatives don't believe in conservation?  Wow! Uhmm... OK.  You left out the conservative cabal against unicorns and rainbows. Sheesh!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can't help but think of a great line Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said: "Eighty percent of Republicans are just Democrats that don't know what's going on"
> 
> If conservatives do believe pollution, poisons and carcinogens are harmful to human, fish and foul, their actions don't match.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Most Anti-Environment House In History
> 15 Dec 2011
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> House Republican leaders have pushed through an astonishing *191* votes to weaken environmental protections.
> 
> "The House Republican assault on the environment has been reckless and relentless, in bill after bill, for one industry after another, the House has been voting to roll back environmental laws and endanger public health.  The Republican anti-environment agenda is completely out-of-touch with what the American public wants."
> 
> The House of Representatives averaged more than one anti-environmental vote for every day the House was in session in 2011, according to the report. More than one in five of the legislative roll call votes taken in 2011  22%  were votes to undermine environmental protections.
> 
> League Of Conservation Voters
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First off, Kennedy's quote is certainly ironic seeing how he would be running as a republican today. Cutting taxes, strong military, hell, he would be considered a Tea Party type by the usual progressive types.
> Just saying 22% of the House of Representatives votes were to undermine environmental protections doesn't mean anything unless you think all environmental protections are the same. Were any of these "protections" simply pork projects to pay off lobbyists? What were the other laws that were connected to these "environmental protections"? You get the point.
Click to expand...


Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is alive and very much a liberal, progressive and a solid, life-long Democrat, just like his father was, and his uncles, aunts and cousins. If you're referring to his uncle President Kennedy, he proposed cutting the marginal tax rate when it was still at 91%, which was set by responsible liberals like FDR to pay off the costs of WWII and the Great Depression. And it wasn't his idea, he was talked into it by his chief economist Walter Heller.


Tax Cuts in Camelot?

*JFK lowered taxes, but supply-siders wrongly claim he's their patron saint.*

So, was Kennedy really a forerunner to Reagan and Bush? Or are supply-siders just cynically appropriating his aura? The Republicans are right, up to a point. Kennedy did push tax cuts, and his plan, which passed in February 1964, three months after his death, did help spur economic growth. But they're wrong to see the tax reduction as a supply-side cut, like Reagan's and Bush's; it was a demand-side cut. "The Revenue Act of 1964 was aimed at the demand, rather than the supply, side of the economy," said Arthur Okun, one of Kennedy's economic advisers.

This distinction, taught in Economics 101, seldom makes it into the Washington sound-bite wars. A demand-side cut rests on the Keynesian theory that public consumption spurs economic activity. Government puts money in people's hands, as a temporary measure, so that they'll spend it. A supply-side cut sees business investment as the key to growth. Government gives money to businesses and wealthy individuals to invest, ultimately benefiting all Americans. Back in the early 1960s, tax cutting was as contentious as it is today, but it was liberal demand-siders who were calling for the cuts and generating the controversy.

When Kennedy ran for president in 1960 amid a sluggish economy, he vowed to "get the country moving again." After his election, his advisers, led by chief economist Walter Heller, urged a classically Keynesian solution: running a deficit to stimulate growth. (The $10 billion deficit Heller recommended, bold at the time, seems laughably small by today's standards.) In Keynesian theory, a tax cut aimed at consumers would have a "multiplier" effect, since each dollar that a taxpayer spent would go to another taxpayer, who would in effect spend it againmeaning the deficit would be short-lived.

At first Kennedy balked at Heller's Keynesianism. He even proposed a balanced budget in his first State of the Union address. But Heller and his team won over the president. By mid-1962 Kennedy had seen the Keynesian light, and in January 1963 he declared that "the enactment this year of tax reduction and tax reform overshadows all other domestic issues in this Congress."

The plan Kennedy's team drafted had many elements, including the closing of loopholes (the "tax reform" Kennedy spoke of). Ultimately, in the form that Lyndon Johnson signed into law, it reduced tax withholding rates, initiated a new standard deduction, and boosted the top deduction for child care expenses, among other provisions. It did lower the top tax bracket significantly, although from a vastly higher starting point than anything we've seen in recent years: 91 percent on marginal income greater than $400,000. And he cut it only to 70 percent, hardly the mark of a future Club for Growth member.

more
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm sorry, I didn't know it was my job to educate you. The article I posted has a link to the report that spells out how House Republican leaders have pushed through an astonishing *191* votes to weaken environmental protections.

The House of Representatives averaged more than one anti-environmental vote for every day the House was in session in 2011.  More than one in five of the legislative roll call votes taken in 2011  22%  were votes to undermine environmental protections.

On average, 228 Republican members of the House  94% of the Republican members  voted for the anti-environment position during these roll call votes.  On average, 164 Democratic members of the House  86% of the Democratic members  voted for the pro-environment position.

The anti-environment votes cut across a broad array of issues and included 27 votes to block action to address climate change, 77 votes to undermine Clean Air Act protections, 28 votes to undermine Clean Water Act protections, and 47 votes to weaken protection of public land and coastal waters.  The Environmental Protection Agency was the target of 114 of these votes; the Department of the Interior was the target of 35 of these votes; and the Department of Energy was the target of 31 of these votes.

"It is the job of thinking people not to be on the side of the executioners"
Albert Camus


----------



## JohnL.Burke

Bfgrn said:


> JohnL.Burke said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can't help but think of a great line Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said: "Eighty percent of Republicans are just Democrats that don't know what's going on"
> 
> If conservatives do believe pollution, poisons and carcinogens are harmful to human, fish and foul, their actions don't match.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Most Anti-Environment House In History
> 15 Dec 2011
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> House Republican leaders have pushed through an astonishing *191* votes to weaken environmental protections.
> 
> "The House Republican assault on the environment has been reckless and relentless, in bill after bill, for one industry after another, the House has been voting to roll back environmental laws and endanger public health.  The Republican anti-environment agenda is completely out-of-touch with what the American public wants."
> 
> The House of Representatives averaged more than one anti-environmental vote for every day the House was in session in 2011, according to the report. More than one in five of the legislative roll call votes taken in 2011 &#8211; 22% &#8211; were votes to undermine environmental protections.
> 
> League Of Conservation Voters
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First off, Kennedy's quote is certainly ironic seeing how he would be running as a republican today. Cutting taxes, strong military, hell, he would be considered a Tea Party type by the usual progressive types.
> Just saying 22% of the House of Representatives votes were to undermine environmental protections doesn't mean anything unless you think all environmental protections are the same. Were any of these "protections" simply pork projects to pay off lobbyists? What were the other laws that were connected to these "environmental protections"? You get the point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is alive and very much a liberal, progressive and a solid, life-long Democrat, just like his father was, and his uncles, aunts and cousins. If you're referring to his uncle President Kennedy, he proposed cutting the marginal tax rate when it was still at 91%, which was set by responsible liberals like FDR to pay off the costs of WWII and the Great Depression. And it wasn't his idea, he was talked into it by his chief economist Walter Heller.
> 
> 
> Tax Cuts in Camelot?
> 
> *JFK lowered taxes, but supply-siders wrongly claim he's their patron saint.*
> 
> So, was Kennedy really a forerunner to Reagan and Bush? Or are supply-siders just cynically appropriating his aura? The Republicans are right, up to a point. Kennedy did push tax cuts, and his plan, which passed in February 1964, three months after his death, did help spur economic growth. But they're wrong to see the tax reduction as a supply-side cut, like Reagan's and Bush's; it was a demand-side cut. "The Revenue Act of 1964 was aimed at the demand, rather than the supply, side of the economy," said Arthur Okun, one of Kennedy's economic advisers.
> 
> This distinction, taught in Economics 101, seldom makes it into the Washington sound-bite wars. A demand-side cut rests on the Keynesian theory that public consumption spurs economic activity. Government puts money in people's hands, as a temporary measure, so that they'll spend it. A supply-side cut sees business investment as the key to growth. Government gives money to businesses and wealthy individuals to invest, ultimately benefiting all Americans. Back in the early 1960s, tax cutting was as contentious as it is today, but it was liberal demand-siders who were calling for the cuts and generating the controversy.
> 
> When Kennedy ran for president in 1960 amid a sluggish economy, he vowed to "get the country moving again." After his election, his advisers, led by chief economist Walter Heller, urged a classically Keynesian solution: running a deficit to stimulate growth. (The $10 billion deficit Heller recommended, bold at the time, seems laughably small by today's standards.) In Keynesian theory, a tax cut aimed at consumers would have a "multiplier" effect, since each dollar that a taxpayer spent would go to another taxpayer, who would in effect spend it again&#8212;meaning the deficit would be short-lived.
> 
> At first Kennedy balked at Heller's Keynesianism. He even proposed a balanced budget in his first State of the Union address. But Heller and his team won over the president. By mid-1962 Kennedy had seen the Keynesian light, and in January 1963 he declared that "the enactment this year of tax reduction and tax reform overshadows all other domestic issues in this Congress."
> 
> The plan Kennedy's team drafted had many elements, including the closing of loopholes (the "tax reform" Kennedy spoke of). Ultimately, in the form that Lyndon Johnson signed into law, it reduced tax withholding rates, initiated a new standard deduction, and boosted the top deduction for child care expenses, among other provisions. It did lower the top tax bracket significantly, although from a vastly higher starting point than anything we've seen in recent years: 91 percent on marginal income greater than $400,000. And he cut it only to 70 percent, hardly the mark of a future Club for Growth member.
> 
> more
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> I'm sorry, I didn't know it was my job to educate you. The article I posted has a link to the report that spells out how House Republican leaders have pushed through an astonishing *191* votes to weaken environmental protections.
> 
> The House of Representatives averaged more than one anti-environmental vote for every day the House was in session in 2011.  More than one in five of the legislative roll call votes taken in 2011 &#8211; 22% &#8211; were votes to undermine environmental protections.
> 
> On average, 228 Republican members of the House &#8211; 94% of the Republican members &#8211; voted for the anti-environment position during these roll call votes.  On average, 164 Democratic members of the House &#8211; 86% of the Democratic members &#8211; voted for the pro-environment position.
> 
> The anti-environment votes cut across a broad array of issues and included 27 votes to block action to address climate change, 77 votes to undermine Clean Air Act protections, 28 votes to undermine Clean Water Act protections, and 47 votes to weaken protection of public land and coastal waters.  The Environmental Protection Agency was the target of 114 of these votes; the Department of the Interior was the target of 35 of these votes; and the Department of Energy was the target of 31 of these votes.
> 
> "It is the job of thinking people not to be on the side of the executioners"
> Albert Camus
Click to expand...


 You didn't know it was your job to educate me? Hmmm... apparently you still don't know it's your job to educate me since you didn't answer my question. Ah well, my question was more rhetorical than anything else.

  By the way, you seem a little confused. When Kennedy said,  "The enactment this year of tax reduction and tax reform overshadows all other domestic issues in this congress" Kennedy had thrown Heller under the bus and ignored the Keynesian model. Now I did not mean to imply that Kennedy was a republican at heart. My only point is that the democratic party has been taken over by progressives and wouldn't allow Kennedy to become today's democratic presidential nominee. In terms of cutting taxes Kennedy did exactly what Reagan did. The result of course was the economy improved greatly. Of course, the economy always improves greatly when taxes are cut. The Keynnesian theory is what kept our depression going for ten years. John F. Kennedy in many ways was a horrible president (maybe one of our worst) but his refutation of Keynesian economics, pro tax cuts, and a successful space program saves his reputation.

  Oh yes, just to clear things up. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is an idiot.


----------



## Votto

PMZ said:


> This has been an interesting thread or topic. It shows that the real issue between the parties is whether we should salute democracy, the concept of government of, by, and for the people, or celebrate weak ineffective government.
> 
> For me, the concept of weak government is appalling. I want to be part of a strongly united nation that gives me, a citizen, the power to contribute to our destiny. I want to know that we have strong leaders actively engaged in solving problems and creating the future we, the people demand. I want to be assured that we elect strong, visionary leaders, and not weak synchophants. I want to replace those shown as weak with those that I am confident are strong, well informed and anxious to keep their jobs by satisfying their constituents.
> 
> I want the equal of our founders elected every year.
> 
> I don't fear a government beholden to us Americans. I choose a country like I would choose an employer. The best. The brightest. The most innovative. The most confident in the future.
> 
> That's why I'm a liberal. I don't believe in limitations. I believe in achievement. The more who share in that the better. The ultimate being success for everyone.
> 
> My strength is in democracy.



People like you are why Presidents like FDR could lock up innocent Japanese Americans without so much as a peep from anyone.  People like you scare me.

Have you ever heard of the NDAA?


----------



## Bfgrn

JohnL.Burke said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JohnL.Burke said:
> 
> 
> 
> First off, Kennedy's quote is certainly ironic seeing how he would be running as a republican today. Cutting taxes, strong military, hell, he would be considered a Tea Party type by the usual progressive types.
> Just saying 22% of the House of Representatives votes were to undermine environmental protections doesn't mean anything unless you think all environmental protections are the same. Were any of these "protections" simply pork projects to pay off lobbyists? What were the other laws that were connected to these "environmental protections"? You get the point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is alive and very much a liberal, progressive and a solid, life-long Democrat, just like his father was, and his uncles, aunts and cousins. If you're referring to his uncle President Kennedy, he proposed cutting the marginal tax rate when it was still at 91%, which was set by responsible liberals like FDR to pay off the costs of WWII and the Great Depression. And it wasn't his idea, he was talked into it by his chief economist Walter Heller.
> 
> 
> Tax Cuts in Camelot?
> 
> *JFK lowered taxes, but supply-siders wrongly claim he's their patron saint.*
> 
> So, was Kennedy really a forerunner to Reagan and Bush? Or are supply-siders just cynically appropriating his aura? The Republicans are right, up to a point. Kennedy did push tax cuts, and his plan, which passed in February 1964, three months after his death, did help spur economic growth. But they're wrong to see the tax reduction as a supply-side cut, like Reagan's and Bush's; it was a demand-side cut. "The Revenue Act of 1964 was aimed at the demand, rather than the supply, side of the economy," said Arthur Okun, one of Kennedy's economic advisers.
> 
> This distinction, taught in Economics 101, seldom makes it into the Washington sound-bite wars. A demand-side cut rests on the Keynesian theory that public consumption spurs economic activity. Government puts money in people's hands, as a temporary measure, so that they'll spend it. A supply-side cut sees business investment as the key to growth. Government gives money to businesses and wealthy individuals to invest, ultimately benefiting all Americans. Back in the early 1960s, tax cutting was as contentious as it is today, but it was liberal demand-siders who were calling for the cuts and generating the controversy.
> 
> When Kennedy ran for president in 1960 amid a sluggish economy, he vowed to "get the country moving again." After his election, his advisers, led by chief economist Walter Heller, urged a classically Keynesian solution: running a deficit to stimulate growth. (The $10 billion deficit Heller recommended, bold at the time, seems laughably small by today's standards.) In Keynesian theory, a tax cut aimed at consumers would have a "multiplier" effect, since each dollar that a taxpayer spent would go to another taxpayer, who would in effect spend it againmeaning the deficit would be short-lived.
> 
> At first Kennedy balked at Heller's Keynesianism. He even proposed a balanced budget in his first State of the Union address. But Heller and his team won over the president. By mid-1962 Kennedy had seen the Keynesian light, and in January 1963 he declared that "the enactment this year of tax reduction and tax reform overshadows all other domestic issues in this Congress."
> 
> The plan Kennedy's team drafted had many elements, including the closing of loopholes (the "tax reform" Kennedy spoke of). Ultimately, in the form that Lyndon Johnson signed into law, it reduced tax withholding rates, initiated a new standard deduction, and boosted the top deduction for child care expenses, among other provisions. It did lower the top tax bracket significantly, although from a vastly higher starting point than anything we've seen in recent years: 91 percent on marginal income greater than $400,000. And he cut it only to 70 percent, hardly the mark of a future Club for Growth member.
> 
> more
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> I'm sorry, I didn't know it was my job to educate you. The article I posted has a link to the report that spells out how House Republican leaders have pushed through an astonishing *191* votes to weaken environmental protections.
> 
> The House of Representatives averaged more than one anti-environmental vote for every day the House was in session in 2011.  More than one in five of the legislative roll call votes taken in 2011  22%  were votes to undermine environmental protections.
> 
> On average, 228 Republican members of the House  94% of the Republican members  voted for the anti-environment position during these roll call votes.  On average, 164 Democratic members of the House  86% of the Democratic members  voted for the pro-environment position.
> 
> The anti-environment votes cut across a broad array of issues and included 27 votes to block action to address climate change, 77 votes to undermine Clean Air Act protections, 28 votes to undermine Clean Water Act protections, and 47 votes to weaken protection of public land and coastal waters.  The Environmental Protection Agency was the target of 114 of these votes; the Department of the Interior was the target of 35 of these votes; and the Department of Energy was the target of 31 of these votes.
> 
> "It is the job of thinking people not to be on the side of the executioners"
> Albert Camus
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You didn't know it was your job to educate me? Hmmm... apparently you still don't know it's your job to educate me since you didn't answer my question. Ah well, my question was more rhetorical than anything else.
> 
> By the way, you seem a little confused. When Kennedy said,  "The enactment this year of tax reduction and tax reform overshadows all other domestic issues in this congress" Kennedy had thrown Heller under the bus and ignored the Keynesian model. Now I did not mean to imply that Kennedy was a republican at heart. My only point is that the democratic party has been taken over by progressives and wouldn't allow Kennedy to become today's democratic presidential nominee. In terms of cutting taxes Kennedy did exactly what Reagan did. The result of course was the economy improved greatly. Of course, the economy always improves greatly when taxes are cut. The Keynnesian theory is what kept our depression going for ten years. John F. Kennedy in many ways was a horrible president (maybe one of our worst) but his refutation of Keynesian economics, pro tax cuts, and a successful space program saves his reputation.
> 
> Oh yes, just to clear things up. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is an idiot.
Click to expand...


You didn't have to look any farther than my excerpt to avoid stepping in dog poop and gaining an education. It could have been a win/win. You chose a lose/lose.

Kennedy didn't throw Heller under the bus. It was Heller's Keynesian demand-side tax cuts that Kennedy proposed. When Kennedy proposed cutting the marginal rate from 91% to 70% on income over $400,000, it made sense. Kennedy and LBJ were facing a surplus, WWII and the depression had been paid down. But your theory the 'economy always improves greatly when taxes are cut' is akin to saying 'if a patient has a boil and lancing relieves the pressure, then draining all the blood from a person's body would make the patient much better'.

JFKs real tax-cut legacy is that lower-income and middle-class folks got more money back from the IRS, and drove the economy from the bottom up. Back in Kennedys day, when taxpayers kept more of their income, those dollars stayed in the domestic economy.

In 1963, if you bought a car in the United States, there was a close to 100 percent likelihood that it was made in America by American workers in American factories. Today, that likelihood is less than one in two.

The Democratic Party today has moved to the right of the party Kennedy led. Liberals and progressive boarded Bobby's funeral train and have never been in power since. I remember voting for Senator Jacob Javits, a LIBERAL Republican. Maybe you are just too young or wet behind the ears sonny boy.

BTW, if the Democratic party has been taken over by progressives, and Democrats had a majority in both the House and the Senate in 2010, what did liberals and progressives get in the Affordable Heathcare Act...single payer? a public option?? No, we got the 1993 Republican health care bill crafted by the Heritage Foundation and the America Enterprise Institute. Right down to the BIG conservative idea; the individual mandate.

I will not address your dogma that 'Keynesian theory is what kept our depression going for ten years', 'John F. Kennedy in many ways was a horrible president (maybe one of our worst)' and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is an idiot. You will have to tell me how and why, and then I will thoroughly school you and prove you wrong.

"The debt explosion has resulted not from big spending by the Democrats, but instead the Republican Party's embrace, about three decades ago, of the insidious doctrine that deficits don't matter if they result from tax cuts."
David Stockman - Director of the Office of Management and Budget for U.S. President Ronald Reagan.


----------



## JohnL.Burke

The democratic party today has moved to the right of the party Kennedy led? Jesus Christ! How far left do you have to be to actually believe this? 
 you asked if the progressives had a majority in both houses why did liberals and progressives get in the affordable healthcare act... single payer. When I said progressives had taken over the democratic party I didn't mean to suggest every single democratic politician is a progressive. There are still a handful of John F. Kennedy style ANTI-KEYNESIAN politicians who decided (maybe so they would be re-elected) to answer to the will of the people. Most people are still against Obamacare after all. The fact that Obama is a progressive buttresses my point. Yes, I know, you probably think Obama is a far right wing conservative fascist for not dismantling our democratic process yet.
  How and why is Robert F. Kennedy an idiot? All he does is parrot the liberal loony talking points while chasing after every manufactured outrage and politicized pseudoscience concoction to hide the fact that he's an empty vessel. I call it Anthony Weiner syndrome. Or Weineritis for short. 
  As for you schooling me. I didn't realize our education system was THAT bad.


----------



## Wyatt earp

JohnL.Burke said:


> The democratic party today has moved to the right of the party Kennedy led? Jesus Christ! How far left do you have to be to actually believe this?
> you asked if the progressives had a majority in both houses why did liberals and progressives get in the affordable healthcare act... single payer. When I said progressives had taken over the democratic party I didn't mean to suggest every single democratic politician is a progressive. There are still a handful of John F. Kennedy style ANTI-KEYNESIAN politicians who decided (maybe so they would be re-elected) to answer to the will of the people. Most people are still against Obamacare after all. The fact that Obama is a progressive buttresses my point. Yes, I know, you probably think Obama is a far right wing conservative fascist for not dismantling our democratic process yet.
> How and why is Robert F. Kennedy an idiot? All he does is parrot the liberal loony talking points while chasing after every manufactured outrage and politicized pseudoscience concoction to hide the fact that he's an empty vessel. I call it Anthony Weiner syndrome. Or Weineritas for short.
> As for you schooling me. I didn't realize our education system was THAT bad.



Yea no kidding, JFK is no way todays lefty party of the Democrats. The only way he could get nominated today is on as a Republican ticket.


----------



## Foxfyre

bear513 said:


> JohnL.Burke said:
> 
> 
> 
> The democratic party today has moved to the right of the party Kennedy led? Jesus Christ! How far left do you have to be to actually believe this?
> you asked if the progressives had a majority in both houses why did liberals and progressives get in the affordable healthcare act... single payer. When I said progressives had taken over the democratic party I didn't mean to suggest every single democratic politician is a progressive. There are still a handful of John F. Kennedy style ANTI-KEYNESIAN politicians who decided (maybe so they would be re-elected) to answer to the will of the people. Most people are still against Obamacare after all. The fact that Obama is a progressive buttresses my point. Yes, I know, you probably think Obama is a far right wing conservative fascist for not dismantling our democratic process yet.
> How and why is Robert F. Kennedy an idiot? All he does is parrot the liberal loony talking points while chasing after every manufactured outrage and politicized pseudoscience concoction to hide the fact that he's an empty vessel. I call it Anthony Weiner syndrome. Or Weineritas for short.
> As for you schooling me. I didn't realize our education system was THAT bad.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yea no kidding, JFK is no way todays lefty party of the Democrats. The only way he could get nominated today is on as a Republican ticket.
Click to expand...


So true.  JFK might have been the most conservative President we have had among the last ten Presidents with the possible exception of Reagan, but even Reagan expanded the size and scope of government.  George W. Bush would have been an absolute darling of the left and would have been rated pretty successful  if he just didn't have that hideous "R" after his name.


----------



## Wyatt earp

Foxfyre said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JohnL.Burke said:
> 
> 
> 
> The democratic party today has moved to the right of the party Kennedy led? Jesus Christ! How far left do you have to be to actually believe this?
> you asked if the progressives had a majority in both houses why did liberals and progressives get in the affordable healthcare act... single payer. When I said progressives had taken over the democratic party I didn't mean to suggest every single democratic politician is a progressive. There are still a handful of John F. Kennedy style ANTI-KEYNESIAN politicians who decided (maybe so they would be re-elected) to answer to the will of the people. Most people are still against Obamacare after all. The fact that Obama is a progressive buttresses my point. Yes, I know, you probably think Obama is a far right wing conservative fascist for not dismantling our democratic process yet.
> How and why is Robert F. Kennedy an idiot? All he does is parrot the liberal loony talking points while chasing after every manufactured outrage and politicized pseudoscience concoction to hide the fact that he's an empty vessel. I call it Anthony Weiner syndrome. Or Weineritas for short.
> As for you schooling me. I didn't realize our education system was THAT bad.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yea no kidding, JFK is no way todays lefty party of the Democrats. The only way he could get nominated today is on as a Republican ticket.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So true.  JFK might have been the most conservative President we have had among the last ten Presidents with the possible exception of Reagan, but even Reagan expanded the size and scope of government.  George W. Bush would have been an absolute darling of the left and would have been rated pretty successful  if he just didn't have that hideous "R" after his name.
Click to expand...


Perfect....After I made the mistake of voting for GWB the 1st time and the boondoggle with Powel at the UN. I thought to myself he is no conservative, he is Jimmy Carter wanna be.


----------



## regent

If all the conservatives left those conservatives that are less conservative than the others would begin to move into the empty space on the left and become the new liberal party. 
A similar thing would happen if all the liberals left, those conservatives that are less conservatives than others would begin moving into the empty space on the right. We will always have a liberal and conservative ideology with all grades between. The way our government was set up by the constitution made a two party system more convenient that a three or four party system, so we basically have two choices.


----------



## Foxfyre

bear513 said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yea no kidding, JFK is no way todays lefty party of the Democrats. The only way he could get nominated today is on as a Republican ticket.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So true.  JFK might have been the most conservative President we have had among the last ten Presidents with the possible exception of Reagan, but even Reagan expanded the size and scope of government.  George W. Bush would have been an absolute darling of the left and would have been rated pretty successful  if he just didn't have that hideous "R" after his name.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perfect....After I made the mistake of voting for GWB the 1st time and the boondoggle with Powel at the UN. I thought to myself he is no conservative, he is Jimmy Carter wanna be.
Click to expand...


Surely you didn't vote for John Kerry?  George Bush was a fiscal conservative in that he did understand the basics of what makes an economy thrive.  But he was not a fiscal conservative in the role he saw for government in a lot of other areas. 

However, if George Bush was in the White House now, he would still be getting some things wrong, but I do believe we would be well on our way out of if not clear of this current recession.   Evidence:  rapid recovery in the wake of 9/11 and Katrina.  I have every reason to believe the same policies would have worked in the wake of the housing bubble collapse in 2008.  (And to Bush's credit, he did request Congress I believe 17 different times to take measures to head off that 2008 collapse.  He and his advisors saw the danger.  Congress wouldn't act and in fact Frank and Dodd rushed to the cameras to assure us all that everything was just fine.)

With Obama at the helm, I have little hope that the economy will significantly improve any time soon.

But if he had just had a D instead of an R after his name, GWB would have been a liberal darling and would likely have been one to stay behind when all the conservatives left.


----------



## Wyatt earp

No I got mad in 2004 and didnt vote, I did vote for John and Sarah, a way better option than Obama and Joe. At least I knew what I voted for.


----------



## Foxfyre

regent said:


> If all the conservatives left those conservatives that are less conservative than the others would begin to move into the empty space on the left and become the new liberal party.
> A similar thing would happen if all the liberals left, those conservatives that are less conservatives than others would begin moving into the empty space on the right. We will always have a liberal and conservative ideology with all grades between. The way our government was set up by the constitution made a two party system more convenient that a three or four party system, so we basically have two choices.



I don't know.  When you take a long, critical look at the American culture up to the 20th century--up to the 1950's really--we were pretty much one people regardless of of diverse ethnicity.  We got things wrong for sure, but American conservatives have always put high priority on results, excellence, efficiency, effectiveness and have always been willing to do something better when we figured out how to correct past mistakes and do things better.  

It wasn't liberals but conservatives who demanded an end to slavery because liberals were in short supply back then.  Ditto for ending segregaton--that happened just about the same time as the liberal movement was beginning to build momentum in the USA but it was implemented by conservatives.

Probably no conservative lives who doesn't have at least one conviction or notion that could be labeled 'liberal'.  But modern American conservative (classical liberal) is not a dictate but rather a concept of freedom, unalienable rights, and that a people free to govern themselves will do better than when government is done for them and to them.    And freedom allows ability to follow ones most creative, progressive, innovative, and forward thinking concepts that the mind can conceive.

Modern American liberalism seeks to dictate how we must live, how we must use our property, how we must work, how we must talk, how we must think, how we must express our religious and/or social convictions, or how we will not be allowed to work, speak, think, or express our religious and/or social convictions.

Such a system has depressed and/or destroyed every civilization in which it has been tried.   We don't need it in America.


----------



## Wyatt earp

Foxfyre said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> If all the conservatives left those conservatives that are less conservative than the others would begin to move into the empty space on the left and become the new liberal party.
> A similar thing would happen if all the liberals left, those conservatives that are less conservatives than others would begin moving into the empty space on the right. We will always have a liberal and conservative ideology with all grades between. The way our government was set up by the constitution made a two party system more convenient that a three or four party system, so we basically have two choices.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know.  When you take a long, critical look at the American culture up to the 20th century--up to the 1950's really--we were pretty much one people regardless of of diverse ethnicity.  We got things wrong for sure, but American conservatives have always put high priority on results, excellence, efficiency, effectiveness and have always been willing to do something better when we figured out how to correct past mistakes and do things better.
> 
> It wasn't liberals but conservatives who demanded an end to slavery because liberals were in short supply back then.  Ditto for ending segregaton--that happened just about the same time as the liberal movement was beginning to build momentum in the USA but it was implemented by conservatives.
> 
> Probably no conservative lives who doesn't have at least one conviction or notion that could be labeled 'liberal'.  But modern American conservative (classical liberal) is not a dictate but rather a concept of freedom, unalienable rights, and that a people free to govern themselves will do better than when government is done for them and to them.    And freedom allows ability to follow ones most creative, progressive, innovative, and forward thinking concepts that the mind can conceive.
> 
> Modern American liberalism seeks to dictate how we must live, how we must use our property, how we must work, how we must talk, how we must think, how we must express our religious and/or social convictions, or how we will not be allowed to work, speak, think, or express our religious and/or social convictions.
> 
> Such a system has depressed and/or destroyed every civilization in which it has been tried.   We don't need it in America.
Click to expand...


Wish I could write post as good as you, yup your right. I think this is why so many Americans are sticking to their guns and we all saw the Russian Pravada warning us to never give up the 2nd.
Americans never give up your guns - English pravda.ru


> These days, there are few things to admire about the socialist, bankrupt and culturally degenerating USA, but at least so far, one thing remains: the right to bear arms and use deadly force to defend one's self and possessions.


I have to comment on my own post, I can not believe even the Russians know we are turning socialist and the left in this country says " No we are not" lol, who are you trying to fool?


----------



## PMZ

JohnL.Burke said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> This has been an interesting thread or topic. It shows that the real issue between the parties is whether we should salute democracy, the concept of government of, by, and for the people, or celebrate weak ineffective government.
> 
> For me, the concept of weak government is appalling. I want to be part of a strongly united nation that gives me, a citizen, the power to contribute to our destiny. I want to know that we have strong leaders actively engaged in solving problems and creating the future we, the people demand. I want to be assured that we elect strong, visionary leaders, and not weak synchophants. I want to replace those shown as weak with those that I am confident are strong, well informed and anxious to keep their jobs by satisfying their constituents.
> 
> I want the equal of our founders elected every year.
> 
> I don't fear a government beholden to us Americans. I choose a country like I would choose an employer. The best. The brightest. The most innovative. The most confident in the future.
> 
> That's why I'm a liberal. I don't believe in limitations. I believe in achievement. The more who share in that the better. The ultimate being success for everyone.
> 
> My strength is in democracy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For me, the concept of an overreaching all intrusive government is appalling. I want to be an individual who is able to choose my own destiny without the chains of government limiting my abilities and freedoms. I also want to be assured that we elect strong visionary leaders. Yet, I know assurances are often broken and some leaders will fall short of expectations. I am a conservative because I know "absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely". I know that a large government becomes a large bureaucracy answerable to no one. I know large governments are not synonymous with moral integrity.
> I believe our government should be beholden to us. Not the other way around. I want a government I can trust but I am not so naive that I will assume the government has my best interest in mind.  I believe a rebellious spirit and skeptical attitude has done more to free men from poverty and slavery than any other human attribute known. A large government despises these very attributes for fear of being overthrown or weakened.  The smaller the government, the more power the individual has. This by no means suggests that I am against government. I am simply against inefficient and corrupt government. The larger the government, the smaller the voices of its citizenry. With a weakened citizenry, corruption spreads. When corruption spreads, we pay more to get less and life becomes harder as aspirations and dreams are snubbed like a candle flame by bureaucratic red tape and fat politicians hoarding other people's money.
Click to expand...


You know, I've gone through 70 years of life doing what I want, when and how I want, and rarely am confined by the law at all. Why? I think that satisfaction in life comes from living responsibly, and that is almost always consistent with the law, not counter to it. Now if I wanted to live irresponsibly, I would expect that to change, and I would find my self often at odds with the law, and paying the proscribed consequences. My experience is that outlaws live at the expense of others. If that's what you want to do, I'm personally glad that you find our laws confining.


----------



## PMZ

Votto said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> This has been an interesting thread or topic. It shows that the real issue between the parties is whether we should salute democracy, the concept of government of, by, and for the people, or celebrate weak ineffective government.
> 
> For me, the concept of weak government is appalling. I want to be part of a strongly united nation that gives me, a citizen, the power to contribute to our destiny. I want to know that we have strong leaders actively engaged in solving problems and creating the future we, the people demand. I want to be assured that we elect strong, visionary leaders, and not weak synchophants. I want to replace those shown as weak with those that I am confident are strong, well informed and anxious to keep their jobs by satisfying their constituents.
> 
> I want the equal of our founders elected every year.
> 
> I don't fear a government beholden to us Americans. I choose a country like I would choose an employer. The best. The brightest. The most innovative. The most confident in the future.
> 
> That's why I'm a liberal. I don't believe in limitations. I believe in achievement. The more who share in that the better. The ultimate being success for everyone.
> 
> My strength is in democracy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People like you are why Presidents like FDR could lock up innocent Japanese Americans without so much as a peep from anyone.  People like you scare me.
> 
> Have you ever heard of the NDAA?
Click to expand...


Have you ever heard of government of, by, and for the people? Do you think that you can improve on that?


----------



## Wyatt earp

PMZ said:


> JohnL.Burke said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> This has been an interesting thread or topic. It shows that the real issue between the parties is whether we should salute democracy, the concept of government of, by, and for the people, or celebrate weak ineffective government.
> 
> For me, the concept of weak government is appalling. I want to be part of a strongly united nation that gives me, a citizen, the power to contribute to our destiny. I want to know that we have strong leaders actively engaged in solving problems and creating the future we, the people demand. I want to be assured that we elect strong, visionary leaders, and not weak synchophants. I want to replace those shown as weak with those that I am confident are strong, well informed and anxious to keep their jobs by satisfying their constituents.
> 
> I want the equal of our founders elected every year.
> 
> I don't fear a government beholden to us Americans. I choose a country like I would choose an employer. The best. The brightest. The most innovative. The most confident in the future.
> 
> That's why I'm a liberal. I don't believe in limitations. I believe in achievement. The more who share in that the better. The ultimate being success for everyone.
> 
> My strength is in democracy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For me, the concept of an overreaching all intrusive government is appalling. I want to be an individual who is able to choose my own destiny without the chains of government limiting my abilities and freedoms. I also want to be assured that we elect strong visionary leaders. Yet, I know assurances are often broken and some leaders will fall short of expectations. I am a conservative because I know "absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely". I know that a large government becomes a large bureaucracy answerable to no one. I know large governments are not synonymous with moral integrity.
> I believe our government should be beholden to us. Not the other way around. I want a government I can trust but I am not so naive that I will assume the government has my best interest in mind.  I believe a rebellious spirit and skeptical attitude has done more to free men from poverty and slavery than any other human attribute known. A large government despises these very attributes for fear of being overthrown or weakened.  The smaller the government, the more power the individual has. This by no means suggests that I am against government. I am simply against inefficient and corrupt government. The larger the government, the smaller the voices of its citizenry. With a weakened citizenry, corruption spreads. When corruption spreads, we pay more to get less and life becomes harder as aspirations and dreams are snubbed like a candle flame by bureaucratic red tape and fat politicians hoarding other people's money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know, I've gone through 70 years of life doing what I want, when and how I want, and rarely am confined by the law at all. Why? I think that satisfaction in life comes from living responsibly, and that is almost always consistent with the law, not counter to it. Now if I wanted to live irresponsibly, I would expect that to change, and I would find my self often at odds with the law, and paying the proscribed consequences. My experience is that outlaws live at the expense of others. If that's what you want to do, I'm personally glad that you find our laws confining.
Click to expand...


But sir what you did 50 years ago, like driving with out a seat belt or drinking a beer while you drive is Illegal today, back then? no problem it was legal. do you see how the goverment is trying to crush us and control us? for the better good?


----------



## PMZ

Foxfyre said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> If all the conservatives left those conservatives that are less conservative than the others would begin to move into the empty space on the left and become the new liberal party.
> A similar thing would happen if all the liberals left, those conservatives that are less conservatives than others would begin moving into the empty space on the right. We will always have a liberal and conservative ideology with all grades between. The way our government was set up by the constitution made a two party system more convenient that a three or four party system, so we basically have two choices.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know.  When you take a long, critical look at the American culture up to the 20th century--up to the 1950's really--we were pretty much one people regardless of of diverse ethnicity.  We got things wrong for sure, but American conservatives have always put high priority on results, excellence, efficiency, effectiveness and have always been willing to do something better when we figured out how to correct past mistakes and do things better.
> 
> It wasn't liberals but conservatives who demanded an end to slavery because liberals were in short supply back then.  Ditto for ending segregaton--that happened just about the same time as the liberal movement was beginning to build momentum in the USA but it was implemented by conservatives.
> 
> Probably no conservative lives who doesn't have at least one conviction or notion that could be labeled 'liberal'.  But modern American conservative (classical liberal) is not a dictate but rather a concept of freedom, unalienable rights, and that a people free to govern themselves will do better than when government is done for them and to them.    And freedom allows ability to follow ones most creative, progressive, innovative, and forward thinking concepts that the mind can conceive.
> 
> Modern American liberalism seeks to dictate how we must live, how we must use our property, how we must work, how we must talk, how we must think, how we must express our religious and/or social convictions, or how we will not be allowed to work, speak, think, or express our religious and/or social convictions.
> 
> Such a system has depressed and/or destroyed every civilization in which it has been tried.   We don't need it in America.
Click to expand...


You continue to be the poster boy for everything good is defined as conservative, and everything bad is liberal, because I am a conservative. Why am I? Because everything good is defined as conservative, and everything bad is liberal. 

Someday, turn off Rush and Rupert and work on thinking for yourself. You'll be amazed at how little you need their opinions once you have your own.


----------



## PMZ

bear513 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JohnL.Burke said:
> 
> 
> 
> For me, the concept of an overreaching all intrusive government is appalling. I want to be an individual who is able to choose my own destiny without the chains of government limiting my abilities and freedoms. I also want to be assured that we elect strong visionary leaders. Yet, I know assurances are often broken and some leaders will fall short of expectations. I am a conservative because I know "absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely". I know that a large government becomes a large bureaucracy answerable to no one. I know large governments are not synonymous with moral integrity.
> I believe our government should be beholden to us. Not the other way around. I want a government I can trust but I am not so naive that I will assume the government has my best interest in mind.  I believe a rebellious spirit and skeptical attitude has done more to free men from poverty and slavery than any other human attribute known. A large government despises these very attributes for fear of being overthrown or weakened.  The smaller the government, the more power the individual has. This by no means suggests that I am against government. I am simply against inefficient and corrupt government. The larger the government, the smaller the voices of its citizenry. With a weakened citizenry, corruption spreads. When corruption spreads, we pay more to get less and life becomes harder as aspirations and dreams are snubbed like a candle flame by bureaucratic red tape and fat politicians hoarding other people's money.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know, I've gone through 70 years of life doing what I want, when and how I want, and rarely am confined by the law at all. Why? I think that satisfaction in life comes from living responsibly, and that is almost always consistent with the law, not counter to it. Now if I wanted to live irresponsibly, I would expect that to change, and I would find my self often at odds with the law, and paying the proscribed consequences. My experience is that outlaws live at the expense of others. If that's what you want to do, I'm personally glad that you find our laws confining.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But sir what you did 50 years ago, like driving with out a seat belt or drinking a beer while you drive is Illegal today, back then? no problem it was legal. do you see how the goverment is trying to crush us and control us? for the better good?
Click to expand...


Apparently there are those who believe that doing "A" because it's good to do is freedom. Doing "A" because it's law, is slavery. Of course the logical extension of that is zero law, and perfect people. As I've never known a perfect people, I'm suspicious that those who are selling zero law, and perfect people, are really selling unrestrained imperfect, read real, people.


----------



## Wyatt earp

PMZ said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know, I've gone through 70 years of life doing what I want, when and how I want, and rarely am confined by the law at all. Why? I think that satisfaction in life comes from living responsibly, and that is almost always consistent with the law, not counter to it. Now if I wanted to live irresponsibly, I would expect that to change, and I would find my self often at odds with the law, and paying the proscribed consequences. My experience is that outlaws live at the expense of others. If that's what you want to do, I'm personally glad that you find our laws confining.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But sir what you did 50 years ago, like driving with out a seat belt or drinking a beer while you drive is Illegal today, back then? no problem it was legal. do you see how the goverment is trying to crush us and control us? for the better good?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apparently there are those who believe that doing "A" because it's good to do is freedom. Doing "A" because it's law, is slavery. Of course the logical extension of that is zero law, and perfect people. As I've never known a perfect people, I'm suspicious that those who are selling zero law, and perfect people, are really selling unrestrained imperfect, read real, people.
Click to expand...


So true. Thats why I always parrot the phrase tickle up poor because thats what the liberals like Nancy and Harry want. They so want us to be servants instead of subjects and thats how Rome burned to the ground.


----------



## Wyatt earp

and we lost so much information when Alexander's the great's library burnt to the ground. It took these guys like 800 years to figure out the Earth was round and not flat. I blame Ceasar for that. I soooooo want to read those ancient texts, guess we all do.

ehistory.osu.edu/world/articles/articleview.cfm?aid=9


> The loss of the ancient world's single greatest archive of knowledge, the Library of Alexandria, has been lamented for ages. But how and why it was lost is still a mystery. The mystery exists not for lack of suspects but from an excess of them.


----------



## Bfgrn

JohnL.Burke said:


> The democratic party today has moved to the right of the party Kennedy led? Jesus Christ! How far left do you have to be to actually believe this?
> you asked if the progressives had a majority in both houses why did liberals and progressives get in the affordable healthcare act... single payer. When I said progressives had taken over the democratic party I didn't mean to suggest every single democratic politician is a progressive. There are still a handful of John F. Kennedy style ANTI-KEYNESIAN politicians who decided (maybe so they would be re-elected) to answer to the will of the people. Most people are still against Obamacare after all. The fact that Obama is a progressive buttresses my point. Yes, I know, you probably think Obama is a far right wing conservative fascist for not dismantling our democratic process yet.
> How and why is Robert F. Kennedy an idiot? All he does is parrot the liberal loony talking points while chasing after every manufactured outrage and politicized pseudoscience concoction to hide the fact that he's an empty vessel. I call it Anthony Weiner syndrome. Or Weineritis for short.
> As for you schooling me. I didn't realize our education system was THAT bad.



You are clearly either very young, or very wet behind the ears. All you are proving is how really FAR right you are. The Democratic Party Kennedy led was filled with New Deal Democrats. As a matter of fact, the Republican Party had liberal and New Deal Republicans. 

You know nothing about JFK and you really don't want to take me on about John F. Kennedy. There is no political figure I know better. Or the Kennedy family. 

One of John F. Kennedy's most trusted and closest advisers was devout Keynesian John Kenneth Galbraith. JFK and Galbraith were working together to end the Vietnam War, against the recommendations of his personal military adviser, Gen. Maxwell Taylor, and his deputy National Security Adviser, Walt Rostow. Kennedy sent Galbraith on a personal mission to Vietnam to assess the situation there. Kennedy didn't trust his ambassador (Henry Cabot Lodge), the military or anyone else would tell him the truth. Galbraith even arranged a private luncheon for Kennedy and India's Prime Minister Nehru at the Newport estate of Jacqueline Kennedy's mother and stepfather. No one from the State Department--to Secretary of State Dean Rusk's great consternation--was invited, save Galbraith. At the Nehru-Kennedy luncheon, Galbraith and JFK began probing the Indian leader about ways to avoid American militarization of Vietnam, a subject on which (for complex reasons) the neutralist Nehru remained maddeningly ambiguous, emphasizing only that the United States must stay out.

Galbraith and Vietnam

By Richard Parker

Monday, March 14, 2005

In the fall of 1961, unknown to the American public, John F. Kennedy was weighing a crucial decision about Vietnam not unlike that which George W. Bush faced about Iraq in early 2002--whether to go to war. It was the height of the cold war, when Communism was the "terrorist threat," and Ho Chi Minh the era's Saddam Hussein to many in Washington. But the new President was a liberal Massachusetts Democrat (and a decorated war veteran), not a conservative Sunbelt Republican who claimed God's hand guided his foreign policy. JFK's tough-minded instincts about war were thus very different. Contrary to what many have come to believe about the Vietnam War's origins, new research shows that Kennedy wanted no war in Asia and had clear criteria for conditions under which he'd send Americans abroad to fight and die for their country--criteria quite relevant today.

But thanks also in part to recently declassified records, we now know that Kennedy's top aides--whatever his own views--were offering him counsel not all that different from what Bush was told forty years later. Early that November, his personal military adviser, Gen. Maxwell Taylor, and his deputy National Security Adviser, Walt Rostow, were on their way back from Saigon with a draft of the "Taylor report," their bold plan to "save" Vietnam, beginning with the commitment of at least 8,000 US troops--a down payment, they hoped, on thousands more to follow. But they knew JFK had no interest in their idea because six months earlier in a top-secret meeting, he had forcefully vetoed his aides' proposed dispatch of 60,000 troops to neighboring Laos--and they were worried about how to maneuver his assent.

Harvard economist John Kenneth Galbraith, then Ambassador to India, got wind of their plan--and rushed to block their efforts. He was not an expert on Vietnam, but India chaired the International Control Commission, which had been set up following French withdrawal from Indochina to oversee a shaky peace accord meant to stabilize the region, and so from State Department cables he knew about the Taylor mission--and thus had a clear sense of what was at stake. *For Galbraith, a trusted adviser with unique back-channel access to the President, a potential US war in Vietnam represented more than a disastrous misadventure in foreign policy--it risked derailing the New Frontier's domestic plans for Keynesian-led full employment, and for massive new spending on education, the environment and what would become the War on Poverty. Worse, he feared, it might ultimately tear not only the Democratic Party but the nation apart--and usher in a new conservative era in American politics. *

more


----------



## Wyatt earp

Bfgrn said:


> JohnL.Burke said:
> 
> 
> 
> The democratic party today has moved to the right of the party Kennedy led? Jesus Christ! How far left do you have to be to actually believe this?
> you asked if the progressives had a majority in both houses why did liberals and progressives get in the affordable healthcare act... single payer. When I said progressives had taken over the democratic party I didn't mean to suggest every single democratic politician is a progressive. There are still a handful of John F. Kennedy style ANTI-KEYNESIAN politicians who decided (maybe so they would be re-elected) to answer to the will of the people. Most people are still against Obamacare after all. The fact that Obama is a progressive buttresses my point. Yes, I know, you probably think Obama is a far right wing conservative fascist for not dismantling our democratic process yet.
> How and why is Robert F. Kennedy an idiot? All he does is parrot the liberal loony talking points while chasing after every manufactured outrage and politicized pseudoscience concoction to hide the fact that he's an empty vessel. I call it Anthony Weiner syndrome. Or Weineritis for short.
> As for you schooling me. I didn't realize our education system was THAT bad.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are clearly either very young, or very wet behind the ears. All you are proving is how really FAR right you are. The Democratic Party Kennedy led was filled with New Deal Democrats. As a matter of fact, the Republican Party had liberal and New Deal Republicans.
> 
> You know nothing about JFK and you really don't want to take me on about John F. Kennedy. There is no political figure I know better. Or the Kennedy family.
> 
> One of John F. Kennedy's most trusted and closest advisers was devout Keynesian John Kenneth Galbraith. JFK and Galbraith were working together to end the Vietnam War, against the recommendations of his personal military adviser, Gen. Maxwell Taylor, and his deputy National Security Adviser, Walt Rostow. Kennedy sent Galbraith on a personal mission to Vietnam to assess the situation there. Kennedy didn't trust his ambassador (Henry Cabot Lodge), the military or anyone else would tell him the truth. Galbraith even arranged a private luncheon for Kennedy and India's Prime Minister Nehru at the Newport estate of Jacqueline Kennedy's mother and stepfather. No one from the State Department--to Secretary of State Dean Rusk's great consternation--was invited, save Galbraith. At the Nehru-Kennedy luncheon, Galbraith and JFK began probing the Indian leader about ways to avoid American militarization of Vietnam, a subject on which (for complex reasons) the neutralist Nehru remained maddeningly ambiguous, emphasizing only that the United States must stay out.
> 
> Galbraith and Vietnam
> 
> By Richard Parker
> 
> Monday, March 14, 2005
> 
> In the fall of 1961, unknown to the American public, John F. Kennedy was weighing a crucial decision about Vietnam not unlike that which George W. Bush faced about Iraq in early 2002--whether to go to war. It was the height of the cold war, when Communism was the "terrorist threat," and Ho Chi Minh the era's Saddam Hussein to many in Washington. But the new President was a liberal Massachusetts Democrat (and a decorated war veteran), not a conservative Sunbelt Republican who claimed God's hand guided his foreign policy. JFK's tough-minded instincts about war were thus very different. Contrary to what many have come to believe about the Vietnam War's origins, new research shows that Kennedy wanted no war in Asia and had clear criteria for conditions under which he'd send Americans abroad to fight and die for their country--criteria quite relevant today.
> 
> But thanks also in part to recently declassified records, we now know that Kennedy's top aides--whatever his own views--were offering him counsel not all that different from what Bush was told forty years later. Early that November, his personal military adviser, Gen. Maxwell Taylor, and his deputy National Security Adviser, Walt Rostow, were on their way back from Saigon with a draft of the "Taylor report," their bold plan to "save" Vietnam, beginning with the commitment of at least 8,000 US troops--a down payment, they hoped, on thousands more to follow. But they knew JFK had no interest in their idea because six months earlier in a top-secret meeting, he had forcefully vetoed his aides' proposed dispatch of 60,000 troops to neighboring Laos--and they were worried about how to maneuver his assent.
> 
> Harvard economist John Kenneth Galbraith, then Ambassador to India, got wind of their plan--and rushed to block their efforts. He was not an expert on Vietnam, but India chaired the International Control Commission, which had been set up following French withdrawal from Indochina to oversee a shaky peace accord meant to stabilize the region, and so from State Department cables he knew about the Taylor mission--and thus had a clear sense of what was at stake. *For Galbraith, a trusted adviser with unique back-channel access to the President, a potential US war in Vietnam represented more than a disastrous misadventure in foreign policy--it risked derailing the New Frontier's domestic plans for Keynesian-led full employment, and for massive new spending on education, the environment and what would become the War on Poverty. Worse, he feared, it might ultimately tear not only the Democratic Party but the nation apart--and usher in a new conservative era in American politics. *
> 
> more
Click to expand...


all you did is make a non point. It is so easy to read in JFK most famous speaches. He was a conservative. no point even debating
JFK Ask Not What Your Country Can Do For You - YouTube


----------



## Wyatt earp

^^^I so love that speach, hell I would have voted for him.


----------



## Wyatt earp

and you do know about JFK's In the 1963 "Ich bin ein Berliner" speach right? which Reagen parroted in the 80's JFK was a conservative.. thats a fact.
m.youtube.com/watch?v=hJNM0C-7lPk&desktop_uri=/watch?v=hJNM0C-7lPk
why did Lee have to kill him?


----------



## JohnL.Burke

PMZ said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know, I've gone through 70 years of life doing what I want, when and how I want, and rarely am confined by the law at all. Why? I think that satisfaction in life comes from living responsibly, and that is almost always consistent with the law, not counter to it. Now if I wanted to live irresponsibly, I would expect that to change, and I would find my self often at odds with the law, and paying the proscribed consequences. My experience is that outlaws live at the expense of others. If that's what you want to do, I'm personally glad that you find our laws confining.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But sir what you did 50 years ago, like driving with out a seat belt or drinking a beer while you drive is Illegal today, back then? no problem it was legal. do you see how the goverment is trying to crush us and control us? for the better good?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apparently there are those who believe that doing "A" because it's good to do is freedom. Doing "A" because it's law, is slavery. Of course the logical extension of that is zero law, and perfect people. As I've never known a perfect people, I'm suspicious that those who are selling zero law, and perfect people, are really selling unrestrained imperfect, read real, people.
Click to expand...


 The logical extension of fewer laws in no laws?  An expert on logic are we? You're suspicious of people selling zero laws? So am I. The only time I called myself an anarchist was in high school because I was angry at my parents and my complexion was bad. Of course, these days, if you want to meet an anarchist you have to go to an OWS rally. Let's see if I can play the same game as you though. The logical extension of more laws is satanic worship requiring wife beating ceremonies for the dark one. So tell me. How long have you been a satanic wife beater? Oh, and don't you dare deny your own logic and say your innocent. I'm onto you! Nosferatu!!!!


----------



## Bfgrn

Foxfyre said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JohnL.Burke said:
> 
> 
> 
> The democratic party today has moved to the right of the party Kennedy led? Jesus Christ! How far left do you have to be to actually believe this?
> you asked if the progressives had a majority in both houses why did liberals and progressives get in the affordable healthcare act... single payer. When I said progressives had taken over the democratic party I didn't mean to suggest every single democratic politician is a progressive. There are still a handful of John F. Kennedy style ANTI-KEYNESIAN politicians who decided (maybe so they would be re-elected) to answer to the will of the people. Most people are still against Obamacare after all. The fact that Obama is a progressive buttresses my point. Yes, I know, you probably think Obama is a far right wing conservative fascist for not dismantling our democratic process yet.
> How and why is Robert F. Kennedy an idiot? All he does is parrot the liberal loony talking points while chasing after every manufactured outrage and politicized pseudoscience concoction to hide the fact that he's an empty vessel. I call it Anthony Weiner syndrome. Or Weineritas for short.
> As for you schooling me. I didn't realize our education system was THAT bad.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yea no kidding, JFK is no way todays lefty party of the Democrats. The only way he could get nominated today is on as a Republican ticket.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So true.  JFK might have been the most conservative President we have had among the last ten Presidents with the possible exception of Reagan, but even Reagan expanded the size and scope of government.  George W. Bush would have been an absolute darling of the left and would have been rated pretty successful  if he just didn't have that hideous "R" after his name.
Click to expand...


The 'most conservative' President...LOL. Tell you what FF, read through JFK's agenda and bring back all the 'conservative' stuff...

A big part of LBJ's Great Society was started by President Kennedy and the New Frontier.

Who was John F. Kennedy? The President who proposed and or planned the following:

Medicare
Civil Rights
The War on Poverty
*
Economy*

The addition of a temporary thirteen-week supplement to jobless benefits,

The extension of aid to the children of unemployed workers,

The redevelopment of distressed areas,

An increase in Social Security payments and the encouragement of earlier retirement,

An increase in the minimum wage and an extension in coverage,

The provision of emergency relief to feed grain farmers, and

The financing of a comprehensive homebuilding and slum clearance program.

*Labor*

Amendments to the Fair Labor Standards Act in 1961 greatly expanded the FLSA's scope in the retail trade sector and increased the minimum wage 

An Executive Order was issued (1962) which provided federal employees with collective bargaining rights.

The Federal Salary Reform Act (1962) established the principle of maintaining federal white-collar wages at a level with those paid to employees performing similar jobs in private enterprises."

A Postal Service and Federal Employees Salary Act was passed (1962) to reform Federal white-collar statutory salary systems, adjust postal rates, and establish a standard for adjusting annuities under the Civil Service Retirement Act.

The Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act (1962) established standards for hours, overtime compensation, and safety for employees working on federal and federally funded contracts and subcontracts.

A pilot program was launched to train and place youths in jobs.

Paid overtime was granted to workers on government financed construction jobs for work in excess of 40 hours.

*Education*

Scholarships and student loans were broadened under existing laws by Kennedy, and new means of specialized aid to education were invented or expanded by the president, including an increase in funds for libraries and school lunches, the provision of funds to teach the deaf, the handicapped, the retarded, and the exceptional child, the authorization of literacy training under Manpower Development, the allocation of President funds to stop dropouts, a quadrupling of vocational education, and working together with schools on delinquency. Altogether, these measures attacked serious educational problems and freed up local funds for use on general construction and salaries.

Various measures were introduced which aided educational television, college dormitories, medical education, and community libraries.

The Educational Television Facilities Act (1962) provided federal grants for new station construction, enabling in-class-room instructional television to operate in thousands of elementary schools, offering primarily religious instruction, music, and arts.

The Health Professions Educational Assistance Act (1963) provided $175 million over a three-year period for matching grants for the construction of facilities for teaching physicians, dentists, nurses, podiatrists, optometrists, pharmacists, and other health professionals. The Act also created a loan program of up to $2000 per annum for students of optometry, dentistry, and medicine.

The Vocational Education Act (1963) significantly increased enrollment in vocational education.

A law was enacted (1961) to encourage and facilitate the training of teachers of the deaf.

The Fulbright-Hays Act of 1961 enlarged the scope of the Fulbright program while extending it geographically.

An estimated one-third of all major New Frontier programs made some form of education a vital element, and the Office of Education called it the most significant legislative period in its hundred-year history.

*Welfare*

Unemployment and welfare benefits were expanded.

In 1961, Social Security benefits were increased by 20% and provision for early retirement was introduced, enabling workers to retire at the age of sixty-two while receiving partial benefits.

The Social Security Amendments of 1961 permitted male workers to elect early retirement age 62, increased minimum benefits, liberalized the benefit payments to aged widow, widower, or surviving dependent parent, and also liberalized eligibility requirements and the retirement test.

The 1962 amendments to the Social Security Act authorized the federal government to reimburse states for the provision of social services.

The School Lunch Act was amended for authority to begin providing free meals in poverty-stricken areas.

A pilot food stamp program was launched (1961), covering six areas in the United States. In 1962, the program was extended to eighteen areas, feeding 240,000 people.

The Self-Employed Individuals Tax Retirement Act of 1962 provided self-employed people with a tax postponement for income set aside in qualified pension plans.

Various school lunch and school milk programs were extended, enabling 700,000 more children to enjoy a hot school lunch and eighty-five thousand more schools, child care centers, and camps to receive fresh milk.

ADC was extended to whole families (1961).

Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) replaced the Aid to Dependent Children (ADC) program, as coverage was extended to adults caring for dependent children.

A major revision of the public welfare laws was carried out, with a $300 million modernization which emphasized rehabilitation instead of relief.

A temporary antirecession supplement to unemployment compensation was introduced.

Food distribution to needy Americans was increased. In January 1961, the first executive order issued by Kennedy mandated that the Department of Agriculture increase the quantity and variety of foods donated for needy households. This executive order represented a shift in the Commodity Distribution Programs primary purpose, from surplus disposal to that of providing nutritious foods to low-income households.

Social Security benefits were extended to an additional five million Americans.

The Self-Employed Individuals Tax Retirement Act (1962) provided self-employed people with a tax postponement for income set aside in qualified pension plans.

The Public Welfare Amendments of 1962 provided for greater Federal sharing in the cost of rehabilitative services to applicants, recipients, and persons likely to become applicants for public assistance. It increased the Federal share in the cost of public assistance payments, and permitted the States to combine the various categories into one category. The amendments also made permanent the 1961 amendment which extended aid to dependent children to cover children removed from unsuitable homes.

Federal funds were made available for the payment of foster care costs for AFDC-eligible children who had come into state custody.

An act was approved (1963) which extended for one year the period during which responsibility for the placement and foster care of dependent children, under the program of aid to families with dependent children under Title IV of the Social Security Act.

Federal civil service retirement benefits were index-linked to changes in the Consumer Price Index (1962).

*Civil rights*

Various measures were carried out by the Kennedy Justice Department to enforce court orders and existing legislation. The Kennedy Administration promoted a Voter Education Project which led to 688,800 between the 1st of April 1962 and the 1st of November 1964, while the Civil Rights Division brought over forty-two suits in four states in order to secure voting rights for blacks. In addition, Kennedy supported the anti-poll tax amendment, which cleared Congress in September 1962 (although it was not ratified until 1964 as the Twenty-fourth Amendment). As noted by one student of black voting in the South, in relation to the attempts by the Kennedy Administration to promote civil rights, Whereas the Eisenhower lawyers had moved deliberately, the Kennedy-Johnson attorneys pushed the judiciary far more earnestly.

Executive Order 10925 (issued in 1961) combined the federal employment and government contractor agencies into a unified Committee on Equal Employment opportunity (CEEO). This new committee helped to put an end to segregation and discriminatory employment practices (such as only employing African-Americans for low-skilled jobs) in a number of workplaces across the United States.

Discrimination in public housing was prohibited.

The Interstate Commerce Commission made Jim Crow illegal in interstate transportation, having been put under pressure to do so by both the Freedom Riders and the Department of Justice.

Employment of African-Americans in federal jobs such as in the Post office, the Navy, and the Veterans Administration as a result of the Kennedy Administrations affirmative action policies).

The Kennedy Administration forbade government contractors from discriminating against any applicant or employee for employment on the grounds of national origin, color, creed, or race.

The Plan for Progress was launched by the CEEO to persuade large employers to adopt equal opportunity practices. 268 firms with 8 million employees had signed on to this by 1964, while a nationwide study covering the period from May 1961 to June 1963 of 103 corporations showed a Negro gain from 28,940 to 42,738 salaried and from 171,021 to 198,161 hourly paid jobs.

*Housing*

The most comprehensive housing and urban renewal program in American history up until that point was carried out, including the first major provisions for middle-income housing, protection of urban open spaces, public mass transit, and private low-income housing.

Omnibus Housing Bill 1961. In March 1961 Kennedy sent Congress a special message, proposing an ambitious and complex housing program to spur the economy, revitalize cities, and provide affordable housing for middle- and low-income families. The bill proposed spending $3.19 billion and placed major emphasis on improving the existing housing supply, instead of on new housing starts, and creating a cabinet-level Department of Housing and Urban Affairs to oversee the programs. The bill also promised to make the Federal Housing Administration a full partner in urban renewal program by authorizing mortgage loans to finance rehabilitation of homes and urban renewal Committee on housing combined programs for housing, mass transportation, and open space land bills into a single bill.

Urban renewal grants were increased from $2 to $4 million, while an additional 100,000 units of public housing were constructed.

Opportunities were provided for coordinated planning of community development: technical assistance to state and local governments.

Under the Kennedy Administration, there was a change of focus from a wrecker ball approach to small rehabilitation projects in order to preserve existing urban textures.

Funds for housing for the elderly were increased.

Title V of the Housing Act was amended (1961) to make nonfarm rural residents eligible for direct housing loans from the Farmers Home Administration. These changes extended the housing program to towns with a population of up to 2,500.

The Senior Citizens Housing Act (1962) established loans for low-rent apartment projects which were designed to meet the needs of people age 62 and over.

*Unemployment*

To help the unemployed, Kennedy broadened the distribution of surplus food, created a pilot Food Stamp program for poor Americans, directed that preference be given to distressed areas in defense contracts, and expanded the services of U.S. Employment Offices.

Social security benefits were extended to each child whose father was unemployed.

The first accelerated public works program for areas of unemployment since the New Deal was launched.

The first full-scale modernization and expansion of the vocational education laws since 1946 were carried out.

Federal grants were provided to the states enabling them to extend the period covered by unemployment benefit.

The Manpower Development and Training Act of 1962 authorized a three-year program aimed at retraining workers displaced by new technology. The bill did not exclude employed workers from benefiting and it authorized a training allowance for unemployed participants. Even though 200,000 people were recruited, there was minimal impact, comparatively. The Area Redevelopment Act, a $394 million spending package passed in 1961, followed a strategy of investing in the private sector to stimulate new job creation. It specifically targeted businesses in urban and rural depressed areas and authorized $4.5 million annually over four years for vocational training programs.

The 1963 amendments to the National Defense Education Act included $731 million in appropriations to states and localities maintaining vocational training programs.

*Health*

In 1963 Kennedy, who had a mentally ill sister named Rosemary, submitted the nation's first Presidential special message to Congress on mental health issues. Congress quickly passed the Mental Retardation Facilities and Community Mental Health Centers Construction Act (P.L. 88-164), beginning a new era in Federal support for mental health services. The National Institute of Mental Health assumed responsibility for monitoring community mental health centers programs. This measure was a great success as there was a sixfold increase in people using Mental Health facilities.

A Medical Health Bill for the Aged (later known as Medicare) was proposed, but Congress failed to enact it.

The Community Health Services and Facilities Act (1961) increased the amount of funds available for nursing home construction and extended the research and demonstration grant program to other medical facilities.

The Health Services for Agricultural Migratory Workers Act (1962) established a program of federal grants for family clinics and other health services for migrant workers and their families.

The first major amendments to the food and drug safety laws since 1938 were carried out. The Drug Amendments of 1962 amended the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (1938) by strengthening the provisions related to the regulation of therapeutic drugs. The Act required evidence that new drugs proposed for marketing were both safe and effective, and required improved manufacturing processes and procedures.

The responsibilities of the Food and Drug Administration were significantly enlarged by the Kefauver-Harris Drug Amendments (1962).

The Vaccination Assistance Act (1962) provided for the vaccination of millions of children against a number of diseases.

The Social Security Act Amendments of 1963 improved medical services for crippled children and established a new project grant program to improve prenatal care for women from low income families with very high risks of mental retardation and other birth defects. Authorizations for grants to the states under the Maternal and Child Health and Crippled Children's programs were also increased and a research grant program was added.

The Mental Retardation Facilities Construction Act of 1963 authorized federal support for the construction of university-affiliated training facilities, mental retardation research centers, and community service facilities for adults and children with mental retardation.

*Equal rights for women*

The Presidents Commission on the Status of Women was an advisory commission established on December 14, 1961, by Kennedy to investigate questions regarding women's equality in education, in the workplace, and under the law. The commission, chaired by Eleanor Roosevelt until her death in 1962, was composed of 26 members including legislators and philanthropists who were active in women's rights issues. The main purpose of the committee was to document and examine employment policies in place for women. The commission's final report, American Woman (also known as the Peterson Report after the Commission's second chair, Esther Peterson), was issued in October 1963 and documented widespread discrimination against women in the workplace. Among the practices addressed by the group were labor laws pertaining to hours and wages, the quality of legal representation for women, the lack of education and counseling for working women, and federal insurance and tax laws that affected women's incomes. Recommendations included affordable child care for all income levels, hiring practices that promoted equal opportunity for women, and paid maternity leave.

In early 1960s, full-time working women were paid on average 59 percent of the earnings of their male counterparts. In order to eliminate some forms of sex-based pay discrimination, Kennedy signed the Equal Pay Act into law on June 10, 1963. During the law's first ten years, 171,000 employees received back pay totaling about 84 million dollars.

*Environment*

The Clean Air Act (1963) expanded the powers of the federal government in preventing and controlling air pollution.

The first major additions to the National Park System since 1946 were made, which included the preservation of wilderness areas and a fund for future acquisitions.

The water pollution prevention program was doubled.

More aid was provided to localities to combat water pollution.

The Rivers and Harbors Act of 1962 reiterated and expanded upon previous authorizations for outdoor recreation.

*Crime*

Under Kennedy, the first significant package of anti crime bills since 1934 were passed. Amongst the Kennedy Administration's anti crime measures included the Juvenile Delinquency and Youth Offenses Control Act, which was signed into law on September 22, 1961. This program aimed to prevent youth from committing delinquent acts. In 1963, 288 mobsters were brought to trial by a team that was headed by Kennedy's brother, Robert.

wiki


----------



## Wyatt earp

I see you are getting so mad. Lmao...... your post are useless. we all know JFK was a con. because I dont have to post a novel. We know he wasnt the "Teddy" type of liberal or nancey..... your post FAIL try again please.


----------



## JohnL.Burke

Bfgrn said:


> JohnL.Burke said:
> 
> 
> 
> The democratic party today has moved to the right of the party Kennedy led? Jesus Christ! How far left do you have to be to actually believe this?
> you asked if the progressives had a majority in both houses why did liberals and progressives get in the affordable healthcare act... single payer. When I said progressives had taken over the democratic party I didn't mean to suggest every single democratic politician is a progressive. There are still a handful of John F. Kennedy style ANTI-KEYNESIAN politicians who decided (maybe so they would be re-elected) to answer to the will of the people. Most people are still against Obamacare after all. The fact that Obama is a progressive buttresses my point. Yes, I know, you probably think Obama is a far right wing conservative fascist for not dismantling our democratic process yet.
> How and why is Robert F. Kennedy an idiot? All he does is parrot the liberal loony talking points while chasing after every manufactured outrage and politicized pseudoscience concoction to hide the fact that he's an empty vessel. I call it Anthony Weiner syndrome. Or Weineritis for short.
> As for you schooling me. I didn't realize our education system was THAT bad.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are clearly either very young, or very wet behind the ears. All you are proving is how really FAR right you are. The Democratic Party Kennedy led was filled with New Deal Democrats. As a matter of fact, the Republican Party had liberal and New Deal Republicans.
> 
> You know nothing about JFK and you really don't want to take me on about John F. Kennedy. There is no political figure I know better. Or the Kennedy family.
> 
> One of John F. Kennedy's most trusted and closest advisers was devout Keynesian John Kenneth Galbraith. JFK and Galbraith were working together to end the Vietnam War, against the recommendations of his personal military adviser, Gen. Maxwell Taylor, and his deputy National Security Adviser, Walt Rostow. Kennedy sent Galbraith on a personal mission to Vietnam to assess the situation there. Kennedy didn't trust his ambassador (Henry Cabot Lodge), the military or anyone else would tell him the truth. Galbraith even arranged a private luncheon for Kennedy and India's Prime Minister Nehru at the Newport estate of Jacqueline Kennedy's mother and stepfather. No one from the State Department--to Secretary of State Dean Rusk's great consternation--was invited, save Galbraith. At the Nehru-Kennedy luncheon, Galbraith and JFK began probing the Indian leader about ways to avoid American militarization of Vietnam, a subject on which (for complex reasons) the neutralist Nehru remained maddeningly ambiguous, emphasizing only that the United States must stay out.
> 
> Galbraith and Vietnam
> 
> By Richard Parker
> 
> Monday, March 14, 2005
> 
> In the fall of 1961, unknown to the American public, John F. Kennedy was weighing a crucial decision about Vietnam not unlike that which George W. Bush faced about Iraq in early 2002--whether to go to war. It was the height of the cold war, when Communism was the "terrorist threat," and Ho Chi Minh the era's Saddam Hussein to many in Washington. But the new President was a liberal Massachusetts Democrat (and a decorated war veteran), not a conservative Sunbelt Republican who claimed God's hand guided his foreign policy. JFK's tough-minded instincts about war were thus very different. Contrary to what many have come to believe about the Vietnam War's origins, new research shows that Kennedy wanted no war in Asia and had clear criteria for conditions under which he'd send Americans abroad to fight and die for their country--criteria quite relevant today.
> 
> But thanks also in part to recently declassified records, we now know that Kennedy's top aides--whatever his own views--were offering him counsel not all that different from what Bush was told forty years later. Early that November, his personal military adviser, Gen. Maxwell Taylor, and his deputy National Security Adviser, Walt Rostow, were on their way back from Saigon with a draft of the "Taylor report," their bold plan to "save" Vietnam, beginning with the commitment of at least 8,000 US troops--a down payment, they hoped, on thousands more to follow. But they knew JFK had no interest in their idea because six months earlier in a top-secret meeting, he had forcefully vetoed his aides' proposed dispatch of 60,000 troops to neighboring Laos--and they were worried about how to maneuver his assent.
> 
> Harvard economist John Kenneth Galbraith, then Ambassador to India, got wind of their plan--and rushed to block their efforts. He was not an expert on Vietnam, but India chaired the International Control Commission, which had been set up following French withdrawal from Indochina to oversee a shaky peace accord meant to stabilize the region, and so from State Department cables he knew about the Taylor mission--and thus had a clear sense of what was at stake. *For Galbraith, a trusted adviser with unique back-channel access to the President, a potential US war in Vietnam represented more than a disastrous misadventure in foreign policy--it risked derailing the New Frontier's domestic plans for Keynesian-led full employment, and for massive new spending on education, the environment and what would become the War on Poverty. Worse, he feared, it might ultimately tear not only the Democratic Party but the nation apart--and usher in a new conservative era in American politics. *
> 
> more
Click to expand...


 You may very well know a lot about JFK. It's your grasp on reality I have a question with.
  You keep insisting John F. Kennedy was a liberal (your argument in a nutshell) and your support for this conclusion is that he surrounded himself with liberals. My only point is, he was NOT a Keynesian. He could surround himself with a million Keynesians but he still cut taxes in the exact same way Reagan cut taxes later on. Also, in certain areas like defense, he acted like a modern republican. Now don't get me wrong. I know Kennedy (along with Truman) were in many ways typical democrats for there day and age. However, when the progressives took over the democratic party then people like Kennedy and Truman were dwindled down and eventually forced to join the republican party. Now before your head explodes I want you to count to 10. Thank you.


----------



## JohnL.Burke

PMZ said:


> JohnL.Burke said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> This has been an interesting thread or topic. It shows that the real issue between the parties is whether we should salute democracy, the concept of government of, by, and for the people, or celebrate weak ineffective government.
> 
> For me, the concept of weak government is appalling. I want to be part of a strongly united nation that gives me, a citizen, the power to contribute to our destiny. I want to know that we have strong leaders actively engaged in solving problems and creating the future we, the people demand. I want to be assured that we elect strong, visionary leaders, and not weak synchophants. I want to replace those shown as weak with those that I am confident are strong, well informed and anxious to keep their jobs by satisfying their constituents.
> 
> I want the equal of our founders elected every year.
> 
> I don't fear a government beholden to us Americans. I choose a country like I would choose an employer. The best. The brightest. The most innovative. The most confident in the future.
> 
> That's why I'm a liberal. I don't believe in limitations. I believe in achievement. The more who share in that the better. The ultimate being success for everyone.
> 
> My strength is in democracy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For me, the concept of an overreaching all intrusive government is appalling. I want to be an individual who is able to choose my own destiny without the chains of government limiting my abilities and freedoms. I also want to be assured that we elect strong visionary leaders. Yet, I know assurances are often broken and some leaders will fall short of expectations. I am a conservative because I know "absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely". I know that a large government becomes a large bureaucracy answerable to no one. I know large governments are not synonymous with moral integrity.
> I believe our government should be beholden to us. Not the other way around. I want a government I can trust but I am not so naive that I will assume the government has my best interest in mind.  I believe a rebellious spirit and skeptical attitude has done more to free men from poverty and slavery than any other human attribute known. A large government despises these very attributes for fear of being overthrown or weakened.  The smaller the government, the more power the individual has. This by no means suggests that I am against government. I am simply against inefficient and corrupt government. The larger the government, the smaller the voices of its citizenry. With a weakened citizenry, corruption spreads. When corruption spreads, we pay more to get less and life becomes harder as aspirations and dreams are snubbed like a candle flame by bureaucratic red tape and fat politicians hoarding other people's money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know, I've gone through 70 years of life doing what I want, when and how I want, and rarely am confined by the law at all. Why? I think that satisfaction in life comes from living responsibly, and that is almost always consistent with the law, not counter to it. Now if I wanted to live irresponsibly, I would expect that to change, and I would find my self often at odds with the law, and paying the proscribed consequences. My experience is that outlaws live at the expense of others. If that's what you want to do, I'm personally glad that you find our laws confining.
Click to expand...


 Come to the dark side Luke. I am your father.


----------



## Wyatt earp

cuban missle crisis sounds like a con to me Cuban Missile Crisis - YouTube


----------



## Wyatt earp

JohnL.Burke said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JohnL.Burke said:
> 
> 
> 
> The democratic party today has moved to the right of the party Kennedy led? Jesus Christ! How far left do you have to be to actually believe this?
> you asked if the progressives had a majority in both houses why did liberals and progressives get in the affordable healthcare act... single payer. When I said progressives had taken over the democratic party I didn't mean to suggest every single democratic politician is a progressive. There are still a handful of John F. Kennedy style ANTI-KEYNESIAN politicians who decided (maybe so they would be re-elected) to answer to the will of the people. Most people are still against Obamacare after all. The fact that Obama is a progressive buttresses my point. Yes, I know, you probably think Obama is a far right wing conservative fascist for not dismantling our democratic process yet.
> How and why is Robert F. Kennedy an idiot? All he does is parrot the liberal loony talking points while chasing after every manufactured outrage and politicized pseudoscience concoction to hide the fact that he's an empty vessel. I call it Anthony Weiner syndrome. Or Weineritis for short.
> As for you schooling me. I didn't realize our education system was THAT bad.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are clearly either very young, or very wet behind the ears. All you are proving is how really FAR right you are. The Democratic Party Kennedy led was filled with New Deal Democrats. As a matter of fact, the Republican Party had liberal and New Deal Republicans.
> 
> You know nothing about JFK and you really don't want to take me on about John F. Kennedy. There is no political figure I know better. Or the Kennedy family.
> 
> One of John F. Kennedy's most trusted and closest advisers was devout Keynesian John Kenneth Galbraith. JFK and Galbraith were working together to end the Vietnam War, against the recommendations of his personal military adviser, Gen. Maxwell Taylor, and his deputy National Security Adviser, Walt Rostow. Kennedy sent Galbraith on a personal mission to Vietnam to assess the situation there. Kennedy didn't trust his ambassador (Henry Cabot Lodge), the military or anyone else would tell him the truth. Galbraith even arranged a private luncheon for Kennedy and India's Prime Minister Nehru at the Newport estate of Jacqueline Kennedy's mother and stepfather. No one from the State Department--to Secretary of State Dean Rusk's great consternation--was invited, save Galbraith. At the Nehru-Kennedy luncheon, Galbraith and JFK began probing the Indian leader about ways to avoid American militarization of Vietnam, a subject on which (for complex reasons) the neutralist Nehru remained maddeningly ambiguous, emphasizing only that the United States must stay out.
> 
> Galbraith and Vietnam
> 
> By Richard Parker
> 
> Monday, March 14, 2005
> 
> In the fall of 1961, unknown to the American public, John F. Kennedy was weighing a crucial decision about Vietnam not unlike that which George W. Bush faced about Iraq in early 2002--whether to go to war. It was the height of the cold war, when Communism was the "terrorist threat," and Ho Chi Minh the era's Saddam Hussein to many in Washington. But the new President was a liberal Massachusetts Democrat (and a decorated war veteran), not a conservative Sunbelt Republican who claimed God's hand guided his foreign policy. JFK's tough-minded instincts about war were thus very different. Contrary to what many have come to believe about the Vietnam War's origins, new research shows that Kennedy wanted no war in Asia and had clear criteria for conditions under which he'd send Americans abroad to fight and die for their country--criteria quite relevant today.
> 
> But thanks also in part to recently declassified records, we now know that Kennedy's top aides--whatever his own views--were offering him counsel not all that different from what Bush was told forty years later. Early that November, his personal military adviser, Gen. Maxwell Taylor, and his deputy National Security Adviser, Walt Rostow, were on their way back from Saigon with a draft of the "Taylor report," their bold plan to "save" Vietnam, beginning with the commitment of at least 8,000 US troops--a down payment, they hoped, on thousands more to follow. But they knew JFK had no interest in their idea because six months earlier in a top-secret meeting, he had forcefully vetoed his aides' proposed dispatch of 60,000 troops to neighboring Laos--and they were worried about how to maneuver his assent.
> 
> Harvard economist John Kenneth Galbraith, then Ambassador to India, got wind of their plan--and rushed to block their efforts. He was not an expert on Vietnam, but India chaired the International Control Commission, which had been set up following French withdrawal from Indochina to oversee a shaky peace accord meant to stabilize the region, and so from State Department cables he knew about the Taylor mission--and thus had a clear sense of what was at stake. *For Galbraith, a trusted adviser with unique back-channel access to the President, a potential US war in Vietnam represented more than a disastrous misadventure in foreign policy--it risked derailing the New Frontier's domestic plans for Keynesian-led full employment, and for massive new spending on education, the environment and what would become the War on Poverty. Worse, he feared, it might ultimately tear not only the Democratic Party but the nation apart--and usher in a new conservative era in American politics. *
> 
> more
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You may very well know a lot about JFK. It's your grasp on reality I have a question with.
> You keep insisting John F. Kennedy was a liberal and your support for this conclusion is that he surrounded himself with liberals. My point is, he was not a Keynesian. He could surround himself with a million Keynesians but he still cut taxes and in certain areas like defense, he acted as a republican. The few times he acted like a liberal (the Bay of Pigs), all hell broke loose. Now don't get me wrong. I know Kennedy (along with Truman) were in many ways typical democrats. However, when the progressives took over the democratic party then people like Kennedy and Truman were dwindled down and eventually forced to join the republican part. Now before your head explodes I want you to count to 10. Thank you.
Click to expand...


Yup it is so fun to play with these folk, a riot.....


----------



## Foxfyre

bear513 said:


> No I got mad in 2004 and didnt vote, I did vote for John and Sarah, a way better option than Obama and Joe. At least I knew what I voted for.



Yes, both good people.  Sarah wouldn't stay behind, however, if the conservatives left.  John might as he and GWB seem to be cut pretty much from the same 'liberal light' cloth.  However, I do believe John is a tad right of GWB when it comes to the role of the federal government.  Most, not all, Republicans are.


----------



## Wyatt earp

Foxfyre said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No I got mad in 2004 and didnt vote, I did vote for John and Sarah, a way better option than Obama and Joe. At least I knew what I voted for.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, both good people.  Sarah wouldn't stay behind, however, if the conservatives left.  John might as he and GWB seem to be cut pretty much from the same 'liberal light' cloth.  However, I do believe John is a tad right of GWB when it comes to the role of the federal government.  Most, not all, Republicans are.
Click to expand...


this what so ticks me off, I so want to see a strong woman Repulican leader before I die. becuase I think she can do something.


----------



## JohnL.Burke

bear513 said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No I got mad in 2004 and didnt vote, I did vote for John and Sarah, a way better option than Obama and Joe. At least I knew what I voted for.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, both good people.  Sarah wouldn't stay behind, however, if the conservatives left.  John might as he and GWB seem to be cut pretty much from the same 'liberal light' cloth.  However, I do believe John is a tad right of GWB when it comes to the role of the federal government.  Most, not all, Republicans are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> this what so ticks me off, I so want to see a strong woman Repulican leader before I die. becuase I think she can do something.
Click to expand...


 Amen! Unfortunately, a liberal press would ostracize her and complain that she should stay at home and take care of her family. The liberal press would drag her through the coals with rumors, ad hominem and double standards. I know the liberal press hates white republican men but should you be a republican black male or woman then we see a hatred on a whole different level. The kind of hatred most people reserve for murderers and rapists.


----------



## Foxfyre

bear513 said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No I got mad in 2004 and didnt vote, I did vote for John and Sarah, a way better option than Obama and Joe. At least I knew what I voted for.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, both good people.  Sarah wouldn't stay behind, however, if the conservatives left.  John might as he and GWB seem to be cut pretty much from the same 'liberal light' cloth.  However, I do believe John is a tad right of GWB when it comes to the role of the federal government.  Most, not all, Republicans are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> this what so ticks me off, I so want to see a strong woman Repulican leader before I die. becuase I think she can do something.
Click to expand...


It's gonna be tough though because the left won't allow it without putting up a mother of all fights.  They see women and minorities as their own private property to be kept obedient on their plantation.  They won't allow a conservative woman or minority gain any traction if they can help it.   Such people will be ridiculed, marginalized, accused, belittled, and massively criticized over and over and over in the media and in advertising and from talking heads at microphones so that any real message is drowned out in the noise.

We've all seen them do it again and again and again.  When you have a surrogate media, it is almost impossible to get a cohesive message out.  Somehow, we conservatives have to find a way to do that.

Unless we all leave of course.

They have already mocked me for offering what I think America would look like without the liberals.

They haven't come up with even a feeble attempt to answer the question in the OP though.


----------



## regent

Because JFK raised taxes does not make it right for every president to push Congress to raise taxes.  There may be a time to cut taxes, and a time to raise taxes, and good presidents and politicians that know the difference.


----------



## Foxfyre

JohnL.Burke said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, both good people.  Sarah wouldn't stay behind, however, if the conservatives left.  John might as he and GWB seem to be cut pretty much from the same 'liberal light' cloth.  However, I do believe John is a tad right of GWB when it comes to the role of the federal government.  Most, not all, Republicans are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> this what so ticks me off, I so want to see a strong woman Repulican leader before I die. becuase I think she can do something.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Amen! Unfortunately, a liberal press would ostracize her and complain that she should stay at home and take care of her family. The liberal press would drag her through the coals with rumors, ad hominem and double standards. I know the liberal press hates white republican men but should you be a republican black male or woman then we see a hatred on a whole different level. The kind of hatred most people reserve for murderers and rapists.
Click to expand...


Yep.  As I said but not as succinctly as you did.


----------



## Bfgrn

bear513 said:


> I see you are getting so mad. Lmao...... your post are useless. we all know JFK was a con. because I dont have to post a novel. We know he wasnt the "Teddy" type of liberal or nancey..... your post FAIL try again please.



Because this is a CDZ thread, I can't tell you what I want to say.

If you hated Ted Kennedy, you'd hate Jack and Bobby. Because Ted dedicated his whole public life to carry on THEIR agenda. You know ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about JFK, RFK or the Kennedys. You posts are not even to an adult level.

"For all those whose cares have been our concern, the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die."
Senator Edward M. Kennedy


----------



## Bfgrn

JohnL.Burke said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JohnL.Burke said:
> 
> 
> 
> The democratic party today has moved to the right of the party Kennedy led? Jesus Christ! How far left do you have to be to actually believe this?
> you asked if the progressives had a majority in both houses why did liberals and progressives get in the affordable healthcare act... single payer. When I said progressives had taken over the democratic party I didn't mean to suggest every single democratic politician is a progressive. There are still a handful of John F. Kennedy style ANTI-KEYNESIAN politicians who decided (maybe so they would be re-elected) to answer to the will of the people. Most people are still against Obamacare after all. The fact that Obama is a progressive buttresses my point. Yes, I know, you probably think Obama is a far right wing conservative fascist for not dismantling our democratic process yet.
> How and why is Robert F. Kennedy an idiot? All he does is parrot the liberal loony talking points while chasing after every manufactured outrage and politicized pseudoscience concoction to hide the fact that he's an empty vessel. I call it Anthony Weiner syndrome. Or Weineritis for short.
> As for you schooling me. I didn't realize our education system was THAT bad.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are clearly either very young, or very wet behind the ears. All you are proving is how really FAR right you are. The Democratic Party Kennedy led was filled with New Deal Democrats. As a matter of fact, the Republican Party had liberal and New Deal Republicans.
> 
> You know nothing about JFK and you really don't want to take me on about John F. Kennedy. There is no political figure I know better. Or the Kennedy family.
> 
> One of John F. Kennedy's most trusted and closest advisers was devout Keynesian John Kenneth Galbraith. JFK and Galbraith were working together to end the Vietnam War, against the recommendations of his personal military adviser, Gen. Maxwell Taylor, and his deputy National Security Adviser, Walt Rostow. Kennedy sent Galbraith on a personal mission to Vietnam to assess the situation there. Kennedy didn't trust his ambassador (Henry Cabot Lodge), the military or anyone else would tell him the truth. Galbraith even arranged a private luncheon for Kennedy and India's Prime Minister Nehru at the Newport estate of Jacqueline Kennedy's mother and stepfather. No one from the State Department--to Secretary of State Dean Rusk's great consternation--was invited, save Galbraith. At the Nehru-Kennedy luncheon, Galbraith and JFK began probing the Indian leader about ways to avoid American militarization of Vietnam, a subject on which (for complex reasons) the neutralist Nehru remained maddeningly ambiguous, emphasizing only that the United States must stay out.
> 
> Galbraith and Vietnam
> 
> By Richard Parker
> 
> Monday, March 14, 2005
> 
> In the fall of 1961, unknown to the American public, John F. Kennedy was weighing a crucial decision about Vietnam not unlike that which George W. Bush faced about Iraq in early 2002--whether to go to war. It was the height of the cold war, when Communism was the "terrorist threat," and Ho Chi Minh the era's Saddam Hussein to many in Washington. But the new President was a liberal Massachusetts Democrat (and a decorated war veteran), not a conservative Sunbelt Republican who claimed God's hand guided his foreign policy. JFK's tough-minded instincts about war were thus very different. Contrary to what many have come to believe about the Vietnam War's origins, new research shows that Kennedy wanted no war in Asia and had clear criteria for conditions under which he'd send Americans abroad to fight and die for their country--criteria quite relevant today.
> 
> But thanks also in part to recently declassified records, we now know that Kennedy's top aides--whatever his own views--were offering him counsel not all that different from what Bush was told forty years later. Early that November, his personal military adviser, Gen. Maxwell Taylor, and his deputy National Security Adviser, Walt Rostow, were on their way back from Saigon with a draft of the "Taylor report," their bold plan to "save" Vietnam, beginning with the commitment of at least 8,000 US troops--a down payment, they hoped, on thousands more to follow. But they knew JFK had no interest in their idea because six months earlier in a top-secret meeting, he had forcefully vetoed his aides' proposed dispatch of 60,000 troops to neighboring Laos--and they were worried about how to maneuver his assent.
> 
> Harvard economist John Kenneth Galbraith, then Ambassador to India, got wind of their plan--and rushed to block their efforts. He was not an expert on Vietnam, but India chaired the International Control Commission, which had been set up following French withdrawal from Indochina to oversee a shaky peace accord meant to stabilize the region, and so from State Department cables he knew about the Taylor mission--and thus had a clear sense of what was at stake. *For Galbraith, a trusted adviser with unique back-channel access to the President, a potential US war in Vietnam represented more than a disastrous misadventure in foreign policy--it risked derailing the New Frontier's domestic plans for Keynesian-led full employment, and for massive new spending on education, the environment and what would become the War on Poverty. Worse, he feared, it might ultimately tear not only the Democratic Party but the nation apart--and usher in a new conservative era in American politics. *
> 
> more
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You may very well know a lot about JFK. It's your grasp on reality I have a question with.
> You keep insisting John F. Kennedy was a liberal (your argument in a nutshell) and your support for this conclusion is that he surrounded himself with liberals. My only point is, he was NOT a Keynesian. He could surround himself with a million Keynesians but he still cut taxes in the exact same way Reagan cut taxes later on. Also, in certain areas like defense, he acted like a modern republican. Now don't get me wrong. I know Kennedy (along with Truman) were in many ways typical democrats for there day and age. However, when the progressives took over the democratic party then people like Kennedy and Truman were dwindled down and eventually forced to join the republican party. Now before your head explodes I want you to count to 10. Thank you.
Click to expand...


I have identified your problems. Besides not knowing anything about John F. Kennedy, you don't know anything about Keynesian economics either.

"The Revenue Act of 1964 was aimed at the demand, rather than the supply, side of the economy," said Arthur Okun, one of Kennedy's economic advisers.
.
This distinction, taught in Economics 101, seldom makes it into the Washington sound-bite wars. A demand-side cut rests on the Keynesian theory that public consumption spurs economic activity. Government puts money in people's hands, as a temporary measure, so that they'll spend it. A supply-side cut sees business investment as the key to growth. Government gives money to businesses and wealthy individuals to invest, ultimately benefiting all Americans.

On defense...
Kennedy believed a strong defense was the best deterrent to war and the best way to ensure PEACE. Kennedy was not like any modern republican. At every occasion where the military brass and his advisers called for military intervention, Kennedy flatly REFUSED. The Bay of Pigs. The Cuban Missile Crisis.

If you need to be schooled on those events let me know.


----------



## JohnL.Burke

Bfgrn said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see you are getting so mad. Lmao...... your post are useless. we all know JFK was a con. because I dont have to post a novel. We know he wasnt the "Teddy" type of liberal or nancey..... your post FAIL try again please.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because this is a CDZ thread, I can't tell you what I want to say.
> 
> If you hated Ted Kennedy, you'd hate Jack and Bobby. Because Ted dedicated his whole public life to carry on THEIR agenda. You know ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about JFK, RFK or the Kennedys. You posts are not even to an adult level.
> 
> "For all those whose cares have been our concern, the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die."
> Senator Edward M. Kennedy
Click to expand...


 Ted Kennedy dedicated his whole public life carrying on Jack and Bobbies agenda? Really? How many secretaries did Jack and Bobby kill and then try to have somebody else take the blame? Ted Kennedy's primary agenda focused on happy hour. Beyond that, Ted Kennedy was just a liberal blowhard who's whole success was based on the fact that he was JFK's brother.


----------



## JohnL.Burke

Bfgrn said:


> JohnL.Burke said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are clearly either very young, or very wet behind the ears. All you are proving is how really FAR right you are. The Democratic Party Kennedy led was filled with New Deal Democrats. As a matter of fact, the Republican Party had liberal and New Deal Republicans.
> 
> You know nothing about JFK and you really don't want to take me on about John F. Kennedy. There is no political figure I know better. Or the Kennedy family.
> 
> One of John F. Kennedy's most trusted and closest advisers was devout Keynesian John Kenneth Galbraith. JFK and Galbraith were working together to end the Vietnam War, against the recommendations of his personal military adviser, Gen. Maxwell Taylor, and his deputy National Security Adviser, Walt Rostow. Kennedy sent Galbraith on a personal mission to Vietnam to assess the situation there. Kennedy didn't trust his ambassador (Henry Cabot Lodge), the military or anyone else would tell him the truth. Galbraith even arranged a private luncheon for Kennedy and India's Prime Minister Nehru at the Newport estate of Jacqueline Kennedy's mother and stepfather. No one from the State Department--to Secretary of State Dean Rusk's great consternation--was invited, save Galbraith. At the Nehru-Kennedy luncheon, Galbraith and JFK began probing the Indian leader about ways to avoid American militarization of Vietnam, a subject on which (for complex reasons) the neutralist Nehru remained maddeningly ambiguous, emphasizing only that the United States must stay out.
> 
> Galbraith and Vietnam
> 
> By Richard Parker
> 
> Monday, March 14, 2005
> 
> In the fall of 1961, unknown to the American public, John F. Kennedy was weighing a crucial decision about Vietnam not unlike that which George W. Bush faced about Iraq in early 2002--whether to go to war. It was the height of the cold war, when Communism was the "terrorist threat," and Ho Chi Minh the era's Saddam Hussein to many in Washington. But the new President was a liberal Massachusetts Democrat (and a decorated war veteran), not a conservative Sunbelt Republican who claimed God's hand guided his foreign policy. JFK's tough-minded instincts about war were thus very different. Contrary to what many have come to believe about the Vietnam War's origins, new research shows that Kennedy wanted no war in Asia and had clear criteria for conditions under which he'd send Americans abroad to fight and die for their country--criteria quite relevant today.
> 
> But thanks also in part to recently declassified records, we now know that Kennedy's top aides--whatever his own views--were offering him counsel not all that different from what Bush was told forty years later. Early that November, his personal military adviser, Gen. Maxwell Taylor, and his deputy National Security Adviser, Walt Rostow, were on their way back from Saigon with a draft of the "Taylor report," their bold plan to "save" Vietnam, beginning with the commitment of at least 8,000 US troops--a down payment, they hoped, on thousands more to follow. But they knew JFK had no interest in their idea because six months earlier in a top-secret meeting, he had forcefully vetoed his aides' proposed dispatch of 60,000 troops to neighboring Laos--and they were worried about how to maneuver his assent.
> 
> Harvard economist John Kenneth Galbraith, then Ambassador to India, got wind of their plan--and rushed to block their efforts. He was not an expert on Vietnam, but India chaired the International Control Commission, which had been set up following French withdrawal from Indochina to oversee a shaky peace accord meant to stabilize the region, and so from State Department cables he knew about the Taylor mission--and thus had a clear sense of what was at stake. *For Galbraith, a trusted adviser with unique back-channel access to the President, a potential US war in Vietnam represented more than a disastrous misadventure in foreign policy--it risked derailing the New Frontier's domestic plans for Keynesian-led full employment, and for massive new spending on education, the environment and what would become the War on Poverty. Worse, he feared, it might ultimately tear not only the Democratic Party but the nation apart--and usher in a new conservative era in American politics. *
> 
> more
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You may very well know a lot about JFK. It's your grasp on reality I have a question with.
> You keep insisting John F. Kennedy was a liberal (your argument in a nutshell) and your support for this conclusion is that he surrounded himself with liberals. My only point is, he was NOT a Keynesian. He could surround himself with a million Keynesians but he still cut taxes in the exact same way Reagan cut taxes later on. Also, in certain areas like defense, he acted like a modern republican. Now don't get me wrong. I know Kennedy (along with Truman) were in many ways typical democrats for there day and age. However, when the progressives took over the democratic party then people like Kennedy and Truman were dwindled down and eventually forced to join the republican party. Now before your head explodes I want you to count to 10. Thank you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have identified your problems. Besides not knowing anything about John F. Kennedy, you don't know anything about Keynesian economics either.
> 
> "The Revenue Act of 1964 was aimed at the demand, rather than the supply, side of the economy," said Arthur Okun, one of Kennedy's economic advisers.
> .
> This distinction, taught in Economics 101, seldom makes it into the Washington sound-bite wars. A demand-side cut rests on the Keynesian theory that public consumption spurs economic activity. Government puts money in people's hands, as a temporary measure, so that they'll spend it. A supply-side cut sees business investment as the key to growth. Government gives money to businesses and wealthy individuals to invest, ultimately benefiting all Americans.
> 
> On defense...
> Kennedy believed a strong defense was the best deterrent to war and the best way to ensure PEACE. Kennedy was not like any modern republican. At every occasion where the military brass and his advisers called for military intervention, Kennedy flatly REFUSED. The Bay of Pigs. The Cuban Missile Crisis.
> 
> If you need to be schooled on those events let me know.
Click to expand...


 Are you under the impression that the more you repeat yourself, the stronger your point becomes?


----------



## Bfgrn

JohnL.Burke said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JohnL.Burke said:
> 
> 
> 
> You may very well know a lot about JFK. It's your grasp on reality I have a question with.
> You keep insisting John F. Kennedy was a liberal (your argument in a nutshell) and your support for this conclusion is that he surrounded himself with liberals. My only point is, he was NOT a Keynesian. He could surround himself with a million Keynesians but he still cut taxes in the exact same way Reagan cut taxes later on. Also, in certain areas like defense, he acted like a modern republican. Now don't get me wrong. I know Kennedy (along with Truman) were in many ways typical democrats for there day and age. However, when the progressives took over the democratic party then people like Kennedy and Truman were dwindled down and eventually forced to join the republican party. Now before your head explodes I want you to count to 10. Thank you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have identified your problems. Besides not knowing anything about John F. Kennedy, you don't know anything about Keynesian economics either.
> 
> "The Revenue Act of 1964 was aimed at the demand, rather than the supply, side of the economy," said Arthur Okun, one of Kennedy's economic advisers.
> .
> This distinction, taught in Economics 101, seldom makes it into the Washington sound-bite wars. A demand-side cut rests on the Keynesian theory that public consumption spurs economic activity. Government puts money in people's hands, as a temporary measure, so that they'll spend it. A supply-side cut sees business investment as the key to growth. Government gives money to businesses and wealthy individuals to invest, ultimately benefiting all Americans.
> 
> On defense...
> Kennedy believed a strong defense was the best deterrent to war and the best way to ensure PEACE. Kennedy was not like any modern republican. At every occasion where the military brass and his advisers called for military intervention, Kennedy flatly REFUSED. The Bay of Pigs. The Cuban Missile Crisis.
> 
> If you need to be schooled on those events let me know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you under the impression that the more you repeat yourself, the stronger your point becomes?
Click to expand...


Here is how it works in the adult world...JFK was not an economist. I don't know of any president who was. They hire people who reflect their agenda and policy plans. JFK hired Keynesian(s), (more than one). That would make Kennedy a Keynesian.

You are so far off base it is hilarious.

I will even go so far to say that Eisenhower's GOP was to the left of today's Democratic Party on a lot of issues.

Here some advice...educate yourself, and come back when you can compete, because you are not in my league.


----------



## Trakar

Bfgrn said:


> Here is how it works in the adult world...JFK was not an economist. I don't know of any president who was. They hire people who reflect their agenda and policy plans. JFK hired Keynesian(s), (more than one). That would make Kennedy a Keynesian.
> 
> You are so far off base it is hilarious.
> 
> I will even go so far to say that Eisenhower's GOP was to the left of today's Democratic Party on a lot of issues.
> 
> Here some advice...educate yourself, and come back when you can compete, because you are not in my league.


 
The Republicans used to the haven of the most progressive politicians in the United States. Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Eisenhower, are three of the most clear cut examples of presidents that reflected these values.


----------



## Steelplate

Want to know what would really happen? The economy would.go South and in the short term, we'd suffer....but, the ridiculous.notions that only Conservatives produce, only Conservatives innovate and only Conservatives pay taxes would quickly dispelled and America would, in the long term be better off without them.

It would be a boon to Small business without the oppressive weight of big corporations squashing any and.all competition. We could enact legislation to keep the banking sector honest and.our corporations monopoly free like their SUPPOSED to be.


----------



## beagle9

PMZ said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is conservatism? In my opinion, it is respect for the past and the wisdom of our ancestors. Their lives were built on their ancestors and so it goes, from one generation to the next. You ultimately respect their lives and toil not by paying lip service to it or using empty rhetoric like 'family values'. You do it by embracing those values. You do it by making their hard earned lessons your easy learned lessons. You do it by respecting and fighting for the policies and programs they crafted that increased the benefits and lessened the losses to our communities and our society.
> 
> How did our ancestors craft these policies and programs, were they based on some ideology? I believe they were based on common decency, respect for your neighbors, common sense, experience, trial and error and a strong sense of community.
> 
> I was raised in the 1950's. My dad was the sole provider, and my mom was a housewife and mother. We didn't call it 'family values', we called it family. When I came home from school, no matter what kind of day I had, it became brighter as soon as I walked in the door to a 'hi honey' from my mom. It not only brightened my day, it built self worth and a positive self image. All my friends and school mates had a similar story...a father that worked and a mother that stayed home to raise and nurture their children. None of us kids ever knew or even cared what anyone else's father did for a living. None of us had to go without; food, clothing, pets, bikes, baseball gloves, doctor care (our doctor used to come to the house), a quality public education with all the extras; sports, arts, school run ice rink, summer swimming and sports programs etc. But none of us were pampered or spoiled either.
> 
> THAT is exactly what I want for my kids and for my grand-kids.
> 
> So...In a very real way I AM truly a conservative.
> 
> So, what is conservatism? I don't hear people that call themselves conservatives talk that way or think that way. I don't hear talk of building, I hear talk of tearing down. I don't hear talk of a helping hand, I hear talk of letting them fail. I don't hear talk of the public good, I hear talk about me and mine. I don't hear compassion for fellow citizens, I hear disdain. I never hear them talk about human capital, just mammon. These so called conservatives are ideologues that want to dismantle any shred of community and replace it with SELF interest.
> 
> That is not 'conservatism', that is called narcissism.
> 
> "You shall rise in the presence of grey hairs, give honor to the aged, and fear God, I am the Lord"
> Leviticus 19:32
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IMO, the problems of today stem from the discovery, by Rush I suppose, of the amount of money to be made by keeping conservatives angry. Of course the model that he followed was pretty ancient and had been the basis for Hitler and Mousillini's quest for power. Rush didn't want power but money.
> 
> Rupert followed suit, plus a pretty significant bunch of wannabes, plus the NRA, plus TV evangelists, and an industry was born.
> 
> Their product came at a time when the GOP was struggling, and they took full advantage of it.
> 
> *That product, of course, isn't conservatism but extremism. Anger. One size fits all. Simple black and white solutions to complex problems. The evil government, and Democrats, and liberals, and unions, and environmentalists and other races and religions, and intellectuals, and foreigners, and taxes and regulations. Government too big. That's what to hate and hate and hate. Exactly the same shtic as the Taliban. *Everything delivered to maintain the brand is an inseparable mix of news and opinion. Delivered by Hollywood class actresses and angry men.
> 
> Fortunately, like all entertainment, it's a fad with a predictable life span. The fad is on the way out, but the GOP has no alternatives. No platform or candidates or solutions.
> 
> Will they recover? Stay tuned.
Click to expand...

Man how did we ever get along in this nation so peacefully and free then, I mean before the rise of all that you have sited in which has grown so big in contrast to such a work that had been in progress for our peacefulness and freedom over the years, and in which had made us free, also healthy and peaceful for a long good while for many years ?

What is all this new now, in which hates that which is old, even if it was a progress in peace when coming along, yet here they are whom are new, and they hate everything it seems ? Do we have a people operating with a vengeful heart among us, intsead of a people who are more of a constitutionalist progressive with a peaceful heart instead ?


----------



## JohnL.Burke

Bfgrn said:


> JohnL.Burke said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have identified your problems. Besides not knowing anything about John F. Kennedy, you don't know anything about Keynesian economics either.
> 
> "The Revenue Act of 1964 was aimed at the demand, rather than the supply, side of the economy," said Arthur Okun, one of Kennedy's economic advisers.
> .
> This distinction, taught in Economics 101, seldom makes it into the Washington sound-bite wars. A demand-side cut rests on the Keynesian theory that public consumption spurs economic activity. Government puts money in people's hands, as a temporary measure, so that they'll spend it. A supply-side cut sees business investment as the key to growth. Government gives money to businesses and wealthy individuals to invest, ultimately benefiting all Americans.
> 
> On defense...
> Kennedy believed a strong defense was the best deterrent to war and the best way to ensure PEACE. Kennedy was not like any modern republican. At every occasion where the military brass and his advisers called for military intervention, Kennedy flatly REFUSED. The Bay of Pigs. The Cuban Missile Crisis.
> 
> If you need to be schooled on those events let me know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you under the impression that the more you repeat yourself, the stronger your point becomes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here is how it works in the adult world...JFK was not an economist. I don't know of any president who was. They hire people who reflect their agenda and policy plans. JFK hired Keynesian(s), (more than one). That would make Kennedy a Keynesian.
> 
> You are so far off base it is hilarious.
> 
> I will even go so far to say that Eisenhower's GOP was to the left of today's Democratic Party on a lot of issues.
> 
> Here some advice...educate yourself, and come back when you can compete, because you are not in my league.
Click to expand...


 Let me drop a knowledge bomb an ya. JFK did not practice Keynesianism. I don't care if he was in the middle of a Keynes circle jerk with Keynes himself. 
  So one of your arguments is that Kennedy was a Keynesian because he surrounded himself by Keynesians. That's sort of like saying Jane Goodall was an ape because she was surrounded by apes. Kennedy may have started out as a Keynesian before he became president but once in office (no matter how you massage quotes from liberal sources) Kennedy did not practice Keynesianism. 
  If I wanted liberal revisionism badly disguised as fact I would have watched a Michael Moore movie.  Now have a cookie and enjoy your medication.


----------



## JohnL.Burke

beagle9 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is conservatism? In my opinion, it is respect for the past and the wisdom of our ancestors. Their lives were built on their ancestors and so it goes, from one generation to the next. You ultimately respect their lives and toil not by paying lip service to it or using empty rhetoric like 'family values'. You do it by embracing those values. You do it by making their hard earned lessons your easy learned lessons. You do it by respecting and fighting for the policies and programs they crafted that increased the benefits and lessened the losses to our communities and our society.
> 
> How did our ancestors craft these policies and programs, were they based on some ideology? I believe they were based on common decency, respect for your neighbors, common sense, experience, trial and error and a strong sense of community.
> 
> I was raised in the 1950's. My dad was the sole provider, and my mom was a housewife and mother. We didn't call it 'family values', we called it family. When I came home from school, no matter what kind of day I had, it became brighter as soon as I walked in the door to a 'hi honey' from my mom. It not only brightened my day, it built self worth and a positive self image. All my friends and school mates had a similar story...a father that worked and a mother that stayed home to raise and nurture their children. None of us kids ever knew or even cared what anyone else's father did for a living. None of us had to go without; food, clothing, pets, bikes, baseball gloves, doctor care (our doctor used to come to the house), a quality public education with all the extras; sports, arts, school run ice rink, summer swimming and sports programs etc. But none of us were pampered or spoiled either.
> 
> THAT is exactly what I want for my kids and for my grand-kids.
> 
> So...In a very real way I AM truly a conservative.
> 
> So, what is conservatism? I don't hear people that call themselves conservatives talk that way or think that way. I don't hear talk of building, I hear talk of tearing down. I don't hear talk of a helping hand, I hear talk of letting them fail. I don't hear talk of the public good, I hear talk about me and mine. I don't hear compassion for fellow citizens, I hear disdain. I never hear them talk about human capital, just mammon. These so called conservatives are ideologues that want to dismantle any shred of community and replace it with SELF interest.
> 
> That is not 'conservatism', that is called narcissism.
> 
> "You shall rise in the presence of grey hairs, give honor to the aged, and fear God, I am the Lord"
> Leviticus 19:32
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IMO, the problems of today stem from the discovery, by Rush I suppose, of the amount of money to be made by keeping conservatives angry. Of course the model that he followed was pretty ancient and had been the basis for Hitler and Mousillini's quest for power. Rush didn't want power but money.
> 
> Rupert followed suit, plus a pretty significant bunch of wannabes, plus the NRA, plus TV evangelists, and an industry was born.
> 
> Their product came at a time when the GOP was struggling, and they took full advantage of it.
> 
> *That product, of course, isn't conservatism but extremism. Anger. One size fits all. Simple black and white solutions to complex problems. The evil government, and Democrats, and liberals, and unions, and environmentalists and other races and religions, and intellectuals, and foreigners, and taxes and regulations. Government too big. That's what to hate and hate and hate. Exactly the same shtic as the Taliban. *Everything delivered to maintain the brand is an inseparable mix of news and opinion. Delivered by Hollywood class actresses and angry men.
> 
> Fortunately, like all entertainment, it's a fad with a predictable life span. The fad is on the way out, but the GOP has no alternatives. No platform or candidates or solutions.
> 
> Will they recover? Stay tuned.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Man how did we ever get along in this nation so peacefully and free then, I mean before the rise of all that you have sited in which has grown so big in contrast to such a work that had been in progress for our peacefulness and freedom over the years, and in which had made us free, also healthy and peaceful for a long good while for many years ?
> 
> What is all this new now, in which hates that which is old, even if it was a progress in peace when coming along, yet here they are whom are new, and they hate everything it seems ? Do we have a people operating with a vengeful heart among us, intsead of a people who are more of a constitutionalist progressive with a peaceful heart instead ?
Click to expand...


 I am a conservative and I have a very peaceful heart. I keep it in a box under the bed with my nazi paraphernalia and thigh master.


----------



## Friends

midcan5 said:


> The rise of conservative politics in postwar America is one of the great puzzles of American political history.


 
The New Deal succeeded. The Great Society failed. 

Life for most Americans began to improve almost as soon as Franklin Roosevelt was elected president. There was nearly as much economic growth during Roosevelt's first administration as during the administrations of Warren G. Harding and Calvin Coolidge. After 1933 there was a steady decline in unemployment except for a year after 1937 when Roosevelt cut government spending. 

The reforms of the New Deal included Social Security, minimum wage laws, unemployment compensation, and laws to protect labor unions. These helped ordinary Americans in tangible ways.

The signature reforms of the Great Society were the War on Poverty, begun in 1964, and the Civil Rights Act of 1964. These were followed by five years of black ghetto rioting, and more durable increases in black social pathology. The crime rate doubled from 1960 to 1970. It tripled from 1960 to 1980. Since then the crime rate has declined by one third. This is not because of liberal reform, but because of a tripling of the prison population.

Republicans have used the failures of social liberalism in order to promote economically reactionary policies that have made the rich richer at the expense of most Americans, but the failure of social liberalism came first.

The high water mark of political liberalism was the election of 1964. Lyndon Johnson won over 60 percent of the popular vote against Barry Goldwater. The Democrats won two to one majorities in both houses of Congress. In 1964 if you had asked an average white blue collar worker how the Democrats had helped him he would explain how the reforms of the New Deal had helped him and those he knew and cared about.

In 1980 the United States took a sharp turn to the right with the election of Ronald Reagan. In 1980 if you had asked a white blue collar worker how the Democrats had helped him, he may have thought you were joking. He would have begun to complain about how he had been denied jobs because of affirmative action. He could have complained about how his children were bused miles away to dangerous and predominantly black schools in the ghetto, or how dangerous blacks were bused to the neighborhood schools where his children went to school. He would have complained about crime, and particularly black crime. Then he would have told you that he intended to vote for Ronald Reagan and every single Republican on the ticket.


----------



## Steelplate

Friends said:


> midcan5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The rise of conservative politics in postwar America is one of the great puzzles of American political history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The New Deal succeeded. The Great Society failed.
> 
> Life for most Americans began to improve almost as soon as Franklin Roosevelt was elected president. There was nearly as much economic growth during Roosevelt's first administration as during the administrations of Warren G. Harding and Calvin Coolidge. After 1933 there was a steady decline in unemployment except for a year after 1937 when Roosevelt cut government spending.
> 
> The reforms of the New Deal included Social Security, minimum wage laws, unemployment compensation, and laws to protect labor unions. These helped ordinary Americans in tangible ways.
> 
> The signature reforms of the Great Society were the War on Poverty, begun in 1964, and the Civil Rights Act of 1964. These were followed by five years of black ghetto rioting, and more durable increases in black social pathology. The crime rate doubled from 1960 to 1970. It tripled from 1960 to 1980. Since then the crime rate has declined by one third. This is not because of liberal reform, but because of a tripling of the prison population.
> 
> Republicans have used the failures of social liberalism in order to promote economically reactionary policies that have made the rich richer at the expense of most Americans, but the failure of social liberalism came first.
> 
> The high water mark of political liberalism was the election of 1964. Lyndon Johnson won over 60 percent of the popular vote against Barry Goldwater. The Democrats won two to one majorities in both houses of Congress. In 1964 if you had asked an average white blue collar worker how the Democrats had helped him he would explain how the reforms of the New Deal had helped him and those he knew and cared about.
> 
> In 1980 the United States took a sharp turn to the right with the election of Ronald Reagan. In 1980 if you had asked a white blue collar worker how the Democrats had helped him, he may have thought you were joking. He would have begun to complain about how he had been denied jobs because of affirmative action. He could have complained about how his children were bused miles away to dangerous and predominantly black schools in the ghetto, or how dangerous blacks were bused to the neighborhood schools where his children went to school. He would have complained about crime, and particularly black crime. Then he would have told you that he intended to vote for Ronald Reagan and every single Republican on the ticket.
Click to expand...


Spot on. Now we have a shitload of unemployed/underemployed because of that hard right turn 30 years ago....the chickens have come home to roost.


----------



## PMZ

JohnL.Burke said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JohnL.Burke said:
> 
> 
> 
> The democratic party today has moved to the right of the party Kennedy led? Jesus Christ! How far left do you have to be to actually believe this?
> you asked if the progressives had a majority in both houses why did liberals and progressives get in the affordable healthcare act... single payer. When I said progressives had taken over the democratic party I didn't mean to suggest every single democratic politician is a progressive. There are still a handful of John F. Kennedy style ANTI-KEYNESIAN politicians who decided (maybe so they would be re-elected) to answer to the will of the people. Most people are still against Obamacare after all. The fact that Obama is a progressive buttresses my point. Yes, I know, you probably think Obama is a far right wing conservative fascist for not dismantling our democratic process yet.
> How and why is Robert F. Kennedy an idiot? All he does is parrot the liberal loony talking points while chasing after every manufactured outrage and politicized pseudoscience concoction to hide the fact that he's an empty vessel. I call it Anthony Weiner syndrome. Or Weineritis for short.
> As for you schooling me. I didn't realize our education system was THAT bad.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are clearly either very young, or very wet behind the ears. All you are proving is how really FAR right you are. The Democratic Party Kennedy led was filled with New Deal Democrats. As a matter of fact, the Republican Party had liberal and New Deal Republicans.
> 
> You know nothing about JFK and you really don't want to take me on about John F. Kennedy. There is no political figure I know better. Or the Kennedy family.
> 
> One of John F. Kennedy's most trusted and closest advisers was devout Keynesian John Kenneth Galbraith. JFK and Galbraith were working together to end the Vietnam War, against the recommendations of his personal military adviser, Gen. Maxwell Taylor, and his deputy National Security Adviser, Walt Rostow. Kennedy sent Galbraith on a personal mission to Vietnam to assess the situation there. Kennedy didn't trust his ambassador (Henry Cabot Lodge), the military or anyone else would tell him the truth. Galbraith even arranged a private luncheon for Kennedy and India's Prime Minister Nehru at the Newport estate of Jacqueline Kennedy's mother and stepfather. No one from the State Department--to Secretary of State Dean Rusk's great consternation--was invited, save Galbraith. At the Nehru-Kennedy luncheon, Galbraith and JFK began probing the Indian leader about ways to avoid American militarization of Vietnam, a subject on which (for complex reasons) the neutralist Nehru remained maddeningly ambiguous, emphasizing only that the United States must stay out.
> 
> Galbraith and Vietnam
> 
> By Richard Parker
> 
> Monday, March 14, 2005
> 
> In the fall of 1961, unknown to the American public, John F. Kennedy was weighing a crucial decision about Vietnam not unlike that which George W. Bush faced about Iraq in early 2002--whether to go to war. It was the height of the cold war, when Communism was the "terrorist threat," and Ho Chi Minh the era's Saddam Hussein to many in Washington. But the new President was a liberal Massachusetts Democrat (and a decorated war veteran), not a conservative Sunbelt Republican who claimed God's hand guided his foreign policy. JFK's tough-minded instincts about war were thus very different. Contrary to what many have come to believe about the Vietnam War's origins, new research shows that Kennedy wanted no war in Asia and had clear criteria for conditions under which he'd send Americans abroad to fight and die for their country--criteria quite relevant today.
> 
> But thanks also in part to recently declassified records, we now know that Kennedy's top aides--whatever his own views--were offering him counsel not all that different from what Bush was told forty years later. Early that November, his personal military adviser, Gen. Maxwell Taylor, and his deputy National Security Adviser, Walt Rostow, were on their way back from Saigon with a draft of the "Taylor report," their bold plan to "save" Vietnam, beginning with the commitment of at least 8,000 US troops--a down payment, they hoped, on thousands more to follow. But they knew JFK had no interest in their idea because six months earlier in a top-secret meeting, he had forcefully vetoed his aides' proposed dispatch of 60,000 troops to neighboring Laos--and they were worried about how to maneuver his assent.
> 
> Harvard economist John Kenneth Galbraith, then Ambassador to India, got wind of their plan--and rushed to block their efforts. He was not an expert on Vietnam, but India chaired the International Control Commission, which had been set up following French withdrawal from Indochina to oversee a shaky peace accord meant to stabilize the region, and so from State Department cables he knew about the Taylor mission--and thus had a clear sense of what was at stake. *For Galbraith, a trusted adviser with unique back-channel access to the President, a potential US war in Vietnam represented more than a disastrous misadventure in foreign policy--it risked derailing the New Frontier's domestic plans for Keynesian-led full employment, and for massive new spending on education, the environment and what would become the War on Poverty. Worse, he feared, it might ultimately tear not only the Democratic Party but the nation apart--and usher in a new conservative era in American politics. *
> 
> more
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You may very well know a lot about JFK. It's your grasp on reality I have a question with.
> You keep insisting John F. Kennedy was a liberal (your argument in a nutshell) and your support for this conclusion is that he surrounded himself with liberals. My only point is, he was NOT a Keynesian. He could surround himself with a million Keynesians but he still cut taxes in the exact same way Reagan cut taxes later on. Also, in certain areas like defense, he acted like a modern republican. Now don't get me wrong. I know Kennedy (along with Truman) were in many ways typical democrats for there day and age. However, when the progressives took over the democratic party then people like Kennedy and Truman were dwindled down and eventually forced to join the republican party. Now before your head explodes I want you to count to 10. Thank you.
Click to expand...


"However, when the progressives took over the democratic party".

Who are the progressives? How are they different from liberals and mainstream, centrist Democrats?


----------



## PMZ

JohnL.Burke said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> But sir what you did 50 years ago, like driving with out a seat belt or drinking a beer while you drive is Illegal today, back then? no problem it was legal. do you see how the goverment is trying to crush us and control us? for the better good?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently there are those who believe that doing "A" because it's good to do is freedom. Doing "A" because it's law, is slavery. Of course the logical extension of that is zero law, and perfect people. As I've never known a perfect people, I'm suspicious that those who are selling zero law, and perfect people, are really selling unrestrained imperfect, read real, people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The logical extension of fewer laws in no laws?  An expert on logic are we? You're suspicious of people selling zero laws? So am I. The only time I called myself an anarchist was in high school because I was angry at my parents and my complexion was bad. Of course, these days, if you want to meet an anarchist you have to go to an OWS rally. Let's see if I can play the same game as you though. The logical extension of more laws is satanic worship requiring wife beating ceremonies for the dark one. So tell me. How long have you been a satanic wife beater? Oh, and don't you dare deny your own logic and say your innocent. I'm onto you! Nosferatu!!!!
Click to expand...


This is your logic in favor of shrinking government to the size that Grover Norquist can take home and drown in the bathtub?

Somehow, I expected more. Or should I say, some.


----------



## PMZ

JohnL.Burke said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JohnL.Burke said:
> 
> 
> 
> For me, the concept of an overreaching all intrusive government is appalling. I want to be an individual who is able to choose my own destiny without the chains of government limiting my abilities and freedoms. I also want to be assured that we elect strong visionary leaders. Yet, I know assurances are often broken and some leaders will fall short of expectations. I am a conservative because I know "absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely". I know that a large government becomes a large bureaucracy answerable to no one. I know large governments are not synonymous with moral integrity.
> I believe our government should be beholden to us. Not the other way around. I want a government I can trust but I am not so naive that I will assume the government has my best interest in mind.  I believe a rebellious spirit and skeptical attitude has done more to free men from poverty and slavery than any other human attribute known. A large government despises these very attributes for fear of being overthrown or weakened.  The smaller the government, the more power the individual has. This by no means suggests that I am against government. I am simply against inefficient and corrupt government. The larger the government, the smaller the voices of its citizenry. With a weakened citizenry, corruption spreads. When corruption spreads, we pay more to get less and life becomes harder as aspirations and dreams are snubbed like a candle flame by bureaucratic red tape and fat politicians hoarding other people's money.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know, I've gone through 70 years of life doing what I want, when and how I want, and rarely am confined by the law at all. Why? I think that satisfaction in life comes from living responsibly, and that is almost always consistent with the law, not counter to it. Now if I wanted to live irresponsibly, I would expect that to change, and I would find my self often at odds with the law, and paying the proscribed consequences. My experience is that outlaws live at the expense of others. If that's what you want to do, I'm personally glad that you find our laws confining.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Come to the dark side Luke. I am your father.
Click to expand...


I was pretty sure that you'd be incapable of refuting simple logic.


----------



## PMZ

bear513 said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No I got mad in 2004 and didnt vote, I did vote for John and Sarah, a way better option than Obama and Joe. At least I knew what I voted for.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, both good people.  Sarah wouldn't stay behind, however, if the conservatives left.  John might as he and GWB seem to be cut pretty much from the same 'liberal light' cloth.  However, I do believe John is a tad right of GWB when it comes to the role of the federal government.  Most, not all, Republicans are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> this what so ticks me off, I so want to see a strong woman Repulican leader before I die. becuase I think she can do something.
Click to expand...


What would ever convince a strong women, or strong man for that matter, to become a Republican leader? Republicans don't believe in leadership. Their model of it is Rush Limbaugh.


----------



## Bfgrn

JohnL.Burke said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JohnL.Burke said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you under the impression that the more you repeat yourself, the stronger your point becomes?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here is how it works in the adult world...JFK was not an economist. I don't know of any president who was. They hire people who reflect their agenda and policy plans. JFK hired Keynesian(s), (more than one). That would make Kennedy a Keynesian.
> 
> You are so far off base it is hilarious.
> 
> I will even go so far to say that Eisenhower's GOP was to the left of today's Democratic Party on a lot of issues.
> 
> Here some advice...educate yourself, and come back when you can compete, because you are not in my league.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me drop a knowledge bomb an ya. JFK did not practice Keynesianism. I don't care if he was in the middle of a Keynes circle jerk with Keynes himself.
> So one of your arguments is that Kennedy was a Keynesian because he surrounded himself by Keynesians. That's sort of like saying Jane Goodall was an ape because she was surrounded by apes. Kennedy may have started out as a Keynesian before he became president but once in office (no matter how you massage quotes from liberal sources) Kennedy did not practice Keynesianism.
> If I wanted liberal revisionism badly disguised as fact I would have watched a Michael Moore movie.  Now have a cookie and enjoy your medication.
Click to expand...


WOW, you are really doubling down on falsehood. Those 'liberal sources' were people IN his administration. But of course what would they know, they were just THERE and authored the policies...

The New Frontier *WAS* Keynesian Economic policies.

It is no contradiction  the most important single thing we can do to stimulate investment in todays economy is to raise consumption by major reduction of individual income tax rates.  John F. Kennedy, Jan. 21, 1963, annual message to the Congress: The Economic Report Of The President

*Keynesian Economics* 

 JFKs administration adopted fiscal and monetary policies to close the recessionary gap.  Economist John Maynard Keynes was a believer in Monetarism which is the theory that in order to stabilize the economy the government must lower or raise interest rates accordingly.  Keynes also introduced the concept of aggregate demand which showed that full employment could be maintained only with government spending.  JFK fully embraced this idea, he fueled the economy by investing in domestic, military, and space programs. This is also known as Kennedy's New Frontier. He proposed to give federal aid to education, medical care to the elderly, mass transit, as well as regional development in Appalachia which, in turn, would help the impoverished community for decades. President Kennedy signed the Housing Act of June 30th 1961 to aid middle income families as well as mass transportation users while also increasing urban renewal. Unfortunately, congressional support was limited therefore, his plans were downgraded by congress.  JFK was a supporter of organized labor, he helped strengthen their rights with the Trade Expansion Act of 1962. The President also looked to increase minimum wages and signed a bill in 1961 which expanded the minimum wage to $1.25. 

*Congress and Kennedy *

Regrettably many of President Kennedys proposals were shot down by a conservative congress run by Republicans and Conservative Democrats. It is important to keep in mind that JFK won the electoral vote by 83 votes. Congress was more than reluctant to fund Kennedys liberal plans such as the funding of education and Medicare.  President Kennedy was, however, able to sign legislation to raise the minimum wage and increase social security benefits  this was possible in part because of his Vice President L.B. Johnsons extensive relationship with congress .  On June 30th 1961 JFK signed a bill that would extend Social Security to over five million people. 

    "The largest single barrier to full employment of our manpower and resources and to a higher rate of economic growth is the unrealistically heavy drag of federal income taxes on private purchasing power, initiative and incentive." John F. Kennedy, Jan. 24, 1963, special message to Congress on tax reduction and reform
*
Taxes*

Kennedy's tax cut did not go into effect until after his assassination. The theory behind JFK's tax cuts was that when disposable income increases spending increases. This will directly affect aggregate demand. Fiscal expansion raises the demand for products.  Increases in demand will lead to more output without changing the prices. Kennedy also introduced an investment tax credit meaning businesses can reduce their income taxes by 10% of their investment in a year. With increased spending and tax cuts, investments grew boosting aggregate demand. According to Andrew L. Yarrow author of Measuring America: How Economic Growth Came to Define American Greatness in the late 20th Century *"...more evidence that Keynesian ideas, translated into policy, would further increase American growth and prosperity"*. The government also purchased bonds to increase the supply of money while reducing interest rates.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The real death blow to your argument and the ultimate irony is that Republicans OPPOSED Kennedy's tax cuts.

The Golden Age of Republican Deficit Hawks

Several readers wrote in, asking whether Republicans were ever really pro-tax, or if they merely put up with higher taxes in the name of fiscal discipline.

The answer is that once upon a time, Republicans did indeed advocate leaving taxes alone, opposing tax cuts.

In the 1950s and 1960s, federal deficits were relatively small compared to the size of the economy, but even during those flush years, Republican leadership was reluctant to advocate tax cuts. In 1953, for example, Dwight Eisenhower said the country cannot afford to reduce taxes, reduce income, until we have in sight a program of expenditures that shows that the factors of income and of outgo will be balanced.

And when his successor, John F. Kennedy, proposed sharp tax cuts in 1963, the more conservative Republicans in Congress initially opposed them because the cuts would expand the deficit.

The legislation eventually passed (after Kennedys assassination), but over the objections of about a third of the Republicans voting. Heres the House vote, and heres the Senate vote.


The rights misplaced love of JFK tax cuts

 When Kennedy cut taxes, he lowered the top marginal tax from 91% to 65%. Many congressional Republicans opposed his plan at the time, citing concerns that the treasury couldnt afford such a tax break  the Republican Party used to be quite serious about fiscal responsibility, but its been a half-century  but Kennedy proceeded anyway because the higher rates, instituted during World War II, were no longer necessary.

Also at the time, the country had very little debt  Eisenhower, thankfully, kept taxes high throughout the 1950s  almost no deficit. Fiscal conditions, obviously, are far different now.

Keep in mind, unlike contemporary GOP policy, Kennedys plan distributed peace dividends broadly across the wage spectrum. As the Joint Committee on Internal Revenue Taxation explained at the time, the bottom 85% of the population received 59% of the benefits of JFKs tax cut. The top 2.4% received 17.4% of the tax cut, and the top 0.4% received just 6% of it.

Those on the right who see themselves as descendents of the Kennedy policy are either deeply confused or they assume you wont bother to learn the truth.


----------



## Friends

Steelplate said:


> Spot on. Now we have a shitload of unemployed/underemployed because of that hard right turn 30 years ago....the chickens have come home to roost.


 
By 1968 the Democrats had lost credibility on social issues. White racial moderates thought that by supporting the civil rights legislation they were contributing to improvements in black behavior. What they got instead were five years of black ghetto riots. They noticed that the riots ended abruptly with the inauguration of Richard Nixon.

Nevertheless, the Democrats retained credibility on economic issues. The inflationary recession of 1974 was blamed on the Republicans, and probably contributed to Richard Nixon being forced out of office. If the economy had been flourishing like it had been during most of the 1960's I doubt many Americans would have cared about Watergate.

The inflation and gasoline lines of 1979 and 1980 broke the confidence most Americans had for the Democrats on economic issues. President Carter was not responsible for that. President Eisenhower was. When he directed the CIA to overthrow the democratic government of Iran in 1953 and install the Shah as dictator he guaranteed that when the Shah was finally overthrown the people and government of Iran would hate us. 

Nevertheless, during the Iranian Hostage Crises most Americans knew nothing of the CIA coup of 1953. They only knew that the economy was bad, the United States was being humiliated every night on the six o'clock news, and Jimmy Carter was not able to do anything about it.

The Great Recession has been prolonged by Republican obstruction. In addition, the United States faces problems we did not face during the Great Recession.

National debt as a percentage of gross domestic product had been reduced during the 1920's during two Republican administrations. Since 1980 the Republican delusion that tax cuts pay for themselves has exploded the national debt. 

Back then the United States was the world's leading creditor country. Now we are the world's leading debtor. Back then the United States was an oil exporting country. Now we import 70 percent of the oil we consume. Back then American factories produced nearly half of the world's manufactured goods. Now we import much of what we consume.

Finally, the Immigration Act of 1924 excluded non white immigration. Most blacks lived in the South where they were denied equal rights by Jim Crow legislation. This meant that white blue collar workers could vote Democrat without voting for economic and social equality with non whites.  During his presidential election victories of 1932, 1936, 1940, and 1944 Franklin Roosevelt carried each of the eleven former Confederate states.

Most whites who hated blacks loved Roosevelt. Most whites who hate blacks hate Obama.


----------



## JohnL.Burke

Bfgrn said:


> JohnL.Burke said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is how it works in the adult world...JFK was not an economist. I don't know of any president who was. They hire people who reflect their agenda and policy plans. JFK hired Keynesian(s), (more than one). That would make Kennedy a Keynesian.
> 
> You are so far off base it is hilarious.
> 
> I will even go so far to say that Eisenhower's GOP was to the left of today's Democratic Party on a lot of issues.
> 
> Here some advice...educate yourself, and come back when you can compete, because you are not in my league.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me drop a knowledge bomb an ya. JFK did not practice Keynesianism. I don't care if he was in the middle of a Keynes circle jerk with Keynes himself.
> So one of your arguments is that Kennedy was a Keynesian because he surrounded himself by Keynesians. That's sort of like saying Jane Goodall was an ape because she was surrounded by apes. Kennedy may have started out as a Keynesian before he became president but once in office (no matter how you massage quotes from liberal sources) Kennedy did not practice Keynesianism.
> If I wanted liberal revisionism badly disguised as fact I would have watched a Michael Moore movie.  Now have a cookie and enjoy your medication.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WOW, you are really doubling down on falsehood. Those 'liberal sources' were people IN his administration. But of course what would they know, they were just THERE and authored the policies...
> 
> The New Frontier *WAS* Keynesian Economic policies.
> 
> It is no contradiction  the most important single thing we can do to stimulate investment in todays economy is to raise consumption by major reduction of individual income tax rates.  John F. Kennedy, Jan. 21, 1963, annual message to the Congress: The Economic Report Of The President
> 
> *Keynesian Economics*
> 
> JFKs administration adopted fiscal and monetary policies to close the recessionary gap.  Economist John Maynard Keynes was a believer in Monetarism which is the theory that in order to stabilize the economy the government must lower or raise interest rates accordingly.  Keynes also introduced the concept of aggregate demand which showed that full employment could be maintained only with government spending.  JFK fully embraced this idea, he fueled the economy by investing in domestic, military, and space programs. This is also known as Kennedy's New Frontier. He proposed to give federal aid to education, medical care to the elderly, mass transit, as well as regional development in Appalachia which, in turn, would help the impoverished community for decades. President Kennedy signed the Housing Act of June 30th 1961 to aid middle income families as well as mass transportation users while also increasing urban renewal. Unfortunately, congressional support was limited therefore, his plans were downgraded by congress.  JFK was a supporter of organized labor, he helped strengthen their rights with the Trade Expansion Act of 1962. The President also looked to increase minimum wages and signed a bill in 1961 which expanded the minimum wage to $1.25.
> 
> *Congress and Kennedy *
> 
> Regrettably many of President Kennedys proposals were shot down by a conservative congress run by Republicans and Conservative Democrats. It is important to keep in mind that JFK won the electoral vote by 83 votes. Congress was more than reluctant to fund Kennedys liberal plans such as the funding of education and Medicare.  President Kennedy was, however, able to sign legislation to raise the minimum wage and increase social security benefits  this was possible in part because of his Vice President L.B. Johnsons extensive relationship with congress .  On June 30th 1961 JFK signed a bill that would extend Social Security to over five million people.
> 
> "The largest single barrier to full employment of our manpower and resources and to a higher rate of economic growth is the unrealistically heavy drag of federal income taxes on private purchasing power, initiative and incentive." John F. Kennedy, Jan. 24, 1963, special message to Congress on tax reduction and reform
> *
> Taxes*
> 
> Kennedy's tax cut did not go into effect until after his assassination. The theory behind JFK's tax cuts was that when disposable income increases spending increases. This will directly affect aggregate demand. Fiscal expansion raises the demand for products.  Increases in demand will lead to more output without changing the prices. Kennedy also introduced an investment tax credit meaning businesses can reduce their income taxes by 10% of their investment in a year. With increased spending and tax cuts, investments grew boosting aggregate demand. According to Andrew L. Yarrow author of Measuring America: How Economic Growth Came to Define American Greatness in the late 20th Century *"...more evidence that Keynesian ideas, translated into policy, would further increase American growth and prosperity"*. The government also purchased bonds to increase the supply of money while reducing interest rates.
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> The real death blow to your argument and the ultimate irony is that Republicans OPPOSED Kennedy's tax cuts.
> 
> The Golden Age of Republican Deficit Hawks
> 
> Several readers wrote in, asking whether Republicans were ever really pro-tax, or if they merely put up with higher taxes in the name of fiscal discipline.
> 
> The answer is that once upon a time, Republicans did indeed advocate leaving taxes alone, opposing tax cuts.
> 
> In the 1950s and 1960s, federal deficits were relatively small compared to the size of the economy, but even during those flush years, Republican leadership was reluctant to advocate tax cuts. In 1953, for example, Dwight Eisenhower said the country cannot afford to reduce taxes, reduce income, until we have in sight a program of expenditures that shows that the factors of income and of outgo will be balanced.
> 
> And when his successor, John F. Kennedy, proposed sharp tax cuts in 1963, the more conservative Republicans in Congress initially opposed them because the cuts would expand the deficit.
> 
> The legislation eventually passed (after Kennedys assassination), but over the objections of about a third of the Republicans voting. Heres the House vote, and heres the Senate vote.
> 
> 
> The rights misplaced love of JFK tax cuts
> 
> When Kennedy cut taxes, he lowered the top marginal tax from 91% to 65%. Many congressional Republicans opposed his plan at the time, citing concerns that the treasury couldnt afford such a tax break  the Republican Party used to be quite serious about fiscal responsibility, but its been a half-century  but Kennedy proceeded anyway because the higher rates, instituted during World War II, were no longer necessary.
> 
> Also at the time, the country had very little debt  Eisenhower, thankfully, kept taxes high throughout the 1950s  almost no deficit. Fiscal conditions, obviously, are far different now.
> 
> Keep in mind, unlike contemporary GOP policy, Kennedys plan distributed peace dividends broadly across the wage spectrum. As the Joint Committee on Internal Revenue Taxation explained at the time, the bottom 85% of the population received 59% of the benefits of JFKs tax cut. The top 2.4% received 17.4% of the tax cut, and the top 0.4% received just 6% of it.
> 
> Those on the right who see themselves as descendents of the Kennedy policy are either deeply confused or they assume you wont bother to learn the truth.
Click to expand...


  So what if republicans opposed Kennedy's tax cuts? I already made the point that the democratic party THEN is not the same democratic party NOW. The same is true with the republican party. Society changes, politics change, priorities change, technology changes. The only thing that remains constant is the fact that JFK never practiced Keynesian economics. I hope this clears up your confusion.


----------



## Bfgrn

JohnL.Burke said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JohnL.Burke said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me drop a knowledge bomb an ya. JFK did not practice Keynesianism. I don't care if he was in the middle of a Keynes circle jerk with Keynes himself.
> So one of your arguments is that Kennedy was a Keynesian because he surrounded himself by Keynesians. That's sort of like saying Jane Goodall was an ape because she was surrounded by apes. Kennedy may have started out as a Keynesian before he became president but once in office (no matter how you massage quotes from liberal sources) Kennedy did not practice Keynesianism.
> If I wanted liberal revisionism badly disguised as fact I would have watched a Michael Moore movie.  Now have a cookie and enjoy your medication.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WOW, you are really doubling down on falsehood. Those 'liberal sources' were people IN his administration. But of course what would they know, they were just THERE and authored the policies...
> 
> The New Frontier *WAS* Keynesian Economic policies.
> 
> It is no contradiction  the most important single thing we can do to stimulate investment in todays economy is to raise consumption by major reduction of individual income tax rates.  John F. Kennedy, Jan. 21, 1963, annual message to the Congress: The Economic Report Of The President
> 
> *Keynesian Economics*
> 
> JFKs administration adopted fiscal and monetary policies to close the recessionary gap.  Economist John Maynard Keynes was a believer in Monetarism which is the theory that in order to stabilize the economy the government must lower or raise interest rates accordingly.  Keynes also introduced the concept of aggregate demand which showed that full employment could be maintained only with government spending.  JFK fully embraced this idea, he fueled the economy by investing in domestic, military, and space programs. This is also known as Kennedy's New Frontier. He proposed to give federal aid to education, medical care to the elderly, mass transit, as well as regional development in Appalachia which, in turn, would help the impoverished community for decades. President Kennedy signed the Housing Act of June 30th 1961 to aid middle income families as well as mass transportation users while also increasing urban renewal. Unfortunately, congressional support was limited therefore, his plans were downgraded by congress.  JFK was a supporter of organized labor, he helped strengthen their rights with the Trade Expansion Act of 1962. The President also looked to increase minimum wages and signed a bill in 1961 which expanded the minimum wage to $1.25.
> 
> *Congress and Kennedy *
> 
> Regrettably many of President Kennedys proposals were shot down by a conservative congress run by Republicans and Conservative Democrats. It is important to keep in mind that JFK won the electoral vote by 83 votes. Congress was more than reluctant to fund Kennedys liberal plans such as the funding of education and Medicare.  President Kennedy was, however, able to sign legislation to raise the minimum wage and increase social security benefits  this was possible in part because of his Vice President L.B. Johnsons extensive relationship with congress .  On June 30th 1961 JFK signed a bill that would extend Social Security to over five million people.
> 
> "The largest single barrier to full employment of our manpower and resources and to a higher rate of economic growth is the unrealistically heavy drag of federal income taxes on private purchasing power, initiative and incentive." John F. Kennedy, Jan. 24, 1963, special message to Congress on tax reduction and reform
> *
> Taxes*
> 
> Kennedy's tax cut did not go into effect until after his assassination. The theory behind JFK's tax cuts was that when disposable income increases spending increases. This will directly affect aggregate demand. Fiscal expansion raises the demand for products.  Increases in demand will lead to more output without changing the prices. Kennedy also introduced an investment tax credit meaning businesses can reduce their income taxes by 10% of their investment in a year. With increased spending and tax cuts, investments grew boosting aggregate demand. According to Andrew L. Yarrow author of Measuring America: How Economic Growth Came to Define American Greatness in the late 20th Century *"...more evidence that Keynesian ideas, translated into policy, would further increase American growth and prosperity"*. The government also purchased bonds to increase the supply of money while reducing interest rates.
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> The real death blow to your argument and the ultimate irony is that Republicans OPPOSED Kennedy's tax cuts.
> 
> The Golden Age of Republican Deficit Hawks
> 
> Several readers wrote in, asking whether Republicans were ever really pro-tax, or if they merely put up with higher taxes in the name of fiscal discipline.
> 
> The answer is that once upon a time, Republicans did indeed advocate leaving taxes alone, opposing tax cuts.
> 
> In the 1950s and 1960s, federal deficits were relatively small compared to the size of the economy, but even during those flush years, Republican leadership was reluctant to advocate tax cuts. In 1953, for example, Dwight Eisenhower said the country cannot afford to reduce taxes, reduce income, until we have in sight a program of expenditures that shows that the factors of income and of outgo will be balanced.
> 
> And when his successor, John F. Kennedy, proposed sharp tax cuts in 1963, the more conservative Republicans in Congress initially opposed them because the cuts would expand the deficit.
> 
> The legislation eventually passed (after Kennedys assassination), but over the objections of about a third of the Republicans voting. Heres the House vote, and heres the Senate vote.
> 
> 
> The rights misplaced love of JFK tax cuts
> 
> When Kennedy cut taxes, he lowered the top marginal tax from 91% to 65%. Many congressional Republicans opposed his plan at the time, citing concerns that the treasury couldnt afford such a tax break  the Republican Party used to be quite serious about fiscal responsibility, but its been a half-century  but Kennedy proceeded anyway because the higher rates, instituted during World War II, were no longer necessary.
> 
> Also at the time, the country had very little debt  Eisenhower, thankfully, kept taxes high throughout the 1950s  almost no deficit. Fiscal conditions, obviously, are far different now.
> 
> Keep in mind, unlike contemporary GOP policy, Kennedys plan distributed peace dividends broadly across the wage spectrum. As the Joint Committee on Internal Revenue Taxation explained at the time, the bottom 85% of the population received 59% of the benefits of JFKs tax cut. The top 2.4% received 17.4% of the tax cut, and the top 0.4% received just 6% of it.
> 
> Those on the right who see themselves as descendents of the Kennedy policy are either deeply confused or they assume you wont bother to learn the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what if republicans opposed Kennedy's tax cuts? I already made the point that the democratic party THEN is not the same democratic party NOW. The same is true with the republican party. Society changes, politics change, priorities change, technology changes. The only thing that remains constant is the fact that JFK never practiced Keynesian economics. I hope this clears up your confusion.
Click to expand...


The BEST definition OF the New Frontier IS practiced Keynesian economics.

Why don't you take Burke's advice.

Reading without reflecting is like eating without digesting.
Edmund Burke


----------



## PMZ

The question of the impact of right wing extremists suddenly disappearing could be asked another way. What shape would our country be in if the GOP had remained centrist? Let's speculate. 

No holy wars.

No Bush wealth redistribution tax cuts. 

Regulation of mortgage backed derivatives and the avoidance of the housing boom and bust. 

Business focused on liberal investment in productivity in order to grow, rather than cut costs to shrink, that resulted in the elimination of American jobs, by outsourcing to cheap foreign labor recruited here, or jobs shipped overseas. 

Continuation of Clintonomics aimed at paying off the debt, with the impact predicted by the CBO of a debt free America by 2006. 

A decade of progress in the mitigation of AGW with the resultant reduction in extreme weather caused catastrophies like hurricane Sandy. 

Obamacare implemented with the full participation of the GOP with the resultant progress of eliminating the competitive disadvantage of an only partially healthy workforce and the pressure of another force towards reducing our 2X health care cost compared to our competition.

I see an America sitting pretty at the top of her game once again.


----------



## JohnL.Burke

PMZ said:


> JohnL.Burke said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know, I've gone through 70 years of life doing what I want, when and how I want, and rarely am confined by the law at all. Why? I think that satisfaction in life comes from living responsibly, and that is almost always consistent with the law, not counter to it. Now if I wanted to live irresponsibly, I would expect that to change, and I would find my self often at odds with the law, and paying the proscribed consequences. My experience is that outlaws live at the expense of others. If that's what you want to do, I'm personally glad that you find our laws confining.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Come to the dark side Luke. I am your father.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was pretty sure that you'd be incapable of refuting simple logic.
Click to expand...


  You said that it was your experience that outlaws live at the expense of others. Luckily Harriet Tubman and others didn't wallow in your moral pacifism . Did you know that there were slaves who wanted to stay on the plantation? They pretty much echoed what you said.  So go ahead, tremble at the thought of not returning your library book in on time. I, however, have a world to piss off. Nice talking to ya though.


----------



## JohnL.Burke

PMZ said:


> JohnL.Burke said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently there are those who believe that doing "A" because it's good to do is freedom. Doing "A" because it's law, is slavery. Of course the logical extension of that is zero law, and perfect people. As I've never known a perfect people, I'm suspicious that those who are selling zero law, and perfect people, are really selling unrestrained imperfect, read real, people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The logical extension of fewer laws in no laws?  An expert on logic are we? You're suspicious of people selling zero laws? So am I. The only time I called myself an anarchist was in high school because I was angry at my parents and my complexion was bad. Of course, these days, if you want to meet an anarchist you have to go to an OWS rally. Let's see if I can play the same game as you though. The logical extension of more laws is satanic worship requiring wife beating ceremonies for the dark one. So tell me. How long have you been a satanic wife beater? Oh, and don't you dare deny your own logic and say your innocent. I'm onto you! Nosferatu!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is your logic in favor of shrinking government to the size that Grover Norquist can take home and drown in the bathtub?
> 
> Somehow, I expected more. Or should I say, some.
Click to expand...


  Here's a little advice. You should only expect more when you give more. I'm not just talking about hookers either. I mean life in general.


----------



## Circe

JohnL.Burke said:


> Circe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> IMO, the real difference between conservatives and liberals is how they view the world and it's people.
> 
> Conservatives view the world from the perspective of scarcity. Everything is in short supply so one must defend his/her stash or risk losing it.
> 
> Liberals view the world from the perspective of plenty. We can create more than enough to go around so the future is as bright as we want to make it.
> 
> I think that this worldview is pervasive. Applies to everything. Business, religion, politics, family and culture, relationships, entertainment, past, present and future.
> 
> Of course in any given situation one or the other is probably closer to reality. Civilization needs both perspectives but at different times and places and situations.
> 
> If either one disappeared completely we'd be short of a valuable set of possibilities and perspectives and alternatives.
> 
> That having been said though I'd much rather live in a world based on a worldview of plenty rather than scarcity, if I had to choose one over the other. In fact I believe that we used to be there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wonderful analysis.
> 
> My own idea of the difference is that conservatives don't want change, they want stability; and liberals do want change, they welcome and promote change.
> 
> However, I really like your thinking and want to process that some more. A perspective of scarcity can affect life on a personal level, too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Conservatives don't want change? They don't want to change the tax code? They don't want to change the IRS? They don't want to change the amount of security on the border? They don't want to fundamentally change the size and scope of government? Conservatives don't want to give more power to the states? I know one may not agree with the changes conservatives want to make but that's not the same thing as accusing the conservatives of not wanting to change.
Click to expand...



You are right: conservatives certainly want changes in things we dislike. 

I did not mean to accuse conservatives, or anyone else: I am very interested in this concept of axes of differences generally, and am analyzing these differences, and I think the very word "conservatism" does speak to a greater interest in and respect for stability among conservatives than among liberals.

Or, as I too often say, "Change: you gotta hate it." 

There's a new short, cheap book out as an ebook now that, however, was reviewed this week by the Wall Street Journal, "The Three Languages of Politics" by Arnold Kling. He says we all talk past each other because we are interested in radically different axes of social existence. So that conservatives are on the axis of civilization versus barbarism (and that's very true of me) but liberals are on the axis of oppressed versus oppressors. So how can they possibly talk together? They can't --- they aren't in the same part of the multiverse, so to speak. They talk past each other.

I'm not sure he's entirely right about that being the only axis of conservatism -- I'd say personal responsibility versus group responsibility is an important one. And he admits there is a lot of spillover into conservatism from libertarianism, the axis of freedom versus coercion.


----------



## Circe

Bfgrn said:


> And here is your other problem...conservatives have NEVER given us less government. When in power, they have GROWN government. MORE than liberals and Democrats.




This is true, and I realize now that this is because there is not much spillover, practically, from libertarianism into conservatism. Libertarians are on the freedom versus coercion (by government) axis and value freedom.

Conservatives promote both civilization against barbarism and personal responsibility versus sucking on the public tit, and control of the state is viewed as not a problem in enforcing that.

Although I must say, the last various so-called conservatives seem to have passed a whole lot of liberal laws, like the leftwing promotion of house-buying for the poor, which led straight into the worldwide Great Recession. So I expect the idea that the Bush's were conservatives was either a lie or they were remarkably ineffective.


----------



## Circe

PMZ said:


> The one thing that Marks and Engles were correct about is that unregulated capitalism leads only to extreme wealth inequity which leads to unstable society which leads to Communism.



No, they were wrong about that, too. 

There were lots of unstable societies in the 20th century and they only rarely led to communism; dictatorship and fascism were far more popular. And in the few cases instability did lead to communism, for example Russia in 1917, it quickly morphed into a dictatorship. Stalin. Well, and in China and North Korea and Cambodia, too: Mao, Kim, Pol Pot. Communism is a very quick route to the cruelest dictatorships on the planet.

There is no use talking about grossly failed systems, like communism and anarchism. Or even about feudalism, which succeeded a long time but lately failed, though that one may come up again if things go to pieces badly enough; that's how it developed in the first place, very local government replacing failed central government.

Communism keeps coming back and back for 2000 years like a bad smell, but it never works and never lasts.


----------



## PMZ

JohnL.Burke said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JohnL.Burke said:
> 
> 
> 
> Come to the dark side Luke. I am your father.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was pretty sure that you'd be incapable of refuting simple logic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You said that it was your experience that outlaws live at the expense of others. Luckily Harriet Tubman and others didn't wallow in your moral pacifism . Did you know that there were slaves who wanted to stay on the plantation? They pretty much echoed what you said.  So go ahead, tremble at the thought of not returning your library book in on time. I, however, have a world to piss off. Nice talking to ya though.
Click to expand...


Feel free to piss off the world. My message was to anybody who might take you seriously. It's easy to piss off the world. In fact, Rush has made a billion dollars doing it. Hitler almost conquered the world that way. Some clowns paint on happy faces, some sad, yours is angry. 

As you and Rush and Rupert and Grover and Rove and Beck lead your angry followers to political extinction your anger will consume you while the country footnotes you as another movement that we had to flush on our way to recovery.


----------



## PMZ

JohnL.Burke said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JohnL.Burke said:
> 
> 
> 
> The logical extension of fewer laws in no laws?  An expert on logic are we? You're suspicious of people selling zero laws? So am I. The only time I called myself an anarchist was in high school because I was angry at my parents and my complexion was bad. Of course, these days, if you want to meet an anarchist you have to go to an OWS rally. Let's see if I can play the same game as you though. The logical extension of more laws is satanic worship requiring wife beating ceremonies for the dark one. So tell me. How long have you been a satanic wife beater? Oh, and don't you dare deny your own logic and say your innocent. I'm onto you! Nosferatu!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is your logic in favor of shrinking government to the size that Grover Norquist can take home and drown in the bathtub?
> 
> Somehow, I expected more. Or should I say, some.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here's a little advice. You should only expect more when you give more. I'm not just talking about hookers either. I mean life in general.
Click to expand...


Let's see. What would cause someone to take advice from a dittohead. Nope, can't think of a single reason.


----------



## tjvh

Circe said:


> JohnL.Burke said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Circe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wonderful analysis.
> 
> My own idea of the difference is that conservatives don't want change, they want stability; and liberals do want change, they welcome and promote change.
> 
> However, I really like your thinking and want to process that some more. A perspective of scarcity can affect life on a personal level, too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatives don't want change? They don't want to change the tax code? They don't want to change the IRS? They don't want to change the amount of security on the border? They don't want to fundamentally change the size and scope of government? Conservatives don't want to give more power to the states? I know one may not agree with the changes conservatives want to make but that's not the same thing as accusing the conservatives of not wanting to change.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are right: conservatives certainly want changes in things we dislike.
> 
> I did not mean to accuse conservatives, or anyone else: I am very interested in this concept of axes of differences generally, and am analyzing these differences, and I think the very word "conservatism" does speak to a greater interest in and respect for stability among conservatives than among liberals.
> 
> Or, as I too often say, "Change: you gotta hate it."
> 
> There's a new short, cheap book out as an ebook now that, however, was reviewed this week by the Wall Street Journal, "The Three Languages of Politics" by Arnold Kling. He says we all talk past each other because we are interested in radically different axes of social existence. So that conservatives are on the axis of civilization versus barbarism (and that's very true of me) but liberals are on the axis of oppressed versus oppressors. So how can they possibly talk together? They can't --- they aren't in the same part of the multiverse, so to speak. They talk past each other.
> 
> I'm not sure he's entirely right about that being the only axis of conservatism -- I'd say personal responsibility versus group responsibility is an important one. And he admits there is a lot of spillover into conservatism from libertarianism, the axis of freedom versus coercion.
Click to expand...


Changes in things you dislike? Can you be more specific, or are you just being a partisan hack?


----------



## Foxfyre

Circe said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> And here is your other problem...conservatives have NEVER given us less government. When in power, they have GROWN government. MORE than liberals and Democrats.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is true, and I realize now that this is because there is not much spillover, practically, from libertarianism into conservatism. Libertarians are on the freedom versus coercion (by government) axis and value freedom.
> 
> Conservatives promote both civilization against barbarism and personal responsibility versus sucking on the public tit, and control of the state is viewed as not a problem in enforcing that.
> 
> Although I must say, the last various so-called conservatives seem to have passed a whole lot of liberal laws, like the leftwing promotion of house-buying for the poor, which led straight into the worldwide Great Recession. So I expect the idea that the Bush's were conservatives was either a lie or they were remarkably ineffective.
Click to expand...


No it is not true.  The Founders were true conservatives as we define conservatism now.  They called it liberalism in the mid to late 18th century--now referred to by most historians as 'classical liberalism' that bears absolutely no resemblance to modern day American liberalism.

The Founders put into place a great experiment--the first in the world--of limited government authorized and allowed by the people.  The world's first constitutionally limited government restricted to extremely narrow authority and responsibility.  In a nutshell the duty of central government was to provide a system by which the various colonies/states could function as one cohesive nation, secure the unalienable rights of the people, and then leave them strictly alone to govern themselves however they chose to do that.

THAT is what true modern American conservatism is and the only groups promoting it are groups such as the Tea Party, Constitutionalist groups, 9/12ers and such.

Neither Keynesians (and JFK was basically a Keynesian at heart) nor supply siders (Reagan, GHWBush, GWB) are true conservatives as were the Founders.  Keynesians are willing to run short term deficits on the theory that giving more money to the people to spend will generate spending that will stimulate the economy that will return the money to the treasury.   Supply siders are willing to run deficits on the theory that allowing the people to keep more of their own money will stimulate the economy that will return the money to the treasury.

Both theories are credible to a point and both will work for the short term to a point.  Unfortunately we have had governments for a very long time now that are not willing to do anything for the short term.  Government programs are given life expectancy approximating mop handles and it costs more every single year to run them.  Baseline budgeting means government never shrinks or is less - 'budget cuts' are simply slightly slowing the size and scope of increases in government.

Conservatives want no more government than is absolutely necessary to carry out its constitutional functions.  Conservatives want informed citizens who demand that government at all levels not overstep its boundaries and who will hold accountable those they put in the public trust.  Conservatives understand government as a necessity, but also understand that unrestrained, unchecked government will always enslave the people and force them to work for and perpetuate the government and everything that an unrestricted government does will eventually be purely self serving.

That is why the Founders envisioned true freedom--a people who would not be governed but who would have their rights secured and would govern themselves.

Take the conservatives out of the equation and all you have left are the keynesians, the supply siders, and the liberals.  And you will quickly have a government that will assign the people the rights they will have and there will be no more freedom.


----------



## PMZ

Circe said:


> JohnL.Burke said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Circe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wonderful analysis.
> 
> My own idea of the difference is that conservatives don't want change, they want stability; and liberals do want change, they welcome and promote change.
> 
> However, I really like your thinking and want to process that some more. A perspective of scarcity can affect life on a personal level, too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatives don't want change? They don't want to change the tax code? They don't want to change the IRS? They don't want to change the amount of security on the border? They don't want to fundamentally change the size and scope of government? Conservatives don't want to give more power to the states? I know one may not agree with the changes conservatives want to make but that's not the same thing as accusing the conservatives of not wanting to change.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are right: conservatives certainly want changes in things we dislike.
> 
> I did not mean to accuse conservatives, or anyone else: I am very interested in this concept of axes of differences generally, and am analyzing these differences, and I think the very word "conservatism" does speak to a greater interest in and respect for stability among conservatives than among liberals.
> 
> Or, as I too often say, "Change: you gotta hate it."
> 
> There's a new short, cheap book out as an ebook now that, however, was reviewed this week by the Wall Street Journal, "The Three Languages of Politics" by Arnold Kling. He says we all talk past each other because we are interested in radically different axes of social existence. So that conservatives are on the axis of civilization versus barbarism (and that's very true of me) but liberals are on the axis of oppressed versus oppressors. So how can they possibly talk together? They can't --- they aren't in the same part of the multiverse, so to speak. They talk past each other.
> 
> I'm not sure he's entirely right about that being the only axis of conservatism -- I'd say personal responsibility versus group responsibility is an important one. And he admits there is a lot of spillover into conservatism from libertarianism, the axis of freedom versus coercion.
Click to expand...


"So that conservatives are on the axis of civilization versus barbarism"

I've never understood why conservations believe barbarism can ever lead to anything other than what it always has. I mean that we have an entires species record of progress as arguments against it, as well as modern examples like Afghanistan. Barbarism always leads to chaos as society figures out who has the biggest club and will therefore make and enforce his rules. It was only through the proccess of evolving government did we arrive at the stability that freedom and progress requires.


----------



## PMZ

Circe said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> The one thing that Marks and Engles were correct about is that unregulated capitalism leads only to extreme wealth inequity which leads to unstable society which leads to Communism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, they were wrong about that, too.
> 
> There were lots of unstable societies in the 20th century and they only rarely led to communism; dictatorship and fascism were far more popular. And in the few cases instability did lead to communism, for example Russia in 1917, it quickly morphed into a dictatorship. Stalin. Well, and in China and North Korea and Cambodia, too: Mao, Kim, Pol Pot. Communism is a very quick route to the cruelest dictatorships on the planet.
> 
> There is no use talking about grossly failed systems, like communism and anarchism. Or even about feudalism, which succeeded a long time but lately failed, though that one may come up again if things go to pieces badly enough; that's how it developed in the first place, very local government replacing failed central government.
> 
> Communism keeps coming back and back for 2000 years like a bad smell, but it never works and never lasts.
Click to expand...


There are many things that result in societal instability. Marks and Engles addressed one in particular. Extreme wealth distribution. Where America is today and the definition of third world countries. They assumed that the result of societal upheaval from extreme wealth distribution would inherently be what they labeled "Communism". I don't think that's been born out by history. 

That extreme wealth distribution has always lead to though is instability which resolves itself with chaos.


----------



## Circe

PMZ said:


> "So that conservatives are on the axis of civilization versus barbarism"
> 
> I've never understood why conservations believe barbarism can ever lead to anything other than what it always has. I mean that we have an entires species record of progress as arguments against it, as well as modern examples like Afghanistan. Barbarism always leads to chaos as society figures out who has the biggest club and will therefore make and enforce his rules. It was only through the proccess of evolving government did we arrive at the stability that freedom and progress requires.




Now, now. [

You are implying that we celebrate barbarism. 

No, we dislike the barbarians: the Muslims that bomb and hack at everybody they can, the transvestites who force their way into women's restrooms, the blacks rioting in our cities and committing so much of the crime, the Occupy Wall Street types who poop for the cameras on police cars. 

We'd like things a little nicer than all that. But that's just us.


----------



## PMZ

Foxfyre said:


> Circe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> And here is your other problem...conservatives have NEVER given us less government. When in power, they have GROWN government. MORE than liberals and Democrats.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is true, and I realize now that this is because there is not much spillover, practically, from libertarianism into conservatism. Libertarians are on the freedom versus coercion (by government) axis and value freedom.
> 
> Conservatives promote both civilization against barbarism and personal responsibility versus sucking on the public tit, and control of the state is viewed as not a problem in enforcing that.
> 
> Although I must say, the last various so-called conservatives seem to have passed a whole lot of liberal laws, like the leftwing promotion of house-buying for the poor, which led straight into the worldwide Great Recession. So I expect the idea that the Bush's were conservatives was either a lie or they were remarkably ineffective.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it is not true.  The Founders were true conservatives as we define conservatism now.  They called it liberalism in the mid to late 18th century--now referred to by most historians as 'classical liberalism' that bears absolutely no resemblance to modern day American liberalism.
> 
> The Founders put into place a great experiment--the first in the world--of limited government authorized and allowed by the people.  The world's first constitutionally limited government restricted to extremely narrow authority and responsibility.  In a nutshell the duty of central government was to provide a system by which the various colonies/states could function as one cohesive nation, secure the unalienable rights of the people, and then leave them strictly alone to govern themselves however they chose to do that.
> 
> THAT is what true modern American conservatism is and the only groups promoting it are groups such as the Tea Party, Constitutionalist groups, 9/12ers and such.
> 
> Neither Keynesians (and JFK was basically a Keynesian at heart) nor supply siders (Reagan, GHWBush, GWB) are true conservatives as were the Founders.  Keynesians are willing to run short term deficits on the theory that giving more money to the people to spend will generate spending that will stimulate the economy that will return the money to the treasury.   Supply siders are willing to run deficits on the theory that allowing the people to keep more of their own money will stimulate the economy that will return the money to the treasury.
> 
> Both theories are credible to a point and both will work for the short term to a point.  Unfortunately we have had governments for a very long time now that are not willing to do anything for the short term.  Government programs are given life expectancy approximating mop handles and it costs more every single year to run them.  Baseline budgeting means government never shrinks or is less - 'budget cuts' are simply slightly slowing the size and scope of increases in government.
> 
> Conservatives want no more government than is absolutely necessary to carry out its constitutional functions.  Conservatives want informed citizens who demand that government at all levels not overstep its boundaries and who will hold accountable those they put in the public trust.  Conservatives understand government as a necessity, but also understand that unrestrained, unchecked government will always enslave the people and force them to work for and perpetuate the government and everything that an unrestricted government does will eventually be purely self serving.
> 
> That is why the Founders envisioned true freedom--a people who would not be governed but who would have their rights secured and would govern themselves.
> 
> Take the conservatives out of the equation and all you have left are the keynesians, the supply siders, and the liberals.  And you will quickly have a government that will assign the people the rights they will have and there will be no more freedom.
Click to expand...


"The Founders put into place a great experiment--the first in the world--of limited government authorized and allowed by the people. The world's first constitutionally limited government restricted to extremely narrow authority and responsibility. In a nutshell the duty of central government was to provide a system by which the various colonies/states could function as one cohesive nation, secure the unalienable rights of the people, and then leave them strictly alone to govern themselves however they chose to do that."

This is the mistaken corner stone espoused by the old anti-Federalists (who lost the debate) and modern conservatives. Those that won the dabate espoused strong central government, like the one that most Europeans can only wish for today, restricted only by the Bill of Rights. A handful of very specific areas of life over which legislation was forbidden. Other than that they opened the door through which would eventiually come democracy and goverment truly of, for, and by all of the people, rather than the ruling classes of Revolutionary times.


----------



## Circe

PMZ said:


> That extreme wealth distribution has always lead to though is instability which resolves itself with chaos.



Can't agree: extreme wealth gradients last a very long time: Rome, the French during most of the Louis, all the Tudors, the long rule of the Romanoffs, America in the 19th and early 20th century. We didn't have a revolution, nor did the many of others, not successful ones. After all, very wealthy people are well-equipped to stop wars and revolts, if they care to, and that's just what they do.

Eventually EVERY situation leads through instability into chaos, but nothing in particular is the trigger, just various issues. Barbarian invasion; collapse of the economies; slavery and its ending; grossly failed wars, as in 1917 Russia. Even strange things, like Rasputin. A cycle of revolution and stability is natural to human society, history repeatedly shows. It's not spun around by any one given issue.


----------



## Trakar

Circe said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> "So that conservatives are on the axis of civilization versus barbarism"
> 
> I've never understood why conservations believe barbarism can ever lead to anything other than what it always has. I mean that we have an entires species record of progress as arguments against it, as well as modern examples like Afghanistan. Barbarism always leads to chaos as society figures out who has the biggest club and will therefore make and enforce his rules. It was only through the proccess of evolving government did we arrive at the stability that freedom and progress requires.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now, now. [
> 
> You are implying that we celebrate barbarism.
> 
> No, we dislike the barbarians: the Muslims that bomb and hack at everybody they can, the transvestites who force their way into women's restrooms, the blacks rioting in our cities and committing so much of the crime, the Occupy Wall Street types who poop for the cameras on police cars.
> 
> We'd like things a little nicer than all that. But that's just us.
Click to expand...

 
So the take away is?

...that while not all conservatives are racist, there are a lot of racist sounding bytes coming from people who claim to be conservatives.

?


----------



## PMZ

Circe said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> "So that conservatives are on the axis of civilization versus barbarism"
> 
> I've never understood why conservations believe barbarism can ever lead to anything other than what it always has. I mean that we have an entires species record of progress as arguments against it, as well as modern examples like Afghanistan. Barbarism always leads to chaos as society figures out who has the biggest club and will therefore make and enforce his rules. It was only through the proccess of evolving government did we arrive at the stability that freedom and progress requires.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now, now. [
> 
> You are implying that we celebrate barbarism.
> 
> No, we dislike the barbarians: the Muslims that bomb and hack at everybody they can, the transvestites who force their way into women's restrooms, the blacks rioting in our cities and committing so much of the crime, the Occupy Wall Street types who poop for the cameras on police cars.
> 
> We'd like things a little nicer than all that. But that's just us.
Click to expand...


I think what you need to consider more is the essential issue of our times. Extreme wealth distribution. What you are observing is that that is a condition favored by the halves, who therefore have no reason to want change. Like the aristocracy of French Revolution times. Change comes from the have nots, whose power comes only from their numbers. As the haves have whittled away the middle class, they have, by ignoring history, created more societal instability. Which will have to resolve itself. 

The one wrinkle somewhat new to mankind is modern media, the influence of which allows the extreme wealthy to build a terra cotta army of synchophants, that create the illusion of numbers. 

If this is to end happily, it will be through the actions of people like President Obama, recreating the middle class. Which I think that he will do and therefore go into history as a modern Lincoln. 

If 2008 had resulted in the continuation of the GWB policies of the dismantlement of the middle class, today would be dark indeed.


----------



## PMZ

Circe said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> That extreme wealth distribution has always lead to though is instability which resolves itself with chaos.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can't agree: extreme wealth gradients last a very long time: Rome, the French during most of the Louis, all the Tudors, the long rule of the Romanoffs, America in the 19th and early 20th century. We didn't have a revolution, nor did the many of others, not successful ones. After all, very wealthy people are well-equipped to stop wars and revolts, if they care to, and that's just what they do.
> 
> Eventually EVERY situation leads through instability into chaos, but nothing in particular is the trigger, just various issues. Barbarian invasion; collapse of the economies; slavery and its ending; grossly failed wars, as in 1917 Russia. Even strange things, like Rasputin. A cycle of revolution and stability is natural to human society, history repeatedly shows. It's not spun around by any one given issue.
Click to expand...


I agree that instability can result from many causes, that lead to the same result. Chaos that ultimately but painfully resolves into order. 

I disagree that history hasn't taught us that extreme wealth inequity is not among those causes.


----------



## Circe

PMZ said:


> I disagree that history hasn't taught us that extreme wealth inequity is not among those causes.



Can you give an example? Because I'm not coming up with an historical example of wealth disparity resulting in societal collapse.

In the case of Russia it was certainly the direly failed war, plus the Germans sending in Lenin, in a sealed train so he would not infect Germany.

In the case of Southern American slavery, that was certainly wealth disparity but never resulted in meaningful revolt by the slaves. The Civil War was a result of extreme hostility by abolitionists and reaction to laws ending slavery by Southerners, but not wealth disparity. 

Even the French Revolution was not a product of wealth disparity, but of severe government collapse because of gross economic malfeasance and of several years of remarkably bad weather that resulted in bad harvests all over. 

I can think of many examples of wealth disparity, but none that resulted in societal collapse, revolution, or chaos. I don't think that's where it's at.


----------



## Foxfyre

However the causes of wealth inequality are far more likely to result from government engineering, meddling, and interference than they are likely to result from a free market economy, restricted only as necessary to prevent us from doing physical, environmental, and/or economic violence to each other.

This is something conservatives understand.  Liberals and even quasi conservatives put far too much faith in government to manage the economy and it always does that badly.


----------



## PMZ

Circe said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree that history hasn't taught us that extreme wealth inequity is not among those causes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you give an example? Because I'm not coming up with an historical example of wealth disparity resulting in societal collapse.
> 
> In the case of Russia it was certainly the direly failed war, plus the Germans sending in Lenin, in a sealed train so he would not infect Germany.
> 
> In the case of Southern American slavery, that was certainly wealth disparity but never resulted in meaningful revolt by the slaves. The Civil War was a result of extreme hostility by abolitionists and reaction to laws ending slavery by Southerners, but not wealth disparity.
> 
> Even the French Revolution was not a product of wealth disparity, but of severe government collapse because of gross economic malfeasance and of several years of remarkably bad weather that resulted in bad harvests all over.
> 
> I can think of many examples of wealth disparity, but none that resulted in societal collapse, revolution, or chaos. I don't think that's where it's at.
Click to expand...


I think that you are incorrect about the USSR, the French Revolution, and the Civil War. 

For instance the Civil War was about maintaining the extreme wealth inequity in the south. That's why the South suceeded.

In fact it was really a major factor in our Revolutionary war. The hardscrabble American frontier people having to support British nobility.


----------



## PMZ

Foxfyre said:


> However the causes of wealth inequality are far more likely to result from government engineering, meddling, and interference than they are likely to result from a free market economy, restricted only as necessary to prevent us from doing physical, environmental, and/or economic violence to each other.
> 
> This is something conservatives understand.  Liberals and even quasi conservatives put far too much faith in government to manage the economy and it always does that badly.



I agree that the government can worsen wealth inequality. Witness the Bush Administration for example. 

My main point though is that it's surely the endgame of unregulated capitalism simply because free markets are a myth. There's never been one.


----------



## GWV5903

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I put this topic here because I want honest answers and no flaming. As a right leaning guy I love the left and wouldnt want to see them go. But why does the left hate Republicans so bad? Their history is after all the Anti-Slave party. p.s. sorry about any typo's I wrote this on the fly because I am so curious what would you think happen to the US if cons left
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The left doesnt hate anyone, republicans in particular.
> 
> In fact, theyd love to have conservatives back to participate in responsible governance again.
> 
> *Unfortunately, at least at this time, social conservatives, rightwing fiscal extremists, and Christian fundamentalists have a stranglehold on the GOP*.
Click to expand...


That's not true, this is the dialogue that keeps both sides from communicating constructively...

We could sit hear and write a book about liberal ideology, but it is not going to solve the problems we have today...

Come to the table with compromise as the first belief and you will be surprised...


----------



## PMZ

Some people make the mistake of associating free markets with capitalism. They are simply disconnected concepts.

Capitalism soley deals with the ownership of the means of production. It can only be compared to socialism. In a socialistic economic system everybody in the country owns the means of production. Like the common property in the worlds biggest condo association. Examples are national parks, the military, the airspace, the FBI/CIA, the VA, etc. 

In a capitalistic economic system the means of production are owned by something less than all of us, all of the way down to only one of us. 

Free markets are those markets where demand is fully informed. Where all buyers know all about the quality, functionality, reliability, in other words every detail that affects value. The closest we come to that ideal are commodity markets like, for instance, gasoline should be. However, in today's world branding has just about ended the reality of free markets.


----------



## PMZ

The reason that the concept of free markets is enticing is that it results in perfect competition, the preeminence of the consumer, just like democracy results in the preeminence of we, the people, the citizens. But of course in today's world of pervasive brand marketing, both in politics and consumer markets, "free" has been grossly compromised by advertising. Consumers and voters are illinformed by it. We are not informed, but missinformed by the purchase of media exposure. 

So "free" has been superceeded by monied interests. 

The end of freedom as we've known it?

We'll see.


----------



## Foxfyre

PMZ said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> However the causes of wealth inequality are far more likely to result from government engineering, meddling, and interference than they are likely to result from a free market economy, restricted only as necessary to prevent us from doing physical, environmental, and/or economic violence to each other.
> 
> This is something conservatives understand.  Liberals and even quasi conservatives put far too much faith in government to manage the economy and it always does that badly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree that the government can worsen wealth inequality. Witness the Bush Administration for example.
> 
> My main point though is that it's surely the endgame of unregulated capitalism simply because free markets are a myth. There's never been one.
Click to expand...


In rebuttal.  "Free market" depends upon one's definition of that.  As for the "Bush record":



> It was only a few months ago that the Congressional Budget Office released a report illustrating how the very richest Americans have pulled away from the rest of society in the past 30 years.
> 
> But that report used data that was only complete through 2007. Saez's calculations go through 2010, suggesting that White House rhetoric or no, the trends of the past three decades haven't started to reverse themselves.
> 
> Here's how Saez's math breaks down, for the curious: In the 2009-2010 period, a time of modest economic growth, the top 1 percent of U.S. earners captured 93 percent of all the income growth in the country.
> 
> Got that? Now compare it to how the mega-rich made out during the Bush upswing years of 2002 to 2007. During that time, the top 1 percent of earners captured just 65 percent of all the income growth.
> 
> That means the rising tide has lifted fewer boats during the Obama years -- and the ones it's lifted have been mostly yachts
> Income Inequality Worse Under Obama Than George W. Bush



But though GWB was far more conservative than Obama in his concepts of how to stimulate an economy and increase productivity and create jobs so that people could prosper, he overall was no conservative.

But get the liberals out of the way and put conservatives in charge, and we will again have no incentives to remain 'poor' and we will again see the easy mobility between economic classes as economic prosperity will again be based on individual incentive, ability, and ambition rather than on government engineering.


----------



## PMZ

Foxfyre said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> However the causes of wealth inequality are far more likely to result from government engineering, meddling, and interference than they are likely to result from a free market economy, restricted only as necessary to prevent us from doing physical, environmental, and/or economic violence to each other.
> 
> This is something conservatives understand.  Liberals and even quasi conservatives put far too much faith in government to manage the economy and it always does that badly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree that the government can worsen wealth inequality. Witness the Bush Administration for example.
> 
> My main point though is that it's surely the endgame of unregulated capitalism simply because free markets are a myth. There's never been one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In rebuttal.  "Free market" depends upon one's definition of that.  As for the "Bush record":
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was only a few months ago that the Congressional Budget Office released a report illustrating how the very richest Americans have pulled away from the rest of society in the past 30 years.
> 
> But that report used data that was only complete through 2007. Saez's calculations go through 2010, suggesting that White House rhetoric or no, the trends of the past three decades haven't started to reverse themselves.
> 
> Here's how Saez's math breaks down, for the curious: In the 2009-2010 period, a time of modest economic growth, the top 1 percent of U.S. earners captured 93 percent of all the income growth in the country.
> 
> Got that? Now compare it to how the mega-rich made out during the Bush upswing years of 2002 to 2007. During that time, the top 1 percent of earners captured just 65 percent of all the income growth.
> 
> That means the rising tide has lifted fewer boats during the Obama years -- and the ones it's lifted have been mostly yachts
> Income Inequality Worse Under Obama Than George W. Bush
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, I think that you live in a world of denial caused by the belief, that there is some philosophy, in your case conservatism, that is always successful. In your mind Bush wasn't conservative, because he wasn't successful. IMO, he wasn't President either. Cheney was. "Always successful" is, by definition, extremism.
> 
> But though GWB was far more conservative than Obama in his concepts of how to stimulate an economy and increase productivity and create jobs so that people could prosper, he overall was no conservative.
> 
> But get the liberals out of the way and put conservatives in charge, and we will again have no incentives to remain 'poor' and we will again see the easy mobility between economic classes as economic prosperity will again be based on individual incentive, ability, and ambition rather than on government engineering.
Click to expand...


There is so much data out there as evidence of America's wealth inequity position in the world that, if you've missed it, you are a dedicated extremist with no use for the truth. 

Liberal = belief in a world of plenty.

Conservative = belief in a world of scarcity. 

Conservatism in the form of the Bush/Cheney Administration, and in the form of conservative business people, tried to maintain our collective stash, in the face of scarcity, by shrinking, defending, isolating, hiding. 

It did not work and we have a huge pile of unpaid bills to show for it. 

You've been fired as a result.

We, who see plenty out there if we go after it, now are in control and pursuing government and business growth in capability so all that can be is spread among all Americans, like things used to be. 

You had your chance and you failed. This is our chance, and early returns show steady if slow progress by business, and recovery by government.


----------



## Trakar

GWV5903 said:


> That's not true, this is the dialogue that keeps both sides from communicating constructively...
> 
> We could sit hear and write a book about liberal ideology, but it is not going to solve the problems we have today...
> 
> Come to the table with compromise as the first belief and you will be surprised...


 
The fact that most of the last administration are not still engaged in trials defending their criminal acts, that the heads of most major US investment banks aren't lined up on the dockets with them, that we still have troops in both Afghanistan and Iraq, that Gitmo is still open, that we don't have comprehensive federal legislation and international treaties to deal with climate change, that there is no carbon tax paying off the national debt and building efficient, sustainable energy infrastructure and that we have insurance company welfare rather than universal health care, speaks to the fact that the reasonable opposition did come to the table with compromise as the first belief, ...unfortunately, their generosity and willingness to work towards mutual goals has been met with "well, now that you gave-in to those demands here are the rest of our demands." Such an approach (unsurprisingly) has resulted in an atmosphere where the reasonable are no longer willing to give until they receive an equivalent yielding by the groups that don't even seem to realize what all they have already won in compromise.


----------



## PMZ

GWV5903 said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I put this topic here because I want honest answers and no flaming. As a right leaning guy I love the left and wouldnt want to see them go. But why does the left hate Republicans so bad? Their history is after all the Anti-Slave party. p.s. sorry about any typo's I wrote this on the fly because I am so curious what would you think happen to the US if cons left
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The left doesnt hate anyone, republicans in particular.
> 
> In fact, theyd love to have conservatives back to participate in responsible governance again.
> 
> *Unfortunately, at least at this time, social conservatives, rightwing fiscal extremists, and Christian fundamentalists have a stranglehold on the GOP*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's not true, this is the dialogue that keeps both sides from communicating constructively...
> 
> We could sit hear and write a book about liberal ideology, but it is not going to solve the problems we have today...
> 
> Come to the table with compromise as the first belief and you will be surprised...
Click to expand...


I see your position on compromise in the logo on the bottom of your post.


----------



## Foxfyre

PMZ said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree that the government can worsen wealth inequality. Witness the Bush Administration for example.
> 
> My main point though is that it's surely the endgame of unregulated capitalism simply because free markets are a myth. There's never been one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In rebuttal.  "Free market" depends upon one's definition of that.  As for the "Bush record":
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was only a few months ago that the Congressional Budget Office released a report illustrating how the very richest Americans have pulled away from the rest of society in the past 30 years.
> 
> But that report used data that was only complete through 2007. Saez's calculations go through 2010, suggesting that White House rhetoric or no, the trends of the past three decades haven't started to reverse themselves.
> 
> Here's how Saez's math breaks down, for the curious: In the 2009-2010 period, a time of modest economic growth, the top 1 percent of U.S. earners captured 93 percent of all the income growth in the country.
> 
> Got that? Now compare it to how the mega-rich made out during the Bush upswing years of 2002 to 2007. During that time, the top 1 percent of earners captured just 65 percent of all the income growth.
> 
> That means the rising tide has lifted fewer boats during the Obama years -- and the ones it's lifted have been mostly yachts
> Income Inequality Worse Under Obama Than George W. Bush
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, I think that you live in a world of denial caused by the belief, that there is some philosophy, in your case conservatism, that is always successful. In your mind Bush wasn't conservative, because he wasn't successful. IMO, he wasn't President either. Cheney was. "Always successful" is, by definition, extremism.
> 
> But though GWB was far more conservative than Obama in his concepts of how to stimulate an economy and increase productivity and create jobs so that people could prosper, he overall was no conservative.
> 
> But get the liberals out of the way and put conservatives in charge, and we will again have no incentives to remain 'poor' and we will again see the easy mobility between economic classes as economic prosperity will again be based on individual incentive, ability, and ambition rather than on government engineering.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is so much data out there as evidence of America's wealth inequity position in the world that, if you've missed it, you are a dedicated extremist with no use for the truth.
> 
> Liberal = belief in a world of plenty.
> 
> Conservative = belief in a world of scarcity.
> 
> Conservatism in the form of the Bush/Cheney Administration, and in the form of conservative business people, tried to maintain our collective stash, in the face of scarcity, by shrinking, defending, isolating, hiding.
> 
> It did not work and we have a huge pile of unpaid bills to show for it.
> 
> You've been fired as a result.
> 
> We, who see plenty out there if we go after it, now are in control and pursuing government and business growth in capability so all that can be is spread among all Americans, like things used to be.
> 
> You had your chance and you failed. This is our chance, and early returns show steady if slow progress by business, and recovery by government.
Click to expand...


Doesn't it embarrass you at all to post such nonsense without any example from real life or even fantasy that you can use to back it up and without ability to post evidence from any credible source?  Not to mention being totally non sequitur.  Did you even read my post?  Or the link I provided to back it up?


----------



## PMZ

Foxfyre said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> However the causes of wealth inequality are far more likely to result from government engineering, meddling, and interference than they are likely to result from a free market economy, restricted only as necessary to prevent us from doing physical, environmental, and/or economic violence to each other.
> 
> This is something conservatives understand.  Liberals and even quasi conservatives put far too much faith in government to manage the economy and it always does that badly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree that the government can worsen wealth inequality. Witness the Bush Administration for example.
> 
> My main point though is that it's surely the endgame of unregulated capitalism simply because free markets are a myth. There's never been one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In rebuttal.  "Free market" depends upon one's definition of that.  As for the "Bush record":
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was only a few months ago that the Congressional Budget Office released a report illustrating how the very richest Americans have pulled away from the rest of society in the past 30 years.
> 
> But that report used data that was only complete through 2007. Saez's calculations go through 2010, suggesting that White House rhetoric or no, the trends of the past three decades haven't started to reverse themselves.
> 
> Here's how Saez's math breaks down, for the curious: In the 2009-2010 period, a time of modest economic growth, the top 1 percent of U.S. earners captured 93 percent of all the income growth in the country.
> 
> Got that? Now compare it to how the mega-rich made out during the Bush upswing years of 2002 to 2007. During that time, the top 1 percent of earners captured just 65 percent of all the income growth.
> 
> That means the rising tide has lifted fewer boats during the Obama years -- and the ones it's lifted have been mostly yachts
> Income Inequality Worse Under Obama Than George W. Bush
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But though GWB was far more conservative than Obama in his concepts of how to stimulate an economy and increase productivity and create jobs so that people could prosper, he overall was no conservative.
> 
> But get the liberals out of the way and put conservatives in charge, and we will again have no incentives to remain 'poor' and we will again see the easy mobility between economic classes as economic prosperity will again be based on individual incentive, ability, and ambition rather than on government engineering.
Click to expand...


"But get the liberals out of the way and put conservatives in charge, and we will again have no incentives to remain 'poor'"

I have never met a poor person there by choice.


----------



## PMZ

Foxfyre said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> In rebuttal.  "Free market" depends upon one's definition of that.  As for the "Bush record":
> 
> 
> 
> Again, I think that you live in a world of denial caused by the belief, that there is some philosophy, in your case conservatism, that is always successful. In your mind Bush wasn't conservative, because he wasn't successful. IMO, he wasn't President either. Cheney was. "Always successful" is, by definition, extremism.
> 
> But though GWB was far more conservative than Obama in his concepts of how to stimulate an economy and increase productivity and create jobs so that people could prosper, he overall was no conservative.
> 
> But get the liberals out of the way and put conservatives in charge, and we will again have no incentives to remain 'poor' and we will again see the easy mobility between economic classes as economic prosperity will again be based on individual incentive, ability, and ambition rather than on government engineering.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is so much data out there as evidence of America's wealth inequity position in the world that, if you've missed it, you are a dedicated extremist with no use for the truth.
> 
> Liberal = belief in a world of plenty.
> 
> Conservative = belief in a world of scarcity.
> 
> Conservatism in the form of the Bush/Cheney Administration, and in the form of conservative business people, tried to maintain our collective stash, in the face of scarcity, by shrinking, defending, isolating, hiding.
> 
> It did not work and we have a huge pile of unpaid bills to show for it.
> 
> You've been fired as a result.
> 
> We, who see plenty out there if we go after it, now are in control and pursuing government and business growth in capability so all that can be is spread among all Americans, like things used to be.
> 
> You had your chance and you failed. This is our chance, and early returns show steady if slow progress by business, and recovery by government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Doesn't it embarrass you at all to post such nonsense without any example from real life or even fantasy that you can use to back it up and without ability to post evidence from any credible source?  Not to mention being totally non sequitur.  Did you even read my post?  Or the link I provided to back it up?
Click to expand...


You wouldn't react the way that you do if you didn't see the essential truth in what I post.


----------



## PMZ

Most of the extremism posted here comes from a common source. Rush and Rupert et al. What they propagate is 24/7/365 Republican propaganda consisting of an inseparable mix of facts (news) and opinion.

It has compromised the once free market of democracy.

I think, like most fads, it's 15 minutes of fame are over, but we must continue our vigilance.


----------



## Foxfyre

PMZ said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is so much data out there as evidence of America's wealth inequity position in the world that, if you've missed it, you are a dedicated extremist with no use for the truth.
> 
> Liberal = belief in a world of plenty.
> 
> Conservative = belief in a world of scarcity.
> 
> Conservatism in the form of the Bush/Cheney Administration, and in the form of conservative business people, tried to maintain our collective stash, in the face of scarcity, by shrinking, defending, isolating, hiding.
> 
> It did not work and we have a huge pile of unpaid bills to show for it.
> 
> You've been fired as a result.
> 
> We, who see plenty out there if we go after it, now are in control and pursuing government and business growth in capability so all that can be is spread among all Americans, like things used to be.
> 
> You had your chance and you failed. This is our chance, and early returns show steady if slow progress by business, and recovery by government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't it embarrass you at all to post such nonsense without any example from real life or even fantasy that you can use to back it up and without ability to post evidence from any credible source?  Not to mention being totally non sequitur.  Did you even read my post?  Or the link I provided to back it up?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You wouldn't react the way that you do if you didn't see the essential truth in what I post.
Click to expand...


I see no truth at all in what you posted.  I don't believe any of that for a second.   I don't think even you believe it.  But oh well.


----------



## PMZ

Foxfyre said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't it embarrass you at all to post such nonsense without any example from real life or even fantasy that you can use to back it up and without ability to post evidence from any credible source?  Not to mention being totally non sequitur.  Did you even read my post?  Or the link I provided to back it up?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You wouldn't react the way that you do if you didn't see the essential truth in what I post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see no truth at all in what you posted.  I don't believe any of that for a second.   I don't think even you believe it.  But oh well.
Click to expand...


I will believe that what I've posted is accurate until I find, from this source or some other, evidence that I'm wrong.


----------



## JohnL.Burke

PMZ said:


> JohnL.Burke said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was pretty sure that you'd be incapable of refuting simple logic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You said that it was your experience that outlaws live at the expense of others. Luckily Harriet Tubman and others didn't wallow in your moral pacifism . Did you know that there were slaves who wanted to stay on the plantation? They pretty much echoed what you said.  So go ahead, tremble at the thought of not returning your library book in on time. I, however, have a world to piss off. Nice talking to ya though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Feel free to piss off the world. My message was to anybody who might take you seriously. It's easy to piss off the world. In fact, Rush has made a billion dollars doing it. Hitler almost conquered the world that way. Some clowns paint on happy faces, some sad, yours is angry.
> 
> As you and Rush and Rupert and Grover and Rove and Beck lead your angry followers to political extinction your anger will consume you while the country footnotes you as another movement that we had to flush on our way to recovery.
Click to expand...



 Hmmm... are you sure I'M the angry one? Sheesh! Now this is why I have fun with vacuous silly posts like yours. I don't want to be sucked up into the political repetitive time/space continuum which is liberal spin . What do I mean by this? I mean that you bring up Rush,Rupert,Grover,Rove and Beck as angry leaders. So this is the part where I am supposed to bring up Mathews,Wiener (the politician),Moore,Media Matters, etc. Now that we have blocked each other with what we perceive as the other side's "haters" we would then go back and forth with quotes from people we don't like. It's really such a bore. So instead, I simply point out the shallowness of your post and the silliness of your point then we can all move on and have a beer. You're welcome.


----------



## PMZ

Foxfyre said:


> Circe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> And here is your other problem...conservatives have NEVER given us less government. When in power, they have GROWN government. MORE than liberals and Democrats.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is true, and I realize now that this is because there is not much spillover, practically, from libertarianism into conservatism. Libertarians are on the freedom versus coercion (by government) axis and value freedom.
> 
> Conservatives promote both civilization against barbarism and personal responsibility versus sucking on the public tit, and control of the state is viewed as not a problem in enforcing that.
> 
> Although I must say, the last various so-called conservatives seem to have passed a whole lot of liberal laws, like the leftwing promotion of house-buying for the poor, which led straight into the worldwide Great Recession. So I expect the idea that the Bush's were conservatives was either a lie or they were remarkably ineffective.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it is not true.  The Founders were true conservatives as we define conservatism now.  They called it liberalism in the mid to late 18th century--now referred to by most historians as 'classical liberalism' that bears absolutely no resemblance to modern day American liberalism.
> 
> The Founders put into place a great experiment--the first in the world--of limited government authorized and allowed by the people.  The world's first constitutionally limited government restricted to extremely narrow authority and responsibility.  In a nutshell the duty of central government was to provide a system by which the various colonies/states could function as one cohesive nation, secure the unalienable rights of the people, and then leave them strictly alone to govern themselves however they chose to do that.
> 
> THAT is what true modern American conservatism is and the only groups promoting it are groups such as the Tea Party, Constitutionalist groups, 9/12ers and such.
> 
> Neither Keynesians (and JFK was basically a Keynesian at heart) nor supply siders (Reagan, GHWBush, GWB) are true conservatives as were the Founders.  Keynesians are willing to run short term deficits on the theory that giving more money to the people to spend will generate spending that will stimulate the economy that will return the money to the treasury.   Supply siders are willing to run deficits on the theory that allowing the people to keep more of their own money will stimulate the economy that will return the money to the treasury.
> 
> Both theories are credible to a point and both will work for the short term to a point.  Unfortunately we have had governments for a very long time now that are not willing to do anything for the short term.  Government programs are given life expectancy approximating mop handles and it costs more every single year to run them.  Baseline budgeting means government never shrinks or is less - 'budget cuts' are simply slightly slowing the size and scope of increases in government.
> 
> Conservatives want no more government than is absolutely necessary to carry out its constitutional functions.  Conservatives want informed citizens who demand that government at all levels not overstep its boundaries and who will hold accountable those they put in the public trust.  Conservatives understand government as a necessity, but also understand that unrestrained, unchecked government will always enslave the people and force them to work for and perpetuate the government and everything that an unrestricted government does will eventually be purely self serving.
> 
> That is why the Founders envisioned true freedom--a people who would not be governed but who would have their rights secured and would govern themselves.
> 
> Take the conservatives out of the equation and all you have left are the keynesians, the supply siders, and the liberals.  And you will quickly have a government that will assign the people the rights they will have and there will be no more freedom.
Click to expand...


From Wikipedia.

"Prior to the publication of Keynes's General Theory, mainstream economic thought was that the economy existed in a state of general equilibrium, meaning that the economy naturally consumes whatever it produces because the needs of consumers are always greater than the capacity of the economy to satisfy those needs. This perception is reflected in Say's Law[5] and in the writing of David Ricardo,[6] which is that individuals produce so that they can either consume what they have manufactured or sell their output so that they can buy someone else's output. This perception rests upon the assumption that if a surplus of goods or services exists, they would naturally drop in price to the point where they would be consumed."
"Keynes's theory was significant because it overturned the mainstream thought of the time and brought about a greater awareness that problems such as unemployment are not a product of laziness, but the result of a structural inadequacy in the economic system. He argued that because there was no guarantee that the goods that individuals produce would be met with demand, unemployment was a natural consequence. He saw the economy as unable to maintain itself at full employment and believed that it was necessary for the government to step in and put under-utilised savings to work through government spending. Thus, according to Keynesian theory, some individually rational microeconomic-level actions such as not investing savings in the goods and services produced by the economy, if taken collectively by a large proportion of individuals and firms, can lead to outcomes wherein the economy operates below its potential output and growth rate."
"Prior to Keynes, a situation in which aggregate demand for goods and services did not meet supply was referred to by classical economists as a general glut, although there was disagreement among them as to whether a general glut was possible. Keynes argued that when a glut occurred, it was the over-reaction of producers and the laying off of workers that led to a fall in demand and perpetuated the problem. Keynesians therefore advocate an active stabilization policy to reduce the amplitude of the business cycle, which they rank among the most serious of economic problems. According to the theory, government spending can be used to increase aggregate demand, thus increasing economic activity, reducing unemployment and deflation."

From Foxfyre.

"Take the conservatives out of the equation and all you have left are the keynesians, the supply siders, and the liberals."

Keynesians and supply siders, in other words demand and supply siders, together, are everyone who has a macronomic theory, leaving nobody to be a conservative.


----------



## PMZ

JohnL.Burke said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JohnL.Burke said:
> 
> 
> 
> You said that it was your experience that outlaws live at the expense of others. Luckily Harriet Tubman and others didn't wallow in your moral pacifism . Did you know that there were slaves who wanted to stay on the plantation? They pretty much echoed what you said.  So go ahead, tremble at the thought of not returning your library book in on time. I, however, have a world to piss off. Nice talking to ya though.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Feel free to piss off the world. My message was to anybody who might take you seriously. It's easy to piss off the world. In fact, Rush has made a billion dollars doing it. Hitler almost conquered the world that way. Some clowns paint on happy faces, some sad, yours is angry.
> 
> As you and Rush and Rupert and Grover and Rove and Beck lead your angry followers to political extinction your anger will consume you while the country footnotes you as another movement that we had to flush on our way to recovery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm... are you sure I'M the angry one? Sheesh!
Click to expand...


I don't know if you are angry or not. I just know what you post. And that I've assumed that most outlaws are angry. That's what they have no compunction against taking from others.


----------



## Foxfyre

I can cut and paste huge gray blocks of stuff that is mostly irrelevent and/or non sequitur to the discussion too PMZ.  So what do you think you accomplished?


----------



## PMZ

Foxfyre said:


> I can cut and paste huge gray blocks of stuff that is mostly irrelevent and/or non sequitur to the discussion too PMZ.  So what do you think you accomplished?



Dunno. That's an inherent problem with this hobby. 

So, I state the truth as I've determined it to be, in as provacative a way as I'm able to, and read the response from it. Sometime there's evidence that I hadn't been exposed to previously that either reinforces or denies what I've posted. I check it out. 

That's how I learn and evolve. I was once a conservative and still am a Republican. This methodology was how I learned that both had abandoned me. 

I don't know how time efficient this is as a learning process, but it adds entertainment to life long learning so it works OK for me.


----------



## PMZ

JohnL.Burke said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JohnL.Burke said:
> 
> 
> 
> You said that it was your experience that outlaws live at the expense of others. Luckily Harriet Tubman and others didn't wallow in your moral pacifism . Did you know that there were slaves who wanted to stay on the plantation? They pretty much echoed what you said.  So go ahead, tremble at the thought of not returning your library book in on time. I, however, have a world to piss off. Nice talking to ya though.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Feel free to piss off the world. My message was to anybody who might take you seriously. It's easy to piss off the world. In fact, Rush has made a billion dollars doing it. Hitler almost conquered the world that way. Some clowns paint on happy faces, some sad, yours is angry.
> 
> As you and Rush and Rupert and Grover and Rove and Beck lead your angry followers to political extinction your anger will consume you while the country footnotes you as another movement that we had to flush on our way to recovery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm... are you sure I'M the angry one? Sheesh! Now this is why I have fun with vacuous silly posts like yours. I don't want to be sucked up into the political repetitive time/space continuum which is liberal spin . What do I mean by this? I mean that you bring up Rush,Rupert,Grover,Rove and Beck as angry leaders. So this is the part where I am supposed to bring up Mathews,Wiener (the politician),Moore,Media Matters, etc. Now that we have blocked each other with what we perceive as the other side's "haters" we would then go back and forth with quotes from people we don't like. It's really such a bore. So instead, I simply point out the shallowness of your post and the silliness of your point then we can all move on and have a beer. You're welcome.
Click to expand...


You are certainly welcome to all of your opinions. They are irrelevent to me. 

I've never met anyone that I couldn't learn from and teach to if they have an open mind. 

So I don't care anything about opinions unless they are deliberate attempts to mislead others. 

What I care about is evidence that suggests either that what I believe is right or wrong. That's how I learn and keep up with the dynamic world. 

So far you've provided none.


----------



## JohnL.Burke

PMZ said:


> JohnL.Burke said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Feel free to piss off the world. My message was to anybody who might take you seriously. It's easy to piss off the world. In fact, Rush has made a billion dollars doing it. Hitler almost conquered the world that way. Some clowns paint on happy faces, some sad, yours is angry.
> 
> As you and Rush and Rupert and Grover and Rove and Beck lead your angry followers to political extinction your anger will consume you while the country footnotes you as another movement that we had to flush on our way to recovery.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm... are you sure I'M the angry one? Sheesh!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know if you are angry or not. I just know what you post. And that I've assumed that most outlaws are angry. That's what they have no compunction against taking from others.
Click to expand...


 What? I have no compunction of taking from others? I'm a conservative. I want people to have more, not less. More freedom, more of their earnings, more rights. All the things one doesn't get with a titanic government who needs to be fed the citizens property to remain obese and powerful.


----------



## PMZ

One of the problems with today's political arena is some of it is fueled by the Rush and Rupert industry which deliberately mixes news (facts) with opinion (what they want to be, or are told to advertise as, truth). 

So there are many of their audience who are equally unable to keep separate facts and opinions. 

I think that applies to virtually all advertising so a modern artifact of culture is our confusion over what is, and what we want to be.


----------



## PMZ

JohnL.Burke said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JohnL.Burke said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm... are you sure I'M the angry one? Sheesh!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know if you are angry or not. I just know what you post. And that I've assumed that most outlaws are angry. That's what they have no compunction against taking from others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What? I have no compunction of taking from others? I'm a conservative. I want people to have more, not less. More freedom, more of their earnings, more rights. All the things one doesn't get with a titanic government who needs to be fed the citizens property to remain obese and powerful.
Click to expand...


People who are not outlaws are unaffected by the law. It merely defines how they would behave anyway. 

People who want everyone to have more have to start with the belief that more is possible and that stems from the liberal belief in plenty. 

As they say, conservatives and liberals want the same things. Liberals want them for everybody.


----------



## JohnL.Burke

PMZ said:


> JohnL.Burke said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Feel free to piss off the world. My message was to anybody who might take you seriously. It's easy to piss off the world. In fact, Rush has made a billion dollars doing it. Hitler almost conquered the world that way. Some clowns paint on happy faces, some sad, yours is angry.
> 
> As you and Rush and Rupert and Grover and Rove and Beck lead your angry followers to political extinction your anger will consume you while the country footnotes you as another movement that we had to flush on our way to recovery.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm... are you sure I'M the angry one? Sheesh! Now this is why I have fun with vacuous silly posts like yours. I don't want to be sucked up into the political repetitive time/space continuum which is liberal spin . What do I mean by this? I mean that you bring up Rush,Rupert,Grover,Rove and Beck as angry leaders. So this is the part where I am supposed to bring up Mathews,Wiener (the politician),Moore,Media Matters, etc. Now that we have blocked each other with what we perceive as the other side's "haters" we would then go back and forth with quotes from people we don't like. It's really such a bore. So instead, I simply point out the shallowness of your post and the silliness of your point then we can all move on and have a beer. You're welcome.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are certainly welcome to all of your opinions. They are irrelevent to me.
> 
> I've never met anyone that I couldn't learn from and teach to if they have an open mind.
> 
> So I don't care anything about opinions unless they are deliberate attempts to mislead others.
> 
> What I care about is evidence that suggests either that what I believe is right or wrong. That's how I learn and keep up with the dynamic world.
> 
> So far you've provided none.
Click to expand...


 Neither one of us has provided evidence of why we believe what we believe. By evidence I"m assuming you're talking about links to sources we both consider irrefutable? I have done what you have done. I've expressed an opinion. However, unlike you, I'm interested in other people's opinions. Even the ones I disagree with. Since you find my opinion irrelevant however then I guess there is no reason to continue the fun. I will always miss you and have an empty space in my heart where your name used to be.


----------



## manifold

bear513 said:


> I put this topic here because I want honest answers and no flaming. As a right leaning guy I love the left and wouldnt want to see them go. But why does the left hate Republicans so bad? Their history is after all the Anti-Slave party. p.s. sorry about any typo's I wrote this on the fly because I am so curious what would you think happen to the US if cons left



I guess that would depend on where they went.

Could you elaborate a little bit more on your hypothetical?


----------



## PMZ

One of the products that the Rush and Rupert ad agency has been hired to sell is that US government is too big. Who hired them to sell that and why? Business, (and the wealthy) because less government makes their job of making more money regardless of the cost to others, easier. 

Is the US government too big? Who knows? What is the evidence? Is General Motors too big? Is the Catholic Church? Are elephants? Are cockroaches?


----------



## regent

It usually sounds as if only one individual, the president, is responsible for America's economy. It seems he has all the power to control jobs, budget, defense spending, the whole schmear. I wonder if the president should not be given the power to control and direct the economy, as so many seem to believe he, in fact, has the power?


----------



## PMZ

JohnL.Burke said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JohnL.Burke said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm... are you sure I'M the angry one? Sheesh! Now this is why I have fun with vacuous silly posts like yours. I don't want to be sucked up into the political repetitive time/space continuum which is liberal spin . What do I mean by this? I mean that you bring up Rush,Rupert,Grover,Rove and Beck as angry leaders. So this is the part where I am supposed to bring up Mathews,Wiener (the politician),Moore,Media Matters, etc. Now that we have blocked each other with what we perceive as the other side's "haters" we would then go back and forth with quotes from people we don't like. It's really such a bore. So instead, I simply point out the shallowness of your post and the silliness of your point then we can all move on and have a beer. You're welcome.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are certainly welcome to all of your opinions. They are irrelevent to me.
> 
> I've never met anyone that I couldn't learn from and teach to if they have an open mind.
> 
> So I don't care anything about opinions unless they are deliberate attempts to mislead others.
> 
> What I care about is evidence that suggests either that what I believe is right or wrong. That's how I learn and keep up with the dynamic world.
> 
> So far you've provided none.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Neither one of us has provided evidence of why we believe what we believe. By evidence I"m assuming you're talking about links to sources we both consider irrefutable? I have done what you have done. I've expressed an opinion. However, unlike you, I'm interested in other people's opinions. Even the ones I disagree with. Since you find my opinion irrelevant however then I guess there is no reason to continue the fun. I will always miss you and have an empty space in my heart where your name used to be.
Click to expand...


Accepting opinions without evidence is called ignorance.


----------



## JohnL.Burke

PMZ said:


> JohnL.Burke said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know if you are angry or not. I just know what you post. And that I've assumed that most outlaws are angry. That's what they have no compunction against taking from others.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What? I have no compunction of taking from others? I'm a conservative. I want people to have more, not less. More freedom, more of their earnings, more rights. All the things one doesn't get with a titanic government who needs to be fed the citizens property to remain obese and powerful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People who are not outlaws are unaffected by the law. It merely defines how they would behave anyway.
> 
> People who want everyone to have more have to start with the belief that more is possible and that stems from the liberal belief in plenty.
> 
> As they say, conservatives and liberals want the same things. Liberals want them for everybody.
Click to expand...


  Oh yes, the liberals belief in plenty. Plenty of high school drop outs, plenty of failing schools, plenty of censorship (speech codes in colleges). plenty of ghettos,plenty of coercion (IRS), etc.

  As they say, conservatives and liberals want the same things. Liberals want them by force.


----------



## JohnL.Burke

PMZ said:


> JohnL.Burke said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are certainly welcome to all of your opinions. They are irrelevent to me.
> 
> I've never met anyone that I couldn't learn from and teach to if they have an open mind.
> 
> So I don't care anything about opinions unless they are deliberate attempts to mislead others.
> 
> What I care about is evidence that suggests either that what I believe is right or wrong. That's how I learn and keep up with the dynamic world.
> 
> So far you've provided none.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neither one of us has provided evidence of why we believe what we believe. By evidence I"m assuming you're talking about links to sources we both consider irrefutable? I have done what you have done. I've expressed an opinion. However, unlike you, I'm interested in other people's opinions. Even the ones I disagree with. Since you find my opinion irrelevant however then I guess there is no reason to continue the fun. I will always miss you and have an empty space in my heart where your name used to be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Accepting opinions without evidence is called ignorance.
Click to expand...


  Who's talking about accepting opinions? I'm talking about listening, disagreeing,thinking,agreeing and arguing. I'm not sure your reading comprehension is at the level it should be.


----------



## manifold

PMZ said:


> Accepting opinions without evidence is called ignorance.



No it isn't.

naive, foolish, stupid, retarded, idiotic, or dumb... sure.

but it's not ignorance.

words have meanings


----------



## PMZ

[MENTION][/MENTION]





regent said:


> It usually sounds as if only one individual, the president, is responsible for America's economy. It seems he has all the power to control jobs, budget, defense spending, the whole schmear. I wonder if the president should not be given the power to control and direct the economy, as so many seem to believe he, in fact, has the power?



IMO, business is the business of business. The role of government is to help its citizens weather times when business screws up. 

That having been said, I am a keynesian as well. Government can borrow to create demand when consumers are unable to, in order to hasten the return of the time when they can. 

What and when are exactly the limits of keynesian? That's the real trick.


----------



## PMZ

manifold said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Accepting opinions without evidence is called ignorance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it isn't.
> 
> naive, foolish, stupid, retarded, idiotic, or dumb... sure.
> 
> but it's not ignorance.
> 
> words have meanings
Click to expand...


You're right. Ignorance is the effect caused by accepting opinions without evidence.


----------



## manifold

PMZ said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Accepting opinions without evidence is called ignorance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it isn't.
> 
> naive, foolish, stupid, retarded, idiotic, or dumb... sure.
> 
> but it's not ignorance.
> 
> words have meanings
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're right. Ignorance is the effect caused by accepting opinions without evidence.
Click to expand...


Except that in this case ignorance is most likely a pre-existing condition.


----------



## PMZ

JohnL.Burke said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JohnL.Burke said:
> 
> 
> 
> What? I have no compunction of taking from others? I'm a conservative. I want people to have more, not less. More freedom, more of their earnings, more rights. All the things one doesn't get with a titanic government who needs to be fed the citizens property to remain obese and powerful.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People who are not outlaws are unaffected by the law. It merely defines how they would behave anyway.
> 
> People who want everyone to have more have to start with the belief that more is possible and that stems from the liberal belief in plenty.
> 
> As they say, conservatives and liberals want the same things. Liberals want them for everybody.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh yes, the liberals belief in plenty. Plenty of high school drop outs, plenty of failing schools, plenty of censorship (speech codes in colleges). plenty of ghettos,plenty of coercion (IRS), etc.
> 
> As they say, conservatives and liberals want the same things. Liberals want them by force.
Click to expand...


Having plenty is the business of business, not government. Liberals and conservatives both want business success, liberals for everybody. 

I think that what you are trying to say is that people will live responsibly, voluntarily. That's not my experience. If you are being rubbed the wrong way by the law, you are an outlaw, and should be rubbed the wrong way, IMO.


----------



## PaulS1950

Ignorance, deviciveness and rhetoric are tools used by manipulators to keep people from objectively looking at the real problems and solutions as well as understanding the reprocussions of their own actions.

If the liberals or conservatives left there would be a new group founded to replace that polarizer to keep the in-fighting going strong because if the in-fighting stops people will see that their have lost control of the government and their destinies.


----------



## PMZ

manifold said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> No it isn't.
> 
> naive, foolish, stupid, retarded, idiotic, or dumb... sure.
> 
> but it's not ignorance.
> 
> words have meanings
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're right. Ignorance is the effect caused by accepting opinions without evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except that in this case ignorance is most likely a pre-existing condition.
Click to expand...


Ignorance is always a pre-existing condition. That's why life long learning takes effort, not sitting in front of a TV.


----------



## manifold

PMZ said:


> If you are being rubbed the wrong way by the law, you are an outlaw, and should be rubbed the wrong way, IMO.



Exactly, Rosa Parks should've kept her mouth shut and gone to the back of the bus. Afterall, the back gets her home just as quick as the front, right?


----------



## PMZ

PaulS1950 said:


> Ignorance, deviciveness and rhetoric are tools used by manipulators to keep people from objectively looking at the real problems and solutions as well as understanding the reprocussions of their own actions.
> 
> If the liberals or conservatives left there would be a new group founded to replace that polarizer to keep the in-fighting going strong because if the in-fighting stops people will see that their have lost control of the government and their destinies.



"Ignorance, deviciveness and rhetoric are tools used by manipulators to keep people from objectively looking at the real problems and solutions as well as understanding the reprocussions of their own actions."

They are also the raw materials that education turns into responsibility.


----------



## Circe

PMZ said:


> In a socialistic economic system everybody in the country owns the means of production.



No, that's not socialism. That is communism, when the state owns the means of production. I hope you are not trying to promote communism. I suppose you are, though.

If you want to do that, perhaps you could start a thread in one of the other forums? There must be one for failed and insane ideas about politics --- anarchy, reptiloid control of the world, Illuminati and such groups controlling the world, communism, belief that "they" plan everything that happens ten years ahead. 

My neighbor was saying something like that just yesterday.........

"Ah. Um," I said.


----------



## PMZ

manifold said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you are being rubbed the wrong way by the law, you are an outlaw, and should be rubbed the wrong way, IMO.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly, Rosa Parks should've kept her mouth shut and gone to the back of the bus. Afterall, the back gets her home just as quick as the front, right?
Click to expand...


She was rubbed the wrong way by the law. That's what rubbed us the wrong way so we fixed things. That's called progress.


----------



## JohnL.Burke

PMZ said:


> JohnL.Burke said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> People who are not outlaws are unaffected by the law. It merely defines how they would behave anyway.
> 
> People who want everyone to have more have to start with the belief that more is possible and that stems from the liberal belief in plenty.
> 
> As they say, conservatives and liberals want the same things. Liberals want them for everybody.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh yes, the liberals belief in plenty. Plenty of high school drop outs, plenty of failing schools, plenty of censorship (speech codes in colleges). plenty of ghettos,plenty of coercion (IRS), etc.
> 
> As they say, conservatives and liberals want the same things. Liberals want them by force.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Having plenty is the business of business, not government. Liberals and conservatives both want business success, liberals for everybody.
> 
> I think that what you are trying to say is that people will live responsibly, voluntarily. That's not my experience. If you are being rubbed the wrong way by the law, you are an outlaw, and should be rubbed the wrong way, IMO.
Click to expand...


 I am not saying any such thing. I realize you believe conservatives don't want government and I'm obviously not going to dissuade you from your "opinion without evidence". As for me being an outlaw (another opinion without evidence) I had no idea you knew me so well. Perhaps you can tell me what law I broke? Then give me a good spanking for it!


----------



## JohnL.Burke

PMZ said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you are being rubbed the wrong way by the law, you are an outlaw, and should be rubbed the wrong way, IMO.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly, Rosa Parks should've kept her mouth shut and gone to the back of the bus. Afterall, the back gets her home just as quick as the front, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She was rubbed the wrong way by the law. That's what rubbed us the wrong way so we fixed things. That's called progress.
Click to expand...


  It's called breaking the law. I thought you supported laws? I thought law breakers were supposed to be bad? Having a change of heart? My job is done.

  p.s.
  Exactly what is the difference between breaking the law and "being rubbed the wrong way by the law". LOL!!! You're really clutching at straws at this point, aren't ya?


----------



## Circe

PMZ said:


> So there are many of their audience who are equally unable to keep separate facts and opinions.




Hopefully there are many who don't separate those, because there is no difference between facts and opinions. They are all opinions.

Facts are just opinions we really, really want to be privileged as being "true."

But darn them, people just refuse to believe your facts anyway.

You might be hard-pressed to come up with a fact that everyone agrees on. Maybe the "fact" that the sun rises in the East every day. Most people would agree on that; of course, it's wrong. But that doesn't matter, it's valid as an opinion.


----------



## Circe

PMZ said:


> Accepting opinions without evidence is called ignorance.



Surely not? 

It's called tolerance.

X has Y opinon. I accept that -- not the opinion, which is crazy in my opinion -- but that he holds that opinion and has a right to do so.

Every idea is an opinon.


----------



## bornright

What would happen to the United States if Conservatives left?

Would all the companies that conservatives own go with them?  It is hard to find a conservative that does not work except for the retirees so even if they did there should be many job openings.  The question then would be could you find enough of the liberals and progressives to fill those jobs.  Many of them have been accustomed to coasting through life on government assistance.

Would there be a military?  What kind of fighting force would it be?  It would be very likely that the US would be attacked because of this weakness and it would probably be a country like Cuba or even Grenada.

With the legalization of drugs and the fact that there would be no guns to defend yourself there would be even more violent crime than today.  These meth heads would be everywhere as it is rare to find a police officer that is not conservative.  Honestly when is the last time you heard of a true conservative committing a violent crime.  It has happened but it is rare.  

If the Conservatives left what Jeremiah Wright said would actually be true America's chickens have come home to roost.  It would sadly collapse.


----------



## PMZ

Circe said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> In a socialistic economic system everybody in the country owns the means of production.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, that's not socialism. That is communism, when the state owns the means of production. I hope you are not trying to promote communism. I suppose you are, though.
> 
> If you want to do that, perhaps you could start a thread in one of the other forums? There must be one for failed and insane ideas about politics --- anarchy, reptiloid control of the world, Illuminati and such groups controlling the world, communism, belief that "they" plan everything that happens ten years ahead.
> 
> My neighbor was saying something like that just yesterday.........
> 
> "Ah. Um," I said.
Click to expand...


From the Merriam Webster online dictionary.

1  any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

Communism favors socialism as an economic system because it assumes the failure of capitalism. So far, we have proven Marx/Engles failure of capitalism is avoidable provided capitalism is well regulated. IMO that's a victory for us, and spelled the end of Communism.


----------



## PMZ

JohnL.Burke said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JohnL.Burke said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh yes, the liberals belief in plenty. Plenty of high school drop outs, plenty of failing schools, plenty of censorship (speech codes in colleges). plenty of ghettos,plenty of coercion (IRS), etc.
> 
> As they say, conservatives and liberals want the same things. Liberals want them by force.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Having plenty is the business of business, not government. Liberals and conservatives both want business success, liberals for everybody.
> 
> I think that what you are trying to say is that people will live responsibly, voluntarily. That's not my experience. If you are being rubbed the wrong way by the law, you are an outlaw, and should be rubbed the wrong way, IMO.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am not saying any such thing. I realize you believe conservatives don't want government and I'm obviously not going to dissuade you from your "opinion without evidence". As for me being an outlaw (another opinion without evidence) I had no idea you knew me so well. Perhaps you can tell me what law I broke? Then give me a good spanking for it!
Click to expand...


If your desire to live within the law is assumed, our laws have no impact on you as they have no impact on me. They impact only those who decide to live in conflict with them. Outlaws.


----------



## PMZ

JohnL.Burke said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly, Rosa Parks should've kept her mouth shut and gone to the back of the bus. Afterall, the back gets her home just as quick as the front, right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> She was rubbed the wrong way by the law. That's what rubbed us the wrong way so we fixed things. That's called progress.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's called breaking the law. I thought you supported laws? I thought law breakers were supposed to be bad? Having a change of heart? My job is done.
> 
> p.s.
> Exactly what is the difference between breaking the law and "being rubbed the wrong way by the law". LOL!!! You're really clutching at straws at this point, aren't ya?
Click to expand...


She broke a local law. She suffered the consequences of that. It was when those consequences became publicized that we, the people realized the unfairness of that local law and put pressure on the Federal Government to outlaw unequal treatment of people by race just to support a local custom. 

Were you unaware of all of this?


----------



## PMZ

Circe said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> So there are many of their audience who are equally unable to keep separate facts and opinions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hopefully there are many who don't separate those, because there is no difference between facts and opinions. They are all opinions.
> 
> Facts are just opinions we really, really want to be privileged as being "true."
> 
> But darn them, people just refuse to believe your facts anyway.
> 
> You might be hard-pressed to come up with a fact that everyone agrees on. Maybe the "fact" that the sun rises in the East every day. Most people would agree on that; of course, it's wrong. But that doesn't matter, it's valid as an opinion.
Click to expand...


Ahhhh, the source of your problem. In fact, perhaps the source of our problems. Anybody can hold any opinion that they want. Opinions that aren't based on facts are called ignorance. Applying ignorance to problem solving never leads to solutions.


----------



## PMZ

bornright said:


> What would happen to the United States if Conservatives left?
> 
> Would all the companies that conservatives own go with them?  It is hard to find a conservative that does not work except for the retirees so even if they did there should be many job openings.  The question then would be could you find enough of the liberals and progressives to fill those jobs.  Many of them have been accustomed to coasting through life on government assistance.
> 
> Would there be a military?  What kind of fighting force would it be?  It would be very likely that the US would be attacked because of this weakness and it would probably be a country like Cuba or even Grenada.
> 
> With the legalization of drugs and the fact that there would be no guns to defend yourself there would be even more violent crime than today.  These meth heads would be everywhere as it is rare to find a police officer that is not conservative.  Honestly when is the last time you heard of a true conservative committing a violent crime.  It has happened but it is rare.
> 
> If the Conservatives left what Jeremiah Wright said would actually be true America's chickens have come home to roost.  It would sadly collapse.



More opinion not based on facts. See why no solutions can possibly arise from ignorance now?


----------



## Circe

PMZ said:


> Circe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> So there are many of their audience who are equally unable to keep separate facts and opinions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hopefully there are many who don't separate those, because there is no difference between facts and opinions. They are all opinions.
> 
> Facts are just opinions we really, really want to be privileged as being "true."
> 
> But darn them, people just refuse to believe your facts anyway.
> 
> You might be hard-pressed to come up with a fact that everyone agrees on. Maybe the "fact" that the sun rises in the East every day. Most people would agree on that; of course, it's wrong. But that doesn't matter, it's valid as an opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ahhhh, the source of your problem. In fact, perhaps the source of our problems. Anybody can hold any opinion that they want.
Click to expand...


That's right, anybody can hold any opinion they want to --- and they sure do just that. Fight it if you like, but there are 6.5 billion opinion-holders and only one of you telling them they are all ignorant if they disagree with your "facts."





> Opinions that aren't based on facts are called ignorance.



No, they are called "opinions." Who calls them "ignorance"?  Nobody does that, except perhaps you.

I see your idea here is to say that anyone's ideas that don't match the opinions you are pleased to call "facts" are ignorant. 

I doubt anyone is going to be very interested in that point of view ---- that's my opinion.


----------



## Circe

PMZ said:


> bornright said:
> 
> 
> 
> What would happen to the United States if Conservatives left?
> 
> Would all the companies that conservatives own go with them?  It is hard to find a conservative that does not work except for the retirees so even if they did there should be many job openings.  The question then would be could you find enough of the liberals and progressives to fill those jobs.  Many of them have been accustomed to coasting through life on government assistance.
> 
> Would there be a military?  What kind of fighting force would it be?  It would be very likely that the US would be attacked because of this weakness and it would probably be a country like Cuba or even Grenada.
> 
> With the legalization of drugs and the fact that there would be no guns to defend yourself there would be even more violent crime than today.  These meth heads would be everywhere as it is rare to find a police officer that is not conservative.  Honestly when is the last time you heard of a true conservative committing a violent crime.  It has happened but it is rare.
> 
> If the Conservatives left what Jeremiah Wright said would actually be true America's chickens have come home to roost.  It would sadly collapse.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More opinion not based on facts. See why no solutions can possibly arise from ignorance now?
Click to expand...


I think the free play of ideas is very valuable. Certainly no solutions can possibly arise from everyone thinking the way you tell them to! Anyway, that is unlikely to happen, so why not enjoy the free play of ideas? And tolerate people thinking differently from you?


----------



## PMZ

Circe said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Circe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hopefully there are many who don't separate those, because there is no difference between facts and opinions. They are all opinions.
> 
> Facts are just opinions we really, really want to be privileged as being "true."
> 
> But darn them, people just refuse to believe your facts anyway.
> 
> You might be hard-pressed to come up with a fact that everyone agrees on. Maybe the "fact" that the sun rises in the East every day. Most people would agree on that; of course, it's wrong. But that doesn't matter, it's valid as an opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ahhhh, the source of your problem. In fact, perhaps the source of our problems. Anybody can hold any opinion that they want.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's right, anybody can hold any opinion they want to --- and they sure do just that. Fight it if you like, but there are 6.5 billion opinion-holders and only one of you telling them they are all ignorant if they disagree with your "facts."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Opinions that aren't based on facts are called ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they are called "opinions." Who calls them "ignorance"?  Nobody does that, except perhaps you.
> 
> I see your idea here is to say that anyone's ideas that don't match the opinions you are pleased to call "facts" are ignorant.
> 
> I doubt anyone is going to be very interested in that point of view ---- that's my opinion.
Click to expand...


There is no such thing as my facts or your facts. 

There are just facts. The variable between you and I are which facts we know, and which we don't know. Each of us.

You seem content to live is a world of what you wish was true. I believe that was the big problem also with Bush/Cheney. That's why their policies failed so spectacularly. 

Media extremism will also fail you and us for the same reason. It's based on mythology. While mythology is simple to sell for those anxious for opinions and uncaring as to whether they're fact based or not, that will never be a majority of Americans. 

The average American is smarter and better educated than that.


----------



## PMZ

Foxfyre said:


> bornright said:
> 
> 
> 
> What would happen to the United States if Conservatives left?
> 
> Would all the companies that conservatives own go with them?  It is hard to find a conservative that does not work except for the retirees so even if they did there should be many job openings.  The question then would be could you find enough of the liberals and progressives to fill those jobs.  Many of them have been accustomed to coasting through life on government assistance.
> 
> Would there be a military?  What kind of fighting force would it be?  It would be very likely that the US would be attacked because of this weakness and it would probably be a country like Cuba or even Grenada.
> 
> With the legalization of drugs and the fact that there would be no guns to defend yourself there would be even more violent crime than today.  These meth heads would be everywhere as it is rare to find a police officer that is not conservative.  Honestly when is the last time you heard of a true conservative committing a violent crime.  It has happened but it is rare.
> 
> If the Conservatives left what Jeremiah Wright said would actually be true America's chickens have come home to roost.  It would sadly collapse.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, I just can't resist and profoundly apologize for this, but would there be a military in liberal America?
> 
> youtube gay drill team - Bing Videos
Click to expand...


Certainly in "liberal America" there would be fewer uses of the military. We believe, unlike Bush/Cheney, that war should be the last resort. 

We're reminded of that daily by the graves, handicapped soldiers, and the national debt.


----------



## PMZ

bornright said:


> What would happen to the United States if Conservatives left?
> 
> Would all the companies that conservatives own go with them?  It is hard to find a conservative that does not work except for the retirees so even if they did there should be many job openings.  The question then would be could you find enough of the liberals and progressives to fill those jobs.  Many of them have been accustomed to coasting through life on government assistance.
> 
> Would there be a military?  What kind of fighting force would it be?  It would be very likely that the US would be attacked because of this weakness and it would probably be a country like Cuba or even Grenada.
> 
> With the legalization of drugs and the fact that there would be no guns to defend yourself there would be even more violent crime than today.  These meth heads would be everywhere as it is rare to find a police officer that is not conservative.  Honestly when is the last time you heard of a true conservative committing a violent crime.  It has happened but it is rare.
> 
> If the Conservatives left what Jeremiah Wright said would actually be true America's chickens have come home to roost.  It would sadly collapse.



Certainly Microsoft and Berkly Hathway would stay here. Who would leave would be mostly owners of the means of production who produce no wealth anyway. Workers do that. People own the means when that's the only choice left to them from their lack of wealth creation skills. 

Any owner who can carry their means our of here I'm sure would be allowed to.


----------



## Bfgrn

Foxfyre said:


> Circe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> And here is your other problem...conservatives have NEVER given us less government. When in power, they have GROWN government. MORE than liberals and Democrats.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is true, and I realize now that this is because there is not much spillover, practically, from libertarianism into conservatism. Libertarians are on the freedom versus coercion (by government) axis and value freedom.
> 
> Conservatives promote both civilization against barbarism and personal responsibility versus sucking on the public tit, and control of the state is viewed as not a problem in enforcing that.
> 
> Although I must say, the last various so-called conservatives seem to have passed a whole lot of liberal laws, like the leftwing promotion of house-buying for the poor, which led straight into the worldwide Great Recession. So I expect the idea that the Bush's were conservatives was either a lie or they were remarkably ineffective.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it is not true.  The Founders were true conservatives as we define conservatism now.  They called it liberalism in the mid to late 18th century--now referred to by most historians as 'classical liberalism' that bears absolutely no resemblance to modern day American liberalism.
> 
> The Founders put into place a great experiment--the first in the world--of limited government authorized and allowed by the people.  The world's first constitutionally limited government restricted to extremely narrow authority and responsibility.  In a nutshell the duty of central government was to provide a system by which the various colonies/states could function as one cohesive nation, secure the unalienable rights of the people, and then leave them strictly alone to govern themselves however they chose to do that.
> 
> THAT is what true modern American conservatism is and the only groups promoting it are groups such as the Tea Party, Constitutionalist groups, 9/12ers and such.
> 
> Neither Keynesians (and JFK was basically a Keynesian at heart) nor supply siders (Reagan, GHWBush, GWB) are true conservatives as were the Founders.  Keynesians are willing to run short term deficits on the theory that giving more money to the people to spend will generate spending that will stimulate the economy that will return the money to the treasury.   Supply siders are willing to run deficits on the theory that allowing the people to keep more of their own money will stimulate the economy that will return the money to the treasury.
> 
> Both theories are credible to a point and both will work for the short term to a point.  Unfortunately we have had governments for a very long time now that are not willing to do anything for the short term.  Government programs are given life expectancy approximating mop handles and it costs more every single year to run them.  Baseline budgeting means government never shrinks or is less - 'budget cuts' are simply slightly slowing the size and scope of increases in government.
> 
> Conservatives want no more government than is absolutely necessary to carry out its constitutional functions.  Conservatives want informed citizens who demand that government at all levels not overstep its boundaries and who will hold accountable those they put in the public trust.  Conservatives understand government as a necessity, but also understand that unrestrained, unchecked government will always enslave the people and force them to work for and perpetuate the government and everything that an unrestricted government does will eventually be purely self serving.
> 
> That is why the Founders envisioned true freedom--a people who would not be governed but who would have their rights secured and would govern themselves.
> 
> Take the conservatives out of the equation and all you have left are the keynesians, the supply siders, and the liberals.  And you will quickly have a government that will assign the people the rights they will have and there will be no more freedom.
Click to expand...


"Classical liberals assume a natural equality of humans; conservatives assume a natural hierarchy"
James M. Buchanan

We have gone over this before FF...ad nauseam. Our founding fathers were not libertarians, and they certainly were not conservatives. They were the most liberal, age of enlightenment thinkers of their day. The closest thing to a libertarian in our founder's day were the anti-federalists. And the Articles of Confederation would be closer to a libertarian document than the US Constitution.

The framer rejected the Articles of Confederation and the anti-federalists. 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is a ludicrous claim that our country was established by a group of libertarians who intended to bequeath to us a toothless national government. The idea that our Founding Fathers envisioned a regime opposed to regulation and the protection of its citizens' welfare from private actors, laughable to any serious historian, has nevertheless become the signature bromide of the libertarian vocabulary. The Constitution, it is often remarked, establishes a government of limited powers -- an unobjectionable truth -- but the fact that its powers are limited does not negate the mountain of evidence that those venerable lions who invented American democracy were far more concerned with corporate usurpations of freedom than by any threat posed by a government fairly elected by the people.

"The power of all corporations ought to be limited," wrote James Madison, the framer whose influence echoes most resoundingly in the Constitution, as "the growing wealth acquired by them never fails to be a source of abuses." Madison's preference for a strong national government was borne of a distaste for the debtor relief laws being passed by state legislatures during the post-war economic downturn of the 1780s. Like fellow Federalists James Wilson and Alexander Hamilton, he saw the Constitutional Convention as an opportunity to craft a central government powerful enough to serve as an effective check on the states -- an entity that for all intents and purposes hadn't existed during the ill-fated tenure of the Articles of Confederation. In the Virginia Plan, the Convention's initial blueprint for what would ultimately become the Constitution, Madison argued that Congress should have the power to veto state laws, that the president should serve for an unlimited number of seven-year terms (nine years for senators), and that the country should be ruled by what Thomas Jefferson called the "natural aristocracy" -- that is to say, elites. He left the Convention frustrated that the national government, despite being granted broad commerce powers, was not made to be as powerful as he had hoped.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Conservatives strongly believe in a hierarchy. They do not see any threat from that hierarchy. They support, and protect that hierarchy. That hierarchy includes corporations, CEO's, 'captains of industry', and business leaders. When Republicans are in power, conservatives consider government part of that hierarchy. But. when Democrats gain power, suddenly government is the root of all evil.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Foxfyre: "Conservatives want informed citizens who demand that government at all levels not overstep its boundaries and who will hold accountable those they put in the public trust."

FALSE. Conservatives do not want citizens informed, they want them brainwashed and they feed them propaganda, not facts.

One of the first things conservatives have done consistently when they gain power is to cut the legs out from under any kind of independent source of evaluation  eliminating the Office of Technology Assessment in 1995, ending any independent analysis of the distributional effects of tax cuts in the Bush administration, challenging scientific consensus on climate change, and most recently, attempting to eliminate funding for the American Community Survey and the National Science Foundation's social science research program.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here is the best description I have seen describing the of the role of government, corporations, informed citizens and the press.


"There is nothing wrong with corporations. Corporations are a good thing. They encourage us to take risks. They maximize wealth. They create jobs. I own a corporation. They're a great thing, but they should not be running our government. The reason for that is they don't have the same aspirations for America that you and I do. A corporation does not want democracy. It does not want free markets, it wants profits, and the best way for it to get profits is to use our campaign-finance system -- which is just a system of legalized bribery -- to get their stakes, their hooks into a public official and then use that public official to dismantle the marketplace to give them a competitive advantage and then to privatize the commons, to steal the commonwealth, to liquidate public assets for cash, to plunder, to steal from the rest of us.

And that doesn't mean corporations are a bad thing. It just means they're amoral, and we have to recognize that and not let them into the political process. Let them do their thing, but they should not be participating in our political process, because a corporation cannot do something genuinely philanthropic. It's against the law in this country, because their shareholders can sue them for wasting corporate resources. They cannot legally do anything that will not increase their profit margins. That's the way the law works, and we have to recognize that and understand that they are toxic for the political process, and they have to be fenced off and kept out of the political process. This is why throughout our history our most visionary political leaders -- Republican and Democrat -- have been warning the American public against domination by corporate power.

The Bush White House has done a great job of persuading a gullible press and the American public that the big threat to American democracy is big government. Well, yeah, big government is a threat ultimately, but it is dwarfed by the threat of excessive corporate power and the corrosive impact that has on our democracy. And you know, as I said, you look at all the great political leaders in this country and the central theme is that we have to be cautious about, we have to avoid, the domination of our government by corporate power.

Teddy Roosevelt, a Republican, said that America would never be destroyed by a foreign power but he warned that our political institutions, our democratic institutions, would be subverted by malefactors of great wealth, who would erode them from within. Dwight Eisenhower, another Republican, in his most famous speech, warned America against domination by the military industrial complex.

Abraham Lincoln, the greatest Republican in our history, said during the height of the Civil War "I have the South in front of me and I have the bankers behind me. And for my country, I fear the bankers more." Franklin Roosevelt said during World War II that the domination of government by corporate power is "the essence of fascism" and Benito Mussolini -- who had an insider's view of that process -- said the same thing. Essentially, he complained that fascism should not be called fascism. It should be called corporatism because it was the merger of state and corporate power. And what we have to understand as Americans is that the domination of business by government is called communism. The domination of government by business is called fascism. And our job is to walk that narrow trail in between, which is free-market capitalism and democracy. And keep big government at bay with our right hand and corporate power at bay with our left.

In order to do that, we need an informed public and an activist public. And we need a vigorous and an independent press that is willing to speak truth to power. And we no longer have that in the United States of America. And that's something that puts all the values we care about in jeopardy, because you cannot have a clean environment if you do not have a functioning democracy. They are intertwined; they go together. There is a direct correlation around the planet between the level of tyranny and the level of environmental destruction."

Robert F. Kennedy Ir. - September 10, 2005


----------



## PMZ

Very well presented. 

Corporations follow one rule. Make more money regardless of the cost to others.  That, at best, can optimize each corporation, but only under the conditions of regulation to prevent the restraint of trade, and to keep them all operating within the will of the people. 

Thank God, when all was settled, the founders built all of that into our contract with government, The Constitution.


----------



## JohnL.Burke

PMZ said:


> JohnL.Burke said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Having plenty is the business of business, not government. Liberals and conservatives both want business success, liberals for everybody.
> 
> I think that what you are trying to say is that people will live responsibly, voluntarily. That's not my experience. If you are being rubbed the wrong way by the law, you are an outlaw, and should be rubbed the wrong way, IMO.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not saying any such thing. I realize you believe conservatives don't want government and I'm obviously not going to dissuade you from your "opinion without evidence". As for me being an outlaw (another opinion without evidence) I had no idea you knew me so well. Perhaps you can tell me what law I broke? Then give me a good spanking for it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If your desire to live within the law is assumed, our laws have no impact on you as they have no impact on me. They impact only those who decide to live in conflict with them. Outlaws.
Click to expand...


  Laws impact everybody. One pays taxes like one should then one is impacted by the law. We are ALL impacted by laws. I happen to disagree with some laws. This does not make me an outlaw. To think for one second that disagreeing with the government should be illegal is a type of fascistic society I hope we don't ever become.


----------



## JohnL.Burke

PMZ said:


> JohnL.Burke said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> She was rubbed the wrong way by the law. That's what rubbed us the wrong way so we fixed things. That's called progress.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's called breaking the law. I thought you supported laws? I thought law breakers were supposed to be bad? Having a change of heart? My job is done.
> 
> p.s.
> Exactly what is the difference between breaking the law and "being rubbed the wrong way by the law". LOL!!! You're really clutching at straws at this point, aren't ya?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She broke a local law. She suffered the consequences of that. It was when those consequences became publicized that we, the people realized the unfairness of that local law and put pressure on the Federal Government to outlaw unequal treatment of people by race just to support a local custom.
> 
> Were you unaware of all of this?
Click to expand...


 Harriet Tubman broke a local law? Tubman broke a state law. Most laws are state laws. What kind of nonsensical parsing are you attempting to do this time? I want to hear more about "being rubbed the wrong way by the law" theory. That's still my favorite grasping-at-straws moment.


----------



## PMZ

JohnL.Burke said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JohnL.Burke said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not saying any such thing. I realize you believe conservatives don't want government and I'm obviously not going to dissuade you from your "opinion without evidence". As for me being an outlaw (another opinion without evidence) I had no idea you knew me so well. Perhaps you can tell me what law I broke? Then give me a good spanking for it!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If your desire to live within the law is assumed, our laws have no impact on you as they have no impact on me. They impact only those who decide to live in conflict with them. Outlaws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Laws impact everybody. One pays taxes like one should then one is impacted by the law. We are ALL impacted by laws. I happen to disagree with some laws. This does not make me an outlaw. To think for one second that disagreeing with the government should be illegal is a type of fascistic society I hope we don't ever become.
Click to expand...


I doubt that anybody agrees with every law. But, I believe my point remains. All laws provide consequences for breaking them. I lead the life that I want to and suffer none of those consequences. That makes me free. Free, among other reasons, because outlaws are not free to compromise my rights for their gains. 

Why would I want fewer laws when I am free because of the ones that allow me to live so?

I think the complaints of many like you is that they'd prefer to pay less in taxes. When I consider the benefits of living in the greatest country ever, I have a great deal of difficulty with any sympathy for you. To me it's just plain whining.


----------



## PMZ

JohnL.Burke said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JohnL.Burke said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's called breaking the law. I thought you supported laws? I thought law breakers were supposed to be bad? Having a change of heart? My job is done.
> 
> p.s.
> Exactly what is the difference between breaking the law and "being rubbed the wrong way by the law". LOL!!! You're really clutching at straws at this point, aren't ya?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> She broke a local law. She suffered the consequences of that. It was when those consequences became publicized that we, the people realized the unfairness of that local law and put pressure on the Federal Government to outlaw unequal treatment of people by race just to support a local custom.
> 
> Were you unaware of all of this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Harriet Tubman broke a local law? Tubman broke a state law. Most laws are state laws. What kind of nonsensical parsing are you attempting to do this time? I want to hear more about "being rubbed the wrong way by the law" theory. That's still my favorite grasping-at-straws moment.
Click to expand...


Rosa Parks broke a local law. I'm not aware that Harriet Tubman broke any law.


----------



## JohnL.Burke

PMZ said:


> JohnL.Burke said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> She broke a local law. She suffered the consequences of that. It was when those consequences became publicized that we, the people realized the unfairness of that local law and put pressure on the Federal Government to outlaw unequal treatment of people by race just to support a local custom.
> 
> Were you unaware of all of this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Harriet Tubman broke a local law? Tubman broke a state law. Most laws are state laws. What kind of nonsensical parsing are you attempting to do this time? I want to hear more about "being rubbed the wrong way by the law" theory. That's still my favorite grasping-at-straws moment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rosa Parks broke a local law. I'm not aware that Harriet Tubman broke any law.
Click to expand...


 You may want to read up on Harriet Tubman. Just a thought.


----------



## JohnL.Burke

PMZ said:


> JohnL.Burke said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> If your desire to live within the law is assumed, our laws have no impact on you as they have no impact on me. They impact only those who decide to live in conflict with them. Outlaws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Laws impact everybody. One pays taxes like one should then one is impacted by the law. We are ALL impacted by laws. I happen to disagree with some laws. This does not make me an outlaw. To think for one second that disagreeing with the government should be illegal is a type of fascistic society I hope we don't ever become.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I doubt that anybody agrees with every law. But, I believe my point remains. All laws provide consequences for breaking them. I lead the life that I want to and suffer none of those consequences. That makes me free. Free, among other reasons, because outlaws are not free to compromise my rights for their gains.
> 
> Why would I want fewer laws when I am free because of the ones that allow me to live so?
> 
> I think the complaints of many like you is that they'd prefer to pay less in taxes. When I consider the benefits of living in the greatest country ever, I have a great deal of difficulty with any sympathy for you. To me it's just plain whining.
Click to expand...


  You may not have any sympathy for me but I certainly have sympathy for you and your complete ignorance of Harriet Tubman and your constant rephrasing of vacuous points that don't hold up to scrutiny and your odd definition of "outlaw" as being someone who questions authority. Oh well, as long as you're happy and placated then I guess that will have to do. Enjoy your jello and have a great evening.


----------



## PMZ

JohnL.Burke said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JohnL.Burke said:
> 
> 
> 
> Harriet Tubman broke a local law? Tubman broke a state law. Most laws are state laws. What kind of nonsensical parsing are you attempting to do this time? I want to hear more about "being rubbed the wrong way by the law" theory. That's still my favorite grasping-at-straws moment.
> 
> 
> 
> What was she convicyted of?
> Rosa Parks broke a local law. I'm not aware that Harriet Tubman broke any law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You may want to read up on Harriet Tubman. Just a thought.
Click to expand...


What law was she convicted of breaking?


----------



## PMZ

JohnL.Burke said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JohnL.Burke said:
> 
> 
> 
> Laws impact everybody. One pays taxes like one should then one is impacted by the law. We are ALL impacted by laws. I happen to disagree with some laws. This does not make me an outlaw. To think for one second that disagreeing with the government should be illegal is a type of fascistic society I hope we don't ever become.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt that anybody agrees with every law. But, I believe my point remains. All laws provide consequences for breaking them. I lead the life that I want to and suffer none of those consequences. That makes me free. Free, among other reasons, because outlaws are not free to compromise my rights for their gains.
> 
> Why would I want fewer laws when I am free because of the ones that allow me to live so?
> 
> I think the complaints of many like you is that they'd prefer to pay less in taxes. When I consider the benefits of living in the greatest country ever, I have a great deal of difficulty with any sympathy for you. To me it's just plain whining.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You may not have any sympathy for me but I certainly have sympathy for you and your very tiny little world and complete ignorance of Harriet Tubman and constant rephrasing of vacuous points that don't hold up to scrutiny. Oh well, as long as your happy and placated then I guess that will have to do. Enjoy your jello and have a great evening.
Click to expand...


One of my great joys is when Lazy Boy media bloated extremists realize that they are caught in an indefensible position and insulting me is all that they have.


----------



## JohnL.Burke

PMZ said:


> JohnL.Burke said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt that anybody agrees with every law. But, I believe my point remains. All laws provide consequences for breaking them. I lead the life that I want to and suffer none of those consequences. That makes me free. Free, among other reasons, because outlaws are not free to compromise my rights for their gains.
> 
> Why would I want fewer laws when I am free because of the ones that allow me to live so?
> 
> I think the complaints of many like you is that they'd prefer to pay less in taxes. When I consider the benefits of living in the greatest country ever, I have a great deal of difficulty with any sympathy for you. To me it's just plain whining.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You may not have any sympathy for me but I certainly have sympathy for you and your very tiny little world and complete ignorance of Harriet Tubman and constant rephrasing of vacuous points that don't hold up to scrutiny. Oh well, as long as your happy and placated then I guess that will have to do. Enjoy your jello and have a great evening.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One of my great joys is when Lazy Boy media bloated extremists realize that they are caught in an indefensible position and insulting me is all that they have.
Click to expand...


 Finally, we have something in common. When you started backing away from your original point and writhing in desperation by attempting to change definitions while all the time attacking me in a silly snooty sort of way truly made me smile. Thanks! You're a lot of fun to play with.


----------



## JohnL.Burke

PMZ said:


> JohnL.Burke said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> What was she convicyted of?
> Rosa Parks broke a local law. I'm not aware that Harriet Tubman broke any law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You may want to read up on Harriet Tubman. Just a thought.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What law was she convicted of breaking?
Click to expand...


  Did I say she was convicted of anything? We know she broke the law (thank God). Breaking the law and being convicted of breaking the law are two different things. Again, this is another example of you twisting in the wind by your own words. Aren't you dizzy?


----------



## PMZ

JohnL.Burke said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JohnL.Burke said:
> 
> 
> 
> You may not have any sympathy for me but I certainly have sympathy for you and your very tiny little world and complete ignorance of Harriet Tubman and constant rephrasing of vacuous points that don't hold up to scrutiny. Oh well, as long as your happy and placated then I guess that will have to do. Enjoy your jello and have a great evening.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One of my great joys is when Lazy Boy media bloated extremists realize that they are caught in an indefensible position and insulting me is all that they have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Finally, we have something in common. When you started backing away from your original point and writhing in desperation by attempting to change definitions while all the time attacking me in a silly snooty sort of way truly made me smile. Thanks! You're a lot of fun to play with.
Click to expand...


I don't blame you a bit for wishing that I "started backing away from your original point and writhing" was true. Not a bit. 

Flexibility in truth is the hallmark of your heroes at the Rush and Rupert et al BS factory. 

Me, I'm very hung up on it. Seems to me the only way to get things done. Progress, you know.


----------



## PMZ

JohnL.Burke said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JohnL.Burke said:
> 
> 
> 
> You may want to read up on Harriet Tubman. Just a thought.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What law was she convicted of breaking?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did I say she was convicted of anything? We know she broke the law (thank God). Breaking the law and being convicted of breaking the law are two different things. Again, this is another example of you twisting in the wind by your own words. Aren't you dizzy?
Click to expand...


What do we call people in the US not convicted of breaking the law. 

I was always taught "innocent". What were you taught?


----------



## JohnL.Burke

PMZ said:


> JohnL.Burke said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> One of my great joys is when Lazy Boy media bloated extremists realize that they are caught in an indefensible position and insulting me is all that they have.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Finally, we have something in common. When you started backing away from your original point and writhing in desperation by attempting to change definitions while all the time attacking me in a silly snooty sort of way truly made me smile. Thanks! You're a lot of fun to play with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't blame you a bit for wishing that I "started backing away from your original point and writhing" was true. Not a bit.
> 
> Flexibility in truth is the hallmark of your heroes at the Rush and Rupert et al BS factory.
> 
> Me, I'm very hung up on it. Seems to me the only way to get things done. Progress, you know.
Click to expand...


 Oh, we're back to Rush and Rupert in that liberal time/space repetitive continuum I was talking about earlier. Uhmmm.... yea, Rush and Rupert have cooties are whatever you're trying to say. Thanks for sharing.


----------



## JohnL.Burke

PMZ said:


> JohnL.Burke said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> What law was she convicted of breaking?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did I say she was convicted of anything? We know she broke the law (thank God). Breaking the law and being convicted of breaking the law are two different things. Again, this is another example of you twisting in the wind by your own words. Aren't you dizzy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do we call people in the US not convicted of breaking the law.
> 
> I was always taught "innocent". What were you taught?
Click to expand...


 I was taught to read books. Some of which were about Harriet Tubman. You may want to visit your local library.


----------



## PMZ

JohnL.Burke said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JohnL.Burke said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did I say she was convicted of anything? We know she broke the law (thank God). Breaking the law and being convicted of breaking the law are two different things. Again, this is another example of you twisting in the wind by your own words. Aren't you dizzy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do we call people in the US not convicted of breaking the law.
> 
> I was always taught "innocent". What were you taught?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was taught to read books. Some of which were about Harriet Tubman. You may want to visit your local library.
Click to expand...


Which book told you that she was guilty of breaking which law?


----------



## PMZ

JohnL.Burke said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JohnL.Burke said:
> 
> 
> 
> Finally, we have something in common. When you started backing away from your original point and writhing in desperation by attempting to change definitions while all the time attacking me in a silly snooty sort of way truly made me smile. Thanks! You're a lot of fun to play with.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't blame you a bit for wishing that I "started backing away from your original point and writhing" was true. Not a bit.
> 
> Flexibility in truth is the hallmark of your heroes at the Rush and Rupert et al BS factory.
> 
> Me, I'm very hung up on it. Seems to me the only way to get things done. Progress, you know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, we're back to Rush and Rupert in that liberal time/space repetitive continuum I was talking about earlier. Uhmmm.... yea, Rush and Rupert have cooties are whatever you're trying to say. Thanks for sharing.
Click to expand...


It's just my experience that I've never met anyone who is a conservative extremist who didn't get it from overexposure to Fox News and/or Rush Limbaugh. 

Maybe you're the first one?


----------



## JohnL.Burke

Oh Lord, have a cookie before you pass out. If you want to read about Harriet Tubman and the underground railroad then look it up. Let me know when you want me to burp you.
Ah hell, I'm going to educate you just because I'm a nice guy (for an evil conservative, I mean). Harriet Tubman broke the fugitive slave law of 1850. Theft of property (slaves), abetting a runaway slave, being a runaway slave and helping out John Brown.


----------



## PMZ

JohnL.Burke said:


> Oh Lord, have a cookie before you pass out. If you want to read about Harriet Tubman and the underground railroad then look it up. Let me know when you want me to burp you.
> Ah hell, I'm going to educate you just because I'm a nice guy (for an evil conservative, I mean). Harriet Tubman broke the fugitive slave law of 1850. Theft of property (slaves), abetting a runaway slave, being a runaway slave and helping out John Brown.



Isn't Wikipedia great?

I wonder why she was never convicted? I really do. No proof? Was she pardoned because she was a Union soldier? No, you have to be convicted before you can be pardoned. 

BTW, I don't think that conservatives are evil. Even media extremists. I think that they are merely victims of their entertainment appetites.


----------



## JohnL.Burke

I didn't get that information from Wikipedia! I got it from Wikipedia.answers.com thank you very much, lol. Jeez! Your not going to make me look up why Tubman wasn't convicted are ya? You're not even paying me!

 BTW, I don't think liberals are evil. Even liberal media extremists (they're just making a buck by screaming the loudest), I think liberals are simply more focused on rhetoric as opposed to results. I chalk it up to naivety.


----------



## PMZ

JohnL.Burke said:


> I didn't get that information from Wikipedia! I got it from Wikipedia.answers.com thank you very much, lol. Jeez! Your not going to make me look up why Tubman wasn't convicted are ya? You're not even paying me!
> 
> BTW, I don't think liberals are evil. Even liberal media extremists (they're just making a buck by screaming the loudest), I think liberals are simply more focused on rhetoric as opposed to results. I chalk it up to naivety.



Yessir, you just gotta love those Bush results. I suspect we should have the bills from him paid off in only 100 years or so. Unless another one like him gets elected. But, how likely is that given candidates like the last load?


----------



## JohnL.Burke

Not a big Bush fan myself. I'm a conservative, he's not. I don't blame Bush for everything either. Chris Dodd and Barney Frank, I believe, were also accomplices to todays economy.


----------



## Foxfyre

JohnL.Burke said:


> I didn't get that information from Wikipedia! I got it from Wikipedia.answers.com thank you very much, lol. Jeez! Your not going to make me look up why Tubman wasn't convicted are ya? You're not even paying me!
> 
> BTW, I don't think liberals are evil. Even liberal media extremists (they're just making a buck by screaming the loudest), I think liberals are simply more focused on rhetoric as opposed to results. I chalk it up to naivety.



Tubman was never convicted because she was never arrested.  She helped slaves escape to the north until the fugitive law was passed, and then she helped slaves escape to Canada who had already abolished slavery--they once also allowed slave ownership.  Even Harriet's association with Brown didn't create any problems for her personally. She finished out the slave years working as a cook and nurse and, according to some accounts, serving as a spy for the Union Army.  After the war, she was given a gift of a small tract of land that I believe she farmed, took in refugees, and eventually donated part of the property for an old folks home.  She died of natural causes early in the 20th century.

Not sure what Harriet Tubman has to do with the thread topic though.


----------



## JohnL.Burke

Foxfyre said:


> JohnL.Burke said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't get that information from Wikipedia! I got it from Wikipedia.answers.com thank you very much, lol. Jeez! Your not going to make me look up why Tubman wasn't convicted are ya? You're not even paying me!
> 
> BTW, I don't think liberals are evil. Even liberal media extremists (they're just making a buck by screaming the loudest), I think liberals are simply more focused on rhetoric as opposed to results. I chalk it up to naivety.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tubman was never convicted because she was never arrested.  She helped slaves escape to the north until the fugitive law was passed, and then she helped slaves escape to Canada who had already abolished slavery--they once also allowed slave ownership.  Even Harriet's association with Brown didn't create any problems for her personally. She finished out the slave years working as a cook and nurse and, according to some accounts, serving as a spy for the Union Army.  After the war, she was given a gift of a small tract of land that I believe she farmed, took in refugees, and eventually donated part of the property for an old folks home.  She died of natural causes early in the 20th century.
> 
> Not sure what Harriet Tubman has to do with the thread topic though.
Click to expand...


  I forgot what the topic was about ten pages ago.


----------



## TemplarKormac

I can answer the question this OP posed quite easily. What would happen to the United States if Conservatives left? This country would turn into something closer to what France is today. But liberals would be elated if such a thing were to happen, right? Come now, don't be shy.


----------



## Circe

PMZ said:


> There is no such thing as my facts or your facts.
> 
> There are just facts. The variable between you and I are which facts we know, and which we don't know. Each of us.




Well, how do you know your "facts" are true and mine are false?

Is it because you really, really believe your facts and want them to be true?

Hundreds of millions of people believe that Mossad or Bush had the Twin Towers in New York bombed on 9/11/2001. Perhaps you are one of them. Others think it was a group organized by bin Laden. 

Facts are opinions you are signifying you hold strongly by use of the descriptor "fact." There isn't much you can do to reify them or confirm most things you call "fact." You just take them on faith.

I am not very interested in the epistemological confusion of people who think something is "true" because they very much want their own opinion to be taken as "fact." And namecalling everyone as "ignorant" who doesn't accept your opinions as fact ---- no.

Opinions are good markers for who is an enemy and who is an ally. They don't have any particular connection to reality other than that, IMO.


----------



## Circe

PMZ said:


> JohnL.Burke said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> What law was she convicted of breaking?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did I say she was convicted of anything? We know she broke the law (thank God). Breaking the law and being convicted of breaking the law are two different things. Again, this is another example of you twisting in the wind by your own words. Aren't you dizzy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do we call people in the US not convicted of breaking the law.
> 
> I was always taught "innocent". What were you taught?
Click to expand...



"Not guilty."

Innocent is a different concept and usually not applicable.


----------



## Bfgrn

JohnL.Burke said:


> Not a big Bush fan myself. I'm a conservative, he's not. I don't blame Bush for everything either. Chris Dodd and Barney Frank, I believe, were also accomplices to todays economy.



I sense you are exposing the tips of multitudes of your brainwashed iceberg. 

Heartening as it is to hear the growing criticism of Bush from within the GOP ranks, the idea that he's veered from conservatism is hogwash. Bush is the most conservative president we've had since probably Warren G. Hardingand perhaps ever. He has governed, wherever possible, fully in step with the basic conservative principles that defined Ronald Reagan's presidency and have shaped the political right for the last two generations: opposition to New Deal-style social programs; a view of civil liberties as obstacles to dispensing justice; the pursuit of low taxes, especially on businesses and the wealthy; a pro-business stance on regulation; a hawkish, militaristic, nationalistic foreign policy; and a commitment to bringing religion, and specifically Christianity, back into public policy. "Mr. Bush has a philosophy. It is conservative," wrote Peggy Noonan in 2002. Ah, but times change. Last June she complained, "What conservatives and Republicans must recognize is that the White House has broken with them."

It's certainly true that Bush hasn't delivered on every last item on the conservative wish list. But what president hasor ever could? What Bush's new critics on the right don't see, or won't see, is that to credibly accuse Bush of betraying "conservatism" requires constructing an ideal of conservatism that exists only in the world of theory, not the world of practical politics and democratic governance. It's an ideal that any president would fail to meet. In a democracy, governing means taking into account public opinion and making compromises. That means deviating at times from doctrinal purity.

Indeed, Bush's presidency, far from being a subversion of modern American conservatism, represents its fulfillment. For most of the president's tenure, many of the same folks who now brand him as an incompetent or an impostor happily backed his agenda. Republicans controlled the Senate and the House with iron discipline. They populated the federal court system, built a powerful media apparatus, and, for years after 9/11, benefited from a public climate of reflexive deference to the powers that be. From 2001 to 2007, the conservative movement had as free a hand as it could have hoped for in setting the agenda. The fruits of its efforts are Bush's policies.

So while conservatives may be disillusioned with Bush, they can't seriously claim it's over his policies. Another explanation seems more likely: When the Iraq War really turned sour in 2005 and the domestic catastrophes piled up, the appeal of being linked with Bush's legacy dimmed. Like mobsters turning state's evidence before they're sent up the river, former Bushies began to testify, throwing themselves on the mercy of the court of public opinion. The reason isn't that Bush is an imperfect conservative. It's that he's an unsuccessful one.

What iceberg next...Freddie, Fanny, Community Investment Act, ACORN?

Let's start here:

Here is what we DO know:

1) The financial crisis was not caused by low and middle income families buying a home.

2) It was not caused by dead beat poor people.

3) Fannie and Freddie were not to cause.

4) The Community Investment Act was not the culprit either.

The crisis was caused by private lending, to mostly upper middle class and the wealthy. ONLY 6% of of all the higher-priced loans were extended by CRA-covered lenders to lower-income borrowers or neighborhoods in their CRA assessment areas. The majority of those foreclosed on were wealthy and upper middle class, plus a huge segment of speculators; buyers who were wealthy home flippers looking for a fast buck. They strategically walked away from investments that went sour, not from their 'homes'. They never had any intent on living there. 

Only a huge amount of mortgage defaults at once could cause a rupture of the housing market. And only a huge amount of speculators dumping 'bad' investments all at once could explain it. Because if it were honest citizens who were buying a homestead, they kept paying even when they should have walked away. If those were the people to blame, it would have been a slow leak, not a rupture.

AND, what really sucks for the right wing propaganda of lies, all the way back to the late '90's there was one very outspoken and vocal critic of predatory lending practices, they even held protests at companies like Wells Fargo and Lehman Brothers...ACORN

But, if you need to make government the scapegoat for the private sector, it brings us full circle...Bush.

Maybe you just FORGOT...

Bush's 'ownership society'

"America is a stronger country every single time a family moves into a home of their own," George W. Bush said in October 2004. To achieve his vision, Bush pushed new policies encouraging homeownership, like the "zero-down-payment initiative," which was much as it soundsa government-sponsored program that allowed people to get mortgages without a down payment. More exotic mortgages followed, including ones with no monthly payments for the first two years. Other mortgages required no documentation other than the say-so of the borrower. Absurd though these all were, they paled in comparison to the financial innovations that grew out of the mortgagesderivatives built on other derivatives, packaged and repackaged until no one could identify what they contained and how much they were, in fact, worth.

As we know by now, these instruments have brought the global financial system, improbably, to the brink of collapse.

End of the Ownership Society


----------



## Foxfyre

Circe said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JohnL.Burke said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did I say she was convicted of anything? We know she broke the law (thank God). Breaking the law and being convicted of breaking the law are two different things. Again, this is another example of you twisting in the wind by your own words. Aren't you dizzy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do we call people in the US not convicted of breaking the law.
> 
> I was always taught "innocent". What were you taught?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "Not guilty."
> 
> Innocent is a different concept and usually not applicable.
Click to expand...


"Not guilty" or "not caught" which are NOT the same things.


----------



## Foxfyre

TemplarKormac said:


> I can answer the question this OP posed quite easily. What would happen to the United States if Conservatives left? This country would turn into something closer to what France is today. But liberals would be elated if such a thing were to happen, right? Come now, don't be shy.



I gave a brief rundown on what I think the country would look like if the liberals left and conservatives had a free rein to run it.  And they tore into me like a pack of wild dogs to ridicule or deny every word I posted.

But not one has offered to provide a snapshot of what the country would look like with all liberals in charge, which of course was what the OP asked for.

But they can't.  They hate me when I say that.  But their MO is to accuse, blame, insult, and hate conservatives and point to all the evil they see in conservative history, point of view, proposals, actions, or vision.   They don't seem to have any appreciation of their own history, and no liberal point of view, proposal, action, or vision, however.  When asked to articulate that, they simply can't do it.  So I guess it is just up to us conservatives to describe what a liberal America would look like which they will use for more ammunition to accuse, blame, insult, and hate.


----------



## PMZ

Circe said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no such thing as my facts or your facts.
> 
> There are just facts. The variable between you and I are which facts we know, and which we don't know. Each of us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, how do you know your "facts" are true and mine are false?
> 
> Is it because you really, really believe your facts and want them to be true?
> 
> Hundreds of millions of people believe that Mossad or Bush had the Twin Towers in New York bombed on 9/11/2001. Perhaps you are one of them. Others think it was a group organized by bin Laden.
> 
> Facts are opinions you are signifying you hold strongly by use of the descriptor "fact." There isn't much you can do to reify them or confirm most things you call "fact." You just take them on faith.
> 
> I am not very interested in the epistemological confusion of people who think something is "true" because they very much want their own opinion to be taken as "fact." And namecalling everyone as "ignorant" who doesn't accept your opinions as fact ---- no.
> 
> Opinions are good markers for who is an enemy and who is an ally. They don't have any particular connection to reality other than that, IMO.
Click to expand...


Determining facts from opinions is how scientists make a living. The reason that conservatives are what they are is that it's work to do that and watching/listening to entertainers is not. Plus being told that what you wish to be true, is, feels good. 

The problem with random opinions is that, if you are in the business of solving problems, opinions that are inconsistent with reality lead you astray. Fact based opinions lead you solutions. 

As an example supply side economics has cost the US many of the trillions that we owe. Why did we throw that money away? Because politicians wanted to create the illusion of something from nothing, and it felt good to believe them. 

"Ignorant" applies to facts, not opinions. It's a rampant problem in our times. We are probably at our ebb over history in critical thinking skills. The last time that that happened we called it the Dark Ages. 

Everybody is entitled to whatever opinions make them feel good. As long as those people with dysfunctional opinions stay out of the way, and let the people who've taken the time to educate themselves in their specialty lead the way to solutions, things work fine. That's the kind of specialization that has built civilization. If, for instance, people depended on me to solve agricultural problems we'd be pretty hungry. But to think someone can watch Fox News and add to the solution to AGW is just plain bizarre.


----------



## PMZ

TemplarKormac said:


> I can answer the question this OP posed quite easily. What would happen to the United States if Conservatives left? This country would turn into something closer to what France is today. But liberals would be elated if such a thing were to happen, right? Come now, don't be shy.



France is a pretty successful country today, and has been for centuries. Their biggest problem is that they tried the austerity solution to the Great Recession, and as it did everywhere, it failed them.


----------



## PMZ

JohnL.Burke said:


> Not a big Bush fan myself. I'm a conservative, he's not. I don't blame Bush for everything either. Chris Dodd and Barney Frank, I believe, were also accomplices to todays economy.



Can you name a conservative politician with an impressive list of accomplishments? 

I can't.


----------



## PMZ

Circe said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no such thing as my facts or your facts.
> 
> There are just facts. The variable between you and I are which facts we know, and which we don't know. Each of us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, how do you know your "facts" are true and mine are false?
> 
> Is it because you really, really believe your facts and want them to be true?
> 
> Hundreds of millions of people believe that Mossad or Bush had the Twin Towers in New York bombed on 9/11/2001. Perhaps you are one of them. Others think it was a group organized by bin Laden.
> 
> Facts are opinions you are signifying you hold strongly by use of the descriptor "fact." There isn't much you can do to reify them or confirm most things you call "fact." You just take them on faith.
> 
> I am not very interested in the epistemological confusion of people who think something is "true" because they very much want their own opinion to be taken as "fact." And namecalling everyone as "ignorant" who doesn't accept your opinions as fact ---- no.
> 
> Opinions are good markers for who is an enemy and who is an ally. They don't have any particular connection to reality other than that, IMO.
Click to expand...


Do you believe that there are things that are provably true and without exception? In other words the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth as demonstrated by evidence?


----------



## PMZ

Circe said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JohnL.Burke said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did I say she was convicted of anything? We know she broke the law (thank God). Breaking the law and being convicted of breaking the law are two different things. Again, this is another example of you twisting in the wind by your own words. Aren't you dizzy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do we call people in the US not convicted of breaking the law.
> 
> I was always taught "innocent". What were you taught?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "Not guilty."
> 
> Innocent is a different concept and usually not applicable.
Click to expand...


"Not guilty" typically implies that the standards for "guilty" have not been proven by evidence. Innocent means didn't commit a crime. I don't know which applies best to Harriet Tubman.


----------



## PMZ

Bfgrn said:


> JohnL.Burke said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not a big Bush fan myself. I'm a conservative, he's not. I don't blame Bush for everything either. Chris Dodd and Barney Frank, I believe, were also accomplices to todays economy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I sense you are exposing the tips of multitudes of your brainwashed iceberg.
> 
> Heartening as it is to hear the growing criticism of Bush from within the GOP ranks, the idea that he's veered from conservatism is hogwash. Bush is the most conservative president we've had since probably Warren G. Hardingand perhaps ever. He has governed, wherever possible, fully in step with the basic conservative principles that defined Ronald Reagan's presidency and have shaped the political right for the last two generations: opposition to New Deal-style social programs; a view of civil liberties as obstacles to dispensing justice; the pursuit of low taxes, especially on businesses and the wealthy; a pro-business stance on regulation; a hawkish, militaristic, nationalistic foreign policy; and a commitment to bringing religion, and specifically Christianity, back into public policy. "Mr. Bush has a philosophy. It is conservative," wrote Peggy Noonan in 2002. Ah, but times change. Last June she complained, "What conservatives and Republicans must recognize is that the White House has broken with them."
> 
> It's certainly true that Bush hasn't delivered on every last item on the conservative wish list. But what president hasor ever could? What Bush's new critics on the right don't see, or won't see, is that to credibly accuse Bush of betraying "conservatism" requires constructing an ideal of conservatism that exists only in the world of theory, not the world of practical politics and democratic governance. It's an ideal that any president would fail to meet. In a democracy, governing means taking into account public opinion and making compromises. That means deviating at times from doctrinal purity.
> 
> Indeed, Bush's presidency, far from being a subversion of modern American conservatism, represents its fulfillment. For most of the president's tenure, many of the same folks who now brand him as an incompetent or an impostor happily backed his agenda. Republicans controlled the Senate and the House with iron discipline. They populated the federal court system, built a powerful media apparatus, and, for years after 9/11, benefited from a public climate of reflexive deference to the powers that be. From 2001 to 2007, the conservative movement had as free a hand as it could have hoped for in setting the agenda. The fruits of its efforts are Bush's policies.
> 
> So while conservatives may be disillusioned with Bush, they can't seriously claim it's over his policies. Another explanation seems more likely: When the Iraq War really turned sour in 2005 and the domestic catastrophes piled up, the appeal of being linked with Bush's legacy dimmed. Like mobsters turning state's evidence before they're sent up the river, former Bushies began to testify, throwing themselves on the mercy of the court of public opinion. The reason isn't that Bush is an imperfect conservative. It's that he's an unsuccessful one.
> 
> What iceberg next...Freddie, Fanny, Community Investment Act, ACORN?
> 
> Let's start here:
> 
> Here is what we DO know:
> 
> 1) The financial crisis was not caused by low and middle income families buying a home.
> 
> 2) It was not caused by dead beat poor people.
> 
> 3) Fannie and Freddie were not to cause.
> 
> 4) The Community Investment Act was not the culprit either.
> 
> The crisis was caused by private lending, to mostly upper middle class and the wealthy. ONLY 6% of of all the higher-priced loans were extended by CRA-covered lenders to lower-income borrowers or neighborhoods in their CRA assessment areas. The majority of those foreclosed on were wealthy and upper middle class, plus a huge segment of speculators; buyers who were wealthy home flippers looking for a fast buck. They strategically walked away from investments that went sour, not from their 'homes'. They never had any intent on living there.
> 
> Only a huge amount of mortgage defaults at once could cause a rupture of the housing market. And only a huge amount of speculators dumping 'bad' investments all at once could explain it. Because if it were honest citizens who were buying a homestead, they kept paying even when they should have walked away. If those were the people to blame, it would have been a slow leak, not a rupture.
> 
> AND, what really sucks for the right wing propaganda of lies, all the way back to the late '90's there was one very outspoken and vocal critic of predatory lending practices, they even held protests at companies like Wells Fargo and Lehman Brothers...ACORN
> 
> But, if you need to make government the scapegoat for the private sector, it brings us full circle...Bush.
> 
> Maybe you just FORGOT...
> 
> Bush's 'ownership society'
> 
> "America is a stronger country every single time a family moves into a home of their own," George W. Bush said in October 2004. To achieve his vision, Bush pushed new policies encouraging homeownership, like the "zero-down-payment initiative," which was much as it soundsa government-sponsored program that allowed people to get mortgages without a down payment. More exotic mortgages followed, including ones with no monthly payments for the first two years. Other mortgages required no documentation other than the say-so of the borrower. Absurd though these all were, they paled in comparison to the financial innovations that grew out of the mortgagesderivatives built on other derivatives, packaged and repackaged until no one could identify what they contained and how much they were, in fact, worth.
> 
> As we know by now, these instruments have brought the global financial system, improbably, to the brink of collapse.
> 
> End of the Ownership Society
Click to expand...


The fact that there are still people claiming to be conservatives, even after the Bush/Cheney debacle, is the evidence that defines our problem. There simply are no facts that would support continuing to embrace conservatism after that clear demonstration of its impact in the real world. 

So, what is going on? There must be an explanation for pervasive ignorance (as in ignore) of solid evidence. Of cause and effect. 

It's sort of like the puzzle of why people continue to smoke. 

The only explanation that I can come up with is the effect of brand advertising through nearly pervasive media 24/7/365. Or, in shorthand, the Rush and Rupert et al Advertising Agency in the full time employ of the Republican Party. 

I'd love another explanation, but can't find one. 

The question to be answered is can democracy tolerate such a powerful force? For some time I thought no. Recently the evidence has switched to probably. At least for now. 

The balance though that we are hanging in is how prescient were our founders in defining our contract with government in a way that protects us from monied interests purchasing influence over a majority of the electorate. Certainly in their experience there was nothing even remotely close to what exists today. What will exist tomorrow?

We are at a profoundly important milestone in the evolution of democratic government.


----------



## PMZ

Foxfyre said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can answer the question this OP posed quite easily. What would happen to the United States if Conservatives left? This country would turn into something closer to what France is today. But liberals would be elated if such a thing were to happen, right? Come now, don't be shy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I gave a brief rundown on what I think the country would look like if the liberals left and conservatives had a free rein to run it.  And they tore into me like a pack of wild dogs to ridicule or deny every word I posted.
> 
> But not one has offered to provide a snapshot of what the country would look like with all liberals in charge, which of course was what the OP asked for.
> 
> But they can't.  They hate me when I say that.  But their MO is to accuse, blame, insult, and hate conservatives and point to all the evil they see in conservative history, point of view, proposals, actions, or vision.   They don't seem to have any appreciation of their own history, and no liberal point of view, proposal, action, or vision, however.  When asked to articulate that, they simply can't do it.  So I guess it is just up to us conservatives to describe what a liberal America would look like which they will use for more ammunition to accuse, blame, insult, and hate.
Click to expand...


While I have answered your question several times in this thread, I will do so again. 

First, let me say, I do not favor a one party or philosophy government. What I do favor is a centrist government, so I will answer the question from the perspective of where we'd be without extremists. 

Also the dilemma in this hypothetical is did this miracle occur pre or post Bush. 

If pre Bush, it's pretty easy to assume that Gore/Lieberman would have been a nearly linear extension of Clinton/Gore. 

If that was the case it's a pretty easy presumption to make that today we'd be debt free, at peace with Islam, working hard on the mitigation of AGW (with the resultant reduction in extreme weather), and well on the way to sustainable energy. If we assume that Obama followed them it's easy to project that, with a functional Congress, ACA would be in place but with substantial improvement from bi-partisan participation. 

If your proposed scenario occurred post Bush, the biggest change would be a functional Congress, but I don't know how much different things would be as Obama has had to become pretty good at working around them out of necessity. 

That's a short, simple guess on my part.


----------



## Foxfyre

PMZ said:


> JohnL.Burke said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not a big Bush fan myself. I'm a conservative, he's not. I don't blame Bush for everything either. Chris Dodd and Barney Frank, I believe, were also accomplices to todays economy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you name a conservative politician with an impressive list of accomplishments?
> 
> I can't.
Click to expand...


Again it depends on one's definition of 'conservative'.  But one of our more conservative modern Presidents was Richard M. Nixon, now perhaps the most maligned and hated of President at least before George W. Bush, but arguably also one of the most successful in getting things done.

He served only roughly five and a half years before being forced to resign in disgrace for a crime that would evoke only shrugs and yawns now.

During Nixon's five and a half years:

His administration stablized of relationships and lessening of tensions with Red China and the USSR including a treaty to limit strategic nuclear weapons.

He promoted or signed bills for numerous anticrime laws that have stood the test of time.

He presided over the first moon landing in 1969.

His economic policies, including revenue sharing, lessened the severity of a recession he inherited and coped well with a fuel shortage that for once was not our fault in any way.

In 1972 he was re-elected to a 2nd term by one of the widest margins on record at that time.

In 1973 he was able to announce that an accord with North Vietnam had been reached to end American involvement, a process completed under Gerald Ford.

He signed legislation ending the draft.

In 1974, his administration had negotiated disengagement agreements between the warring Israel and Egypt/Syria and paved the way for a peace treaty between Egypt and Israel five years later.
. 
Nixon's environmental record is unmatched, with the possible exception of Teddy Roosevelt.  Nixon's environmental accomplishments included his Council on Environmental Quality producing the National Environment Policy Act establishing rules to minimalize oil spills in the ocean and other environmental catastophes.

Nixon also created the Environmental Protection Agency and signed laws including the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, and the Marine Mammal Protection Act.

There were negatives and major downsides too, and stuff went on I will never appreciate or condone, but that is true of every administration.  Few Presidents of our lifetime can boast the record that Richard Nixon had in a very short time.
__________________________________

But if you go back to the administrations that still embraced and respected the Constitution that the Founders gave us--these were the true conservative presidents--you find much to commend and admire.


----------



## PMZ

Foxfyre said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JohnL.Burke said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not a big Bush fan myself. I'm a conservative, he's not. I don't blame Bush for everything either. Chris Dodd and Barney Frank, I believe, were also accomplices to todays economy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you name a conservative politician with an impressive list of accomplishments?
> 
> I can't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again it depends on one's definition of 'conservative'.  But one of our more conservative modern Presidents was Richard M. Nixon, now perhaps the most maligned and hated of President at least before George W. Bush, but arguably also one of the most successful in getting things done.
> 
> He served only roughly five and a half years before being forced to resign in disgrace for a crime that would evoke only shrugs and yawns now.
> 
> During Nixon's five and a half years:
> 
> His administration stablized of relationships and lessening of tensions with Red China and the USSR including a treaty to limit strategic nuclear weapons.
> 
> He promoted or signed bills for numerous anticrime laws that have stood the test of time.
> 
> He presided over the first moon landing in 1969.
> 
> His economic policies, including revenue sharing, lessened the severity of a recession he inherited and coped well with a fuel shortage that for once was not our fault in any way.
> 
> In 1972 he was re-elected to a 2nd term by one of the widest margins on record at that time.
> 
> In 1973 he was able to announce that an accord with North Vietnam had been reached to end American involvement, a process completed under Gerald Ford.
> 
> He signed legislation ending the draft.
> 
> In 1974, his administration had negotiated disengagement agreements between the warring Israel and Egypt/Syria and paved the way for a peace treaty between Egypt and Israel five years later.
> .
> Nixon's environmental record is unmatched, with the possible exception of Teddy Roosevelt.  Nixon's environmental accomplishments included his Council on Environmental Quality producing the National Environment Policy Act establishing rules to minimalize oil spills in the ocean and other environmental catastophes.
> 
> Nixon also created the Environmental Protection Agency and signed laws including the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, and the Marine Mammal Protection Act.
> 
> There were negatives and major downsides too, and stuff went on I will never appreciate or condone, but that is true of every administration.  Few Presidents of our lifetime can boast the record that Richard Nixon had in a very short time.
> __________________________________
> 
> But if you go back to the administrations that still embraced and respected the Constitution that the Founders gave us--these were the true conservative presidents--you find much to commend and admire.
Click to expand...


A couple of points.

Here's some comments from Wikipedia re Nixon.

"Political scientist Walter Dean Burnham noted the "dichotomous or schizoid profiles" of presidents, which can make some hard to classify. Historian Alan Brinkley said, "There are presidents who could be considered both failures and great or near great (for example, Nixon)". James MacGregor Burns observed of Nixon, "How can one evaluate such an idiosyncratic president, so brilliant and so morally lacking?"[1]

You're one of the only people that I know who would consider Nixon conservative. Why do you?

"But if you go back to the administrations that still embraced and respected the Constitution that the Founders gave us--these were the true conservative presidents--you find much to commend and admire.[/QUOTE]"

I don't know of any US administration that didn't embrace and respect the Constitution. We've always followed to the letter. 

What's the evidence to support your claim?


----------



## Foxfyre

PMZ said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you name a conservative politician with an impressive list of accomplishments?
> 
> I can't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again it depends on one's definition of 'conservative'.  But one of our more conservative modern Presidents was Richard M. Nixon, now perhaps the most maligned and hated of President at least before George W. Bush, but arguably also one of the most successful in getting things done.
> 
> He served only roughly five and a half years before being forced to resign in disgrace for a crime that would evoke only shrugs and yawns now.
> 
> During Nixon's five and a half years:
> 
> His administration stablized of relationships and lessening of tensions with Red China and the USSR including a treaty to limit strategic nuclear weapons.
> 
> He promoted or signed bills for numerous anticrime laws that have stood the test of time.
> 
> He presided over the first moon landing in 1969.
> 
> His economic policies, including revenue sharing, lessened the severity of a recession he inherited and coped well with a fuel shortage that for once was not our fault in any way.
> 
> In 1972 he was re-elected to a 2nd term by one of the widest margins on record at that time.
> 
> In 1973 he was able to announce that an accord with North Vietnam had been reached to end American involvement, a process completed under Gerald Ford.
> 
> He signed legislation ending the draft.
> 
> In 1974, his administration had negotiated disengagement agreements between the warring Israel and Egypt/Syria and paved the way for a peace treaty between Egypt and Israel five years later.
> .
> Nixon's environmental record is unmatched, with the possible exception of Teddy Roosevelt.  Nixon's environmental accomplishments included his Council on Environmental Quality producing the National Environment Policy Act establishing rules to minimalize oil spills in the ocean and other environmental catastophes.
> 
> Nixon also created the Environmental Protection Agency and signed laws including the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, and the Marine Mammal Protection Act.
> 
> There were negatives and major downsides too, and stuff went on I will never appreciate or condone, but that is true of every administration.  Few Presidents of our lifetime can boast the record that Richard Nixon had in a very short time.
> __________________________________
> 
> But if you go back to the administrations that still embraced and respected the Constitution that the Founders gave us--these were the true conservative presidents--you find much to commend and admire.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A couple of points.
> 
> Here's some comments from Wikipedia re Nixon.
> 
> "Political scientist Walter Dean Burnham noted the "dichotomous or schizoid profiles" of presidents, which can make some hard to classify. Historian Alan Brinkley said, "There are presidents who could be considered both failures and great or near great (for example, Nixon)". James MacGregor Burns observed of Nixon, "How can one evaluate such an idiosyncratic president, so brilliant and so morally lacking?"[1]
> 
> You're one of the only people that I know who would consider Nixon conservative. Why do you?
> 
> "But if you go back to the administrations that still embraced and respected the Constitution that the Founders gave us--these were the true conservative presidents--you find much to commend and admire.
Click to expand...

"



> I don't know of any US administration that didn't embrace and respect the Constitution. We've always followed to the letter.
> 
> What's the evidence to support your claim?



Not taking that bait Saigon.  I get really weary of you folks who are not the least bit interested in discussion but keep moving the goalposts and asking questions that have already been answered.

So what does an all-liberal America look like to you?


----------



## Bfgrn

PMZ said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JohnL.Burke said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not a big Bush fan myself. I'm a conservative, he's not. I don't blame Bush for everything either. Chris Dodd and Barney Frank, I believe, were also accomplices to todays economy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I sense you are exposing the tips of multitudes of your brainwashed iceberg.
> 
> Heartening as it is to hear the growing criticism of Bush from within the GOP ranks, the idea that he's veered from conservatism is hogwash. Bush is the most conservative president we've had since probably Warren G. Harding&#8212;and perhaps ever. He has governed, wherever possible, fully in step with the basic conservative principles that defined Ronald Reagan's presidency and have shaped the political right for the last two generations: opposition to New Deal-style social programs; a view of civil liberties as obstacles to dispensing justice; the pursuit of low taxes, especially on businesses and the wealthy; a pro-business stance on regulation; a hawkish, militaristic, nationalistic foreign policy; and a commitment to bringing religion, and specifically Christianity, back into public policy. "Mr. Bush has a philosophy. It is conservative," wrote Peggy Noonan in 2002. Ah, but times change. Last June she complained, "What conservatives and Republicans must recognize is that the White House has broken with them."
> 
> It's certainly true that Bush hasn't delivered on every last item on the conservative wish list. But what president has&#8212;or ever could? What Bush's new critics on the right don't see, or won't see, is that to credibly accuse Bush of betraying "conservatism" requires constructing an ideal of conservatism that exists only in the world of theory, not the world of practical politics and democratic governance. It's an ideal that any president would fail to meet. In a democracy, governing means taking into account public opinion and making compromises. That means deviating at times from doctrinal purity.
> 
> Indeed, Bush's presidency, far from being a subversion of modern American conservatism, represents its fulfillment. For most of the president's tenure, many of the same folks who now brand him as an incompetent or an impostor happily backed his agenda. Republicans controlled the Senate and the House with iron discipline. They populated the federal court system, built a powerful media apparatus, and, for years after 9/11, benefited from a public climate of reflexive deference to the powers that be. From 2001 to 2007, the conservative movement had as free a hand as it could have hoped for in setting the agenda. The fruits of its efforts are Bush's policies.
> 
> So while conservatives may be disillusioned with Bush, they can't seriously claim it's over his policies. Another explanation seems more likely: When the Iraq War really turned sour in 2005 and the domestic catastrophes piled up, the appeal of being linked with Bush's legacy dimmed. Like mobsters turning state's evidence before they're sent up the river, former Bushies began to testify, throwing themselves on the mercy of the court of public opinion. The reason isn't that Bush is an imperfect conservative. It's that he's an unsuccessful one.
> 
> What iceberg next...Freddie, Fanny, Community Investment Act, ACORN?
> 
> Let's start here:
> 
> Here is what we DO know:
> 
> 1) The financial crisis was not caused by low and middle income families buying a home.
> 
> 2) It was not caused by dead beat poor people.
> 
> 3) Fannie and Freddie were not to cause.
> 
> 4) The Community Investment Act was not the culprit either.
> 
> The crisis was caused by private lending, to mostly upper middle class and the wealthy. ONLY 6% of of all the higher-priced loans were extended by CRA-covered lenders to lower-income borrowers or neighborhoods in their CRA assessment areas. The majority of those foreclosed on were wealthy and upper middle class, plus a huge segment of speculators; buyers who were wealthy home flippers looking for a fast buck. They strategically walked away from investments that went sour, not from their 'homes'. They never had any intent on living there.
> 
> Only a huge amount of mortgage defaults at once could cause a rupture of the housing market. And only a huge amount of speculators dumping 'bad' investments all at once could explain it. Because if it were honest citizens who were buying a homestead, they kept paying even when they should have walked away. If those were the people to blame, it would have been a slow leak, not a rupture.
> 
> AND, what really sucks for the right wing propaganda of lies, all the way back to the late '90's there was one very outspoken and vocal critic of predatory lending practices, they even held protests at companies like Wells Fargo and Lehman Brothers...ACORN
> 
> But, if you need to make government the scapegoat for the private sector, it brings us full circle...Bush.
> 
> Maybe you just FORGOT...
> 
> Bush's 'ownership society'
> 
> "America is a stronger country every single time a family moves into a home of their own," George W. Bush said in October 2004. To achieve his vision, Bush pushed new policies encouraging homeownership, like the "zero-down-payment initiative," which was much as it sounds&#8212;a government-sponsored program that allowed people to get mortgages without a down payment. More exotic mortgages followed, including ones with no monthly payments for the first two years. Other mortgages required no documentation other than the say-so of the borrower. Absurd though these all were, they paled in comparison to the financial innovations that grew out of the mortgages&#8212;derivatives built on other derivatives, packaged and repackaged until no one could identify what they contained and how much they were, in fact, worth.
> 
> As we know by now, these instruments have brought the global financial system, improbably, to the brink of collapse.
> 
> End of the &#8216;Ownership Society&#8217;
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fact that there are still people claiming to be conservatives, even after the Bush/Cheney debacle, is the evidence that defines our problem. There simply are no facts that would support continuing to embrace conservatism after that clear demonstration of its impact in the real world.
> 
> So, what is going on? There must be an explanation for pervasive ignorance (as in ignore) of solid evidence. Of cause and effect.
> 
> It's sort of like the puzzle of why people continue to smoke.
> 
> The only explanation that I can come up with is the effect of brand advertising through nearly pervasive media 24/7/365. Or, in shorthand, the Rush and Rupert et al Advertising Agency in the full time employ of the Republican Party.
> 
> I'd love another explanation, but can't find one.
> 
> The question to be answered is can democracy tolerate such a powerful force? For some time I thought no. Recently the evidence has switched to probably. At least for now.
> 
> The balance though that we are hanging in is how prescient were our founders in defining our contract with government in a way that protects us from monied interests purchasing influence over a majority of the electorate. Certainly in their experience there was nothing even remotely close to what exists today. What will exist tomorrow?
> 
> We are at a profoundly important milestone in the evolution of democratic government.
Click to expand...


There have been a few conservatives who have spoken up, David Stockman, David Frum and Bruce Bartlett come to mind. But they have been so heavily ostracized, rebuked and censured that most conservatives have gotten the message. Parrot the party line, conform, march in lock step or face the right wing firing squad. 

Here is an op-ed Bruce Bartlett wrote after former Bush speechwriter David Frum exposed that Republicans at the beginning of the health care reform process made a strategic decision to make no deal with the administration. No negotiations, no compromise, nothing. They were going for all the marbles. This would be Obama&#8217;s Waterloo &#8211; just as healthcare was Clinton&#8217;s in 1994.


David Frum and the Closing of the Conservative Mind
25 Mar 2010
by Bruce Bartlett

As some readers of this blog may know, I was fired by a right wing think tank called the National Center for Policy Analysis in 2005 for writing a book critical of George W. Bush's policies, especially his support for Medicare Part D. In the years since, I have lost a great many friends and been shunned by conservative society in Washington, DC.

Now the same thing has happened to David Frum, who has been fired by the American Enterprise Institute. I don't know all the details, but I presume that his Waterloo post on Sunday condemning Republicans for failing to work with Democrats on healthcare reform was the final straw.

Since, he is no longer affiliated with AEI, I feel free to say publicly something he told me in private a few months ago. He asked if I had noticed any comments by AEI "scholars" on the subject of health care reform. I said no and he said that was because they had been ordered not to speak to the media because they agreed with too much of what Obama was trying to do.

It saddened me to hear this. I have always hoped that my experience was unique. But now I see that I was just the first to suffer from a closing of the conservative mind. Rigid conformity is being enforced, no dissent is allowed, and the conservative brain will slowly shrivel into dementia if it hasn't already.

Sadly, there is no place for David and me to go. The donor community is only interested in financing organizations that parrot the party line, such as the one recently established by McCain economic adviser Doug Holtz-Eakin.

I will have more to say on this topic later. But I wanted to say that this is a black day for what passes for a conservative movement, scholarship, and the once-respected AEI.



"The debt explosion has resulted not from big spending by the Democrats, but instead the Republican Party's embrace, about three decades ago, of the insidious doctrine that deficits don't matter if they result from tax cuts."
David Stockman - Director of the Office of Management and Budget for U.S. President Ronald Reagan.


----------



## noose4

bear513 said:


> I put this topic here because I want honest answers and no flaming. As a right leaning guy I love the left and wouldnt want to see them go. But why does the left hate Republicans so bad? Their history is after all the Anti-Slave party. p.s. sorry about any typo's I wrote this on the fly because I am so curious what would you think happen to the US if cons left



Today's Republicans are not the Lincoln Republicans they are not even the Reagan Republicans, now some fiscal conservatism can be a good thing but opposition to all social programs and most expenditures will quickly turn us into a third world nation, we have already fell behind European nations in so many areas, we must advance as a people and not become a nation where the wealth is in the hands of a very few and everybody else struggles.


----------



## PMZ

Foxfyre said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again it depends on one's definition of 'conservative'.  But one of our more conservative modern Presidents was Richard M. Nixon, now perhaps the most maligned and hated of President at least before George W. Bush, but arguably also one of the most successful in getting things done.
> 
> He served only roughly five and a half years before being forced to resign in disgrace for a crime that would evoke only shrugs and yawns now.
> 
> During Nixon's five and a half years:
> 
> His administration stablized of relationships and lessening of tensions with Red China and the USSR including a treaty to limit strategic nuclear weapons.
> 
> He promoted or signed bills for numerous anticrime laws that have stood the test of time.H
> 
> He presided over the first moon landing in 1969.
> 
> His economic policies, including revenue sharing, lessened the severity of a recession he inherited and coped well with a fuel shortage that for once was not our fault in any way.
> 
> In 1972 he was re-elected to a 2nd term by one of the widest margins on record at that time.
> 
> In 1973 he was able to announce that an accord with North Vietnam had been reached to end American involvement, a process completed under Gerald Ford.
> 
> He signed legislation ending the draft.
> 
> In 1974, his administration had negotiated disengagement agreements between the warring Israel and Egypt/Syria and paved the way for a peace treaty between Egypt and Israel five years later.
> .
> Nixon's environmental record is unmatched, with the possible exception of Teddy Roosevelt.  Nixon's environmental accomplishments included his Council on Environmental Quality producing the National Environment Policy Act establishing rules to minimalize oil spills in the ocean and other environmental catastophes.
> 
> Nixon also created the Environmental Protection Agency and signed laws including the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, and the Marine Mammal Protection Act.
> 
> There were negatives and major downsides too, and stuff went on I will never appreciate or condone, but that is true of every administration.  Few Presidents of our lifetime can boast the record that Richard Nixon had in a very short time.
> __________________________________
> 
> But if you go back to the administrations that still embraced and respected the Constitution that the Founders gave us--these were the true conservative presidents--you find much to commend and admire.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A couple of points.
> 
> Here's some comments from Wikipedia re Nixon.
> 
> "Political scientist Walter Dean Burnham noted the "dichotomous or schizoid profiles" of presidents, which can make some hard to classify. Historian Alan Brinkley said, "There are presidents who could be considered both failures and great or near great (for example, Nixon)". James MacGregor Burns observed of Nixon, "How can one evaluate such an idiosyncratic president, so brilliant and so morally lacking?"[1]
> 
> You're one of the only people that I know who would consider Nixon conservative. Why do you?
> 
> "But if you go back to the administrations that still embraced and respected the Constitution that the Founders gave us--these were the true conservative presidents--you find much to commend and admire.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know of any US administration that didn't embrace and respect the Constitution. We've always followed to the letter.
> 
> What's the evidence to support your claim?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not taking that bait Saigon.  I get really weary of you folks who are not the least bit interested in discussion but keep moving the goalposts and asking questions that have already been answered.
> 
> So what does an all-liberal America look like to you?
Click to expand...


I just told you. Don't you ever read other's posts?

The Constitution is very specific about its interpretation and enforcement. We have always followed what it specifies. Never deviated. Now that doesn't mean that everyone of us agrees with every one of those decisions. But that's the consequences of government of our design, not a flaw. 

I might have to move out of any country with a government by your design.


----------



## PMZ

Bfgrn said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I sense you are exposing the tips of multitudes of your brainwashed iceberg.
> 
> Heartening as it is to hear the growing criticism of Bush from within the GOP ranks, the idea that he's veered from conservatism is hogwash. Bush is the most conservative president we've had since probably Warren G. Hardingand perhaps ever. He has governed, wherever possible, fully in step with the basic conservative principles that defined Ronald Reagan's presidency and have shaped the political right for the last two generations: opposition to New Deal-style social programs; a view of civil liberties as obstacles to dispensing justice; the pursuit of low taxes, especially on businesses and the wealthy; a pro-business stance on regulation; a hawkish, militaristic, nationalistic foreign policy; and a commitment to bringing religion, and specifically Christianity, back into public policy. "Mr. Bush has a philosophy. It is conservative," wrote Peggy Noonan in 2002. Ah, but times change. Last June she complained, "What conservatives and Republicans must recognize is that the White House has broken with them."
> 
> It's certainly true that Bush hasn't delivered on every last item on the conservative wish list. But what president hasor ever could? What Bush's new critics on the right don't see, or won't see, is that to credibly accuse Bush of betraying "conservatism" requires constructing an ideal of conservatism that exists only in the world of theory, not the world of practical politics and democratic governance. It's an ideal that any president would fail to meet. In a democracy, governing means taking into account public opinion and making compromises. That means deviating at times from doctrinal purity.
> 
> Indeed, Bush's presidency, far from being a subversion of modern American conservatism, represents its fulfillment. For most of the president's tenure, many of the same folks who now brand him as an incompetent or an impostor happily backed his agenda. Republicans controlled the Senate and the House with iron discipline. They populated the federal court system, built a powerful media apparatus, and, for years after 9/11, benefited from a public climate of reflexive deference to the powers that be. From 2001 to 2007, the conservative movement had as free a hand as it could have hoped for in setting the agenda. The fruits of its efforts are Bush's policies.
> 
> So while conservatives may be disillusioned with Bush, they can't seriously claim it's over his policies. Another explanation seems more likely: When the Iraq War really turned sour in 2005 and the domestic catastrophes piled up, the appeal of being linked with Bush's legacy dimmed. Like mobsters turning state's evidence before they're sent up the river, former Bushies began to testify, throwing themselves on the mercy of the court of public opinion. The reason isn't that Bush is an imperfect conservative. It's that he's an unsuccessful one.
> 
> What iceberg next...Freddie, Fanny, Community Investment Act, ACORN?
> 
> Let's start here:
> 
> Here is what we DO know:
> 
> 1) The financial crisis was not caused by low and middle income families buying a home.
> 
> 2) It was not caused by dead beat poor people.
> 
> 3) Fannie and Freddie were not to cause.
> 
> 4) The Community Investment Act was not the culprit either.
> 
> The crisis was caused by private lending, to mostly upper middle class and the wealthy. ONLY 6% of of all the higher-priced loans were extended by CRA-covered lenders to lower-income borrowers or neighborhoods in their CRA assessment areas. The majority of those foreclosed on were wealthy and upper middle class, plus a huge segment of speculators; buyers who were wealthy home flippers looking for a fast buck. They strategically walked away from investments that went sour, not from their 'homes'. They never had any intent on living there.
> 
> Only a huge amount of mortgage defaults at once could cause a rupture of the housing market. And only a huge amount of speculators dumping 'bad' investments all at once could explain it. Because if it were honest citizens who were buying a homestead, they kept paying even when they should have walked away. If those were the people to blame, it would have been a slow leak, not a rupture.
> 
> AND, what really sucks for the right wing propaganda of lies, all the way back to the late '90's there was one very outspoken and vocal critic of predatory lending practices, they even held protests at companies like Wells Fargo and Lehman Brothers...ACORN
> 
> But, if you need to make government the scapegoat for the private sector, it brings us full circle...Bush.
> 
> Maybe you just FORGOT...
> 
> Bush's 'ownership society'
> 
> "America is a stronger country every single time a family moves into a home of their own," George W. Bush said in October 2004. To achieve his vision, Bush pushed new policies encouraging homeownership, like the "zero-down-payment initiative," which was much as it soundsa government-sponsored program that allowed people to get mortgages without a down payment. More exotic mortgages followed, including ones with no monthly payments for the first two years. Other mortgages required no documentation other than the say-so of the borrower. Absurd though these all were, they paled in comparison to the financial innovations that grew out of the mortgagesderivatives built on other derivatives, packaged and repackaged until no one could identify what they contained and how much they were, in fact, worth.
> 
> As we know by now, these instruments have brought the global financial system, improbably, to the brink of collapse.
> 
> End of the Ownership Society
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that there are still people claiming to be conservatives, even after the Bush/Cheney debacle, is the evidence that defines our problem. There simply are no facts that would support continuing to embrace conservatism after that clear demonstration of its impact in the real world.
> 
> So, what is going on? There must be an explanation for pervasive ignorance (as in ignore) of solid evidence. Of cause and effect.
> 
> It's sort of like the puzzle of why people continue to smoke.
> 
> The only explanation that I can come up with is the effect of brand advertising through nearly pervasive media 24/7/365. Or, in shorthand, the Rush and Rupert et al Advertising Agency in the full time employ of the Republican Party.
> 
> I'd love another explanation, but can't find one.
> 
> The question to be answered is can democracy tolerate such a powerful force? For some time I thought no. Recently the evidence has switched to probably. At least for now.
> 
> The balance though that we are hanging in is how prescient were our founders in defining our contract with government in a way that protects us from monied interests purchasing influence over a majority of the electorate. Certainly in their experience there was nothing even remotely close to what exists today. What will exist tomorrow?
> 
> We are at a profoundly important milestone in the evolution of democratic government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There have been a few conservatives who have spoken up, David Stockman, David Frum and Bruce Bartlett come to mind. But they have been so heavily ostracized, rebuked and censured that most conservatives have gotten the message. Parrot the party line, conform, march in lock step or face the right wing firing squad.
> 
> Here is an op-ed Bruce Bartlett wrote after former Bush speechwriter David Frum exposed that Republicans at the beginning of the health care reform process made a strategic decision to make no deal with the administration. No negotiations, no compromise, nothing. They were going for all the marbles. This would be Obamas Waterloo  just as healthcare was Clintons in 1994.
> 
> 
> David Frum and the Closing of the Conservative Mind
> 25 Mar 2010
> by Bruce Bartlett
> 
> As some readers of this blog may know, I was fired by a right wing think tank called the National Center for Policy Analysis in 2005 for writing a book critical of George W. Bush's policies, especially his support for Medicare Part D. In the years since, I have lost a great many friends and been shunned by conservative society in Washington, DC.
> 
> Now the same thing has happened to David Frum, who has been fired by the American Enterprise Institute. I don't know all the details, but I presume that his Waterloo post on Sunday condemning Republicans for failing to work with Democrats on healthcare reform was the final straw.
> 
> Since, he is no longer affiliated with AEI, I feel free to say publicly something he told me in private a few months ago. He asked if I had noticed any comments by AEI "scholars" on the subject of health care reform. I said no and he said that was because they had been ordered not to speak to the media because they agreed with too much of what Obama was trying to do.
> 
> It saddened me to hear this. I have always hoped that my experience was unique. But now I see that I was just the first to suffer from a closing of the conservative mind. Rigid conformity is being enforced, no dissent is allowed, and the conservative brain will slowly shrivel into dementia if it hasn't already.
> 
> Sadly, there is no place for David and me to go. The donor community is only interested in financing organizations that parrot the party line, such as the one recently established by McCain economic adviser Doug Holtz-Eakin.
> 
> I will have more to say on this topic later. But I wanted to say that this is a black day for what passes for a conservative movement, scholarship, and the once-respected AEI.
> 
> 
> 
> "The debt explosion has resulted not from big spending by the Democrats, but instead the Republican Party's embrace, about three decades ago, of the insidious doctrine that deficits don't matter if they result from tax cuts."
> David Stockman - Director of the Office of Management and Budget for U.S. President Ronald Reagan.
Click to expand...


The GOP suffers from many self inflicted wounds and, apparently, hasn't learned a thing from any of them. An article in the local paper here said that the leadership of the Republican Party laid out their campaign strategy for 2016. The number one item? Attack Obamacare. They aren't going to let the repeated failure of that strategy deter them. Why? They have no other. No candidates. No platform. No solutions. No accomplishments. 

Now reasonable people in that situation would consider solving their problems. Their strategy though is to use their ad agency to recruit support by attempts to drag their opposition down to worse than Republicans. 

It's a sad, sad day for American politics.


----------



## Circe

PMZ said:


> But to think someone can watch Fox News and add to the solution to AGW is just plain bizarre.




What does AGW mean? I've seen you use it before.

Good editing rule: Define an acronym the first time used in every communication.

Better editing rule: Never use acronyms, because people have NO IDEA what they mean, and so communication fails.


----------



## Circe

PMZ said:


> Do you believe that there are things that are provably true and without exception? In other words the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth as demonstrated by evidence?




Of course! Lots and lots of things! But millions of people believe the exact opposite is provably true and without exception, and that this is the truth and the whole truth and all the evidence shows it.


So it doesn't matter what I think, or what you or I think. What really matters is that people differ on huge matters of so-called "fact," and never the twain shall meet. And that there is no power on the planet that could convince any believer otherwise, about even casual stuff. Certainly not about very obvious and important provable true things like that the Bilderburg Group has the world planned out for ten years in advance from some caves in Tibet. 

What I do is just not bother with people discussing things I feel are just too silly. Reptiloids, communism, anarchy, Illuminati. There are a surprising number of people these days who get into verrrrrrrrrrrrrry strange byways of thought, and of course there are always the forum schizophrenics, whom we have always with us.


----------



## PMZ

Circe said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> But to think someone can watch Fox News and add to the solution to AGW is just plain bizarre.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What does AGW mean? I've seen you use it before.
> 
> Good editing rule: Define an acronym the first time used in every communication.
> 
> Better editing rule: Never use acronyms, because people have NO IDEA what they mean, and so communication fails.
Click to expand...


Anthropogenic (man made) global warming. 

Mostly based on the fact that burning fossil fuels puts back into the atmosphere carbon dioxide that was removed from the atmosphere during the carboniferous period when the plant and animal remains that formed fossil fuels were sequestered underground. As carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas it transmits solar energy to earth, but transmits less energy reflected by the earth back out into space. This requires earth to warm in order to balance energy in and energy out causing climate change to that at the start of the Carboniferous Period.


----------



## PMZ

Circe said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you believe that there are things that are provably true and without exception? In other words the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth as demonstrated by evidence?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course! Lots and lots of things! But millions of people believe the exact opposite is provably true and without exception, and that this is the truth and the whole truth and all the evidence shows it.
> 
> 
> So it doesn't matter what I think, or what you or I think. What really matters is that people differ on huge matters of so-called "fact," and never the twain shall meet. And that there is no power on the planet that could convince any believer otherwise, about even casual stuff. Certainly not about very obvious and important provable true things like that the Bilderburg Group has the world planned out for ten years in advance from some caves in Tibet.
> 
> What I do is just not bother with people discussing things I feel are just too silly. Reptiloids, communism, anarchy, Illuminati. There are a surprising number of people these days who get into verrrrrrrrrrrrrry strange byways of thought, and of course there are always the forum schizophrenics, whom we have always with us.
Click to expand...


I'm an engineer and scientist. If we believed as you do that all truth is arbitrary we'd still on square one. Zero progress. So, we figure out ways to prove that this is true and that is not. And we prove that. From then on others can count on that truth to find other truths. The whole basis of math and science and engineering. 

Mankind has learned a whole bunch of things like that and that is what we teach to people to educate them. 

People are free to not learn those things but that has no effect on their essential truth. It just creates someone ignorant of the truth.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo

bear513 said:


> What would happen to the United States if Conservatives left?



Companies that sell penis length enhancement drugs would go bankrupt.


----------



## PaulS1950

A fact is a point of discussion that is generally thought of as true based on a large level of proof.

A truth is a point beyond discussion that has, is and always will be true.

Faith is a belief that is constant even in the face of undisputable evidence to the contrary.

example: 
1. Man cannot fly even with the aid of mechanical means. In 1200CE it was a fact; In 2013CE it is not.

2. One plus one equals two. It has always been true; It is true; It will always be true.

3. The Bible is God's written word. The "Word" has been edited at least four different times using different words from it's inception to the King James Version with varying definitions to different phrases. God is unchanging so His words would be unchanging as well. The Bible has changed so it cannot be God's word. Yet it is believed by those with faith to be the unerring written word of God.

Truth is immutable. Facts can change. Faith is.

The two major political parties are a tool to drive people apart so that government can gain power over the people that gave it limited powers and the task to protect the individual rights and freedoms of the people.


----------



## PMZ

PaulS1950 said:


> A fact is a point of discussion that is generally thought of as true based on a large level of proof.
> 
> A truth is a point beyond discussion that has, is and always will be true.
> 
> Faith is a belief that is constant even in the face of undisputable evidence to the contrary.
> 
> example:
> 1. Man cannot fly even with the aid of mechanical means. In 1200CE it was a fact; In 2013CE it is not.
> 
> 2. One plus one equals two. It has always been true; It is true; It will always be true.
> 
> 3. The Bible is God's written word. The "Word" has been edited at least four different times using different words from it's inception to the King James Version with varying definitions to different phrases. God is unchanging so His words would be unchanging as well. The Bible has changed so it cannot be God's word. Yet it is believed by those with faith to be the unerring written word of God.
> 
> Truth is immutable. Facts can change. Faith is.
> 
> The two major political parties are a tool to drive people apart so that government can gain power over the people that gave it limited powers and the task to protect the individual rights and freedoms of the people.



Based on your definitions, virtually all science and math and engineering has to do with the discovery and cataloging of truth. 

In my lexicon facts are bits of truth. They don't change. In your example, in 1200CE, it was a fact that mankind could not fly with the aid of mechanical means. That fact will never change.

Some truths (facts) are known, some are yet to be discovered and proven. 

Faith is what we imagine to be true even in the absence of proof. 

Political parties are like goverments, countries, corporations, unions, special interest groups, churches, communities, families, etc: collections of people with common interests and goals who commit themselves to work together to advance their common cause.

Our Constitution defines the expectations of we, the people, for the people that we choose to govern our country.


----------



## PMZ

Question. Given the definitions above, is there a difference more than degree between faith and opinions?


----------



## PaulS1950

It depends, I suppose on how open one is to changes in their opinion when evidence contradicts the opinion.
"Man cannot fly" was a fact in 1200CE It is not a fact today. The fact is "Man cannot fly" the date is an external parameter and not part of the "fact"

Newtonian gravitational understanding has been modified with the advent of the Theory of Relativity. It is currently a fact that there is no "gravitational FORCE" and that it is instead a perception of curved time/space. Before the use of Einstein's formula for curved space the orbit of Mercury was never correct. There was signifigant error between the actual orbital position and the mathmatical position. When the new formula is applied the orbit matches the math.

Faith is what we believe even in the face of evidence to the contrary. We also believe it without proof but then I believe that Paris (the city) exists but I have no proof that it does and that is not faith based belief. It is accepted as fact because there is a great deal of evidence that it does exist.


----------



## GWV5903

Trakar said:


> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's not true, this is the dialogue that keeps both sides from communicating constructively...
> 
> We could sit hear and write a book about liberal ideology, but it is not going to solve the problems we have today...
> 
> Come to the table with compromise as the first belief and you will be surprised...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that most of the last administration are not still engaged in trials defending their criminal acts, that the heads of most major US investment banks aren't lined up on the dockets with them, that we still have troops in both Afghanistan and Iraq, that Gitmo is still open, that we don't have comprehensive federal legislation and international treaties to deal with climate change, that there is no carbon tax paying off the national debt and building efficient, sustainable energy infrastructure and that we have insurance company welfare rather than universal health care, speaks to the fact that the reasonable opposition did come to the table with compromise as the first belief, ...unfortunately, their generosity and willingness to work towards mutual goals has been met with "well, now that you gave-in to those demands here are the rest of our demands." Such an approach (unsurprisingly) has resulted in an atmosphere where the reasonable are no longer willing to give until they receive an equivalent yielding by the groups that don't even seem to realize what all they have already won in compromise.
Click to expand...


Well you have reality and then there is your version...

Both parties voted for Afghanistan & Iraq...

CRA had huge consequences...

Get the lawyer's and the feds out of medicine and you don't need socialized medicine...

And it really is that simple...


----------



## GWV5903

PMZ said:


> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> The left doesnt hate anyone, republicans in particular.
> 
> In fact, theyd love to have conservatives back to participate in responsible governance again.
> 
> *Unfortunately, at least at this time, social conservatives, rightwing fiscal extremists, and Christian fundamentalists have a stranglehold on the GOP*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's not true, this is the dialogue that keeps both sides from communicating constructively...
> 
> We could sit hear and write a book about liberal ideology, but it is not going to solve the problems we have today...
> 
> Come to the table with compromise as the first belief and you will be surprised...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see your position on compromise in the logo on the bottom of your post.
Click to expand...


If you believe Oblammer is smart, effective and a born leader, then you wear the statement, it is a choice...

I believe he is a product of racism, loud and clear...

Hillary and all of her baggage are more mainstream Democrat than Oblammer ever will be...

She lost the DNC nomination because he is black, if you contend it is something else, provide compelling evidence...

He won based on his ethnicity...

If Oblammercare is his finest moment to date we will have wasted 8 years we cannot get back...

Health Care will never be solved by government intervention...

Talk about high treason, he effectively gave HC Insurance an open checking account, I would argue they had a pretty good deal already...


----------



## GWV5903

PMZ said:


> Most of the extremism posted here comes from a common source. Rush and Rupert et al. What they propagate is 24/7/365 Republican propaganda consisting of an inseparable mix of facts (news) and opinion.
> 
> *It has compromised the once free market of democracy.*
> I think, like most fads, it's 15 minutes of fame are over, but we must continue our vigilance.



Now that is funny, so NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN and MSNBC are simply providing the unbiased truth...

Combined they have the larger market share, yet poor little Rush & Rupert control the airwaves???

Can you see how stupid this sounds?


----------



## Bfgrn

GWV5903 said:


> Well you have reality and then there is your version...
> 
> CRA had huge consequences...



Explain.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo

If conservatives left, there would be a lot less pork skin sales


----------



## PMZ

PaulS1950 said:


> It depends, I suppose on how open one is to changes in their opinion when evidence contradicts the opinion.
> "Man cannot fly" was a fact in 1200CE It is not a fact today. The fact is "Man cannot fly" the date is an external parameter and not part of the "fact"
> 
> Newtonian gravitational understanding has been modified with the advent of the Theory of Relativity. It is currently a fact that there is no "gravitational FORCE" and that it is instead a perception of curved time/space. Before the use of Einstein's formula for curved space the orbit of Mercury was never correct. There was signifigant error between the actual orbital position and the mathmatical position. When the new formula is applied the orbit matches the math.
> 
> Faith is what we believe even in the face of evidence to the contrary. We also believe it without proof but then I believe that Paris (the city) exists but I have no proof that it does and that is not faith based belief. It is accepted as fact because there is a great deal of evidence that it does exist.



The formula devised by Newton to quantify the attractive force between masses is still very much valid within it's realm. Einstein didn't contradict it, he came up with ideas that expanded the realm and explanation for why the realm of Newton's calculation is not the entire picture. 

BTW I'm still of the opinion that properly stated facts are immutable truths. They may not be the whole truth, in fact rarely are, but to be a fact, a truth, requires that there be evidence that, within the scope of the evidence, they will always be true. 

"Faith is what we believe even in the face of evidence to the contrary." Why would not someone question their opinions in the face of contrary evidence?


----------



## Trakar

GWV5903 said:


> Trakar said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that most of the last administration are not still engaged in trials defending their criminal acts, that the heads of most major US investment banks aren't lined up on the dockets with them, that we still have troops in both Afghanistan and Iraq, that Gitmo is still open, that we don't have comprehensive federal legislation and international treaties to deal with climate change, that there is no carbon tax paying off the national debt and building efficient, sustainable energy infrastructure and that we have insurance company welfare rather than universal health care, speaks to the fact that the reasonable opposition did come to the table with compromise as the first belief, ...unfortunately, their generosity and willingness to work towards mutual goals has been met with "well, now that you gave-in to those demands here are the rest of our demands." Such an approach (unsurprisingly) has resulted in an atmosphere where the reasonable are no longer willing to give until they receive an equivalent yielding by the groups that don't even seem to realize what all they have already won in compromise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well you have reality and then there is your version...
> Both parties voted for Afghanistan & Iraq...
Click to expand...



and that is probably the primary reason that "compromise" resulted in no prosecutions for the criminal acts associated with those wars and such atrocities as the Patriot act, Gitmo, warrantless wiretapping, etc., by those in high positions of previous and current administrations




GWV5903 said:


> CRA had huge consequences...


 
True, but none of those consequences had anything to do with the housing bubble or the economic collapse in 2007.




GWV5903 said:


> Get the lawyer's and the feds out of medicine and you don't need socialized medicine...


Provide that everyone who is sick or injured receives the care that they need to return to health as a basic obligation that all residents of this nation owe to each other and we can get rid of the insurers and profiteers who seek to earn obscene profits off the misery and infirmity of others. 




GWV5903 said:


> And it really is that simple...


 
Outlaw and criminalize political parties and we would very simply and quickly eliminate 99% of the problems inherent to modern politics.


----------



## Foxfyre

Trakar said:


> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trakar said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that most of the last administration are not still engaged in trials defending their criminal acts, that the heads of most major US investment banks aren't lined up on the dockets with them, that we still have troops in both Afghanistan and Iraq, that Gitmo is still open, that we don't have comprehensive federal legislation and international treaties to deal with climate change, that there is no carbon tax paying off the national debt and building efficient, sustainable energy infrastructure and that we have insurance company welfare rather than universal health care, speaks to the fact that the reasonable opposition did come to the table with compromise as the first belief, ...unfortunately, their generosity and willingness to work towards mutual goals has been met with "well, now that you gave-in to those demands here are the rest of our demands." Such an approach (unsurprisingly) has resulted in an atmosphere where the reasonable are no longer willing to give until they receive an equivalent yielding by the groups that don't even seem to realize what all they have already won in compromise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well you have reality and then there is your version...
> Both parties voted for Afghanistan & Iraq...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> and that is probably the primary reason that "compromise" resulted in no prosecutions for the criminal acts associated with those wars and such atrocities as the Patriot act, Gitmo, warrantless wiretapping, etc., by those in high positions of previous and current administrations
> 
> 
> 
> True, but none of those consequences had anything to do with the housing bubble or the economic collapse in 2007.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Get the lawyer's and the feds out of medicine and you don't need socialized medicine...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Provide that everyone who is sick or injured receives the care that they need to return to health as a basic obligation that all residents of this nation owe to each other and we can get rid of the insurers and profiteers who seek to earn obscene profits off the misery and infirmity of others.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And it really is that simple...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Outlaw and criminalize political parties and we would very simply and quickly eliminate 99% of the problems inherent to modern politics.
Click to expand...



So what do you think?   If all the conservatives left and liberals would be in charge:

There would have been no retaliation for 9/11?
We would not be at war anywhere?
There would be no Patriot Act?
No prisoners at Gitmo?
No ferreting out of terrorists via wiretapping or other means?
The housing bubble would not have collapsed?
We would have no insurance companies and health care would be perfect or at least more altruistic with the profit motive removed?
There would be no political parties?

How does an all-liberal world look like to you guys?  Obviously you think it is conservatives and conservative concepts that are the bane and source of all that is evil, unjust, and imperfect in the nation.  So how does it look with you in charge?


----------



## PMZ

Foxfyre said:


> Trakar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> 
> [/SIZE][/FONT]
> 
> Well you have reality and then there is your version...
> Both parties voted for Afghanistan & Iraq...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and that is probably the primary reason that "compromise" resulted in no prosecutions for the criminal acts associated with those wars and such atrocities as the Patriot act, Gitmo, warrantless wiretapping, etc., by those in high positions of previous and current administrations
> 
> 
> 
> True, but none of those consequences had anything to do with the housing bubble or the economic collapse in 2007.
> 
> 
> Provide that everyone who is sick or injured receives the care that they need to return to health as a basic obligation that all residents of this nation owe to each other and we can get rid of the insurers and profiteers who seek to earn obscene profits off the misery and infirmity of others.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And it really is that simple...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Outlaw and criminalize political parties and we would very simply and quickly eliminate 99% of the problems inherent to modern politics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So what do you think?   If all the conservatives left and liberals would be in charge:
> 
> There would have been no retaliation for 9/11?
> We would not be at war anywhere?
> There would be no Patriot Act?
> No prisoners at Gitmo?
> No ferreting out of terrorists via wiretapping or other means?
> The housing bubble would not have collapsed?
> We would have no insurance companies and health care would be perfect or at least more altruistic with the profit motive removed?
> There would be no political parties?
> 
> How does an all-liberal world look like to you guys?  Obviously you think it is conservatives and conservative concepts that are the bane and source of all that is evil, unjust, and imperfect in the nation.  So how does it look with you in charge?
Click to expand...



"There would have been no retaliation for 9/11?" 

The retaliation for 9/11 was the conviction of the perps and the death of bin Laden"

"We would not be at war anywhere?" 

true

"There would be no Patriot Act?"

no war, no need

"No prisoners at Gitmo?"

 No war, no need

No ferreting out of terrorists via wiretapping or other means?" 

Law enforcement will always be needed

"The housing bubble would not have collapsed?" 

The bubble would not have formed if mortgage initiators could not hide and sell the risk. 

"We would have no insurance companies and health care would be perfect or at least more altruistic with the profit motive removed?"

In a perfect world healthcare would certainly be universal as all of our global competition have.  Private vs public not an issue, although  Medicare is certainly a strong argument towards public. 

"There would be no political parties?" 

I believe that the multiple party system is necessary. Today we only have one legitimate party working in the country's interest. We need to go back to two.


----------



## Trakar

Foxfyre said:


> Trakar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> 
> [/SIZE][/FONT]
> 
> Well you have reality and then there is your version...
> Both parties voted for Afghanistan & Iraq...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and that is probably the primary reason that "compromise" resulted in no prosecutions for the criminal acts associated with those wars and such atrocities as the Patriot act, Gitmo, warrantless wiretapping, etc., by those in high positions of previous and current administrations
> 
> 
> 
> True, but none of those consequences had anything to do with the housing bubble or the economic collapse in 2007.
> 
> 
> Provide that everyone who is sick or injured receives the care that they need to return to health as a basic obligation that all residents of this nation owe to each other and we can get rid of the insurers and profiteers who seek to earn obscene profits off the misery and infirmity of others.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And it really is that simple...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Outlaw and criminalize political parties and we would very simply and quickly eliminate 99% of the problems inherent to modern politics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So what do you think? If all the conservatives left and liberals would be in charge:
Click to expand...



I don't think we'd notice much difference at all, from my perspective both ideologies are corrupt and there isn't a plug nickel's worth of difference between either of these corporatist stooges in modern American conservative and liberal philosophies. 




Foxfyre said:


> There would have been no retaliation for 9/11?


If Conservatives (and the right of center liberals that constitute most of the Democratic Party) had left this country in the seventies, I suspect that the only memories 9-11 would evoke is as the telephone emergency assistance number, so there would have been nothing to "retaliate" against. Not that there would have been no one in the world that disliked the US, but the unfolding of history for the last 40 years would have been unrecognizably different.


----------



## Euroconservativ

Bfgrn said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> What would happen to the United States if Conservatives left?
> 
> Detroit
> 
> 
> 
> Moscow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really? Why would American liberals want to become Russia, an even MORE conservative country?
> 
> "Conservatism is the dominant intellectual legacy of Russia"
> Richard Pipes
> 
> Conservative Russia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People simply do not realize that Russia is a deeply conservative country.
> 
> Fiscal policy is buttressed on a low, flat rate of income tax (13%), and there is virtually no social safety net, with spending on unemployment security, medical provision, disability aid, infrastructure, the environment, and urban regeneration far lower, in both absolute terms and as a percentage of GDP, than its G8 contemporaries.
> 
> Similarly, military spending is high in comparison &#8212; and growing &#8212; medical care is available free in theory, but requires private insurance or additional cash payment in practice, and businesses are in reality pretty un-regulated.
> 
> If that doesn&#8217;t sound to you like a set of policies Newt Gingrich or William F Buckley would support, then you don&#8217;t know your dyed in the wool conservatives from your woolly jumper wearing liberals.
Click to expand...



If conservatives promote state-ownership/control of the main national industries, high military spending and trade protectionism... then you are right, modern Russia is conservative 

I consider myself a conservative and do not support such things.

By the way, Switzerland has a strongly decentralized system (both politically and fiscally) and does better. Federal tax rates are really low, the federal government is not partisan, almost 70% of their health care is consumer-driven, immigration laws are strict even if 20% of the population is foreign-born, etc  This is an example i like.


----------



## Bfgrn

Euroconservativ said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> Moscow.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really? Why would American liberals want to become Russia, an even MORE conservative country?
> 
> "Conservatism is the dominant intellectual legacy of Russia"
> Richard Pipes
> 
> Conservative Russia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People simply do not realize that Russia is a deeply conservative country.
> 
> Fiscal policy is buttressed on a low, flat rate of income tax (13%), and there is virtually no social safety net, with spending on unemployment security, medical provision, disability aid, infrastructure, the environment, and urban regeneration far lower, in both absolute terms and as a percentage of GDP, than its G8 contemporaries.
> 
> Similarly, military spending is high in comparison  and growing  medical care is available free in theory, but requires private insurance or additional cash payment in practice, and businesses are in reality pretty un-regulated.
> 
> If that doesnt sound to you like a set of policies Newt Gingrich or William F Buckley would support, then you dont know your dyed in the wool conservatives from your woolly jumper wearing liberals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If conservatives promote state-ownership/control of the main national industries, high military spending and trade protectionism... then you are right, modern Russia is conservative
> 
> I consider myself a conservative and do not support such things.
> 
> By the way, Switzerland has a strongly decentralized system (both politically and fiscally) and does better. Federal tax rates are really low, the federal government is not partisan, almost 70% of their health care is consumer-driven, immigration laws are strict even if 20% of the population is foreign-born, etc  This is an example i like.
Click to expand...


The point is conservatism is based on latitude, longitude and date of birth. A conservative in America wants to 'conserve' capitalism, nationalism and American parochial orthodoxy. A conservative in Russia wants to conserve communism, nationalism and Russian parochial orthodoxy. Left/right in this context is about as pertinent as whether the water in each country swirls down the drain clockwise or counterclockwise.


While not all conservatives are authoritarians; all highly authoritarian personalities are political conservatives.
Robert Altmeyer - The Authoritarians


----------



## PMZ

Euroconservativ said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> Moscow.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really? Why would American liberals want to become Russia, an even MORE conservative country?
> 
> "Conservatism is the dominant intellectual legacy of Russia"
> Richard Pipes
> 
> Conservative Russia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People simply do not realize that Russia is a deeply conservative country.
> 
> Fiscal policy is buttressed on a low, flat rate of income tax (13%), and there is virtually no social safety net, with spending on unemployment security, medical provision, disability aid, infrastructure, the environment, and urban regeneration far lower, in both absolute terms and as a percentage of GDP, than its G8 contemporaries.
> 
> Similarly, military spending is high in comparison  and growing  medical care is available free in theory, but requires private insurance or additional cash payment in practice, and businesses are in reality pretty un-regulated.
> 
> If that doesnt sound to you like a set of policies Newt Gingrich or William F Buckley would support, then you dont know your dyed in the wool conservatives from your woolly jumper wearing liberals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If conservatives promote state-ownership/control of the main national industries, high military spending and trade protectionism... then you are right, modern Russia is conservative
> 
> I consider myself a conservative and do not support such things.
> 
> By the way, Switzerland has a strongly decentralized system (both politically and fiscally) and does better. Federal tax rates are really low, the federal government is not partisan, almost 70% of their health care is consumer-driven, immigration laws are strict even if 20% of the population is foreign-born, etc  This is an example i like.
Click to expand...


What are some samples of federal vs state(canton) responsibilities different between the US and Switzerland?


----------



## PMZ

Bfgrn said:


> Euroconservativ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really? Why would American liberals want to become Russia, an even MORE conservative country?
> 
> "Conservatism is the dominant intellectual legacy of Russia"
> Richard Pipes
> 
> Conservative Russia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People simply do not realize that Russia is a deeply conservative country.
> 
> Fiscal policy is buttressed on a low, flat rate of income tax (13%), and there is virtually no social safety net, with spending on unemployment security, medical provision, disability aid, infrastructure, the environment, and urban regeneration far lower, in both absolute terms and as a percentage of GDP, than its G8 contemporaries.
> 
> Similarly, military spending is high in comparison  and growing  medical care is available free in theory, but requires private insurance or additional cash payment in practice, and businesses are in reality pretty un-regulated.
> 
> If that doesnt sound to you like a set of policies Newt Gingrich or William F Buckley would support, then you dont know your dyed in the wool conservatives from your woolly jumper wearing liberals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If conservatives promote state-ownership/control of the main national industries, high military spending and trade protectionism... then you are right, modern Russia is conservative
> 
> I consider myself a conservative and do not support such things.
> 
> By the way, Switzerland has a strongly decentralized system (both politically and fiscally) and does better. Federal tax rates are really low, the federal government is not partisan, almost 70% of their health care is consumer-driven, immigration laws are strict even if 20% of the population is foreign-born, etc  This is an example i like.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The point is conservatism is based on latitude, longitude and date of birth. A conservative in America wants to 'conserve' capitalism, nationalism and American parochial orthodoxy. A conservative in Russia wants to conserve communism, nationalism and Russian parochial orthodoxy. Left/right in this context is about as pertinent as whether the water in each country swirls down the drain clockwise or counterclockwise.
> 
> 
> While not all conservatives are authoritarians; all highly authoritarian personalities are political conservatives.
> Robert Altmeyer - The Authoritarians
Click to expand...


People conserve in times of scarcity and invest in times of plenty. That is the essence of conservative vs liberal. And the reason why conservatives are so easy to recruit via media. People worried about losing are much easier to get angry and afraid than those whose worldview is that we can have whatever we can dream of and work collectively towards.


----------



## Foxfyre

Trakar said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trakar said:
> 
> 
> 
> and that is probably the primary reason that "compromise" resulted in no prosecutions for the criminal acts associated with those wars and such atrocities as the Patriot act, Gitmo, warrantless wiretapping, etc., by those in high positions of previous and current administrations
> 
> 
> 
> True, but none of those consequences had anything to do with the housing bubble or the economic collapse in 2007.
> 
> 
> Provide that everyone who is sick or injured receives the care that they need to return to health as a basic obligation that all residents of this nation owe to each other and we can get rid of the insurers and profiteers who seek to earn obscene profits off the misery and infirmity of others.
> 
> 
> 
> Outlaw and criminalize political parties and we would very simply and quickly eliminate 99% of the problems inherent to modern politics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what do you think? If all the conservatives left and liberals would be in charge:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think we'd notice much difference at all, from my perspective both ideologies are corrupt and there isn't a plug nickel's worth of difference between either of these corporatist stooges in modern American conservative and liberal philosophies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> There would have been no retaliation for 9/11?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If Conservatives (and the right of center liberals that constitute most of the Democratic Party) had left this country in the seventies, I suspect that the only memories 9-11 would evoke is as the telephone emergency assistance number, so there would have been nothing to "retaliate" against. Not that there would have been no one in the world that disliked the US, but the unfolding of history for the last 40 years would have been unrecognizably different.
Click to expand...



So what is it in conservative policies--that is modern day conservative American policies i.e. classical liberal policies--that make it a corrupt system?  Please don't point to people who claim to be conservative but are actually liberal and/or authoritarians.  Let's leave all people from all sides out of it for a minut and focus on the conservative concepts for a bit.


----------



## Bfgrn

Foxfyre said:


> Trakar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what do you think? If all the conservatives left and liberals would be in charge:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think we'd notice much difference at all, from my perspective both ideologies are corrupt and there isn't a plug nickel's worth of difference between either of these corporatist stooges in modern American conservative and liberal philosophies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> There would have been no retaliation for 9/11?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If Conservatives (and the right of center liberals that constitute most of the Democratic Party) had left this country in the seventies, I suspect that the only memories 9-11 would evoke is as the telephone emergency assistance number, so there would have been nothing to "retaliate" against. Not that there would have been no one in the world that disliked the US, but the unfolding of history for the last 40 years would have been unrecognizably different.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what is it in conservative policies--that is modern day conservative American policies i.e. classical liberal policies--that make it a corrupt system?  Please don't point to people who claim to be conservative but are actually liberal and/or authoritarians.  Let's leave all people from all sides out of it for a minut and focus on the conservative concepts for a bit.
Click to expand...


One word answer...BUSH.

Bush was the most conservative president we've had since probably Warren G. Hardingand perhaps ever. He governed, wherever possible, fully in step with the basic conservative principles that defined Ronald Reagan's presidency and have shaped the political right for the last two generations: opposition to New Deal-style social programs; a view of civil liberties as obstacles to dispensing justice; the pursuit of low taxes, especially on businesses and the wealthy; a pro-business stance on regulation; a hawkish, militaristic, nationalistic foreign policy; and a commitment to bringing religion, and specifically Christianity, back into public policy. "Mr. Bush has a philosophy. It is conservative," wrote Peggy Noonan in 2002. Ah, but times change. In June 2008 she complained, "What conservatives and Republicans must recognize is that the White House has broken with them."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


----------



## PMZ

Foxfyre said:


> Trakar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what do you think? If all the conservatives left and liberals would be in charge:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think we'd notice much difference at all, from my perspective both ideologies are corrupt and there isn't a plug nickel's worth of difference between either of these corporatist stooges in modern American conservative and liberal philosophies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> There would have been no retaliation for 9/11?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If Conservatives (and the right of center liberals that constitute most of the Democratic Party) had left this country in the seventies, I suspect that the only memories 9-11 would evoke is as the telephone emergency assistance number, so there would have been nothing to "retaliate" against. Not that there would have been no one in the world that disliked the US, but the unfolding of history for the last 40 years would have been unrecognizably different.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what is it in conservative policies--that is modern day conservative American policies i.e. classical liberal policies--that make it a corrupt system?  Please don't point to people who claim to be conservative but are actually liberal and/or authoritarians.  Let's leave all people from all sides out of it for a minut and focus on the conservative concepts for a bit.
Click to expand...


I don't think that there's any difference between liberals and conservatives in terms of corruption. People are currupt or not, not worldviews. 

I think that both worldviews are self fulfilling. I think that conservatives create scarcity and liberals, plenty, all other things being equal.

Liberals invest in growth. They are optimistic. They have faith in their fellow man and expect collaboration and cooperation. 

Conservatives are suspicious of their fellow man and expect friction and selfishness. 

Liberals want to change the present to create a better future.

Conservatives want to prevent the present from changing in order to avoid an even worse future.


----------



## JohnL.Burke

Bfgrn said:


> Euroconservativ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really? Why would American liberals want to become Russia, an even MORE conservative country?
> 
> "Conservatism is the dominant intellectual legacy of Russia"
> Richard Pipes
> 
> Conservative Russia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People simply do not realize that Russia is a deeply conservative country.
> 
> Fiscal policy is buttressed on a low, flat rate of income tax (13%), and there is virtually no social safety net, with spending on unemployment security, medical provision, disability aid, infrastructure, the environment, and urban regeneration far lower, in both absolute terms and as a percentage of GDP, than its G8 contemporaries.
> 
> Similarly, military spending is high in comparison &#8212; and growing &#8212; medical care is available free in theory, but requires private insurance or additional cash payment in practice, and businesses are in reality pretty un-regulated.
> 
> If that doesn&#8217;t sound to you like a set of policies Newt Gingrich or William F Buckley would support, then you don&#8217;t know your dyed in the wool conservatives from your woolly jumper wearing liberals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If conservatives promote state-ownership/control of the main national industries, high military spending and trade protectionism... then you are right, modern Russia is conservative
> 
> I consider myself a conservative and do not support such things.
> 
> By the way, Switzerland has a strongly decentralized system (both politically and fiscally) and does better. Federal tax rates are really low, the federal government is not partisan, almost 70% of their health care is consumer-driven, immigration laws are strict even if 20% of the population is foreign-born, etc  This is an example i like.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The point is conservatism is based on latitude, longitude and date of birth. A conservative in America wants to 'conserve' capitalism, nationalism and American parochial orthodoxy. A conservative in Russia wants to conserve communism, nationalism and Russian parochial orthodoxy. Left/right in this context is about as pertinent as whether the water in each country swirls down the drain clockwise or counterclockwise.
> 
> 
> While not all conservatives are authoritarians; all highly authoritarian personalities are political conservatives.
> Robert Altmeyer - The Authoritarians
Click to expand...


  This is possibly the weirdest stretch of an idea forged yet. The rhetorical acrobatics are amazing. I'm not even trying to be sarcastic. You say an American conservative wants to conserve "capitalism" which is why he is like a conservative in Russia because Russian "conservatives" want to conserve communism. Does the fact that communism and conservatism are diametrically opposing concepts matter in this debate at all? Let me put it this way. Liberals and nazis are the same because they both wear pants. You keep equating conservative with conserve. That's as silly as me equating progressive with progress.


----------



## PMZ

JohnL.Burke said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Euroconservativ said:
> 
> 
> 
> If conservatives promote state-ownership/control of the main national industries, high military spending and trade protectionism... then you are right, modern Russia is conservative
> 
> I consider myself a conservative and do not support such things.
> 
> By the way, Switzerland has a strongly decentralized system (both politically and fiscally) and does better. Federal tax rates are really low, the federal government is not partisan, almost 70% of their health care is consumer-driven, immigration laws are strict even if 20% of the population is foreign-born, etc  This is an example i like.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The point is conservatism is based on latitude, longitude and date of birth. A conservative in America wants to 'conserve' capitalism, nationalism and American parochial orthodoxy. A conservative in Russia wants to conserve communism, nationalism and Russian parochial orthodoxy. Left/right in this context is about as pertinent as whether the water in each country swirls down the drain clockwise or counterclockwise.
> 
> 
> While not all conservatives are authoritarians; all highly authoritarian personalities are political conservatives.
> Robert Altmeyer - The Authoritarians
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is possibly the weirdest stretch of an idea forged yet. The rhetorical acrobatics are amazing. I'm not even trying to be sarcastic. You say an American conservative wants to conserve "capitalism" which is why he is like a conservative in Russia because Russian "conservatives" want to conserve communism. Does the fact that communism and conservatism are diametrically opposing concepts matter in this debate at all? Let me put it this way. Liberals and nazis are the same because they both wear pants. You keep equating conservative with conserve. That's as silly as me equating progressive with progress.
Click to expand...


"That's as silly as me equating progressive with progress."

What's silly about that?


----------



## JohnL.Burke

PMZ said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trakar said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think we'd notice much difference at all, from my perspective both ideologies are corrupt and there isn't a plug nickel's worth of difference between either of these corporatist stooges in modern American conservative and liberal philosophies.
> 
> 
> 
> If Conservatives (and the right of center liberals that constitute most of the Democratic Party) had left this country in the seventies, I suspect that the only memories 9-11 would evoke is as the telephone emergency assistance number, so there would have been nothing to "retaliate" against. Not that there would have been no one in the world that disliked the US, but the unfolding of history for the last 40 years would have been unrecognizably different.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what is it in conservative policies--that is modern day conservative American policies i.e. classical liberal policies--that make it a corrupt system?  Please don't point to people who claim to be conservative but are actually liberal and/or authoritarians.  Let's leave all people from all sides out of it for a minut and focus on the conservative concepts for a bit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think that there's any difference between liberals and conservatives in terms of corruption. People are currupt or not, not worldviews.
> 
> I think that both worldviews are self fulfilling. I think that conservatives create scarcity and liberals, plenty, all other things being equal.
> 
> Liberals invest in growth. They are optimistic. They have faith in their fellow man and expect collaboration and cooperation.
> 
> Conservatives are suspicious of their fellow man and expect friction and selfishness.
> 
> Liberals want to change the present to create a better future.
> 
> Conservatives want to prevent the present from changing in order to avoid an even worse future.
Click to expand...



 You say that liberals are optimistic and have faith in their fellow man and expect collaboration and cooperation. Of course liberals believe no such thing which explains why liberals want enormous government along with an enormous bureaucracy to create the rules citizens have to obey and an enormous agency to enforce these rules. Police states are the product of a liberal agenda.


----------



## Bfgrn

JohnL.Burke said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Euroconservativ said:
> 
> 
> 
> If conservatives promote state-ownership/control of the main national industries, high military spending and trade protectionism... then you are right, modern Russia is conservative
> 
> I consider myself a conservative and do not support such things.
> 
> By the way, Switzerland has a strongly decentralized system (both politically and fiscally) and does better. Federal tax rates are really low, the federal government is not partisan, almost 70% of their health care is consumer-driven, immigration laws are strict even if 20% of the population is foreign-born, etc  This is an example i like.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The point is conservatism is based on latitude, longitude and date of birth. A conservative in America wants to 'conserve' capitalism, nationalism and American parochial orthodoxy. A conservative in Russia wants to conserve communism, nationalism and Russian parochial orthodoxy. Left/right in this context is about as pertinent as whether the water in each country swirls down the drain clockwise or counterclockwise.
> 
> 
> While not all conservatives are authoritarians; all highly authoritarian personalities are political conservatives.
> Robert Altmeyer - The Authoritarians
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is possibly the weirdest stretch of an idea forged yet. The rhetorical acrobatics are amazing. I'm not even trying to be sarcastic. You say an American conservative wants to conserve "capitalism" which is why he is like a conservative in Russia because Russian "conservatives" want to conserve communism. Does the fact that communism and conservatism are diametrically opposing concepts matter in this debate at all? Let me put it this way. Liberals and nazis are the same because they both wear pants. You keep equating conservative with conserve. That's as silly as me equating progressive with progress.
Click to expand...


Definition of CONSERVATISM
2
a : disposition in politics to preserve what is established
b : a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change
3
: the tendency to prefer an existing or traditional situation to change 

Conservatism - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary


con·ser·va·tism  (kn-sûrv-tzm)
n.
1. The inclination, especially in politics, to maintain the existing or traditional order.
2. A political philosophy or attitude emphasizing respect for traditional institutions, distrust of government activism, and opposition to sudden change in the established order.

conservatism - definition of conservatism by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.


con·serv·a·tism
[kuhn-sur-vuh-tiz-uhm]
noun
1.
the disposition to preserve or restore what is established and traditional and to limit change. 

Conservatism | Define Conservatism at Dictionary.com

Conservatism (Latin: conservare, "to retain") is a political and social philosophy that promotes retaining traditional social institutions. A person who follows the philosophies of conservatism is referred to as a traditionalist or conservative.

Conservatism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## JohnL.Burke

PMZ said:


> JohnL.Burke said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The point is conservatism is based on latitude, longitude and date of birth. A conservative in America wants to 'conserve' capitalism, nationalism and American parochial orthodoxy. A conservative in Russia wants to conserve communism, nationalism and Russian parochial orthodoxy. Left/right in this context is about as pertinent as whether the water in each country swirls down the drain clockwise or counterclockwise.
> 
> 
> While not all conservatives are authoritarians; all highly authoritarian personalities are political conservatives.
> Robert Altmeyer - The Authoritarians
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is possibly the weirdest stretch of an idea forged yet. The rhetorical acrobatics are amazing. I'm not even trying to be sarcastic. You say an American conservative wants to conserve "capitalism" which is why he is like a conservative in Russia because Russian "conservatives" want to conserve communism. Does the fact that communism and conservatism are diametrically opposing concepts matter in this debate at all? Let me put it this way. Liberals and nazis are the same because they both wear pants. You keep equating conservative with conserve. That's as silly as me equating progressive with progress.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "That's as silly as me equating progressive with progress."
> 
> What's silly about that?
Click to expand...


 Progressivism does not support progress, It supports an attempt to reach back in history and resurrect a failed and disturbing idea that has been proven to not work and inevitably lead to genocide or poverty. Often both.


----------



## JohnL.Burke

Bfgrn said:


> JohnL.Burke said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The point is conservatism is based on latitude, longitude and date of birth. A conservative in America wants to 'conserve' capitalism, nationalism and American parochial orthodoxy. A conservative in Russia wants to conserve communism, nationalism and Russian parochial orthodoxy. Left/right in this context is about as pertinent as whether the water in each country swirls down the drain clockwise or counterclockwise.
> 
> 
> While not all conservatives are authoritarians; all highly authoritarian personalities are political conservatives.
> Robert Altmeyer - The Authoritarians
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is possibly the weirdest stretch of an idea forged yet. The rhetorical acrobatics are amazing. I'm not even trying to be sarcastic. You say an American conservative wants to conserve "capitalism" which is why he is like a conservative in Russia because Russian "conservatives" want to conserve communism. Does the fact that communism and conservatism are diametrically opposing concepts matter in this debate at all? Let me put it this way. Liberals and nazis are the same because they both wear pants. You keep equating conservative with conserve. That's as silly as me equating progressive with progress.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Definition of CONSERVATISM
> 2
> a : disposition in politics to preserve what is established
> b : a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change
> 3
> : the tendency to prefer an existing or traditional situation to change
> 
> Conservatism - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
> 
> 
> con·ser·va·tism  (kn-sûrv-tzm)
> n.
> 1. The inclination, especially in politics, to maintain the existing or traditional order.
> 2. A political philosophy or attitude emphasizing respect for traditional institutions, distrust of government activism, and opposition to sudden change in the established order.
> 
> conservatism - definition of conservatism by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.
> 
> 
> con·serv·a·tism
> [kuhn-sur-vuh-tiz-uhm]
> noun
> 1.
> the disposition to preserve or restore what is established and traditional and to limit change.
> 
> Conservatism | Define Conservatism at Dictionary.com
> 
> Conservatism (Latin: conservare, "to retain") is a political and social philosophy that promotes retaining traditional social institutions. A person who follows the philosophies of conservatism is referred to as a traditionalist or conservative.
> 
> Conservatism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


   "The disposition to preserve or restore what is established and traditional and to limit change".  
    Are you suggesting that conservatives want to bring back slavery because it was America's tradition at one time? The problem you are making is that you are using the widest definition of conservative to apply to an ever changing political landscape in a specific manner. In other words. One can call Reagan a conservative because of some ideas he had. He could also be called a moderate because of other ideas he had. Some people have called him too liberal because he provided amnesty for over a million illegal aliens. Just as Reagan does not fit the dictionary definition of conservative he did however call himself a conservative because he did fit the political definition of a conservative at the time. Dictionary definitions do not provide political context of a constantly changing societal paradigm. One more example. John F. Kennedy called himself a democrat. Using the dictionaries definition of democrat would not describe the full content of Kennedy's legacy. The shifting political dynamics of an ever changing world does not lend itself with one definition of one word that was written at one time.


----------



## Bfgrn

JohnL.Burke said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JohnL.Burke said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is possibly the weirdest stretch of an idea forged yet. The rhetorical acrobatics are amazing. I'm not even trying to be sarcastic. You say an American conservative wants to conserve "capitalism" which is why he is like a conservative in Russia because Russian "conservatives" want to conserve communism. Does the fact that communism and conservatism are diametrically opposing concepts matter in this debate at all? Let me put it this way. Liberals and nazis are the same because they both wear pants. You keep equating conservative with conserve. That's as silly as me equating progressive with progress.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Definition of CONSERVATISM
> 2
> a : disposition in politics to preserve what is established
> b : a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change
> 3
> : the tendency to prefer an existing or traditional situation to change
> 
> Conservatism - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
> 
> 
> con·ser·va·tism  (kn-sûrv-tzm)
> n.
> 1. The inclination, especially in politics, to maintain the existing or traditional order.
> 2. A political philosophy or attitude emphasizing respect for traditional institutions, distrust of government activism, and opposition to sudden change in the established order.
> 
> conservatism - definition of conservatism by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.
> 
> 
> con·serv·a·tism
> [kuhn-sur-vuh-tiz-uhm]
> noun
> 1.
> the disposition to preserve or restore what is established and traditional and to limit change.
> 
> Conservatism | Define Conservatism at Dictionary.com
> 
> Conservatism (Latin: conservare, "to retain") is a political and social philosophy that promotes retaining traditional social institutions. A person who follows the philosophies of conservatism is referred to as a traditionalist or conservative.
> 
> Conservatism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "The disposition to preserve or restore what is established and traditional and to limit change".
> Are you suggesting that conservatives want to bring back slavery because it was America's tradition at one time? The problem you are making is that you are using the widest definition of conservative to apply to an ever changing political landscape in a specific manner. In other words. One can call Reagan a conservative because of some ideas he had. He could also be called a moderate because of other ideas he had. Some people have called him too liberal because he provided amnesty for over a million illegal aliens. Just as Reagan does not fit the dictionary definition of conservative he did however call himself a conservative because he did fit the political definition of a conservative at the time. Dictionary definitions do not provide political context of a constantly changing societal paradigm. One more example. John F. Kennedy called himself a democrat. Using the dictionaries definition of democrat would not describe the full content of Kennedy's legacy. The shifting political dynamics of an ever changing world does not lend itself with one definition of one word that was written at one time.
Click to expand...


The only word gymnastics are yours. The core of conservatism is resistance or hesitancy to change. It does not mean going back to slavery. conservatism is a political and social philosophy that promotes retaining traditional social institutions. A person who follows the philosophies of conservatism is referred to as a traditionalist or conservative.


----------



## JohnL.Burke

Bfgrn said:


> JohnL.Burke said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Definition of CONSERVATISM
> 2
> a : disposition in politics to preserve what is established
> b : a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change
> 3
> : the tendency to prefer an existing or traditional situation to change
> 
> Conservatism - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
> 
> 
> con·ser·va·tism  (kn-sûrv-tzm)
> n.
> 1. The inclination, especially in politics, to maintain the existing or traditional order.
> 2. A political philosophy or attitude emphasizing respect for traditional institutions, distrust of government activism, and opposition to sudden change in the established order.
> 
> conservatism - definition of conservatism by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.
> 
> 
> con·serv·a·tism
> [kuhn-sur-vuh-tiz-uhm]
> noun
> 1.
> the disposition to preserve or restore what is established and traditional and to limit change.
> 
> Conservatism | Define Conservatism at Dictionary.com
> 
> Conservatism (Latin: conservare, "to retain") is a political and social philosophy that promotes retaining traditional social institutions. A person who follows the philosophies of conservatism is referred to as a traditionalist or conservative.
> 
> Conservatism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The disposition to preserve or restore what is established and traditional and to limit change".
> Are you suggesting that conservatives want to bring back slavery because it was America's tradition at one time? The problem you are making is that you are using the widest definition of conservative to apply to an ever changing political landscape in a specific manner. In other words. One can call Reagan a conservative because of some ideas he had. He could also be called a moderate because of other ideas he had. Some people have called him too liberal because he provided amnesty for over a million illegal aliens. Just as Reagan does not fit the dictionary definition of conservative he did however call himself a conservative because he did fit the political definition of a conservative at the time. Dictionary definitions do not provide political context of a constantly changing societal paradigm. One more example. John F. Kennedy called himself a democrat. Using the dictionaries definition of democrat would not describe the full content of Kennedy's legacy. The shifting political dynamics of an ever changing world does not lend itself with one definition of one word that was written at one time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only word gymnastics are yours. The core of conservatism is resistance or hesitancy to change. It does not mean going back to slavery. conservatism is a political and social philosophy that promotes retaining traditional social institutions. A person who follows the philosophies of conservatism is referred to as a traditionalist or conservative.
Click to expand...


  Well, I'm glad you don't think conservatives want to go back to slavery. You're already making more sense than most of the liberal/progressives on this site.


----------



## PMZ

JohnL.Burke said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what is it in conservative policies--that is modern day conservative American policies i.e. classical liberal policies--that make it a corrupt system?  Please don't point to people who claim to be conservative but are actually liberal and/or authoritarians.  Let's leave all people from all sides out of it for a minut and focus on the conservative concepts for a bit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think that there's any difference between liberals and conservatives in terms of corruption. People are currupt or not, not worldviews.
> 
> I think that both worldviews are self fulfilling. I think that conservatives create scarcity and liberals, plenty, all other things being equal.
> 
> Liberals invest in growth. They are optimistic. They have faith in their fellow man and expect collaboration and cooperation.
> 
> Conservatives are suspicious of their fellow man and expect friction and selfishness.
> 
> Liberals want to change the present to create a better future.
> 
> Conservatives want to prevent the present from changing in order to avoid an even worse future.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You say that liberals are optimistic and have faith in their fellow man and expect collaboration and cooperation. Of course liberals believe no such thing which explains why liberals want enormous government along with an enormous bureaucracy to create the rules citizens have to obey and an enormous agency to enforce these rules. Police states are the product of a liberal agenda.
Click to expand...


I know of no liberal in favor of enormous government. 

Liberals want government the size it needs to be in order to fulfill it's responsibilities as defined by the contract between it and we the people, our Constitution. We insist on government of, by, and for, the people. All of the people. 

That requires progress. That requires confidence. That requires investment. 

We've learned since 2001 about the impact of a worldview of scarcity in terms of getting things done. Making progress. Solving problems. 

Never again.


----------



## PMZ

JohnL.Burke said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JohnL.Burke said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is possibly the weirdest stretch of an idea forged yet. The rhetorical acrobatics are amazing. I'm not even trying to be sarcastic. You say an American conservative wants to conserve "capitalism" which is why he is like a conservative in Russia because Russian "conservatives" want to conserve communism. Does the fact that communism and conservatism are diametrically opposing concepts matter in this debate at all? Let me put it this way. Liberals and nazis are the same because they both wear pants. You keep equating conservative with conserve. That's as silly as me equating progressive with progress.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "That's as silly as me equating progressive with progress."
> 
> What's silly about that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Progressivism does not support progress, It supports an attempt to reach back in history and resurrect a failed and disturbing idea that has been proven to not work and inevitably lead to genocide or poverty. Often both.
Click to expand...


I have to call you on trying to appropriate the English language to justify your limited thinking. 

Progress between the people in government and the citizens including the people in government is alway a matter of progress. Continuous improvement. Adaptation to the times. 

What you describe is called conservatism. Reluctance to leave the past. Fear of the future. Fear of your fellow man.


----------



## PMZ

JohnL.Burke said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JohnL.Burke said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is possibly the weirdest stretch of an idea forged yet. The rhetorical acrobatics are amazing. I'm not even trying to be sarcastic. You say an American conservative wants to conserve "capitalism" which is why he is like a conservative in Russia because Russian "conservatives" want to conserve communism. Does the fact that communism and conservatism are diametrically opposing concepts matter in this debate at all? Let me put it this way. Liberals and nazis are the same because they both wear pants. You keep equating conservative with conserve. That's as silly as me equating progressive with progress.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Definition of CONSERVATISM
> 2
> a : disposition in politics to preserve what is established
> b : a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change
> 3
> : the tendency to prefer an existing or traditional situation to change
> 
> Conservatism - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
> 
> 
> con·ser·va·tism  (kn-sûrv-tzm)
> n.
> 1. The inclination, especially in politics, to maintain the existing or traditional order.
> 2. A political philosophy or attitude emphasizing respect for traditional institutions, distrust of government activism, and opposition to sudden change in the established order.
> 
> conservatism - definition of conservatism by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.
> 
> 
> con·serv·a·tism
> [kuhn-sur-vuh-tiz-uhm]
> noun
> 1.
> the disposition to preserve or restore what is established and traditional and to limit change.
> 
> Conservatism | Define Conservatism at Dictionary.com
> 
> Conservatism (Latin: conservare, "to retain") is a political and social philosophy that promotes retaining traditional social institutions. A person who follows the philosophies of conservatism is referred to as a traditionalist or conservative.
> 
> Conservatism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "The disposition to preserve or restore what is established and traditional and to limit change".
> Are you suggesting that conservatives want to bring back slavery because it was America's tradition at one time? The problem you are making is that you are using the widest definition of conservative to apply to an ever changing political landscape in a specific manner. In other words. One can call Reagan a conservative because of some ideas he had. He could also be called a moderate because of other ideas he had. Some people have called him too liberal because he provided amnesty for over a million illegal aliens. Just as Reagan does not fit the dictionary definition of conservative he did however call himself a conservative because he did fit the political definition of a conservative at the time. Dictionary definitions do not provide political context of a constantly changing societal paradigm. One more example. John F. Kennedy called himself a democrat. Using the dictionaries definition of democrat would not describe the full content of Kennedy's legacy. The shifting political dynamics of an ever changing world does not lend itself with one definition of one word that was written at one time.
Click to expand...


Seems like an attempt to redefine the English language such that everything and everybody who is perceived as good is conservative. Everything perceived by anybody as bad is liberal. 

I can see why such definitions would make one grasp at conservatism, but, words have meaning and work only when we all apply the same meaning to them. That's why we use the dictionary meaning not the self serving, what we wish was true meaning.


----------



## PMZ

JohnL.Burke said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JohnL.Burke said:
> 
> 
> 
> "The disposition to preserve or restore what is established and traditional and to limit change".
> Are you suggesting that conservatives want to bring back slavery because it was America's tradition at one time? The problem you are making is that you are using the widest definition of conservative to apply to an ever changing political landscape in a specific manner. In other words. One can call Reagan a conservative because of some ideas he had. He could also be called a moderate because of other ideas he had. Some people have called him too liberal because he provided amnesty for over a million illegal aliens. Just as Reagan does not fit the dictionary definition of conservative he did however call himself a conservative because he did fit the political definition of a conservative at the time. Dictionary definitions do not provide political context of a constantly changing societal paradigm. One more example. John F. Kennedy called himself a democrat. Using the dictionaries definition of democrat would not describe the full content of Kennedy's legacy. The shifting political dynamics of an ever changing world does not lend itself with one definition of one word that was written at one time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only word gymnastics are yours. The core of conservatism is resistance or hesitancy to change. It does not mean going back to slavery. conservatism is a political and social philosophy that promotes retaining traditional social institutions. A person who follows the philosophies of conservatism is referred to as a traditionalist or conservative.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, I'm glad you don't think conservatives want to go back to slavery. You're already making more sense than most of the liberal/progressives on this site.
Click to expand...


While I don't believe a desire for slavery defines conservatism, I read into a lot of posts from specific conservatives that they wouldn't be opposed to it.


----------



## GWV5903

Bfgrn said:


> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well you have reality and then there is your version...
> 
> CRA had huge consequences...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Explain.
Click to expand...


CRA is the root cause for the Housing Bubble / Mortgage Meltdown, period!

Ultimately it led to DPA FHA loans, then we created Sub Prime Hybrids, like ZERO DOWN 2/28 ARM's and 3/27 ARM's with no MI that accepted 560+ FICO's...

Millions purchased under these programs for 11 years, no risk no gain, these where the beginning of the end, we are just starting to come out of that tail spin...

Now today and for a very long time, USDA loans are Federally Funded / Insured loans with your tax payer funding, and guess what, they are ZERO DOWN NO MI LOANS...

What a deal, $500 dollars and you can own your own home...

They did it in the '80's and we just came out of it again, how much you wanta bet they will do it again????


----------



## GWV5903

Trakar said:


> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trakar said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that most of the last administration are not still engaged in trials defending their criminal acts, that the heads of most major US investment banks aren't lined up on the dockets with them, that we still have troops in both Afghanistan and Iraq, that Gitmo is still open, that we don't have comprehensive federal legislation and international treaties to deal with climate change, that there is no carbon tax paying off the national debt and building efficient, sustainable energy infrastructure and that we have insurance company welfare rather than universal health care, speaks to the fact that the reasonable opposition did come to the table with compromise as the first belief, ...unfortunately, their generosity and willingness to work towards mutual goals has been met with "well, now that you gave-in to those demands here are the rest of our demands." Such an approach (unsurprisingly) has resulted in an atmosphere where the reasonable are no longer willing to give until they receive an equivalent yielding by the groups that don't even seem to realize what all they have already won in compromise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well you have reality and then there is your version...
> Both parties voted for Afghanistan & Iraq...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> and that is probably the primary reason that "compromise" resulted in no prosecutions for the criminal acts associated with those wars and such atrocities as the Patriot act, Gitmo, warrantless wiretapping, etc., by those in high positions of previous and current administrations
> 
> So you believe we should let Radical Islam burnout on its own? How do you believe that will turn out???
> 
> 
> True, but none of those consequences had anything to do with the housing bubble or the economic collapse in 2007.
> 
> Sure it did, prior to CRA and the revisions Clinton made to it in the mid '90's, no one bought a home with zero down and no MI, no one! It is a very simple concept to understand, no risk, no gain...
> 
> These people walked in and purchased homes for as little as $150 and could not careless what happened afterwards, there is little unknown law called the Equal Housing Act, it covered all of their sins....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Get the lawyer's and the feds out of medicine and you don't need socialized medicine...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Provide that everyone who is sick or injured receives the care that they need to return to health as a basic obligation that all residents of this nation owe to each other and we can get rid of the insurers and profiteers who seek to earn obscene profits off the misery and infirmity of others.
> 
> Wrong, dead wrong. We have the finest health care system in the world, I don't believe a bit of the WHO opinion on our ranking, it is pure BS...
> 
> How is it that 36 years ago I paid less than $5 a month for the best insurance I've ever had? Let me assure you the Feds & Lawyers had very little influence at that time...
> 
> Between the two we are stuck on stupid...
> 
> 
> 
> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And it really is that simple...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Outlaw and criminalize political parties and we would very simply and quickly eliminate 99% of the problems inherent to modern politics.
> 
> It's in the bill is a classic, and they elected her again after this, as a whole we have very few good leaders...
Click to expand...

p


----------



## JohnL.Burke

PMZ said:


> JohnL.Burke said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only word gymnastics are yours. The core of conservatism is resistance or hesitancy to change. It does not mean going back to slavery. conservatism is a political and social philosophy that promotes retaining traditional social institutions. A person who follows the philosophies of conservatism is referred to as a traditionalist or conservative.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I'm glad you don't think conservatives want to go back to slavery. You're already making more sense than most of the liberal/progressives on this site.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> While I don't believe a desire for slavery defines conservatism, I read into a lot of posts from specific conservatives that they wouldn't be opposed to it.
Click to expand...


 I read a lot of posts from specific liberals that are more than a little anti-semitic but like you, I wont judge a whole party because of the rhetoric of some posters.


----------



## JohnL.Burke

PMZ said:


> JohnL.Burke said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Definition of CONSERVATISM
> 2
> a : disposition in politics to preserve what is established
> b : a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change
> 3
> : the tendency to prefer an existing or traditional situation to change
> 
> Conservatism - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
> 
> 
> con·ser·va·tism  (kn-sûrv-tzm)
> n.
> 1. The inclination, especially in politics, to maintain the existing or traditional order.
> 2. A political philosophy or attitude emphasizing respect for traditional institutions, distrust of government activism, and opposition to sudden change in the established order.
> 
> conservatism - definition of conservatism by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.
> 
> 
> con·serv·a·tism
> [kuhn-sur-vuh-tiz-uhm]
> noun
> 1.
> the disposition to preserve or restore what is established and traditional and to limit change.
> 
> Conservatism | Define Conservatism at Dictionary.com
> 
> Conservatism (Latin: conservare, "to retain") is a political and social philosophy that promotes retaining traditional social institutions. A person who follows the philosophies of conservatism is referred to as a traditionalist or conservative.
> 
> Conservatism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The disposition to preserve or restore what is established and traditional and to limit change".
> Are you suggesting that conservatives want to bring back slavery because it was America's tradition at one time? The problem you are making is that you are using the widest definition of conservative to apply to an ever changing political landscape in a specific manner. In other words. One can call Reagan a conservative because of some ideas he had. He could also be called a moderate because of other ideas he had. Some people have called him too liberal because he provided amnesty for over a million illegal aliens. Just as Reagan does not fit the dictionary definition of conservative he did however call himself a conservative because he did fit the political definition of a conservative at the time. Dictionary definitions do not provide political context of a constantly changing societal paradigm. One more example. John F. Kennedy called himself a democrat. Using the dictionaries definition of democrat would not describe the full content of Kennedy's legacy. The shifting political dynamics of an ever changing world does not lend itself with one definition of one word that was written at one time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seems like an attempt to redefine the English language such that everything and everybody who is perceived as good is conservative. Everything perceived by anybody as bad is liberal.
> 
> I can see why such definitions would make one grasp at conservatism, but, words have meaning and work only when we all apply the same meaning to them. That's why we use the dictionary meaning not the self serving, what we wish was true meaning.
Click to expand...


  "... words have meaning and work only when we all apply the same meaning to them".

   Yes, but we don't all apply the same meaning to them. I still hear Bush Jr. called a conservative even though he made the government bigger. I still hear some liberals call socialists like Mussolini and Hitler conservatives. Obviously the word "conservative" doesn't mean the same thing to everybody. I wish it did but it doesn't. It's silly and self serving to pretend otherwise.


----------



## JohnL.Burke

PMZ said:


> JohnL.Burke said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> "That's as silly as me equating progressive with progress."
> 
> What's silly about that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Progressivism does not support progress, It supports an attempt to reach back in history and resurrect a failed and disturbing idea that has been proven to not work and inevitably lead to genocide or poverty. Often both.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have to call you on trying to appropriate the English language to justify your limited thinking.
> 
> Progress between the people in government and the citizens including the people in government is alway a matter of progress. Continuous improvement. Adaptation to the times.
> 
> What you describe is called conservatism. Reluctance to leave the past. Fear of the future. Fear of your fellow man.
Click to expand...


 Your definition of conservative is a bit odd. Since you bring up the dictionary definition of "conservative" as a way to support your myopic view of politics then let me ask. Can you tell me which dictionary definition of "conservative"  talks about Fear of fellow man and fear of the future? Are you perhaps applying your own definition to the word "conservative"? At the same time insisting that the dictionary definition of "conservative" is the definition that you are wedded to. Are you not proving my point? Of course you are.


----------



## JohnL.Burke

PMZ said:


> JohnL.Burke said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think that there's any difference between liberals and conservatives in terms of corruption. People are currupt or not, not worldviews.
> 
> I think that both worldviews are self fulfilling. I think that conservatives create scarcity and liberals, plenty, all other things being equal.
> 
> Liberals invest in growth. They are optimistic. They have faith in their fellow man and expect collaboration and cooperation.
> 
> Conservatives are suspicious of their fellow man and expect friction and selfishness.
> 
> Liberals want to change the present to create a better future.
> 
> Conservatives want to prevent the present from changing in order to avoid an even worse future.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You say that liberals are optimistic and have faith in their fellow man and expect collaboration and cooperation. Of course liberals believe no such thing which explains why liberals want enormous government along with an enormous bureaucracy to create the rules citizens have to obey and an enormous agency to enforce these rules. Police states are the product of a liberal agenda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know of no liberal in favor of enormous government.
> 
> Liberals want government the size it needs to be in order to fulfill it's responsibilities as defined by the contract between it and we the people, our Constitution. We insist on government of, by, and for, the people. All of the people.
> 
> That requires progress. That requires confidence. That requires investment.
> 
> We've learned since 2001 about the impact of a worldview of scarcity in terms of getting things done. Making progress. Solving problems.
> 
> Never again.
Click to expand...


  "I know of no liberal in favor of enormous government".

   You need to get out more.


----------



## JWBooth

JohnL.Burke said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JohnL.Burke said:
> 
> 
> 
> You say that liberals are optimistic and have faith in their fellow man and expect collaboration and cooperation. Of course liberals believe no such thing which explains why liberals want enormous government along with an enormous bureaucracy to create the rules citizens have to obey and an enormous agency to enforce these rules. Police states are the product of a liberal agenda.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know of no liberal in favor of enormous government.
> 
> Liberals want government the size it needs to be in order to fulfill it's responsibilities as defined by the contract between it and we the people, our Constitution. We insist on government of, by, and for, the people. All of the people.
> 
> That requires progress. That requires confidence. That requires investment.
> 
> We've learned since 2001 about the impact of a worldview of scarcity in terms of getting things done. Making progress. Solving problems.
> 
> Never again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "I know of no liberal in favor of enormous government".
> 
> You need to get out more.
Click to expand...


I'd sure like to see what they think an enormous government is then.


----------



## Bfgrn

GWV5903 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well you have reality and then there is your version...
> 
> CRA had huge consequences...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Explain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> CRA is the root cause for the Housing Bubble / Mortgage Meltdown, period!
> 
> Ultimately it led to DPA FHA loans, then we created Sub Prime Hybrids, like ZERO DOWN 2/28 ARM's and 3/27 ARM's with no MI that accepted 560+ FICO's...
> 
> Millions purchased under these programs for 11 years, no risk no gain, these where the beginning of the end, we are just starting to come out of that tail spin...
> 
> Now today and for a very long time, USDA loans are Federally Funded / Insured loans with your tax payer funding, and guess what, they are ZERO DOWN NO MI LOANS...
> 
> What a deal, $500 dollars and you can own your own home...
> 
> They did it in the '80's and we just came out of it again, how much you wanta bet they will do it again????
Click to expand...


"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts"
Daniel Patrick Moynihan

GWV5903 is a prime example of the total failure of conservatism.

Q: What is conservatism?
A: Conservatism is the domination of society by an aristocracy.

When you understand that fact, it explains why the conservative world view MUST never be tainted or diminished, and why conservatives cannot accept any truth that blames their beloved hierarchy. There's an old saying: 'there are 2 types of Republicans, millionaires and suckers'. It is crucial to conservatism that the suckers must literally love the order that dominates them.

The financial crisis is also a prime example of how conservatives have created a narrative where they pin the blame on poor people and government. Neither were the cause. 

Here is what we DO know:

1) The financial crisis was not caused by low and middle income families buying a home.

2) It was not caused by dead beat poor people.

3) Fannie and Freddie were not to cause.

4) The Community Investment Act was not the culprit either.

The crisis was caused by private lending, to mostly upper middle class and the wealthy. ONLY 6% of of all the higher-priced loans were extended by CRA-covered lenders to lower-income borrowers or neighborhoods in their CRA assessment areas. The majority of those foreclosed on were wealthy and upper middle class, plus a huge segment of speculators; buyers who were wealthy home flippers looking for a fast buck. They strategically walked away from investments that went sour, not from their 'homes'. They never had any intent on living there. 

Only a huge amount of mortgage defaults at once could cause a rupture of the housing market. And only a huge amount of speculators dumping 'bad' investments all at once could explain it. Because if it were honest citizens who were buying a homestead, they kept paying even when they should have walked away. If those were the people to blame, it would have been a slow leak, not a rupture.

AND, what really sucks for the right wing propaganda of lies, all the way back to the late '90's there was one very outspoken and vocal critic of predatory lending practices, they even held protests at companies like Wells Fargo and Lehman Brothers...ACORN

But, if you need to make government the scapegoat for the private sector, it brings us full circle...Bush.

Maybe you just FORGOT...

Bush's 'ownership society'

"America is a stronger country every single time a family moves into a home of their own," George W. Bush said in October 2004. To achieve his vision, Bush pushed new policies encouraging homeownership, like the "zero-down-payment initiative," which was much as it soundsa government-sponsored program that allowed people to get mortgages without a down payment. More exotic mortgages followed, including ones with no monthly payments for the first two years. Other mortgages required no documentation other than the say-so of the borrower. Absurd though these all were, they paled in comparison to the financial innovations that grew out of the mortgagesderivatives built on other derivatives, packaged and repackaged until no one could identify what they contained and how much they were, in fact, worth.

As we know by now, these instruments have brought the global financial system, improbably, to the brink of collapse.

End of the Ownership Society


----------



## PMZ

GWV5903 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well you have reality and then there is your version...
> 
> CRA had huge consequences...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Explain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> CRA is the root cause for the Housing Bubble / Mortgage Meltdown, period!
> 
> Ultimately it led to DPA FHA loans, then we created Sub Prime Hybrids, like ZERO DOWN 2/28 ARM's and 3/27 ARM's with no MI that accepted 560+ FICO's...
> 
> Millions purchased under these programs for 11 years, no risk no gain, these where the beginning of the end, we are just starting to come out of that tail spin...
> 
> Now today and for a very long time, USDA loans are Federally Funded / Insured loans with your tax payer funding, and guess what, they are ZERO DOWN NO MI LOANS...
> 
> What a deal, $500 dollars and you can own your own home...
> 
> They did it in the '80's and we just came out of it again, how much you wanta bet they will do it again????
Click to expand...


CRA had no impact on the mortgage originators due diligence for loaning money. CRA had no impact on the mortgage backed derivatives products that made it immensely profitable to reduce that due diligence, hide the risk, then sell it. 

CRA also had no impact on greed.


----------



## PMZ

JohnL.Burke said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JohnL.Burke said:
> 
> 
> 
> "The disposition to preserve or restore what is established and traditional and to limit change".
> Are you suggesting that conservatives want to bring back slavery because it was America's tradition at one time? The problem you are making is that you are using the widest definition of conservative to apply to an ever changing political landscape in a specific manner. In other words. One can call Reagan a conservative because of some ideas he had. He could also be called a moderate because of other ideas he had. Some people have called him too liberal because he provided amnesty for over a million illegal aliens. Just as Reagan does not fit the dictionary definition of conservative he did however call himself a conservative because he did fit the political definition of a conservative at the time. Dictionary definitions do not provide political context of a constantly changing societal paradigm. One more example. John F. Kennedy called himself a democrat. Using the dictionaries definition of democrat would not describe the full content of Kennedy's legacy. The shifting political dynamics of an ever changing world does not lend itself with one definition of one word that was written at one time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seems like an attempt to redefine the English language such that everything and everybody who is perceived as good is conservative. Everything perceived by anybody as bad is liberal.
> 
> I can see why such definitions would make one grasp at conservatism, but, words have meaning and work only when we all apply the same meaning to them. That's why we use the dictionary meaning not the self serving, what we wish was true meaning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "... words have meaning and work only when we all apply the same meaning to them".
> 
> Yes, but we don't all apply the same meaning to them. I still hear Bush Jr. called a conservative even though he made the government bigger. I still hear some liberals call socialists like Mussolini and Hitler conservatives. Obviously the word "conservative" doesn't mean the same thing to everybody. I wish it did but it doesn't. It's silly and self serving to pretend otherwise.
Click to expand...


I'm thinking that you are the one that's out of step. In a parade, if almost everybody is on their right foot, and you are on your left, the fix falls on you, not them. 

Rush and Rupert are counting cadence for you. The rest of us are marching to the news. The truth. We tried their way and it was and will be for generations a catastrophe. The learning from that isn't to redefine the world conservative, but rather to never empower them again with our votes. If you continue to sit on the sidelines, there is no harm in you fiddling with the definition of English words. Fiddle away Mr Nero. 

We're back on the track of progress. The government fulfilling it's contract with we the people, not shirking from it.


----------



## PMZ

JWBooth said:


> JohnL.Burke said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know of no liberal in favor of enormous government.
> 
> Liberals want government the size it needs to be in order to fulfill it's responsibilities as defined by the contract between it and we the people, our Constitution. We insist on government of, by, and for, the people. All of the people.
> 
> That requires progress. That requires confidence. That requires investment.
> 
> We've learned since 2001 about the impact of a worldview of scarcity in terms of getting things done. Making progress. Solving problems.
> 
> Never again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "I know of no liberal in favor of enormous government".
> 
> You need to get out more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'd sure like to see what they think an enormous government is then.
Click to expand...


Is General Motors too big? The Atlantic Ocean? Elephants? Cockroaches? Bacteria?


----------



## beagle9

PMZ said:


> JohnL.Burke said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The point is conservatism is based on latitude, longitude and date of birth. A conservative in America wants to 'conserve' capitalism, nationalism and American parochial orthodoxy. A conservative in Russia wants to conserve communism, nationalism and Russian parochial orthodoxy. Left/right in this context is about as pertinent as whether the water in each country swirls down the drain clockwise or counterclockwise.
> 
> 
> While not all conservatives are authoritarians; all highly authoritarian personalities are political conservatives.
> Robert Altmeyer - The Authoritarians
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is possibly the weirdest stretch of an idea forged yet. The rhetorical acrobatics are amazing. I'm not even trying to be sarcastic. You say an American conservative wants to conserve "capitalism" which is why he is like a conservative in Russia because Russian "conservatives" want to conserve communism. Does the fact that communism and conservatism are diametrically opposing concepts matter in this debate at all? Let me put it this way. Liberals and nazis are the same because they both wear pants. You keep equating conservative with conserve. That's as silly as me equating progressive with progress.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "That's as silly as me equating progressive with progress."
> 
> What's silly about that?
Click to expand...

Because it all depends on what type of progress they are engaging in, where as they could be just progressing in a pro-abortion agenda or progressing a gay marriage agenda and on and on it all goes, but yet doing nothing for the country as a whole, especially keeping her strong and moral all at the same time.  This is what a liberal does (imho), and when they do these things they are always thinking in numbers for a collective in which they back or support, but yet they are thinking within the wrong numbers for the country, because most times it is for the wrong reasons that they think in these ways, and therefore push forward their agenda's against the grain, but they care not about how far they push against this grain, because they are just libs in this way.


----------



## beagle9

PMZ said:


> JohnL.Burke said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seems like an attempt to redefine the English language such that everything and everybody who is perceived as good is conservative. Everything perceived by anybody as bad is liberal.
> 
> I can see why such definitions would make one grasp at conservatism, but, words have meaning and work only when we all apply the same meaning to them. That's why we use the dictionary meaning not the self serving, what we wish was true meaning.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "... words have meaning and work only when we all apply the same meaning to them".
> 
> Yes, but we don't all apply the same meaning to them. I still hear Bush Jr. called a conservative even though he made the government bigger. I still hear some liberals call socialists like Mussolini and Hitler conservatives. Obviously the word "conservative" doesn't mean the same thing to everybody. I wish it did but it doesn't. It's silly and self serving to pretend otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm thinking that you are the one that's out of step. In a parade, if almost everybody is on their right foot, and you are on your left, the fix falls on you, not them.
> 
> Rush and Rupert are counting cadence for you. The rest of us are marching to the news. The truth. We tried their way and it was and will be for generations a catastrophe. The learning from that isn't to redefine the world conservative, but rather to never empower them again with our votes. If you continue to sit on the sidelines, there is no harm in you fiddling with the definition of English words. Fiddle away Mr Nero.
> 
> We're back on the track of progress. The government fulfilling it's contract with we the people, not shirking from it.
Click to expand...

So many words, and yet so many different meanings within them, but people are not fooled by all of this, and there will be a huge push back coming so stay tuned is my opinion. People don't like venturing down the rabbit hole but so far, then they turn and get straight back out of there. The libs will be the ones who road the wave but for a little time, and then they will fall right off again, because their agenda's are always cutting against the grain in America, and this makes them very dull and broken in the end.


----------



## beagle9

Bfgrn said:


> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Explain.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CRA is the root cause for the Housing Bubble / Mortgage Meltdown, period!
> 
> Ultimately it led to DPA FHA loans, then we created Sub Prime Hybrids, like ZERO DOWN 2/28 ARM's and 3/27 ARM's with no MI that accepted 560+ FICO's...
> 
> Millions purchased under these programs for 11 years, no risk no gain, these where the beginning of the end, we are just starting to come out of that tail spin...
> 
> Now today and for a very long time, USDA loans are Federally Funded / Insured loans with your tax payer funding, and guess what, they are ZERO DOWN NO MI LOANS...
> 
> What a deal, $500 dollars and you can own your own home...
> 
> They did it in the '80's and we just came out of it again, how much you wanta bet they will do it again????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts"
> Daniel Patrick Moynihan
> 
> GWV5903 is a prime example of the total failure of conservatism.
> 
> Q: What is conservatism?
> A: Conservatism is the domination of society by an aristocracy.
> 
> When you understand that fact, it explains why the conservative world view MUST never be tainted or diminished, and why conservatives cannot accept any truth that blames their beloved hierarchy. There's an old saying: 'there are 2 types of Republicans, millionaires and suckers'. It is crucial to conservatism that the suckers must literally love the order that dominates them.
> 
> The financial crisis is also a prime example of how conservatives have created a narrative where they pin the blame on poor people and government. Neither were the cause.
> 
> Here is what we DO know:
> 
> 1) The financial crisis was not caused by low and middle income families buying a home.
> 
> 2) It was not caused by dead beat poor people.
> 
> 3) Fannie and Freddie were not to cause.
> 
> 4) The Community Investment Act was not the culprit either.
> 
> The crisis was caused by private lending, to mostly upper middle class and the wealthy. ONLY 6% of of all the higher-priced loans were extended by CRA-covered lenders to lower-income borrowers or neighborhoods in their CRA assessment areas. The majority of those foreclosed on were wealthy and upper middle class, plus a huge segment of speculators; buyers who were wealthy home flippers looking for a fast buck. They strategically walked away from investments that went sour, not from their 'homes'. They never had any intent on living there.
> 
> Only a huge amount of mortgage defaults at once could cause a rupture of the housing market. And only a huge amount of speculators dumping 'bad' investments all at once could explain it. Because if it were honest citizens who were buying a homestead, they kept paying even when they should have walked away. If those were the people to blame, it would have been a slow leak, not a rupture.
> 
> AND, what really sucks for the right wing propaganda of lies, all the way back to the late '90's there was one very outspoken and vocal critic of predatory lending practices, they even held protests at companies like Wells Fargo and Lehman Brothers...ACORN
> 
> But, if you need to make government the scapegoat for the private sector, it brings us full circle...Bush.
> 
> Maybe you just FORGOT...
> 
> Bush's 'ownership society'
> 
> "America is a stronger country every single time a family moves into a home of their own," George W. Bush said in October 2004. To achieve his vision, Bush pushed new policies encouraging homeownership, like the "zero-down-payment initiative," which was much as it soundsa government-sponsored program that allowed people to get mortgages without a down payment. More exotic mortgages followed, including ones with no monthly payments for the first two years. Other mortgages required no documentation other than the say-so of the borrower. Absurd though these all were, they paled in comparison to the financial innovations that grew out of the mortgagesderivatives built on other derivatives, packaged and repackaged until no one could identify what they contained and how much they were, in fact, worth.
> 
> As we know by now, these instruments have brought the global financial system, improbably, to the brink of collapse.
> 
> End of the Ownership Society
Click to expand...

Ok, so lets say that George W. Bush was just a President who played along with what he saw in everything that was in motion when he took office, and he didn't want to be seen as a person who would be against the huge wheels that were put into motion over the last 30 years, so he was singing also to every ones tune right on with them, or up until it all came crashing down around him (literally). Then he was in fix it all mode, as best he could until the end of his run, but next he became a whipping post for all who had created these coming catastrophes in which unloaded right on top of the poor feller's head while he was in office.   Now what should be done, and is being done, is the finding out of who the real culprits are in all of this, and to get the nation to know who they are so that the nation will not go down into these holes again hopefully.


----------



## PMZ

The blunt truth is that Bush did your bidding. What failed catastrophically was not him, he was a pawn, but conservatism. What the GOP has employed Rush and Rupert for a couple of decades to proselytize. 

I realize how inconvenient a truth that is for their dittohead followers, but that's what happens to Dittoheads. They get misled. 

Now, your only defense is portray liberalism as even worse than conservatism but President Obama's long string of successes deny you your only excuse. 

Your choice is to go down with, or abandon, your ship. Tough for Fox News addicts who so count on their daily pat on the head from their entertainers. 

But, the only Coice that matins any relevance for you.


----------



## PMZ

But, the only choice that maintains any relevance for you.


----------



## Bfgrn

PMZ said:


> But, the only choice that maintains any relevance for you.



You can go back and edit your post for a period of time instead of posting an edit. Look for the 'Edit' button on the bottom right...


----------



## beagle9

PMZ said:


> The blunt truth is that Bush did your bidding. What failed catastrophically was not him, he was a pawn, but conservatism. What the GOP has employed Rush and Rupert for a couple of decades to proselytize.
> 
> I realize how inconvenient a truth that is for their dittohead followers, but that's what happens to Dittoheads. They get misled.
> 
> Now, your only defense is portray liberalism as even worse than conservatism but President Obama's long string of successes deny you your only excuse.
> 
> Your choice is to go down with, or abandon, your ship. Tough for Fox News addicts who so count on their daily pat on the head from their entertainers.
> 
> But, the only Coice that matins any relevance for you.


Do you know why Obama is for gay's in the military, and Gay marriage, even when he is a father who has a wife and two daughters for whom came up in the church ?   It's because he was willing to stoop to what ever level it took to get a following or a build up in a following for himself, and this was just to remain in office at all cost was his thinking , otherwise it's just how desperate the man was, because there is no way that this man can be for gay marriage or for openingly serving gay's in the military if calling himself a Christian (in which he does) and seeing himself also as a father with a wife and two children whom were brought up in the church. The man is morally bankrupt, and this makes this man corrupt in so many ways that it just isn't funny.   How the Americans can be led by such a person is beyond me, but here we are being led by such a person in which is so sad for America.


----------



## Bfgrn

beagle9 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> The blunt truth is that Bush did your bidding. What failed catastrophically was not him, he was a pawn, but conservatism. What the GOP has employed Rush and Rupert for a couple of decades to proselytize.
> 
> I realize how inconvenient a truth that is for their dittohead followers, but that's what happens to Dittoheads. They get misled.
> 
> Now, your only defense is portray liberalism as even worse than conservatism but President Obama's long string of successes deny you your only excuse.
> 
> Your choice is to go down with, or abandon, your ship. Tough for Fox News addicts who so count on their daily pat on the head from their entertainers.
> 
> But, the only Coice that matins any relevance for you.
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know why Obama is for gay's in the military, and Gay marriage, even when he is a father who has a wife and two daughters for whom came up in the church ?   It's because he was willing to stoop to what ever level it took to get a following or a build up in a following for himself, and this was just to remain in office at all cost was his thinking , otherwise it's just how desperate the man was, because there is no way that this man can be for gay marriage or for openingly serving gay's in the military if calling himself a Christian (in which he does) and seeing himself also as a father with a wife and two children whom were brought up in the church. The man is morally bankrupt, and this makes this man corrupt in so many ways that it just isn't funny.   How the Americans can be led by such a person is beyond me, but here we are being led by such a person in which is so sad for America.
Click to expand...


WOW, YOU know the intentions of Obama or anyone else? What are you calling for a THEOCRACY? 

It has nothing to do with religion and EVERYTHING to do with RIGHTS.

And this is EXACTLY why our founders put a No Religious Test Clause in the Constitution. Article VI, paragraph 3, and states that:

    The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.


----------



## beagle9

Bfgrn said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> The blunt truth is that Bush did your bidding. What failed catastrophically was not him, he was a pawn, but conservatism. What the GOP has employed Rush and Rupert for a couple of decades to proselytize.
> 
> I realize how inconvenient a truth that is for their dittohead followers, but that's what happens to Dittoheads. They get misled.
> 
> Now, your only defense is portray liberalism as even worse than conservatism but President Obama's long string of successes deny you your only excuse.
> 
> Your choice is to go down with, or abandon, your ship. Tough for Fox News addicts who so count on their daily pat on the head from their entertainers.
> 
> But, the only Coice that matins any relevance for you.
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know why Obama is for gay's in the military, and Gay marriage, even when he is a father who has a wife and two daughters for whom came up in the church ?   It's because he was willing to stoop to what ever level it took to get a following or a build up in a following for himself, and this was just to remain in office at all cost was his thinking , otherwise it's just how desperate the man was, because there is no way that this man can be for gay marriage or for openingly serving gay's in the military if calling himself a Christian (in which he does) and seeing himself also as a father with a wife and two children whom were brought up in the church. The man is morally bankrupt, and this makes this man corrupt in so many ways that it just isn't funny.   How the Americans can be led by such a person is beyond me, but here we are being led by such a person in which is so sad for America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WOW, YOU know the intentions of Obama or anyone else? What are you calling for a THEOCRACY?
> 
> It has nothing to do with religion and EVERYTHING to do with RIGHTS.
> 
> And this is EXACTLY why our founders put a No Religious Test Clause in the Constitution. Article VI, paragraph 3, and states that:
> 
> The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.
Click to expand...

Has nothing to with a religious test, but everything to do with what the man's character is or a character analysis when he opens his mouth, and by what the man will stoop to just to gain supporters and voters no matter what supposedly his core values are, or what they are supposed to be according to what flies out of his own mouth. He ought to be ashamed in front of his family, but his character won't allow him to realize how ashamed he should be, because it has him blinded by having a character such as this that is found within such a man that he is.


----------



## Bfgrn

beagle9 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know why Obama is for gay's in the military, and Gay marriage, even when he is a father who has a wife and two daughters for whom came up in the church ?   It's because he was willing to stoop to what ever level it took to get a following or a build up in a following for himself, and this was just to remain in office at all cost was his thinking , otherwise it's just how desperate the man was, because there is no way that this man can be for gay marriage or for openingly serving gay's in the military if calling himself a Christian (in which he does) and seeing himself also as a father with a wife and two children whom were brought up in the church. The man is morally bankrupt, and this makes this man corrupt in so many ways that it just isn't funny.   How the Americans can be led by such a person is beyond me, but here we are being led by such a person in which is so sad for America.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WOW, YOU know the intentions of Obama or anyone else? What are you calling for a THEOCRACY?
> 
> It has nothing to do with religion and EVERYTHING to do with RIGHTS.
> 
> And this is EXACTLY why our founders put a No Religious Test Clause in the Constitution. Article VI, paragraph 3, and states that:
> 
> The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Has nothing to with a religious test, but everything to do with what the man's character is or a character analysis when he opens his mouth, and by what the man will stoop to just to gain supporters and voters no matter what supposedly his core values are, or what they are supposed to be according to what flies out of his own mouth. He ought to be ashamed in front of his family, but his character won't allow him to realize how ashamed he should be, because it has him blinded by having a character such as this that is found within such a man that he is.
Click to expand...


It has everything to do with no religious test and the wall of separation between church and state. He is the President for ALL citizens, not just Christians and theocrats. 

A President's core values must be about equal rights for EVERYONE, not catering to ignorant, close minded Christians and theocrats.


----------



## beagle9

Bfgrn said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> WOW, YOU know the intentions of Obama or anyone else? What are you calling for a THEOCRACY?
> 
> It has nothing to do with religion and EVERYTHING to do with RIGHTS.
> 
> And this is EXACTLY why our founders put a No Religious Test Clause in the Constitution. Article VI, paragraph 3, and states that:
> 
> The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.
> 
> 
> 
> Has nothing to with a religious test, but everything to do with what the man's character is or a character analysis when he opens his mouth, and by what the man will stoop to just to gain supporters and voters no matter what supposedly his core values are, or what they are supposed to be according to what flies out of his own mouth. He ought to be ashamed in front of his family, but his character won't allow him to realize how ashamed he should be, because it has him blinded by having a character such as this that is found within such a man that he is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It has everything to do with no religious test and the wall of separation between church and state. He is the President for ALL citizens, not just Christians and theocrats.
> 
> A President's core values must be about equal rights for EVERYONE, not catering to ignorant, close minded Christians and theocrats.
Click to expand...

You are right that he should be the President for all Americans, but he shouldn't have to destroy himself in order to do so, and Americans shouldn't require him to destroy his core values while President just to cater to certain groups during his run, but that's what has taken place in a mutual agreement between them all.  It's sad when we have a President who claimed to be a Christian, and this as his primary religion, yet who then was expected to throw away his core values in order to appease small sectors and/or groups whom want him to abuse large groups with their mental problems, and sadly this is what he was oh so willing to do for his twisted agenda as President.   This makes him a hypocrite in so many ways that it is simply shameful for him in front of his family.   The man undoubtedly is soulless, and I bet his family is feeling that type of vibe from him when he is in their midst, but his wife appears strong enough to cover for his absence in character, so thank goodness for that or the children might grow up without some kind of good parenting around, and this instead of having a father figure around who is absent in spirit, and is only there in the flesh.   We should encourage his Christianity, and not chastise it or make him hide it due to a few whom want to use him for their end gains in life. Ummm, problem is however, is that he himself has allowed them to use him in these ways, and it was a scratch my back and I'll scratch your back sort of relationship I guess, but that could equate to one selling his own soul in the end for them, and that is a tragic situation for Barack Obama, but one he chose for himself in life, and sadly he did it in front of his very own family in which makes it even more bad in the end.


----------



## Oddball




----------



## Cuyo

bear513 said:


> I put this topic here because I want honest answers and no flaming. As a right leaning guy I love the left and wouldnt want to see them go. But why does the left hate Republicans so bad? Their history is after all the Anti-Slave party. p.s. sorry about any typo's I wrote this on the fly because I am so curious what would you think happen to the US if cons left



Do you mean _actual_ 'conservatives?'  Or the corporatist incendiary dopes currently masquerading under the "Conservative" moniker?

In other words, we talking Barry Goldwater, or, like, Oddball or say, you?


----------



## PMZ

Cuyo said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I put this topic here because I want honest answers and no flaming. As a right leaning guy I love the left and wouldnt want to see them go. But why does the left hate Republicans so bad? Their history is after all the Anti-Slave party. p.s. sorry about any typo's I wrote this on the fly because I am so curious what would you think happen to the US if cons left
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you mean _actual_ 'conservatives?'  Or the corporatist incendiary dopes currently masquerading under the "Conservative" moniker?
> 
> In other words, we talking Barry Goldwater, or, like, Oddball or say, you?
Click to expand...


You are certainly correct that there is a large range of oddballs parading under the conservative flag. And people like Barry Goldwater and William F Buckley are the intellectual cream of that crop (not a very high bar).

However, in my experience, they all rally to the cry of less government rather than better government. When that philosophy was applied to our business world, the result was the Great Recession. 

I'm beginning to think that the conservative dogma for everyone is a way for those incapable of even envisioning better government, much less bringing it about, to get into politics.


----------



## beagle9

PMZ said:


> Cuyo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I put this topic here because I want honest answers and no flaming. As a right leaning guy I love the left and wouldnt want to see them go. But why does the left hate Republicans so bad? Their history is after all the Anti-Slave party. p.s. sorry about any typo's I wrote this on the fly because I am so curious what would you think happen to the US if cons left
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you mean _actual_ 'conservatives?'  Or the corporatist incendiary dopes currently masquerading under the "Conservative" moniker?
> 
> In other words, we talking Barry Goldwater, or, like, Oddball or say, you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are certainly correct that there is a large range of oddballs parading under the conservative flag. And people like Barry Goldwater and William F Buckley are the intellectual cream of that crop (not a very high bar).
> 
> However, in my experience, they all rally to the cry of less government rather than better government. When that philosophy was applied to our business world, the result was the Great Recession.
> 
> I'm beginning to think that the conservative dogma for everyone is a way for those incapable of even envisioning better government, much less bringing it about, to get into politics.
Click to expand...

I'm glad you use the word *better government *instead of bigger government, because I know of no one who is against better government, and you know what happens when the managing of something gets better don't you ? It operates more efficiently and productively, and you know what that means don't you ? It means a reduction in our tax burden which in turn means a reduction in government cost, and ultimately a reduction in the size of government as a final result of. The libs like to play the little government card on the conservatives, because they think that their own kind will eat it up like the sheep that they are, and that is ashame when one thinks about what has gone on in all of this to date.   Who isn't for or wouldn't be for lessoning their burden of taxes paid in America, and this because the government is being managed better ? Where as in return it gets smaller in the process, and more stream lined also, but the main thing is for it to be more accurate in what is being done with our money. It's just like managing ones household budget, there  are those who suck at it, and there are those who are great at it. Now who do you want to manage your budget ? Would it be a group that sucks at it or a group that is great at it ? When conservatives speak of smaller government, they mean due to the proper managing of government, and not due to trying to destroy people or leaving millions in trouble while doing so, as if the government is going to no longer exist in the way that it has been when it comes to helping the poor and needy because it will just like it always has, but mean while also getting the budget in order all at the same time.

More lib talking points that hopefully fall on deaf ears, but there are a lot of people that have become so dependent on current government and it's lies, that they will believe anything until the country implodes under the weight of it all.


----------



## PaulS1950

This conservative wants to conserve the republic and the constitution upon which it is founded.
As far as I can see the liberals want to destroy the constitution and turn the republic into a democracy.

Which of those groups do the liberals and conservatives here fall into?

I don't believe that government has any say in issues like:

abortion
education
marriage
personal freedoms
individual rights
individual responsibility
charity
corporate charity
health care
state's rights

In short, if the power is not granted by the constitution then the federal government doesn't have it.


----------



## beagle9

PaulS1950 said:


> This conservative wants to conserve the republic and the constitution upon which it is founded.
> As far as I can see the liberals want to destroy the constitution and turn the republic into a democracy.
> 
> Which of those groups do the liberals and conservatives here fall into?
> 
> I don't believe that government has any say in issues like:
> 
> abortion
> education
> marriage
> personal freedoms
> individual rights
> individual responsibility
> charity
> corporate charity
> health care
> state's rights
> 
> In short, if the power is not granted by the constitution then the federal government doesn't have it.


I may have read your tag line at the bottom maybe, and then responded to that. OOPS..


----------



## PMZ

beagle9 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cuyo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you mean _actual_ 'conservatives?'  Or the corporatist incendiary dopes currently masquerading under the "Conservative" moniker?
> 
> In other words, we talking Barry Goldwater, or, like, Oddball or say, you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are certainly correct that there is a large range of oddballs parading under the conservative flag. And people like Barry Goldwater and William F Buckley are the intellectual cream of that crop (not a very high bar).
> 
> However, in my experience, they all rally to the cry of less government rather than better government. When that philosophy was applied to our business world, the result was the Great Recession.
> 
> I'm beginning to think that the conservative dogma for everyone is a way for those incapable of even envisioning better government, much less bringing it about, to get into politics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm glad you use the word *better government *instead of bigger government, because I know of no one who is against better government, and you know what happens when the managing of something gets better don't you ? It operates more efficiently and productively, and you know what that means don't you ? It means a reduction in our tax burden which in turn means a reduction in government cost, and ultimately a reduction in the size of government as a final result of. The libs like to play the little government card on the conservatives, because they think that their own kind will eat it up like the sheep that they are, and that is ashame when one thinks about what has gone on in all of this to date.   Who isn't for or wouldn't be for lessoning their burden of taxes paid in America, and this because the government is being managed better ? Where as in return it gets smaller in the process, and more stream lined also, but the main thing is for it to be more accurate in what is being done with our money. It's just like managing ones household budget, there  are those who suck at it, and there are those who are great at it. Now who do you want to manage your budget ? Would it be a group that sucks at it or a group that is great at it ? When conservatives speak of smaller government, they mean due to the proper managing of government, and not due to trying to destroy people or leaving millions in trouble while doing so, as if the government is going to no longer exist in the way that it has been when it comes to helping the poor and needy because it will just like it always has, but mean while also getting the budget in order all at the same time.
> 
> More lib talking points that hopefully fall on deaf ears, but there are a lot of people that have become so dependent on current government and it's lies, that they will believe anything until the country implodes under the weight of it all.
Click to expand...


"It operates more efficiently and productively, and you know what that means don't you ?"

Remember when conservatives applied this silly logic to business and the Great Recession was born?

What happens under improved business or government is growth. Remember growth? Growth for everyone. Improvement for everyone. Better for everyone.

All of the great capitalists knew that. All of the great politicians and statesmen. It's what created America!

Innovation doesn't spring from cheap. It comes from investment. Optimism. Entrapraneurs. 

Liberalism.


----------



## PMZ

PaulS1950 said:


> This conservative wants to conserve the republic and the constitution upon which it is founded.
> As far as I can see the liberals want to destroy the constitution and turn the republic into a democracy.
> 
> Which of those groups do the liberals and conservatives here fall into?
> 
> I don't believe that government has any say in issues like:
> 
> abortion
> education
> marriage
> personal freedoms
> individual rights
> individual responsibility
> charity
> corporate charity
> health care
> state's rights
> 
> In short, if the power is not granted by the constitution then the federal government doesn't have it.



You may be describing what you wish our Constitution said, but your opinion is not relevent to the contract that we have for government of, by, and for the people. Our contract says that the Supreme Court adjudicates what our government can or cannot do, not Grover Norquist or you.


----------



## nitroz

World peace would be achieved


----------



## beagle9

PMZ said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are certainly correct that there is a large range of oddballs parading under the conservative flag. And people like Barry Goldwater and William F Buckley are the intellectual cream of that crop (not a very high bar).
> 
> However, in my experience, they all rally to the cry of less government rather than better government. When that philosophy was applied to our business world, the result was the Great Recession.
> 
> I'm beginning to think that the conservative dogma for everyone is a way for those incapable of even envisioning better government, much less bringing it about, to get into politics.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm glad you use the word *better government *instead of bigger government, because I know of no one who is against better government, and you know what happens when the managing of something gets better don't you ? It operates more efficiently and productively, and you know what that means don't you ? It means a reduction in our tax burden which in turn means a reduction in government cost, and ultimately a reduction in the size of government as a final result of. The libs like to play the little government card on the conservatives, because they think that their own kind will eat it up like the sheep that they are, and that is ashame when one thinks about what has gone on in all of this to date.   Who isn't for or wouldn't be for lessoning their burden of taxes paid in America, and this because the government is being managed better ? Where as in return it gets smaller in the process, and more stream lined also, but the main thing is for it to be more accurate in what is being done with our money. It's just like managing ones household budget, there  are those who suck at it, and there are those who are great at it. Now who do you want to manage your budget ? Would it be a group that sucks at it or a group that is great at it ? When conservatives speak of smaller government, they mean due to the proper managing of government, and not due to trying to destroy people or leaving millions in trouble while doing so, as if the government is going to no longer exist in the way that it has been when it comes to helping the poor and needy because it will just like it always has, but mean while also getting the budget in order all at the same time.
> 
> More lib talking points that hopefully fall on deaf ears, but there are a lot of people that have become so dependent on current government and it's lies, that they will believe anything until the country implodes under the weight of it all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "It operates more efficiently and productively, and you know what that means don't you ?"
> 
> Remember when conservatives applied this silly logic to business and the Great Recession was born?
> 
> What happens under improved business or government is growth. Remember growth? Growth for everyone. Improvement for everyone. Better for everyone.
> 
> All of the great capitalists knew that. All of the great politicians and statesmen. It's what created America!
> 
> Innovation doesn't spring from cheap. It comes from investment. Optimism. Entrapraneurs.
> 
> Liberalism.
Click to expand...


Do you even listen to yourself when your write ? Applying more of better management, efficiency in which equals better productivity is just silly logic for businesses to engage in is what you are saying here ? And this ideology caused the great recession to be born by these things ?

The only way to improve business or government, and to get growth moving again, is by properly managing business and/or government as best we can, and not playing loose and careless with them until the walls come falling/crumbling down around us all.

The only way to get investment going again, is to stabilize the markets, and to manage government and the markets correctly, not by what we are seeing going on now in all of this.

Growth you say for every one, and improvement for every one, and better for every one eh ? Well you know what, every one doesn't always deserve these things in some collective sort of way of thinking, because there has to be an incentive involved always, in which makes people thrive to be better, and to want to be better in life by reaching for higher standards and better situations for their families and children, wherefore what we have now is a disincentive going on for many to do better, because it is made to easy for those whom want to ride the system, instead of them being contributors and fighters within the system in order to make it better.  "It can be done" should have been the correct slogan, instead of this "yes we can" that was being thrown around in all of this that we have to date.


----------



## Steelplate

beagle9 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm glad you use the word *better government *instead of bigger government, because I know of no one who is against better government, and you know what happens when the managing of something gets better don't you ? It operates more efficiently and productively, and you know what that means don't you ? It means a reduction in our tax burden which in turn means a reduction in government cost, and ultimately a reduction in the size of government as a final result of. The libs like to play the little government card on the conservatives, because they think that their own kind will eat it up like the sheep that they are, and that is ashame when one thinks about what has gone on in all of this to date.   Who isn't for or wouldn't be for lessoning their burden of taxes paid in America, and this because the government is being managed better ? Where as in return it gets smaller in the process, and more stream lined also, but the main thing is for it to be more accurate in what is being done with our money. It's just like managing ones household budget, there  are those who suck at it, and there are those who are great at it. Now who do you want to manage your budget ? Would it be a group that sucks at it or a group that is great at it ? When conservatives speak of smaller government, they mean due to the proper managing of government, and not due to trying to destroy people or leaving millions in trouble while doing so, as if the government is going to no longer exist in the way that it has been when it comes to helping the poor and needy because it will just like it always has, but mean while also getting the budget in order all at the same time.
> 
> More lib talking points that hopefully fall on deaf ears, but there are a lot of people that have become so dependent on current government and it's lies, that they will believe anything until the country implodes under the weight of it all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "It operates more efficiently and productively, and you know what that means don't you ?"
> 
> Remember when conservatives applied this silly logic to business and the Great Recession was born?
> 
> What happens under improved business or government is growth. Remember growth? Growth for everyone. Improvement for everyone. Better for everyone.
> 
> All of the great capitalists knew that. All of the great politicians and statesmen. It's what created America!
> 
> Innovation doesn't spring from cheap. It comes from investment. Optimism. Entrapraneurs.
> 
> Liberalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you even listen to yourself when your write ? Applying more of better management, efficiency in which equals better productivity is just silly logic for businesses to engage in is what you are saying here ? And this ideology caused the great recession to be born by these things ?
> 
> The only way to improve business or government, and to get growth moving again, is by properly managing business and/or government as best we can, and not playing loose and careless with them until the walls come falling/crumbling down around us all.
> 
> The only way to get investment going again, is to stabilize the markets, and to manage government and the markets correctly, not by what we are seeing going on now in all of this.
> 
> Growth you say for every one, and improvement for every one, and better for every one eh ? Well you know what, every one doesn't always deserve these things in some collective sort of way of thinking, because there has to be an incentive involved always, in which makes people thrive to be better, and to want to be better in life by reaching for higher standards and better situations for their families and children, wherefore what we have now is a disincentive going on for many to do better, because it is made to easy for those whom want to ride the system, instead of them being contributors and fighters within the system in order to make it better.  "It can be done" should have been the correct slogan, instead of this "yes we can" that was being thrown around in all of this that we have to date.
Click to expand...


You're wrong. That's the mindset that got us where we are. I particularly find your attitude towards your fellow Americans disheartening. You think poor people are "riding the system" on their welfare checks...but monied people who are "riding the system" a hundred thousand times more are cool because....they have money? Fuck that.

If these "Captains of Industry" are so fucking great, they wouldn't be pussies and traitors to the country that ALLOWED them to become what they are. Stabilize the market, my ass....have you seen the Dow lately? The market is fine...it's Main street that the greedy bastards don't give a shit about. They just want free money at the taxpayer's expense.

Do me a favor....ya got $10 and a kindle? Get on Amazon and get yourself a copy of "Greedy Bastards" by Dylan Ratigan. It goes into great detail on how these "Captains of Industry" aren't Capitalists...but Corporate Communists and Extractionists. Trillions of dollars leave this country EVERY year and no one says a word about it...because it's a HELL of a lot easier to blame our woes on some crackhead with six kids to five different fathers than it is to take a real hard look at where our wealth is going.


----------



## beagle9

Once upon a time we were a great nation who could do anything, but somehow we have slid downhill away from all that. So here we are when we were great in the world, and also when we knew what to do.. Enjoy!

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kjSBZLSpD8Q]Germany Today: Post-World War II Reconstruction, 1947 - YouTube[/ame]

Now Obama is treating us as if we were the Germans who had engaged in atrocities before he took office as our occupier and chief, and in which he seeks this fundamental change upon us all because of, so are we being treated as the Germans were treated back then by these new occupying forces in the white house, and this otherwise in the same way by Barack Obama with his transformational agenda now ? Didn't Barack go on an apology tour for America, the same America who had to teach the Germans how to become a new nation as depicted in the film ?  What happened to this nation whom did all this good once upon a time in the world not so many years ago ?


----------



## PMZ

beagle9 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm glad you use the word *better government *instead of bigger government, because I know of no one who is against better government, and you know what happens when the managing of something gets better don't you ? It operates more efficiently and productively, and you know what that means don't you ? It means a reduction in our tax burden which in turn means a reduction in government cost, and ultimately a reduction in the size of government as a final result of. The libs like to play the little government card on the conservatives, because they think that their own kind will eat it up like the sheep that they are, and that is ashame when one thinks about what has gone on in all of this to date.   Who isn't for or wouldn't be for lessoning their burden of taxes paid in America, and this because the government is being managed better ? Where as in return it gets smaller in the process, and more stream lined also, but the main thing is for it to be more accurate in what is being done with our money. It's just like managing ones household budget, there  are those who suck at it, and there are those who are great at it. Now who do you want to manage your budget ? Would it be a group that sucks at it or a group that is great at it ? When conservatives speak of smaller government, they mean due to the proper managing of government, and not due to trying to destroy people or leaving millions in trouble while doing so, as if the government is going to no longer exist in the way that it has been when it comes to helping the poor and needy because it will just like it always has, but mean while also getting the budget in order all at the same time.
> 
> More lib talking points that hopefully fall on deaf ears, but there are a lot of people that have become so dependent on current government and it's lies, that they will believe anything until the country implodes under the weight of it all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "It operates more efficiently and productively, and you know what that means don't you ?"
> 
> Remember when conservatives applied this silly logic to business and the Great Recession was born?
> 
> What happens under improved business or government is growth. Remember growth? Growth for everyone. Improvement for everyone. Better for everyone.
> 
> All of the great capitalists knew that. All of the great politicians and statesmen. It's what created America!
> 
> Innovation doesn't spring from cheap. It comes from investment. Optimism. Entrapraneurs.
> 
> Liberalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you even listen to yourself when your write ? Applying more of better management, efficiency in which equals better productivity is just silly logic for businesses to engage in is what you are saying here ? And this ideology caused the great recession to be born by these things ?
> 
> The only way to improve business or government, and to get growth moving again, is by properly managing business and/or government as best we can, and not playing loose and careless with them until the walls come falling/crumbling down around us all.
> 
> The only way to get investment going again, is to stabilize the markets, and to manage government and the markets correctly, not by what we are seeing going on now in all of this.
> 
> Growth you say for every one, and improvement for every one, and better for every one eh ? Well you know what, every one doesn't always deserve these things in some collective sort of way of thinking, because there has to be an incentive involved always, in which makes people thrive to be better, and to want to be better in life by reaching for higher standards and better situations for their families and children, wherefore what we have now is a disincentive going on for many to do better, because it is made to easy for those whom want to ride the system, instead of them being contributors and fighters within the system in order to make it better.  "It can be done" should have been the correct slogan, instead of this "yes we can" that was being thrown around in all of this that we have to date.
Click to expand...


As near as I can tell, you agree with everything that I posted, but don't want to.


----------



## beagle9

Steelplate said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> "It operates more efficiently and productively, and you know what that means don't you ?"
> 
> Remember when conservatives applied this silly logic to business and the Great Recession was born?
> 
> What happens under improved business or government is growth. Remember growth? Growth for everyone. Improvement for everyone. Better for everyone.
> 
> All of the great capitalists knew that. All of the great politicians and statesmen. It's what created America!
> 
> Innovation doesn't spring from cheap. It comes from investment. Optimism. Entrapraneurs.
> 
> Liberalism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you even listen to yourself when your write ? Applying more of better management, efficiency in which equals better productivity is just silly logic for businesses to engage in is what you are saying here ? And this ideology caused the great recession to be born by these things ?
> 
> The only way to improve business or government, and to get growth moving again, is by properly managing business and/or government as best we can, and not playing loose and careless with them until the walls come falling/crumbling down around us all.
> 
> The only way to get investment going again, is to stabilize the markets, and to manage government and the markets correctly, not by what we are seeing going on now in all of this.
> 
> Growth you say for every one, and improvement for every one, and better for every one eh ? Well you know what, every one doesn't always deserve these things in some collective sort of way of thinking, because there has to be an incentive involved always, in which makes people thrive to be better, and to want to be better in life by reaching for higher standards and better situations for their families and children, wherefore what we have now is a disincentive going on for many to do better, because it is made to easy for those whom want to ride the system, instead of them being contributors and fighters within the system in order to make it better.  "It can be done" should have been the correct slogan, instead of this "yes we can" that was being thrown around in all of this that we have to date.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're wrong. That's the mindset that got us where we are. I particularly find your attitude towards your fellow Americans disheartening. You think poor people are "riding the system" on their welfare checks...but monied people who are "riding the system" a hundred thousand times more are cool because....they have money? Fuck that.
> 
> If these "Captains of Industry" are so fucking great, they wouldn't be pussies and traitors to the country that ALLOWED them to become what they are. Stabilize the market, my ass....have you seen the Dow lately? The market is fine...it's Main street that the greedy bastards don't give a shit about. They just want free money at the taxpayer's expense.
> 
> Do me a favor....ya got $10 and a kindle? Get on Amazon and get yourself a copy of "Greedy Bastards" by Dylan Ratigan. It goes into great detail on how these "Captains of Industry" aren't Capitalists...but Corporate Communists and Extractionists. Trillions of dollars leave this country EVERY year and no one says a word about it...because it's a HELL of a lot easier to blame our woes on some crackhead with six kids to five different fathers than it is to take a real hard look at where our wealth is going.
Click to expand...

Ok, so what is your solution to it all then ? 

Now first off (((no))) I am not down on poor people ever, but rather I am for all people having an incentive in place again in order to get out and try to do something beside become dependent as so many have in the not so distant past now.   What we have now is a vacuum that has been created by it all, and what some are trying to replace our old system in which was run well within the past (40 years) and beyond that, and because it had become broken in the last 25 to 30 years now it appears, well it just may not necessarily be what we want to replace or fix the current problems with in which we have to date (imho).  

As we have become weaker as a nation who has been taken advantage of by our own sadly enough, then along came these people whom want to take advantage in trying to change this nation quickly into what they want it to be now, and they want to do it quickly while they have the chance to do it, so this is part of the transformational change in which they are talking about, but what all is involved in this transformational change is still confusing to many ?


----------



## beagle9

PMZ said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> "It operates more efficiently and productively, and you know what that means don't you ?"
> 
> Remember when conservatives applied this silly logic to business and the Great Recession was born?
> 
> What happens under improved business or government is growth. Remember growth? Growth for everyone. Improvement for everyone. Better for everyone.
> 
> All of the great capitalists knew that. All of the great politicians and statesmen. It's what created America!
> 
> Innovation doesn't spring from cheap. It comes from investment. Optimism. Entrapraneurs.
> 
> Liberalism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you even listen to yourself when your write ? Applying more of better management, efficiency in which equals better productivity is just silly logic for businesses to engage in is what you are saying here ? And this ideology caused the great recession to be born by these things ?
> 
> The only way to improve business or government, and to get growth moving again, is by properly managing business and/or government as best we can, and not playing loose and careless with them until the walls come falling/crumbling down around us all.
> 
> The only way to get investment going again, is to stabilize the markets, and to manage government and the markets correctly, not by what we are seeing going on now in all of this.
> 
> Growth you say for every one, and improvement for every one, and better for every one eh ? Well you know what, every one doesn't always deserve these things in some collective sort of way of thinking, because there has to be an incentive involved always, in which makes people thrive to be better, and to want to be better in life by reaching for higher standards and better situations for their families and children, wherefore what we have now is a disincentive going on for many to do better, because it is made to easy for those whom want to ride the system, instead of them being contributors and fighters within the system in order to make it better.  "It can be done" should have been the correct slogan, instead of this "yes we can" that was being thrown around in all of this that we have to date.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As near as I can tell, you agree with everything that I posted, but don't want to.
Click to expand...

Huh ?


----------



## Bfgrn

beagle9 said:


> Steelplate said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you even listen to yourself when your write ? Applying more of better management, efficiency in which equals better productivity is just silly logic for businesses to engage in is what you are saying here ? And this ideology caused the great recession to be born by these things ?
> 
> The only way to improve business or government, and to get growth moving again, is by properly managing business and/or government as best we can, and not playing loose and careless with them until the walls come falling/crumbling down around us all.
> 
> The only way to get investment going again, is to stabilize the markets, and to manage government and the markets correctly, not by what we are seeing going on now in all of this.
> 
> Growth you say for every one, and improvement for every one, and better for every one eh ? Well you know what, every one doesn't always deserve these things in some collective sort of way of thinking, because there has to be an incentive involved always, in which makes people thrive to be better, and to want to be better in life by reaching for higher standards and better situations for their families and children, wherefore what we have now is a disincentive going on for many to do better, because it is made to easy for those whom want to ride the system, instead of them being contributors and fighters within the system in order to make it better.  "It can be done" should have been the correct slogan, instead of this "yes we can" that was being thrown around in all of this that we have to date.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're wrong. That's the mindset that got us where we are. I particularly find your attitude towards your fellow Americans disheartening. You think poor people are "riding the system" on their welfare checks...but monied people who are "riding the system" a hundred thousand times more are cool because....they have money? Fuck that.
> 
> If these "Captains of Industry" are so fucking great, they wouldn't be pussies and traitors to the country that ALLOWED them to become what they are. Stabilize the market, my ass....have you seen the Dow lately? The market is fine...it's Main street that the greedy bastards don't give a shit about. They just want free money at the taxpayer's expense.
> 
> Do me a favor....ya got $10 and a kindle? Get on Amazon and get yourself a copy of "Greedy Bastards" by Dylan Ratigan. It goes into great detail on how these "Captains of Industry" aren't Capitalists...but Corporate Communists and Extractionists. Trillions of dollars leave this country EVERY year and no one says a word about it...because it's a HELL of a lot easier to blame our woes on some crackhead with six kids to five different fathers than it is to take a real hard look at where our wealth is going.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok, so what is your solution to it all then ?
> 
> Now first off (((no))) I am not down on poor people ever, but rather I am for all people having an incentive in place again in order to get out and try to do something beside become dependent as so many have in the not so distant past now.   What we have now is a vacuum that has been created by it all, and what some are trying to replace our old system in which was run well within the past (40 years) and beyond that, and because it had become broken in the last 25 to 30 years now it appears, well it just may not necessarily be what we want to replace or fix the current problems with in which we have to date (imho).
> 
> As we have become weaker as a nation who has been taken advantage of by our own sadly enough, then along came these people whom want to take advantage in trying to change this nation quickly into what they want it to be now, and they want to do it quickly while they have the chance to do it, so this is part of the transformational change in which they are talking about, but what all is involved in this transformational change is still confusing to many ?
Click to expand...


What has happened over the last 30 to 50 years has been the fire sale of America. I have been around since Harry Truman was in the White House. I witnessed the fire sale. 

Years ago, America was a series of local communities populated with small locally owned and operated businesses. Most were family businesses that were passed down from father to son. Need a loaf of bread...choose among a variety of bakeries...Want to cook a nice roast for Sunday dinner...the local butcher knew exactly what cut to sell you. Need new clothes, choose among a variety of clothing stores from custom tailors to casual wear. Have a leaky faucet...the local hardware store owner would not only sell you the parts, he'd walk you through installation.

And often, the local grocer knew you by name, where you lived and even what day you got paid. Why? Because he would have a kid that delivered groceries to your home and there was a relationship created with enough trust where you could run a tab at the store. Oh, hi Mary, need a gallon of milk. I'll put it on your tab, see you on Friday.

These businesses not only employed many in the community, they served as a source of talent where we found our civic leaders. Mayors, councilmen, councilwomen, and other public servants.

All that began to change when the big box stores started to move in. It began with large grocery chains. Some little deli, corner stores, butchers, and bakers were able to survive doing late evening and Sunday business (the large stores closed early and were closed on Sundays). And by offering real quality products and service.

Then the local five and dime stores were invaded by the K-Marts of the world, and eventually the death sentence to local businesses, the Walmart stores.

We live in a country with cheap products, but the price was MUCH higher than we ever knew. The price was America itself.


----------



## Circe

Bfgrn said:


> What has happened over the last 30 to 50 years has been the fire sale of America. I have been around since Harry Truman was in the White House. I witnessed the fire sale.
> 
> Years ago, America was a series of local communities populated with small locally owned and operated businesses. Most were family businesses that were passed down from father to son. Need a loaf of bread...choose among a variety of bakeries...Want to cook a nice roast for Sunday dinner...the local butcher knew exactly what cut to sell you. Need new clothes, choose among a variety of clothing stores from custom tailors to casual wear. Have a leaky faucet...the local hardware store owner would not only sell you the parts, he'd walk you through installation.
> 
> And often, the local grocer knew you by name, where you lived and even what day you got paid. Why? Because he would have a kid that delivered groceries to your home and there was a relationship created with enough trust where you could run a tab at the store. Oh, hi Mary, need a gallon of milk. I'll put it on your tab, see you on Friday.
> 
> These businesses not only employed many in the community, they served as a source of talent where we found our civic leaders. Mayors, councilmen, councilwomen, and other public servants.
> 
> All that began to change when the big box stores started to move in. It began with large grocery chains. Some little deli, corner stores, butchers, and bakers were able to survive doing late evening and Sunday business (the large stores closed early and were closed on Sundays). And by offering real quality products and service.
> 
> Then the local five and dime stores were invaded by the K-Marts of the world, and eventually the death sentence to local businesses, the Walmart stores.
> 
> We live in a country with cheap products, but the price was MUCH higher than we ever knew. The price was America itself.



Huh! There are some good thinkers on this forum. You are adding another whammy to America's loss of really all manufacturing jobs to poor countries: all the small stores went to large corporations, and they are getting nothing but huger and huger: I buy essentially everything but groceries from Amazon now, and just have it sent to the house.

This is actually close to the future envisioned by Edward Bellamy in 1885, his futuristic novel "Looking Backward," about the utopian year 2000, when people didn't have to waste time going to stores. They would just look up what they wanted and send for it. 

However, you are right, of course, that it's a double whammy: all the manufacturing jobs are gone and all the small stores are gone, with so many of the clerk jobs gone with the much greater efficiency of an Amazon, or a Daedalus, or any Internet shop.

I am beginning to see that high unemployment really is systemic now because where ARE the jobs, you know? Could get to be a problem.

Creative destruction. Change, it's always with us. I'm not sure it does a lot of good to protest change.


----------



## PMZ

beagle9 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you even listen to yourself when your write ? Applying more of better management, efficiency in which equals better productivity is just silly logic for businesses to engage in is what you are saying here ? And this ideology caused the great recession to be born by these things ?
> 
> The only way to improve business or government, and to get growth moving again, is by properly managing business and/or government as best we can, and not playing loose and careless with them until the walls come falling/crumbling down around us all.
> 
> The only way to get investment going again, is to stabilize the markets, and to manage government and the markets correctly, not by what we are seeing going on now in all of this.
> 
> Growth you say for every one, and improvement for every one, and better for every one eh ? Well you know what, every one doesn't always deserve these things in some collective sort of way of thinking, because there has to be an incentive involved always, in which makes people thrive to be better, and to want to be better in life by reaching for higher standards and better situations for their families and children, wherefore what we have now is a disincentive going on for many to do better, because it is made to easy for those whom want to ride the system, instead of them being contributors and fighters within the system in order to make it better.  "It can be done" should have been the correct slogan, instead of this "yes we can" that was being thrown around in all of this that we have to date.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As near as I can tell, you agree with everything that I posted, but don't want to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Huh ?
Click to expand...


People need an incentive to not be poor?????


----------



## PMZ

Circe said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> What has happened over the last 30 to 50 years has been the fire sale of America. I have been around since Harry Truman was in the White House. I witnessed the fire sale.
> 
> Years ago, America was a series of local communities populated with small locally owned and operated businesses. Most were family businesses that were passed down from father to son. Need a loaf of bread...choose among a variety of bakeries...Want to cook a nice roast for Sunday dinner...the local butcher knew exactly what cut to sell you. Need new clothes, choose among a variety of clothing stores from custom tailors to casual wear. Have a leaky faucet...the local hardware store owner would not only sell you the parts, he'd walk you through installation.
> 
> And often, the local grocer knew you by name, where you lived and even what day you got paid. Why? Because he would have a kid that delivered groceries to your home and there was a relationship created with enough trust where you could run a tab at the store. Oh, hi Mary, need a gallon of milk. I'll put it on your tab, see you on Friday.
> 
> These businesses not only employed many in the community, they served as a source of talent where we found our civic leaders. Mayors, councilmen, councilwomen, and other public servants.
> 
> All that began to change when the big box stores started to move in. It began with large grocery chains. Some little deli, corner stores, butchers, and bakers were able to survive doing late evening and Sunday business (the large stores closed early and were closed on Sundays). And by offering real quality products and service.
> 
> Then the local five and dime stores were invaded by the K-Marts of the world, and eventually the death sentence to local businesses, the Walmart stores.
> 
> We live in a country with cheap products, but the price was MUCH higher than we ever knew. The price was America itself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Huh! There are some good thinkers on this forum. You are adding another whammy to America's loss of really all manufacturing jobs to poor countries: all the small stores went to large corporations, and they are getting nothing but huger and huger: I buy essentially everything but groceries from Amazon now, and just have it sent to the house.
> 
> This is actually close to the future envisioned by Edward Bellamy in 1885, his futuristic novel "Looking Backward," about the utopian year 2000, when people didn't have to waste time going to stores. They would just look up what they wanted and send for it.
> 
> However, you are right, of course, that it's a double whammy: all the manufacturing jobs are gone and all the small stores are gone, with so many of the clerk jobs gone with the much greater efficiency of an Amazon, or a Daedalus, or any Internet shop.
> 
> I am beginning to see that high unemployment really is systemic now because where ARE the jobs, you know? Could get to be a problem.
> 
> Creative destruction. Change, it's always with us. I'm not sure it does a lot of good to protest change.
Click to expand...


We used to know that the essence of America was the middle class. Workers. Creators of wealth. The majority of us who worked and raised their families and attended baseball games and church. 

Then supply side economics got preached telling us that we were wrong about that and we really owe it all to the rich. That somehow, the rich supported all growth and good and, after all, the middle class supported those communist unions. 

And the poor, all lazy bums who preferred poverty to work. 

We went from a middle of the road culture to an extremist culture. 

What have we learned since then? Supply side economics led to fiscal disaster. Huge debt. Enriching the wealthy at the expense of the middle class led to extreme wealth inequity, the badge of third world countries and banana republics everywhere. And stubborn unemployment. And way more poor, that, as I said, we were told, prefer poverty to work. 

Those trends are now turning around now thanks to a President who supports the rebirth of the middle class. And the avoidance of a potential President who only wanted to preside over the wealthy. 

But the preachers drone on 24/7/365 trying to complete the destruction that they started. And some minds can't be changed back. 

So we are now testing our democracy to see if it can save us from extremism. 

It has started to but vigilance is still required. The recruiting of middle class syncophants by the wealthy is still active and supported by the GOP.


----------



## Circe

PMZ said:


> Then supply side economics got preached telling us that we were wrong about that and we really owe it all to the rich. That somehow, the rich supported all growth and good and, after all, the middle class supported those communist unions.



The unions are certainly communist. The communist, greedy, violent unions is exactly what led to globalization and the relocation of all American manufacturing to foreign countries!! It is basically unions that started the terrible decline of this country.




> And stubborn unemployment. And way more poor, that, as I said, we were told, prefer poverty to work.



As I said above, the loss of both manufacturing and small stores means there are fewer and fewer jobs. if it weren't for service economy make-work, there'd be even fewer. As for the poor, the poor in the ghetto DO prefer poverty or at least drug trading and prostitution to real work. We know that for sure: that's why we hire Mexicans to do the real work, what little is left, because blacks won't or can't do it.



> Those trends are now turning around now thanks to a President who supports the rebirth of the middle class.



Obama has done absolutely nothing whatsoever except cripple business yet further with his Obamacare fiasco. There is a lame recovery that has nothing to do with Obama, that is all, and it's shaky.




> So we are now testing our democracy to see if it can save us from extremism.



No, it can't. The left will start the revolution and the right will win it: that is what is happening all over the world and is most common thru history.



> It has started to but vigilance is still required.



I can't imagine why you think anything is getting better. It is plainly getting worse, I would say.


----------



## PMZ

Circe said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then supply side economics got preached telling us that we were wrong about that and we really owe it all to the rich. That somehow, the rich supported all growth and good and, after all, the middle class supported those communist unions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The unions are certainly communist. The communist, greedy, violent unions is exactly what led to globalization and the relocation of all American manufacturing to foreign countries!! It is basically unions that started the terrible decline of this country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And stubborn unemployment. And way more poor, that, as I said, we were told, prefer poverty to work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I said above, the loss of both manufacturing and small stores means there are fewer and fewer jobs. if it weren't for service economy make-work, there'd be even fewer. As for the poor, the poor in the ghetto DO prefer poverty or at least drug trading and prostitution to real work. We know that for sure: that's why we hire Mexicans to do the real work, what little is left, because blacks won't or can't do it.
> 
> 
> 
> Obama has done absolutely nothing whatsoever except cripple business yet further with his Obamacare fiasco. There is a lame recovery that has nothing to do with Obama, that is all, and it's shaky.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So we are now testing our democracy to see if it can save us from extremism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it can't. The left will start the revolution and the right will win it: that is what is happening all over the world and is most common thru history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It has started to but vigilance is still required.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can't imagine why you think anything is getting better. It is plainly getting worse, I would say.
Click to expand...


I think that your post defines better than I can what we have to and can and have recently, used the great gift of America, democracy, to defeat. 

You and your made for media dogma has been demonstrably destructive to America and we simply can no longer afford it empowered in our government. It will take a few dozen generations to pay off your unpaid bills, and we'll never get back the lives lost to your holy wars, and to the extreme weather catastrophies fueled by your denial of science, but we can, and will, keep you on the sidelines while we rebuild.


----------



## Circe

PMZ said:


> we'll never get back the lives lost to your holy wars, and to the extreme weather catastrophies fueled by your denial of science, but we can, and will, keep you on the sidelines while we rebuild.



Yeah, Oklahoma never had tornadoes before Bush caused them, right?

This is the kind of crazy that makes me grateful we are able to keep everything nuts the left proposes blocked in Congress.

You don't seem to be very successful in keeping us on the sidelines, minority.


----------



## PMZ

Circe said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> we'll never get back the lives lost to your holy wars, and to the extreme weather catastrophies fueled by your denial of science, but we can, and will, keep you on the sidelines while we rebuild.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, Oklahoma never had tornadoes before Bush caused them, right?
> 
> This is the kind of crazy that makes me grateful we are able to keep everything nuts the left proposes blocked in Congress.
> 
> You don't seem to be very successful in keeping us on the sidelines, minority.
Click to expand...


No question that I'm way to the left of you, but across the spectrum of Americans, I'm a centrist. I'm what Republicans were before Dixiecrats offered the GOP votes in return for the party's soul. And offered a billion dollars to Rush to produce words that made Dixiecrat self centeredness politically correct. 

Wealth comes from skilled work. That's what the middle class does for a living. Their living is what supply side economics turned into income from wealth as compared to income from work. 

We are on the road to restoring the middle class economy. To restoring the dignity of producing compared to the aristocracy of having. 

Of course, none of that can be credited to you, nor will our continued recovery,  from you. 

Government of, by, and for the people. That's the way that it works.


----------



## Circe

PMZ said:


> We are on the road to restoring the middle class economy. To restoring the dignity of producing compared to the aristocracy of having.
> 
> Of course, none of that can be credited to you, nor will our continued recovery,  from you.
> 
> *Government of, by, and for the people. That's the way that it works*.




No, the way it works is government of, by, and for the government.

While feeding on taxes coerced from the citizens. So it just gets bigger and bigger till it eats everything.

I can't see any sign of restoring any middle class economy. It continues to go down, down, down and jobs continue to be lost and education is the pits, so I suspect you are imagining this improvement you cite: you don't cite any data, anyway. 

The only thing improving is a big stock market bubble blowing up. And I don't have a good feeling about that, when it explodes.


----------



## itfitzme

PMZ said:


> Circe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> We live in a country with cheap products, but the price was MUCH higher than we ever knew. The price was America itself.
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> I am beginning to see that high unemployment really is systemic now because where ARE the jobs, you know? Could get to be a problem.
> 
> Creative destruction. Change, it's always with us. I'm not sure it does a lot of good to protest change.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We used to know that the essence of America was the middle class. Workers. Creators of wealth. The majority of us who worked and raised their families and attended baseball games and church.*
> 
> Then supply side economics got preached telling us that we were wrong about that and we really owe it all to the rich. That somehow, the rich supported all growth and good and, after all, the middle class supported those communist unions.*
> ....
> We went from a middle of the road culture to an extremist culture.*
> ...
> Huge debt.
Click to expand...


The typical colloquial presentation of "supply side" economics is a misnomer, a non-sequiter, a red herring. *As used, the implications are those of "always", "only", "or", and the ubiquitous notion that if B sometimes increases with A, it always increases with A. *Worse yet, even if properly understood, it is like putting air in the boat trailer tire to solve the problem of a leaky hull. It's like going to the grocery store to rent a tuxedo. It's like leaving the doors open during a snowstorm and turning up the heater because the house is too cold.

There are a number of ways that investment capital becomes available to the markets; pension, personal savings, business loans are a few. *

The notion that all businesses must, or even can, realize a long run profit is mistaken. *Small businesses in local competetative markets, especially *in rural and suburban areas, have little opportunity to do so.

The notion that the economy can run on* no debt*, even very limited debt, is in error. This is a function of the nature of money.*

A more appropriate way for the economy to function is for businesses to borrow investment capital that has; accumulated through personal savings and; been made available through the reserve system. *The first would be nice, the second is required. Currently, in some manner, for there to be economic growth, the second is always required somewhere in the economy.

The fact that the monetary system *in the US, Canada, and Europe, requires the existance of debt is hard to concieve of and difficult to accept. The way money functions, as a socio-economic tool, is such that this is the best way, the only reasonable way for a monetary based economy to run. (I am not sure about the middle eastern countries like Iran.)

Debt, borrowing, only means that some percentage of the nominal principle is due in return. Real and *nominal interest rates can be positive or negative, beyond or between -1 and 1. There is no requirement that all returns be positive.

Currently, the discount rate at .75%, fed funds rate at .25%, *and PPI at about 2, the CPI at ~2.5, and the change in wage index at ~3. *The real rate of return on business credit could be negative. The Fed is making this possible.

The problem is that small business loan rates are 6 to 7%. Personal savings rates are ~.01% with CDs at ~.17%. And*the year to date change in the S&P is > 14%.

For a monetary system that requires continuous borrowing to maintain and increase growth, the only real growth imcentive is currently in speculative assets.

This is pointed out in the recent report published by the*BSI - BANK FOR INTERNATIONAL SETTLEMENTS.





> *
> "Markets under the spell of monetary easing"
> 
> "Further monetary easing helped market participants to tune out signs of a global growth slowdown. The spate of negative economic news between mid-March and mid-April did little to interrupt the rise of equity prices in advanced economies. Further policy easing, followed promptly by an improved US outlook in early May, boosted market sentiment and lifted the main equity indices to new highs."*



* *Do you see*what I'm saying??**

Drill down

Central Bank Group Warns Markets 'Under a Spell' - ABC News

Bank for International Settlements

BIS Quarterly Review, June 2013
Markets under the spell of monetary easing
http://www.bis.org/publ/qtrpdf/r_qt1306a.pdf


----------



## Circe

itfitzme said:


> *Do you see*what I'm saying??*[/u]*



Well, are you saying that the only thing puffing up this economy is a stock market bubble due to Bernanke's money pump? I would agree with that.


----------



## itfitzme

Is it worth the effort to even attempt explaining how completely wrong the following statements are?

I.


> The unions are certainly communist.*



II.


> The communist, greedy, violent unions is exactly what led to globalization and the relocation of all American manufacturing to foreign countries!!*



III.


> It is basically unions that started the terrible decline of this country.



IV.


> *As for the poor, the poor in the ghetto DO prefer poverty or at least drug trading and prostitution to real work.*



V.


> We know that for sure: that's why we hire Mexicans to do the real work, what little is left, because blacks won't or can't do it.



VI.


> Obama has done absolutely nothing whatsoever except cripple business yet further with his Obamacare fiasco.*



VII.


> The left will start the revolution and the right will win it: that is what is happening all over the world and is most common thru history.


----------



## itfitzme

Circe said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Do you see*what I'm saying??*[/u]*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, are you saying that the only thing puffing up this economy is a stock market bubble due to Bernanke's money pump? I would agree with that.
Click to expand...


Apparenly not.


----------



## Circe

itfitzme said:


> Apparenly not.



Hey, if you can't communicate, you can't communicate. That's okay with me; some can, some can't.


----------



## Circe

itfitzme said:


> I.
> 
> 
> 
> The unions are certainly communist.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> II.
> 
> 
> 
> The communist, greedy, violent unions is exactly what led to globalization and the relocation of all American manufacturing to foreign countries!!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> III.
> 
> 
> IV.
> 
> 
> V.
> 
> 
> VI.
> 
> 
> 
> Obama has done absolutely nothing whatsoever except cripple business yet further with his Obamacare fiasco.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> VII.
> 
> 
> 
> The left will start the revolution and the right will win it: that is what is happening all over the world and is most common thru history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Is it worth the effort to even attempt explaining how completely wrong the [preceding] statements are?*
Click to expand...


No, I'd give it a miss if I were you. You have a problem with putting a lot of wild asterisks all over your text, I can't imagine why; and your communication is very unclear. You need to learn to write better before you try such a long refutation as a point-by-point. I'd suggest no asterisks, write short (I know, I'm a fine one to talk), check your spelling carefully because you lose points with bad spelling, and minimize your number of similes per comparison: you created good similies, but one per issue is enough. I think you have a lot of potential, but the writing needs to be clearer.


----------



## Bfgrn

Circe said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> What has happened over the last 30 to 50 years has been the fire sale of America. I have been around since Harry Truman was in the White House. I witnessed the fire sale.
> 
> Years ago, America was a series of local communities populated with small locally owned and operated businesses. Most were family businesses that were passed down from father to son. Need a loaf of bread...choose among a variety of bakeries...Want to cook a nice roast for Sunday dinner...the local butcher knew exactly what cut to sell you. Need new clothes, choose among a variety of clothing stores from custom tailors to casual wear. Have a leaky faucet...the local hardware store owner would not only sell you the parts, he'd walk you through installation.
> 
> And often, the local grocer knew you by name, where you lived and even what day you got paid. Why? Because he would have a kid that delivered groceries to your home and there was a relationship created with enough trust where you could run a tab at the store. Oh, hi Mary, need a gallon of milk. I'll put it on your tab, see you on Friday.
> 
> These businesses not only employed many in the community, they served as a source of talent where we found our civic leaders. Mayors, councilmen, councilwomen, and other public servants.
> 
> All that began to change when the big box stores started to move in. It began with large grocery chains. Some little deli, corner stores, butchers, and bakers were able to survive doing late evening and Sunday business (the large stores closed early and were closed on Sundays). And by offering real quality products and service.
> 
> Then the local five and dime stores were invaded by the K-Marts of the world, and eventually the death sentence to local businesses, the Walmart stores.
> 
> We live in a country with cheap products, but the price was MUCH higher than we ever knew. The price was America itself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Huh! There are some good thinkers on this forum. You are adding another whammy to America's loss of really all manufacturing jobs to poor countries: all the small stores went to large corporations, and they are getting nothing but huger and huger: I buy essentially everything but groceries from Amazon now, and just have it sent to the house.
> 
> This is actually close to the future envisioned by Edward Bellamy in 1885, his futuristic novel "Looking Backward," about the utopian year 2000, when people didn't have to waste time going to stores. They would just look up what they wanted and send for it.
> 
> However, you are right, of course, that it's a double whammy: all the manufacturing jobs are gone and all the small stores are gone, with so many of the clerk jobs gone with the much greater efficiency of an Amazon, or a Daedalus, or any Internet shop.
> 
> I am beginning to see that high unemployment really is systemic now because where ARE the jobs, you know? Could get to be a problem.
> 
> Creative destruction. Change, it's always with us. I'm not sure it does a lot of good to protest change.
Click to expand...


Good post. Efficiency is not always a panacea. It can leave a void in customer service. And most of all, personal interaction becomes obsolete.

The changes I speak of did not happen over night. It was a slow death. I watched it happen, I am even guilty of helping it along. You sometimes don't appreciate things until they're gone. I still miss the wonderful bakeries and butcher shops. In our neighborhood there was a German butcher shop. It was like walking into 1920. He made his own beef jerky, and there was a string that ran across the whole back of the store. He would hang the beef jerky to cure.

There was a sense of community, a neighborhood was filled with neighbors, it was not a hood. I grew up in the suburbs, but my parents grew up in city neighborhoods, where every house had a front porch. People got to know their neighbors and conversed with people walking by. If you needed to run an errand, you had no qualms about asking you neighbor to keep an eye on your children. They had the same authority as the parents and the kids knew it.

One thing I noticed recently, when a group of young people walk down the street, none of them are interacting with each other, they all have 'personal' devices. They interact with a cell phone or ipad.

It really is a creative destruction


----------



## PMZ

Circe said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> We are on the road to restoring the middle class economy. To restoring the dignity of producing compared to the aristocracy of having.
> 
> Of course, none of that can be credited to you, nor will our continued recovery,  from you.
> 
> *Government of, by, and for the people. That's the way that it works*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, the way it works is government of, by, and for the government.
> 
> While feeding on taxes coerced from the citizens. So it just gets bigger and bigger till it eats everything.
> 
> I can't see any sign of restoring any middle class economy. It continues to go down, down, down and jobs continue to be lost and education is the pits, so I suspect you are imagining this improvement you cite: you don't cite any data, anyway.
> 
> The only thing improving is a big stock market bubble blowing up. And I don't have a good feeling about that, when it explodes.
Click to expand...


Business will fix what business broke. America's full employment. While they are doing that, goverment will keep those that business laid off afloat, so that the demand that business laid off with the workers, keeps business afloat. 

Requires borrowing, but look how successful that borrowing has been as compared to Europe's austerity that you've been rooting for for the last five years. 

Here's the danger. Business leaders will claim monumental rewards for fixing what they broke, when in truth, it was government that mitigated their disaster.

As all of this unfolds, Rush and Rupert will of course turn the volume up on what they are well paid to say, that all good comes from the wealthy, and all bad from the government. In fact as bad, they'll say, as Republicans are, Democrats are even worse. 

We've heard it all before and even fell for it in 2000. 

No more. Many of us learned from our mistakes. Some of us never will.


----------



## beagle9

Circe said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> What has happened over the last 30 to 50 years has been the fire sale of America. I have been around since Harry Truman was in the White House. I witnessed the fire sale.
> 
> Years ago, America was a series of local communities populated with small locally owned and operated businesses. Most were family businesses that were passed down from father to son. Need a loaf of bread...choose among a variety of bakeries...Want to cook a nice roast for Sunday dinner...the local butcher knew exactly what cut to sell you. Need new clothes, choose among a variety of clothing stores from custom tailors to casual wear. Have a leaky faucet...the local hardware store owner would not only sell you the parts, he'd walk you through installation.
> 
> And often, the local grocer knew you by name, where you lived and even what day you got paid. Why? Because he would have a kid that delivered groceries to your home and there was a relationship created with enough trust where you could run a tab at the store. Oh, hi Mary, need a gallon of milk. I'll put it on your tab, see you on Friday.
> 
> These businesses not only employed many in the community, they served as a source of talent where we found our civic leaders. Mayors, councilmen, councilwomen, and other public servants.
> 
> All that began to change when the big box stores started to move in. It began with large grocery chains. Some little deli, corner stores, butchers, and bakers were able to survive doing late evening and Sunday business (the large stores closed early and were closed on Sundays). And by offering real quality products and service.
> 
> Then the local five and dime stores were invaded by the K-Marts of the world, and eventually the death sentence to local businesses, the Walmart stores.
> 
> We live in a country with cheap products, but the price was MUCH higher than we ever knew. The price was America itself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Huh! There are some good thinkers on this forum. You are adding another whammy to America's loss of really all manufacturing jobs to poor countries: all the small stores went to large corporations, and they are getting nothing but huger and huger: I buy essentially everything but groceries from Amazon now, and just have it sent to the house.
> 
> This is actually close to the future envisioned by Edward Bellamy in 1885, his futuristic novel "Looking Backward," about the utopian year 2000, when people didn't have to waste time going to stores. They would just look up what they wanted and send for it.
> 
> However, you are right, of course, that it's a double whammy: all the manufacturing jobs are gone and all the small stores are gone, with so many of the clerk jobs gone with the much greater efficiency of an Amazon, or a Daedalus, or any Internet shop.
> 
> I am beginning to see that high unemployment really is systemic now because where ARE the jobs, you know? Could get to be a problem.
> 
> Creative destruction. Change, it's always with us. I'm not sure it does a lot of good to protest change.
Click to expand...

Nothing wrong with change, as long as it is done in a smart and balanced approach, but when greed entered into the picture quicker and quicker, America took a back seat to a balanced approach, and thus the apple cart was turned over completely. Balance is the key to everything, just as it is in budgets and all other sorts of structured things, but greed caused the balance to get way out of whack, therefore leaving hundreds of thousands caught with their britches down with no new belt to hold them up anymore, and no funds to buy the new belt in which closes many small businesses down in the end.


----------



## beagle9

PMZ said:


> Circe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> We are on the road to restoring the middle class economy. To restoring the dignity of producing compared to the aristocracy of having.
> 
> Of course, none of that can be credited to you, nor will our continued recovery,  from you.
> 
> *Government of, by, and for the people. That's the way that it works*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, the way it works is government of, by, and for the government.
> 
> While feeding on taxes coerced from the citizens. So it just gets bigger and bigger till it eats everything.
> 
> I can't see any sign of restoring any middle class economy. It continues to go down, down, down and jobs continue to be lost and education is the pits, so I suspect you are imagining this improvement you cite: you don't cite any data, anyway.
> 
> The only thing improving is a big stock market bubble blowing up. And I don't have a good feeling about that, when it explodes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Business will fix what business broke. America's full employment. While they are doing that, goverment will keep those that business laid off afloat, so that the demand that business laid off with the workers, keeps business afloat.
> 
> Requires borrowing, but look how successful that borrowing has been as compared to Europe's austerity that you've been rooting for for the last five years.
> 
> Here's the danger. Business leaders will claim monumental rewards for fixing what they broke, when in truth, it was government that mitigated their disaster.
> 
> As all of this unfolds, Rush and Rupert will of course turn the volume up on what they are well paid to say, that all good comes from the wealthy, and all bad from the government. In fact as bad, they'll say, as Republicans are, Democrats are even worse.
> 
> We've heard it all before and even fell for it in 2000.
> 
> No more. Many of us learned from our mistakes. Some of us never will.
Click to expand...

All fine and dandy, but what about those who have taken over the government, and while the nation is weak they want to transform it into something that no one else wants within a majority ? This is what happens in a vacum that has been created, wherefore we have those whom want to take advantage while they can now, even if it means destroying the nation in order to do so, and then rebuilding it afterwards, because they are willing to do it no matter what it takes. Talk about getting kicked when we are down, it's just so sad...


----------



## Wyatt earp

Wow one of my topics on the net makes over 500 comments? Thats weird they normaly die after five lol.. Good read guys and gals...thanks.


----------



## Foxfyre

beagle9 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Circe said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, the way it works is government of, by, and for the government.
> 
> While feeding on taxes coerced from the citizens. So it just gets bigger and bigger till it eats everything.
> 
> I can't see any sign of restoring any middle class economy. It continues to go down, down, down and jobs continue to be lost and education is the pits, so I suspect you are imagining this improvement you cite: you don't cite any data, anyway.
> 
> The only thing improving is a big stock market bubble blowing up. And I don't have a good feeling about that, when it explodes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Business will fix what business broke. America's full employment. While they are doing that, goverment will keep those that business laid off afloat, so that the demand that business laid off with the workers, keeps business afloat.
> 
> Requires borrowing, but look how successful that borrowing has been as compared to Europe's austerity that you've been rooting for for the last five years.
> 
> Here's the danger. Business leaders will claim monumental rewards for fixing what they broke, when in truth, it was government that mitigated their disaster.
> 
> As all of this unfolds, Rush and Rupert will of course turn the volume up on what they are well paid to say, that all good comes from the wealthy, and all bad from the government. In fact as bad, they'll say, as Republicans are, Democrats are even worse.
> 
> We've heard it all before and even fell for it in 2000.
> 
> No more. Many of us learned from our mistakes. Some of us never will.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All fine and dandy, but what about those who have taken over the government, and while the nation is weak they want to transform it into something that no one else wants within a majority ? This is what happens in a vacum that has been created, wherefore we have those whom want to take advantage while they can now, even if it means destroying the nation in order to do so, and then rebuilding it afterwards, because they are willing to do it no matter what it takes. Talk about getting kicked when we are down, it's just so sad...
Click to expand...


The Founders were in agreement that the United States of America must be strong enough to repel those who would seek to attack and defeat us.  But, with few exceptions, they feared a too large, too powerful government as a threat to liberty; they did not fear a small government as a threat to liberty.

In a nutshell, modern American conservatiism allow just enough government to provide the common defense and allow for enough organiation and regulation so that the individual states can be one united nation without doing physical, economic, or environmental violence to each other.  And other than that, the federal government was to acknowledge and defend our unalienable rights and then leave us strictly alone so that we could form whatever sorts of societies we wish to have and live our lives as we choose.

Such a system allowed for broad diversity and choices of lifestyle and allowed people of widely differing religious beliefs, cultural preferences, and every other sort of society we can imagine to do their own thing.   Rights were recognized as anything that required no contribution or participation by any other.  The people, not the federal government, would decide what laws, regulation, or contracts would be involved in everything else.

Take all the conservatives out of the equation, and I think it would leave a deep void that would almost certainly be filled by some form of government even more authoritarian that present and completely self serving.  And the USA that the Founders gave us would be something far different from what it once was and/or is.


----------



## Circe

PMZ said:


> Business will fix what business broke. America's full employment. While they are doing that, goverment will keep those that business laid off afloat, so that the demand that business laid off with the workers, keeps business afloat.



So you assert, but some of us are asserting that most of the jobs are gone now. And public education doesn't even properly educate the smart kids, and the stupid kids are functionally illiterate, so of course there are no jobs for them. So I'd say we may be stuck at high unemployment. But we'll see; you could still be right. Five percent is full employment, let's remember, that's the magic number.



> Requires borrowing, but look how successful that borrowing has been as compared to Europe's austerity that you've been rooting for for the last five years.



How do you know that? I haven't BEEN here for five years. You just got here. NO ONE in the world has been "rooting" for European austerity for five years: the recession only started in 2008 and this is spring of 2013. 

This is exaggeration, hyperbole. I think you are given to rather Paris Commune-style "J'accuse!" statements.

Back off.


----------



## Circe

Foxfyre said:


> Rights were recognized as anything that required no contribution or participation by any other.



I particularly like this definition! I want to remember it.

I don't like these so-called "rights" to health care, living expenses, college, etc., etc. that basically mean a welfare state, not really rights at all.


----------



## PMZ

Foxfyre said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Business will fix what business broke. America's full employment. While they are doing that, goverment will keep those that business laid off afloat, so that the demand that business laid off with the workers, keeps business afloat.
> 
> Requires borrowing, but look how successful that borrowing has been as compared to Europe's austerity that you've been rooting for for the last five years.
> 
> Here's the danger. Business leaders will claim monumental rewards for fixing what they broke, when in truth, it was government that mitigated their disaster.
> 
> As all of this unfolds, Rush and Rupert will of course turn the volume up on what they are well paid to say, that all good comes from the wealthy, and all bad from the government. In fact as bad, they'll say, as Republicans are, Democrats are even worse.
> 
> We've heard it all before and even fell for it in 2000.
> 
> No more. Many of us learned from our mistakes. Some of us never will.
> 
> 
> 
> All fine and dandy, but what about those who have taken over the government, and while the nation is weak they want to transform it into something that no one else wants within a majority ? This is what happens in a vacum that has been created, wherefore we have those whom want to take advantage while they can now, even if it means destroying the nation in order to do so, and then rebuilding it afterwards, because they are willing to do it no matter what it takes. Talk about getting kicked when we are down, it's just so sad...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Founders were in agreement that the United States of America must be strong enough to repel those who would seek to attack and defeat us.  But, with few exceptions, they feared a too large, too powerful government as a threat to liberty; they did not fear a small government as a threat to liberty.
> 
> In a nutshell, modern American conservatiism allow just enough government to provide the common defense and allow for enough organiation and regulation so that the individual states can be one united nation without doing physical, economic, or environmental violence to each other.  And other than that, the federal government was to acknowledge and defend our unalienable rights and then leave us strictly alone so that we could form whatever sorts of societies we wish to have and live our lives as we choose.
> 
> Such a system allowed for broad diversity and choices of lifestyle and allowed people of widely differing religious beliefs, cultural preferences, and every other sort of society we can imagine to do their own thing.   Rights were recognized as anything that required no contribution or participation by any other.  The people, not the federal government, would decide what laws, regulation, or contracts would be involved in everything else.
> 
> Take all the conservatives out of the equation, and I think it would leave a deep void that would almost certainly be filled by some form of government even more authoritarian that present and completely self serving.  And the USA that the Founders gave us would be something far different from what it once was and/or is.
Click to expand...


"The Founders were in agreement that the United States of America must be strong enough to repel those who would seek to attack and defeat us.  But, with few exceptions, they feared a too large, too powerful government as a threat to liberty; they did not fear a small government as a threat to liberty."

History rewritten.

In truth the debate was between the Federalists and the anti-Federalists. The anti-Federalists wanted their state/colony to be more powerful than their neighbors, like in Europe, so argued for a federal government so weak that the states would be largely independent. The Federalists saw the state of Europe and argued that a strong Federal union of states would position us to hold our own against those countries. The one thing that they could agree on was a republic, no monarch, as they had experienced as colonies under King George the tyranny of royalty. 

The Federalists prevailed. Once the Constitution was written the issues between the two positions was diffused by ammending it with the Bill of Rights prohibiting legislation in certain specific areas of life. 

Nobody wanted weak government. The issue was strong state government vs strong federal government.


----------



## Circe

Bfgrn said:


> The changes I speak of did not happen over night. It was a slow death. I watched it happen, I am even guilty of helping it along.



Yes, I know what you mean. I feel terribly guilty about buying everything from Amazon, but I have hated shopping my whole life, and I love Internet shopping. I realize that the stores are collapsing all around us! 

And books: I buy mostly ebooks, and stream all video, or play DVDs, never go to movie theaters. We are certainly in a second coming of Gutenberg-level change. What big changes in society will it bring? Last time it brought the Protestant Reformation!

I would not do any of this if I didn't love the new opportunities, but the pace of change is so incredibly fast, as Jeremiah said. And accelerating. Nervous-making.


----------



## PMZ

Circe said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Business will fix what business broke. America's full employment. While they are doing that, goverment will keep those that business laid off afloat, so that the demand that business laid off with the workers, keeps business afloat.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you assert, but some of us are asserting that most of the jobs are gone now. And public education doesn't even properly educate the smart kids, and the stupid kids are functionally illiterate, so of course there are no jobs for them. So I'd say we may be stuck at high unemployment. But we'll see; you could still be right. Five percent is full employment, let's remember, that's the magic number.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Requires borrowing, but look how successful that borrowing has been as compared to Europe's austerity that you've been rooting for for the last five years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do you know that? I haven't BEEN here for five years. You just got here. NO ONE in the world has been "rooting" for European austerity for five years: the recession only started in 2008 and this is spring of 2013.
> 
> This is exaggeration, hyperbole. I think you are given to rather Paris Commune-style "J'accuse!" statements.
> 
> Back off.
Click to expand...


The Great Recession began in Dec of 2007, 5 1/2 years ago.


----------



## PMZ

Circe said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rights were recognized as anything that required no contribution or participation by any other.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I particularly like this definition! I want to remember it.
> 
> I don't like these so-called "rights" to health care, living expenses, college, etc., etc. that basically mean a welfare state, not really rights at all.
Click to expand...


How is an un-healthy country stronger or more competitive than a healthy one?


----------



## Circe

PMZ said:


> The Great Recession began in Dec of 2007, 5 1/2 years ago.



I can't agree: August 7, 2007, if you want to go that far back to the first phase. I remember it well, very scary at the time, then things seemed to calm down, and so many didn't really view the recession as starting till 2008. September 15, if I recall correctly, right before the election. Wow, that was dramatic. 



> Wikipedia: "The initial phase of the ongoing crisis, which manifested as a liquidity crisis, can be dated from August 7, 2007, when BNP Paribas, citing a "complete evaporation of liquidity," terminated withdrawals from three hedge funds.[6] The bursting of the U.S. housing bubble, which peaked in 2006,[7] caused the values of securities tied to U.S. real estate pricing to plummet, damaging financial institutions globally."


----------



## Circe

PMZ said:


> How is an un-healthy country stronger or more competitive than a healthy one?



It isn't, of course!

And as Europe has shown us dramatically, welfare states with "rights" defined as something everyone else has to provide the ne'er-do-wells and lazy people, these are very, very unhealthy countries.


----------



## PMZ

bear513 said:


> Wow one of my topics on the net makes over 500 comments? Thats weird they normaly die after five lol.. Good read guys and gals...thanks.



Re, your joke. We used to assume that the motivation for capitalism was to rise from poverty. Now you are assuming that poverty eliminates motivation. Sounds to me like an attempt to argue that the key to economic success is greater wealth inequality. Richer rich and poorer poor. Can you point out a country where greater inequality than ours has produced a stronger economy?


----------



## PMZ

Circe said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> How is an un-healthy country stronger or more competitive than a healthy one?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It isn't, of course!
> 
> And as Europe has shown us dramatically, welfare states with "rights" defined as something everyone else has to provide the ne'er-do-wells and lazy people, these are very, very unhealthy countries.
Click to expand...


Do you really want me to drag out the statistics on where the US stands in terms of health results compared to our competition?


----------



## PMZ

PMZ said:


> Circe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> How is an un-healthy country stronger or more competitive than a healthy one?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It isn't, of course!
> 
> And as Europe has shown us dramatically, welfare states with "rights" defined as something everyone else has to provide the ne'er-do-wells and lazy people, these are very, very unhealthy countries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you really want me to drag out the statistics on where the US stands in terms of health results compared to our competition?
Click to expand...


World Health Organization ranking of health systems - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1st in expenditures, 38th in results.


----------



## Circe

PMZ said:


> Do you really want me to drag out the statistics on where the US stands in terms of health results compared to our competition?



Who cares?

Health care is not a right! Nothing is a right that obliges other people to pay for it.

That's how rights work: Foxfyre was correct about that, IMO.

Let the loser-lazies shake their shanks and pay for their doctoring like everybody else has to.


----------



## PMZ

Circe said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you really want me to drag out the statistics on where the US stands in terms of health results compared to our competition?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who cares?
> 
> Health care is not a right! Nothing is a right that obliges other people to pay for it.
> 
> That's how rights work: Foxfyre was correct about that, IMO.
> 
> Let the loser-lazies shake their shanks and pay for their doctoring like everybody else has to.
Click to expand...


Is our global competitiveness a right?


----------



## Bfgrn

Foxfyre said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Business will fix what business broke. America's full employment. While they are doing that, goverment will keep those that business laid off afloat, so that the demand that business laid off with the workers, keeps business afloat.
> 
> Requires borrowing, but look how successful that borrowing has been as compared to Europe's austerity that you've been rooting for for the last five years.
> 
> Here's the danger. Business leaders will claim monumental rewards for fixing what they broke, when in truth, it was government that mitigated their disaster.
> 
> As all of this unfolds, Rush and Rupert will of course turn the volume up on what they are well paid to say, that all good comes from the wealthy, and all bad from the government. In fact as bad, they'll say, as Republicans are, Democrats are even worse.
> 
> We've heard it all before and even fell for it in 2000.
> 
> No more. Many of us learned from our mistakes. Some of us never will.
> 
> 
> 
> All fine and dandy, but what about those who have taken over the government, and while the nation is weak they want to transform it into something that no one else wants within a majority ? This is what happens in a vacum that has been created, wherefore we have those whom want to take advantage while they can now, even if it means destroying the nation in order to do so, and then rebuilding it afterwards, because they are willing to do it no matter what it takes. Talk about getting kicked when we are down, it's just so sad...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Founders were in agreement that the United States of America must be strong enough to repel those who would seek to attack and defeat us.  But, with few exceptions, they feared a too large, too powerful government as a threat to liberty; they did not fear a small government as a threat to liberty.
> 
> *In a nutshell, modern American conservatiism allow just enough government to provide the common defense and allow for enough organiation and regulation so that the individual states can be one united nation without doing physical, economic, or environmental violence to each other. * And other than that, the federal government was to acknowledge and defend our unalienable rights and then leave us strictly alone so that we could form whatever sorts of societies we wish to have and live our lives as we choose.
> 
> Such a system allowed for broad diversity and choices of lifestyle and allowed people of widely differing religious beliefs, cultural preferences, and every other sort of society we can imagine to do their own thing.   Rights were recognized as anything that required no contribution or participation by any other.  The people, not the federal government, would decide what laws, regulation, or contracts would be involved in everything else.
> 
> Take all the conservatives out of the equation, and I think it would leave a deep void that would almost certainly be filled by some form of government even more authoritarian that present and completely self serving.  And the USA that the Founders gave us would be something far different from what it once was and/or is.
Click to expand...


In a nut shell FF? Really? Then why have conservatives fought tooth and nail to stop the EPA from forcing coal burning power plants to install pollution controls and scrubbers to meet a law that is over 10 years old? These coal burning plants that are not in compliance are causing 'physical, economic, or environmental violence'

Why have conservative leaders in the House of Representatives pushed through an astonishing 191 votes to weaken environmental protections?

Why have conservative Senators Vitter and Inhofe undermined the EPA review of its assessment of the health risks of formaldehyde? The EPA still lists formaldehyde as a "probable" rather than a "known" carcinogen, even though three major scientific reviews now link it to leukemia and have strengthened its ties to other forms of cancer. 

Are conservatives Vitter and Inhofe fighting this because the chemical industry is fighting to avoid that designation, because it could lead to tighter regulations and require costly pollution controls.

Delay means money. The longer they can delay labeling something a known carcinogen, the more money they can make?

Why is it every time I read your self righteous posts, I have the same sour feeling in my stomach?


----------



## Foxfyre

And so many of our fellow memers here still can't discuss a concept and are interested in nothing other than accusing, insulting, or demonizing, or criticizing something or somebody.

As for the EPA, it was Richard Nixon, one of those eeeeeeevul conservatives, who signed it into law as well as a lot of other landmark legislation.  There has been no President in our history, with the possible exception of Teddy Roosevelt, who has been as effective in legislative focus on the environment.  But thousands of businesses can now testify to the overreach of most areas of government as time has marched on--and environmental overrreach has been excessively damaging to the economy and has eroded individual liberties.

No conservative wants anybody to have easy ability or or any right to commit environmental violence on others and no conservative wants dirty air, water, or polluted soil/food supply/environment any more than anybody else wants that

Conservatism is all about protecting unalienable rights which never include infringing somebody else's rights.   But a government unchecked in size, power, and scope becomes blind to unalienable right and too often goes way beyond common sense in what rules and regs need to exist.   Conservatives will push back on an overly and unnecessarily authoritarian government and realize noble sounding titles on legislation does not necessarily mean that the legislation itself is noble.

Liberals of course won't often recognize that good government rather than overreaching government is the conservative's motive and will refuse to look at whether the push back has justifications.  If there is something related to 'environmental' in the rules and regs, liberals just assume it is a good thing and any effort to remove it is an effort to allow environmental violence.


----------



## Foxfyre

So going back to the OP, if all the conservatives leave, there wont be anybody to push back on government overreach.  There won't be anybody to challenge encroachment on individual liberties and unalienable rights.  Government will be free to expand, grow, and feed on the people at a much greater rate than it already is until it swallows everything up and is free to do whatever it wants to anybody it wants.

I suspect at that point, even American liberals will realize how ugly and miserable that will be.  But it will be too late.  They will be servants of the government and allowed only what government decides they will be allowed.  And anybody who steps out of line can expect severe consequences as there will be no unalienable rights and no individual liberties.


----------



## PMZ

Foxfyre said:


> And so many of our fellow memers here still can't discuss a concept and are interested in nothing other than accusing, insulting, or demonizing, or criticizing something or somebody.
> 
> As for the EPA, it was Richard Nixon, one of those eeeeeeevul conservatives, who signed it into law as well as a lot of other landmark legislation.  There has been no President in our history, with the possible exception of Teddy Roosevelt, who has been as effective in legislative focus on the environment.  But thousands of businesses can now testify to the overreach of most areas of government as time has marched on--and environmental overrreach has been excessively damaging to the economy and has eroded individual liberties.
> 
> No conservative wants anybody to have easy ability or or any right to commit environmental violence on others and no conservative wants dirty air, water, or polluted soil/food supply/environment any more than anybody else wants that
> 
> Conservatism is all about protecting unalienable rights which never include infringing somebody else's rights.   But a government unchecked in size, power, and scope becomes blind to unalienable right and too often goes way beyond common sense in what rules and regs need to exist.   Conservatives will push back on an overly and unnecessarily authoritarian government and realize noble sounding titles on legislation does not necessarily mean that the legislation itself is noble.
> 
> Liberals of course won't often recognize that good government rather than overreaching government is the conservative's motive and will refuse to look at whether the push back has justifications.  If there is something related to 'environmental' in the rules and regs, liberals just assume it is a good thing and any effort to remove it is an effort to allow environmental violence.



"Conservatism is all about protecting unalienable rights which never include infringing somebody else's rights."

Nearly all laws are to prevent people from infringing on the lives of others. Like murdering them, stealing from them, recklessly endangering them, etc. The Bill of Rights identifies a handful of very specific rights that government is prohibited from regulating. What you are describing as conservatism is really anarchy. That individuals are free to do whatever they wants to whoever they want. That always leads to chaos.


----------



## PMZ

Foxfyre said:


> So going back to the OP, if all the conservatives leave, there wont be anybody to push back on government overreach.  There won't be anybody to challenge encroachment on individual liberties and unalienable rights.  Government will be free to expand, grow, and feed on the people at a much greater rate than it already is until it swallows everything up and is free to do whatever it wants to anybody it wants.
> 
> I suspect at that point, even American liberals will realize how ugly and miserable that will be.  But it will be too late.  They will be servants of the government and allowed only what government decides they will be allowed.  And anybody who steps out of line can expect severe consequences as there will be no unalienable rights and no individual liberties.



As long as we have the Constitution and democracy we'll be fine, as we were before the discovery of extremism as a high profit media product 25 years ago.


----------



## Bfgrn

Foxfyre said:


> And so many of our fellow memers here still can't discuss a concept and are interested in nothing other than accusing, insulting, or demonizing, or criticizing something or somebody.
> 
> As for the EPA, it was Richard Nixon, one of those eeeeeeevul conservatives, who signed it into law as well as a lot of other landmark legislation.  There has been no President in our history, with the possible exception of Teddy Roosevelt, who has been as effective in legislative focus on the environment.  But thousands of businesses can now testify to the overreach of most areas of government as time has marched on--and environmental overrreach has been excessively damaging to the economy and has eroded individual liberties.
> 
> No conservative wants anybody to have easy ability or or any right to commit environmental violence on others and no conservative wants dirty air, water, or polluted soil/food supply/environment any more than anybody else wants that
> 
> Conservatism is all about protecting unalienable rights which never include infringing somebody else's rights.   But a government unchecked in size, power, and scope becomes blind to unalienable right and too often goes way beyond common sense in what rules and regs need to exist.   Conservatives will push back on an overly and unnecessarily authoritarian government and realize noble sounding titles on legislation does not necessarily mean that the legislation itself is noble.
> 
> Liberals of course won't often recognize that good government rather than overreaching government is the conservative's motive and will refuse to look at whether the push back has justifications.  If there is something related to 'environmental' in the rules and regs, liberals just assume it is a good thing and any effort to remove it is an effort to allow environmental violence.



"It is the job of thinking people not to be on the side of the executioners"
Albert Camus

Foxfyre: "no conservative wants dirty air, water, or polluted soil/food supply/environment any more than anybody else wants that"

Really FF? Such a nice self righteous diatribe, but you ignored my questions FF.

You know, I remember seeing a forum on C-Span with Presidential speechwriters. One of my favorite people, the late Ted Sorensen who was President Kennedy's speechwriter and special counsel to the president was on the panel. So was Peggy Noonan (Reagan). One of the students asked the panel the difference between Democrats and Republicans. Noonan went first. She went off on a very similar self righteous diatribe for minutes with all the polemic flourishes.

Ted Sorensen in his typical word thrifty, to the point, Unitarian style answered with one sentence: "Republicans care more about property, Democrats care more about people" 

I am sure Peggy Noonan felt like Edward Everett, who delivered a two-hour Oration before Lincoln's Gettysburg Address.

If 'no conservative wants dirty air, water, or polluted soil/food supply/environment', why are Republicans trying to scrap EPA coal plant regulations?






Burning coal is a leading cause of smog, acid rain, and toxic air pollution. Some emissions can be significantly reduced with readily available pollution controls, but most U.S. coal plants have not installed these technologies.

Burning coal creates harmful pollution

The process of burning coal releases chemicals into the atmosphere that threaten not only the air Americans breathe, but the water they drink, the soil they live on and the food they eat. EPA classifies many of these chemicals as hazardous air pollutants or air toxics, a category that means they are known or reasonably expected to harm human health or the environment or both.

Hazardous air pollutants from coal-fired power plants include:
 Acid gases, such as hydrogen chloride and hydrogen fluoride;
 Benzene, toluene and other compounds;
 Dioxins and furans;
 Formaldehyde;
 Lead, arsenic, and other metals;
 Mercury;
 Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH); and
 Radioactive materials, like radium and uranium.2,3

Researchers have found these toxic emissions cause a dangerous array of harm to human health as shown in Table 1.3 These emissions can make breathing difficult and can worsen asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, bronchitis and other lung diseases. These pollutants can cause heart attacks and strokes, lung cancer and other cancers, birth defects and premature death.

These pollutants threaten essential life systems. Acid gases are corrosive and can irritate and burn the eyes, skin, and breathing passages. Long term exposures to metals have the potential to harm the kidneys, lungs, and nervous system. Exposures to a handful of the metals and dioxins in coal-fired power plant emissions increase the risk of cancer. Specific forms of arsenic, beryllium, chromium, and nickel have been shown to cause cancer in both human and animal studies. Table 1 also identifies those pollutants that have long-term impacts on the environment because they accumulate in soil, water and fish.3

Coal-fired power plants supplying electricity to the grid are the biggest emitters of airborne mercury among all industrial sources. The pair of maps on page 4 shows the locations of coal-fired power plants and how they can lead to high mercury levels in the local and regional areas.4,5 Mercury is associated with damage to the kidneys, liver, brain, nervous system and can cause birth defects


----------



## Circe

> Ted Sorensen in his typical word thrifty, to the point, Unitarian style answered with one sentence: "Republicans care more about property, Democrats care more about people"



[  Cute story.


----------



## Bfgrn

Circe said:


> Ted Sorensen in his typical word thrifty, to the point, Unitarian style answered with one sentence: "Republicans care more about property, Democrats care more about people"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [  Cute story.
Click to expand...


Ted Sorensen was the closest thing to being able to hear what President Kennedy would have to say if he were alive. Ted was such a pleasure to listen to. 

"I think Ted became the most important adviser and on balance, I think he was the best of the brightest and best," said Harris Wofford, a former US senator from Pennsylvania who had served as an adviser to Kennedy. "He also knew what John Kennedy thought. They had an extraordinary relationship. It would be hard to know where one persons thoughts ended and the other began."

Officially, Ted Sorensen was special counsel to the president, a role he reprised with Lyndon B. Johnson. Mr. Sorensen worked so closely with Jack Kennedy, however, that he became widely regarded as the president's alter ego, liberal conscience, and intellectual confidante. Kennedy sought Mr. Sorensen's counsel at every key juncture, from campaigning for the White House to guiding the country through perilous times such as the Bay of Pigs invasion and the Cuban missile crisis.

By Mr. Sorensen's description, the two were as one as they drafted turns of phrase Kennedy made famous. Scholars in decades since have parsed sentences and scoured records while trying to deduce who wrote which words. With a grace born of his Midwestern roots, Mr. Sorensen always tipped the spotlight toward Kennedy, casting himself in the role of artist's apprentice who assisted the master "in the execution of the final work of art."

Not yet 25 in January 1953 when Kennedy, then a US senator, hired him as an assistant, Mr. Sorensen had arrived in Washington, D.C., a year and a half earlier, fresh from law school and a life lived almost entirely in Lincoln, Neb.

The two seemed drawn together, rather than pushed apart, by their distinct differences. Mr. Sorensen was a pacifist who had registered as a conscientious objector. His father was a progressive Republican who had served as Nebraska's attorney general.

When Kennedy interviewed Mr. Sorensen for the job, "I was struck by this unpretentious, even ordinary man with his extraordinary background, a wealthy family, a Harvard education, and a heroic war record," he wrote in his 2008 memoir. "He did not try to impress me with his importance; he just seemed like a good guy."

Their friendship deepened over the next 11 years until Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas. The pain was of that November day was still fresh when Mr. Sorensen wrote in his memoir about the emotionally wrenching hours in Washington after he was told the president had been shot. "Deep in my soul," he wrote, "I have not stopped weeping, whenever those events are recalled."

Mr. Sorensen stayed in the White House for the beginning of the Johnson administration. He left in 1964 and two years later joined the New York law firm Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, where he became a senior partner and still kept an office in retirement.

Never far from politics, he advised Robert Kennedy during his 1968 presidential campaign until he, too, was assassinated.

"I do not know whether I have ever fully recovered from John F. Kennedy's death," Mr. Sorensen wrote. "Time passed. Love and laughter helped. But the deep sadness of that time remained, only to be reinforced five years later by the murder of his brother Robert. Those two senseless tragedies robbed me of my future."

Ted Sorensen, speechwriter for JFK, dead at age 82


----------



## Foxfyre

Conservatives are not advocating anarchy in any sense of the word.  Conservatives advocate recognition and security of unalienable rights for all and support rule of law that secures those rights and anarchy is antithesis of recognition of both.

But then so is liberalism that would have government require some to participate in and/or contribute to the 'rights' of others in a way that benefits some and incurs cost for others.

Conservatism is neither anarchy nor is it the kind of modern American liberalism that empowers government with ability to overreach its assigned constitutional authority.

Take the conservatives out of the equation and you will have either anarchy or modern American liberalism to the extreme.  And I am fairly certain that none of you would enjoy either situation.


----------



## PMZ

Foxfyre said:


> And so many of our fellow memers here still can't discuss a concept and are interested in nothing other than accusing, insulting, or demonizing, or criticizing something or somebody.
> 
> As for the EPA, it was Richard Nixon, one of those eeeeeeevul conservatives, who signed it into law as well as a lot of other landmark legislation.  There has been no President in our history, with the possible exception of Teddy Roosevelt, who has been as effective in legislative focus on the environment.  But thousands of businesses can now testify to the overreach of most areas of government as time has marched on--and environmental overrreach has been excessively damaging to the economy and has eroded individual liberties.
> 
> No conservative wants anybody to have easy ability or or any right to commit environmental violence on others and no conservative wants dirty air, water, or polluted soil/food supply/environment any more than anybody else wants that
> 
> Conservatism is all about protecting unalienable rights which never include infringing somebody else's rights.   But a government unchecked in size, power, and scope becomes blind to unalienable right and too often goes way beyond common sense in what rules and regs need to exist.   Conservatives will push back on an overly and unnecessarily authoritarian government and realize noble sounding titles on legislation does not necessarily mean that the legislation itself is noble.
> 
> Liberals of course won't often recognize that good government rather than overreaching government is the conservative's motive and will refuse to look at whether the push back has justifications.  If there is something related to 'environmental' in the rules and regs, liberals just assume it is a good thing and any effort to remove it is an effort to allow environmental violence.



You like to claim "conservatism" as benign, but "Conservatism is all about protecting unalienable rights which never include infringing somebody else's rights" is anything but. To me it says protecting your rights but not mine. Which is even worse than anarchy, it's tyranny. If you are allowed to infringe my rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, things revert quickly back to the guy with the biggest club rules the neighborhood. Sort of like urban gangland.


----------



## Circe

PMZ said:


> You like to claim "conservatism" as benign, but "Conservatism is all about protecting unalienable rights which never include infringing somebody else's rights" is anything but. To me it says protecting your rights but not mine. Which is even worse than anarchy, it's tyranny. If you are allowed to infringe my rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, things revert quickly back to the guy with the biggest club rules the neighborhood. Sort of like urban gangland.




You want control, control, control of everyone else, don't you?

We're not going to let you do that, I hope.


You don't control us, we don't control you. That's how conservatism should work.


----------



## JohnL.Burke

PMZ said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> And so many of our fellow memers here still can't discuss a concept and are interested in nothing other than accusing, insulting, or demonizing, or criticizing something or somebody.
> 
> As for the EPA, it was Richard Nixon, one of those eeeeeeevul conservatives, who signed it into law as well as a lot of other landmark legislation.  There has been no President in our history, with the possible exception of Teddy Roosevelt, who has been as effective in legislative focus on the environment.  But thousands of businesses can now testify to the overreach of most areas of government as time has marched on--and environmental overrreach has been excessively damaging to the economy and has eroded individual liberties.
> 
> No conservative wants anybody to have easy ability or or any right to commit environmental violence on others and no conservative wants dirty air, water, or polluted soil/food supply/environment any more than anybody else wants that
> 
> Conservatism is all about protecting unalienable rights which never include infringing somebody else's rights.   But a government unchecked in size, power, and scope becomes blind to unalienable right and too often goes way beyond common sense in what rules and regs need to exist.   Conservatives will push back on an overly and unnecessarily authoritarian government and realize noble sounding titles on legislation does not necessarily mean that the legislation itself is noble.
> 
> Liberals of course won't often recognize that good government rather than overreaching government is the conservative's motive and will refuse to look at whether the push back has justifications.  If there is something related to 'environmental' in the rules and regs, liberals just assume it is a good thing and any effort to remove it is an effort to allow environmental violence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You like to claim "conservatism" as benign, but "Conservatism is all about protecting unalienable rights which never include infringing somebody else's rights" is anything but. To me it says protecting your rights but not mine. Which is even worse than anarchy, it's tyranny. If you are allowed to infringe my rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, things revert quickly back to the guy with the biggest club rules the neighborhood. Sort of like urban gangland.
Click to expand...


You are fine when "the guy with the biggest club" is the government, however. Conservatism in anathema to tyranny. Conservatives want a smaller government so more people have a say in their future and opportunities. This is not to say conservatives want no government.  Government has its place. However, conservatives don't believe the government has a place in our private lives, bedrooms, churches and thought process. Tyranny, in the last hundred years, has always derived from a liberal agenda that requires a large government to carry "the biggest club". 
 I find it humorous that you compare conservatives to an urban gangland. Urban ganglands are derived from liberal policies implemented in inner cities, inner city schools, and a corrupt and inefficient welfare state.


----------



## Foxfyre

JohnL.Burke said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> And so many of our fellow memers here still can't discuss a concept and are interested in nothing other than accusing, insulting, or demonizing, or criticizing something or somebody.
> 
> As for the EPA, it was Richard Nixon, one of those eeeeeeevul conservatives, who signed it into law as well as a lot of other landmark legislation.  There has been no President in our history, with the possible exception of Teddy Roosevelt, who has been as effective in legislative focus on the environment.  But thousands of businesses can now testify to the overreach of most areas of government as time has marched on--and environmental overrreach has been excessively damaging to the economy and has eroded individual liberties.
> 
> No conservative wants anybody to have easy ability or or any right to commit environmental violence on others and no conservative wants dirty air, water, or polluted soil/food supply/environment any more than anybody else wants that
> 
> Conservatism is all about protecting unalienable rights which never include infringing somebody else's rights.   But a government unchecked in size, power, and scope becomes blind to unalienable right and too often goes way beyond common sense in what rules and regs need to exist.   Conservatives will push back on an overly and unnecessarily authoritarian government and realize noble sounding titles on legislation does not necessarily mean that the legislation itself is noble.
> 
> Liberals of course won't often recognize that good government rather than overreaching government is the conservative's motive and will refuse to look at whether the push back has justifications.  If there is something related to 'environmental' in the rules and regs, liberals just assume it is a good thing and any effort to remove it is an effort to allow environmental violence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You like to claim "conservatism" as benign, but "Conservatism is all about protecting unalienable rights which never include infringing somebody else's rights" is anything but. To me it says protecting your rights but not mine. Which is even worse than anarchy, it's tyranny. If you are allowed to infringe my rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, things revert quickly back to the guy with the biggest club rules the neighborhood. Sort of like urban gangland.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are fine when "the guy with the biggest club" is the government, however. Conservatism in anathema to tyranny. Conservatives want a smaller government so more people have a say in their future and opportunities. This is not to say conservatives want no government.  Government has its place. However, conservatives don't believe the government has a place in our private lives, bedrooms, churches and thought process. Tyranny, in the last hundred years, has always derived from a liberal agenda that requires a large government to carry "the biggest club".
> I find it humorous that you compare conservatives to an urban gangland. Urban ganglands are derived from liberal policies implemented in inner cities, inner city schools, and a corrupt and inefficient welfare state.
Click to expand...


But you see, they cannot articulate a defense for liberalism given the dismal results of it after it has been in operation for awhile.  But they are so emotionally invested in it, they have to protect it and the only way they know to do that is to attack conservatives and conservatism however dishonest they have to be to do that.  They distort or change our words, put words in our mouths, misrepresent what we do, and demonize us with whatever they have to distort or characterize or make up to do that.

And don't expect them to actually debate the concept or even repeat it back to us accurately.  There is apparently something in the water they drink that prevents them from having the ability to do that.


----------



## Bfgrn

JohnL.Burke said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> And so many of our fellow memers here still can't discuss a concept and are interested in nothing other than accusing, insulting, or demonizing, or criticizing something or somebody.
> 
> As for the EPA, it was Richard Nixon, one of those eeeeeeevul conservatives, who signed it into law as well as a lot of other landmark legislation.  There has been no President in our history, with the possible exception of Teddy Roosevelt, who has been as effective in legislative focus on the environment.  But thousands of businesses can now testify to the overreach of most areas of government as time has marched on--and environmental overrreach has been excessively damaging to the economy and has eroded individual liberties.
> 
> No conservative wants anybody to have easy ability or or any right to commit environmental violence on others and no conservative wants dirty air, water, or polluted soil/food supply/environment any more than anybody else wants that
> 
> Conservatism is all about protecting unalienable rights which never include infringing somebody else's rights.   But a government unchecked in size, power, and scope becomes blind to unalienable right and too often goes way beyond common sense in what rules and regs need to exist.   Conservatives will push back on an overly and unnecessarily authoritarian government and realize noble sounding titles on legislation does not necessarily mean that the legislation itself is noble.
> 
> Liberals of course won't often recognize that good government rather than overreaching government is the conservative's motive and will refuse to look at whether the push back has justifications.  If there is something related to 'environmental' in the rules and regs, liberals just assume it is a good thing and any effort to remove it is an effort to allow environmental violence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You like to claim "conservatism" as benign, but "Conservatism is all about protecting unalienable rights which never include infringing somebody else's rights" is anything but. To me it says protecting your rights but not mine. Which is even worse than anarchy, it's tyranny. If you are allowed to infringe my rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, things revert quickly back to the guy with the biggest club rules the neighborhood. Sort of like urban gangland.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are fine when "the guy with the biggest club" is the government, however. Conservatism in anathema to tyranny. Conservatives want a smaller government so more people have a say in their future and opportunities. This is not to say conservatives want no government.  Government has its place. However, conservatives don't believe the government has a place in our private lives, bedrooms, churches and thought process. Tyranny, in the last hundred years, has always derived from a liberal agenda that requires a large government to carry "the biggest club".
> I find it humorous that you compare conservatives to an urban gangland. Urban ganglands are derived from liberal policies implemented in inner cities, inner city schools, and a corrupt and inefficient welfare state.
Click to expand...


"conservatives don't believe the government has a place in our private lives, bedrooms, churches", just as long as a women's uterus is the property of the state, poor people pee in a cup so government can test it, and Christianity and creationism is taught in schools.


----------



## JohnL.Burke

Foxfyre said:


> JohnL.Burke said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> You like to claim "conservatism" as benign, but "Conservatism is all about protecting unalienable rights which never include infringing somebody else's rights" is anything but. To me it says protecting your rights but not mine. Which is even worse than anarchy, it's tyranny. If you are allowed to infringe my rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, things revert quickly back to the guy with the biggest club rules the neighborhood. Sort of like urban gangland.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are fine when "the guy with the biggest club" is the government, however. Conservatism in anathema to tyranny. Conservatives want a smaller government so more people have a say in their future and opportunities. This is not to say conservatives want no government.  Government has its place. However, conservatives don't believe the government has a place in our private lives, bedrooms, churches and thought process. Tyranny, in the last hundred years, has always derived from a liberal agenda that requires a large government to carry "the biggest club".
> I find it humorous that you compare conservatives to an urban gangland. Urban ganglands are derived from liberal policies implemented in inner cities, inner city schools, and a corrupt and inefficient welfare state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you see, they cannot articulate a defense for liberalism given the dismal results of it after it has been in operation for awhile.  But they are so emotionally invested in it, they have to protect it and the only way they know to do that is to attack conservatives and conservatism however dishonest they have to be to do that.  They distort or change our words, put words in our mouths, misrepresent what we do, and demonize us with whatever they have to distort or characterize or make up to do that.
> 
> And don't expect them to actually debate the concept or even repeat it back to us accurately.  There is apparently something in the water they drink that prevents them from having the ability to do that.
Click to expand...


 Liberalism is a type of religion based on faith as opposed to historical reference and analytical analysis. It is emotion and a knee jerk reaction as opposed to common sense and a protection of rights. Liberalism focuses on rhetoric as opposed to results. So far, all liberalism has accomplished is genocide,poverty and fascistic governments. For liberalism to work, it must create a government big enough to subvert the will of the people by any means necessary.


----------



## JohnL.Burke

Bfgrn said:


> JohnL.Burke said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> You like to claim "conservatism" as benign, but "Conservatism is all about protecting unalienable rights which never include infringing somebody else's rights" is anything but. To me it says protecting your rights but not mine. Which is even worse than anarchy, it's tyranny. If you are allowed to infringe my rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, things revert quickly back to the guy with the biggest club rules the neighborhood. Sort of like urban gangland.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are fine when "the guy with the biggest club" is the government, however. Conservatism in anathema to tyranny. Conservatives want a smaller government so more people have a say in their future and opportunities. This is not to say conservatives want no government.  Government has its place. However, conservatives don't believe the government has a place in our private lives, bedrooms, churches and thought process. Tyranny, in the last hundred years, has always derived from a liberal agenda that requires a large government to carry "the biggest club".
> I find it humorous that you compare conservatives to an urban gangland. Urban ganglands are derived from liberal policies implemented in inner cities, inner city schools, and a corrupt and inefficient welfare state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "conservatives don't believe the government has a place in our private lives, bedrooms, churches", just as long as a women's uterus is the property of the state, poor people pee in a cup so government can test it, and Christianity and creationism is taught in schools.
Click to expand...


 When the government is in charge of "free" contraception then the government is already in charge of women"s uteruses. Liberalism wants to be in charge of everything. Otherwise liberalism would die. Liberalism, by its very nature, despises the will of the people. Obamacare being only one example.


----------



## Foxfyre

Bfgrn said:


> JohnL.Burke said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> You like to claim "conservatism" as benign, but "Conservatism is all about protecting unalienable rights which never include infringing somebody else's rights" is anything but. To me it says protecting your rights but not mine. Which is even worse than anarchy, it's tyranny. If you are allowed to infringe my rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, things revert quickly back to the guy with the biggest club rules the neighborhood. Sort of like urban gangland.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are fine when "the guy with the biggest club" is the government, however. Conservatism in anathema to tyranny. Conservatives want a smaller government so more people have a say in their future and opportunities. This is not to say conservatives want no government.  Government has its place. However, conservatives don't believe the government has a place in our private lives, bedrooms, churches and thought process. Tyranny, in the last hundred years, has always derived from a liberal agenda that requires a large government to carry "the biggest club".
> I find it humorous that you compare conservatives to an urban gangland. Urban ganglands are derived from liberal policies implemented in inner cities, inner city schools, and a corrupt and inefficient welfare state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "conservatives don't believe the government has a place in our private lives, bedrooms, churches", just as long as a women's uterus is the property of the state, poor people pee in a cup so government can test it, and Christianity and creationism is taught in schools.
Click to expand...


Conservatives have no interest in a woman's uterus unless they are in an intimate relationship with the woman who owns it or it is their own.  They just don't want to be obligated to pay for the consequences of how women use their uteruses.  Just leave us out of your business please.   And don't bring up the issues of abortion.  Conservatives will likely have a personal interest in that but don't assign it to the federal government to decide.

Conservatives have no interest in the pee of poor people.  But those who expect conservatives to support them should have to demonstrate that they are truly needy and are using the benefits to provide necessities to themselves and their children. Conservatives understand and acknowledge that a huge percentage of children being raised in poverty and a huge percentage of children being poorly parented and neglected are being raised by parents stoned or zoned out on illegal substances.  Conservatives don't see it as compassion to continue subsidizing that.   Do YOU think it is compassionate to subsidize that?

Conservatives believe in liberty and individual conscience so long as one person does not infringe on the rights of another.   So if conservatives don't want creationsm and Christianity taught in the schools, they believe in the right of the community to choose that option.  But likewise those communities who do want creationism and Christianity taught in their schools should also have that right.   Or Atheism.  Or Buddhism.  Or Judaism.   Or any other philosophy.   When the federal government has the power to tell us what we can and cannot teach our children, we have no liberty at all.


----------



## Bfgrn

JohnL.Burke said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JohnL.Burke said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are fine when "the guy with the biggest club" is the government, however. Conservatism in anathema to tyranny. Conservatives want a smaller government so more people have a say in their future and opportunities. This is not to say conservatives want no government.  Government has its place. However, conservatives don't believe the government has a place in our private lives, bedrooms, churches and thought process. Tyranny, in the last hundred years, has always derived from a liberal agenda that requires a large government to carry "the biggest club".
> I find it humorous that you compare conservatives to an urban gangland. Urban ganglands are derived from liberal policies implemented in inner cities, inner city schools, and a corrupt and inefficient welfare state.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But you see, they cannot articulate a defense for liberalism given the dismal results of it after it has been in operation for awhile.  But they are so emotionally invested in it, they have to protect it and the only way they know to do that is to attack conservatives and conservatism however dishonest they have to be to do that.  They distort or change our words, put words in our mouths, misrepresent what we do, and demonize us with whatever they have to distort or characterize or make up to do that.
> 
> And don't expect them to actually debate the concept or even repeat it back to us accurately.  There is apparently something in the water they drink that prevents them from having the ability to do that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Liberalism is a type of religion based on faith as opposed to historical reference and analytical analysis. It is emotion and a knee jerk reaction as opposed to common sense and a protection of rights. Liberalism focuses on rhetoric as opposed to results. So far, all liberalism has accomplished is genocide,poverty and fascistic governments. For liberalism to work, it must create a government big enough to subvert the will of the people by any means necessary.
Click to expand...


Liberalism is trust of the people, tempered by prudence; conservatism, distrust of people, tempered by fear.
William E. Gladstone

You couldn't be any further from the truth. There is a plethora of studies on personality types, liberal, and conservative. But what all these modern studies prove was already common knowledge from common sense observation and understanding how emotions manifest in human behavior a century ago. The core of conservatism is the strongest of all human emotion...FEAR. It explains why conservatives cling to guns and Bibles. It is why conservatives fear minorities and create monster like grime reaper images in their minds.

Conservatives have NEVER given us less government. Even when they controlled both houses of Congress and the White House for almost a decade. The conservative idea of less government, is less regulations on polluters, Wall Street crooks and any of the opulent and CEO's conservatives worship. Conservatives equate wealth with morality. 

Q: What is conservatism?
A: Conservatism is the domination of society by an aristocracy.

When you understand this and view their words, ask the question; will this lead to some form of an aristocracy?

The answer is always YES...

Conservatism is incompatible with democracy, prosperity, and civilization in general. It is a destructive system of inequality and prejudice that is founded on deception and has no place in the modern world. 

These ideas are not new. Indeed they were common sense until recently. Nowadays, though, most of the people who call themselves "conservatives" have little notion of what conservatism even is. They have been deceived by one of the great public relations campaigns of human history. Only by analyzing this deception will it become possible to revive democracy in the United States.

The Main Arguments of Conservatism

From the pharaohs of ancient Egypt to the self-regarding thugs of ancient Rome to the glorified warlords of medieval and absolutist Europe, in nearly every urbanized society throughout human history, there have been people who have tried to constitute themselves as an aristocracy. These people and their allies are the conservatives.

The tactics of conservatism vary widely by place and time. But the most central feature of conservatism is deference: a psychologically internalized attitude on the part of the common people that the aristocracy are better people than they are. Modern-day liberals often theorize that conservatives use "social issues" as a way to mask economic objectives, but this is almost backward: the true goal of conservatism is to establish an aristocracy, which is a social and psychological condition of inequality. Economic inequality and regressive taxation, while certainly welcomed by the aristocracy, are best understood as a means to their actual goal, which is simply to be aristocrats. More generally, it is crucial to conservatism that the people must literally love the order that dominates them. Of course this notion sounds bizarre to modern ears, but it is perfectly overt in the writings of leading conservative theorists such as Burke. Democracy, for them, is not about the mechanisms of voting and office-holding. In fact conservatives hold a wide variety of opinions about such secondary formal matters. For conservatives, rather, democracy is a psychological condition. People who believe that the aristocracy rightfully dominates society because of its intrinsic superiority are conservatives; democrats, by contrast, believe that they are of equal social worth. Conservatism is the antithesis of democracy. This has been true for thousands of years.

The defenders of aristocracy represent aristocracy as a natural phenomenon, but in reality it is the most artificial thing on earth. Although one of the goals of every aristocracy is to make its preferred social order seem permanent and timeless, in reality conservatism must be reinvented in every generation. This is true for many reasons, including internal conflicts among the aristocrats; institutional shifts due to climate, markets, or warfare; and ideological gains and losses in the perpetual struggle against democracy. In some societies the aristocracy is rigid, closed, and stratified, while in others it is more of an aspiration among various fluid and factionalized groups. The situation in the United States right now is toward the latter end of the spectrum. A main goal in life of all aristocrats, however, is to pass on their positions of privilege to their children, and many of the aspiring aristocrats of the United States are appointing their children to positions in government and in the archipelago of think tanks that promote conservative theories.

Conservatism in every place and time is founded on deception. The deceptions of conservatism today are especially sophisticated, simply because culture today is sufficiently democratic that the myths of earlier times will no longer suffice.


----------



## JohnL.Burke

Wow! That was just ridiculous!


----------



## Circe

Well, I sort of liked it. It's fully 225 years out of date, but I've been studying the French Revolution so "Down with the aristos!" feels familiar and homey.


----------



## Bfgrn

Circe said:


> Well, I sort of liked it. It's fully 225 years out of date, but I've been studying the French Revolution so "Down with the aristos!" feels familiar and homey.



Read the whole article. There is current information. 

But try this litmus test when you are listening to conservatives. When have they ever stood up for the little guy over the big guy, the poor over the rich, the minority over whites, or women's equality?

When you understand what conservatism is, every argument they make leads to the same end.

Q: What is conservatism?
A: Conservatism is the domination of society by an aristocracy.

When you understand this and view their words, ask the question; will this lead to some form of an aristocracy?

The answer is always YES...


Liberalism is trust of the people, tempered by prudence; conservatism, distrust of people, tempered by fear.
William E. Gladstone


----------



## Circe

Bfgrn said:


> When you understand what conservatism is, every argument they make leads to the same end.
> 
> Q: What is conservatism?
> A: Conservatism is the domination of society by an aristocracy.
> 
> When you understand this and view their words, ask the question; will this lead to some form of an aristocracy?




Yes! That's what Robespierre said! And Hebert, and Danton, and especially the murderous Marat.......

Probably these ideas need to be a little updated as of 2013, however.


----------



## Foxfyre

Circe said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The changes I speak of did not happen over night. It was a slow death. I watched it happen, I am even guilty of helping it along.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I know what you mean. I feel terribly guilty about buying everything from Amazon, but I have hated shopping my whole life, and I love Internet shopping. I realize that the stores are collapsing all around us!
> 
> And books: I buy mostly ebooks, and stream all video, or play DVDs, never go to movie theaters. We are certainly in a second coming of Gutenberg-level change. What big changes in society will it bring? Last time it brought the Protestant Reformation!
> 
> I would not do any of this if I didn't love the new opportunities, but the pace of change is so incredibly fast, as Jeremiah said. And accelerating. Nervous-making.
Click to expand...


Yes change begets more change and it is accelerating all the time.  We have acquired more new products and technology in the last 50 years than probably in the rest of the history of the world.  And those who are unable to adapt and capitalize on the trends and new innovations get left in the dust.

Think how demoralizing it must have been to the wagon and buggy manufacturers as the automobile began consuming almost all of the personal transportation market.  Ironically most of the first automobiles were electric but they quickly gave way to internal combustion engines at that technology improve and became more practical.

And yet we still have buggy and wagon manufacturers but now they build their products for show, for pleasure, for nostalgia and don't pretend that they are still in the transportation business.

Likewise those stores and shops that will survive will offer products for those who want to see what they are buying up close and personal, will feature superior customer service and atmosphere that the internet cannot provide, but most are also broadly expanding their internet services to accommodate those who prefer to shop that way.

Conservatism has always included a strong confidence in the free market to provide prosperity for the maximum number of people.  And the free market operates strictly on the concept of providing products and services that the people want and/or on persuading people that they want the products and services offered.  Short circuit that process with too much government taxation amd unnecessary regulation, meddling, and interference, and there will be less prosperity for all.


----------



## Bfgrn

Circe said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you understand what conservatism is, every argument they make leads to the same end.
> 
> Q: What is conservatism?
> A: Conservatism is the domination of society by an aristocracy.
> 
> When you understand this and view their words, ask the question; will this lead to some form of an aristocracy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes! That's what Robespierre said! And Hebert, and Danton, and especially the murderous Marat.......
> 
> Probably these ideas need to be a little updated as of 2013, however.
Click to expand...


I told you the article talks about current times. An aristocracy can take more forms than the ones in Robespierre's day. A plutocracy, a oligarchy, a corporatocracy.


----------



## Foxfyre

JohnL.Burke said:


> Wow! That was just ridiculous!



Most of the stuff he cuts and pastes is.  Or at least it has little relevance to whatever he is responding to.   I don't think most of these folks who can't grasp what modern conservatism is, but who attack it relenetlessly, could articulate an accurate concept of modern American conservatism if their lives depended on it.


----------



## PMZ

I grew up mostly in the 50s and early 60s. I'm sure that if one were to poll the adults of those years as to what the secret of America was, almost all would agree on freedom. I believe that the same is true of today. What would be different between then and now would be the answer to the question, "where does America's freedom come from?" Then it would have been universally, "our democracy and our Constitution", now about 40% would answer "from our personal guns, and from a weak, limited government". 

What caused that cultural shift? IMO it's largely due to a product invented during the days that President Reagan was riding the waves of the Iran situation and perestroika, and perfected by Rush Limbaugh, media motivated extreme conservatism. The quality of Rush's business model is indisputable. He's been paid by advertisers over a billion dollars over his career for delivering that product. Many others, like Rupert Murdoch, and Glenn Beck have followed in his footsteps and achieved huge rewards in doing so. 

They all also benefited from a sub-message of their theme. That economic growth comes from the wealthy, and therefore tax reductions to the wealthy result in growth. Supply side economics. So small government, or high deficits, result in economic growth. 

Media motivated extreme conservatism was also boosted during those years by the relationship between the media gurus and the Republican Party. The GOP found a brand new and significantly powerful tool for their party by encouraging the success of media motivated extreme conservatism and creating, in essence, 24/7/365 unregulated political campaign advertising. 

As we politically moved from the success of Clinton to the failures of Bush, that connection became the life support system for the GOP. They put the media pedal to the metal to obscure Bush's failure and the crescendo peaked, as one would expect, in 2008 when the party was faced with a weak slate, McCain and Palin, trying to follow Bush's catastrophes against a strong Obama/Biden ticket.  

Since then there have been almost no successes from the marriage that people once thought was made in heaven. Despite the 24/7/365 negative campaigning by the media for the Republicans, President Obama was reelected. Recovery has ensued. Progress made in the ending of the holy wars, the decline in the deficit, and our largest global competitiveness  issue, health care. The Republican's are now mostly known for their Congressional intransigence. Not much to build on.

IMO the best end game for these American Dark Ages  would be to return to where we were, our faith in the gift from our founders, democracy and our Constitution. I think that that return would ultimately put the GOP back into the game. I think that if the decline in opinion casting is matched by the returning preeminence of news casting, and the resultant maturation of an informed electorate we can go back to success.


----------



## itfitzme

PMZ said:


> I grew up mostly in the 50s and early 60s.*
> 
> I'm sure that if one were to poll the adults of those years as to what the secret of America was, almost all would agree on freedom. I believe that the same is true of today.*
> 
> What would be different between then and now would be the answer to the question, "where does America's freedom come from?" Then it would have been universally, "our democracy and our Constitution", now about 40% would answer "from our personal guns, and from a weak, limited government".*



You got me of thinking of my father, who grew up in the depression.

My father served in WWII and the Korean war. *He proudly hung the American flag out every Memorial Day. *No one doubted his patriotism. *

He also served as Secretary Treasurer for his local chapter of the union, a member of the AFL/CIO. He was an active member of the local Moose Club. *He never missed a local and national vote. *He was a registered Republican. He was a Catholic. And he proudly paid his union dues, his Moose membership fee, his church donation, and his state and local taxes.

He fought in WWII, against the aggressions of Germany and Japan. *He fought in Korea against the Communist aggression.

In those days, service to country, to fellow co-workers, and to local community volunteer organizations was service to supporting freedom and America. *This included both donating time and money.

Why? Because service to his country was service to its gov't, a gov't founded on democracy and suppporting freedom. *Service to the union was supporting a democractic and free labor force. *And service to the community was service to neghbors who also supported the ideals of democratic freedoms.

He recognized that his military service, the US governmemt, the union, the local community volunteer organization, and his church were fundamemtally social organizations that required personal sacrifice to the larger social community in order to guarantee democratic freedoms.*

He recognized the difference between personal responsibility to a socially derived democracy and the Communism of the United Soviet Socialist Republic.

He understood the difference betweee choosing to give up some personal freedoms and Soviet Socialism.

He understood that labor unions were democratic social organizations, not Socialism.

He saw no personal or ideological conflict between a social democracy and Socialism. *

Freedom wasn't a gun. *He had a rifle and a pistol when he served. His knives and machette were stored away in a footlocker in the garage. He kept a baseball bat by the front door at home. He took his driver's license and a pen to the voting booth. *He had a tool for everything, the right tool at the right time.

When it came to work at his job, he arrived early, left work late, worked overtime, and worked holidays. Once the vote was in, the rules established, and the orders given, he did his job. *Like as with his tools,*he did the right thing at the right time.

He knew the difference because freedom was something he fought for, something he worked for, something he voted for. *He understood the difference between living on a deserted island and living in a free and democratic society.*

Freedom was the right to vote. And the cost of that freedom was in accepting that democratic vote.

He understood the differences and didn't expect for freedom to be a free-for-all. He didn't expect freedom to just be free.


----------



## PMZ

itfitzme said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I grew up mostly in the 50s and early 60s.*
> 
> I'm sure that if one were to poll the adults of those years as to what the secret of America was, almost all would agree on freedom. I believe that the same is true of today.*
> 
> What would be different between then and now would be the answer to the question, "where does America's freedom come from?" Then it would have been universally, "our democracy and our Constitution", now about 40% would answer "from our personal guns, and from a weak, limited government".*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You got me of thinking of my father, who grew up in the depression.
> 
> My father served in WWII and the Korean war. *He proudly hung the American flag out every Memorial Day. *No one doubted his patriotism. *
> 
> He also served as Secretary Treasurer for his local chapter of the union, a member of the AFL/CIO. He was an active member of the local Moose Club. *He never missed a local and national vote. *He was a registered Republican. He was a Catholic. And he proudly paid his union dues, his Moose membership fee, his church donation, and his state and local taxes.
> 
> He fought in WWII, against the aggressions of Germany and Japan. *He fought in Korea against the Communist aggression.
> 
> In those days, service to country, to fellow co-workers, and to local community volunteer organizations was service to supporting freedom and America. *This included both donating time and money.
> 
> Why? Because service to his country was service to its gov't, a gov't founded on democracy and suppporting freedom. *Service to the union was supporting a democractic and free labor force. *And service to the community was service to neghbors who also supported the ideals of democratic freedoms.
> 
> He recognized that his military service, the US governmemt, the union, the local community volunteer organization, and his church were fundamemtally social organizations that required personal sacrifice to the larger social community in order to guarantee democratic freedoms.*
> 
> He recognized the difference between personal responsibility to a socially derived democracy and the Communism of the United Soviet Socialist Republic.
> 
> He understood the difference betweee choosing to give up some personal freedoms and Soviet Socialism.
> 
> He understood that labor unions were democratic social organizations, not Socialism.
> 
> He saw no personal or ideological conflict between a social democracy and Socialism. *
> 
> Freedom wasn't a gun. *He had a rifle and a pistol when he served. His knives and machette were stored away in a footlocker in the garage. He kept a baseball bat by the front door at home. He took his driver's license and a pen to the voting booth. *He had a tool for everything, the right tool at the right time.
> 
> When it came to work at his job, he arrived early, left work late, worked overtime, and worked holidays. Once the vote was in, the rules established, and the orders given, he did his job. *Like as with his tools,*he did the right thing at the right time.
> 
> He knew the difference because freedom was something he fought for, something he worked for, something he voted for. *He understood the difference between living on a deserted island and living in a free and democratic society.*
> 
> Freedom was the right to vote. And the cost of that freedom was in accepting that democratic vote.
> 
> He understood the differences and didn't expect for freedom to be a free-for-all. He didn't expect freedom to just be free.
Click to expand...


You and I remember it the same way. There were no stronger Republicans than my parents. There were no stronger Democrats than my immigrant grandparents. If they were alive today, I believe that my grandparents would continue to be proud, but my parents would be appalled. 

I give conservatives a hard time about wanting the past, but, in this regard, I'm with them.


----------



## Bfgrn

Foxfyre said:


> Circe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The changes I speak of did not happen over night. It was a slow death. I watched it happen, I am even guilty of helping it along.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I know what you mean. I feel terribly guilty about buying everything from Amazon, but I have hated shopping my whole life, and I love Internet shopping. I realize that the stores are collapsing all around us!
> 
> And books: I buy mostly ebooks, and stream all video, or play DVDs, never go to movie theaters. We are certainly in a second coming of Gutenberg-level change. What big changes in society will it bring? Last time it brought the Protestant Reformation!
> 
> I would not do any of this if I didn't love the new opportunities, but the pace of change is so incredibly fast, as Jeremiah said. And accelerating. Nervous-making.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes change begets more change and it is accelerating all the time.  We have acquired more new products and technology in the last 50 years than probably in the rest of the history of the world.  And those who are unable to adapt and capitalize on the trends and new innovations get left in the dust.
> 
> Think how demoralizing it must have been to the wagon and buggy manufacturers as the automobile began consuming almost all of the personal transportation market.  Ironically most of the first automobiles were electric but they quickly gave way to internal combustion engines at that technology improve and became more practical.
> 
> And yet we still have buggy and wagon manufacturers but now they build their products for show, for pleasure, for nostalgia and don't pretend that they are still in the transportation business.
> 
> Likewise those stores and shops that will survive will offer products for those who want to see what they are buying up close and personal, will feature superior customer service and atmosphere that the internet cannot provide, but most are also broadly expanding their internet services to accommodate those who prefer to shop that way.
> 
> Conservatism has always included a strong confidence in the free market to provide prosperity for the maximum number of people.  And the free market operates strictly on the concept of providing products and services that the people want and/or on persuading people that they want the products and services offered.  Short circuit that process with too much government taxation amd unnecessary regulation, meddling, and interference, and there will be less prosperity for all.
Click to expand...


I don't disagree with what you are saying. But you are really missing my point. The changes I've seen is not about 'products', it's about people. Personal interaction has diminished, community and neighbor has been replaced with gated communities and privacy fences. You would have had to lived it to miss it. 

Conservatives today have turned 'free markets' into a blind faith. Capitalism is an economic theory, not a moral theory or a religion. And BTW, liberals also believe in capitalism. But they also understand the "free market" doesn't exist. There is no such thing. All markets are constructed. There are rules to any market, and there is nothing magical or self regulating or 'invisible'. We only have to look at the recent financial crisis to see that unregulated Wall Street greed leads to total self interest and no regard for our nation. That is why government must regulate and intervene when there is malfeasance.


----------



## Avatar4321

Where exactly would we go?


----------



## Mertex

JohnL.Burke said:


> You are fine when "the guy with the biggest club" is the government, however. Conservatism in anathema to tyranny. *Conservatives want a smaller government so more people have a say in their future and opportunities.* This is not to say conservatives want no government.  Government has its place. However, conservatives don't believe the government has a place in our private lives, bedrooms, churches and thought process. Tyranny, in the last hundred years, has always derived from a liberal agenda that requires a large government to carry "the biggest club".
> I find it humorous that you compare conservatives to an urban gangland. Urban ganglands are derived from liberal policies implemented in inner cities, inner city schools, and a corrupt and inefficient welfare state.



But what you all don't seem to grasp is that the Republican party has not delivered a "smaller government".  The Republican party is just the party of lower taxes, fewer social programs and a lot more military spending - which creates a bigger deficit.

Republican Presidents have always had large federal deficits.  As for not having a place in our private lives, your party is the one that wants unnecessary vaginal ultra sounds, and the Republican attorney General in Virginia even wants to keep the "anti-sodomy" law on the books.  How more into private lives can you get?


----------



## PMZ

Mertex said:


> JohnL.Burke said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are fine when "the guy with the biggest club" is the government, however. Conservatism in anathema to tyranny. *Conservatives want a smaller government so more people have a say in their future and opportunities.* This is not to say conservatives want no government.  Government has its place. However, conservatives don't believe the government has a place in our private lives, bedrooms, churches and thought process. Tyranny, in the last hundred years, has always derived from a liberal agenda that requires a large government to carry "the biggest club".
> I find it humorous that you compare conservatives to an urban gangland. Urban ganglands are derived from liberal policies implemented in inner cities, inner city schools, and a corrupt and inefficient welfare state.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But what you all don't seem to grasp is that the Republican party has not delivered a "smaller government".  The Republican party is just the party of lower taxes, fewer social programs and a lot more military spending - which creates a bigger deficit.
> 
> Republican Presidents have always had large federal deficits.  As for not having a place in our private lives, your party is the one that wants unnecessary vaginal ultra sounds, and the Republican attorney General in Virginia even wants to keep the "anti-sodomy" law on the books.  How more into private lives can you get?
Click to expand...


The US is at an extreme wealth distribution now but enough is never enough. There have been numerous studies done on the social instability of extreme wealth disparity but the concept of poorer poor and richer rich is compelling, especially to the upper middle class who long for aristocracy. They are perfectly willing to bet that we aren't quite at the limit yet


----------



## Trakar

PMZ said:


> The Great Recession began in Dec of 2007, 5 1/2 years ago.


 
I would put the beginning back in 2001, but would agree that it wasn't fully and widely realized until 12/2007


----------



## PMZ

Trakar said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Great Recession began in Dec of 2007, 5 1/2 years ago.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would put the beginning back in 2001, but would agree that it wasn't fully and widely realized until 12/2007
Click to expand...


Certainly 2001 was when the country began building the foundation for the Great Recession.


----------



## itfitzme

PMZ said:


> Trakar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> *
> The Great Recession began in Dec of 2007, 5 1/2 years ago.
> 
> 
> 
> *
> I would put the beginning back in 2001, but would agree that it wasn't fully and widely realized until 12/2007
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Certainly 2001 was when the country began building the foundation for the Great Recession.
Click to expand...


I have been seeing more people dating the beginning at about 2000. *

A recession is a technical term defined by and dated bu the NBER. *Never the less, I agree.

I've been able to find the following indicators in the 1998 to 2001 time frame;

1. China exports began rising considerably.
2. Real Gasoline and oil prices began rising for the first time.
3. The fiber optic communications to China were completed
4. US employment rate peaked and began declining
5. Want a job now reached bottom and began to increase.
6. US govt real dollar outlays per capita began increasing
7. US govt real dollar surplus per capita began falling
8. Real $ Consumer Credit per capita began rising in '95. It doubled the 1960 to 1995 increase by 2007.
9. Real imcome at all levels stopped rising. The bottom three began to fall.
10. The housing bubble began
11. US trade deficit began a large increasing trend.
12. Labor force to pop ratio peaked in 1990
13. Debt held by the public began climbing in '02

That's what i have specifically.


----------



## Trakar

itfitzme said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trakar said:
> 
> 
> 
> *
> I would put the beginning back in 2001, but would agree that it wasn't fully and widely realized until 12/2007
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Certainly 2001 was when the country began building the foundation for the Great Recession.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have been seeing more people dating the beginning at about 2000. *
> 
> A recession is a technical term defined by and dated bu the NBER. *Never the less, I agree.
> 
> I've been able to find the following indicators in the 1998 to 2001 time frame;
> 
> 1. China exports began rising considerably.
> 2. Real Gasoline and oil prices began rising for the first time.
> 3. The fiber optic communications to China were completed
> 4. US employment rate peaked and began declining
> 5. Want a job now reached bottom and began to increase.
> 6. US govt real dollar outlays per capita began increasing
> 7. US govt real dollar surplus per capita began falling
> 8. Real $ Consumer Credit per capita began rising in '95. It doubled the 1960 to 1995 increase by 2007.
> 9. Real imcome at all levels stopped rising. The bottom three began to fall.
> 10. The housing bubble began
> 11. US trade deficit began a large increasing trend.
> 12. Labor force to pop ratio peaked in 1990
> 13. Debt held by the public began climbing in '02
> 
> That's what i have specifically.
Click to expand...

 
I wouldn't strenuously disagree, its just that by the time you get there, the disruptions that triggered Black Monday are still an even bigger influencing economic fabric kink (along with all the "VooDoo who-do"). We've been stop-gapping economic solutions since deep in the cold-war (from both sides of the aisle - no hands are clean).


----------

