Sarah Palin opposes NY Republican—Dede Scozzafava not conservative enough

Yawn.

selff explanatory and you need it explained.

I wasn't claiming you were insulting me in this one.

I'm sorry I can't bring my level of speech down to your level.

Vitriol??? that wasn't Vitriol.

They were perfectly coherent.

Do you want me to recite them. I understand what conservative principles are and for all your's and the republican lip service to neither of you are conservative in the true sense of it.

More insults. and my reading comprehension was fine. If it wasn't I wouldn't be able to read the bullshit you call a post.

Yes you did. You said every one who was causing the debt to go up with their rampent spending and such were RINO's the republican base wants government to spend money. mostly on enforcing its bigotry and on unneeded wars. It was implied.

You who call the republican base RINO's need to shut up and get with reality.[/QUOTE]

No you are the one who is in need of a reality check.[/QUOTE] Why because I can tell reality from fairy land.

Meghan Mccain would disagree with you. and She is smarter ,better educated, and better informed than you are.

the base of the republican party isn't conservative. Its reactionary ideology at its worst posing as conservatism.

So much for your reading comprehension but its par for the course for you to accuse people of things while showing it your self. No where did I say I believe the republican base are RINOs. The reason I don't is for the very reason I said you think they are They don't act like true conservatives. They are social conservative which isn't apart of pure conservatism.

The RNC isn't liberal. its hard right just like you. The "conservative" base is following the most extreme candidate like it always does.

Yes wow you got one right but for the wrong reasons.

these people if the keep going toward the center will save the republican party your ideas would destroy.

You truely have no idea what the republicans stand for or why they lost.



I'm done. Continue to be a child I'm going to move on and just ignore your shit. Its not worth my time to deal with someone as deluded as you and no longer entertaining. Good day and heed the three fold rule that which we cast out comes home three times.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Is the Republican Party fragmenting? Buffalo Roam wants us to believe that all of the problems with the Republicans are because of the RHINO segement of the part, folks like Bob Dole.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I really would really find this funny were it not so sad and dangerous to the nation.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

joe, the only fragmenting is the RINOs, and you as a liberal partisan democrat, just as pj, do not define the Conservative Principle.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Goodby.

 

I find that interesting Buffalo Roam.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I always thought of Bob Dole, senior Republican senator and former Republican presidential candidate as a real Republican.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

The republican party is as fucked as it is because its doing exactly as he wants moving farther toward the right.

 

well said, well said. that must have been compelling and festering inside you for decades.

 

Do you ever add anything to a conversation?

 

You have to remember to him applying the standard definition of conservative to republicans and finding them not meeting the standards is making your own definition of what a conservative is.

 

do you ever LEARN from a conversation?

 

Yes but only when there is something to learn now do you ever add anything useful to topics?

 

No, pj, it isn't, or you wouldn't be screaming about the deficits passed on to Obama.

If it was moving to the right you would be screaming about how the Republicans were cutting the budget.

Reality and your own words pj.

And now the Democrats have out stripped the spending of the Republicans for the last 8 years in just 10 months.

 

you only read a few threads so if you dont see something happening right in front of your nose it doesnt mean it isnt happening. you need to open yur eyes and diversify.

 

I have searched your posting history.

 

i think you need to get out more.

 

An Age-Old Conflict: The Latest Chapter

You are describing a conflict between classic- and neo-conservatism. Neocons acknowledge deficit spending and social safety nets. This is a minor triumph of liberalism that has gone largely without notice, even less than Clinton's concession to the power of the Reagan economy.

Of course, neocons still being largely conservative, it is unfortunate that the prescription drug reform was a gift to the pharmaceutical industry.

But it's hard to find a classic conservative anymore. In my lifetime, conservatives have long advocated intrusive government. Censorship, sexual policing, and control over people's bodies have been conservative ambitions for the most part of my political awareness. We've seen fights over a federal partial-birth abortion ban and DoMA, as well as heard occasional talk of a Constitutional amendment to take marriage equality out of the states' hands.

It should be noted that, while the abortion issue is generally derived from Christian assertion, there was in mythology an "Angel of Abortion", named Kasdaye—or Kasdeja (Davidson, 21, 165)—that predates Christianity as part of Hebrew mythology (1 Enoch 69.12). Of course, this legend derives from a non-canonical text, but the larger point is that abortion has long existed, and has been practiced in Christian society (Riddle).

Certain contradictions are inherent to conservatism as a philosophical tradition, which seeks to retain authority or wealth by diverse and even extreme means.

Did you ever notice that certain historical figures, held up by modern conservatives as admirable, were actually liberals in their own day? Franklin and Jefferson come to mind. Lots of conservatives quote Paine, too, in support of their faux-libertarian bent. Jesus was radically liberal in is day. I've said before that I do wonder what the world will look like when Byron, Wollstonecraft, and Emma Goldman are hearkened by conservatives in the same way.

It's a basic difference of positioning compared to the principles in play. While liberals are always tromping off into futuristic, utopiate idealism, conservatives are constantly scrambling to adjust to changing times.

It is possible that we are at or approaching a threshold whereby conservatism will be redefined. This would explain at least a part of the apparent schizophrenia affecting the American conservative movement. There will be, soon, a new conservatism as several planks simply fall off the platform and new ones added to shore up the gaps. Think of it this way: With neurotic behavior, the symptom-formation constantly brings the neurotic action and the forbidden impulse closer and closer together. With, say, the sexual police among conservatives, this would explain public relations disasters like Sanford, Ensign, Haggard, and others. They've spent so much time dwelling on the forbidden (e.g., sex) that it is getting harder and harder to repress the fundamental impulse. Or, as Mark Steel once explained°:

Freud's view of homosexuality was that it was a problem of a child getting stuck in their early stages. While this meant he saw it as a deviation from a natural path, by saying it was a product of the workings of the mind, he was saying there was no point in trying to ban it or to discourage it.

By exploring his ideas of the unconscious, Freud had hit on something that runs through society: that sexuality can be denied or repressed, but it can't be flushed away. And no matter how strict a society might be against teenage sex, or homosexuality, or sexuality in general, it will still be there, bubbling around in the unconscious; and then it will burst out in a thoroughly mucked-up way.​

At some point, conservatives will have to deal with this reality, and the will either concede the realities pertaining to sexuality° or else revolt. And, frankly, as much shit as I give conservatives, I can't see them staging a revolution just because other people are getting laid.

Part of the general conflict you're noting is a matter of political strategy; part of it is what Norman O. Brown describes as the "dialectic of neurosis":

... it is a Freudian theorem that each individual neurosis is not static but dynamic. It is a historical process with its own internal logic. Because of the basically unsatisfactory nature of the neurotic compromise, tension between the repressed and repressing factors persists and produces a constant series of new symptom-formations. And the series of symptom-formations is not a shapeless series of mere changes; it exhibits a regressive pattern, which Freud calls the slow return of the repressed, "It is a law of neurotic diseases that these obsessive acts serve the impulse more and more and come nearer and nearer the original and forbidden act." The doctrine of the universal neurosis of mankind, if we take it seriously, therefore compels us to entertain the hypothesis that the pattern of history exhibits a dialectic not hitherto recognized by historians, the dialectic of neurosis.​

____________________

Notes:

° Mark Steel once explained — The link is the second segment of a YouTube presentation of Steel's Lecture on Sigmund Freud and advance to about 8:11 in the time code. I actually recommend the entire episode (see parts 1, 2, and 3). But if you only watch that part of the second segment, stay on to the end; the bit about the screwdriver only makes the point that much more apparent.

° concede the realities pertaining to sexuality — One of the worrying things about American homophobia is that its political manifestation is one of the most powerful forces aiding the normalization of homosexuality. For instance, as I've noted before, the idea of "gay rights" never occurred to me until a bunch of Christian zealots in Oregon asked me to consider the proposition. And if we look at homophobic rhetoric—e.g., "If we normalize gays, it will be incest, or polygamy, or pedophilia, or bestiality next!"—one might wonder which target they will drag into the limelight after they lose the gay fray. Any of those are worrying for various reasons. Normalizing incest will redefine family dynamics fundamentally; normalizing polygamy will create a new general classification—numbers—for 14th Amendment equal protection; pedophilia and bestiality each have their own troublesome issues about consent to resolve.

Works Cited:

Davidson, Gustav. A Dictionary of Angels. New York: Free Press, 1967.

Book of Enoch. (n.d.) Wesley Center for Applied Technology at Northwest Nazarene University. November 2, 2009. http://wesley.nnu.edu/biblical_studies/noncanon/ot/pseudo/enoch.htm

Riddle, John M. Contraception and Abortion from the Ancient World to the Renaissance. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1992. Sunshine for Women. November 2, 2009. http://www.pinn.net/~sunshine/book-sum/contra1.html

Steel, Mark. "Sigmund Freud". The Mark Steel Lectures. BBC Four, London. October 21, 2009.

Brown, Norman O. Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd., 1959.

 

Thanks Tiassa, it was a good read and I agree with you.

 

why dont you sum it up joe. didnt say much at all but was nicely formatted.

 

What you need an intrepreter?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I see no point in summarizing what Tiassa has already written. Tiassa expresses himself very clearly. If you have trouble understanding his writting, then I think that is your issue.

 

Yes, joe, pj, and Tiassia, want to define the terms, tell us what we think and then control the debate by chosing our concepts for us;

Heads They Win!, Tails You Lose!​

Debate.