Conservative != Clueless (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

MasterJaguar01 -> Conservative != Clueless (1/22/2012 5:46:59 AM)

Conservative != Clueless

It saddens me that, since the 1950's, the Republican party has been so incredibly dumbed down. The top thinkers of both parties used to:

1) Understand how our consumer-driven capitalist economy works
2) Understand geopolitics, cultures, and leaders of the world

Further, capable conservatives used to be able to articulate:

1) Family Values (meaning the family, as the center of financial, and moral stability) (Encouraged, NOT legislated)
2) Sound monetary policy
3) Strong US leadership

With the exception of Ron Paul, he Republican party has delivered nothing but faux-conservative, dumbed-down playskool economics, and foreign policy.

On the economy:
Tax cuts for the wealthy, because they are job creators. This playskool economic idea is so obviously ridiculous in a consumer-driven economy. Yet, it is a universal message in the Republican party. Newt Gingrich cites this “supply model” nonsense (and takes credit for it as well), for an increase in jobs during the Reagan era.

On Foreign Policy:
There is no understanding of America's challenges, allies, and enemies and no understanding of the people and cultures. Instead, we get playskool rhetoric like:

1) Iraq is the center of the “war on terror”
2) We can't leave Iraq because the Iranians will meddle
3) We need to bomb Iran because they are close to obtaining a nuclear weapon


On Energy:
1) Drill baby Drill! - More drilling means less dependency on foreign oil, lower gas prices, and create jobs

Anyone with even a cursory understanding of the international oil business, knows this is nonsense.


The current field of Republican candidates is sadly disappointing. Our current president is flawed, (NOT from a policy perspective, but from a leadership perspective). I would love to see a better alternative, but we won't see one from the Republican party until we see more Ron Paul's.

Dr. Paul is not there, but he is a refreshing break from the Republican dogma. I would love to see someone like him, but less of an ideologue, and more of creative thinker.



RE: Newt and Mitt...
Both have taken both sides of every major issue throughout their careers (I love Newt's “A Contract With The Earth”. Remember Newt, the environmentalist?). The Republican strategy has been since '09 to simply oppose anything the President supports. Newt's pseudo-intellectual drivel has been employed to explain every single position he has had, even when that position directly contradicts a position he held the day before. Neither has any understanding on how to lead on the economy, foreign policy, or energy.

RE: Santorum...
All of the above (but worse)... Add to that, his big-government philosophy of legislating his own interpretation of Christian morality at the Federal level.



FirmhandKY -> RE: Conservative != Clueless (1/22/2012 8:29:44 AM)

While I disagree with some of  your points, and agree with others, your main problem is that you are confusing "conservatives" with "Republicans".

Firm



kdsub -> RE: Conservative != Clueless (1/22/2012 8:37:29 AM)

quote:

We need to bomb Iran because they are close to obtaining a nuclear weapon


We need to do something about this....But.. I agree with much of what you are saying however;

I think you are going too far back...rather than the 1950's I think the Republican party in general went off the deep end in the mid 90's when Newt took over as Speaker of the House. This was the beginning of fanaticism, obstructionism and polarization of American politics for the sake of a political party rather then the American people. This was not just limited to the Republican party however...the Democrats have contributed equally as well.

Butch



Lucylastic -> RE: Conservative != Clueless (1/22/2012 8:54:47 AM)

I dont see Kd, how you can give Reaganomics a pass.
But thats ok, we can agree to disagree. For once:)


Pst Firm... its ok, we tree hugging commie pinko lib dem, marxist socialists get exactly what you mean about the lack of distinction.[;)][:D]



Fellow -> RE: Conservative != Clueless (1/22/2012 9:02:20 AM)

Conservatism is to protect traditional values and continuity through slow progressive changes. Where the "clue-less" comes from is, in my opinion, refusal (and it applies to liberals as well) to  realistically assess the current state of affairs. We are inside a short period of time where the ruling elite thinks the status quo can be maintained despite all evidence suggests the opposite.



MasterJaguar01 -> RE: Conservative != Clueless (1/22/2012 9:04:37 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

While I disagree with some of  your points, and agree with others, your main problem is that you are confusing "conservatives" with "Republicans".

Firm



You have COMPLETELY missed my point. (Which is that modern Republicans are NOT conservative)

I am not confusing the two at all. In fact my whole point is to make the DISTINCTION.



kdsub -> RE: Conservative != Clueless (1/22/2012 9:19:10 AM)

quote:

But thats ok, we can agree to disagree. For once:)


I think i love you...[:D]

I know he had many faults but he gave many Americans back some self respect...even if not deserved… after the debacle of Carter. Cater is a good man but was a terrible President. Anyway I liked Reagan personally…and I liked Clinton as well…go figure.



kdsub -> RE: Conservative != Clueless (1/22/2012 9:20:29 AM)

quote:

refusal (and it applies to liberals as well) to realistically assess the current state of affairs. We are inside a short period of time where the ruling elite thinks the status quo can be maintained despite all evidence suggests the opposite.


I very much agree with this statement.

Butch



SilverBoat -> RE: Conservative != Clueless (1/22/2012 9:51:47 AM)

Back in the, I guess, 'Goldwater' days, "conservative" meant either resistant-to-change or careful-with-resources. The 'conservatives' back in those times were main-street merchants and bankers, small-town farmers and retirees, etc, what are sometimes known as "paleo-conservatives" nowadays. The "progressives" back in those days wanted changes in the status quo, things like equal rights, highway systems, space programs, etc.

There's been billions of scholarly and less-so pages written about how those definitions shifted, but most of them either directly note or mendaciously deny the several major issues on which that conservative-vs-progressive paradigm split into realigned camps. Integration was major then, and it's still major now, to the many angry white men and a core of (more reasonably upset) minorities. Speculative high-fnance (end of gold-standard) and military industrialization was a major split then and now. Social mores and imposition thereof, and global hegemony were then and are still major divides in the electorate.

The basics, though, are that aggressive elements of the industrial, martial, financial, and religious factions have conducted decades of campaign to rebrand themselves as "conservative" because they saw that word and its connotations etc as a key to contriving support from the 'paleo-Republican' sorts. They've managed to annoint figurehead presidents like Reagan and Bush-II, by spending $Trillons to get control of the banks, the media, the churches, etc.

When did 'conservative' foreign policy switch from the isolationist, avoid foreign entanglements, squabbling petty princes. etc, of a century or half ago, to not only maintaining hundreds of military outposts and dozens of major military bases around the globe? When did 'conservative' social policy switch from live-and-let-live, biblical-brother's-keeper, dignity-of-man, etc, to reams of laws about social conduct, millions jailed for drug possession, and millions more homeless due to abusive usury?

There's more than that, but their campaign to rebrand the meaning of "conservative" has been quite successful. "Conservative" according to them now means rightwing-aggressive fundamental-old-testament-christian vulture-capitalism-financier ugly-american-global-hegemonist etc etc etc ...

I dunno that there are any "Republicans" left anymore. Their party was taken over by radical rightwingers.

...



Musicmystery -> RE: Conservative != Clueless (1/22/2012 9:57:24 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

While I disagree with some of  your points, and agree with others, your main problem is that you are confusing "conservatives" with "Republicans".

Firm


It's a confusion they are making themselves.

If they separated out into two clearly separate parties, that would be a good point. As it is, the Conservative Party is a marginal footnote while "conservatives" attempt to turn the Republican party into something it wasn't.

The result is the ridiculousness noted in the OP.

Now, if feed up with the Republican Party, instead of this "rino" bullshit, conservatives fled the GOP for the Conservative Party, THAT would be political action and a sea-change. They could then articulate policy, and so could the remaining Republicans (who would then be FAR more attractive to independents than they are now).

The OP is right. This is cluelessless on multiple fronts.



Musicmystery -> RE: Conservative != Clueless (1/22/2012 10:04:00 AM)

quote:

rather than the 1950's I think the Republican party in general went off the deep end in the mid 90's when Newt took over as Speaker of the House. This was the beginning of fanaticism, obstructionism and polarization of American politics for the sake of a political party rather then the American people.


It started in the 50s when Ike reluctantly let The Family into the White House under the guise of Prayer Breakfast because, while he held them in low esteem, he felt he owed conservatives something for helping him get elected.

1980 was the sea-change, when Reagan palled up with Falwell, and VooDoo (as Bush Senior called it during the primaries) replaced economics, quadrupling the national debt in just eight years. "It's just that simple" replaced reality and analysis.

Newt just tipped it over. And the war was on.

In 2000, that stretched to six years of Republicans in lock-step attempting permanent one-party rule.




Owner59 -> RE: Conservative != Clueless (1/22/2012 10:09:55 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

While I disagree with some of  your points, and agree with others, your main problem is that you are confusing "conservatives" with "Republicans".

Firm


Well who`s been fuzzing that line of distinction, all these years?[8|]



FirmhandKY -> RE: Conservative != Clueless (1/22/2012 10:28:00 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

While I disagree with some of  your points, and agree with others, your main problem is that you are confusing "conservatives" with "Republicans".

Well who`s been fuzzing that line of distinction, all there years?[8|]

I'd vote for the "tree hugging commie pinko lib dem, marxist socialists" myself.  [8D]

As I've mentioned before, and as mentioned by Silverboat, up is down, and down is up pretty much when you talk "conservative" and "liberal", and the parties are pretty much just "elites" looking out for themselves and the status quo.

And the TEA party is an attempt to return one party to its historical roots, but many who are simply statist or useful idiots for the elites and for the statist dismiss it. 

Firm



MasterJaguar01 -> RE: Conservative != Clueless (1/22/2012 10:36:06 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: SilverBoat


There's more than that, but their campaign to rebrand the meaning of "conservative" has been quite successful. "Conservative" according to them now means rightwing-aggressive fundamental-old-testament-christian vulture-capitalism-financier ugly-american-global-hegemonist etc etc etc ...

I dunno that there are any "Republicans" left anymore. Their party was taken over by radical rightwingers.

...



EXACTLY. This summarizes my point very well.




mnottertail -> RE: Conservative != Clueless (1/22/2012 10:53:15 AM)

And the TEA party is an attempt to return one party to its historical roots, but many who are simply statist or useful idiots for the elites and for the statist dismiss it...

That is YOUR opinion, and not historically correct. The capitulists of the teaparty cannot spell capitalist let alone know what it means.  Where are the america first and foremost tarrifs and quotas?    Where is the nationalism?  Where is the (oh, so much more that it is not even worth ragging on anymore, it is falling on deaf ears).

Plainly, I disagree.



Musicmystery -> RE: Conservative != Clueless (1/22/2012 10:58:57 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

While I disagree with some of  your points, and agree with others, your main problem is that you are confusing "conservatives" with "Republicans".

Well who`s been fuzzing that line of distinction, all there years?[8|]

I'd vote for the "tree hugging commie pinko lib dem, marxist socialists" myself.  [8D]

As I've mentioned before, and as mentioned by Silverboat, up is down, and down is up pretty much when you talk "conservative" and "liberal", and the parties are pretty much just "elites" looking out for themselves and the status quo.

And the TEA party is an attempt to return one party to its historical roots, but many who are simply statist or useful idiots for the elites and for the statist dismiss it. 

Firm


Sometimes you show your intelligence. Other times you're like this.

What a crock. Tree huggers etc. have nothing to do with this--it's an inside job.

Historical roots? They should read some history.




Musicmystery -> RE: Conservative != Clueless (1/22/2012 11:01:07 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01


quote:

ORIGINAL: SilverBoat


There's more than that, but their campaign to rebrand the meaning of "conservative" has been quite successful. "Conservative" according to them now means rightwing-aggressive fundamental-old-testament-christian vulture-capitalism-financier ugly-american-global-hegemonist etc etc etc ...

I dunno that there are any "Republicans" left anymore. Their party was taken over by radical rightwingers.

...



EXACTLY. This summarizes my point very well.



Unfortunately, true.



FirmhandKY -> RE: Conservative != Clueless (1/22/2012 11:02:18 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

While I disagree with some of  your points, and agree with others, your main problem is that you are confusing "conservatives" with "Republicans".

Well who`s been fuzzing that line of distinction, all there years?[8|]

I'd vote for the "tree hugging commie pinko lib dem, marxist socialists" myself.  [8D]

As I've mentioned before, and as mentioned by Silverboat, up is down, and down is up pretty much when you talk "conservative" and "liberal", and the parties are pretty much just "elites" looking out for themselves and the status quo.

And the TEA party is an attempt to return one party to its historical roots, but many who are simply statist or useful idiots for the elites and for the statist dismiss it. 

Sometimes you show your intelligence. Other times you're like this.

What a crock. Tree huggers etc. have nothing to do with this--it's an inside job.

Historical roots? They should read some history.

Quit being so "Mr Wilson-ish" MM.  I was just tweaking Lucy a bit.

The redefinition of what each "political side" stands for has been done more by the "left" or "progressives" or whatever the hell they call themselves today, than by the "conservatives".  That's all I was saying.

geez. [8|]

Firm



Musicmystery -> RE: Conservative != Clueless (1/22/2012 11:04:39 AM)

quote:

The redefinition of what each "political side" stands for has been done more by the "left" or "progressives" or whatever the hell they call themselves today, than by the "conservatives". That's all I was saying.


Oh.

Still a crock.

It's also a red herring.



SilverBoat -> RE: Conservative != Clueless (1/22/2012 11:34:33 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

And the TEA party is an attempt to return one party to its historical roots, but many who are simply statist or useful idiots for the elites and for the statist dismiss it. 



...laughing... 

No, the 'Tea' Party are 99% 'astroturf'delusional idiots desperate to blame anybody but themselves for the problems in their lives, and they've been tag-team played for political suckers by 1% megalopaths like the Kochs, Beck, Paul, etc. How many times were those mobs caught chanting "End All Entitlements!" and minutes later demanding that the gov't keep its greedy paws off their social-security, federal medicare, unemployment payments, etc?

That whole teapsycho thing is a scheme plotted by the rightwing thinktanks, funded by the rightwing fnanciers, blatted by 'Faux' News, and swallowed hook, line, and sucker by their thralls of the rightwing idiot-box broadcasting networks. The intent, from its get-go, was to goad the angry white men's latent racism into open but unstateable rage at their !!gasp!! disbelief at uppity Obama's being elected, twist that back into distorted voodoo-economic machismo-posturing, and wedge those votes from people disenchanted with Ripuglican politics back into the PNAC rightwing political agenda.

How many of the GOP candidates has Norquist's political extortion resulted in their signing oaths of fealty to ATR?

The scheme paid off in 2010, maybe not so much in 2012. Lots of those teapiddler idiots the Kocks were bussing to events are still out of work, and the few dupes who actually had their 'own-business' were such losers that taxes or no they went under anyway.

Anyway, nah, the 'Tea-Party' isn't a return to anything but the ugliest of massive psychosocial-manipulative politics, directly funded as secretly as possible by hundred-billions from the financial industry. Machiavelli might comment with interest. Goebbels would applaud the execution. Alinski could say the rules work for both sides.

--- shrug ---

...




Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875