"Far Right" can't win for GOP? ...BS!

[Boss]

Boss claims, without evidence here, that "I am a Conservative, but I identify myself as a moderate because my personal views are moderate. That is why I can confidently challenge any Bozo here who wants to claim I am "far right:" or "radical extremist wacko right" or "fascist right" because they can't back that argument up with anything I've ever posted here. "

You can claim you are a zebra with as much effectiveness as the above: in other words, none. In fact, several times above Boss has clearly been pegged with his own remarks that he is indeed far right. One example is that he confuses socialism and fascism, refusing to accept the traditional definitions that fascism is a right wing progressive philosophy that merges state, party, and government under the leadership of the Leader.

fas·cism ˈfaSHˌizəm/ noun

1. an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization.
   synonyms: authoritarianism, totalitarianism, dictatorship, despotism, autocracy; More (in general use) extreme right-wing, authoritarian, or intolerant views or practice.

Sorry, JakefromStateFarm, you fail again. The only mention I've made of Fascism here was when I said that none of the candidates are Fascists, unless you consider Hillary and Obama Fascists. There is no question they are Socialists.

So if that is your example that shows me to be "far right" and "extremist" then you've failed on two fronts. First by it not being my position and second by it not being an extremist position.

I am a Conservative who holds a Conservative philosophy. I often identify as a "moderate independent" but I am not ashamed of being a Conservative. Among my moderate viewpoints, I favor Federal decriminalization of marijuana and regulation by the states. I oppose the Federal government dictating what marriage means, gay or straight. I think it should be left to the individual to define and if government must have some label to identify those in a domestic partnership, it should be generic civil union contracts between two adults. I also believe abortion should be legal but regulated by the states and restricted in any way the people of the state so choose. So there are the Big Three social issues, all of which I have a somewhat moderate independent viewpoint on, and my view is rooted in my conservative philosophy.

You may disagree with my views, but anyone can clearly see they are not extreme or "far" anything.

 

[Boss]

First and foremost, because there is no such thing as "far right."

Now you are denying your own existence!

No, I am denying that I am "far right" or "far" anything and I am challenging you to present some evidence that Conservative are "extremist" or "far" anything as well. So far, none of you have been able to provide an example.

 

[Boss]

Boss, I am reporting your attempt to silence me in this thread.

You can do whatever you please as long as you obey the rules of Level 2 forums. I don't want to silence you and I haven't tried to silence you. I want you talking on topic as much as possible. It helps make my arguments better than I can do by myself, to be honest. What I won't tolerate is troll-like flame posts where you offer nothing but harassment and slander. Do that again and it will be reported. Just giving you fair warning.

I will not tolerate behavior like yours.

Yes, you will tolerate my behavior.

I have stayed on OP. You have been told why your OP fails. I have corrected your false definitions. You are not a Conservative, merely a far right reactionary.

You haven't stayed on OP. You haven't explained why anything fails or corrected any definition. You keep talking like you have, pretending that is the case, imagining me as some "far right reactionary" without any basis whatsoever. I keep asking for an explanation but you refuse to present one. Instead, you idiotically imply that I am somehow obligated to disprove your allegations! LMFAO... You really think a lot of yourself, don't you?

 

[edthecynic]

First and foremost, because there is no such thing as "far right."

Now you are denying your own existence!

No, I am denying that I am "far right" or "far" anything and I am challenging you to present some evidence that Conservative are "extremist" or "far" anything as well. So far, none of you have been able to provide an example.

Hillary and Obama ... are Socialists.

Your own words, which mindlessly parrot the Far Right Extremists, out you as the Far Right Extremist you are.
For yet another example, only the Far Right see Obama and Hillary as Socialists, there is nothing "moderate" about that Far Right point of view. The Far Right see everyone who isn't Far Right as Socialists, that is why they are mindless Far Right Fascist Ideologues.

 

[JakeStarkey]

This is a lie: "there is no such thing as "far right.'"

This is a lie: "Conservatives, however, can win in landslide fashion."

Boss deflects the discussion on fascism by ignoring its actual meaning and referring to the candidates. I was referring to him. Yes, I have shown you are far right.

I am glad to see that you backed up and are obeying Rule 2 requirements. Good on you.

 

[Boss]

Ah yes... Watch the clowns stammer and stutter trying to explain how I am "far right" and failing miserably. Note the different techniques. Eddy argues that I am "far right" because I say things that other "far right" people say... like "Obama and Hillary are Socialists." Jake simply continues to insist that he has exposed me as "far right" at some point in the past and I have been unable to refute his brilliant (albeit mythical) observation.

Again, from the OP: When the Left says "far right" they simply mean "Conservatives."

 

[edthecynic]

When the Left says "far right" they simply mean "Conservatives."

October 3, 2007
RUSH: We've reached a new day, when interpreters are allowed to determine the meaning of words spoken by others. What happens with that is the loss of meaning.

 

[Boss]

When the Left says "far right" they simply mean "Conservatives."

October 3, 2007
RUSH: We've reached a new day, when interpreters are allowed to determine the meaning of words spoken by others. What happens with that is the loss of meaning.

And Rush was right as usual. The left has interpreted anything conservative to mean "far right" or "radical extreme" ...or if you happen to believe in God, "Christian fundamentalist wacko!" There's no basis for this interpretation, it is just repeated until "conservative" loses its true meaning.

So... If you believe in smaller, limited government, you are a radical "far right" extremist. If you believe in lower taxes and less government intrusion in our personal lives, you are a "far right reactionary." And if you believe we are endowed inalienable rights by a Creator... well you're one of those "extreme Christian fundies!" Oh, and if you repeat or agree with something said by another Conservative, that automatically confirms you are a "far right reactionary extremist Fascist" and the onus is on you to disprove the charge.

 

[Mac1958]

The left has interpreted anything conservative to mean "far right" or "radical extreme" ....

Yes, this is correct. But the Right does precisely the same thing. All one has to do is listen to their politicians and their media talkers for myriad examples.

This is all just about semantics, words. As has already been discussed here, there is a spectrum on which people fall. So, the partisans are going to call the people who are more absolutist on the other "side" whatever names they can think of, from "extremists" to whatever. Who cares? Partisans are not honest.

I don't see the big controversy here.

.

 

[Boss]

The left has interpreted anything conservative to mean "far right" or "radical extreme" ....

Yes, this is correct. But the Right does precisely the same thing. All one has to do is listen to their politicians and their media talkers for myriad examples.

This is all just about semantics, words. As has already been discussed here, there is a spectrum on which people fall. So, the partisans are going to call the people who are more absolutist on the other "side" whatever names they can think of, from "extremists" to whatever. Who cares? Partisans are not honest.

I don't see the big controversy here.

.

But it's not "precisely the same thing." Liberalism is a radical progressive extremist ideology. There is a progressive agenda which follows their ideology and they intend to force their agenda on the people regardless of the Constitution or Congress. They will rely on courts, executive orders, or general parliamentary tricks and manipulation to get what they want. They are NEVER bipartisan, it's not in their nature.

Conservatism is NOT an ideology and doesn't have an ideological agenda. It is a philosophy which guides a pragmatic decision making process where all considerations are weighed and voices heard, including the opposition. Indeed, it is the "moderate" alternative to radical left-wing extremism.

Again... Are SOME Conservatives also ideologues with an agenda? Of course! There is nothing about Conservatism which prevents someone from having a rigid ideological view or being partisan in that view. What the Left has done is to take a bunch of the most extreme examples of ideologues from the right and cobble together the mythical "conservative ideology" which is "far right" or "reactionary and extremist."

 

[edthecynic]

When the Left says "far right" they simply mean "Conservatives."

October 3, 2007
RUSH: We've reached a new day, when interpreters are allowed to determine the meaning of words spoken by others. What happens with that is the loss of meaning.

And Rush was right as usual. The left has interpreted anything conservative to mean "far right" or "radical extreme" ...or if you happen to believe in God, "Christian fundamentalist wacko!" There's no basis for this interpretation, it is just repeated until "conservative" loses its true meaning.

So... If you believe in smaller, limited government, you are a radical "far right" extremist. If you believe in lower taxes and less government intrusion in our personal lives, you are a "far right reactionary." And if you believe we are endowed inalienable rights by a Creator... well you're one of those "extreme Christian fundies!" Oh, and if you repeat or agree with something said by another Conservative, that automatically confirms you are a "far right reactionary extremist Fascist" and the onus is on you to disprove the charge.

Everybody knows CON$ are lying when they make that claim. Even the God of CON$ervatism, Reagan, grew the government.

There is nothing even remotely Christian about CON$ervatism. Look at how your MessiahRushie has attacked the Pope! As soon as the Pope said something Porky didn't like he labeled the Pope a "Socialist."

So whenever the Right go through their litany of their "beliefs" you know they do not believe a single one of them. You can't get any more Far Right than lying about your core beliefs.

 

[Boss]

Everybody knows CON$ are lying when they make that claim. Even the God of CON$ervatism, Reagan, grew the government.

There is nothing even remotely Christian about CON$ervatism. Look at how your MessiahRushie has attacked the Pope! As soon as the Pope said something Porky didn't like he labeled the Pope a "Socialist."

So whenever the Right go through their litany of their "beliefs" you know they do not believe a single one of them. You can't get any more Far Right than lying about your core beliefs.

So first you brainwash yourself into believing Conservatism is an ideology, then you try to convince people that Conservative "ideologues" are hypocrites who don't hold to their ideological beliefs?

Reagan didn't "grow the government" because the President of the United States can't do anything more than sign legislation passed by Congress or issue executive orders. Any government growth that happened under Reagan was the result of Tip O'Neil and the Democrat Congress.

Labeling the Pope a Socialist when the Pope espouses Socialism is not "extremism" ...it's called intellectual honesty. But we can see Eddy reveal what he really means here... if you call something "socialist" even when it clearly is, that makes you a "radical far-right extremist" in his book. And this applies to virtually any viewpoint which conflicts with or contradicts socialism. Don't you dare express an opinion which disrespects the liberal socialist view or they will slap the "far right" label on you!

 

[edthecynic]

Reagan didn't "grow the government" because the President of the United States can't do anything more than sign legislation passed by Congress or issue executive orders. Any government growth that happened under Reagan was the result of Tip O'Neil and the Democrat Congress.

Sure Reagan was never president, just a figurehead with a pen, because BobDole and the GOP Senate ran the country. But then Reagan won the "Cold War" even though he was out of office when the wall came down and the Dems still ran Congress. So everything the Far Right gives St Ronnie credit for belongs to the Dem Congress according to a true CON$ervative. That 'ill be the day!

 

[edthecynic]

Labeling the Pope a Socialist when the Pope espouses Socialism is not "extremism" ...it's called intellectual honesty.

So the Far Right can label Christians as extremists for following the "socialistic" principles in the bible, but the Left can't label Christians as fundamentalist extremists for any reason whatsoever.

Cardinal Dolan: Pope Francis Not Endorsing Socialism

Pope Francis is not endorsing socialism with his recent calls for the haves to do much more for the have-nots, Cardinal Timothy Dolan writes in The Wall Street Journal, but he does believe capitalism must come with "compassion and generosity."

"From media reports, one might think that the only thing on the Pope's mind was government redistribution of property, as if he were denouncing capitalism and endorsing some form of socialism," Dolan writes in a Friday Op-Ed piece.

"This is unfortunate, because it overlooks the principal focus of Pope Francis ' economic teaching — that economic and social activity must be based on the virtues of compassion and generosity."

 

[Boss]

Reagan didn't "grow the government" because the President of the United States can't do anything more than sign legislation passed by Congress or issue executive orders. Any government growth that happened under Reagan was the result of Tip O'Neil and the Democrat Congress.

Sure Reagan was never president, just a figurehead with a pen, because BobDole and the GOP Senate ran the country. But then Reagan won the "Cold War" even though he was out of office when the wall came down and the Dems still ran Congress. So everything the Far Right gives St Ronnie credit for belongs to the Dem Congress according to a true CON$ervative. That 'ill be the day!

Pursuant to the Constitution, any appropriation bill (expanding of government) must originate in the House of Representatives. I will state it again: ANY Government expansion which took place under Reagan was because of the Democrats who controlled the House.

Also, the ending of the Cold War wasn't the result of a physical barrier being removed in Berlin. The wall was definitely a symbol, but it wasn't what facilitated the Cold War. According to Gorbachev and others who were Soviet and America dignitaries of the time, the thing most responsible for ending the Cold War was Reagan's SDI and his hard line at Reykjavik. A position the Liberal Left opposed vehemently and warned would cause WWIII and a nuclear holocaust.

 

[edthecynic]

Reagan didn't "grow the government" because the President of the United States can't do anything more than sign legislation passed by Congress or issue executive orders. Any government growth that happened under Reagan was the result of Tip O'Neil and the Democrat Congress.

Sure Reagan was never president, just a figurehead with a pen, because BobDole and the GOP Senate ran the country. But then Reagan won the "Cold War" even though he was out of office when the wall came down and the Dems still ran Congress. So everything the Far Right gives St Ronnie credit for belongs to the Dem Congress according to a true CON$ervative. That 'ill be the day!

Pursuant to the Constitution, any appropriation bill (expanding of government) must originate in the House of Representatives. I will state it again: ANY Government expansion which took place under Reagan was because of the Democrats who controlled the House.

Also, the ending of the Cold War wasn't the result of a physical barrier being removed in Berlin. The wall was definitely a symbol, but it wasn't what facilitated the Cold War. According to Gorbachev and others who were Soviet and America dignitaries of the time, the thing most responsible for ending the Cold War was Reagan's SDI and his hard line at Reykjavik. A position the Liberal Left opposed vehemently and warned would cause WWIII and a nuclear holocaust.

Reagan created a new governmental department, which he did not veto. The liar ran on eliminating the Dept of Education, which still exists today. Funny how the Far Right puts all the gov spending since 2011 on Obama in spite of the GOP House appropriating it!

And ONLY the Far Right claim Reagan won the Cold War, the rest of the WORLD as well as Reagan himself credits Gorbachev. Asked at a press conference in Moscow in 1988, his last year in office, about the role he played in the great drama of the late 20th century, he described himself essentially as a supporting actor. "Mr. Gorbachev," he said, "deserves most of the credit."

 

[JakeStarkey]

"Again, from the OP: When the Left says "far right" they simply mean "Conservatives."[

Nope. The Rushbot comment is the attempt by a far right interpreter to change terms and definitions.

The far right consists of about 15% of the population, generally much older, very white, and evangelical and fundamentalist heretical Christian sects.

Smaller and limited government can be a Conservative belief, but is desired by the far right to force their beliefs on the rest of America.

The far reactionary want less intrusion in their lives but want the rest of America to live their standards: i.e., Citizens United, Hobby Lobby, and other far right driven agendas that will be undone within the next ten years.

The far right Christians are a minority in the greater American population. They do not represent Thomas Jefferson or James Madison or Benjamin Franklin, etc., who believed in religion, and also believed organized religion had to stay out of government.

The far right "interpreters" will be made to look their stupidity every time they post stupidly.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Reagan didn't "grow the government" because the President of the United States can't do anything more than sign legislation passed by Congress or issue executive orders. Any government growth that happened under Reagan was the result of Tip O'Neil and the Democrat Congress.

Sure Reagan was never president, just a figurehead with a pen, because BobDole and the GOP Senate ran the country. But then Reagan won the "Cold War" even though he was out of office when the wall came down and the Dems still ran Congress. So everything the Far Right gives St Ronnie credit for belongs to the Dem Congress according to a true CON$ervative. That 'ill be the day!

Pursuant to the Constitution, any appropriation bill (expanding of government) must originate in the House of Representatives. I will state it again: ANY Government expansion which took place under Reagan was because of the Democrats who controlled the House.

Also, the ending of the Cold War wasn't the result of a physical barrier being removed in Berlin. The wall was definitely a symbol, but it wasn't what facilitated the Cold War. According to Gorbachev and others who were Soviet and America dignitaries of the time, the thing most responsible for ending the Cold War was Reagan's SDI and his hard line at Reykjavik. A position the Liberal Left opposed vehemently and warned would cause WWIII and a nuclear holocaust.

No.

In negotiations with Tipp O'Neal, Reagan asked for and got SIX tax hikes.

You will not be allowed to re-write history just to make Reagan look perfect. He was not.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Reagan didn't "grow the government" because the President of the United States can't do anything more than sign legislation passed by Congress or issue executive orders. Any government growth that happened under Reagan was the result of Tip O'Neil and the Democrat Congress.

Sure Reagan was never president, just a figurehead with a pen, because BobDole and the GOP Senate ran the country. But then Reagan won the "Cold War" even though he was out of office when the wall came down and the Dems still ran Congress. So everything the Far Right gives St Ronnie credit for belongs to the Dem Congress according to a true CON$ervative. That 'ill be the day!

Pursuant to the Constitution, any appropriation bill (expanding of government) must originate in the House of Representatives. I will state it again: ANY Government expansion which took place under Reagan was because of the Democrats who controlled the House.

Also, the ending of the Cold War wasn't the result of a physical barrier being removed in Berlin. The wall was definitely a symbol, but it wasn't what facilitated the Cold War. According to Gorbachev and others who were Soviet and America dignitaries of the time, the thing most responsible for ending the Cold War was Reagan's SDI and his hard line at Reykjavik. A position the Liberal Left opposed vehemently and warned would cause WWIII and a nuclear holocaust.

No.

In negotiations with Tipp O'Neal, Reagan asked for and got SIX tax hikes.

You will not be allowed to re-write history just to make Reagan look perfect. He was not.

Also funded infrastructure, science, r&d, education and wanted America to be the most powerful country on earth...That takes money!

 

[Flopper]

Laughing...yeah, because ignoring my post is magically gonna change the fact that Liberal and Moderates make up 58% of the electorate....

Not counting about 100 million Conservatives who don't vote.

Many of the so called "conservatives" are conservatories in the traditional sense,"to prefer the familiar to the unknown". Big government has been the familiar for a number generations as has been limitations on free markets, freedom of choice, environment protection, public education, gun control, and many other things that political conservatives oppose.

So when millions are asked if they are conservative, the answer is yes. They oppose radical changes such as slashing government social programs they depend on, denying a women the right to an abortion, abolishing gun control laws, turning over environmental sensitive land to big corporations, and many other radical changes that political conservatives support.

The nation is certainly conservative but not necessarily in the political sense of the word.