What would happen to the United States if Conservatives left?

[PMZ]

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.

"

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?

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]

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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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...

I see your position on compromise in the logo on the bottom of your post.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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...

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

CRA had huge consequences...

True, but none of those consequences had anything to do with the housing bubble or the economic collapse in 2007.

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.

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]

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...

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.

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.

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.

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]

[/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.

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.

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?

"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.