Any Conservatives on E?

[Mr Self Destruct]

So here I stand, surrounded by liberal bias and hate directed against anyone that decries Obama as a leftist and Anti-American.  Everywhere I turn, I see left leaning members of E expressing their hatred of everything that's being done to turn this country around from the cliff it's speedily headed toward.  I'll admit...it's a little lonely over here on the Conservative Right.

So, the question goes out...how many more Conservatives are members on this forum?  Come on out, don't be afraid of the finger pointing and biting that we see as common place among the Democrats and their supporters.  I've been called racist, old-fashioned, and hopeless, but I won't give up.  This is my son's future at stake.  This is personal.

So come on out, fellow Conservatives.  Make your voices heard so that we can show our fellows we're not alone!

[Stattick]

Obama's a centrist actually. If he was a leftist, he'd be a socialist or communist. The GOP has moved to the radical right, and the Democrats have expanded to fill the centrist void the Republicans abandoned. Also, Obama's just as American as Romney. He just has different ideas of where the country should go.


Also, I used to be a Republican. I think I'll bow out of this thread now. Enjoy. ;)

[Mr Self Destruct]

Feel better? Good. Goodbye then.

[ManyMindsManyVoices]

"You're asking if a board full of gay, lesbian, bisexual, transsexual, transgendered, pansexual, poly, and friends of all of the above; has supporters of a policy of hating said people? Yeah, probably a few, just based on statistics, but on the whole... You probably know the answer."

"People here have children, too. Some of those people are likely homosexual or bisexual, and they want what's best for their kids, too."

"Sorry you don't feel you fit in, but outside of here, that's where most of us don't 'fit in'. I just can't feel good about saying, 'go ahead and have whatever opinion you like', when that opinion includes supporting the kind of people who would look at most of the people here as garbage."

"You're here for a reason, so I hope you don't hold that same opinion, because that would be pretty disappointing. I don't want to start a thing, but that 'son's future', passive-aggression, I'd say it's not a good way to make friends."

[Vekseid]

There are many economic conservatives here. AndyZ, Zakharra, Zamdrist, Akiko, and others.

There are a number of military conservatives here. Even a few who believe the Iraq War was a good thing and are willing to state that.

Social conservatives either get converted or driven off.



There have been a lot of heated disagreements and I get chastised by staff about my language occasionally, and do hope to improve matters, but rehashing the same argument repeatedly is quite frustrating.

I do have to wonder where the 'line' is, though. What sort of talk needs to be tolerated to be considered 'non-partisan'? I routinely come across 'right wing' websites where open discussion of committing genocide against 'liberals' is tolerated and sometimes encouraged. Where should I draw the line to make things 'acceptable' to 'conservatives'?

Because it's demagoguery like calling Obama 'anti-American' that leads to such talk. Especially when it comes from people who put their political affiliation before their nation, and switch to a jingoistic frenzy when they have power.

Demagoguery is not conservative. It's an authoritarian tactic.

Anti-intellectualism is not conservative. It's an authoritarian tactic.

Conservatism is about caution.

People are making it into a platform of cowardice.

I am hopeful that the distinction will become a more mainstream concept and that we can return to some degree of sanity.

[Miss Lilly]

*waves her hand in the air*

I'm what you guys would consider a conservative, although our politics are slightly different from yours.  But, if I was over there, I'd be a Republican...I think.

Saying that, Ryuka, I'm none of the things you listed, and am a little confused as to why you would say that conservative = hatred of anyone who's not heterosexual. Is there something I'm missing?

[Stattick]

Saying that, Ryuka, I'm none of the things you listed, and am a little confused as to why you would say that conservative = hatred of anyone who's not heterosexual. Is there something I'm missing?

It's common here in the US for conservatives to be against everything that's not hetero-normative. Hell, a lot of them are against anyone that doesn't think that sex outside of marriage is abhorrent, and that divorce is somewhere between shameful and deeply sinful.

Not all conservatives feel this way of course. Social conservatives are the puritanical ones, and even they vary a great deal in how rabidly they believe or practice these tenants. Others are socially conservative on only selected issues (perhaps they believe that divorce is acceptable, but homosexuality is sinful).

Others aren't socially conservative at all, but conservative in other ways, so they vote with the Republicans. It's one of the flaws of a two party system like we have in the US. Most people end up with a party that doesn't truly represent them, and just have to pick the one that comes closest to representing them. Or some stay independent, and swing both ways, depending on their whim, or who they think will do a better job. Others are purely single issue voters, but since most issues firmly belong as a "pro" in one party and as a "con" in the other, they pick the party based on that. There aren't a lot of issues where both parties agree, and usually it's an issue that's in a matter of flux. When one party switches from "pro" to "con", the other party will usually switch from "con" to "pro". It's an artifact of a two party system that can be expressed elegantly in Game Theory. If no one is "pro" on a given issue, it usually behooves one of the parties to come out to be "for" that thing to pick up the single issue voters.

Bah, here I am posting again in here. I'll try to stay out, or at least keep my presence to a minimum though, honest.

[ManyMindsManyVoices]

"Well, in America, it's pretty damn common for the two to be related issues. Mitt Romney, our current 'conservative' candidate, is definitely anti-nonheteronormative. The statement Dark Clown made about, 'his son's future' has to do clearly with the Mitt vs. Obama stuff in America currently. To me, voting for a man who can sit down with a war veteran and talk to him like a friend, right up until said vet reveals he's gay, then just walk away like that person isn't worth his time... That, to me, isn't even a human, much less a president."

"I could never be a conservative, because not a single government in all of history that I've ever known has been anything less than inexcusably broken."

[Teo Torriatte]

Actually, to be fair, the conservatives would probably agree with you. They believe in government that is so small, you could drown it in a bathtub...

...unless we are talking about social issues like gay marriage or legal abortion, then the government couldn't be big or intrusive enough.

[ManyMindsManyVoices]

"I believe in a government so small that it wouldn't exist... So... yeah."

EDIT: "But the topic isn't, 'So, how 'bout that anarchy?' I just felt the need, in my prior post, to respond to a question directly asked of me."

[Stattick]

Actually, to be fair, the conservatives would probably agree with you. They believe in government that is so small, you could drown it in a bathtub...

...unless we are talking about social issues like gay marriage or legal abortion, then the government couldn't be big or intrusive enough.

It depends. To be fair, there is a branch of the GOP that champions gay rights, civil rights, privacy rights, and so forth. They're called Libertarians. Sometimes they go their own way or call themselves independents. At other times, they're part of the GOP. Some of them can be quite liberal on social issues. Sadly, the socially liberal ones running for office have mostly been driven off by the GOP purity tests.

And I'm utterly failing to stay out of this thread, aren't I?

[Jag]

*raises hand*

I'm a conservative...but I'm not going to discuss it. My political and religious views don't matter here on E for the reasons I come here. *shrugs and heads back out of the thread*

[Devilyn Sydhe]

*raises hand*

I guess in a lot of ways I'd be more libertarian, but I am fiscally conservative in that I dont believe we should be spending money we dont have, regardless of party.  I believe in the free market system in as much as anyone who is able should work for what they have, not wait for the government to decide your fair share.  It's not for the government to decide who you sleep with anymore than they should decide what you drive, what you eat or what temperature your home should be.  I dont like big, oppressive government in any form and that is exactly what we now have with Obama.  I cant say with certainty that Romney will be vastly better,  but I do have an idea the trouble Obama is leading us into in a second term where he would be nearly untouchable.

As far as social or religious conservatism, I personally am in no way religious but I refuse to condemn those who do have faith as if I'm somehow so much wiser.   It does strike me, however, how some religions can be ridiculed to no end, can have every despicable thing in the world said about them, and others can not be poked at all.  Freedom of speech exists for everyone, not just the politically correct.  As far as insults from the right go, please, really?  I lived through the Bush years, anyone claiming a hostile tone only began under Obama's presidency is dealing in revisionist history.  There is nothing under the global warming sun that Republicans havent been called over the years.  We just rub some dirt on it and get back into the game.

I guess I'm also a conservative when it comes to the military as I do believe the only way to truly keep the peace is to regain a strong front.  We've spent the last few years apologizing, downplaying America's importance in the world, and look now where the world is heading.  I'm not saying wars are the answer either, but if we dont keep America strong fiscally and militarily, who will be there the next time a dictator rises up or a disaster strikes another country? The U.N.?  Who here is really in favor of a one world government?  And please dont say its not our job, or its none of our business as we cant really wall ourselves off from the rest of the world.

So yeah, I'm a small government conservative, not Democrat or Republican when both parties just want to be in your lives one way or another.  I'm voting for Romney because I've watched Obama inherit a mess and only make it worse by nearly all objective standards.  I could not expect him to have everything fixed in four years, though he himself said he should be a one term president if he didnt, but I would expect things to be showing improvement.  Gas prices, food prices, energy prices, deficits, unemployment, housing, they all would add up to running any Republican president out of office and Obama should get no special treatment.  He's proven he cant fix the problem and, if Romney can't at least show improvement in 4 years, he'll be out on his ass too.  As far as gay marriage or homosexuals in the military goes, you do know who signed Dont ask, dont tell into law right?  And Obama really only became friendly toward gay marriage when it became politically expedient.  Obama is a career community organizer with no real idea how to manage a business or a country and this November I'll definitely be hoping for a real change.

[Callie Del Noire]

Define conservative. 

Do you mean Neo-conservative, ie the socially conservatives who currently rule the GOP and are revising everything to justify their extreme agenda...

Or a Modern Conservative, like Barry Goldwater or to a lesser extent Ronald Reagan? Who are for the most part socially moderate and trend towards small or right sized government?

You'll have to be more specific. But I'm sure you'll see damned few Neo-conservatives on this board. Almost everyone here, by the general tolerance and understand of the board, would be ostracized by them.

Me? I'm MOSTLY Modern Conservative but that means I'm a person without a party these days.

The big thing I think is that 'small government' isn't automatically best. Look at the bank issues or agribusiness issues of the last 10 years. Who here honestly thinks it wise to let them 'self regulate'?

I've been called a 'Pinko' because I refuse to let fear rule my decisions and honestly feel that things like the Patriot act and this years NDAA atrocity dismiss all our freedoms in ways that would terrify the founding fathers. 

I have watched GOP leadership come out and say that their goal during the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression was to ensure the president didn't get reflected. TWO years of obstructionism and partisan Tom foolery rather than statesmanship. I've seen a party that USED to talk, change the rules of order to ensure the other side couldn't debate.  I watched the old men in charge, of the party not our elected officials, sell the soul of the GOP to keep control rather tha give it up to younger men. Of course one of those younger men was my brother who tried to run for office 'above his place' in the party. (The words of a party officer who tried for TEN years to get him to run for a lower office)

[Elias]

Yeah there's conservatives about just have to look harder because Libs like to be loud and after Romney creamed Obama in the debates last night it looks like we may win  :P

[Devilyn Sydhe]

Conservatives have to be extremely careful these next 30 days or so as the full weight of the left wing media will be aimed at Romney now that he made their messiah look bad.  Watch now how every trick in the book will be unleashed to try to cover for Obama.  It does make me wish the election was soon because I do think that right now Romney would win.  It also makes me look forward to that Ryan/Biden debate even more.  Now that could be embarassing :D

[Zeitgeist]

My name was mentioned above as a conservative and so I feel compelled to raise my hand and confirm that. Yes, I'm an economic conservative as well as a military one. My conservatism however doesn't come by way of religion and so social issues like gay marriage for example don't get me excited.

Bottom line for me is, conservative goals can be met through smaller government, and it should be the focus. Conservative and Republican politicians too often get lost in the woods when it comes to social issues. Keep your eye on the ball, the ball being smaller, more efficient and streamlined federal government.

Whenever presented with any particular problem or issue, look for a local solution first. The first knee-jerk reaction shouldn't be to punt the problem up to Washington. Look local first. Localism is something I hope both sides could come closest to agreement on.

[Valerian]

So here I stand, surrounded by liberal bias and hate directed against anyone that decries Obama as a leftist and Anti-American.  Everywhere I turn, I see left leaning members of E expressing their hatred of everything that's being done to turn this country around from the cliff it's speedily headed toward.  I'll admit...it's a little lonely over here on the Conservative Right.

So, the question goes out...how many more Conservatives are members on this forum?  Come on out, don't be afraid of the finger pointing and biting that we see as common place among the Democrats and their supporters.  I've been called racist, old-fashioned, and hopeless, but I won't give up.  This is my son's future at stake.  This is personal.

So come on out, fellow Conservatives.  Make your voices heard so that we can show our fellows we're not alone!

You might also want to bear in mind that disagreement with your positions does not equal hate.  So far all the disagreement here has been quite civil, so I would suggest that throwing around words like 'hate' and implying that all Democrats do nothing but throw blame around isn't the best way to continue on that civil path.  There are obviously other people here who at least lean conservative and aren't afraid to speak up.  Reasonable debate is always welcome here.

You say this is personal.  Well, it's personal for everyone, including those who disagree with you.  Please bear that in mind when you post in these boards.

Yeah there's conservatives about just have to look harder because Libs like to be loud and after Romney creamed Obama in the debates last night it looks like we may win  :P

And again, there seems to be a good deal of overgeneralizing going on here.  Please tone that down and keep things civil, all right?

[Elias]

Yes Social conservatives (In the media) Make me cringe. However the average social conservative I defend to the hilt because I have seen them to be some of the finest people imaginable. That being said I am an atheist conservative at worst, agnostic at best. I am a small business man, I despise liberal regulation, believe in small business and feel that Liberals hand out benefits to the undeserving while people like my fiance with MS who actually deserves treatment gets left out in the cold (Yeah all Obamas big talk and she just lost another $200) I am for the little guy my ass.

[Avis habilis]

Look local first. Localism is something I hope both sides could come closest to agreement on.

True that. I'm an actual pinko, but I agree that the feds are sometimes something you have to work around, not rely on.

[Devilyn Sydhe]

You might also want to bear in mind that disagreement with your positions does not equal hate.  So far all the disagreement here has been quite civil, so I would suggest that throwing around words like 'hate' and implying that all Democrats do nothing but throw blame around isn't the best way to continue on that civil path.  There are obviously other people here who at least lean conservative and aren't afraid to speak up.  Reasonable debate is always welcome here.

I would like to totally agree with your statements.  Just because someone disagrees with another's point of view does not make them hateful.  Far too often, the conservative right is considered nothing but haters or right wing nuts simply for diverging from what is considered 'politically correct' whether it be a belief in God to a disbelief in man made global warming.  So many people, on both sides, take their own opinion as fact and anything which contradicts is close minded hatred or uninformed following.  I am always open to reasonable civil debate even if I do have my own set opinions on issues.

[Miss Lilly]

Can someone explain 'pinko' to me??

[Devilyn Sydhe]

It is a slang term for Communist, Lilly, I'm sure its a play off the color red representing communism, but not sure if 'pinko' is supposed to represent a lighter form i.e. socialism

[Callie Del Noire]

It is a slang term for Communist, Lilly, I'm sure its a play off the color red representing communism, but not sure if 'pinko' is supposed to represent a lighter form i.e. socialism

It was a very bad thing for a sailor with a clearance to be called by a chief petty officer. He TRIED to have my clearance pulled because of that, and had he won that fight.. I'd have been finished as a avionics tech. Without a clearance I couldn't work on much of anything in my rating. Had he not had a full on rant in front of the Maintenance Master Chief and Maintenance Officer, he might have gotten away with it.

That and the fact I was one of three petty officers who knew how to maintain and frequency sweep one particular system.

[Miss Lilly]

Thanks, Kaleb...

What's the opposite of pink? Cos that's me! ;)

[Callie Del Noire]

Thanks, Kayleb...

What's the opposite of pink? Cos that's me! ;)

Hmm.. The Tea Party?

[Miss Lilly]

Is that a kind of murkey gold colour?  ::)

[Avis habilis]

Uh ... violet? Lilac?

I got nothin'.

[Miss Lilly]

I'll take....all of the above!! ;D

[TheGlyphstone]

Pardon my mild sarcasm, but why is someone surprised that a forum dedicated to adult roleplaying, alternative sexual interests, and non-hetero-normative sexual orientations/identities - things the far right would see ground out of existence if they could - tends towards to attract more liberals than conservatives (a 'liberal bias')?

(That's not to disparage people like Calli or Zeitgeist, who I feel are the exceptions that prove the rule...you can have conservative leanings and still be a sane+tolerant human being. But considering how often 'conservative' and 'religious right' march in lockstep, it's hardly a shock that people with those attitudes aren't going to congregate here.)

[Callie Del Noire]

Pardon my mild sarcasm, but why is someone surprised that a forum dedicated to adult roleplaying, alternative sexual interests, and non-hetero-normative sexual orientations/identities - things the far right would see ground out of existence if they could - tends towards to attract more liberals than conservatives (a 'liberal bias')?

(That's not to disparage people like Calli or Zeitgeist, who I feel are the exceptions that prove the rule...you can have conservative leanings and still be a sane+tolerant human being. But considering how often 'conservative' and 'religious right' march in lockstep, it's hardly a shock that people with those attitudes aren't going to congregate here.)

Two Words: Modern Conservative. To quote one of the big men of the movement.. "I don't care if a soldier is straight or not, but that he shoots straight'. Barry Goldwater, in the EARLY 60s.

I'm for 'right sized' government, little of this social conservative crap that we've seen of late, and even less of this fear mongering attack on our rights. Tell me how being locked up indefinitely for opposing the government is a democratic government's 'best option'.

[TheGlyphstone]

Two Words: Modern Conservative. To quote one of the big men of the movement.. "I don't care if a soldier is straight or not, but that he shoots straight'. Barry Goldwater, in the EARLY 60s.

I'm for 'right sized' government, little of this social conservative crap that we've seen of late, and even less of this fear mongering attack on our rights. Tell me how being locked up indefinitely for opposing the government is a democratic government's 'best option'.

Yeah, I was just about to come back and edit my post to clarify after re-reading yours. But 'neo-conservative', as you put it, has become the definition most people use for 'conservative' in general.

[Callie Del Noire]

Yeah, I was just about to come back and edit my post to clarify after re-reading yours. But 'neo-conservative', as you put it, has become the definition most people use for 'conservative' in general.

'
I know.. which is while I see myself as a conservative in fiscal/policy matters.. (or used to given the grown 'head in sand/ass' about foreign policies that the neo-conservatives push as 'sensible' when they aren't calling for carpet bombing of oil exporting countries)

[Rolo]

I will throw my hat into the conservative arena.  I am a small business owner and could bore you to tears on the daily grind just to survive, but I want to raise a different issue.

It sickens me to no end that the two party political system is defined by inconsequential issues as cornerstones.  i.e. abortion, and gay rights.  My views on the two?  I am Pro-Life by choice.  Just because I do not believe in abortions, does not give me the right to tell others that they cannot.  As for Gay Rights, if my extremely basic understanding is correct, the primary issue is Gay Marriage, and the associated privileges that go with marriage.  I don't think that anyone is saying that someone does not have the right to be gay is my point.  I have no problem with Gay Marriage, I believe they should have the right to be just as miserable as heterosexuals.

The gist is this.  If abortions are stopped and Gays are allowed to marry in all 50 states, how the hell does that help the GNP, Foreign affairs, trillion dollar deficit spending, dwindling social security and a laundry list of other issues that are collectively causing the U.S. to go down the proverbial toilet?

Look deeper into your political parties.  Look for those that have the business of running America first at heart.  If you happen to agree with their ideas as to what is best for the country moving forward, then that should be your candidate regardless of their views on the inconsequential.

[Cyrano Johnson]

Just because someone disagrees with another's point of view does not make them hateful.  Far too often, the conservative right is considered nothing but haters or right wing nuts simply for diverging from what is considered 'politically correct' whether it be a belief in God to a disbelief in man made global warming.

This... kind of has a lot to do with their behaviour, though.

There are small-c conservatives who are perfectly reasonable people. Often wrong, I tend to think, but still at least reasonable, and with reasonable and hard-to-dismiss points to make about contemporary society. There are compelling conservative arguments to be made against the Imperial version of the American Republic, against the increasing encroachment of the surveillance / police state mentality on modern life in so-called "free" democracies, against the merits of a society whose sky-high divorce rates imperil children and contribute to child sexual assault. Agree or disagree with those arguments, they're a legitimate part of serious debate. Even where socially dislikable views come up in this context, or where the "small government" shibboleth turns up (this meme was always sort of bullshit IMO), one at least has the prospect of interacting with and having an effect on those views through rational argument.

Then there are Conservatives, the Movement, the intact core of the furthest right wing that's been present since the days of Goldwater but now runs the Republican Party more completely than it ever did (likewise it now drives the "Conservative Party" in Canada). This sector of conservatism is disinterested in reason and critical thinking (literally; the Texas Republicans actually denounce "critical thinking" in a recent platform). It's authoritarian, with no real interest in intra-party dialogue or dialogue with anyone outside it. It foments actual hate against any part of society that is not part of the movement -- Treason and Slander and Liberal Fascism are how it views others -- and it's incapable of speaking to broader society without trying to shout opponents down in the ugliest possible fashion, because it's deeply insecure in the presence of narratives and truths not its own.

There's a reason this latter kind of Conservatism is viewed as hateful and crazy: because it is. It foments hate against gays and alternative lifestyles (despite its politicians' manifest penchant for rent boys), panders actively to White Supremacist "Patriot" groups and to their conspiracy-theory fantasies (that's why so much Tea Party rhetoric about Obama sounds so deranged and delusionally over the top), and most recently it foments actual hate for women with the nerve to use birth control. It inhabits and actively promotes an alternate fantasy universe -- regular Fox News viewers are substantially likelier than the rest of the populace to believe objectively false things about current events -- and works hard to substitute false and damaging fantasy narratives for actual fact and science, as with the climate change denialism that it promotes as "skepticism," or with Intelligent Design promoting itself as a "scientific theory," or with revisionist history textbooks designed to rewrite the GOP as the heroes of the Civil Rights Movement. 

There's no use at this point pretending that the second kind of Conservatism doesn't exist. It exists, and it's what a lot of people are reacting to under the "conservative" label, and they are right to regard it as pernicious. This doesn't change the fact that other kinds of conservatives exist and are deserving of respect.

[Callie Del Noire]

You want to know my take on things? Some of the best times in recent history, in my opinion, for getting stuff done was under Reagan to Clinton, when the parties still talked to each other. Before the radicalization of both parties in different ways. You got the gauntlet of special interests in the Democrats and the radical extreme social conservatism of the GOP. Before men like Newt Gingrich refused to talk, play, socialise with the other side and mandated EVERYONE in the GOP side of Congress do the same. Before the leaders of both parties made compromise, bipartian, and debate bad words.

The times weren't perfect, but the system worked. Today.. we've let our party and elected officials get away with actions that should require them voted out of office.

Let me say this.. I don't LIKE some of the people I voted for.. I won't like who I've GOING to vote for this cycle. I do expect them to be LEADERS vice Party members.

You don't have a hell of a lot of leaders these days.

[Cyrano Johnson]

I don't think the behaviour of both American political parties is equivalent, because their structures aren't. The Dems are a much looser coalition -- of necessity, they're a big tent of everyone from progressives on the left to conservatives who no longer want to identify as GOP on the right -- and they have lots of flaws, because managing the big tent is hugely unwieldly and requires lots of intra-party compromise before the question of "bipartisanship" ever comes up. If they're uninspiring, and they often are, that's a big part of why.

The GOP is a lot more tightly-controlled and organized, and is largely focused on spiting the opposition and exploiting the angers and insecurities of a specifically white and male demographic (they're quite open about this, in unguarded moments). It wants power, but no longer appears to want it for anything apart from lining the pockets of its biggest donors (which is why Mitt Romney got caught on tape writing off half of the American electorate). Only one of the two parties has ever shut down government as a political tactic, and only one of the two parties has proved more dedicated to spiting its opposition than dealing with the business of government (hence the surreal circuses over ObamaCare and the debt ceiling).

Both parties are flawed, but they are not equally responsible for the current state of America.

[Callie Del Noire]

I don't think the behaviour of both American political parties is equivalent, because their structures aren't. The Dems are a much looser coalition -- of necessity, they're a big tent of everyone from progressives on the left to conservatives who no longer want to identify as GOP on the right -- and they have lots of flaws, because managing the big tent is hugely unwieldly and requires lots of intra-party compromise before the question of "bipartisanship" ever comes up. If they're uninspiring, and they often are, that's a big part of why.

The GOP is a lot more tightly-controlled and organized, and is largely focused on spiting the opposition and exploiting the angers and insecurities of a specifically white and male demographic (they're quite open about this, in unguarded moments). It wants power, but no longer appears to want it for anything apart from lining the pockets of its biggest donors (which is why Mitt Romney got caught on tape writing off half of the American electorate). Only one of the two parties has ever shut down government as a political tactic, and only one of the two parties has proved more dedicated to spiting its opposition than dealing with the business of government (hence the surreal circuses over ObamaCare and the debt ceiling).

Both parties are flawed, but they are not equally responsible for the current state of America.

True.. definitely. I wonder what some of the old statemen of the GOP like Senator Goldwater or even Jesse Helms would say about the current group in charge. Jesse was an old bastard, and possibly racist as his foes said (though I doubt it), but he DID step down from position on the Joint Arms Committee to hold one on the Joint Agricultural Committee.. Why? Cause it was more helpful to his constituents to be on the Agricultural comittee, he stood beside Bono (who he probably disagreed with on music lyrics) to forgive Foreign Debt owed us. He was a steadfast dixiecrat republican who got reelected REPEATEDLY in a democratic ruled state (this is the first time since the reconstruction the GOP has had control of both parts of the state house) because he was a Leader, a Statesmen..and honestly pursued the interests HIS voters.

Don't see folks like that anymore.  Imperfect people. Maybe. People who make mistakes. yeah. But ones who honestly try to do leading rather than the unelected leaders of the party.

[Devilyn Sydhe]

I don't think the behaviour of both American political parties is equivalent, because their structures aren't. The Dems are a much looser coalition -- of necessity, they're a big tent of everyone from progressives on the left to conservatives who no longer want to identify as GOP on the right -- and they have lots of flaws, because managing the big tent is hugely unwieldly and requires lots of intra-party compromise before the question of "bipartisanship" ever comes up. If they're uninspiring, and they often are, that's a big part of why.

The GOP is a lot more tightly-controlled and organized, and is largely focused on spiting the opposition and exploiting the angers and insecurities of a specifically white and male demographic (they're quite open about this, in unguarded moments). It wants power, but no longer appears to want it for anything apart from lining the pockets of its biggest donors (which is why Mitt Romney got caught on tape writing off half of the American electorate). Only one of the two parties has ever shut down government as a political tactic, and only one of the two parties has proved more dedicated to spiting its opposition than dealing with the business of government (hence the surreal circuses over ObamaCare and the debt ceiling).

Both parties are flawed, but they are not equally responsible for the current state of America.

So now ideological disagreement is merely 'spiting the competition'?  Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but are Republicans expected to give up all they value because we have a Democratic president?  True, much of it has to do with a polarization in Washington but that did not begin on President Obama's inaugaration day.  Am I really the only one who remembers President Bush as that 'Dumbest man on the planet yet somehow 911 mastermind'?  I tend to believe accusing the Republicans of stealing two straight elections, of being Nazis, of being murderers of women and children overseas for oil tended to spoil the mood of Washington long before Obama.  Would anyone truly believe a Pelosi/Reid congress cooperated with Bush?  Not saying its the best either way, but it is the way of politics.  Other presidents haven't sat back and moaned about it, they did what was necessary to gain compromise, to find consensus.  I'd honestly ask what important measures have the Democratic Senate offered up only to have shot down by Republicans.

As for radical fringe elements, both sides can count them in their number.  I dont really need to count off all the left wing kooks, from Code Pink to the Occupy crowd, that I wouldnt hold all Democrats responsible for.  Also, to say that the GOP is such a tight knit community is a fallacy.  There is far more conflict between conservatives and establishment Republicans than any division I'm aware of in the Democrat party.  When anti-war protestors who were so vocal before fall into lockstep now that Obama runs the war in Afghanistan and keeps Gitmo open, I have to wonder just how divided they are.

[Elias]

So now ideological disagreement is merely 'spiting the competition'?  Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but are Republicans expected to give up all they value because we have a Democratic president?  True, much of it has to do with a polarization in Washington but that did not begin on President Obama's inaugaration day.  Am I really the only one who remembers President Bush as that 'Dumbest man on the planet yet somehow 911 mastermind'?  I tend to believe accusing the Republicans of stealing two straight elections, of being Nazis, of being murderers of women and children overseas for oil tended to spoil the mood of Washington long before Obama.  Would anyone truly believe a Pelosi/Reid congress cooperated with Bush?  Not saying its the best either way, but it is the way of politics.  Other presidents haven't sat back and moaned about it, they did what was necessary to gain compromise, to find consensus.  I'd honestly ask what important measures have the Democratic Senate offered up only to have shot down by Republicans.

As for radical fringe elements, both sides can count them in their number.  I dont really need to count off all the left wing kooks, from Code Pink to the Occupy crowd, that I wouldnt hold all Democrats responsible for.  Also, to say that the GOP is such a tight knit community is a fallacy.  There is far more conflict between conservatives and establishment Republicans than any division I'm aware of in the Democrat party.  When anti-war protestors who were so vocal before fall into lockstep now that Obama runs the war in Afghanistan and keeps Gitmo open, I have to wonder just how divided they are.

Beautifully said.

[Callie Del Noire]

So now ideological disagreement is merely 'spiting the competition'?  Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but are Republicans expected to give up all they value because we have a Democratic president?  True, much of it has to do with a polarization in Washington but that did not begin on President Obama's inaugaration day.  Am I really the only one who remembers President Bush as that 'Dumbest man on the planet yet somehow 911 mastermind'?  I tend to believe accusing the Republicans of stealing two straight elections, of being Nazis, of being murderers of women and children overseas for oil tended to spoil the mood of Washington long before Obama.  Would anyone truly believe a Pelosi/Reid congress cooperated with Bush?  Not saying its the best either way, but it is the way of politics.  Other presidents haven't sat back and moaned about it, they did what was necessary to gain compromise, to find consensus.  I'd honestly ask what important measures have the Democratic Senate offered up only to have shot down by Republicans.

As for radical fringe elements, both sides can count them in their number.  I dont really need to count off all the left wing kooks, from Code Pink to the Occupy crowd, that I wouldnt hold all Democrats responsible for.  Also, to say that the GOP is such a tight knit community is a fallacy.  There is far more conflict between conservatives and establishment Republicans than any division I'm aware of in the Democrat party.  When anti-war protestors who were so vocal before fall into lockstep now that Obama runs the war in Afghanistan and keeps Gitmo open, I have to wonder just how divided they are.

Gitmo will never get relocated. Who is going to be the congressman/senator that lets the Feds set up a Supermax with those folks in their backyard. It was a non-issue from day one. Notice that a LOT of the presidents anti-war and instant fix issue with Iraq and Afganistan ended the week he got the nomination of the party. After he got his full intel brief he had to realize what he was selling wouldn't work.

Just like the crazies, on both sides I might add, who want us to pull up EVERYTHING and pull back to our borders.

Can't be done. Unless you want your kids back there in ANOTHER 30 years. Charlie Wilson started the Taliban.. but it was us abandoning them without helping nation build that created the problem.

THAT is the difference between supplying weapons to the Muyahadeeen and what we did with Europe after WW2 with the Marshall Plan. If you don't buy that example..

Simply compare Eastern Europe and Weastern Europe after WW2. We 'nation built' and the Soviets built a line of 'Buffer states' which are florishing today and which are still crawling up after 70 odd years.

[Valerian]

Other presidents haven't sat back and moaned about it, they did what was necessary to gain compromise, to find consensus.

Republicans don't do that anymore, though.  Compromise is a dirty word.

Tommy Thompson is a conservative, the current Republican candidate for a U.S. senate seat from Wisconsin.  He called himself a conservative when he was governor of Wisconsin, too, when he was governor of Wisconsin for many years.  This was in the late 80's up to about 2000, I think it was, back when it was still all right to talk to the other side.  Back then, he did compromise.  Things got done.

Now he wants to be a U.S. senator, and he's remade himself in the image the Tea Party extremist types want to see.  He practically froths at the mouth whenever he speaks and has publicly vowed to end Medicare.  He's turned himself into the most uncompromising person imaginable because that's the only way he can get party backing.  It's a truly startling and saddening transformation.

If you want a preview of what Romney would do to the country if he's elected and has a reasonably cooperative house and senate, take a look at what Scott Walker has done to Wisconsin.  Walker is the darling of the extremists in the GOP and in four years he'd love to be where Romney is now.  (I'm hoping the FBI will arrest him well before then, since the John Doe investigation is still going strong.)  But the point is that Walker is entirely a party man, doing exactly what his wealthy backers ask of him, following party lines every step of the way.  The fact that he's also managed to ruin the state and left us in the dust as far as economic recovery goes doesn't matter one bit to him.  His backers are a little wealthier, he has the power he loves to show off, and as far as he's concerned all's right with the world.

Romney has and will also toe the line, unthinkingly.  He becomes whatever he thinks he needs to be at that moment to get what he wants.  That isn't what any leader should do.

[Devilyn Sydhe]

Gitmo will never get relocated. Who is going to be the congressman/senator that lets the Feds set up a Supermax with those folks in their backyard. It was a non-issue from day one. Notice that a LOT of the presidents anti-war and instant fix issue with Iraq and Afganistan ended the week he got the nomination of the party. After he got his full intel brief he had to realize what he was selling wouldn't work.

Just like the crazies, on both sides I might add, who want us to pull up EVERYTHING and pull back to our borders.

Can't be done. Unless you want your kids back there in ANOTHER 30 years. Charlie Wilson started the Taliban.. but it was us abandoning them without helping nation build that created the problem.

THAT is the difference between supplying weapons to the Muyahadeeen and what we did with Europe after WW2 with the Marshall Plan. If you don't buy that example..

Simply compare Eastern Europe and Weastern Europe after WW2. We 'nation built' and the Soviets built a line of 'Buffer states' which are florishing today and which are still crawling up after 70 odd years.

I completely agree with Gitmo remaining where it is, I only meant it was odd to hear such outcry in one moment then not hear anything from the same people now, makes it seem far more about politics than any concern for those inmates.

I completely agree with nation building in places that actually want our help like post war Europe.  I think that's what we were trying to do in Iraq though I dont know how well its working.  I question in Afghanistan though if they truly want our help and also if we can continue to afford to build them up.  I think as long as we have defined goals there then we should stay.  I just hope we aren't there having our soldiers shot at for what might end up a lost cause.  Guess I just dont like the feeling of just spinning our wheels.

I'd also agree that the cold war led us to making alot of mistakes, focusing more on how we could fight Russia than what we were doing to the bystanders.  That's how we got associated with Iraq, Iran and Iraq sort of becoming surrogates for Russia and America.  That said, there isnt much we can do about mistakes of the past except do our best not to fall into the same traps again.

[Cyrano Johnson]

So now ideological disagreement is merely 'spiting the competition'?

No, merely spiting the competition is spiting the competition. When a party is willing to employ political scorched-earth strategies to defeat a health-care plan that was Republican in origin, you're beyond ideological disagreement and into territory where the only ideology is "spite the opposition."

Would anyone truly believe a Pelosi/Reid congress cooperated with Bush?  Not saying its the best either way, but it is the way of politics.  Other presidents haven't sat back and moaned about it, they did what was necessary to gain compromise, to find consensus.

Ummm, Bush had all three houses of Congress during most of his tenure; and this nonsense about how Obama is supposed to have "sat back and moaned" without trying to find consensus is pure fantasy, right up there with "Obama is a socialist." The partisan behaviour of Democratic as opposed to Republican Congresses is not similar. The Democrats are capable of partisan stands, but have not shown a willingness to compromise the business of government to spite the opposition. The Republicans have. They're different mentalities.

Bush had (and deserved) many furious detractors, in large part because his government behaved outrageously and essentially crashed the American ship of state. Some of those detractors -- your 9/11 truthers and what have you -- were crazy or mean, but that's not an excuse for attempting to disappear objective differences behind a haze of false equivalencies. The falsehood and incompetence surrounding Iraq, Katrina, and Wall Street were real, the catastrophic failures issuing from all those policies were real, the outrage they drew was justified (in contrast to the manufactured, purely strategic outrage over ObamaCare).  The suspicion of vote-stealing came about because of genuinely suspicious Republican behaviour in two successive elections, accusations we can tell hit close to home because the GOP now spends inordinate amounts of time trying to distract from them by speciously accusing anyone else in range of "vote fraud" (yet funnily enough I don't remember the President of Diebold publicly promising to deliver the '08 election for Obama as he did in Ohio for Bush in '04).

As for radical fringe elements, both sides can count them in their number.  I dont really need to count off all the left wing kooks, from Code Pink to the Occupy crowd

I'm really not impressed by attempts to describe "the Occupy crowd" as "left-wing kooks," either. This is more false equivalency, and morevoer the framing here is based on a fallacious notion that the Republicans have some sort of "fringe" problem. The Republicans don't have a problem with a right-wing "fringe." All the behaviours I described above are the core of the party now, they aren't "fringe" behaviours, and they actually don't have substantial left equivalents. (To clarify, these behaviours didn't begin with Obama. They were all in evidence, in fact, during the Clinton years well before Bush ever came to power -- the political bloody-mindedness that fueled the Clinton impeachment and Newt Gingrich's tenure as Speaker were previews of contemporary Republicanism. It's just that it's gotten even worse over time.)

[Callie Del Noire]

Then we got folks like Tom DeLay who set your time with him strictly by how much you donated to him and the GOP. He snubbed the Dems and anyone who wasn't in his little black book of sponsors and supporters.

Does that sound like someone who is willing to work with rivals?

And those sort of practices STILL carry on. You have people in the GOP who would refute gravity is they could and these are the folks who are setting priority and policy.

I've watched over the last four years as more rational and moderate men are pushed out.. and how they push what few Statesmen we had in the party into silence and accommodation in return for continued support.

Can  you honestly say the folks who use men like Karl Rove have the country's interests over their own? No.. I'm sorry, I can't in good conscience say that I'm a republican anymore. I didn't leave my party.. it deserted me.

[Stattick]

I'd honestly ask what important measures have the Democratic Senate offered up only to have shot down by Republicans.

Well, here's a partial list from the last two years of Bills in the Senate that have been filibustered. Do any of these look important to you?

Veterans Jobs Corps Act
Cybersecurity Act
Middle Class Tax Cut Act
Bring Jobs Home Act
A bill to provide for additional disclosure requirements for corporations, labor organizations, Super PACs and other entities
Small Business Jobs and Tax Relief Act
Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act
Flood Insurance Reform and Modernization Act
Agriculture Reform, Food, and Jobs Act of 2012
Paycheck Fairness Act
Export-Import Bank Reauthorization Act of 2012
Stop the Student Loan Interest Rate Hike Act of 2012
Paying a Fair Share Act of 2012
Repeal Big Oil Tax Subsidies Act
Reopening American Capital Markets to Emerging Growth Companies Act of 2011
Federal-aid highway and highway safety construction programs reauthorization
Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2011
A bill to create jobs by providing payroll tax relief for middle class families and businesses
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012
3% Withholding Repeal and Job Creation Act
Rebuild America Jobs Act
Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations
Withholding Tax Relief Act of 2011
Teachers and First Responders Back to Work Act of 2011
American Jobs Act of 2011
Military Construction and Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2012
Authorizing the limited use of the United States Armed Forces in support of the NATO mission in Libya
Economic Development Revitalization Act of 2011
PATRIOT Sunsets Extension Act of 2011
Patent Reform Act
Termination of Taxpayer Financing of Presidential Election Campaigns
FAA Air Transportation Modernization and Safety Improvement Act

Cite: http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/reference/cloture_motions/112.htm

[Elias]

Veterans Jobs Corps Act- Died in the senate. (Republicans supported the bill but only if Democrats figured out a way to pay for it which they couldn't)

Cybersecurity Act- Was bipartisan being pushed by republicans most notibly (Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.)  )

Bring Jobs Home Act- More useless regulations, Government should spend less time looking into company choices and more on the billions sent overseas by GOVERNMENT to support corrupt dictatorships AND foreign companies (Which it did in the case of Brazil and drilling)

Small Business Jobs and Tax Relief Act- The Republicans were happy to negotiate on this bill and requested a SINGLE amendment which was refused causing this bill too falter (Once again a sign of Democrats NOT negotiating)

Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act- The Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act (FDASIA), signed into law on July 9, 2012, gives FDA the authority to collect user fees  (Absolutely horrible law allowing gov't to take even more money from the pockets of private companies)

Those are only the first 5, I am sure every single one has the signs of democratic mismanagement labeled on it somewhere.

[Stattick]

I am sure every single one has the signs of democratic mismanagement labeled on it somewhere.

Does that, in your mind, justify doubling the number of filibusters annually, virtually shutting down the senate, and threatening to shut down the US Government if the Republicans don't get their way?

[Elias]

The Republicans represent half the country, they have the right to as much a voice as the democrats.

Obama arrogantly said elections have consequences as he rammed bills down our throat with his majorities. America answered and robbed him of the majority in the house and weakened him in the senate.

So to answer your question, yes I think they are doing the right thing and since he didn't learn his lesson like Clinton he deserves to be made a sad foot note in history like Jimmy Carter.

[Stattick]

The Republicans represent half the country, they have the right to as much a voice as the democrats.

Obama arrogantly said elections have consequences as he rammed bills down our throat with his majorities. America answered and robbed him of the majority in the house and weakened him in the senate.

So to answer your question, yes I think they are doing the right thing and since he didn't learn his lesson like Clinton he deserves to be made a sad foot note in history like Jimmy Carter.

So, when the Republicans were in charge, why do you think it was that the Democrats didn't try to shut down every bill, and shut down the US Government?

[errantwandering]

While I'll agree that Obama isn't exactly far left by the traditionally accepted definition of the term.  His foreign policies, particularly involving drone strikes, have been absolutely bloodthirsty, and other than his blessedly sane, poll driven stance on gay marriage/gays in the military he's been awful on human rights.  That said, how is he not socialist?  He's openly, repeatedly called for raising taxes on the wealthy in order to pay for social programs, has repeatedly intervened in the economy to the point of buying up stock in US corporations....isn't that the textbook definition of socialism?

[Hemingway]

That said, how is he not socialist?  He's openly, repeatedly called for raising taxes on the wealthy in order to pay for social programs, has repeatedly intervened in the economy to the point of buying up stock in US corporations....isn't that the textbook definition of socialism?

In a word, no. At best, that's social democracy. But take it from someone living in a social democracy: Obama isn't a social democrat.

[errantwandering]

You're right, my bad, it is social democracy, not true socialism. 

[Hemingway]

You're right, my bad, it is social democracy, not true socialism.

I was right in the process of elaborating on what I wrote, because I felt it wasn't really adequate.

Basically, though, socialism is a term that's very often misunderstood - often deliberately as a political tool - and has different meanings depending on who you ask. It's an umbrella that covers many different political movements. Social democracy, strictly speaking and in my understanding, is not actually one of them, because it's a system that still includes a free market. I perhaps socialism is best understood, at least now, today, as a critique of unregulated capitalism.

[Cyrano Johnson]

America answered and robbed him of the majority in the house and weakened him in the senate.

Since the resulting Congress has achieved an approval rating just behind AIDS and syphilis, it's not really the sort of thing you'll be wanting to draw attention to.

[ManyMindsManyVoices]

Since the resulting Congress has achieved an approval rating just behind AIDS and syphilis, it's not really the sort of thing you'll be wanting to draw attention to.

"And with that Cyrano, I'm out, because that's the most hilarious (and totally awesome) thing I've seen here, yet, and it can only go downhill again."

[Stattick]

Since the resulting Congress has achieved an approval rating just behind AIDS and syphilis, it's not really the sort of thing you'll be wanting to draw attention to.

*applauds*

[Question Mark]

Since the resulting Congress has achieved an approval rating just behind AIDS and syphilis, it's not really the sort of thing you'll be wanting to draw attention to.

*brushes away tear*  Th-that was beautiful man!

[TheGlyphstone]

Now I'm curious. Where do you find an approval rating for AIDS and syphilis, anyways?

[Cyrano Johnson]

Now I'm curious. Where do you find an approval rating for AIDS and syphilis, anyways?

The Federal Department of Jocularity publishes an annual table of approval ratings for everything from Being Mauled by a Bengal Tiger to Masturbating With a Cheese Grater in its "Approval Ratings of Things That Nobody Approves Of" report*. AIDS and syphilis turn up in the lower ranges. I keep the data in my rectum.

(* Although remembering where I'm posting this, I suppose it's putting a bit strongly to say that "nobody" approves of being mauled by a Bengal tiger or masturbating with a cheese grater.)

[Devilyn Sydhe]

Since the resulting Congress has achieved an approval rating just behind AIDS and syphilis, it's not really the sort of thing you'll be wanting to draw attention to.

True, Congress has an extremely low approval rating, directly attributed to Harry Reid's total mismanagement of the Senate.  To actually blame Republican filibusters for Democratic impotence, for their complete failure to lead, is foolish.   

[MasterMischief]

Wait, I thought we weren't allowed to blame some one else.  Oh nevermind...that only applies to liberals.  Carry on.

[OldSchoolGamer]

True, Congress has an extremely low approval rating, directly attributed to Harry Reid's total mismanagement of the Senate.  To actually blame Republican filibusters for Democratic impotence, for their complete failure to lead, is foolish.

More like the Republicans refuse to approve anything that doesn't increase the skim from the poor and working class into the pockets of Wall Street elite.

[TheGlyphstone]

The Federal Department of Jocularity publishes an annual table of approval ratings for everything from Being Mauled by a Bengal Tiger to Masturbating With a Cheese Grater in its "Approval Ratings of Things That Nobody Approves Of" report*. AIDS and syphilis turn up in the lower ranges. I keep the data in my rectum.

(* Although remembering where I'm posting this, I suppose it's putting a bit strongly to say that "nobody" approves of being mauled by a Bengal tiger or masturbating with a cheese grater.)

Bengal Tiger/Cheese Grater 34 Go! ;D

[ManyMindsManyVoices]

"I'm glad I forgot I decided to stop reading this and followed. It actually maintained its amusement factor. Though I'm pretty sure the thread is way off topic. It seems to have lost its OP in the dust."

[Vekseid]

While I'll agree that Obama isn't exactly far left by the traditionally accepted definition of the term.  His foreign policies, particularly involving drone strikes, have been absolutely bloodthirsty, and other than his blessedly sane, poll driven stance on gay marriage/gays in the military he's been awful on human rights.  That said, how is he not socialist?  He's openly, repeatedly called for raising taxes on the wealthy in order to pay for social programs, has repeatedly intervened in the economy to the point of buying up stock in US corporations....isn't that the textbook definition of socialism?

No, it isn't.

Socialism is the full, continuous, public ('social') ownership of the means of production. It has nothing at all to do with taxes. The government doesn't just 'own stock' in production centers, it calls all shots. The USPS is 'socialist'. The US Army Corps of Engineers is 'socialist'. A universal health care system can be 'socialist' (government directly provides health care) hybrid (government e.g. heavily regulates resource allocation in private companies), or even neither (government provides a baseline stipend, private healthcare providers can sell value-added services).

Whether and what a government should be involved in is a matter of perfectly legitimate debate. Twisting a word so far out of its original definition - preventing us from discussing why socialism is a problem if overused and arguing where it should be applied - is not legitimate.

Seriously. It's one word. If you are going to use it, you should at least do everyone who reads what you write a favor and take the five minutes necessary to understand what it means.

I'm half tempted to sticky the textbook definition to the top of this forum.

[errantwandering]

You are right, I misused the word.  That's why about 30 minutes after I said it, after I finished waking up and having my caffeine, I apologized and corrected myself.

Seriously, it's two lines down.  If you're going to quote and correct me, you could at least do me the favor of taking 30 seconds to see that I'd already realized my error and fixed it.

[OldSchoolGamer]

I don't think there's a single word that neatly fits the system America has now...the closest expressions I've seen are "crony capitalism" and "state capitalism."  I think "fascism" is quite a stretch...for now.  Five or ten years from now, who knows?

[Ironwolf85]

*raises hand sheepishly*
Fiscial and Military conservitive here, Socially I don't think how we live our lives is anybody's busness except when you are a threat to the life and liberity of others. (IE: gay marrage? let em, stop spending government money on both opposing or premoting it. whereas human sacrifice under the guise of "religious freedom" should get you the electric chair)

I call the current system "Trade-fare" because the big money makers in the US are not industry or technology, it is the trade of, investment in, and dissembily of, the companies themselves, the system I believe started early 80's late 70's. Heralded by the line "greed is good"

I believe the US government should work back to Captialisim, not Lazzie Fare, the kind discribed in Wealth of Nations (a book on economics, and the study of both industry and trade during the industrial revoloution), not Atlas Shrugged (a fictional story dealing with politics)
Adam Smith actually protested in his book against mega-companies in his own era, such as the Dutch East India company.
He basicly said "greed isn't always good but regardless, it's a force in economics, and one we can harness for the betterment of mankind"

I also believe the idea of Investing in Investing in money is a serious flaw, and is holding other non-information tech back a good deal for the average person.

[Serephino]

I'm with Callie in being for a 'right sized' government, and I consider myself a liberal.  Forgive me for being angry with the GOP, but the ones in office are being complete shitheads.  This country is in a huge mess, but their main focus, and they don't even try to hide it, is making Obama a one term President.  Shouldn't they be, ya know, trying to get us back on track?  Shouldn't they be worried about jobs instead of women's reproductive organs? 

When Bush was in office things got done.  Those things weren't always good in my opinion, but the government never almost got shut down because the Democrats weren't getting their way.  The Democrats never held anything important hostage to get something they really wanted. 

I don't think the government should have its nose in our business, however, the banks were allowed to self-regulate, and look what they did...  Consumers need to be protected from huge companies that will screw people over.  The bank laws of 2005 were a long time coming.  Credit card companies were sending out statements so late that in order to pay on time people had to make a phone payment, and naturally, there was a 'convenience' fee.  Bank of America wanted to charge a fee for the privilege of having a debit card.  Banks were letting people overdraw with debit cards and performing a 'service' by charging them an overdraft fee.  My bank only sends out a notice in the mail.  Even if I check my mail every day it'll take 2-3 days to get the notice, and I can ring up hundreds of dollars in fees, and the bank doesn't care if I can't pay my rent and buy food because I thought I had money I didn't.  Banks and Wall Street will do all kinds of underhanded crap.

I believe there needs to be a balance.  I don't think compromise is a bad thing.  What I have a problem with is the Tea Party extremism.  Trickle down economics won't work the way they're trying to do it.  It hasn't been working, but these people would rather bury their heads in the sand and make crap up, point out the other side's short comings and not learn a damn thing.       

[Callie Del Noire]

I'm with Callie in being for a 'right sized' government, and I consider myself a liberal.  Forgive me for being angry with the GOP, but the ones in office are being complete shitheads.  This country is in a huge mess, but their main focus, and they don't even try to hide it, is making Obama a one term President.  Shouldn't they be, ya know, trying to get us back on track?  Shouldn't they be worried about jobs instead of women's reproductive organs? 

When Bush was in office things got done.  Those things weren't always good in my opinion, but the government never almost got shut down because the Democrats weren't getting their way.  The Democrats never held anything important hostage to get something they really wanted.       

The reason is the party wranglers are in the House now rather than the White House. With the lack of folks like Rove and Cheney directing from on high..another group is doing it. From the House Majority leaders office.. like they did when DeLay was in it.. and odds are the same way. Checking to see if you're on the 'list'.

[DukeJohn]

I'm libertarian-ish. It seems like there would be a libertarian presense on a site like this.

[Mr Self Destruct]

Can we stick to the topic of this thread, which is, about conservatives. I see many moderators in other threads reminding everyone that their comments need to relate to the topic, but have yet to see that here.

[Stattick]

Can we stick to the topic of this thread, which is, about conservatives. I see many moderators in other threads reminding everyone that their comments need to relate to the topic, but have yet to see that here.

So you're saying that Libertarians aren't conservatives?


What's your definition of conservative then?

[OldSchoolGamer]

So you're saying that Libertarians aren't conservatives?

What's your definition of conservative then?

Could be...depending on which "church" you're in, so to speak.

There are some "libertarians" who are just corporatists who want to smoke weed.  There are anarchists.

There's no such thing as a perfect political chart, but I've found this one to be serviceable:

[Callie Del Noire]

So where is the sliding bar that moves Mitt's head around on the conservative quandrants according to his supporters and the polls?

[Serephino]

Somehow I don't think Mitt Romney and the Tea Party fit on that chart.  They're off on Mars somewhere.   

[Callie Del Noire]

Somehow I don't think Mitt Romney and the Tea Party fit on that chart.  They're off on Mars somewhere.   

As a group..no.. (that would be more of a 'spot' on the right lower line.. but I have to wonder about individuals within the Tea party. The spread seems.. fairly good from what I'd see in past actions. I think the 'gipper' was a bit more centrist BUT it's hard to judge without a scaling element in place.

[Ironwolf85]

my father just watched Hanity... and he's a bit... oh I'm a just say it, he's a dumbass.
for example
1."our economy has been going downhill ever since 2008, EXACTLY when we elected HIM into office."
2."the president is weak, and incapable of doing anything! he is helpless and spineless!"

Me to the TV screen under my breath:
1. 2003 minimum, it was just inflated by that the properity bubble, the bubble burst, and now we're cleaning up the mess.
2. You mean except when he's "taking away your civil liberties, and enslaving your children with healthcare" right?


I wish fox network would just dissapear so some real conservatives can get on TV, and not pundets. my dad thinks "because the liberal media is watching them, they must be honest"
I don't buy into the "everything but fox is liberal media" I think media is just media and is concerned with ratings. But because fox monopolizes the conservitive side no other group can compete, so if they can't play to the conservitive demographic, they'll play to the liberal one.

Edit: (spelling corrections) also there is some media that is stupid liberal, Micheal Moore for example.I think it's just that they don't have the dominating influence that FOX does. could you imagine Moore controling 25% of the US media market?

[Mr Self Destruct]

So you're saying that Libertarians aren't conservatives?


What's your definition of conservative then?

Conservative: a political or theological orientation advocating the preservation of the best in society and opposing radical changes.

As for my own personal views, I don't give a damn if you're gay or straight or transsexual or what have you.  That isn't what this is about.

I don't give a good God damn if you're the first black President.  I have lots of black friends, and quite a few of them hate Obama's policies.

The point of this thread is to bring together like-minded conservatives who hate what this government is doing to our country.  The Constitution is being trampled on and side stepped in alarming ways.  This government has added over six trillion dollars in debt that bankrupts our country for years to come.  My son's chances at college and a good job are bogged down extremely because of that.  And anyone who can willingly want the cause of this debt to have another four years to put us even further in the hole is fundamentally flawed.

I'm also alarmed at how this government is trying to tell me how to live my life.  Michelle Obama's take over of school lunches is making our kids so hungry they can't concentrate in class.  We're being told that we need to help them adjust to the new menus by serving healthier foods.  We're being told what is good for us and what is bad and that's not the America I was raised to respect and love.  Our freedoms are slowly, but surely, being taken away, one at a time, and what's worse?  Those who have been fooled by the Obama doctrine into thinking this is actually good for us.

Well not me.  I'm standing up against it.  I'm putting my foot down and calling for those who are tired of being pushed around by the government.  Enough is enough.  We are the Paul and Paulette Reveres of our time.  It's time to warn others and get this foolishness stopped before our country goes over the cliff and cannot be brought back to the glory it once was.

So there.  Those are my views.  Take them as you will, or don't.  But remember that while we conservatives our the minority on this site, we're being attacked with the same viciousness and hatred that those in the 'sexual and gender minority' are in the real world.  And I've heard more than once in this thread about how wrong that is.

[Ironwolf85]

Conservative: a political or theological orientation advocating the preservation of the best in society and opposing radical changes.

As for my own personal views, I don't give a damn if you're gay or straight or transsexual or what have you.  That isn't what this is about.

I don't give a good God damn if you're the first black President.  I have lots of black friends, and quite a few of them hate Obama's policies.

The point of this thread is to bring together like-minded conservatives who hate what this government is doing to our country.  The Constitution is being trampled on and side stepped in alarming ways.  This government has added over six trillion dollars in debt that bankrupts our country for years to come.  My son's chances at college and a good job are bogged down extremely because of that.  And anyone who can willingly want the cause of this debt to have another four years to put us even further in the hole is fundamentally flawed.

I'm also alarmed at how this government is trying to tell me how to live my life.  Michelle Obama's take over of school lunches is making our kids so hungry they can't concentrate in class.  We're being told that we need to help them adjust to the new menus by serving healthier foods.  We're being told what is good for us and what is bad and that's not the America I was raised to respect and love.  Our freedoms are slowly, but surely, being taken away, one at a time, and what's worse?  Those who have been fooled by the Obama doctrine into thinking this is actually good for us.

Well not me.  I'm standing up against it.  I'm putting my foot down and calling for those who are tired of being pushed around by the government.  Enough is enough.  We are the Paul and Paulette Reveres of our time.  It's time to warn others and get this foolishness stopped before our country goes over the cliff and cannot be brought back to the glory it once was.

So there.  Those are my views.  Take them as you will, or don't.  But remember that while we conservatives our the minority on this site, we're being attacked with the same viciousness and hatred that those in the 'sexual and gender minority' are in the real world.  And I've heard more than once in this thread about how wrong that is.

My problem is I don't think Romney will reverse the trend, he will placate republicans on the hill and the tea party for a time, but likely only make things worse in the long run. The man is far too willing to change everything, and anything, to win. He's also incredibly distant and aloof, his time at baen captial was spent mostly buying and selling other companies, not running them, and has all the diplomatic skills of an angry boar.

I don't hate Obama but I don't really like him either, heck I admit I voted for him first time round, mostly because it came down to VP's and Palin opened her mouth. She did more to loose Mc. Cain the campain than anyone else including his opponent, except maybe Bush Jr.

Idealy I hope the president wins, but comes so close to loosing he realizes "o kay, better smarten up or people will impeech me." meanwhile the republicans realize "we can't just keep obstructing Obama, we have to do our jobs or we'll never get elected again."
maybe stop the freaking gridlock...

[Callie Del Noire]

My take as a conservative.

Cuts alone won't fix the problem. You want to lower the budget for your kids/grandkids/ect, you have to accept one essential truth. That TAXES, like death, are unavoidable. We have let a small minority game the system for so long, following the Gordon Gecko motto of 'Greed is good' that they forgot that their peers in the 40s, 50s and 60s paid far more and still profited.

Of course back in THOSE days the idea of a 20% return in 5 quarters or less was considered stupid or disastrous. Our business practices have gotten fundementally short sighted and the idea that 'paying more' to the govenrment has gone hand in hand with 'unfair'.

You run a business and owe a TON of interest on something, what do you do? You pay what you can out of your budget to cut down to the principal owed by paying down the interest. Without gutting your operations and operating reserve if you can.

Government? Oh now that is TOTALLY different, you gut the budget and CUT taxes on the share that has more breaks and outs than any other group while cutting the same breaks for the part that is most productive to the overall economy.

This is a conservative outlook only in that the people who are claiming to be conservative are pushing it.

True conservatives accept that it WILL be painful and that with our downsized military we don't need to TRIPLE the budget and gut every social program that a religious right fundie says is 'bad'.

[Ironwolf85]

see I say that or even mention "we are going to have to raise taxes in addition to cuts" and I get shouted down mostly under the logic that "once they go up, they never come down"

[Callie Del Noire]

see I say that or even mention "we are going to have to raise taxes in addition to cuts" and I get shouted down mostly under the logic that "once they go up, they never come down"

Point out that logical fallacy and things REALLY get nasty. But it happened. Folks in Romney's income bracket at one point paid something like what.. 60+%? (Can't find the figures I was last week right now)

[Stattick]

But remember that while we conservatives our the minority on this site, we're being attacked with the same viciousness and hatred that those in the 'sexual and gender minority' are in the real world.

No you're not. Transgendered and gay people are killed in the real world for being who they are. None of us have threatened to kill you, assaulted you, or castrated you and hung your corpse from a fence as a warning to others that your kind aren't wanted around these parts.



EDIT: Wait... you're *that guy*. The one that posted in Beguile's Mistress's blog that you have no sympathy or human compassion for people that are bullied. That you think that anyone that kills themselves because of bullying is a pathetic loser that deserved to die. That bullying makes you strong.

And now you're whining that the mean liburals are bullying you. Let me tell you, you haven't begun to see bullying yet. But you're still crying like a bitch. And you're crying to the moderators to save you too. Here's some advice, from yourself: "I hate this anti-bullying movement.  It's only another method for everyone to coddle those who don't need it." See, you don't need the mods to save you. Your words, internet tough guy. So, suck it up. Be a man. Or is it getting too hot in here for you? You gonna be a hypocrite and go run crying to the mods that I'm a big meanie, and I hurt your feelings with my grandiose words?

[tozhma]

"But remember that while we conservatives our the minority on this site, we're being attacked with the same viciousness and hatred that those in the 'sexual and gender minority' are in the real world. "

I keep my Leige status to myself in real life. I don't go around "hot doggin' it" if you know what I mean. I was casual friends with this guy at work for three months, and then someone found out about me through someone else outside of work, and word got around. He tied a rope around my neck. This wasn't the first time I'd been outed, harassed, and threatened at work. I like you, but I just don't see the comparison.

To take a different point though...

It's weird, I actually know a LOT of conservatives and liberals. I know both the president of my city's chapter of the republican party, and the people who organized our local version of the Occupy protests on a pretty deep and personal level. I have one friend who's a republican currently running for city council and we both had come to this same point of desperation through different channels.

He told me he was ready to "blow the party up" because he was getting tired of tea partiers pushing extreme, quasi revolutionary solutions. I, being a self proclaimed "lazy socialist", had the same experience with the Occupy protests. I had come to the point of starting to feel as though I was a conservative, and he as though he were liberal, only because we spent so much time disagreeing with the more extreme members of our respective paths. It was honestly a pretty cool moment to share that mutual desperation of being surrounded by idiots and frankly, nice to know you're not the only one.

I've had people I respect curl their lips calling me a "centrist" because I said I preferred to work for reform instead of revolution. That kind of stuff will wear anybody down.

Now, I don't want to mislead anyone, I'm certainly a pinko. I keep a copy of the Communist Manifesto in my bag NEXT TO my pocket constitution in my book bag. Though, there are more than just 'conservative' arguments against Obama.

The Atlantic had an interesting article recently on the problems with Obama. I will add that I don't think Romney would fix these, but it does show the other side of Obama that has been swept under the rug, what with flying death robots etc.

Anyway, I think it would be interesting to see what you guys think of his arguments.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/10/why-i-refuse-to-refuse-to-vote-for-obama/263116/

[MasterMischief]

The point of this thread is to bring together like-minded conservatives who hate what this government is doing to our country.

So you are not interested in debate, just an echo chamber.  Fair enough.  Do you mind dialing down the outrage at other's echo chamber then?

The Constitution is being trampled on and side stepped in alarming ways.

Absolutely.  However, this is not a trait unique to President Obama.  The Patriot Act scared the crap out of me.  I am disappointed in President Obama for not repealing it.  But seriously, do you think Romney is going to touch it?

This government has added over six trillion dollars in debt that bankrupts our country for years to come.

Where was all this outrage while Bush was running it up?  Has Obama added to it?  Certainly.  Stopping two wars on a dime would have had terrible consequences.  I honestly do not see a way of us ever pulling out of Afghanistan or Iraq without some serious growing pains.  There is no way to know if they will ever become useful allies.

My son's chances at college and a good job are bogged down extremely because of that.

You do realize that President Obama wants to make college more affordable, right?  Romney reversed his stance during the debate and said he was for strong schools, but it is hard to take him seriously when this was the first time I heard a peep about schools from him.  Well, except maybe when he was stumping at an actual school.

And anyone who can willingly want the cause of this debt to have another four years to put us even further in the hole is fundamentally flawed.

Is it important enough to you that you would considered a balanced approach?  If the debt is really the priority, then how can you be against raising taxes?  If, however, job creation is the priority, then we need to set aside all the hyperbole about the debt and focus on getting America working.  And if someone is working does it really matter if it is a government job or a private sector job?

I'm also alarmed at how this government is trying to tell me how to live my life.

Again, not a trait unique to President Obama.  Republicans want to tell people who they can and can not marry.  Republicans want to tell women who have been raped, suck it up and have the baby.  Republicans want to tell women, if you can not afford birth control, suck it up...oh and have the baby.  Just do not expect us to offer any help whatsoever to raise it.  Republicans are all too happy trying to tell you how to live your life so you should be equally alarmed.

Those who have been fooled by the Obama doctrine into thinking this is actually good for us.

You do realize that obesity is costing this country millions of dollars in health care cost, right?  Remember that thing you were so concerned about earlier...the debt?  Maybe we could pay it down if we could get more people to a healthy weight.  I am not sure I agree with Michelle's strategy, honestly, I do not know enough about it.  I do think her heart is in the right place and maybe we could have a conversation about better ways to do it rather than screaming, "My liberties!"

It's time to warn others and get this foolishness stopped before our country goes over the cliff and cannot be brought back to the glory it once was.

Robert A. Glover states, "The opposite of crazy is not sane.  It is crazy."  Do you realize you sound just as bad as all the Bush bashers who claimed he was the worst president every?  I realize you just want to gather your friend and bitch and moan about what a terrible president Obama is.  When you are ready for honest debate, set down the hyperbole and we can talk.

So there.  Those are my views.  Take them as you will, or don't.  But remember that while we conservatives our the minority on this site, we're being attacked with the same viciousness and hatred that those in the 'sexual and gender minority' are in the real world.  And I've heard more than once in this thread about how wrong that is.

Presenting opposing views is not attacking.  When you open with flinging attacks of your own...well, you kind of brought it on yourself.

[Serephino]

I haven't seen any attacking in this thread except yours.  It is clear that you wanted an echo chamber, but, sorry to say, you cannot tell us liberals we are not allowed to debate in this thread and voice our own opinions respectfully.  That's kind of what this board is for....

You are the one that called President Obama the liberal messiah.  That right there offends me on so many levels.  Is he perfect?  I will be one of the first people to say, no, he isn't.  I was very disappointed with the NDAA.  I would like to see him fight harder for the little people.  The major flaw that I see is he's trying to approach things from a diplomatic stance, and the GOP has been steamrolling him.  I didn't watch the debate, but some of the clips I've seen displease me.  It's like he was reading a pre-written speech.  I'm happy he wasn't being all negative and using scare tactics.  I mean, I'm so sick and tired of the scare tactics and the finger pointing it isn't funny.  He's just been so underwhelming lately...

I see the school lunch thing as a double edged sword really.  Michelle Obama certainly does mean well because childhood obesity is a huge problem right now.  If kids are going hungry then it's their own stupid fault though.  It's like.... something I will never forget is watching this documentary of this morbidly obese guy.  He was something like 600lbs.  They took him to this clinic place to try and save his life.  Of course, since he was an adult and had to want to change they didn't do any food monitoring.  They offered healthy options planned by a nutritionist, but if you wanted a pizza, they'd get you one.  His first night there they offered him a huge but tasty looking chef salad.  He didn't want it.  He refused the healthier salad and demanded cheeseburgers.  At the end of the show they said he died after a month or so.  People heavier than him successfully lose weight all the time, he just wasn't willing enough to change.

The point I'm trying to make is the kids are going hungry because they are like that guy.  They are offered better options, but choose to go hungry.  Kids I went to school with did the same thing.  The cafeteria food wasn't up to their standard so they'd get a candy bar and a soda out of the vending machines.  I was of the opinion then, and still am, that if they ended up hungry later it was their own stupid fault.  They could have always packed a lunch, but in high school that isn't the cool thing to do.  Also, you have parents not helping the matter.  If all they feed their kids is fast food, then yeah, that's what the kid will be used to.  My mom used to give me fruit as snacks, and I still love fresh fruit.  However, if you want to overfeed your son until he's at least 300lbs to spite Michelle Obama, be my guest.  Just don't come crying to me when he dies at the age of 26 from a heart attack.  Hunkering down and clinging to your big mac just because you don't like being told it's bad for you is essentially cutting off your nose to spite your face.  The sad reality is that kids do need to be taught how to eat better.  When kids grow up they mimic their parents usually.  I'm 27 and I have bad joints, what's called Irritable Bowel Syndrome (though irritable doesn't quite describe it), I had a gallstone, I get kidney stones, and I just had to have my heart checked out.  Older people are supposed to have these health problems, but I'm overweight.  I used to not see it as a huge problem because I was healthy except for my bowel issues.  I've had those since I was a kid.  But, I'm not healthy anymore, and had I fixed the problem much sooner a lot of this crap could have been avoided. 

And, oh, this is precious...  My friend W has an immune system that is so weak because of her lifestyle that she ended up in the hospital with a parasite that is commonly found in HIV patients.  She thinks she got it from McDonalds, but isn't sure because she ate a lot of fast food from a bunch of different places that day.  She just had McDonalds for dinner, then her symptoms started later that night.  She's also on Medicaid, so the PA taxpayers paid the bill for her, and will keep paying for any other complication that may arise from her lifestyle.  You may not live in PA, but if you did, wouldn't you wish that someone had tried to get her to be healthier when she was a kid?  She's at the doctor every other week for problems that could be fixed with some high fiber/low fat foods and exercise.     

[MasterMischief]

People heavier than him successfully lose weight all the time, he just wasn't willing enough to change.

Forgive me for going off topic, but I wanted to reply to this point.  It is easy to judge from the outside.  There is no telling what that gentleman's demons were.  Maybe you even overcame similar demons.  There is no way of knowing how strong his were.  If you are completely vice free, count yourself very lucky.  Consider that many others are not so fortunate.

[Mr Self Destruct]

No you're not. Transgendered and gay people are killed in the real world for being who they are. None of us have threatened to kill you, assaulted you, or castrated you and hung your corpse from a fence as a warning to others that your kind aren't wanted around these parts.



EDIT: Wait... you're *that guy*. The one that posted in Beguile's Mistress's blog that you have no sympathy or human compassion for people that are bullied. That you think that anyone that kills themselves because of bullying is a pathetic loser that deserved to die. That bullying makes you strong.

And now you're whining that the mean liburals are bullying you. Let me tell you, you haven't begun to see bullying yet. But you're still crying like a bitch. And you're crying to the moderators to save you too. Here's some advice, from yourself: "I hate this anti-bullying movement.  It's only another method for everyone to coddle those who don't need it." See, you don't need the mods to save you. Your words, internet tough guy. So, suck it up. Be a man. Or is it getting too hot in here for you? You gonna be a hypocrite and go run crying to the mods that I'm a big meanie, and I hurt your feelings with my grandiose words?

I never said I didn't have sympathy or compassion for those that are bullied. And the words 'pathetic loser' are yours.  Anyone who disagrees can click your link and read for themselves what I wrote, which clearly states, 'their outlook on life is skewed'.  Not pathetic.  And I certainly wasn't calling anyone a loser.
When I saw bullying happening to my friends in school, I went to their defense, regardless of the consequences.  And yes, many times I got my ass kicked for the effort.  But it's the effort that counts.  In that same thread, you also pointed out how many times you watched people getting bullied....did you do anything to stop it?  If so, good for you.  If not, then you have nothing to complain about.  A large part of the problem is when people view this and do nothing to prevent it.  Like Edmund Burke said, "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."

And no, I'm not whining or crying to the mods, but I am asking for a fair shake. 

So, internet tough guy, it's real easy to decry those who don't agree with you as hypocrites and bullies.  But we're all human.  We all make mistakes.  One thing I've noticed about the political forum is that there's a lot of glad-handing and patting on the back of those who agree with you, but when it comes to disagreements, anyone who feels different than the majority here is made of a pariah and driven off.  There's very little debate.  There's very little discussion, but there is a lot of name calling and attempts to drive off those who go against the norm.

So, rather than let myself become Elliquiy's next scapegoat, I'm going to bow out of this conversation.  I've said my peace, and it's quite obvious that many of you will never change your minds.  And that's fine.  But take the personal responsibility to live up to the demands that you make of others.  And to you conservatives here, I wish you the best.  Remember that we are taking our country back in November.  No matter the outcry of the Obama-worshipers, the principles of our founding fathers will not be lost to the progressive decline of our country by those who hate the very things that made it great to begin with.

[Question Mark]

Your arrogant tone and constant denigrations are the reasons you've been targeted, Clown.  "Obama worshippers"?  Really?  It's like you think everyone who supports Obama is a mindless zombie, their unending masses drowning out your enlightened, "responsible" wisdom.

I have no problem with the positions you hold.  What I have a problem with is your demeaning and unnecessarily provocative attitude.

[MasterMischief]

There's very little discussion, but there is a lot of name calling and attempts to drive off those who go against the norm.

Would you please provide references so I can determine if your interpretation of 'little discussion', 'name calling' and 'attempts to drive off' match mine.  I concede that Stattick called you an 'internet tough guy' but that really has to be one of the weakest 'name calling' I have witnessed.  I also think he has a very valid point that you are being a bit hypocritical.

No matter the outcry of the Obama-worshipers...

Now who is name calling?

...the principles of our founding fathers will not be lost to the progressive decline of our country by those who hate the very things that made it great to begin with.

So suggesting that anyone who disagrees with you hates America is debate?  Please try again.

[Will]

Would you please provide references so I can determine if your interpretation of 'little discussion', 'name calling' and 'attempts to drive off' match mine.  I concede that Stattick called you an 'internet tough guy' but that really has to be one of the weakest 'name calling' I have witnessed.  I also think he has a very valid point that you are being a bit hypocritical.

He also called him a bitch, to be fair.

[Ironwolf85]

I never said I didn't have sympathy or compassion for those that are bullied. And the words 'pathetic loser' are yours.  Anyone who disagrees can click your link and read for themselves what I wrote, which clearly states, 'their outlook on life is skewed'.  Not pathetic.  And I certainly wasn't calling anyone a loser.
When I saw bullying happening to my friends in school, I went to their defense, regardless of the consequences.  And yes, many times I got my ass kicked for the effort.  But it's the effort that counts.  In that same thread, you also pointed out how many times you watched people getting bullied....did you do anything to stop it?  If so, good for you.  If not, then you have nothing to complain about.  A large part of the problem is when people view this and do nothing to prevent it.  Like Edmund Burke said, "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."

And no, I'm not whining or crying to the mods, but I am asking for a fair shake. 

So, internet tough guy, it's real easy to decry those who don't agree with you as hypocrites and bullies.  But we're all human.  We all make mistakes.  One thing I've noticed about the political forum is that there's a lot of glad-handing and patting on the back of those who agree with you, but when it comes to disagreements, anyone who feels different than the majority here is made of a pariah and driven off.  There's very little debate.  There's very little discussion, but there is a lot of name calling and attempts to drive off those who go against the norm.

So, rather than let myself become Elliquiy's next scapegoat, I'm going to bow out of this conversation.  I've said my peace, and it's quite obvious that many of you will never change your minds.  And that's fine.  But take the personal responsibility to live up to the demands that you make of others.  And to you conservatives here, I wish you the best.  Remember that we are taking our country back in November.  No matter the outcry of the Obama-worshipers, the principles of our founding fathers will not be lost to the progressive decline of our country by those who hate the very things that made it great to begin with.

people are already picking this apart, but man... the idea that bulling makes you stronger is bullshit, I was a school pariah picked on by everyone, beaten down, if I fought back I got in trouble for it. Tell me honestly it build's character when you are jumped by three guys who slam your head into the sink hard enough to chip the thing, and they did this "because it was fun"

Remember that we are taking our country back in November.

From the guys who were elected when... four years ago after two wars, a mountian of war debt due to cutting taxes during wartime, multiple accounts of corruption and cronyisim, the near distruction of New Orleans, and an econonomic collapse that threatened to become a new Depression due to mismanagement, fiscial lying, and greed which involved selling american housing debt to europeans for a profit. The party in power was removed from power by a democratic system?

the principles of our founding fathers will not be lost to the progressive decline of our country by those who hate the very things that made it great to begin with.

Okay now you sound like you are in the tea party. Along with the other "Democrats hate freedom" hyperbole. The founding fathers had many varied opinions, they were not saints, but from that they founded a country on the idea that soverinty rests with the people, not a king, not nobility, and not the gun or the sword.
The people were pissed at the republican party 6 years ago, and showed it in the election of 2008. The problem is to me, the leadership has gone incresingly extreme measures to try and hold onto power.

the fact remains obama did not "steal" the election on the backs of a political "cult" as fox has been crying for the last four years. He won it in the same national election we are seeing now.

[Callie Del Noire]

Funny thing.. I know that the founding fathers had a RADICALLY different opinion on Corporate identity and political interference. Some of them were very very anti-corporate. So it amuses me when the GOP and Tea Party claims they would support some of the attrociites that they are pushing forward.

I'm not anti-business.. I am all for a 'fair market' and 'even battlefield' but big business isn't doing that. They have hijcacked the process. Just look at the amount of cash spent this year and by how many. The answer: A HELL of a LOT, with little accountability, by very fucking few people. Something like less than a couple dozen people/companies have put like 70% of the independent Superpac funding into play.

Scary amount when you consider the implications.

The GoP/Tea party aren't conservatives.. they are double high authoritarians with a huge fundie/corporate backing. That means the leadership will do whatever they are told to keep hold of what they got and get more. They will lie, cheat, and do everything they tell us not to do in the process. We're the 'little people'.

Facing up to the fact that cutting the budget to the bone, disenfranchising labor and government services being done away with or privatized to 'reduce costs' (despite evidence to the contrary) won't fix things. We have to bite the bullet and accept that taxes CAN'T keep getting cut.

You pay off a loan but 'up-paying' and working your way past the interest and into the principal. That was what made me nervous about Bush II's tax refund when he came into office. It felt like a bribe then and now it's a precedent.

[Ironwolf85]

I'm kinda on the same level with you Callie.
The last thing we need are some kind of self styled "New Nobility" and that's kinda how romney lost my vote this time round, he kinda struts, thinks, and talks, like some kind of nobleman. This is what started me investigating and listening. I've seen a lot of stuff in his corner that keeps me far away from him.

[tozhma]

Maybe we should try rebooting this thread with a different twist?

[errantwandering]

Here's the thing....in the political forums on E, liberal opinions are often a lot more welcome, and if you express an opinion in-line with the GOP (Not that that's always the same thing) there are a lot more people disagreeing with you and agreeing with each other than the other way around.  This isn't because of some E conspiracy to keep you down, it's not because the people here hate free speech or hate you, and it isn't because opposing viewpoints aren't welcome.  It's because the vast majority of people on this board disagree with you.  Shockingly, when you are the minority opinion the majority will disagree with you...this doesn't make you a "scapegoat", it makes you a person with an unpopular point of view.

[Bayushi]

There are many economic conservatives here. AndyZ, Zakharra, Zamdrist, Akiko, and others.

There are a number of military conservatives here. Even a few who believe the Iraq War was a good thing and are willing to state that.

Social conservatives either get converted or driven off.



There have been a lot of heated disagreements and I get chastised by staff about my language occasionally, and do hope to improve matters, but rehashing the same argument repeatedly is quite frustrating.

I do have to wonder where the 'line' is, though. What sort of talk needs to be tolerated to be considered 'non-partisan'? I routinely come across 'right wing' websites where open discussion of committing genocide against 'liberals' is tolerated and sometimes encouraged. Where should I draw the line to make things 'acceptable' to 'conservatives'?

Because it's demagoguery like calling Obama 'anti-American' that leads to such talk. Especially when it comes from people who put their political affiliation before their nation, and switch to a jingoistic frenzy when they have power.

Demagoguery is not conservative. It's an authoritarian tactic.

Anti-intellectualism is not conservative. It's an authoritarian tactic.

Conservatism is about caution.

People are making it into a platform of cowardice.

I am hopeful that the distinction will become a more mainstream concept and that we can return to some degree of sanity.

Thank you, Veks! You put that in such an excellent way!

I am quasi-Libertarian and Conservative. I am a non-white, disabled (read: poor as shit) lesbian. Even as a lesbian, I still like to maintain strong family values, as a strong family is the building block of society.

I do not take issue with homosexual or lesbian couples having children (or adopting). Unless, of course, they allow their sexual bias to color their judgment and behavior (I can't fucking tolerate the drama queens, queens in general, flamers, and the perpetual victims in the gay community).

My issue with the Democrat party is that they continue to act more and more like the CPUSA (Communist Party USA). While liking communism is fine and all (differing opinions being just that), forcing that ideology on a nation founded to the exact opposite is not going to go over well. Especially when it starts leading towards the economic malaise that we have now.

I subsist on SSI now that I am disabled, though I would prefer to be able to work. With the way things are going, Social Security will be insolvent in about six years. The system was never intended to be like this, as it was never expected that A: people would live this much longer, and B: that we would ever experience a baby boom the way we did following World War II.

We're spending at about 100% GDP right now. History (such a cruel mistress) has shown repeatedly that when this happens, said nations eventually crash. The Weimar Republic and most of the rest of Germany post-WW I, Japan (on several occasions now), and the Soviet Union all should be serving as bright neon indicators the size of the Empire State Building that "STOP! TURN AROUND AND FIX IT!" is the only course available to us.

I don't have children, but I do have a niece that I would like to see lead a good life. I may not even live to see 2013 (recent serious medical issues popped up), but that does not mean I don't care about what will happen. I don't much like Mitt, but I honestly think he would be a lot better than what we currently have.

What happened to "Ask not what your country can do for you; but what You can do for your country"? Have the so-called "Liberals" really fallen that far?

[OldSchoolGamer]

Conservative: a political or theological orientation advocating the preservation of the best in society and opposing radical changes.

Who defines what's "best in society?"  As for opposing radical change...well, I think anyone could make the case that wrenching change is seldom good for economies or nations.  On the other hand, Spock was right when he pointed out that change is the essential constant of the universe.  As Darwin said, it is not the strongest that survive in the long run, but rather those most responsive and adaptive to change.

As for my own personal views, I don't give a damn if you're gay or straight or transsexual or what have you.  That isn't what this is about.

That's good, but understand when you hang out the "conservative" shingle, you're encompassing a subset of conservatives that do definitely give a damn about their neighbors' sexuality and, in some cases, have no problem with the government telling them what they can do in their own bedrooms.

I don't give a good God damn if you're the first black President.  I have lots of black friends, and quite a few of them hate Obama's policies.

That's good too, but see above.

The point of this thread is to bring together like-minded conservatives who hate what this government is doing to our country.  The Constitution is being trampled on and side stepped in alarming ways.  This government has added over six trillion dollars in debt that bankrupts our country for years to come.  My son's chances at college and a good job are bogged down extremely because of that.  And anyone who can willingly want the cause of this debt to have another four years to put us even further in the hole is fundamentally flawed.

(Emphasis mine) It's that bolded part that kind of scuppers it.  Not all conservatives are of "like mind" as you.  Yet they would still argue for the right to wear the "conservative" label.  And the debt you refer to began with Richard Nixon (R), who took America off the gold standard and facilitated the unprecedented kiting of federal checks we see today.  cf. Ronald Reagan for another big steamy scoop full of debt.  The only President in modern memory to preside over a budgetary surplus was a Democrat, Bill Clinton.

I'm also alarmed at how this government is trying to tell me how to live my life.  Michelle Obama's take over of school lunches is making our kids so hungry they can't concentrate in class. 

Source?

We're being told that we need to help them adjust to the new menus by serving healthier foods.  We're being told what is good for us and what is bad and that's not the America I was raised to respect and love.  Our freedoms are slowly, but surely, being taken away, one at a time, and what's worse?  Those who have been fooled by the Obama doctrine into thinking this is actually good for us.

Warrantless wiretaps?  The Patriot Act?  Extraordinary rendition?  Indefinite detention without trial?  Those ring a bell?

Well not me.  I'm standing up against it.  I'm putting my foot down and calling for those who are tired of being pushed around by the government.  Enough is enough.  We are the Paul and Paulette Reveres of our time.  It's time to warn others and get this foolishness stopped before our country goes over the cliff and cannot be brought back to the glory it once was.

You go right on ahead.

So there.  Those are my views.  Take them as you will, or don't.  But remember that while we conservatives our the minority on this site, we're being attacked with the same viciousness and hatred that those in the 'sexual and gender minority' are in the real world.  And I've heard more than once in this thread about how wrong that is.

That's rather debatable.  Dissent is not "attack."  If you post in a public forum, be prepared to take some heat without getting butt-hurt about it.

[Bayushi]

Your arrogant tone and constant denigrations are the reasons you've been targeted, Clown.  "Obama worshippers"?  Really?  It's like you think everyone who supports Obama is a mindless zombie, their unending masses drowning out your enlightened, "responsible" wisdom.

In many cases, they are mindless zombies. Not ALL, mind you.
Or... this isn't actually real:
Barack Obama Chant!

[Question Mark]

In many cases, they are mindless zombies. Not ALL, mind you.

Funny, I could say the same about the people who support Romney...

[OldSchoolGamer]

Funny, I could say the same about the people who support Romney...

The two-party system is all about conformity and doing what you're told.

[Callie Del Noire]

The two-party system is all about conformity and doing what you're told.

Only when about 20% of any party actually participates in the process. It's amazing how fast things can change on a district level when the locals get up in arms about things. Even on higher levels it occasionally happens but we've gotten apathetic about speaking up.

[Ironwolf85]

The two-party system is all about conformity and doing what you're told.

No it's not, the two party system evolved over time from the major rift between out founding fathers over how states should be represented, they eventually settled it with the Senate and House. but the rift remained, and eventually became the early political parties the Whigs and Federalists. over time Republicans replaced Whigs, democrats replaced federalists, then sometime during the large scale industrialization of america the two parties began to court diffrent demographics, and actually began to change their idology. Oddly Lincon who pretty much took the republican party from a third party to a main would not recognize it today.

I shouldn't be "lets take our country back" it should be "we need to take our party back"

Again I agree with Callie, for example in the beginning almost nobody expected Barack to win, yet he used his chrisma to galvinize the younger generation who had been ignored, and mistreated by republican politicans & policies for years, he got them to support him. This is the reason they turned out in droves.

The problem is, electorally speaking, and I speak for myself too. Romney can't do the same, many under 30 were raised in a world defined by gorden geko's idea of finance and Bush's Policies, and have seen it collapse. The cold war campain tactics of "Big Scary Socialism" doesn't scare them, nor do they have a love affair with Ronny Regan.
To top things off, they are internet savvy, and can look up facts and opinions without the filter of Fox, MSNBC, or any other major news network, so network spin doctoring or skewed reporting, and trying to tell them what their opinions should be ultimately fails.
They have drifted to the far right, then relied on biligerence, bile, and cold war campain tactics to try and unseat Barack. The Republican party has pretty much alienated the younger voters, both Liberals and Conservatives by doing that.


sorry I got ranty there.
But the point is obama knew how to appeal to younger voters, and showed he had a pair of nuts to stand up on many issues they cared about. Now many still support him, but are more ambivilent about it as he's lost his edge.
This is somthing romney has not, and can not do.
Part of the reason I'm voting for Barack is that Mitt will in all likelyhood alienate another generation, and that will pretty much destroy the already ignored Moderate wing of the Republican Party.

[Serephino]

This is true.  I wasn't alive when Reagan was President I don't think.  What I did see was we went from a surplus under Clinton to a crushing deficit under Bush Jr.  When Bush Jr. needed the debt ceiling raised it was no issue.  When he wanted funding for his war mongering there was no issue.  Obama needed it raised and all of a sudden Tea Party morons are screaming for the government to be shut down.  It's hypocrisy. 

[OldSchoolGamer]

This is true.  I wasn't alive when Reagan was President I don't think.  What I did see was we went from a surplus under Clinton to a crushing deficit under Bush Jr.  When Bush Jr. needed the debt ceiling raised it was no issue.  When he wanted funding for his war mongering there was no issue.  Obama needed it raised and all of a sudden Tea Party morons are screaming for the government to be shut down.  It's hypocrisy. 

This.

Every time it's a tax break for oil companies, or more wars overseas, or tax cuts for the rich, there's no deficit.

But when we need to extend unemployment benefits, or a Social Security payroll tax holiday, or anyone talks about spending on infrastructure to put people back to work
ZOMG!!!1!! LOOK AT THE GINORMOUS DEFICIT! YOU'RE MORTGAGING OUR KIDS' FUTURES YOU LIBERAL WASTRELS! THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!1!!

It is hypocrisy, and rather foul hypocrisy at that.  It's why I no longer take the GOP seriously when they talk about the deficit.

[Ironwolf85]

That is exactly my point. That is exactly what every person born from the 80's onward has seen and remembers.
The GOP rather than reforming itself to be in line with the current, and upcoming, generation of conservitives, has chosen to isolate itself idologically and rely on support from a colition of Old Money companies, grass roots diehard reganites (my old man is here), and religious & far right fundies.
Because of this younger conservitives have turned away as the party abandoned them, and are walking in droves to the other party, dragging them towards the center.

If this current trend continues, which it likely will if romney is elected, and they keep trying to rely on that colition, then judging from american history unless the end of the world comes it is likely a new faction from within either the center or the old guard of the democratic party will fracture off becoming a new party of conservitives to replace the far weakened republicans who have alienated multiple generations of americans, therefore have little new blood, and little power.

History is fluid like that.

[Question Mark]

ITT: Conservatives bashing conservativism.

*eats popcorn*

[Callie Del Noire]

ITT: Conservatives bashing conservativism.

*eats popcorn*

Play nice.. I behave when the Democrats fight among themselves.

Basically what is going on is the the old codgers who got in after Nixon's cadre of people imploded in the wake of Watergate don't want to let the next generation and take the help. And won't till the drop dead.

[Question Mark]

Play nice.. I behave when the Democrats fight among themselves.

I was just making an observation dude.  I've actually learned a lot by following this thread.  It's always good to see how the other side thinks (entertaining too!)

[Callie Del Noire]

I'll be honest, I learned a LOT about the 'behind the curtain' operations of the GOP when my brother ran for office. The fact that he went for an office higher up the food chain than the folks who wanted him too put him in direct conflict with the state leadership.

It was very enlightening and very depressing.

[OldSchoolGamer]

There's so much corporate money in the system now I don't even think generational and ideological conflicts matter much.  You can disagree with me on the idea of a super-rich cabal running the show, but I think you'd have a hard time finding where the nose of the GOP ends and the asses of the big corporations begin, nevertheless.

[Serephino]

I saw that McCain girl (John McCain's daughter, can't remember her first name) on a few talk shows talking about this very issue.  She is a Republican that admits her party is driving away the younger voters.  She also would very much like those antiqued policies to change, but unlike her, I don't see any of her ideas happening until the party hits rock bottom, and maybe not even then.  Knowing them they'll blame liberals for pulling some kind of dirty trick...  They're already saying that the polls showing Obama in the lead at the moment are fixed, but when Romney was a little bit ahead they were accurate.  *headdesk*

[Callie Del Noire]

I saw that McCain girl (John McCain's daughter, can't remember her first name) on a few talk shows talking about this very issue.  She is a Republican that admits her party is driving away the younger voters.  She also would very much like those antiqued policies to change, but unlike her, I don't see any of her ideas happening until the party hits rock bottom, and maybe not even then.  Knowing them they'll blame liberals for pulling some kind of dirty trick...  They're already saying that the polls showing Obama in the lead at the moment are fixed, but when Romney was a little bit ahead they were accurate.  *headdesk*

Well given her father and her own personal heritage, I am quite sure they (the GOP leadership) don't like her that much. It's amazing how they (the leadership) continue to sneer at the modern conservatives and moderates who aren't into social conservatism, they WILL lose big sooner or later because their dalliance with the Double High Authoritarians, Religous Right and Tea party will eventually crack up. Their goals don't ALL exactly align and sooner or later one group will move on another.

[elone]

That is exactly my point. That is exactly what every person born from the 80's onward has seen and remembers.
The GOP rather than reforming itself to be in line with the current, and upcoming, generation of conservitives, has chosen to isolate itself idologically and rely on support from a colition of Old Money companies, grass roots diehard reganites (my old man is here), and religious & far right fundies.
Because of this younger conservitives have turned away as the party abandoned them, and are walking in droves to the other party, dragging them towards the center.

If this current trend continues, which it likely will if romney is elected, and they keep trying to rely on that colition, then judging from american history unless the end of the world comes it is likely a new faction from within either the center or the old guard of the democratic party will fracture off becoming a new party of conservitives to replace the far weakened republicans who have alienated multiple generations of americans, therefore have little new blood, and little power.

History is fluid like that.

This is fairly interesting and raises a question. If the old guard republicans go away, who is left? That is to say, who would the republican party represent if the very conservatives go away? I could see these "new republicans" being perhaps a fiscal conservative group with a social conscience joining with conservative democrats who oppose some of the party's most liberal wing. This might result in a republican party that moves centrist while the democrats move more left

I think that many independents are in that mode now, for them either party is too extreme in one direction or the other. The time may be right for a real third party somewhere between the two we have now. The problem with that is bucking the old system, but if a strong leader emerges, the internet would go a long way to getting that information out there.

An interesting article, long though, on why politicians and their campaigns lie and get away with it.

http://swampland.time.com/2012/10/03/blue-truth-red-truth/

[Callie Del Noire]

This is fairly interesting and raises a question. If the old guard republicans go away, who is left? That is to say, who would the republican party represent if the very conservatives go away? I could see these "new republicans" being perhaps a fiscal conservative group with a social conscience joining with conservative democrats who oppose some of the party's most liberal wing. This might result in a republican party that moves centrist while the democrats move more left

I think that many independents are in that mode now, for them either party is too extreme in one direction or the other. The time may be right for a real third party somewhere between the two we have now. The problem with that is bucking the old system, but if a strong leader emerges, the internet would go a long way to getting that information out there.

An interesting article, long though, on why politicians and their campaigns lie and get away with it.

http://swampland.time.com/2012/10/03/blue-truth-red-truth/

It's a nice idea Elone, the problem is I don't see either side's moderates having a chance if they dont' find a leader(s) to step forward and forge them into a force that could make things like that happen.

Neither party, particularly the extreme elements, wants a third centrist part to step up and form. It would cut into the 'low upkeep' segments taht either part courts for an edge (but not too hard)

[elone]

It's a nice idea Elone, the problem is I don't see either side's moderates having a chance if they dont' find a leader(s) to step forward and forge them into a force that could make things like that happen.

Neither party, particularly the extreme elements, wants a third centrist part to step up and form. It would cut into the 'low upkeep' segments taht either part courts for an edge (but not too hard)

I guess this is getting off topic for this thread, but isn't that the problem with both parties, that they pander to extreme elements, thus trying to draw a line between them and the other. Just for arguments sake, if say 25% of republicans are far right and 25% of democrats are far left, doesn't that leave 50% somewhere in the middle who could be attracted to a third party. (just threw those numbers out, I have no actual idea how people identify themselves within the parties). Surely there is a well know centrist out there who could garner support from a third party.

[Ironwolf85]

it's about Conservatives on E, it just didn't become the echo room the creator wanted.

also the problem is no center figure has come forth yet. though I figure if obama looses, he will drop off the radiar for a while, and then go for it if the democrats won't have him back.

[Stattick]

My issue with the Democrat party is that they continue to act more and more like the CPUSA (Communist Party USA). While liking communism is fine and all (differing opinions being just that), forcing that ideology on a nation founded to the exact opposite is not going to go over well. Especially when it starts leading towards the economic malaise that we have now.

Communism didn't exist when we formed this nation. The founding fathers were fighting against an entrenched aristocracy... like the communists that came later.

I subsist on SSI now that I am disabled, though I would prefer to be able to work.

Well thank God for what socialism we do have in this country. Otherwise you wouldn't be getting anything from the government, and you'd probably have to beg for a living. And that just wouldn't be right.

[Stattick]

In many cases, they are mindless zombies. Not ALL, mind you.

Well, that's disingenuous. That's the sort of thing you see in all sorts of gatherings when a group of like minded individuals get together. Sorta like how you'll be sitting there in the stadium during baseball game, and then everyone starts chanting.

[Stattick]

He also called him a bitch, to be fair.

Well, no I didn't, but I did come awfully close to it. I posted in anger, which I shouldn't have done. I think it's plain to see that I do not like Dark Clown. I don't like how he argues. I don't like how he lashes out and attacks people. I don't like how he attacks different ideologies than his own in the most extreme verbiage he can muster, calling people in the other party traitors and so forth. And, truthfully, I just plain don't like him, not one bit. But I let him get under my skin, and then I resorted to some of those same arguing tactics that he so enjoys to employ. An hour after I posted last night, when I was lying there in bed trying to sleep, I honestly thought that I'd wake up to find myself in trouble with the staff. It still could happen... or maybe we'll both catch a ban for it. It takes two to tango.

I'm not apologizing for my words; they came straight from the heart. I'm apologizing for my behavior. The proper thing for me to have done, was to hold back my bile and anger, and shot off a report to staff to ask them to remove Dark Clown from Politics and Religion and the site. From there, it would have been their decision as to whether it was actionable. Instead, I shot off my mouth and tied myself to Dark Clown with the same transgressions.

What I will apologize for is my use of the word bitch. As a curse word (as opposed to its usage as a word for a female canine), it's misogynistic and offensive. It's not a word I typically use. The way I used it, by saying that Dark Clown was acting "like a bitch" is just as problematic. It's implying that there's something intrinsically wrong with being a woman, which is something that I vehemently disagree with. The only reason I used that term, is because my impression is that Dark Clown is sexist. I don't have any evidence that he is, it's just my gut feeling. I thought that implying that he's feminine would push his buttons. It's something I shouldn't have done, both because of the offensiveness of implying that women are inferior, and because I posted in the spirit of trying to pick a fight.

So, let me take the opportunity to directly apologize to the community for acting badly. Now I'm going to go and turn myself in by reporting Dark Clown's post, my response to it, and this post in which I plainly confessed to trolling. Regardless of what happens to Dark Clown, I do expect that I'll be castrated for it. And, you know, I was trolling. I deserve what I get.

[Mithlomwen]

*peeks in with a staffly reminder* 

So here's the thing.....

The subjects discussed in this forum are controversial by nature.  There are people here, on both sides of an issue, that have very strong feelings regarding their views.  There is nothing wrong with that. 

What everyone should keep in mind is that there is a person on the other side of the screen.  You may not agree with them.  You may not like their views.  Hell, you may even dislike them.  The thing to keep in mind is, you can disagree with someone, and still be respectful about it. 

Broad generalizing statements, derogatory remarks, lumping everyone with a similar view into the same category is not the way to do that.  Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but everyone should keep in mind that no one likes to be insulted for their views and opinions. 

Sometimes it's just best to agree to disagree and move on.   

[Mr Self Destruct]

Thanks Mithy, and good point.

And Stattick, I personally don't care if you like me or not. The way I see it, thats your problem, not mine. No, I'm not sexist, and how you could even come about that conclusion confuses me.

And personally, I have nothing against you either. You're not the first person to lash out at me for my difference of opinion. You prolly won't be the last, either. Because my belief in personal responsibility and self-sufficience isn't a popular one in a world used to taking hand outs.

[Callie Del Noire]

Thanks Mithy, and good point.

And Stattick, I personally don't care if you like me or not. The way I see it, thats your problem, not mine. No, I'm not sexist, and how you could even come about that conclusion confuses me.

And personally, I have nothing against you either. You're not the first person to lash out at me for my difference of opinion. You prolly won't be the last, either. Because my belief in personal responsibility and self-sufficience isn't a popular one in a world used to taking hand outs.

No it's most likely for the off handed insults you hand out over a persons difference of opinion. The passive aggressive tone doesn't help at all in keeping people in topic and lashing out.

Everyone is entitled to an opinion, you don't have to LIKE their opinions (and neither do they have to like yours).. you should respect them. What you might consider a 'handout' can be something they need to get a foot up in life. Is my disability earned from 15 years service a handout? According to some it is.

Consider your point of view is only one angle on the issue.

[OldSchoolGamer]

My issue with the Democrat party is that they continue to act more and more like the CPUSA (Communist Party USA). While liking communism is fine and all (differing opinions being just that), forcing that ideology on a nation founded to the exact opposite is not going to go over well. Especially when it starts leading towards the economic malaise that we have now.

Would you care to elaborate on that?  Because, by global standards, the Democrats are center, with maybe a few (like the Jesse Jackson crowd) being center-left.  Not far left like the CPUSA.

I subsist on SSI now that I am disabled, though I would prefer to be able to work. With the way things are going, Social Security will be insolvent in about six years. The system was never intended to be like this, as it was never expected that A: people would live this much longer, and B: that we would ever experience a baby boom the way we did following World War II.

Then you should be glad America met Marx halfway with the New Deal.  The Right here these days would have no problem putting you out on the ice since you are no longer a profit center for the Forbes 400.

[MasterMischief]

Because my belief in personal responsibility and self-sufficience isn't a popular one in a world used to taking hand outs.

I think you are wrong.  I think a lot of people believe in personal responsibility and self-sufficiency.  I also believe that many people recognize the benefits of interdependence.  It is kind of a human thing.  Surely, you are familiar with specialization.  The concept that we do not all have to spend the majority of our day hunting down food.  We are stronger when we work together as a team.

You do not want to help those less fortunate than you.  O.k.  Let's talk about that then.  Drop the hyperbole though.  Why are you not equally angry over the incentives for Big Oil?  If anyone could do with a little more self-sufficiency, they certainly can.

Oh!  And for the record, I should like to see no one get banned here or on the board for this thread.  No martyrs please.

[Question Mark]

Thanks Mithy, and good point.

And Stattick, I personally don't care if you like me or not. The way I see it, thats your problem, not mine. No, I'm not sexist, and how you could even come about that conclusion confuses me.

And personally, I have nothing against you either. You're not the first person to lash out at me for my difference of opinion. You prolly won't be the last, either.

So far so good...

Because my belief in personal responsibility and self-sufficience isn't a popular one in a world used to taking hand outs.

And you screwed it up.  Are you trying to provoke people?  Are you trolling?  You sound too intelligent to hold such a narrow minded opinion.

[OldSchoolGamer]

I think you are wrong.  I think a lot of people believe in personal responsibility and self-sufficiency.  I also believe that many people recognize the benefits of interdependence.  It is kind of a human thing.  Surely, you are familiar with specialization.  The concept that we do not all have to spend the majority of our day hunting down food.  We are stronger when we work together as a team.

What many on the Right here in America don't seem to grasp is that, thanks to the free-trade policies THEY supported, America has a long-term structural surplus of unskilled and semi-skilled labor.  There simply aren't enough jobs for those who want them.  It's not an issue of people being lazy.  There's nowhere for them to go.

[Cyrano Johnson]

What everyone should keep in mind is that there is a person on the other side of the screen.. .  The thing to keep in mind is, you can disagree with someone, and still be respectful about it. 

Well, it's understandably difficult for people to hew to this standard when someone's views start from and consist of little more than disrespect, and moreover have zilch in the way of substantive backing, such as the now-commonplace movement conservative cant (demonstrated in the thread above) tarring everyone not of their movement as a lazy freeloader or worse. The substantive content of views actually matters, it makes a difference as to whether or not being outraged by those views is justifiable.

As a sidebar to the issue of conservatism, though, I do take it as a salutary sign that movement conservatism is finally self-destructing that it no longer has any clear idea about where to direct its fire. In the old days, the rhetoric about "entitlements" worked, in a Southern Strategy sense, when it was coded dog-whistle language alluding to Affirmative Action and shiftless Negroes. That particular Nixon-era gambit was pretty slimy and racist, sure, but it was at least comprehensible as political tactics and strategy. That now the front has broadened to encompass every American (who isn't a major corporation or investment banker) who gets a supposed "government handout" -- that now the mainstream conservative movement seems to honestly believe it can browbeat veterans and the elderly into believing their hard-earned benefits are "entitlements" and "handouts" fit only for losers -- indicates a truly amazing collapse of the tactical understanding the movement once possessed.

[Neroon]

Let's keep the thread on the issue and not on the personalities, shall we?  Remember the guideline, if you have an issue with a specific person, take it to PM.

Criticise points of view or arguments but not people.  As it is, it's getting close to the point where locking this thread is becoming an appealing option.

[Serephino]

I am disabled due to severe bi-polar disorder.  I tried working.  In the space of two months I had 4 jobs, the longest lasting one being two weeks.  I only lasted that long because my mom got me the job, and the lowly kitchen people were half afraid to fire the crazy daughter of one of the office people.  The others I was fired on the first day.  What exactly am I supposed to do?  How am I supposed to take responsibility for my life? 

Therapy would be a good start, but that takes money.  Is my mother supposed to put herself under to pay for that therapy?  That won't accomplish much, especially if it takes years.  Medication costs money.  The medication I take now isn't even covered by most insurance companies.  I have to get a cheap Walmart knock-off that doesn't work as well.   

Because I can't hold a job should I just have the common decency to die?  Gee, what an attitude to have toward another human being...  Also, something to consider is that when I get my government check is goes back into the economy.  I use it to pay bills, buy food, and occasionally go to the mall and have a little fun when I can.  All that money given to Big Oil goes into banks and sits there.... 

[Ironwolf85]

I have a friend who has crones, and his body is failing him like his father before him. He hates the idea of disability, hates having to go on it, and hates the idea of being unable to work for a living.
Yet it is inevitible, it's either that or wind up dead. He is trying to stay off it for as long as possable.
Another friend is disabled due to a skin problem that developed due to exposure to chemcials in the military. He would love to be working, and moreover out in the field with his SCA (mideval group with full contact & brutal combat) buddies. But he can't it wracks his joints with pain, and makes his back go out easily preventing him from working industry, and the skin flakes mean he can't work service lest he contaminate things.

We have a responsibility to take care of those who are hurt, or physically disabled. Any first world nation should. Those people are not the "parasites" one of my father's friends (hardcore republican) goes on about being on "the government dole"

Also in the case of friend B he is using his Vet funding to get retrained, so that when the VA pays for him to have it cured next year, he can jump right into the work force or get placed in a good job with a local company.

Though that doesn't mean we should pay a woman who has 7 kids for having more.

[elone]

The republican approach to disabled people seems to be to let their families, friends, and charitable organizations take care of them, just don't put it on the taxpayer. You know, the lock up the crazy uncle in the attic approach. We should be a nation that takes care of it's people first, whatever their needs, disabilities, or socioeconomic status. I fail to understand how we can always manage to fund wars, bailouts, and billions in wasted government programs for all types of things, but fail the basic needs of people. It is outrageous. No one in this country should go to bed hungry, want for medical care, shelter, or any basic human needs. For me, I would rather be taxed at 50% and have cradle to grave security, than spend half my income in private health insurance.

And if that means a few may be taking advantage of the situation, so what? Without 'we the people' this country is squat.

[Ironwolf85]

/\
I
I
I
get this man a cookie