01 Feb 12
Originally posted by normbenignYou've repeatedly made the same claim i.e. Reagan did "good" things and that things that were "bad" during his term of office were someone else's fault. You've made the claim in reverse for Clinton's term of office.
Have you stopped kicking your dog?
A pattern seems to be emerging ......................................
- Joined
- 07 Mar 09
- Moves
- 27965
So now that Mitt the Rich has bought the nomination we've all decided that there is NO SUCH THING as 'conservatism!' On the other hand, I know what Liberalism is and I'll gladly take the bad with the good. I'll never claim that those who make mistakes (or a bald-faced incompetent and criminal like Bush) are suddenly not what they say and support. There are still Liberals in the Democratic Party (as well as Conservatives.) Liberals actually make up the largest Democratic bloc in Congress. I'm not ashamed of Kennedy, or Truman, or FDR (despite their human failings.) Clinton and Obama frustrate me but they are still preferable to people that only pretend to believe things during their Party's primaries.
I must also point out: if 'conservatism' is an abject failure it is mainly because the authoritarian types that prefer the Republican Party are very poor judges of character; they keep picking the guy they want for a buddy and not the guy who they know is honest and responsible. (Another reason why corrupt Democrats leave office and corrupt Republicans just fester and smell bad.)
Originally posted by TerrierJackYour left-wing socialists (as the right call them) are right-wing liberals to the rest of the world.
Now that we've seen that the 'conservatives' cannot even nominate one of their own in the Party they claim to control is it time to a conclude that 'conservatism' is finished as a political force in America? After all, if you use their own reckoning, the last 'conservative' President was Ronald Reagan (or Bill Clinton.) Neither Bush is a 'conservative.' ...[text shortened]... e in our private lives and increased government investment to improve our public lives?
Seriously, your right-wingers are so far to the right even Hitler blushes in shame.
What did the CIA call them? Oh yeah... "The Loonies".
02 Feb 12
Originally posted by shavixmirHmm. You may be onto something. Our right wingers often claim Hitler was to the left of them.
Your left-wing socialists (as the right call them) are right-wing liberals to the rest of the world.
Seriously, your right-wingers are so far to the right even Hitler blushes in shame.
What did the CIA call them? Oh yeah... "The Loonies".
02 Feb 12
Originally posted by AThousandYoungHiter?
Hmm. You may be onto something. Our right wingers often claim Hitler was to the left of them.
Can anyone here tell me what is short for nationalist socialist?
Nope, its not the term conservative.
Again, the term is not conservative.
Zaboomafo is not the term, sorry.
I guess you will never get it. :'(
02 Feb 12
Originally posted by no1marauderI'm with you in cuts on military spending, if done correctly. I'm not sure that making the tax code more progressive, or less friendly to the investing class is serious.
I made one, but I'm sure you wouldn't like it. It called for big cuts in military spending and an end to preferential treatment for types of income that flows disproportionately to rich folks among other things.
02 Feb 12
Originally posted by no1marauderIt is your habit when face with something you have no logical answer to, to reword it to what you prefer I had said. Arguments do not require facts. Arguments are statements of logic based on premises (facts). If in fact you question a premise, it is easy enough to do, and doesn't require distorting the logic into a straw man.
It's your entire argument this thread though like most of your arguments it's bereft of any facts to support it.
02 Feb 12
Originally posted by no1marauderNot true. It is true, that regardless of the President, or opposing party, that Congress has responsibility for much of what happens. Clearly, Obama controlled both houses of Congress, with a filibuster proof majority in the Senate, and still had to bribe Senators of his own party to get Health Care done. George W. Bush could not get his agenda passed in the 2nd term while holding both Houses, the Senate however being nearly split. The result of this dynamic is that Presidents most often "horse-trade" stuff they don't want for stuff they do want.
You've repeatedly made the same claim i.e. Reagan did "good" things and that things that were "bad" during his term of office were someone else's fault. You've made the claim in reverse for Clinton's term of office.
A pattern seems to be emerging ......................................
In the present cycle, I don't have aspirations of getting a conservative President. I do hope that Congress remains in opposition to Obama if he is reelected, and that if a Republican gets the nod, that he not have both houses of Congress, especially if he is a RINO, like both Gingrich or Romney.
02 Feb 12
Originally posted by shavixmirSorry, but Hitler and his National Socialism was a Marxist/Leftist party. Today's liberal has usurped the title. The political and philosophical arguments of the 18th, 19th, and early 20th centuries were between liberals and collectivists/statists.
Your left-wing socialists (as the right call them) are right-wing liberals to the rest of the world.
Seriously, your right-wingers are so far to the right even Hitler blushes in shame.
What did the CIA call them? Oh yeah... "The Loonies".
On one side was utopians like Plato, More, Hobbs and Marx and the other Montesquieu and Locke. That is that nature of the debate, where it is still argued. The question is of liberty or tyranny.
- Joined
- 07 Mar 09
- Moves
- 27965
03 Feb 12
Originally posted by normbenignIf arguments like this are what pass for 'conservatism' then no wonder it is dead. What I want to know is when can finally bury it 'cause it is starting to stink.
Sorry, but Hitler and his National Socialism was a Marxist/Leftist party. Today's liberal has usurped the title. The political and philosophical arguments of the 18th, 19th, and early 20th centuries were between liberals and collectivists/statists.
On one side was utopians like Plato, More, Hobbs and Marx and the other Montesquieu and Locke. That is that nature of the debate, where it is still argued. The question is of liberty or tyranny.
03 Feb 12
Originally posted by normbenignHitler was bitterly opposed to Marxism and Communism and his party was allied with conservative, nationalist parties that largely shared his ideology. No amount of attempts to re-write history can change these facts.
Sorry, but Hitler and his National Socialism was a Marxist/Leftist party. Today's liberal has usurped the title. The political and philosophical arguments of the 18th, 19th, and early 20th centuries were between liberals and collectivists/statists.
On one side was utopians like Plato, More, Hobbs and Marx and the other Montesquieu and Locke. That is that nature of the debate, where it is still argued. The question is of liberty or tyranny.
Originally posted by normbenignThere's an "investing class" that must be given favorable treatment, norm? Of course, they can't be treated like the peasants, can they?
I'm with you in cuts on military spending, if done correctly. I'm not sure that making the tax code more progressive, or less friendly to the investing class is serious.
Most capital gains aren't "Investment" in the Economic sense. In fact, the present treatment of capital gains in the tax code discourages Investment and encourages speculation and paper chasing.
American conservatism has reduced itself to a movement almost exclusively concerned with keeping the wealthy from paying taxes at anywhere near what the vast majority of the population feel is a "fair" amount. Everything else seems to be just window dressing.