Conservative Policies by dreamtrove

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Conservative Policies

POSTED BY: DREAMTROVE
UPDATED: Tuesday, February 21, 2006 15:16
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 1668
PAGE 1 of 1

Sunday, February 19, 2006 5:33 AM

Okay, I'll bite. Without getting in to an etymological debate again, Conservative. From
the Latin Conservare, to keep fully, to preserve. Also, these

1. Favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change.
2. Traditional or restrained in style.
3. Moderate; cautious.
4.Of or relating to the political philosophy of conservatism.
5. Tending to conserve; preservative: the conservative use of natural resources.

In what way, if any at all, is Bush/Cheney remotely conservative? Or, for anyone who thinks they might not be, what are they?

Here are some thoughts:

1. On fiscal policy, Bush's "Borrow-and-Spend" is hardly conservative, even remotely.

2. On the environment, there is no effort to conserve, preserve or maintain any modicum of environmental preservation.

3. Socially, there is no effort to maintain the "status quo," something which liberals attack, but my fellow conservatives probably believe in, meaning that people stay working for companies, those companies stay in business.

4. Militarily, there is no conservative approach, which would logically, and has historically meant exerting caution, avoiding direct conflict whenever possible, and making use of diplomacy as opposed to brute force.

5. Legislatively, the preservation of the people's rights, the rule of law, and the old order, have been totally disregarded in favor of something new, untested, unproven, and completely radical..

6. How many times has Bush said "These are different times, changing times, we need to implement new changes" and then introduce radical changes. Is this conservative?

7. Have they ever been restrained about anything? Other than telling the truth? Or do they just go off half cocked on anything at all?

8. Exactly how is the president's energy policy 'Conservative?' How is the idea of increasing fuel consumption on vehicles, which I can prove is public policy, or emptying reserves a conservative principle?

9. How is blank check healthcare even remotely conservative, in not just fiscal terms, but also of maintaining a free non-govt. controlled industry. How about a Bush proposal of early '04 that school children be mandatorily tested and medicated?

10. How is making deals which allow the Chinese communists and islamiic regimes linked to Al Qaeda have sway over US policy, financing and trade in any way even remotely conservative?

Traditional, opposed to change, restrained, moderate, cautious, preservative of natural resources. Is this Bush/Cheney? Or is it the exact opposite of Bush/Cheney?

And, just because I'm beginning to feel this way: Am I the only conservative on this forum?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 19, 2006 6:06 AM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
And, just because I'm beginning to feel this way: Am I the only conservative on this forum?

On one of those tests I came out Liberal Libertarian, but by what you posted above, I would consider myself a conservative...
*falls to the floor with head in hands*

WHAT AM I?!?

my conservative friends say I'm liberal, my liberal friends find me somewhat conservative...
I'm accused of using a singular 'Chrisisall logic' that I apply to all things...

...my world is crumbling.....

*puts on 'Heart Of Gold'*

There, I'm okay now.

An Island called Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 19, 2006 7:38 AM

RIVER6213

hmmm...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 19, 2006 7:59 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Okay, I'll bite. Without getting in to an etymological debate again, Conservative. From
the Latin Conservare, to keep fully, to preserve. Also, these

1. Favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change.
2. Traditional or restrained in style.
3. Moderate; cautious.
4.Of or relating to the political philosophy of conservatism.
5. Tending to conserve; preservative: the conservative use of natural resources.

But only one of these definitions applies here:
4.Of or relating to the political philosophy of conservatism.

Define the American political philosophy of conservatism as practiced in the early 21st century, and then compare the Bush/Cheney record against it and you might have a discussion. Otherwise it's just an apples and oranges thing.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 19, 2006 10:22 AM

DREAMTROVE

Quote:

But only one of these definitions applies here:
4.Of or relating to the political philosophy of conservatism.

Define the American political philosophy of conservatism as practiced in the early 21st century, and then compare the Bush/Cheney record against it and you might have a discussion. Otherwise it's just an apples and oranges thing.

Good God Geezer.

That was more appalling a definition than I possibly could have hoped to get as an answer. You're idea of conservative dates all the way back to the early 21st century????????????

WTF???????

Whatever happened to the idea of Conservative philosophy, being of the modern democratic era? I mean, from the founding fathers forward, there has never been a need to rewrite the meaning of the word conservative, and there sure as hell isn't now. That's why it's conservative. If it conserves anything, it conserves itself.

What you mean is neoconism. But a neocon is nothing more than a slang term used by one socialist, Michael Harrington, against another socialist, Irving Kristol, who later took it for his own. But neoconservative is just a socialst who 'supports' the conservative movement, meaning that they will vote for RTL, or privatization. That doesn't in itself make them conservatives.

At all.

It doesn't even mean they claim to be conservatives.

Just because there is something new called neocon, doesn't mean that conservative itself ceases to exist.

The philosophy of conservatism refered to is not that of neoconservatism.

Fortunately, there is no need to argue the point, the dictionary entry expounded on the position, as I'm sure any other would to the same effect

1. The inclination, especially in politics, to maintain the existing or traditional order.
2. A political philosophy or attitude emphasizing respect for traditional institutions, distrust of government activism, and opposition to sudden change in the established order.
3. Conservatism The principles and policies of the Conservative Party in the United Kingdom or of the Progressive Conservative Party in Canada.
4. Caution or moderation, as in behavior or outlook.

[Download Now or Buy the Book]
Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

conservatism

1. The inclination, especially in politics, to maintain the existing or traditional order.
2. A political philosophy or attitude emphasizing respect for traditional institutions, distrust of government activism, and opposition to sudden change in the established order.
3. Caution or moderation, as in behavior or outlook.
4. A political or theological orientation advocating the preservation of the best in society and opposing radical changes.

It's painfully clear what we're talking about here.

Geezer,

Your position is like that of Christians who say "The actual words of the actual Jesus are irrelevant, the only thing which matters are what the image of Jesus in the revelation of Saint John the Divine said and did." Which is their position. But that doesn't mean that Christianity in the classic sense doesn't still exist and doesn't outnumber neo-christians by a margin of at least 20:1. Because neo-chsitianity isn't Christianity, it's Johnism, or Paulism.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 19, 2006 10:24 AM

DREAMTROVE

Chris,

I think you're solidly in the middle.

You're probably like Jefferson who said he was a liberal conservative. I remember a couple weeks ago Tony Blair was making fun of some member of British Parliment for saying the same, and Tony was clearly unaware that it had ever been said before.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 19, 2006 10:43 AM

FLETCH2

DT, I'm afraid Geezer is right. There are lots of English words that have multiple meanings, when using a dictionary you have to pick the context in which the word is used. In this case it is in the political context. However, way back when someone chose the word to label their political movement they probably chose it to reflect their overal philosophy.

I suspect

1. Favoring traditional views and values;

was probably the meaning they saught when picking the name.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 19, 2006 11:05 AM

FLETCH2

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Chris,

I think you're solidly in the middle.

You're probably like Jefferson who said he was a liberal conservative. I remember a couple weeks ago Tony Blair was making fun of some member of British Parliment for saying the same, and Tony was clearly unaware that it had ever been said before.

You have to be carefull because both Liberal and Conservative (capitalised) are party names in the UK. As used in party names they represent the political platform of that party not nescessarily a "pure" version of the underlying political ideology.

So if you call someone a Liberal Conservative and he happens to be a LibDem what you are really saying is that he campaigns as a Liberal (with all of the political platform that represents) but acts like a Conservative (ditto.) If the guy was a Conservative then the same idea applies except then it's more of an insult.

The Liberal party in it's various forms has been out of national political power for nearly 80 years they tend to be seen as well intentioned but ineffectual, soft and wishy-washy. Saying a Conservative has Liberal leanings is a little like saying "you are the diet coke of evil, just one calorie, not quite evil enough."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 19, 2006 11:30 AM

STARSONG

I think some of the rest of the trouble with thinking of "conservative" along the lines of "conserve" is that the term seems to pre-date many things that have since become institutionalized, for better or worse.

Likewise, in the US, "Liberal" doesn't mean anything close to what it did in the last century, when it referred to paired belief in individual liberty and more-or-less lassaiz-faire economics.. beliefs much more common among those calling themselves conservative today. Anyhow, there was some definate snarking about the "hijacking" of the word liberal long about the 1920s to mean something more along the lines of progressivism/"socialism lite."

(Source -- "Commanding Heights" - economic history book, mostly 20th century)

Language is a slippery thing.. its amazing what things you can read from even a century ago and find you don't really understand as well as you thought.. and on the other hand, good actors can make 400 year old dialog from The Bard understandable.

Gorram confusing sometimes, ain't it? :)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 19, 2006 11:32 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
(Conservative =)
1. Favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change.
(or)
5. Tending to conserve; preservative: the conservative use of natural resources.

---

2. On the environment, there is no effort (by Bush inc.) to conserve, preserve or maintain any modicum of environmental preservation.

Okay, let's play word games, then. Traditional values towards the environment = dig it up and cut it down. So you do consider Bush inc. Conservative per definition #1?

Just for fun, I searched the 2004 GOP Presidential platform, and did a cursory look at the GOP website, and didn't see the word "conservative" once. So why are we wondering if Bush is a Conservative (by any definition) anyway?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 19, 2006 4:43 PM

DREAMTROVE

StarSong,

I really agree. I'm not sure of the date, but in the 1820s 'liberal' was used to mean laissez faire economics, and by the 1920s it was used to mean socialism.

'Conservative' has been pretty consistant though, in connection with 'conserve.' It was used in the last election by Kerry, who claimed to be more conservative than Bush. Bush used it in 2000 in the phrase 'Compassionate Conservative.'

Fletch,

I knew you would agree with Geezer. That doesn't mean that you are right. You should acquire some humility, use things like IMHO. The thing is, I think you think you are right on everything, and that's how it comes across. In case you missed it, I said I did not want to get into an etymological discussion. I really wanted to discuss what might be more appropriate for a conservative politics.

Btw, I knew you would oppose me here because it suits your agenda, whatever that is, to do so. Having Bush be the epicenter of conservative makes conservative look really bad, which you value, just as making liberal look good.

Strangely, this puts you in the position of saying Liberal is only what liberal was in 250 BC, but Conservative is whatever Bush said it is at 3:00 this afternoon. It's a peculiar position, but one I knew you would take.

BTW, Initially, in the US, the picking of the term was based on resources, the conservative govt. was a limited one, as in using less. The philosophy grew out from that seed. I don't know what it was in the UK.

Quote:
You have to be carefull because both Liberal and Conservative (capitalised) are party names in the UK.

Interesting point. I hadn't thought of that. We usually say LibDem , Labour and Tory, but I guess technically your right. I will try to stick to using the small c and small l.

I want to add something here, so that we understand each other:

Conservative, in the US, is a philosophy. It's a well thought out philosophy with a long history, and a support of the slight majority of the people. A lot of people don't subscribe to it, which is fine. Those of thus that do, actually do care about something.

No amount of battering us about the head, or spinning things around is going to make us give up on that philosophy. I think that what you are trying to do is undermine the idea of conservative, which is simply not worth the effort.

This phisophical viewpoint has nothing to do with George W. Bush, and it has nothing to do with Jesus Christ, in whose divinity, as a Taoist, I do not believe. It's based in an approach to problems which is more reserved, or conservative, than liberal philosophies.

There have been a long line of republican presidents who follow this philosophy quite closely, and a Reagan who followed it more or less. A majority of Republicans currently in the Senate follow this philosophy. They are not neocons. Just because Bush says "conservative is this" EVEN IF we took that conservative could change at 3:00 in the afternoon, it would still not be so, because even Bush is vastly outnumbered in his own govt. by traditional conservatives. They don't oppose him in droves because Bush has given himself dictatorial powers. But when the fall comes they will, in their very reserved manner, and conservative will return to being what it was. I sincerely think this will happen in the republican party, but I assure you, if it does not, it will happen outside of the GOP. I think the overwhelming support for Perot was caused by the slight deviation of Reagan. The extreme deviation of GWB could cause a permanent split.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 19, 2006 5:07 PM

FLETCH2

Not at all. I "oppose" you because you make the same mistake again and again. Your initial fault was that you decided that political "conservative" meant every one of the dictionary definitions and then constructed a "reason" why "liberal" was it's polar opposite, even going to the extreme of inventing a new Latin root to make it so. When not just I but most of the people here questioned you on it you do what you always do, claim that long hours of scolarly review led to this conclusion but you dont have time to deal with that right now. Forced to put up or shut up you backed down but claimed victory.

This is EXACTLY the same case, except it sticks with the word "conservative" and I fully expect that as before you will be beaten up on both sides who don't like your overly simplistic dicking with the language. I don't need IMHO because it's not my opinion it's a definition from a dictionary. Since dictionaries are by definitions the authorities on the definition of words citing them is not opinion but fact, therefore I see no reason to suggest that it's just my opinion.

As for Bush being a paradyne of "conservative" thought I have never claimed it. I have challenged your assertion that he's in some way a left wing "plant" because the broader arc of his policy fits with the general concerns of the Republican party as a whole. I'm carefull to make that distinction because the Republican party, like most "big tent" parties is a broad church. Conservatives choose to stay within that party however the party as a whole is not and never has been purely conservative.

Now if you asked the smart question (which you never do) then I would say no, I don't think that Bush is a very good conservative. I knew that the moment he cut taxes and "forgot" to cut spending to pay for them. Tax and spend and borrow and spend are kissing cousins that lead to disaster. His foreign policy is interventionist, and while that isn't of itself a none conservative trait --- Jefferson sent the Marines to Tripoli remember? --- certainly goes against the isolationist tendencies of the early 20th century.

Like I said before your Democrats are piss poor liberals in any case. Why would I defend them? If anyone here is trying to spin the current political situation to whitewash a party, that would be you.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 19, 2006 5:17 PM

DREAMTROVE

Geezer,

Thanks for the detail, I think I made the point that he didn't use it in the campaign, but I wasn't sure. He used it in 2000. That means that he at one point claimed to be one, but clearly now isn't. If you don't want to accept 'Bush lied,' you can have 'Bush changed his mind.'

Which is percisely my point. Bush is not a conservative, everyone seems to agree, except some on the left who seek to use Bush to discredit conservatism which really isn't fair. If Bush were solidly conservative, yet awful, it would be fair.

I guess that makes him something else. As time is bound to hammer out that neoconservative isn't really conservative, and it's not really socialist, it will have to be called something else. I know there are a few people who support that position, whatever it is, I am certainly not one of those people, but I believe you are, so I lay this task on you, Geezer. Name it. Come up with a new name for this new ideology that has sprung up.

I don't recall if you're one of the people who also liked Clinton, I think Auraptor said he did. Bush/Clinton/Blair-ism is probably more or less a consistant philosophy which someday may have it's own political party. Right now, they have ours, but realistically, that is not going to last.

You can tell by the thrashing that Cheney gets every time he sneezes, that it is not going to last, and that thrashing is largely not coming from Democrats.

So, anyway, I invite you who support this Bush/Clinton/Blair-ism to come up with a name for it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 19, 2006 5:33 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Btw, I knew you would oppose me here because it suits your agenda, whatever that is, to do so.

Now here's where it always gets sticky. Anyone who doesn't agree with you (using the general "you" here, since this applies to several people on this board) can't just hold a different opinion...they must have an "Agenda". So everything they post must be in service of that "Agenda" (Brrr...scares even me.)rather than their actual opinion. And of course since they can't have come up with their ideas on their own, they have to have been spoonfed them. Probably paid dupes of the (fill in your Conspiracy of the Week here).

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 19, 2006 5:42 PM

DREAMTROVE

Fletch,

I'm not a moron.

I'm not the moron you seem to think I am.

I'm not wrong. I wasn't wrong then, and I'm still not wrong. Unlike you, I'm not an adamant diehard adherer to my ideas. I don't concoct things out of whole cloth.

My position is simple, allow me to lay it out by analogy. I believe in evolution because I have a motherlode of information backing up the idea. You have come to me and said "but God created the world in seven days." My failure to budge from my position has not been a representation of my stubbornness, but one of the total failure of you rhetorric to alter the balance of evidence.

All my definitions were backed up by dictionaries, and I do not need your empty rhettoric to try to color the picture. I'm am still certain of my conclusions. It doesn't bother me that you think I'm not very bright, you haven't impressed me at any point, either. What bothers me is that you endlessly inject your spin. I'm not whitewashing anything, and that's not a phrase we use in politics in this country unless we mean to remove cultural and ethnic influences. But even guessing at your meaning, I'm doing nothing. Just saying there was an ideology, 'conservative' which is not one of a party. 'Republican,' was a party that tried to adhere to that for some time. Not everything republican was always conservative, but there is a population in the country which support the idea.

I didn't say he was a left with plant, I said he was fronting for an ideology which grew out of a weird type of militarist socialism, and is now something else. Cheney's policy arc does not fit within the GOP interests as a whole, any more than it fits with those of the democrats. Occassionally Cheney's policy interests match those of the GOP, sometimes they are directly at odds with it. I don't think that Bush policies will be any more at home when he is a democrat called Hillary, anymore than when he was a democrat called Bill.

Finally, Fletch, if you can't post on my threads in the manner in which the subject was intended, but instead bring your counter-intuitive definitions which do not jibe with anything else I have run into in my existance, then please don't post on them at all.

You're free to disagree with me, but what your counter-posts amount to is calling me a political hack and a liar. I think most of the republicans on this forum would back me up here if I said I was a moderate, and a lot of the folks on the left would second that. My loyalty to the GOP is actually quite shakey, as I have pointed out many times. The fact that I would consider a vote for Feingold, and considered one for Dean, show that. I am more solidly a conservative, and if the republican party was more solidly, then it would have my support more solidly.

At the moment, I strongly approve of a couple dozen republican senators and about half a dozen democrats, and more mildly support about twice that number on each side. I would agree with Citizen that Bush is an extremist of some variet, but not extremely conservative, and not at the heart of the GOP, as you seem to imply. I know where I stand, what words mean, and where other folks stand, to a point which satisfies me just fine. This is all old ground, we disagree, and we are not going to agree. For 37 years everyone I've known has used these words, I'm familiar and comfortable with them. I know people in England might use them differently. I'm not discussing English politics here, I'm talking about Bush vs conservatives. If you have something to say, fine, but don't just harang me.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 19, 2006 7:29 PM

DREAMTROVE

Sorry Fletch, didn't mean to be so angry, you just tick me off sometimes.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 19, 2006 8:19 PM

FLETCH2

I wasn't aware we were playing on "your" board in "your" threads. If you don't want a counter opinion then dont post one of your own, it's really that simple. I don't think you stupid, you just do things with language that makes me instinctively distrust your motives. It's a hot button issue with me. If you dont want my response stop pressing the button and use the language as the rest of us do and not to conform with your pre-existant "agenda."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 19, 2006 8:42 PM

DREAMTROVE

Quote:
I wasn't aware we were playing on "your" board in "your" threads. If you don't want a counter opinion then dont post one of your own, it's really that simple.

Actually, you follow my posts around like an annoying shadow. Like a politicop.

Quote:
I don't think you stupid, you just do things with language that makes me instinctively distrust your motives.

Since my use of language is the completely and unquestioning accepted usage in my neck of the woods that I state objectively, and motive free, as it does not lead to pre-conceived conclusions, and yours does, I find yours suspect. Also, and very importantly:

Since I choose these words, I choose them because they mean what I want to say. If I thought for one minute that they didn't, I would choose different words

If I say "liberal" or "conservative" it's because that's what I mean. If I didn't mean that I would say "Republican" or "Democrat" or "right wing" and "left wing" or "reactionary" and "radical" or any other words which apply to the situation. And you would attack them, because it's what you do. You're a spin doctor. I get that. I am not one. Please try to understand that.

Quote:
It's a hot button issue with me. If you dont want my response stop pressing the button and use the language as the rest of us do and not to conform with your pre-existant "agenda."

I have an agenda? This is completely news to me. I was brought up that agenda was a four letter word. I was amazed when Bush openly admitted to having one. An agenda is someone who comes in with a pre-set idea of what he wants to do. Don't think I don't know what words mean mister, I most certainly do. And this is not me. I'm not the guy who came in here with my mind set on a political idea. As I have said countless times, I gain nothing by convincing anyone of anything.

You know, I've been on committees in a few political parties in this country, including one nationally. I've argued politics with people who actually set platform points. And I never had an agenda. This group I came here to talk politics and science fiction with, I certainly don't have one now. Why would I? No one here has any political power whatsoever. No one is setting platform points, no one is voting on committees. There is nothing to accomplish. I'm here to have a conversation with informed people about stuff I care about, and to get their honest opinions.

You royally tick me off.

You try to spin it that I am somehow subverting language. This *is* the language we use. What an arrogant self righteous prick. Your agenda is to silence any opposition voice. I think that an opposition which isn't Bush is threatening to you because Bush is such an easy target.

Conservative is a word, with a definition, that the dictionary accepts, I accept everyone I know accepts, and we use daily. My post was about how this word doesn't describe Bush. I would like to get back to discussing that, and if you're not interested in that, and which I would guess you aren't, then please, for the love of whatever god you worship, get out of my face.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 19, 2006 10:10 PM

FLETCH2

A little none scientific analysis.

Of 19 threads five are yours, 3 were supposed to be deleted and 11 were everyone else. Since it appears you start around a 1/3 of the threads on the board it's kind of hard to avoid them.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 20, 2006 1:51 AM

SKYWALKEN

I love being a conservative. We conservatives are proud of our philosophy. Unlike our liberal friends, who are constantly looking for new words to conceal their true beliefs and are in a perpetual state of reinvention, we conservatives are unapologetic about our ideals. We are confident in our principles and energetic about openly advancing them. We believe in individual liberty, limited government, capitalism, the rule of law, faith, a color-blind society and national security. We support school choice, enterprise zones, tax cuts, welfare reform, faith-based initiatives, political speech, homeowner rights and the war on terrorism. And at our core we embrace and celebrate the most magnificent governing document ever ratified by any nation--the U.S. Constitution. Along with the Declaration of Independence, which recognizes our God-given natural right to be free, it is the foundation on which our government is built and has enabled us to flourish as a people.

- Rush Limbaugh

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 20, 2006 4:14 AM

DREAMTROVE

Well said, more or less. I have a few problems with Rush Limbaugh, but at least he gets it, overall.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 21, 2006 3:54 AM

SKYWALKEN

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Well said, more or less. I have a few problems with Rush Limbaugh, but at least he gets it, overall.

Ditto.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 21, 2006 7:41 AM

SANDS

I agree that this show has a bunch of conservative values but the number one value is limitation of a bloated government. It’s what makes us conservatives (or Reagan Conservatives as some of us have been called) the idea that our government was made by the people to protect and serve us not rule and control us, a representative government that believes in free enterprise and the basic human rights that are endowed to all men by the creator. Sounds religious? Damn right it is, a government that supports capitalism also has an innate trust in a divine being while as a socialized government represents mans trust in man (a truly evil thing). Let’s look at the past 60 years in America everything that the government has gotten their hands on has been destroyed, prime example: Social Security. Our social security is like Canada’s heath care system it’s broken and one day will inevitably collapse on itself. A Privatized Social Security would have been a good step in the right direction (other countries that have tried this system stated great successes with it) but Democrats refused to even look at this issue. Why? For the following reasons:

-Fear of turning Americans into Capitalist
-Fear of an informed populous (it shouldn’t surprise you that the majority of democratic votes come from improvised under educated families that believe anything our one party media cries out.)
-Fear of turning against their socialist ideals

So who do they hurt when they implement socialist ideals into a free society? (After all every other country who has tried it has had great success, right?) You, that’s who. Tax and spend liberal’s use our government as a personal penny bank all while spouting moral highs such as helping the poor, but all they are doing is keeping the poor suppressed so that they can continue to vote for them (just you watch as they ask the refugees from new Orleans to vote absentee). Redistribution of wealth, limitation of free enterprise, the disembowelment of religion (Freedom of religion not from it)…that’s not my America.

And just because somebody is gay or a whore doesn’t mean us Christians hate them. Jesus didn’t turn people away and neither do we.

(Post Script: Even though I don’t agree with the left I do believe that they and their opinions are needed in order to have a truly functional democracy.)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 21, 2006 3:16 PM

DREAMTROVE

Quote:
I agree that this show has a bunch of conservative values but the number one value is limitation of a bloated government. It’s what makes us conservatives (or Reagan Conservatives as some of us have been called)

I know people associate themselves to some extent with when they came on board with the idea, but I don't think there is such a thing specifically as a 'Reagan Conservative.' I tend to think of the GOP evolution as taking a few small steps, and then holding fairly steady, with the occasional misstep. Here's the stages of GOP I see:

Adams Republicans. (1824-1860) These are people who identify with the original Nat. Rep. Party, JQ Adams, and the original Jeffersonian ideas.

Lincoln Republicans. (1860-1900) This is the crowd to whom aggressive US policy represents a part of Manifest Destiny. I think these guys probably still support Bush, but they're not the same.

Roosevelt Republicans (1900-1950) This is the reinvention to end the concept of American isolationism in favor of an international diplomatic role, and a carefully moderated international free trade.

Eisenhower Republicans (1950-1980) This obviously includes Nixon, Dwight's VP, and was the re-invention to survive Hoover and FDR. It's based on economically a reaction against the advance of govt. and in favor societal values to prevent decadent decay. Internationally it was characterized by the doctrine of Containment.

1980-2000 was a period of flux in which two republican camps struggled for dominance in Washington. One was the old Eisenhower set, and the other was the neocons. Reagan had a number of Both in his govt. I was a liberal then, I didn't switch until I was won over by G.H.W. Bush. My never looking back was strongly brought on by the horridness of Clinton.

Now is a serious turning point for the GOP. It's the biggest one since 1932. There are two roads we could go down. To make my point, I need to revisit the Hoover debate.

Hoover was a firm believer in the idea that European Socialism had proved a success, and that it would be a good idea to institute this for America. He raised taxes from 10% to 30% and embarked on a huge series of govt. social programs which failed, cost much money, and Hoover's spending bankrupted the economy.

What happened with FDR is FDR basically took Hooverism, and redesigned it for the democrats, and to some degree, as well as could be hoped, made it work. To some extend this may have forced the GOP's hand, but in 1932, there was an internal debate:

Does the future GOP evolve Hooverism into a workable platform and try to build on that? or does it reject Hoover utterly, return to T. Roosevelt/Taft, and try to build on that?

Well the obvious answer of what it did was reject Hoover utterly and return to Roosevelt/Taft.

We are now at that crossroads again. Some people like myself, feel that Neoconism is a failure, a wrong turn like Hooverism. I would like to see the GOP return to Eisenhowerism as a base, evolve that philosophy forward to the 21st century, much the way Eisenhower did with Roosevelt Taft, bring it up to date half a century.

The opposing idea would be to accept Bushism as a new base, and build from that. What I would expect to happen is that the Democrats will take Neocon/Bushism, adapt it to the democratic party, and that would force us back my way. But, I understand there are opposing views on this issue.

Quote:
the idea that our government was made by the people to protect and serve us not rule and control us, a representative government that believes in free enterprise and the basic human rights that are endowed to all men by the creator. Sounds religious? Damn right it is, a government that supports capitalism also has an innate trust in a divine being while as a socialized government represents mans trust in man (a truly evil thing).

Oh, I'd so disagree with this analysis. I think the GOP is based on faith in man, but realistic, pragmatic faith, accepting that man is flawed. But we have no christian right here. Even our pro-Bush segment don't believe in God. No one does, except for a few flakey liberals, and they are sure that Jesus is all about Peace. I'm not entirely sure they're right, I think he had conflict in mind against the state of Rome, but I do get where they're coming from. He's probably more like them than he is like Bush. I'm just making this as an outside observer. My own faith does not support the idea of a supreme being. Jesus is to me, a historical figure, so just as I didn't mean to offend Mohammed with Jihad Jellydonuts, I don't mean to offend Jesus.

Quote:
Let’s look at the past 60 years in America everything that the government has gotten their hands on has been destroyed,

No arguments here.

Quote:
prime example: Social Security.

One quibble. The govt. created social security, and therefore cannot be said to have "gotten their hands on it" They also do suck at it supremely. Anyway,

Quote:
A Privatized Social Security would have been a good step in the right direction

Absolutely.

Quote:
Democrats refused to even look at this issue. Why?

Because it's money in the bank which they can spend.

Quote:
[Rant against liberals]

Was a little over the top but I do it sometimes. I guess when they rant against us, we should take it in stride. But I agree, or as John McCain put it: "They're the opposition, not the enemy."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE