I've heard guys like Rush Limbaugh say that Bush wasn't really a true conservative. Probably because he basically didn't veto spending bills and maybe his actions in Iraq as well.

Was Bush a true conservative? How would a true conservative have handled the Iraq situation? I would say a true conservative would have probably bombed the hell out of Iraq and left instead of trying to rebuild it and start a new society. Then again, I'm not sure I really know what a true conservative is besides lower taxes and small government.

a person who belive fire and the wheel are radical ideas?:p

How was Bush a conservative at all?

His forgien policy seems to be based around the 'white man's burden' and other load of liberal trash.

His policies regarding the expansion of government, especially when it comes to education, are also clear cut examples of liberal policies. A real conservative would have ablished unconstitutional crap such as the dept of education.

The definition of a true conservative needs to be clarified beforehand. I'm sure there are a few differing opinions on the issue.

There aren't many differing opinions, though there are intellectually dishonest liberals who try to call theirselves conservatives.

There aren't many differing opinions, though there are intellectually dishonest liberals who try to call theirselves conservatives.

Regardless of what you think about that, the definition needs to be established in this thread.

What, specifically, did he conserve?

Conservatism is about keeping government small, keeping a small footprint in the world, keeping a strong defense based at home, minimizing government spending, minimizing taxes (able to do because of all the other minimizations), and maximizing states rights.

The Bush Whitehouse did just about everything *but* the above.

Clinton was a better conservative.

What, specifically, did he conserve?

Conservatism is about keeping government small, keeping a small footprint in the world, keeping a strong defense based at home, minimizing government spending, minimizing taxes (able to do because of all the other minimizations), and maximizing states rights.

The Bush Whitehouse did just about everything *but* the above.

Clinton was a better conservative.

Bingo.

a "true" concervitive is someone who subscribes to right wing ideals
generally you talk about economic conservitives but somehow there ideals ended up being subverted by the religious. That is the main reason why people are aginst concervitives, not for the economic policy but the social ones

Free market, removing tarriffs ect are not evil ideals but they become despised when constantly accociated with anti-gay ect

Bingo.


Eh, I'd have to disagree. The only positive remark I have for Bush was that he was still slightly more conservative than Clinton, though that doesn't really mean that Bush himself was that conservative.

I think between NAFTA, Yugoslavia, and Iraq Liberation Act, Clinton did quite a bit to share his liberalism with us.

Certainly debatable. My bingo was more to show that I agree with Skinwalker's definition of conservatism.

The only issues I find Bush to be "conservative" on are social issues, and even there it's not true conservatism, which by its nature rejects government intrusions into the private arena, but the Republican brand — a word I use intentionally — of conservatism: That is, Bush's social conservatism follows the mistaken Republican motif that being overtly Christian, anti-Gay and pro-life are "conservative principles." They are not.

I've heard guys like Rush Limbaugh say that Bush wasn't really a true conservative. Probably because he basically didn't veto spending bills and maybe his actions in Iraq as well.

While spending, smaller government and limitations on foreign adventures have been "conservative" positions in recent years, I've always been a little bit dubious of the extent to which Republican politicians have ever really meant it. (I mean, they certainly did mean it when the Democrats were deciding the crucial issues of "what spending," "what parts of government to expand," and "which foreign adventures," but I was never so sure they were against the concepts as much as they were against anything Democrats do.)

What I think really cost Bush his "conservative" status was immigration. There are plenty of "conservative" Congresscritters who spend money like it's about to go out of style, immigration seems to be what really sets Bush apart from them. There was also the short-lived nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court, that set some conservatives off, but it's not clear to me whether that (dumb) nomination was somehow "non-conservative."

Bush is a true conservative...could not get any better conservative. There is a difference between what conservativism says it believes and what it actually does. Those that claim to be conservatives say they are for limited government and fiscal moderation. Neither can be said to be true of any Republican administration of the last 50 years. The great conservative himself, Ronald Regan signficantly grew government and government spending. Under W. spending has sky rocketed and individual liberties have been serverly limited. The power of states has been severely curtailed and the power of the federal govenment greatly expanded...most recently with the national id card.
But it is funny to see conservatives running like someone turned on the light in a coachroach infested room. This is what conservatism has done to itself. It could not withstand the weight of its own corruption. They want to blame Bush II, but is it really his fault or is he the fall guy.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9651882/

http://www.mediatransparency.org/story.php?storyID=20

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/17/us/politics/17radio.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rush_Limbaugh_Show

I will grant you the guy is as incompetent as the day is long. But what about those that put him in power and kept him in power. They are at least as corrupt and incompetent.

If you judge conservativism to be those that follow its stated creed, then the Democrats by any measure have been more conservative and fiscally responsible than any so called conservative (Republican) of the last half century.

There is a big difference between Regan's spending and Bush's.

Eh, I'd have to disagree. The only positive remark I have for Bush was that he was still slightly more conservative than Clinton, though that doesn't really mean that Bush himself was that conservative.

I think between NAFTA, Yugoslavia, and Iraq Liberation Act, Clinton did quite a bit to share his liberalism with us.

Then what would be the ideal conservative to you ABS? Please explain what being a true conservative means for all of us who are not in the know.

I'd say he's been a pretty Liberal Criminal. Sure he has his favorites he likes to kill. But I really think deep down, he doesn't care who dies. As long as he gets to funnel more money to his buddies in the MIC.

Why do you feel the need to post lies?

Simply because someone who grew up worshiping Trotsky, and then later voted in the Republican party does not magically make that person a conservative.

Then again I'm guessing that you believe that the People's Democratic Republic of Korea is a democratic government of the people, as they obviously call themselves that.

Dr. Paul is a great example of a conservative.

Why do you feel the need to post lies?

Simply because someone who grew up worshiping Trotsky, and then later voted in the Republican party does not magically make that person a conservative.

Then again I'm guessing that you believe that the People's Democratic Republic of Korea is a democratic government of the people, as they obviously call themselves that.

It would help if you could address who you are talking to. :rolleyes:

Dr. Paul is a great example of a conservative.


Why? Please do tell.

Look at the attached definition of neoconservative. Bush II by was a perfect neocon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leo_Strauss

Too bad neocons aren't the same thing as conservatives, then you just might have had a point on page 1.

I suppose you can define conservatism as just about anything you want these days. It seems like the whole "conservative" movement is in complete disarray these days. Everyone is running for a dark place to hide, saying that is not conservatism. Mabye oneday conservatives will figure out what it is to be conservative.
I consider myself conservative, but have not voted Republican since Regan. The guy knew what he was talking about when he talked about supply side economics. A concept foriegn concept to the Republican party of today.

I belive if fiscal responsiblity.
Maintain a competitive and healthy economy.
Open Government,
Limited Federal Government intrusion into private lives of citizens.
States Rights.

I have seen none of this in the Republican Party for almost two decades. However, I have seen a lot of folk claiming to be for these principals but doing the exact opposite. I suppose one could call that a form of hypocracy.

You be sure to let me know when you conservatives figure out what it is you are about, ok!

I consider myself conservative, but have not voted Republican since Regan. The guy knew what he was talking about when he talked about supply side economics. Supply side manipulations of the economy by the federal government are contrary to conservative principles.

At least, the last time there was a set of principles one could call "conservative" and be understood in public discourse, that was so.

There is a big difference between Regan's spending and Bush's. Not in political motive or philosophy - lacking Congressional brakes, there was a big difference in amount.

you know in Australia the hightest Concervitive in power is a mayor in some council in queensland. Every other goverment is to the middle left

Neocons are warmongering liberals, not conservatives.

Yep, the best example of a conservative is Ron Paul. Someone asked why, well, uh, look at every single one of his stances, it's all about non-interventionist, small government, and lives by the Constitution, not treating it like just a damned piece of paper.

- N

but but but they have the word conservative in their name so they must be conservative ....

Supply side manipulations of the economy by the federal government are contrary to conservative principles.

At least, the last time there was a set of principles one could call "conservative" and be understood in public discourse, that was so.

Not in political motive or philosophy - lacking Congressional brakes, there was a big difference in amount.

A supply sider opens markets so that the market can make supply decisions. A supply sider does not use unions or the government to limit supplies as is now the case. The Republican Party (conservative party) likes to create monopolies and restrict free markets when it benefits interests putting money in their pockets.

The Republican Party isn't the conservative party. I do not understand why you insist on this lie.

If you want to talk about conservative parties in the USA, then you could talk about the Reform Party (though as of 04 i'm not quite sure anymore), the Libertarian Party, or even the Constitution Party.

The Republican Party isn't the conservative party. I do not understand why you insist on this lie.

If you want to talk about conservative parties in the USA, then you could talk about the Reform Party (though as of 04 i'm not quite sure anymore), the Libertarian Party, or even the Constitution Party.

I call it the conservative party because everyone else calls it the conservative party, including party members. Honestly you guys make me laugh, you do not know what is or is not conservativism. These guys who have been ruling for the last eight years are running for dark holes to hide in. Did you vote for Bush II?

Please see the Wikipedia reference below, it is but one reference to the Republican Party as the conservative party in the United States.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_(United_States)

So you do agree that the People's Democratic Republic of Korea is a democratic nation of the people, by the people and for the people?

Angry, you have a habit on not answering unpleasant questions. There are a couple of other threads in which you got corrnered and ran. I tell you what, you answer my questions, then I'll answer yours.

If you believe that the Republican Party is a conservative party on the basis that many of the people in it call it that, then you must also believe that the People's Democratic Republic of Korea is in fact a democratic republic of the people, by the people, for the people on the basis that many of the people in it call it that.


Basically, I'm simply pointing out your glaring logical fallacy.

If you believe that the Republican Party is a conservative party on the basis that many of the people in it call it that, then you must also believe that the People's Democratic Republic of Korea is in fact a democratic republic of the people, by the people, for the people on the basis that many of the people in it call it that.


Basically, I'm simply pointing out your glaring logical fallacy.

That is generally how the language works Angry. Language consists of words with commonly accepted meanings. That is how we communicate. Now you want to change the meaning of words...kind of like the gays and marriage.

Getting back to my question...did you vote for Bush Jr?

I am the one that wants to change the meaning of words?

I guess that explains why you are trying to call the Republican party a conervative party despite the fact that they have nothing to do with conservatives.

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1724300&postcount=92

Who did you vote for Angry?

Show me some credible references that show the Republican Party is not the conservative party.

They have adopted the liberal forgien policy.

They have adopted the liberal spending habits.

They have adopted the liberal belief in the expansion of the federal government.


Why don't you start to show some credible references that the Republican party is in anyway a conservative party, unless you also want to talk about the glorious democracy that has blossomed in the PDRK?

They have adopted the liberal forgien policy.

They have adopted the liberal spending habits.

They have adopted the liberal belief in the expansion of the federal government.


Why don't you start to show some credible references that the Republican party is in anyway a conservative party, unless you also want to talk about the glorious democracy that has blossomed in the PDRK?

It has been my position for the last twenty years that the Democrats have been more Republican than the Republicans...when you look at what they do versus what they say. But that did not stop the conservatives/Reepublicans from casting the Democrats as liberals from hell.
Andi it did not stop the Republicans from going full speed ahead with a bunch of ditto heads and the support of conservative radio (Limabughs and Hannity's of the world) with their neocon agenda...voicing a conservative message put carrying out a neoconservative agenda. I will not call it a liberal agenda, as the so called liberals have never endorsed it.

Are you just now waking up?

Getting back to my question, did you vote for Bush Jr.?

Shouldn't you then be calling them the neo-conservative party, and not the conservative one? Calling a spade a spade, etc..

Shouldn't you then be calling them the neo-conservative party, and not the conservative one? Calling a spade a spade, etc..


If joe wants to believe in the People's Democratic Republic of Korea, then who are we to stop him?

You are evading the subject Angry, this is not about North Korea. It was a very common practice for communist countries to include the word democratic in their name. That has nothing to do with the conservative movement in the United States.

I showed you a reference showing the Republicans are and have been viewed as the conservative movement. Your leader Bush II has carried out a neocon platform...so did Regan before him. It's just that Regan was a lot better leadership that George II is and has been.

So answer the question Angry, who got your vote for president?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_conservatism

Why do you feel the need to post lies?

Simply because someone who grew up worshiping Trotsky, and then later voted in the Republican party does not magically make that person a conservative.

Then again I'm guessing that you believe that the People's Democratic Republic of Korea is a democratic government of the people, as they obviously call themselves that.

do you try to be a troll or does it just sort of happen

Dr. Paul is a great example of a conservative.

he is not a conservative he is a libertarian. nice try play again

Neocons are warmongering liberals, not conservatives.

Yep, the best example of a conservative is Ron Paul. Someone asked why, well, uh, look at every single one of his stances, it's all about non-interventionist, small government, and lives by the Constitution, not treating it like just a damned piece of paper.

- N

neo cons are social conservatives and no one really knows how to classify their economic ideas other than stupid

do you try to be a troll or does it just sort of happen

The same can be asked of you at times. I have to admit that I really enjoyed your absence from these forums.

he is not a conservative he is a libertarian. nice try play again

You're under the wrong impression that conservatism and libertarianism have to be mutually exclusive. That's absolutely incorrect.

The same can be asked of you at times. I have to admit that I really enjoyed your absence from these forums.



You're under the wrong impression that conservatism and libertarianism have to be mutually exclusive. That's absolutely incorrect.

libertarians do not like being called conservative and i never said they couldn't have conservative ideas but the label of conservative shouldn't be applied to them.

libertarians do not like being called conservative

That doesn't change the fact that a lot of them are.

and i never said they couldn't have conservative ideas but the label of conservative shouldn't be applied to them.

Why not? Because you say so? Are you really going to sit there and say Paul's platform is not conservative?

Do some reading please.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-libertarianism

i am not saying that libertarianism is not a conservative political idea but it is not conservatism it is libertarianism i believe in calling something what it is. if you said ron paul's was political ideas were on the conservative side of the spectrum that would be accurate but to say he is a conservative is not because that implies he follows the conservative mind set which he doesn't

i am not saying that libertarianism is not a conservative political idea but it is not conservatism it is libertarianism i believe in calling something what it is. if you said ron paul's was political ideas were on the conservative side of the spectrum that would be accurate but to say he is a conservative is not because that implies he follows the conservative mind set which he doesn't

Do you even read what you're saying? He has a conservative platform, is running on conservative ideas, but he's not a conservative? How is that NOT a conservative mindset?

Do you even read what you're saying? He has a conservative platform, is running on conservative ideas, but he's not a conservative? How is that NOT a conservative mindset?

conservative can mean two things being on the right or conservative side of the political spectrum. in which yes ron paul is a conservative or it can mean a specific set of political beliefs which when in the thread title you where true is in front of the world can be the only meaning which ron paul is not. it has to do with the shades of meaning words can have.

conservative can mean two things being on the right or conservative side of the political spectrum. in which yes ron paul is a conservative or it can mean a specific set of political beliefs which when in the thread title you where true is in front of the world can be the only meaning which ron paul is not. it has to do with the shades of meaning words can have.

What are these specific set of political beliefs that qualifies one to be a true conservative then?

He has a conservative platform, is running on conservative ideas, but he's not a conservative? How is that NOT a conservative mindset? Ron is somewhat libertarian overall (individual control and choice in many areas) and a lot Rightwing overall (the reliance on corporate capitalism in almsot all matters), and somewhat conservative in general (reliance on traditional community custom in matters of doubt, any recommended change a return to former and time-tested practice).

To the extent he is libertarian, he is often not conservative (elimination of federal regulations on corporate practices amd federal control of cross-border economic dealings, say). To the extent he is conservative, he is often not libertarian (individual choice subject to the State in abortion, other matters of personal behavior, etc.) But there is considerable overlap, partly because the US has traditions of libertarian politics.

What are these specific set of political beliefs that qualifies one to be a true conservative then?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative

I think we are getting a little off topic here. This is supposed to be about George II, if he is or is not conservative. And I think the record clearly shows he is a Neoconservative. There is not a speck of incosistency between Neoconservative idealogy and Bush II policy.

But there is a yawning gap between conservatism and neoconservatism, which is why Bush II is not being invited to campaign for conservative Presidential candidates. The neocons have almost finished their run, and now we're all hunkering down for the coming blowback.

bush hands down is not a true conservative

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative

And from there you can go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism_in_the_United_States#Neoconservatism which has this quote that says you're completely wrong:

Conservatism in the United States comprises a constellation of political ideologies including fiscal conservatism, free market or economic liberalism, social conservatism,[1] libertarianism, bioconservatism and religious conservatism,[2] as well as support for a strong military,[3] small government, and states' rights.

I think we are getting a little off topic here. This is supposed to be about George II, if he is or is not conservative. And I think the record clearly shows he is a Neoconservative. There is not a speck of incosistency between Neoconservative idealogy and Bush II policy.

I think the conversation is relevant because it clarifies just what true conservatism is. How can the OP be answered if that's not clear?

And I don't think anyone is going to argue with you about whether or not Bush was neocon. However, it's important to note that neocons don't really care about the size of government, and that's a HUGE difference from traditional conservative policy.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism#Neoconservative_policies

Size of Government: Kristol distinguishes between Neoconservatives and the call of traditional conservatives for smaller government. "Neocons do not feel ... alarm or anxiety about the growth of the state in the past century, seeing it as natural, indeed inevitable."

When I said off topic, I was refering to the discussion about Ron Paul.

The facts are the Republican Party has been headed by a Necon for more than a decade. And the facts are the Republican Party has been overwhelmingly supported by those that call themselves conservative, until just now.

And the Republican party has been the bastion of conservativism, excepting Libertarianism (to which I once subscribed). It seems that conservatives in this country are just now waking up to find they have been hoodwinked or perhaps better said ditto headed into neoconservatism.

When I said off topic, I was refering to the discussion about Ron Paul.

The facts are the Republican Party has been headed by a Necon for more than a decade. And the facts are the Republican Party has been overwhelmingly supported by those that call themselves conservative, until just now.

And the Republican party has been the bastion of conservativism, excepting Libertarianism (to which I once subscribed). It seems that conservatives in this country are just now waking up to find they have been hoodwinked or perhaps better said ditto headed into neoconservatism.

So then what are you basing your labels on, actions or words? If someone says they're a traditional conservative, but votes like a neocon, is that person still a traditional true conservative to you? Or is that person a neocon?

Walks like a duck, squacks like a duck, looks like a duck, must be a duck in my book. I don't really care what you call yourself.

Then the answer to the OP must be no. If by true conservatism we're referring to traditional conservatism, then Bush has been the opposite.

Conservatism, as you pointed out, has a number of flavors, libertarism, paleoconservatism, neoconservatism, etc. So using the definition in Wikkipedia of conservatism, Bush II is a conservative. His specific brand of conservatism is neoconservatism.

It kind of like dogs. I like dogs, but I don't like sissy dogs. Neoconservatism is like a breed of dog. They are all conservatives.

So yes Bush II is a conservative It's just some conservatives are just now finding out that he is a neoconservative and don't like that kind of dog. So they are claiming it ain't them. Despite the fact that they have unquestioningly supported him for more than a decade.

I would wager that many of those calling themselves conservatives were not even aware of the neocon movement until just recently. And the majority of those calling themselves conservatives today, are probably not aware of the neocon movement.

Not in political motive or philosophy - lacking Congressional brakes, there was a big difference in amount.

Bullshit. Funding No Child Left Behind cannot be reasonably be compared to taking on the Soviety Union. Nor can the War in Iraq. Sorry.

Let me use this analogy. For decades a wolf pack has been led by an alfa male. Suddenly, the wolves wake up and find that their alfa male is really not wolf, but a sissy dog. So now all the wolves are running around without a leader and telling everyone that their former alfa male is not a wolf, in fact he is not even a cannid. He is really a feline!
Bottom line, wolves and and sissy dogs are all cannids not felines.

Let me use this analogy. For decades a wolf pack has been led by an alfa male. Suddenly, the wolves wake up and find that their alfa male is really not wolf, but a sissy dog. So now all the wolves are running around without a leader and telling everyone that their former alfa male is not a wolf, in fact he is not even a cannid. He is really a feline!
Bottom line, wolves and and sissy dogs are all cannids not felines.

So what is the criteria for a true conservative then? Someone who happens to be on the right on a couple of issues?

Any one who sucumbs to one of the conservative subgroups, libertarian, neoconservative, paleo conservative, classic conservative, etc.

There is not just one flavor of conservatism, there are many. So any of the subgroups could rightly consider themselves true conservatives. Just as there are many flavor of liberals.

Gotcha.

NDS: Is this what you meant by OP question, or were you referring to a specific flavor of conservatism as the true conservativism?