What do conservatives support?

[Wry Catcher]

Wrong again. Trump does not represent change, if that is what you are suggesting. Trump represents a return to the past, a reactionary response build on a foundation of hate and fear, in a word: Fascism.

Well, both parties are fascist, so that's not a distinction

Bullshit! RINO's are not, nor are establishment Democrats or Libertarians. it is only the Trump movement which advocates the anti democratic, anti media, anti immigrant, anti this and anti posture which deserves the title of fascism.

There is nothing "anti-democratic" about Trump or Trump supporters.

The media has taken sides and has defined itself as our enemy. FUck them.

Being against high immigration is a valid policy position. Try to be less dishonest.

NOne of that deserves the title of fascism.


You are panic mongering.

You're dishonest. The media hasn't taken sides, it reports with PRIMARY Sources; if you watch Fox News, you hear, "some people are saying ..." and those some people are hacks or other Fox talking heads.

You don't see it, because it is completely supported by your confirmation bias.


If the media was lying about you lefties the way it lies about us, you lefties would be in the streets stringing up reporters.

I see the world clearly, and I understand my biases which do not cloud reality.

You cannot post a credible rebuttal to my contention that the conservatives today, those in particular who claim that ideology as there own on this message board, have no ideas, no solutions and no willingness to offer much more than, "ain't it awful".

Ain't it awful that the media picks on us and not on "lefties" is childish, and you as well as Trump are crying about the media lying about him.

Tell us, what lies have the media perpetrated?

Then, tell us what policy details has Trump offered, and in what proportion to the attacks on the character of Rubio, Cruz, Bush, the Clinton's, his female accusers, Obama, establishment Republicans and the media?

 

[kaz]

Yes, Comrade. The Federal government as Correll correctly pointed out spends $3.8 trillion a year right now. Yet that isn't enough for you. You want it all. The nature of Marxism

Don't you supposedly get lucrative military contract work or am I thinking of some other POS consultant on this board?

No. I'm a consultant, but I haven't done military work. What's wrong with military work though? I do commercial work, very little government in general

You seem to take issue with the amount of money the government needs to operate.

Yes, $3.8 trillion is more than enough when we're piling on $20 trillion more of debt. So what excuse do you have for that? Want a new program, what do you propose to cut?

The military could be half the size it is. Most of the rest of the budget is in programs that support various members of our society who've either fallen on hard times or are too old to continue working. It didn't help that our increasingly laissez faire economy tanked and left a lot of people out in the cold. Perhaps we could tax the people who've benefitted from this shit sandwich.

Agreed on the military, it should be way smaller and defensive focused.

The rest is your usual Marxist fare. The whole government should be a fraction of its size

 

[kaz]

Well, both parties are fascist, so that's not a distinction

Bullshit! RINO's are not, nor are establishment Democrats or Libertarians. it is only the Trump movement which advocates the anti democratic, anti media, anti immigrant, anti this and anti posture which deserves the title of fascism.

There is nothing "anti-democratic" about Trump or Trump supporters.

The media has taken sides and has defined itself as our enemy. FUck them.

Being against high immigration is a valid policy position. Try to be less dishonest.

NOne of that deserves the title of fascism.


You are panic mongering.

You're dishonest. The media hasn't taken sides, it reports with PRIMARY Sources; if you watch Fox News, you hear, "some people are saying ..." and those some people are hacks or other Fox talking heads.

You don't see it, because it is completely supported by your confirmation bias.


If the media was lying about you lefties the way it lies about us, you lefties would be in the streets stringing up reporters.

I see the world clearly, and I understand my biases which do not cloud reality.

You cannot post a credible rebuttal to my contention that the conservatives today, those in particular who claim that ideology as there own on this message board, have no ideas, no solutions and no willingness to offer much more than, "ain't it awful".

Ain't it awful that the media picks on us and not on "lefties" is childish, and you as well as Trump are crying about the media lying about him.

Tell us, what lies have the media perpetrated?

Then, tell us what policy details has Trump offered, and in what proportion to the attacks on the character of Rubio, Cruz, Bush, the Clinton's, his female accusers, Obama, establishment Republicans and the media?

First of all, you don't quote when you think you're paraphrasing, dumb ass.

And classic, the guy who thinks Republicans oppose Democracy thinks he's not clouded with bias.

As for the rest of your leftist drivel, to you a problem isn't being solved unless government is solving it. Government staying out of it is almost always the best solution to any problem. But you don't count that because no one is solving it for you. And maybe tossing a few dinero your way in the process ...

 

[mudwhistle]

I've argued many times that conservatives are defined on what they oppose (gay marriage, taxes, change, the ERA, sex ed in school, abortion, free contraceptives, labor unions, the UN, democracy,
Affirmative Action/consent decrees, gun control, FEMA, the PPACA, Climate Change, a Government too large , (how large is too large for a nation of 300 + million?), public school teachers and other government employees - until they need them.

I've also posted the 14 points of Fascism, which, when applied to the statements / rhetoric of Trump are enlightening, and should IMO give pause to those opposed to an authoritarian federal government when considering a vote for the Republikan nominees. We don't need a Big Brother

Fourteen Defining Characteristics Of Fascism

Keep these sage comments i mind when in the voting booth:

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
MARTIN NIEMÖLLER

Correction. Conservatives are defined by what liberals say they oppose.

We're constantly told by you assholes what we believe in.

I'm not an asshole nor do I tell you (i.e. self defined conseratives) what you believe in, you do so in the words you post.

And then you libs come along purposefully misrepresent our words.

LOL, seems you are borrowing from The Donald, in a sense, by suggesting that "you libs come along and purposefully misrepresent our words". Whining and lying are signs of losers, to suggest I "rig" my comments is petulant and dishonest.

So you're a loser if whining and lying is a sign of it.

You whine about discrimination.
You whine about racist cops.
You whine about income inequalities.
You whine about unfair voting laws.
You whine about everything Trump says.

You lie about Immigration.
You lie about what we stand for.
You lie about Obamacare.
You lie about Benghazi.
You lie about Hillary's emails.
You lie about Blacklivesmatter.

Bunch of losers.

 

[JoeNormal]

Don't you supposedly get lucrative military contract work or am I thinking of some other POS consultant on this board?

No. I'm a consultant, but I haven't done military work. What's wrong with military work though? I do commercial work, very little government in general

You seem to take issue with the amount of money the government needs to operate.

Yes, $3.8 trillion is more than enough when we're piling on $20 trillion more of debt. So what excuse do you have for that? Want a new program, what do you propose to cut?

The military could be half the size it is. Most of the rest of the budget is in programs that support various members of our society who've either fallen on hard times or are too old to continue working. It didn't help that our increasingly laissez faire economy tanked and left a lot of people out in the cold. Perhaps we could tax the people who've benefitted from this shit sandwich.

Agreed on the military, it should be way smaller and defensive focused.

The rest is your usual Marxist fare. The whole government should be a fraction of its size

Typical of a conservative to think that because you don't need assistance right now that you never will. Just own it - conservatives are the "I've got mine, fuck you" crowd.

 

[kaz]

No. I'm a consultant, but I haven't done military work. What's wrong with military work though? I do commercial work, very little government in general

You seem to take issue with the amount of money the government needs to operate.

Yes, $3.8 trillion is more than enough when we're piling on $20 trillion more of debt. So what excuse do you have for that? Want a new program, what do you propose to cut?

The military could be half the size it is. Most of the rest of the budget is in programs that support various members of our society who've either fallen on hard times or are too old to continue working. It didn't help that our increasingly laissez faire economy tanked and left a lot of people out in the cold. Perhaps we could tax the people who've benefitted from this shit sandwich.

Agreed on the military, it should be way smaller and defensive focused.

The rest is your usual Marxist fare. The whole government should be a fraction of its size

Typical of a conservative to think that because you don't need assistance right now that you never will. Just own it - conservatives are the "I've got mine, fuck you" crowd.

Strawman. And I'm way, way worse than a conservative. I'm a libertarian. Conservatives would just put your fat ass on a diet. I'd cut off the food trough entirely

 

[JoeNormal]

You seem to take issue with the amount of money the government needs to operate.

Yes, $3.8 trillion is more than enough when we're piling on $20 trillion more of debt. So what excuse do you have for that? Want a new program, what do you propose to cut?

The military could be half the size it is. Most of the rest of the budget is in programs that support various members of our society who've either fallen on hard times or are too old to continue working. It didn't help that our increasingly laissez faire economy tanked and left a lot of people out in the cold. Perhaps we could tax the people who've benefitted from this shit sandwich.

Agreed on the military, it should be way smaller and defensive focused.

The rest is your usual Marxist fare. The whole government should be a fraction of its size

Typical of a conservative to think that because you don't need assistance right now that you never will. Just own it - conservatives are the "I've got mine, fuck you" crowd.

Strawman. And I'm way, way worse than a conservative. I'm a libertarian. Conservatives would just put your fat ass on a diet. I'd cut off the food trough entirely

You probably wonder why there aren't any Libertarians in office anywhere in this country. (Are there any in the world?) I like Ron Paul and for a moment, thought I might be a Libertarian too. Then I found out his views on the gold standard, offshoring, laissez faire, etc. It's an awesome concept that unfortunately falls apart when applied to reality.

 

[kaz]

Yes, $3.8 trillion is more than enough when we're piling on $20 trillion more of debt. So what excuse do you have for that? Want a new program, what do you propose to cut?

The military could be half the size it is. Most of the rest of the budget is in programs that support various members of our society who've either fallen on hard times or are too old to continue working. It didn't help that our increasingly laissez faire economy tanked and left a lot of people out in the cold. Perhaps we could tax the people who've benefitted from this shit sandwich.

Agreed on the military, it should be way smaller and defensive focused.

The rest is your usual Marxist fare. The whole government should be a fraction of its size

Typical of a conservative to think that because you don't need assistance right now that you never will. Just own it - conservatives are the "I've got mine, fuck you" crowd.

Strawman. And I'm way, way worse than a conservative. I'm a libertarian. Conservatives would just put your fat ass on a diet. I'd cut off the food trough entirely

You probably wonder why there aren't any Libertarians in office anywhere in this country. (Are there any in the world?) I like Ron Paul and for a moment, thought I might be a Libertarian too. Then I found out his views on the gold standard, offshoring, laissez faire, etc. It's an awesome concept that unfortunately falls apart when applied to reality.

Marxism has zero to do with reality, Holmes. Keep looking

 

[MarcATL]

Interesting tidibt.

Edmund Burke, one of the father's of Conservatism, believed that social evolution should spring from what people actually believe and want. In Burke's critique of the French Revolution, he showed the dangers that come with overturning social orders and traditions virtually form the top-down.

In short, Conservatism opposes revolutions because revolutions are too disruptive, and they don't leave sufficient room for a nation to evolve naturally/organically.

Under Burke's standards, the Reagan Revolution was not conservative. Indeed, revolutions, because of their centralized, top-down organization, are anti-conservative by definition.

Reagan inherited a nation where a huge swath of the electorate trusted big government. This makes sense because the American Government helped defeat the Nazis and put a man on the moon. Government administered the building of the Hoover Dam, the great Interstate system and satellite system and the massive public works projects that brought water and energy to unsettled territories. Seniors - who faced overwhelming poverty prior to the 40s - liked cashing their Social Security checks.

According to Reagan, the problem with Big Government is that it taxed the wealthy at too high a rate. Reagan wanted to reverse the relationship between the wealthy and government. He wanted the wealthy to be the takers, meaning he wanted them to benefit from subsidies, bailouts, infrastructure, patent protection, legal protection and military defense of overseas supply chains, but he didn't want them to have to pay for it. He turned Washington into a modern lobby state whereby large corporations (rather than "brownshirts") used financial donations to dictate the legislative behavior of politicians. He made it possible for big business to suck at the teat of big government, while lowering the cost (taxes) they paid for those services.

But the Reagan Revolution had a problem. The citizenry had lived with big Government too long, and they needed to be re-educated. So the Reagan Revolution reinvigorated the Rightwing Think Tank and Media revolution for the purpose of changing national opinion on government. Reagan wanted American citizens to hate government so that it would become harder for government to tax and regulate business. Rather than trusting the peoples' faith in things like Social Security and infrastructure investment, the Reagan Revolution did what all revolutions do: it changed peoples' minds/opinions. Indeed, the Reagan Revolution opened the floodgates for money to pour from big business into Rightwing think tanks and media. The Reagan Revolution created a massive incentive system which rewarded anyone who would make the case against government. It took 30 years, but now it is common sense to hate government.

Edmund Burke, the father of Conservatism, is turning over in his grave because he trusts the people more than he trusts a small, centralized command of revolutionaries who want to re-educate all citizens. When the Reagan Revolution decided to re-educate people by creating a talk radio/Fox/internet network of opinion shapers, it became every bit as corrupt and dangerous as the Liberals who enacted the French Revolution.

Well said!

Yeah, that was an incredibly powerful passage. WoW!

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

 

[kaz]

Interesting tidibt.

Edmund Burke, one of the father's of Conservatism, believed that social evolution should spring from what people actually believe and want. In Burke's critique of the French Revolution, he showed the dangers that come with overturning social orders and traditions virtually form the top-down.

In short, Conservatism opposes revolutions because revolutions are too disruptive, and they don't leave sufficient room for a nation to evolve naturally/organically.

Under Burke's standards, the Reagan Revolution was not conservative. Indeed, revolutions, because of their centralized, top-down organization, are anti-conservative by definition.

Reagan inherited a nation where a huge swath of the electorate trusted big government. This makes sense because the American Government helped defeat the Nazis and put a man on the moon. Government administered the building of the Hoover Dam, the great Interstate system and satellite system and the massive public works projects that brought water and energy to unsettled territories. Seniors - who faced overwhelming poverty prior to the 40s - liked cashing their Social Security checks.

According to Reagan, the problem with Big Government is that it taxed the wealthy at too high a rate. Reagan wanted to reverse the relationship between the wealthy and government. He wanted the wealthy to be the takers, meaning he wanted them to benefit from subsidies, bailouts, infrastructure, patent protection, legal protection and military defense of overseas supply chains, but he didn't want them to have to pay for it. He turned Washington into a modern lobby state whereby large corporations (rather than "brownshirts") used financial donations to dictate the legislative behavior of politicians. He made it possible for big business to suck at the teat of big government, while lowering the cost (taxes) they paid for those services.

But the Reagan Revolution had a problem. The citizenry had lived with big Government too long, and they needed to be re-educated. So the Reagan Revolution reinvigorated the Rightwing Think Tank and Media revolution for the purpose of changing national opinion on government. Reagan wanted American citizens to hate government so that it would become harder for government to tax and regulate business. Rather than trusting the peoples' faith in things like Social Security and infrastructure investment, the Reagan Revolution did what all revolutions do: it changed peoples' minds/opinions. Indeed, the Reagan Revolution opened the floodgates for money to pour from big business into Rightwing think tanks and media. The Reagan Revolution created a massive incentive system which rewarded anyone who would make the case against government. It took 30 years, but now it is common sense to hate government.

Edmund Burke, the father of Conservatism, is turning over in his grave because he trusts the people more than he trusts a small, centralized command of revolutionaries who want to re-educate all citizens. When the Reagan Revolution decided to re-educate people by creating a talk radio/Fox/internet network of opinion shapers, it became every bit as corrupt and dangerous as the Liberals who enacted the French Revolution.

Well said!

Yeah, that was an incredibly powerful passage. WoW!

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

It showed itself to be the lying hack job it is with saying Reagan wanted the wealthy to be the "takers." He wanted flatter tax rates. He also didn't want government skewing markets, for or against the wealthy. The wealthy always paid more and would always do so with flatter taxes. The idea that half the country doesn't pay any taxes is to you a birthright when it's a terrible idea. Half the country has no stake (or they think they don't) in government pending. No one who earns a dollar should not pay any taxes

 

[MarcATL]

Your hyperbole aside, on the change one, just so you know, you won. The country is left. You're the ones who oppose change now. You aren't the revolutionaries anymore, you're the establishment

Wrong again. Trump does not represent change, if that is what you are suggesting. Trump represents a return to the past, a reactionary response build on a foundation of hate and fear, in a word: Fascism.

Well, both parties are fascist, so that's not a distinction

Bullshit! RINO's are not, nor are establishment Democrats or Libertarians. it is only the Trump movement which advocates the anti democratic, anti media, anti immigrant, anti this and anti posture which deserves the title of fascism.

There is nothing "anti-democratic" about Trump or Trump supporters.

The media has taken sides and has defined itself as our enemy. FUck them.

Being against high immigration is a valid policy position. Try to be less dishonest.

NOne of that deserves the title of fascism.


You are panic mongering.

You're dishonest. The media hasn't taken sides, it reports with PRIMARY Sources; if you watch Fox News, you hear, "some people are saying ..." and those some people are hacks or other Fox talking heads.

FOXNEWS is the only media outlet where you here "some people are saying", and it's said on practically every show on the network.

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

 

[kaz]

Wrong again. Trump does not represent change, if that is what you are suggesting. Trump represents a return to the past, a reactionary response build on a foundation of hate and fear, in a word: Fascism.

Well, both parties are fascist, so that's not a distinction

Bullshit! RINO's are not, nor are establishment Democrats or Libertarians. it is only the Trump movement which advocates the anti democratic, anti media, anti immigrant, anti this and anti posture which deserves the title of fascism.

There is nothing "anti-democratic" about Trump or Trump supporters.

The media has taken sides and has defined itself as our enemy. FUck them.

Being against high immigration is a valid policy position. Try to be less dishonest.

NOne of that deserves the title of fascism.


You are panic mongering.

You're dishonest. The media hasn't taken sides, it reports with PRIMARY Sources; if you watch Fox News, you hear, "some people are saying ..." and those some people are hacks or other Fox talking heads.

FOXNEWS is the only media outlet where you here "some people are saying", and it's said on practically every show on the network.

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

Don't you notice when you pull that shit out of your ass ... it stinks?

 

[JoeNormal]

The military could be half the size it is. Most of the rest of the budget is in programs that support various members of our society who've either fallen on hard times or are too old to continue working. It didn't help that our increasingly laissez faire economy tanked and left a lot of people out in the cold. Perhaps we could tax the people who've benefitted from this shit sandwich.

Agreed on the military, it should be way smaller and defensive focused.

The rest is your usual Marxist fare. The whole government should be a fraction of its size

Typical of a conservative to think that because you don't need assistance right now that you never will. Just own it - conservatives are the "I've got mine, fuck you" crowd.

Strawman. And I'm way, way worse than a conservative. I'm a libertarian. Conservatives would just put your fat ass on a diet. I'd cut off the food trough entirely

You probably wonder why there aren't any Libertarians in office anywhere in this country. (Are there any in the world?) I like Ron Paul and for a moment, thought I might be a Libertarian too. Then I found out his views on the gold standard, offshoring, laissez faire, etc. It's an awesome concept that unfortunately falls apart when applied to reality.

Marxism has zero to do with reality, Holmes. Keep looking

We have a mixed economy. That you see the world in only black and white doesn't provide much credibility to your ideology.

 

[kaz]

Agreed on the military, it should be way smaller and defensive focused.

The rest is your usual Marxist fare. The whole government should be a fraction of its size

Typical of a conservative to think that because you don't need assistance right now that you never will. Just own it - conservatives are the "I've got mine, fuck you" crowd.

Strawman. And I'm way, way worse than a conservative. I'm a libertarian. Conservatives would just put your fat ass on a diet. I'd cut off the food trough entirely

You probably wonder why there aren't any Libertarians in office anywhere in this country. (Are there any in the world?) I like Ron Paul and for a moment, thought I might be a Libertarian too. Then I found out his views on the gold standard, offshoring, laissez faire, etc. It's an awesome concept that unfortunately falls apart when applied to reality.

Marxism has zero to do with reality, Holmes. Keep looking

We have a mixed economy. That you see the world in only black and white doesn't provide much credibility to your ideology.

Strawman. There's lots mixed in our economy. There's nothing mixed in your rhetoric. You swallowed the Communist Manifesto and you keep barfing it back out every time you post

 

[Wry Catcher]

If you truly believe this ^^^, you are out of touch with reality and in need of psychiatric intervention.

Turning every disagreement into a psychiatric condition is a leftwing propaganda technique that Joseph Stalin invented.

LOL, I only suggested you needed psychiatric intervention because you are challenged by reality. There is no argument or disagreement on that condition, the many posts you make are both necessary and sufficient to see you suffer from paranoid delusions and a fantasy reality. It's sad, but your axis 5 (Global Assessment of Functioning) is probably about 30. In layman's words you are one very sick puppy.

What you're trying to say is that you're a left-wing douche bag who can't win an argument using logic and facts so you resort to personal attacks.

Actually you've once again proved reality is something which exists in the great void between your ears, and anything which intrudes on that space is alien and creates a clash, resulting from the combination of two disharmonious elements which are not congruent with your fantasies/delusions.

Life for you is consistency, when the dogma implanted in the great void between your ears is questioned, you shit all over ideas which upset you. Sad, but meds and a good therapist is your only resource. More sadly, it appears to be chronic and a malady without mitigation.

That's just one big ad hominem. Have you ever considered trying logic and facts to make your case?

I have and I do,
but never with lunatics,
like you.

 

[kaz]

Turning every disagreement into a psychiatric condition is a leftwing propaganda technique that Joseph Stalin invented.

LOL, I only suggested you needed psychiatric intervention because you are challenged by reality. There is no argument or disagreement on that condition, the many posts you make are both necessary and sufficient to see you suffer from paranoid delusions and a fantasy reality. It's sad, but your axis 5 (Global Assessment of Functioning) is probably about 30. In layman's words you are one very sick puppy.

What you're trying to say is that you're a left-wing douche bag who can't win an argument using logic and facts so you resort to personal attacks.

Actually you've once again proved reality is something which exists in the great void between your ears, and anything which intrudes on that space is alien and creates a clash, resulting from the combination of two disharmonious elements which are not congruent with your fantasies/delusions.

Life for you is consistency, when the dogma implanted in the great void between your ears is questioned, you shit all over ideas which upset you. Sad, but meds and a good therapist is your only resource. More sadly, it appears to be chronic and a malady without mitigation.

That's just one big ad hominem. Have you ever considered trying logic and facts to make your case?

I have and I do,
but never with lunatics,
like you.

Then with lunatics like who?

 

[Wry Catcher]

In 12 pages no one has been able to rebut the general concept of the OP. In fact every effort by Conservatives result in more evidence in support of the claim that conservatives are defined by what they oppose,

Is it any wonder The Congress under the control of McConnell and Boehner/Ryan have done nothing of substance since gaining control.

Who really cares ?

I consider myself both conservative and liberal depending on the subject.

To think people fit in boxes is left wing.

LOL, and your use of left wing in context is ............................... Ironic.

I understand your comment.

Just be clear that I consider many on the right to actually be on the left.

The original was a dichotomy, the left supported the masses, the right supported the Monarchy. Today the left and right no longer fit those models. I wonder how someone you consider to be on the right, can actually be on the left?

A Philosophy King such as imagined by Plato?

 

[Wry Catcher]

LOL, I only suggested you needed psychiatric intervention because you are challenged by reality. There is no argument or disagreement on that condition, the many posts you make are both necessary and sufficient to see you suffer from paranoid delusions and a fantasy reality. It's sad, but your axis 5 (Global Assessment of Functioning) is probably about 30. In layman's words you are one very sick puppy.

What you're trying to say is that you're a left-wing douche bag who can't win an argument using logic and facts so you resort to personal attacks.

Actually you've once again proved reality is something which exists in the great void between your ears, and anything which intrudes on that space is alien and creates a clash, resulting from the combination of two disharmonious elements which are not congruent with your fantasies/delusions.

Life for you is consistency, when the dogma implanted in the great void between your ears is questioned, you shit all over ideas which upset you. Sad, but meds and a good therapist is your only resource. More sadly, it appears to be chronic and a malady without mitigation.

That's just one big ad hominem. Have you ever considered trying logic and facts to make your case?

I have and I do,
but never with lunatics,
like you.

Then with lunatics like who?

U.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

In 12 pages no one has been able to rebut the general concept of the OP. In fact every effort by Conservatives result in more evidence in support of the claim that conservatives are defined by what they oppose,

Is it any wonder The Congress under the control of McConnell and Boehner/Ryan have done nothing of substance since gaining control.

Who really cares ?

I consider myself both conservative and liberal depending on the subject.

To think people fit in boxes is left wing.

LOL, and your use of left wing in context is ............................... Ironic.

I understand your comment.

Just be clear that I consider many on the right to actually be on the left.

The original was a dichotomy, the left supported the masses, the right supported the Monarchy. Today the left and right no longer fit those models. I wonder how someone you consider to be on the right, can actually be on the left?

A Philosophy King such as imagined by Plato?

Many who claim to be on the right (not necessarily conservatives) seem all to willing to let government do their bidding.

 

[bripat9643]

In 12 pages no one has been able to rebut the general concept of the OP. In fact every effort by Conservatives result in more evidence in support of the claim that conservatives are defined by what they oppose,

Is it any wonder The Congress under the control of McConnell and Boehner/Ryan have done nothing of substance since gaining control.

Who really cares ?

I consider myself both conservative and liberal depending on the subject.

To think people fit in boxes is left wing.

LOL, and your use of left wing in context is ............................... Ironic.

I understand your comment.

Just be clear that I consider many on the right to actually be on the left.

The original was a dichotomy, the left supported the masses, the right supported the Monarchy. Today the left and right no longer fit those models. I wonder how someone you consider to be on the right, can actually be on the left?

A Philosophy King such as imagined by Plato?

Many who claim to be on the right (not necessarily conservatives) seem all to willing to let government do their bidding.

You were correct when you said they "claim to be on the right."