RE: The Voice of American Conservatism? (Full Version)

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



Message

Hillwilliam -> RE: The Voice of American Conservatism? (3/3/2012 7:23:24 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

It was inevitable that old-school conservatives and neo-conservatives would be viewed as the same.... as soon as neo-cons/bush-cheney took over the party.


Well before that. The decline began in the Reagan era with the "Moral Majority" which was, by the way, neither.



kalikshama -> RE: The Voice of American Conservatism? (3/3/2012 7:27:53 PM)

FR,

Bill Maher chimed in Friday night:

...I thought this election was going to be all about the economy, but the economy started doing better, so the Republicans went to Plan B - calling women whores.

...Rush apparently does not understand birth control at all...he said she's having so much sex [double face palm] the tax payers... I think Rush thinks it's like Viagra - you take a pill every time. No Rush, you don't take a pill according to how much sex you're going to have; it's not dependent on how much pleasure to take by the pill - you're thinking of Oxycontin.

...I love this generation of Republicans - their approach to a woman's body is the same as their approach to the economy - they have no idea how it works, but they're eager to screw with it anyway.



HardSadisticFun -> RE: The Voice of American Conservatism? (3/3/2012 7:29:54 PM)

I toyed with being conservative when I was in my early 30's, but the economic theories are bullshit.....they don't work obviously. Mostly what conservatism is to me is mostly about white Christian culture. The election of the first black President seems to have driven a lot of white people crazy. Not being a hater, I'm half white, just calling it the way I see it. 10 times a day on teevee I see some white guy conservative just acting like an idiot.....makes me ashamed of my white half.



kalikshama -> RE: The Voice of American Conservatism? (3/3/2012 7:38:36 PM)

quote:

This young woman got up and talked about her right to subsidized promiscuity.


I guess, like Rush, you don't understand how the Pill works.

(Hint - you take it every day, whether you are having sex or not, irrespective of the number of partners you have.)

I'm starting to get tired of repeating this, but:

Most of Obama's "Controversial" Birth Control Rule Was Law During Bush Years

In December 2000, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ruled that companies that provided prescription drugs to their employees but didn't provide birth control were in violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which prevents discrimination on the basis of sex. That opinion, which the George W. Bush administration did nothing to alter or withdraw when it took office the next month, is still in effect today—and because it relies on Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, it applies to all employers with 15 or more employees. Employers that don't offer prescription coverage or don't offer insurance at all are exempt, because they treat men and women equally—but under the EEOC's interpretation of the law, you can't offer other preventative care coverage without offering birth control coverage, too.

"It was, we thought at the time, a fairly straightforward application of Title VII principles," a top former EEOC official who was involved in the decision told Mother Jones. "All of these plans covered Viagra immediately, without thinking, and they were still declining to cover prescription contraceptives. It's a little bit jaw-dropping to see what is going on now…There was some press at the time but we issued guidances that were far, far more controversial."



kalikshama -> RE: The Voice of American Conservatism? (3/3/2012 8:01:56 PM)

I was going to post the transcript of Sandra Fluke's testimony here but decided to give it it's own thread: http://www.collarchat.com/m_4050031/mpage_1/key_/tm.htm#4050031



tweakabelle -> RE: The Voice of American Conservatism? (3/3/2012 8:03:54 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

It was inevitable that old-school conservatives and neo-conservatives would be viewed as the same.... as soon as neo-cons/bush-cheney took over the party.



It may have been "inevitable" but is it wise to continue to view old school conservatives and the contemporary looney and/or religious right as one and the same thing?

I see deep divisions between the two. It might be an idea for the American left to consider strategies that might open up this division more, and exploit the differences between the two.

It's certainly to the left's advantage to minimise the influence of the looney/religious right. In fact it is to everyone's advantage.



TheHeretic -> RE: The Voice of American Conservatism? (3/3/2012 8:21:33 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: kalikshama

I guess, like Rush, you don't understand how the Pill works.



Yes, I do, Kalikshama. I liked Norplant better, since it can't be forgotten, but I think enough women had problems that they pulled it. I haven't been in the market for women's birth control, in a number of years.

And if you ain't fucking, you probably don't need it, no matter how many fathers want so desperately to believe that it's just for the acne.

Let's also not delude ourselves into thinking that birth control is being singled out in the insurance gap. Let a woman who is trying to get pregnant educate you on what all sort of reproductive health areas aren't covered.



HardSadisticFun -> RE: The Voice of American Conservatism? (3/3/2012 8:24:00 PM)

Regardless of the feelings of paleoconservatives, the fundies have won. Romney will get his ass kicked big time, and the GOP base will respond by assuming that they didn't elect a candidate that was far enough to the Right. 2016 will be even crazier. While the fundies are clearly insane, anyone who still thinks supply-side economics works is almost as crazy.



fucktoyprincess -> RE: The Voice of American Conservatism? (3/3/2012 8:34:12 PM)

FR

Yes, advertisers have pulled out, and Limbaugh has been forced to give a pseudo-apology (he wasn't able to muster the sincerity to give a proper apology).

And why did one of the advertisers pull out? Because the head of the company is a father of two daughters in their twenties, and he felt Limbaugh's comments were offensive not only to his daughters, but also to him as their father. If every father of daughters understood how much conservative politics hurt women, we would never have to deal with the sorts of debates about contraception that go on. If you gave a father of a woman a choice between contraception for her during her childbearing years or serial unwanted pregnancies, I would like to think that most fathers would choose contraception.



TheHeretic -> RE: The Voice of American Conservatism? (3/3/2012 8:38:23 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

It's certainly to the left's advantage to minimise the influence of the looney/religious right. In fact it is to everyone's advantage.



What ignorant rubbish. The crazy right is the best thing the Dems have going for them, in pursuit of their only value. The more they can find the whackiest right winger in the room, and feed him all the available oxygen, the less time and air there is to spend talking about issues that might actually matter. Say, just for an example, a US President deciding that he is personally empowered to openly attack the leadership and government of a foreign country by military force without any Congressional say so, as long as he does the shooting by remote control.




dcnovice -> RE: The Voice of American Conservatism? (3/3/2012 8:48:57 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic


quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

It's certainly to the left's advantage to minimise the influence of the looney/religious right. In fact it is to everyone's advantage.



What ignorant rubbish. The crazy right is the best thing the Dems have going for them, in pursuit of their only value. The more they can find the whackiest right winger in the room, and feed him all the available oxygen, the less time and air there is to spend talking about issues that might actually matter. Say, just for an example, a US President deciding that he is personally empowered to openly attack the leadership and government of a foreign country by military force without any Congressional say so, as long as he does the shooting by remote control.




It's me again with another of my pesky "Now let's distinguish..." posts. [:)]

In terms of partisan politics, the religious right is definitely a handy bogeyman for the left.

In terms, however, of the good of the country (and some of us lefties do think about that from time to time), combating and containing the theocratic desires of the religious right strikes me as a worthy goal.



tweakabelle -> RE: The Voice of American Conservatism? (3/3/2012 8:51:50 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: HardSadisticFun

Regardless of the feelings of paleoconservatives, the fundies have won. Romney will get his ass kicked big time, and the GOP base will respond by assuming that they didn't elect a candidate that was far enough to the Right. 2016 will be even crazier. While the fundies are clearly insane, anyone who still thinks supply-side economics works is almost as crazy.

If your analysis is correct, then courting the paleoconservatives, rather than antagonising them will greatly increase the chances of your prediction eventuating.

From where I sit, all the pre-conditions necessary to split the Right permanently are in place. Wouldn't it be a cause for regret if the left let an opportunity like this pass by?



TheHeretic -> RE: The Voice of American Conservatism? (3/3/2012 8:57:39 PM)

That's what we have a First Amendmet for, DC, and it seems to be doing a pretty good job. How about focusing some of that concern for the future on how the inflationary impact of all the quantitative easing is going to impact the life saving of millions of retirees, and soon to retire baby boomers?



TheHeretic -> RE: The Voice of American Conservatism? (3/3/2012 9:02:42 PM)

Splitting the right might be good for the Dems in the immediate short term, but it would be the worst thing that could happen to them, in the long.

Drive the fundies into a separate camp, and a hell of a lot of socially liberal people, with the brains God gave a gopher on fiscal policy, aren't going to be stuck calling the Democrat the lesser of evils anymore.



tweakabelle -> RE: The Voice of American Conservatism? (3/3/2012 9:38:41 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic


quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

It's certainly to the left's advantage to minimise the influence of the looney/religious right. In fact it is to everyone's advantage.


TheHeretic
What ignorant rubbish.

When it comes to "ignorant rubbish", nothing on this thread is in the same league as your remarks about "subsidized promiscuity" or the deceptive attempts to excuse them as "value free".

It is to everyone's advantage to minimise the influence of the looney/religious Right because they are a bunch of dangerous ignorant fanatical theocratic nuts. Given the chance, they will destroy democracy and social freedoms anywhere as they impose their narrow sectarian ideology and obsolete morality on all.

However to realise this, one has to put national interest ahead of partisan political interests, which may explain why you fail to understand the point.



slvemike4u -> RE: The Voice of American Conservatism? (3/3/2012 9:52:56 PM)

Ouch....Tweak shoots,Tweak scores [:)]



TheHeretic -> RE: The Voice of American Conservatism? (3/3/2012 11:01:27 PM)

Maybe stomp your foot a little harder, Tweak, when you squeal that since it is dark half the time, and that there are cloudy days, so the sky isn't really blue after all.

Without the fundies, and their nonsense, The Dems might have to talk about real issues, like how long it has been since the United States had an actual budget, or how, stuck in the middle of a tax relief bill, is a provision that mandates local government, "shall approve," and "may not deny," modifications to cell tower facilities. Dems, and their Obamabot liberal may cry about free speech when it suits their purposes, but denying local citizens the ability to exercise control in their community is a whole different matter.

"No, really, you'll love it my friend. We'll put on branches, and you won't even notice it."



[image]local://upfiles/409734/48D256D90A434DB6B600B3D575A12D50.jpg[/image]



Owner59 -> RE: The Voice of American Conservatism? (3/3/2012 11:21:24 PM)

"Real issues"..........lol.....is all the president has been talking about for the last 3 years........lol


As Bill Maher put it....."The republicans said they were going to talk about the economy......accept now,the economy is improving so they have to go with their plan'B"....calling women whores".......

So what are the "real issues" that the republicans are working on?.........We`ll wait......[:D]



TheHeretic -> RE: The Voice of American Conservatism? (3/3/2012 11:39:26 PM)

Speaking of Bill (the bigot) Maher, Owner59, now that he's a big donor, should the White House Press Corps be asking the President his opinion on everything Bill says?




farglebargle -> RE: The Voice of American Conservatism? (3/3/2012 11:42:17 PM)

Maybe if you have a problem with the way campaign's are financed, you should have brought it up sooner?



Page: <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.0625