PDA

View Full Version : Conservatism Failed, Deal With It!



Gayle in MD
09-27-2010, 10:13 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">To Republicans: Conservatism Has Failed. Deal With It
ShareNew 0by bonddad
Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 06:09:20 AM PDT


I have a guilty pleasure to admit: I have been listening to right wing radio over the last few weeks with increasing pleasure. I am reminded of the phrase, "when in a hole, the first thing to do is stop digging." However, it's doubtful they will take my advice. But in listening to Rush and Hannity and reading the likes of Powerline and RedState, I see them dance around the central issue without quite getting there. So let me offer my help to help them get to that ever important point of acceptance.

You guys controlled the While House and Congress for 6 years. The country saw what you want to accomplish and are experiencing the impact of your policies. And guess what? THEY THINK CONSERVATIVE GOVERNMENT STINKS.

bonddad's diary :: ::

Let's start with the big one.

No one likes Iraq. Between the shifting rationale for the war, the ever-increasing cost, the continued loss of American lives and the Iraqi's inability to form any kind of meaningful government, Iraq was a bad idea all the way around. Period. <span style='font-size: 14pt'>Spin it how you like, you're going to come up with the same answer.</span>

Terry Schiavo: This was by far the clearest indication of what the religious right will do if they attain power. And it isn't pretty. Let's tackle this by showing how clearly this situation violated literally every core Republican belief.

"Republicans believe in state's right." This situation was litigated for years at the state level, in an area of law that traditionally has happened at the state level. <span style='font-size: 14pt'>The religious right didn't like the result, so they made it a federal issue.</span>"Republicans believe in individual rights." Schiavo's husband demonstrated in court that his wife wanted to die should her then current situation happen to her. That was her individual choice. <span style='font-size: 14pt'>A judge agreed. The religious right decided that just wasn't good enough.</span>"Limited Federal Government". <span style='font-size: 14pt'>The Republicans used the federal government to interject themselves into a family matter. </span>
<span style='font-size: 14pt'>Katrina: This is what happens when people who don't like government and don't think it can work are put in charge.</span>
<span style='font-size: 14pt'>The economy: The Republicans -- the party of fiscal conservatism -- have added an additional $3.2 trillion dollars to the federal debt. They have created an economy build on debt at the consumer level and hoped to leave office before the secret got out. Well, the secret got out and people have figured out it was a giant illusion.

Here's the point: every policy that the Republicans have initiated has fallen apart. It doesn't work plain and simple. The Republicans wonder why there's an enthusiasm gap? Even Republican voters realize they're failed. Only the hard-core 30% Republican supporters are hanging on right now. Fine -- let them. It's their choice.</span>
Every "true conservative" Republican candidate has failed. The reason? <span style='font-size: 14pt'> Conservative polities don't work. You guys are trying to sell a typewriter in a word processor world. </span>When Republican are in charge

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>-- they are nothing more than power hungry spendthrifts who will add hundreds of billions to the national debt

-- they will lie to go to war (despite most of you never serving in the military yourself)

-- they will use the Federal government to interject themselves into personal family matters if their religious right leaders want them to.



Raise your hand if that's what you want in government.</span>Update [2008-2-9 11:17:2 by bonddad]:: I'm a big fan of brevity. And below wyvern sums it up best:

They had it all, and implemented it all, and in the end it amounted to a monumental, country-destroying clusterf**k.

</div></div>


<span style="color: #FF0000">Same truths which we were writing about on here, and attacked for by the right, and which REpublicans are promising to continue.

</span> /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

Gayle in MD
09-27-2010, 10:16 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Even if we limit the analysis by starting in 2003, when the dividend and capital gains tax cuts began, through the peak year of 2007, the result is still less income than at the 2000 level. Total income was down $951 billion during those four years.

Average incomes fell. Average taxpayer income was down $3,512, or 5.7 percent, in 2008 compared with 2000, President Bush's own benchmark year for his promises of prosperity through tax cuts.

Had incomes stayed at 2000 levels, the average taxpayer would have earned almost $21,000 more over those eight years. That's almost $50 per week.

</div></div>

jimmyg
09-27-2010, 10:24 AM
11,967 worthless, biased, misinformed, closed minded, politically based, posts. Pure cult like dribble. What a waste. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

J

Chopstick
09-27-2010, 01:10 PM
Tell me that next December.

sack316
09-27-2010, 02:17 PM
When was the last time we actually tried conservatism? I mean, actually implemented and executed conservative policies by and large? Certainly not in the last decade. There was what was sold as conservatism, but it was nothing more than rhetoric.

I may get lambasted for this, but Clinton was the closest thing (we may recall some backlash for him from his own party for being "too conservative")... and that guy did better than those who have followed him.

Now, have so called "conservatives" failed? YES! Have true and full conservative policies and/or values failed? Dunno, cuz I haven't really seen it in any form besides name only /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/frown.gif

Sack

pooltchr
09-27-2010, 02:36 PM
The one glaring lie that is used in the OP's post is the assumption that the Bush administration was conservative.

Again, they listen to what politicians say, and don't watch what they do.

There was nothing even resembling conservativism in the Bush administration.

Steve

hondo
09-27-2010, 05:13 PM
WADR, Jimmy, I would like to see a little more substance and analysis in your posts rather than this non-stop ragging on Gayle.

You've made your point. You don't like her. You don't agree with
her.
We've already got LWW and Steve Jennings bashing every post that Gayle and I make.

Why not let that crap go and make a positive influence on this forum or just stay on AZ? We don't need another Jennings and LWW.
Two are plenty.

hondo
09-27-2010, 05:14 PM
You make a good point.

pooltchr
09-27-2010, 08:16 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: hondo</div><div class="ubbcode-body">We've already got LWW and Steve Jennings bashing every post that Gayle and I make.

</div></div>

In your case, it's because you beg for it.

Steve

LWW
09-28-2010, 02:39 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The one glaring lie that is used in the OP's post is the assumption that the Bush administration was conservative.

Steve </div></div>

I have been saying that since 2000.

I have also been saying since 2003 that if Bush had (D) following his name on the ballot, the far left would be calling for him to be on Mt Rushmore.

The fact that the left hates Bush the way they do, in spite of him carrying their water far more often than not, merely proves how easily they are led by the nose.

But, then again, they have convinced their collectivist selves that Eddie Long is a conservative republican.

LWW

pooltchr
09-28-2010, 06:49 AM
Their depth of knowledge seems to go no farther than
(D)= Good and (R)=Bad.

Steve

Qtec
09-28-2010, 07:01 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style='font-size: 20pt'>Their</span> depth of knowledge seems to go no farther than
(D)= Good and (R)=Bad.

Steve </div></div>

LMAO

Q.........unbelievable.

Gayle in MD
09-28-2010, 10:10 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body">When was the last time we actually tried conservatism? I mean, actually implemented and executed conservative policies by and large? Certainly not in the last decade. There was what was sold as conservatism, but it was nothing more than rhetoric.

I may get lambasted for this, but Clinton was the closest thing (we may recall some backlash for him from his own party for being "too conservative")... and that guy did better than those who have followed him.

Now, have so called "conservatives" failed? YES! Have true and full conservative policies and/or values failed? Dunno, cuz I haven't really seen it in any form besides name only /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/frown.gif

Sack </div></div>

Well Sack, it seems to me I've been wtchig "Conservative" policies fail right along.

Here is a list of them, you can tell me whether or not you think they are part of "conservative" polices.


The Trickle Down Theory
Government IS The Problem, then he expanded it!
Subsidizing corporations that pollute, and/or out-source American jobs.
Deregulation across the board for corporations, particularluy oil.
Destroying Uniions for the American Workers
Amnesty
Anti-women's rights: (the right to control one's own body, and equal pay for equal work.
Anti gay rights
The Project For The New American Century
Just Say No as a way to deal with drug abuse
Interfering in personal family issues
Destroying the Mountain tops for the sake of the coal industry
Bush's "Ownership" Society
Pre-emptive war in Iraq
Failure to Exhaust Diplomacy and investigations before launching wars, aka Cowboy Diplomacy
Borrowing money to pay for wars and tax cuts, from Communist China
Failing to address China's devalued Yen, aka HUGE TRADE DEFICIT!
Expanding the Federal Government, (Didn't all of the so called "Conservatives" do that?)
Breaking with the Separation of church and State
Selling assault helter skelter!
Firing gay Ababic translators in the midst of war in the M.E. because they were gay!
Forcing Federal job applicants to state their social positions on abortion, and homosexuality marriage.
Firing Attorney's Generals for not politicizing the DOJ
Dstroying evidence of Treason
Blocking investigations of dangerous practices of the oil industry.
Blocking investigations of an attack on the U.S.


I guess, friend, my point is that when people who call themselves "Conservative" try to deny their own actions and behavior, their own failed policies, and then turn around and try to rename them, after the fact, it doesn't fly.

The only thing that's real, is what one does. Conservative policies are what conservatives do when they are voting, and in power.

They supported everything Bush wanted, in a block, so much so they earned the title of the Blank Check Republican Majority. They broke the Earmark Record!

The terms, Conservative AND Liberal, are both outdated, and irrelevant in today's world, IMO. The meanings in both cases have been so bastardized in the interests of propaganda and politics, they no long hold any meaning, IMO.

G.

sack316
09-28-2010, 11:08 AM
Conservatism: belief in personal responsibility, limited government, free markets, individual liberty, traditional American values and a strong national defense. Believe the role of government should be to provide people the freedom necessary to pursue their own goals.

Just because a republican calls him/her self a conservative, and presents a policy or some legislation, does not make it conservative by definition (which is my point, and to some extent part of your point in your response). THEY may call it so, media may refer to it as such... but as I said, all rhetoric. Bush and the last admin was referred to as "conservative"... but they were about as far away from being conservative (again, by definition) as can be.

Which, to my point, is that we really haven't seen what conservatism will do today in practice. It may even fail, point is we don't know as it has never been truly implemented in full.

Looking down your list:
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

The Trickle Down Theory
Government IS The Problem, then he expanded it!
Subsidizing corporations that pollute, and/or out-source American jobs.
Deregulation across the board for corporations, particularluy oil.
Destroying Uniions for the American Workers
Amnesty
Anti-women's rights: (the right to control one's own body, and equal pay for equal work.
Anti gay rights
The Project For The New American Century
Just Say No as a way to deal with drug abuse
Interfering in personal family issues
Destroying the Mountain tops for the sake of the coal industry
Bush's "Ownership" Society
Pre-emptive war in Iraq
Failure to Exhaust Diplomacy and investigations before launching wars, aka Cowboy Diplomacy
Borrowing money to pay for wars and tax cuts, from Communist China
Failing to address China's devalued Yen, aka HUGE TRADE DEFICIT!
Expanding the Federal Government, (Didn't all of the so called "Conservatives" do that?)
Breaking with the Separation of church and State
Selling assault helter skelter!
Firing gay Ababic translators in the midst of war in the M.E. because they were gay!
Forcing Federal job applicants to state their social positions on abortion, and homosexuality marriage.
Firing Attorney's Generals for not politicizing the DOJ
Dstroying evidence of Treason
Blocking investigations of dangerous practices of the oil industry.
Blocking investigations of an attack on the U.S.
</div></div>

for the most part, only proves my point.

Sack

sack316
09-28-2010, 11:10 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
The terms, Conservative AND Liberal, are both outdated, and irrelevant in today's world, IMO. The meanings in both cases have been so bastardized in the interests of propaganda and politics, they no long hold any meaning, IMO.

G.

</div></div>

forgot to include this in my last post... how very true this statement is!

Sack

LWW
09-28-2010, 11:22 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Conservatism: belief in personal responsibility, limited government, free markets, individual liberty, traditional American values and a strong national defense. Believe the role of government should be to provide people the freedom necessary to pursue their own goals.

Sack </div></div>

Actually those are the bedrock beliefs of traditional liberalism.

The squatters using the name "LIBERAL" today are simply oligarchists who believe in the absolute primacy of the state.

LWW

Gayle in MD
09-28-2010, 11:42 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
The terms, Conservative AND Liberal, are both outdated, and irrelevant in today's world, IMO. The meanings in both cases have been so bastardized in the interests of propaganda and politics, they no long hold any meaning, IMO.

G.

</div></div>

forgot to include this in my last post... how very true this statement is!

Sack </div></div>

Yes, it is, Sack...and as you said, when hve we ever had a conservative majority, or a conservative president, who would fit your definition???

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Conservatism: belief in personal responsibility, limited government, free markets, individual liberty, traditional American values and a strong national defense. Believe the role of government should be to provide people the freedom necessary to pursue their own goals.
</div></div>

And further, are all of the above, even realistic, or literally defined?

Let's take the first, belief in personal responsibbility. How far do we take that as a humame society? IOW, there are circumstances which no one, regardless of how responsible they have been in the way they live their lives, could possible survive, without FEMA and other Government aid. IOW, not all life threatening, accidental, or simple bad luck situations should be ignored in order to enforce personal responsibility.

Limited Government, is there any Republican majority, or president, who stood for that principle, in fact?

Free Markets, I think all Americans believe in the Free Market principle, but should we be so enamoured with it, as an ideology, that we allow wide scale corruption and fraud, or decide to let the market crash, rather than act to lesson or prevent impending disaster, or turn away from insurance corporations who fail to keep their promise to those whom they insure?

Individual Liberty? That one seems to ONLY be represented by Liberal thinking people, doesn't it? What gives religious people, for example, the right to force their personal religious ideals upon a soceity which is composed of many religious, and non religious views, or any right to seek to dictate to a women what she can and can't do with her own body? O declare that no all of it's people have the right to a legal marrigae? Or allow a president to take federal action and interfere in personal, private family matters? Or deny a woman's right to due process of the law, when she was kidnapped, and gang raped?

Nothing about personal freedom, there, is there?

Traditional American Values? Now that is surely as subjective a principle as anyoone could possibly try to define, isn't it?

What is one person's Traditional American Values, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, is another's demise, isn't it?

For example, personal freedom, or separation of church and state, each means very different things to different people. I really think that ideal was meant to mean, MYOB! Live and let live, but that surely doesn't seem to be the way that "Conservatives" decipher it, does it?

And the last, The government should provide the people the freedom necessary to pursue their goals? How could anyone have that freedom, if they could not access a good education, or decent health care when they are ill?

Or have the right to even control their own body?

I guess my point, abbove all, is that any of these so called conservative principles, are not at all included in their standard policies, or legislative actions, or statements, IMO, and the most ridiculous excuse for poor Republican performance, is to call them Liberals, LMAO! Think! Which president most achieved those very conservative principles? Which party actually commits to building a country which COULD provide those opportunities and freedoms to Americans?

G.

pooltchr
09-28-2010, 02:21 PM
And somehow, you want the government to pass laws to enforce all of this. Do you not see how you are granting power to the government at the expense of the individuals.

The biggest difference between us is we believe that individuals are best equipped to self determination, while you believe that the government needs to control everything.

Steve