Conservatives: A chance to sound off and explain

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Tiassa, Dec 28, 2004.

  1. CounslerCoffee Registered Senior Member

    Because it doesn't work. If I died right now, my savings account would be up for grabs. Everyone would fight over it. My sister would get it though, because I wrote a letter in my own hand writing stating that I want her to have it all.

    Enough. But far less than an actual marriage.

    You should do it. You should leave a will, a living will, and anything else you can. You can't go through life and be fucking irresponsible and lazy. You have to take responsibility for your actions. And if you don't take responsibility for your actions it isn't my fault what the government decides to do to you, it's your fucking fault for being lazy.

    You want the government to do everything for you? That government is to large for my own taste, to fucking bad. Take some responsibility.

    You haven't read a word I've typed, have you?

    Hey! Look at that! You answered your own question;
    Where I'm from; no one is allowed into intensive care.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Title: "Evangelical Leader Threatens to Use His Political Muscle Against Some Democrats"
    Date: January 1, 2005

    It must be that "liberal elitism". But hey, the New York Times--reviled by such "middle Americans" as Ann Coulter and Bill O'Reilly--at least made it about politics. The conservative-leaning Washington Times simply went with "James Dobson threatens six senators".

    A spokesman for Senator Harry Reid, the new Democratic leader, suggested that Dr. Dobson ought to check his facts, and called the Christian-advocate psychologist "a front for the White House". Ralph G. Neas, president of People for the American Way, said, "Mr. Dobson's arrogance knows no limits," and asserted that such tactics tend to backfire. But Democrats and liberals are not alone in doubting Dobson's move:

    Yep, it's definitely another example of "liberal elitism", isn't it? Oh, wait ... Dr. Dobson's not a liberal, is he? So what do we call this? Conservative everymanning? Middling America?

    It should be noted, of course, that Dr. Dobson is the victim here. After all, as he writes in a July, 2004 "Action Newsletter":

    Dr. Dobson has a political fundraising goal of $170 million for 2005, according to the New York Times. And he needs it; he is disappointed in some respects with President Bush:

    It seems, then, that Mr. Bush's bully has arrived.


    Kirkpatrick, David D. "Evangelical Leader Threatens to Use His Political Muscle Against Some Democrats"., January 1, 2005. See

    Dobson, James. "First Objective: Pass the Federal Marriage Amendment"., July, 2004. See

    See Also -

    United Press International. "James Dobson threatens six senators"., January 1, 2005. See
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

    whats next, banning moden medicen because it interups gods plan? when will religions keep there religion out of politics and learn that other people have the right to decide things for themselves
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Rehnquist Fires Back
    Ailing Chief Justice defends "judicial activists" against Republican threats

    House Majority Leader Tom DeLay might wish to take notice. The Texas Republican has complained before that he wanted to impeach judges for liberal-leaning rulings, including school-prayer issues. Rehnquist wrote, "A judge's judicial acts may not serve as a basis for impeachment. Any other rule would destroy judicial independence ... Instead of trying to apply the law fairly, regardless of public opinion, judges would be concerned about inflaming any group that might be able to muster the votes in Congress to impeach and convict them."

    The 80 year-old chief justice faces possible retirement as he battles thyroid cancer. Recently conservative activist James Dobson threatened six U.S. Senators, warning them not to interfere with President Bush's will for the courts. The nation faces a possible pitched battle this year to fill a vacancy on the Supreme Court, if Rehnquist dies or steps down, and also determine a new chief justice.

    • • •​

    The Washington Times, a newspaper recognized for its conservative-leaning editorial policies, noted of the Rehnquist report:

    It is my hope that "middle America" will take note that a judge with a reputation for conservatism has taken a moment to address complaints raised by conservatives. This is not some "liberal elitist" telling conservatives to back off on the judges. This is the judge, and a conservative to boot.

    And, on a personal note, this is why I have a certain amount of faith in the courts that might seem excessive given my opinion of the other two branches of the American federal government. Look, judges make unpopular decisions. And they make new decisions that contradict old decisions. It isn't "invention"--although I admit some of Clarence Thomas' critics, including conservative critics, have used the word before--of "new" principles, but recognition of propriety according to specific--and sometimes very vague--rules.

    And how the hell are the liberals elitist when it's conservatives calling for the impeachment of judges who decide against their pet issues?

    The evidence keeps piling up. "Liberal elitism", "middle America" ... once again I take my hat off to the Republicans: You truly are the best liars on the block. I am in awe of both your ability and willingness to foment and exploit ignorance. One might suggest I envy your dependence, but really, my soul's not that cheap.


    Savage, David G. "Rehnquist Sees Threat to Judiciary"., January 1, 2005. See,0,4175164.story

    Kirkland, Michael. "Analysis: Rehnquist's advice for the right"., January 1, 2005. See
  8. Stokes Pennwalt Nuke them from orbit. Registered Senior Member

  9. Undecided Banned Banned

    The economist gave a grave outlook of the US without proper income distribution...I suggest conservatives pick that magazine up ASAP.
  10. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member


    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Those damn liberals! The problem with liberal elitists.
    (David Horsey, Seattle Post-Intelligencer, January 18, 2005)​

    So ... which presumption would be more elitist and arrogant of me?

    (A) A Pulitzer Prize-winning cartoonist is taking notes from me.
    (B) I'm not the only one who believes that conservatives lie in mischaracterizing "liberal elitists".​

    I mean, really, is this just west-coast arrogance? Is Horsey wrong? Am I wrong? What, aside from a freaking lie, did "middle America" vote for?

    Look at that cartoon. Does "middle America" really need it explained so bluntly?

    I quote The Simpsons, #2F01, "Itchy & Scratchy Land":

    Apparently so.


    Horsey, David. "Know Your Enemy"., January 18, 2005. See

    Springfield Nuclear Power Plant. "Episode Guide - #2F01". See
  11. madanthonywayne Morning in America Registered Senior Member

    What is middle America? Is the term really that hard to understand? Look at the famous Red/Blue map and you'll see middle America: It's that vast swath of red in the middle of the country that voted for Bush! What is the Liberal Elite? It's a bunch of smug know it all's who consider anyone who holds opinions different from theirs to be idiots, charlatons, or worse. There are plenty of you on this board. Constantly claiming moral and intellectual superiority based solely on the leftist slant of your viewpoints. Too many fixate on the literal meanings of the terms conservative and liberal. The literal meanings have little to do with their meaning in present day American politics. To be liberal, in the classic sense, is good. America was founded as a classical liberal nation. When the choice was monarchy or independence, the left was on the right side (perhaps I should say the correct side). Unfortunately, in the 20th Century "liberals" shifted their agenda to collectivism and socialism. As a result, the term "liberal", which was once a compliment, became a term of derision. No politician dares admit to being a liberal. The term conservative, once an insult, became a compliment. Politicians proudly lay claim to the title conservative. Middle America believes in the traditional values: freedom, independence, character, rugged individualism, capitalism. They will vote for whoever they think will protect these values. You can call yourselves progressives, democrats, the green party, or whatever you want. So long as you advocate socialist ideas, you will continue to lose elections in the US.
  12. shrubby pegasus Registered Senior Member

    then why up until the 80s did liberal policies dominate, flourish, and bring about good things and then in the 80s things changed? and why in about 8-12 years from now we will suddenly see a massive shift back to that liberal dominance? i know the answer. do you?
  13. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    You mean like Florida, Louisiana, South Carolina, Texas, and other states with coastlines?

    It's this kind of conservative contempt for reality that reveals the idea of "liberal elite" as a complete con job by conservatives.

    And these sorts of paranoid exaggerations that exploit people's ignorance show the disingenuous nature of conservatives such as yourself. Look up at the Horsey cartoon above your post. See what "middle America" voted for. But never mind; while the Bush administration has the working class coddling the rich, they can always blame it on the "liberal elite", right?

    Additionally, "middle America" voted for torture, short-staffing our military, and elective belligerence in pursuit of petroleum.

    "Middle America" also rejected the U.S. Constitution, and in that sense we see the geography carry all the way to the West Coast, where "middle Americans" in Oregon joined in the chant: "Our rights are violated unless someone else's rights are taken away for superstition."

    Well, it wasn't liberals who voted for moral superiority; check the scoreboard. Additionally, it isn't liberals who exploit superstition in order to compel people to forfeit the U.S. Constitution. Perhaps you could answer a question for me: How are your rights violated by the Supreme Law of the Land if it doesn't allow you to reject it?

    It's interesting rhetoric you offer, but it provides no answers.

    Gee, you mean like the dictionary definition that describes liberalsim as favoring laissez-faire economy? I thought the much-praised conservative Ronald Reagan put that issue to rest. And what of the trade debate? "Fair" or "free" trade?

    Or did you mean broad-minded and broadly sympathetic, and tolerant of change?

    So much for literal definitions, eh?

    I'd say this is more a result of conservative exploitation of ignorance.

    Freedom? Check the scoreboard, Madanthonywayne. Eleven states just rejected the U.S. Constitution. Independence? Hey, if "middle America" despises the Constitution as much as their votes suggest, they can always try to secede. Character? That's why "middle America" voted for a lie, isn't it? Rugged individualism? Ah, I see. That would be why eleven states rejected equal protection of the laws for individuals. Capitalism? Yes, that would be why the very devices feared of Communism are what keeps "capitalism" moving forward in this country. After all, the "individual" ought to be providing health care, education, and retirement for themselves, right? And yet the "capitalists" would see those choices taken out of the hands of individuals. And here we run into an interesting notion: social contract. Rather than obliging government to its end of the social contract, "capitalists" would rather see "socialism" carried out by corporations that whose social-contract obligation is to the bottom line, and not the individual.

    No, they won't. Check the map. And then go look at the result of what those colors mean: discrimination, coddling the wealthy, exporting American jobs, wrecking the educational system, elective belligerence, torture--these are the values of "middle America". You can offer up whatever theory you want, but the results are pretty clear when you look at the famous map and compare it to the result of what people actually voted for.

    Here I hold with Michael Moore: it would be nice if the Democrats actually stood for liberal values, instead of playing "Republican lite". Who would vote for a fake Republican when there's a real one, more genuinely devoted to greed and superstition, across the ticket?

    So ... why is it so hard to get an honest answer out of conservatives? Perhaps because they are afraid to admit what that honest answer equals?
  14. Undecided Banned Banned

    Madanthonywhateverhisname always brings a smile to my mouth (for all the wrong reasons) let’s explore this rant of ignorance shall we?

    What is Middle America? Is the term really that hard to understand? Look at the famous Red/Blue map and you'll see Middle America

    Will I? I remember that before the 1980’s Middle American was staunchly liberal, Keynesian, isolationalist, and consistently voted Democrat. What happened to that? Simple although Middle American agrees with the Democrats on economic policy, what changed was really the “moral component” of American politics. After 1980 the Reagan camp co-opted the evangelical camp who were alienated from both the Democrats and the Republicans. The ensuing “social battles” took over what really mattered in the United States…economics, foreign policy etc. This election for GWB was not a election that showed his economic, or foreign policy to be right, what made him win was his crusade to segregate homosexuals, taking away a women’s right to choose, and because he prays at night. That is what made this election possible for GWB. Because we know that Bush’s policies in economics have made ppl in “Middle America” poorer, and in much worse shape.

    What is the Liberal Elite? It's a bunch of smug know it all's who consider anyone who holds opinions different from theirs to be idiots, charlatons, or worse.

    Who are the Conservative Elite? The same thing, the biggest difference is that the conservatives have ulterior motives for what they are doing and mask that in patriotism, and war to shut the population up. You Mad are the best example, liberals in general are more intelligent then most conservatives, most liberals make more money, have a higher propensity to have a college degree,etc. The “Middle American” has the bible, and a factory/farm job who don’t know what they should know about government. I was talking to my friend on the Bus coming home and said “I wouldn’t trust a high school drop out with a heart transplant, why would I trust him to make such a vital decision as vote?” What’s the difference btwn the two, nothing.

    Too many fixate on the literal meanings of the terms conservative and liberal.

    If you knew what the literal meanings were you would be a liberal not a conservative…so don’t tell me that we fixate on the “literal meaninings” because I doubt you even know what they are.

    When the choice was monarchy or independence, the left was on the right side

    If you had a modicum of an idea of American history, the founding fathers only wanted responsible government they never really wanted independence, which only happened when the British government totally refused, they didn’t leave because of “repression” they left because they didn’t get representation.

    Unfortunately, in the 20th Century "liberals" shifted their agenda to collectivism and socialism.

    Firstly you don’t know what collectivism, or socialism entails because if you did you wouldn’t make such an outrageously idiotic statement…I guess you forgot about a man named…John Maynard Keynes, and his buddy F.D.R? Under Democratic rule, the United after 1945 until 1975 had 30 glorious years of economic and social growth, growth that the Conservative 25 years since Reagan have not been able to achieve.

    Let’s explore schizophrenia:

    Middle America believes in the traditional values: freedom, independence, character, rugged individualism, capitalism.

    Freedom: If Middle America believe in what you call freedom, then why does it support the Patriot Act? If it were for freedom why would it want to ban gay marriage? The fact seems to contradict the rhetoric.

    independence: ? From?

    character: Are Coastal Americans robots made in Japan?

    rugged individualism: Really then why is it that in “Middle America” communal nationalism, and the army which are the complete opposite of “rugged individualism” popular? Also team sports like football? Seems awfully contradictory to the rhetoric.

    capitalism: If “Middle America” was really capitalist then it would stop deforming the international markets through its agricultural subsidies, if anything “Middle America” benefits the most form the “liberal” idea of income redistribution…that’s one of the reasons why Middle America is suffering because of Bush. If anything Middle America is not lassiez-faire capiatlists.

    Mad…you have no idea of what you are talking about and it’s damned obvious…I guess I part of that “liberal elite”.
  15. top mosker Ariloulaleelay Registered Senior Member

    It's so cute when madanthony posts...
    You "described" the liberals' beliefs, but described the conservatives with geography. Double standards are great aren't they? You don't have to be truthful or even logical in your arguments that way!

    Oh, and let's not forget the hypocricy. You didn't even try to hide the fact that you are guilty of exactly what you accuse "liberal elitists" of. Attacking liberals' character instead of their arguments.

    As for arguing your fallascious arguments, the "liberal elite" is something seemingly invented in the collective conscious of the right for what they don't understand, or are too lazy to understand. Just because we believe in lofty ideals like human equality, workers' rights and care instead of exploitation of our planet, does not make us elite. It means we understand we are humans and money isn't the only thing to live for, and one day it will be obsolete.

    I don't consider conservatives to be stupid in an intellectual sense - I've met some very intelligent conservative folk, yourself at times even - but they are stupid in an emotional sense. Why care when you can make profit? Why try to make this planet a little better when you can keep people poor through labor exploitation and polluting the world?

    There are a lot more people and a lot less land than 200 years ago. We are a collective, whether you accept the idea or not.

    ...theocractic dictatorship, their morals being absolute based on a book written 2000 years ago, a magical being in the sky who enforces these morals, etc, etc, etc...

    Just let people live man...human behavior will never die.

    Socialist? I completetely understand the problems with a socialist society, we've all read Animal Farm and 1984. But how is leading us into an unneccesary war, corporate wellfare, and creating huge bureaucracies that are expanding government intrusion into privacy in any way what America stands for?

    No, I don't want a socialist state - I want a state that is run minimally and efficiently. This government would be a tool the people could use. If private insurance companies were charging too much, the people would be able to set up healthcare for all to end unneccesary suffering. If there are problems with water availability or pollution in the environment, the people can use government to set up restrictions and rules.

    In this government, we don't need 60 billion spent on a military. Every American would be responsible for defending his/her country if there arised a problem. That money instead would be used for making the world a little more friendly, alieviating the need for people to attack. True, there would be evil dictators and people who want to control the masses through media, human behavior, and (corporate) slavery, but the people of my nation would respect freedom above all else and be able to recognize when this became a problem. Education would be the key to this, and would be the loftiest idea in my society - education would be free.

    Oh dear, it seems I have rambled...
  16. a_nabacus Registered Member

    Wow, Those are three amazing, and very long responses to madanthonywayne. At least I'll make mine short. It is not madanthonywayne that I am worried about. It is "middle America" that scares me to death.
  17. madanthonywayne Morning in America Registered Senior Member

    The Democratic party from FDR to LBJ was clearly the dominent party in America. Hell, even Ronald Reagan was once a Democrat! As Reagan said, he didn't leave the democratic party, it left him as it lurched ever leftward. By the 80's, the democratic party was just coasting. Many people were voting democrat out of habit and just needed someone charismatic enough to tempt them over to the other side, the Reagan Democrats. Despite Reagan's resounding victories, democrats continued to win elections in congress until scandal and the election of a democratic president prompted a reallignment in congress.

    The point is, the democratic party has marginalized itself by moving too far left. Despite this, they managed to hold on to power for a long time due to the power of incumbency and inertia. It took years of effort for the Republicans to displace them. How long will Republican accendency last? It's hard to say and depends a lot on what happens these next four years. No matter what happens, their day will one day pass. Whether it will be in 8 or 60 years, I don't know. You may think you know the answer, but it's pure speculation.
  18. shrubby pegasus Registered Senior Member

    it isnt speculation. it is evidentiary.

    and im curious about this crap about the democrats being too far left. where does this arise from? the democrats these days are practically in the center, even to the right a little in many circumstances, clinton is a prime example of that. i would love for someone to show me a few policies that exemplify this massive leftwing tendency.
  19. Undecided Banned Banned

    No matter what happens, their day will one day pass.

    Yes and I suspect that when their 1994 happens it won’t be pretty, you see the GOP is sowing the seeds of its own long term defeat:

    >Jingoistic wars: the more the GOP associates itself with wars of “freedom” and the more those wars fail, the GOP will be seen for what it is.
    > Economic policy: Trade deficits, massive budget deficits, the next generation will not forgive the GOP for increasing debt to unforeseen levels, and literally mortgaging America’s economic future to China which by that time will be the world’s economic superpower, and on the heels of America’s military power.
    >Social Policy: Although the GOP is having a great time winning elections of “values” the country is imo actually going to shift to the left eventually, this is the baby boomer generation whose values now matter more then finances, but to the yuppie crowd they will begin to see that values mean shit when you work at Wal-Mart for $5 an hour.
    >Ownership Society: Wait until inflation goes up and interest rates go up along with it…can you say “bankrupt society”?

    The GOP is sowing the seeds…sowing the seeds, temporary supremacy is never good.
  20. top mosker Ariloulaleelay Registered Senior Member

    What, no reply for the rest of us?

    Aw, the strawman, much easier...
  21. crazy151drinker Registered Senior Member

    Once again we have the the liberal/conservative reality problem.

    We have TWO different things working here and they both tend to get lumped together and they are NOT the same.

    1) States vs Federal Power
    Liberal- Federal Power bigger Gov
    Conservative- States Rights smaller Gov

    2) Moral Values (Whatever that means.....)
    Liberal- I love the ACLU, No God in Schools, Abortion Rights
    Conservative- God will strike you down heathens, earth in 7 days

    The Current Admin is in reality a Fiscal Liberal with Conservative Values.
    Not a TRUE Conservative!!
    A TRUE Conservative is Stay the @%#% out of my home, No I dont want to pay taxes you British ass, I want some whiskey, dont bug me im killing indians.

    Please note the differences.
    Thank you.

    Your Fiscally Conservative friend,
  22. shrubby pegasus Registered Senior Member

    i do agree with that to some extent, but i dont see bush being fiscally liberal or conservative for that matter. he is some twisted, mutant amalgamation of the two and it is terribly frightening. if he was fisically liberal he would want to put that money to social programs, but he doesnt do that. it is just completely wasted.
  23. top mosker Ariloulaleelay Registered Senior Member

    Liberal does not mean more federal power. It means using the federal government for the betterment of all - such as the case of universal healthcare.
    Conservative does not mean states' rights and a smaller government anymore. Have you heard of the Department of Homeland Security?

    Once again, you are creating a fallacy. Liberal means one who continues to hold the constitution and bill of rights as the most important document ever produced by the US government. This happens to be the ACLU's goal of protecting these liberties from an out of control beaucracry. It means responsible care of our environment - even if it means limiting the rights of major corporations, instead of polluting and destroying it for profit. Not everyone on the liberal side of things wants god destroyed or to kill babies.

    The same goes for conservatives. Although the Republican party has been hijacked by a right wing fundamentalist "christian" group that believes in their moral supperiority, there are still many conservatives who believe in the limiting of the government - only we now call them libertarians.

    The worst kind. And I fail to see how anything Bush preaches is considered a "value."

Share This Page