Along the same lines....

Dumbass pinko-nazi-neoconservative-hippy-capitalists.
Trollbait

Along the same lines....

Post by Trollbait » Thu Oct 13, 2005 7:47 pm

of the Conservatives Going Cold on Neocons thread I must declare my increasing disappointment with the current Administration.

I am a conservative in the William Buckley, Barry Goldwater sense.

Maybe it was pride or maybe it was playing "Devil's Advocate" but I have been a strident defender of the Bush administration. I was wrong to be so supportive.

I agree with the need for the Iraq war but disagree with the manner of its prosecution.

I agree with the premise behind the Prescription Drug Benefit but I disagree with its implementation as one of the largest corporate boondoggles in history.

Bush has not yet vetoed one single spending bill and the upcoming Defense Spending Bill is being threatened with veto only because it rightfully restricts the use of torture by our armed forces.

The Patriot Act is a shameful power grab and its very name is an insult to freedom loving Americans.

The level of cronyism and corporate favoritism in this administration is mind boggling.

The interference of Republicans in the Terri Schiavo case is disgusting.

Our deficit is growing at an exponential rate. I am VERY pro tax relief but not at the expense of future generations. Government spending is out of control.

Fundamentalist and Evangelical conservatives have usurped the party.


Who else on this board will stand with me and admit these things as a conservative?

We need to refocus conservatism.

Partha
Reading is fundamental!!!1!!
Posts: 11322
Joined: Sat Dec 21, 2002 9:42 am
Location: Rockford, IL

Re:

Post by Partha » Thu Oct 13, 2005 8:24 pm

Who do you realistically expect to stand with you on these boards, Jecks? The principled conservatives on this board (Sabiar, Dd) have been saying this pretty much all along while you played Devil's Advocate. The rest? They're either drowing in Kool-Aid or too busy carrying it.

Sorry, m'man, but the Bush Administration is the culmination of 25 years of effort by activist social conservatives. I'm just sorry that nobody with buyer's remorse now were listening years ago.

Trollbait

Post by Trollbait » Thu Oct 13, 2005 8:34 pm

Sorry, m'man, but the Bush Administration is the culmination of 25 years of effort by activist social conservatives. I'm just sorry that nobody with buyer's remorse now were listening years ago.

I am still not buying your liberal agenda Partha =p

Ddrak
Save a Koala, deport an Australian
Posts: 17444
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 3:00 pm
Location: Straya mate!
Contact:

Post by Ddrak » Thu Oct 13, 2005 10:34 pm

The interesting thing about the "Conservatives Going Cold" thread is the spin I tossed on the article. ;)

Let's face it - as a conservative, if I was a US citizen I probably would still have voted Republican. The only other (real) option is "not voting Republican" which is essentially a vote for the Dems no matter which way it turns out and I at least see the Republican party as more likely to be in line with my beliefs than the Democrats, who have a mixed collection of beliefs that even they can't figure out which is what.

While I'd vote for the GOP, there was part of me wanting Kerry to win. More to smack some sense into the Republicans than to see a Democrat in power. It made me sick to see Bush talk about "political capital" when his opponent got the 2nd highest number of votes ever for any candidate in US history. He didn't have capital, just a weak opponent with a bad strategy. A strong opponent would have absolutely killed Bush in the election, so he don't have shit in political capital in my opinion and his current approval ratings are entirely deserved.

I do not like the Bush Administration. I don't like what they've done with conservatism and I'd love to see a less interventionist, less spendthrift government in power - one that has the balls to seriously make some cuts in pork spending. Unfortunately I think that's a bit of a dream and not something that's going to be real for a long while, maybe not until a 3rd party rises from the ashes of the current Demo/GOP debacle.

Playing "Devil's Advocate" is never bad - we both know from our non-board talking that our true positions are never quite as extreme as some of the arguments we pick up on the board. Devil's Advocate is good because if it reaches absurdity then you know the converse has merit. ;)

Now, my feelings (which have been relatively consistent):

I agree with the need for *action* in Iraq, just disagree with the manner of its prosecution at the political level (the Armed Forces have done a damn good job on a tough mission).

I think Health Care in the US is a god-awful mess. I think Health Care is one area that it makes sense for a government to provide a basic level of insurance (with zero consumer choice) and allow private companies to take up the gap for those who want choice. I think employers should have nothing to do with health care or pensions - leave it to the individual as employers rarely have their employee's best interests at heart and individual plans puts the power back into the consumer rather than the insurance agencies.

Bush should be ashamed that no vetos have come out of his office on spending. He shold be doubly ashamed if he even tries to veto the anti-torture bill. Something needs to be done about the government system of pass/failing massive bills in bulk though - it lends itself to pork spending and omnibus bills that are impossible to knock down because of the 1% of really good things in them.

The Patriot Act was a knee-jerk reaction to 9/11. That much is forgivable. 95% of it was good stuff that promoted departmental cooperation. The 5% of "bad stuff" should have just been sunsetted out and I still hope that one day it will go.

Cronyism and favoritism are unfortunately a part of any powerful central government. Kill government spending and this goes away. Spending and decision making needs to be far, far more transperant and accountable.

The Terri Schiavo case was just a circus. I don't fault too many people for what happened, aside from her parents and husband who needed a serious smack around the head to talk out their differences and keep shit like that outta court.

Government spending is atrocious, but I've covered that. Tax relief is good. I think more relief could have gone to the lower end of the income spectrum, but I'd still rather see some relief out there than no relief. Government budgets should balance. By law.

The "christian right" needs to have its ass kicked out. I see far too much hypocrisy and far too little true Christianity from that sector.

We definitely need to refocus conservatism.

Dd

(and can I just say the PA state government makes me giggle for the hell they are getting over voting themselves a big-ass pay rise)
Image

jookkor
Prince of Libedo
Posts: 917
Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2002 4:53 pm

Post by jookkor » Thu Oct 13, 2005 11:05 pm

but at least you got that %15 flat tax, right?
Image

Eidolon Faer
The Dark Lord of Felwithe
Posts: 3237
Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2002 5:25 pm

Post by Eidolon Faer » Fri Oct 14, 2005 5:57 am

Actually, Ddrak, I've got an interesting counterpoint to all the "Conservatives dissatisfied with Bush" stuff we've been seeing:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 02000.html
For Democrats, a Path Back to Power

By David S. Broder

Thursday, October 13, 2005; Page A23

In the welter of dissonant voices raised this year during the unending debates about the future of the Democratic Party, few have been as clear as those of Elaine Kamarck and Bill Galston.

The two political scientists -- she is at Harvard and he is at the University of Maryland -- were colleagues in the Clinton White House and collaborators on an earlier analysis, published in 1989, that helped set the direction for Bill Clinton's successful 1992 campaign.

Last week, under the auspices of the Third Way organization, they released their new compendium of polling data and political advice, "The Politics of Polarization." In 64 pages, notably devoid of academic jargon, and 24 easy-to-understand tables, they attempt to steer their party directly back toward the path to power.

Because that path aims down the political center, it will not be easily accepted by many of the activists in the organizations that control the Democratic Party at the grass roots and dominate its fundraising, whether they be Hollywood millionaires or Internet Deaniacs.

These men and women -- who provide most of the energy in Democratic campaigns -- ardently oppose both the domestic and international policies of the Bush administration and yearn for candidates who would reverse President Bush's direction on Iraq, taxes, gay rights, abortion and other issues.

Because of the work they do and the money they raise for the Democratic Party, elected officials -- especially in Washington -- heed their views. Their influence is reflected in Democratic votes against everything from the Central American Free Trade Agreement to the Supreme Court nomination of John Roberts.

Kamarck and Galston are making the case -- hard for these folks to acknowledge -- that victory for the Democrats requires more than ardent anti-Bush rhetoric. It requires, they say, a revision of Democratic doctrine on both national security and social and moral issues.

The perception that Democrats are weak on confronting terrorism and hostile to the culture of the deeply religious has cost the party dearly, especially among married women and Catholics. Galston and Kamarck calculate that the odds of a married woman supporting the Republican candidate rose from just under 40 percent in 1992 to nearly 55 percent last year. Clinton, a Baptist, carried the Catholic vote by nine points in 1992, while John Kerry, a Catholic, lost among his co-religionists by five points.

"Moral values" are particularly important to both groups. Kamarck and Galston are quick to point out, however, that this does not require Democrats to abandon their support for abortion rights or to condemn homosexuality. "Moral values" embrace more than gay marriage and abortion; the voters' definition includes "personal integrity, family solidarity, and the social compact," particularly concern for those in need of help.

This opens the way for Democrats to recoup ground if they find a candidate who conveys strength of conviction on national security -- the opposite, they say, of Kerry saying, "I actually did vote for the $87 billion [for Iraq and Afghanistan], before I voted against it." It would help if the candidate also had a solid marriage, a churchgoing habit and an ability to express sympathetic understanding of those who disagree with his or her personal support of abortion and gay rights.

The final table in their report is one of the most intriguing. It traces the changing partisan patterns of individual states, noting the increasing Democratic strength on the Atlantic and Pacific coasts and the rising Republican allegiance of the South and the Rockies. "The net result of these developments," they say, "is that the Midwest is far more central to presidential campaigns than it was two decades ago."

The six states tracking the national results most closely in the most recent presidential elections are New Mexico, Ohio, Missouri, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Iowa. Not coincidentally, Catholics make up the largest religious group in each of these states.

Kamarck and Galston, avowedly neutral in the 2008 presidential race, were asked at a briefing on their report if they thought it would be an advantage to the Democrats to nominate a candidate from the Midwest. Their answer: It need not be a native of that region, but it ought to be someone who can speak comfortably to those voters.

It sounds to me as if they have made the case for Tom Vilsack, a Catholic from Iowa, or perhaps Evan Bayh, a Protestant from Indiana, both with strikingly able political wives and solid family values.

Others -- including Hillary Clinton, who has migrated from Illinois to Arkansas to Washington to New York -- might try to fit the mold. The real question is whether the activists in the Democratic Party will follow the logic Kamarck and Galston have laid out.

davidbroder@washpost.com
Basically, what this article suggests is that the Dems need a moderate, somewhat socially-conservative candidate who's tough on crime and national defense who'll still adhere to the Socialist / Progressive fiscal agenda.

In short, they need George Bush. :roll:

Syeni Soulslasher MK6
Master ad V1t4m
Posts: 831
Joined: Sat Dec 21, 2002 12:27 pm
Location: Someware just outside of sanity.

Re: Along the same lines....

Post by Syeni Soulslasher MK6 » Fri Oct 14, 2005 6:23 am

Trollbait wrote:of the Conservatives Going Cold on Neocons thread I must declare my increasing disappointment with the current Administration.

I am a conservative in the William Buckley, Barry Goldwater sense.

Maybe it was pride or maybe it was playing "Devil's Advocate" but I have been a strident defender of the Bush administration. I was wrong to be so supportive.

I agree with the need for the Iraq war but disagree with the manner of its prosecution.

I agree with the premise behind the Prescription Drug Benefit but I disagree with its implementation as one of the largest corporate boondoggles in history.

Bush has not yet vetoed one single spending bill and the upcoming Defense Spending Bill is being threatened with veto only because it rightfully restricts the use of torture by our armed forces.

The Patriot Act is a shameful power grab and its very name is an insult to freedom loving Americans.

The level of cronyism and corporate favoritism in this administration is mind boggling.

The interference of Republicans in the Terri Schiavo case is disgusting.

Our deficit is growing at an exponential rate. I am VERY pro tax relief but not at the expense of future generations. Government spending is out of control.

Fundamentalist and Evangelical conservatives have usurped the party.


Who else on this board will stand with me and admit these things as a conservative?

We need to refocus conservatism.
Glad you could join us Jecks.....

Syeni Soulslasher MK6
Master ad V1t4m
Posts: 831
Joined: Sat Dec 21, 2002 12:27 pm
Location: Someware just outside of sanity.

Post by Syeni Soulslasher MK6 » Fri Oct 14, 2005 8:09 am

Eidolon Faer wrote:Basically, what this article suggests is that the Dems need a moderate, somewhat socially-conservative candidate who's tough on crime and national defense who'll still adhere to the Socialist / Progressive fiscal agenda.

In short, they need George Bush. :roll:
Ahahahhaha You said Socialist, Not Corporate Dictatorship.
How ever strickingly simmuler but yet very difrent..

Embar Angylwrath
President: Rsak Fan Club
Posts: 11674
Joined: Mon Feb 03, 2003 2:31 am
Location: Top of the food chain

Post by Embar Angylwrath » Fri Oct 14, 2005 8:12 am

Jecks,

I agree with every point you made, excpet the Terri Schiavo case.
Correction Mr. President, I DID build this, and please give Lurker a hug, we wouldn't want to damage his self-esteem.

Embar
Alarius

User avatar
Harlowe
Nubile nuptaphobics ftw
Posts: 10640
Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2002 8:13 pm
Location: My underground lair

Post by Harlowe » Fri Oct 14, 2005 9:05 am

I'm with you Jecks.

Kulaf
Soverign Grand Postmaster General
Posts: 7063
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 3:06 am

Post by Kulaf » Fri Oct 14, 2005 9:44 am

Well I am not a Republican. I am a fiscal conservative but there are social programs I see as a necessary. I tend to lean Republican for those reasons. But I am not identified by any party in this country. If I feel a certain candidate represents what I think the country needs at a given point in time then they get my vote.

All that said......the only way to wrest control of both parties away from the extremists would be to have "national" primaries......just like we have national elections. By the time the primaries roll around to my state......the race is over.

I remember the days when there were compromises in the two parties to get elected. When it was a real horse race between candidates in each party just to secure the nomination. Now it's all just a sham.

User avatar
SicTimMitchell
E Pluribus Sputum
Posts: 5153
Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2002 1:05 pm
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Contact:

Post by SicTimMitchell » Fri Oct 14, 2005 11:23 am

If you figure out whether I'm a conservative or a liberal, please let me know. (I joke that now I'm not sure whether I'm a Reagan Democrat or a Clinton Republican.)

Generally, my conservative side is disappointed in two arenas:

1. Fiscal responsibility. Yes, deficit spending can make sense during lean times. But you don't cut income and increase spending at the same time. I think as a nation we maybe need to give Bush back some of his own homespun philosophy. Like, about saving something for a rainy day. (Ha ha! Get it?)

Yeah, I wanted my fucking tax cuts. But once we go to war, for ill or good, that stuff should be set aside. (BTW, those capital gains and dividend cuts appear to apply mostly to corporations, not individuals.)

Which brings me to...

2. Foreign policy. Generally, this has been the Repubs greatest strong suit in the past. Can't this guy take some advice from his dad or something? (I'm almost convinced that Bush is actually trying to show up his dad.)

I was played for a chump. I supported a war based on false information. I stilll believe Afghanistan was the right war to fight. Linking the two situations worked too well. And then when we come to find it was all bullshit, the blame gets laid off on others.

Tenet takes the bullet, and Bush gives him the Medal of Freedom. You tell me.
Bangzoom
94 Ranger of Karana
Veteran Crew, through and through
_______________________________________________________________________________

SabiarofErudin
Grand Elect Undergrounder
Posts: 537
Joined: Sun Dec 22, 2002 11:14 am
Location: Harlowe's tampon box

Post by SabiarofErudin » Fri Oct 14, 2005 3:19 pm

I'll buy and agree with a lot of what you said Jecks. However, I do think that any conservative or American that believes that going to war with Iraq was justified is still in denial and or a hypocrit.

Afganistan was 100% neccessary in my view and I believe that a republican president like Bush was needed for that swift action. In other words...I don't want a liberal bodyguard. However, I would have bought the Iraq war had there of been an imminent threat. There was not. Any rationalization to the contrary is just that..rationalization. Its time conservatives stop hiding behind bullshit arguments and justifications for going into Iraq. You were wrong...just..ADMIT IT.

Kulaf
Soverign Grand Postmaster General
Posts: 7063
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 3:06 am

Post by Kulaf » Fri Oct 14, 2005 3:35 pm

So if I feel the war in Iraq was justified to remove Saddam and his party from power I am in denial or a hypocrite?

I choose option C.

SabiarofErudin
Grand Elect Undergrounder
Posts: 537
Joined: Sun Dec 22, 2002 11:14 am
Location: Harlowe's tampon box

Post by SabiarofErudin » Fri Oct 14, 2005 3:45 pm

Hypocrit. Bush needs to invade Iran, Syria, North Korea, Libya, China, Sudan..etc..etc.

User avatar
SicTimMitchell
E Pluribus Sputum
Posts: 5153
Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2002 1:05 pm
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Contact:

Post by SicTimMitchell » Fri Oct 14, 2005 3:48 pm

In other words...I don't want a liberal bodyguard.
See, there were these cats named Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman...
Bangzoom
94 Ranger of Karana
Veteran Crew, through and through
_______________________________________________________________________________

SabiarofErudin
Grand Elect Undergrounder
Posts: 537
Joined: Sun Dec 22, 2002 11:14 am
Location: Harlowe's tampon box

Post by SabiarofErudin » Fri Oct 14, 2005 3:51 pm

SicTimMitchell wrote:
In other words...I don't want a liberal bodyguard.
See, there were these cats named Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman...
/sigh. Ok...democrats were anti-black rights and republicans fought for black rights. Can we start being more modern now?

Partha
Reading is fundamental!!!1!!
Posts: 11322
Joined: Sat Dec 21, 2002 9:42 am
Location: Rockford, IL

Re:

Post by Partha » Fri Oct 14, 2005 3:51 pm

Kulaf wrote:So if I feel the war in Iraq was justified to remove Saddam and his party from power I am in denial or a hypocrite?

I choose option C.
Option C, of course, meaning 'I really really really liked the Empire, and I don't know why that do-gooder Obi Wan had to do all that terrarism. He must have been a hippie.'

Partha
Reading is fundamental!!!1!!
Posts: 11322
Joined: Sat Dec 21, 2002 9:42 am
Location: Rockford, IL

Re:

Post by Partha » Fri Oct 14, 2005 3:51 pm

SabiarofErudin wrote:
SicTimMitchell wrote:
In other words...I don't want a liberal bodyguard.
See, there were these cats named Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman...
/sigh. Ok...democrats were anti-black rights and republicans fought for black rights. Can we start being more modern now?
Considering much of current Republican philosophy is to explicitly destroy the New Deal, I think not.

SabiarofErudin
Grand Elect Undergrounder
Posts: 537
Joined: Sun Dec 22, 2002 11:14 am
Location: Harlowe's tampon box

Post by SabiarofErudin » Fri Oct 14, 2005 3:55 pm

Ya..seriously. If you are using the "But he was a bad man!" argument then please please...just stop...please..its like watching someone embarrass themselves, it just embarrasses you too.

Post Reply